BuzzerBeater Forums

No, i'm asking for, as example, an option if you want or not "garbage".

I like this suggestion.

I remember:
He try to stop tanking with taxes, pushes for training and we have to cross finger to have 48' training?

it's a controversial in his way to develop the game.
And is a controversial to the "Coach instruction". If i tell coach to strictly follow, why you use other players set in other lineups?

I understand, but let me ask another way:

Is it a bug if a player with atrocious (1), pitiful (2), or awful (3) Free Throw misses some free throws?
Is it a bug if a player with atrocious (1), pitiful (2), or awful (3) Rebounding doesn't get many rebounds all the time?
Is it a bug if a player with atrocious (1), pitiful (2), or awful (3) Inside Defense doesn't play good inside defense?
Is it a bug if a player with atrocious (1), pitiful (2), or awful (3) Shot Blocking doesn't block many shots?
Is it a bug if a player with atrocious (1), pitiful (2), or awful (3) Inside Shot doesn't shoot well from inside?
...
And finally, is it a bug if a player with atrocious (1), pitiful (2), or awful (3) Stamina does not always play 48 minutes in a game?

The study I saw said that a player must have inept (4) Stamina to guarantee he could play 48 minutes without substitution. Below inept (4) stamina, you must cross your fingers.

Well, your ideas and your examples are clear, but i like to answer.

First, both gojcic and kozdra have inept (4) in stamina. In fact, when matches don't arrive in garbage, they play 48'. And this is another "why?" thing.
Second one, all the match examples you did are a consequence of my decision (i choose where a player plays, taking mi own risks), stamina's behaviour is "particular" instead.

First, both gojcic and kozdra have inept (4) in stamina. In fact, when matches don't arrive in garbage, they play 48'. And this is another "why?" thing.

Oops, I made an incorrect assumption about their stamina. I would also expect gojcic and kozdra to get 48 minutes in that situation.

I wonder if timeouts have anything to do with it? Do timeouts help keep a player fresh? If so, do timeouts only help the players of the team that calls the timeout? The winning team in a garbage time game doesn't usually call very many timeouts. Maybe that has something to do with it?

As Perpete already noted, we officially do not support one player - one position - 48 min per match training. The way the game was developed is that sometimes, in garbage time, players will be substituted, no matter what lineup you set. It is your risk to try for and expect to get 48 minutes, and if you don't, it's not a bug. Consider changing training strategy if this one does not give you satisfying results.

I am sorry but this is an ongoing farce.

Buzzerbeater theoretically DOES support 48mins per match, if chosen, that is why it OFFICIALLY(in the game manual) states the way you can achieve it!!!!

It has separate options for "Strictly Follow Depth Chart" and "Depth Chart until 4th".
Furthermore for all four available substitution patterns, it clarly states that:

"The coach will sometimes use his own judgment to decide what the proper balance is between starters, backups, reserves, and even players on the bench but not in the depth chart at all."

I find it hard to understand why you DO NOT WANT to support guarranted 48mins training by fixing this, especially in prolonged times of limited users and players, like the current, but if you won't change your mind please change the game manual's description for substitutions.

Last edited by maddoghellas at 9/14/2016 3:44:24 PM

As Perpete already noted, we officially do not support one player - one position - 48 min per match training

Ok, what is way of training supported?

Because i noticed this "1-2 minutes rest" after the "blank lineup" correction.

And, being honest, i think this is an unwanted thing, that you told us "consider it as a new feature" like the "Let Coach Decide" problem, where he changed also the starting five despite we select all the 15 position in lineup.

there are a lot of "workarounds" to promote the game idea about training, like "optional Garbage", or easier, to choose a minutes range to play for a player. But now is all too casual

Example: normally, with strictly follow, if i set main player and sub and reserve, i expect to play starting five between 34 and 38 minutes, sub between 6 and 10 and eventually reserve 0-4 minutes, but the game engine a significant number of times doesn't follow this pattern... according to stamina, you told us... According to random (fouls, timeouts, out of bounds and so on) i think.

The way the game was developed is that sometimes, in garbage time, players will be substituted, no matter what lineup you set.

This is partially not true. In garbage time if you're winning .... And this is another strange thing. Why only if i'm winning i'm penalized? isn't in the spirit of the game being always competitive?
i did 2 season of Tanking, with salary cap team, always in garbage, not a single match i had the "1 minute problem".
This is unfair. A winning team has more penalty than a loosing one?

It is your risk to try for and expect to get 48 minutes

Yes, it's more risky to get 48' than to loose a match with only 5 players playing 48'. Another ambigous thing.
Disappointed with this kind of answer.

Consider changing training strategy if this one does not give you satisfying results.

Really? Are you sure you wrote this? I asked you for minutes and you answer for training? And really, i've to change for 1-2 minutes?
According to formula (not confirmed, but always used in forum) for training minutes, i've no advantage for a single player to switch monorole to bi-role until the player plays 40+ minutes.

@maddoghellas: The manual doesn't explicitly say that we support 48 min training, neither does the text you bolded, especially because these two bolded statements seem to be opposite in meaning. This is not unexpected, because it is clearly true that the coach does ignore the depth chart in some substitution patterns (like CPDC or LCD). While the wording may be misleading if taken out of context like you did, it is not as a whole, when you read the whole section, and not just one sentence. The section continues: "You can set the balance between how much coaches use their own judgment or defer to yours with the substitutions box." There's always a balance.

If need be, we will change the wording, that's not a big problem but the fact remains that getting 48 minutes per player per position per match is not officially supported.

@DYD: What you expect and what you get is not the same thing intentionally. This game is not supposed to be easy nor to give expected results at all times. It will be hard, it will be challenging and it will be frustrating especially if you're trying to push the limits of training and continually try to get 3 players 48 weekly minutes while training one position. However, this is a path of your own choosing and the responsibility lies with you. IF you do it successfully, the reward is substantial (fastest possible training for three players), but if you fail, do not blame the game. We will not change it so it becomes easier for you to achieve this, it is you who needs to either accept it or adapt.

And yes, this does include garbage time.

The coach will sometimes use his own judgment to decide what the proper balance is between starters, backups, reserves, and even players on the bench but not in the depth chart at all.

There is nothing contradictory in this game manual's sentence(otherwise it would need editing for that too...) nor there is anything taken out of context, it is self explanatory, official and leaves no room for misinterpritation or garbage time and other exceptions.

Since the coach CANNOT use his judgement at all regarding the depth chart, if a manager sets a postition's depth chart with one player in every and all three slots, then the player should play 48mins and not be subbed unless and only if injured.

So, yes, there is need for editing the game manual.

p.s we should inform whomever is reading us that all this is just a friendly warm up for tomorrow's private league game!

You are reading the paragraph you quoted incorrectly. It does not say that the coach CANNOT use his judgement at all regarding the depth chart. The final phrase of "but not in the depth chart at all" is not going back to the the opening clause, as it is entirely part of the phrase "even players on the bench but not in the depth chart at all." It could probably be made clear by replacing the "but" with "who are", though.

In order to mean what you are interpreting it as, there would need to be a comma before the "but not in the depth chart at all." And in which case it would probably be better to write it as a separate statement.

Fair enough.
It could still be phrased differently or at least worded like "..., and even players on the bench that are not in the depth chart at all."