BuzzerBeater Forums

So I started this thread to get feedback on the new GE substitution patterns for scrimmages, now that it has been awhile, I'd like to consider bumping the scrimmage GE to the release GE, but I want the communities final verdict on whether they like the substitution patterns in the scrimmages better/worse than the ones for the real games?

So I started this thread to get feedback on the new GE substitution patterns for scrimmages, now that it has been awhile, I'd like to consider bumping the scrimmage GE to the release GE, but I want the communities final verdict on whether they like the substitution patterns in the scrimmages better/worse than the ones for the real games?

I thought that was done the beginning of season? It'd be hard to get a verdict on this now, since most of the active teams are still engaged in national tournaments...

Please Forrest can you tell me more about the bug of my team in the OD rating?

Same here, I thought this had already been implemented. I don't play scrimmages often, so it's impossible to have an opinion on this if so.

Something has changed in the real games though, and for the better overall. Though, I would like to see a reserve player called into action a little more often then blowouts only. Some of my players have been logging crazy minutes when I use a backup as a sub in multiple positions or a starter as depth at another position. The capable reserve is almost never used and the starter gets maybe all 48 mins. It's very possible, with increasing league competitiveness, that I could start a player in only 2 games and they get 90+ mins.

Ideally, "backup" and "reserve" would be more like "sub 1" and "sub 2". If player X is sub 1 at PG and SG, and player Y is sub 2 and PG and SG (assuming both are reasonably capable players compared to the starter), you could expect player y to get at least some noticeable minutes (i dunno, around 10?) even if it isn't a blowout.

Maybe adding a coaching choice like "use depth rotation" to push your coach to play subs even if the starter is technically a better option.

I definitely agree with brianjames on this. It seems like the coach doesn't go to the bench nearly as much any more. i used to have fairly even minutes for about 8 or 9 players most games. Now it seems like my starters go for 40+ every game. A "use rotation" option would be good.

we have long talked about implementing an actual coaching system.. meaning that you would have a head coach as part of your staff... i wonder if this should be a trait associated with the coach and not the option of the manager.

Now obviously that would not be as convenient to absolutely optimize the winning of your team... however, perhaps it would cause a more tangible trade off between prepare for the future and perform well now...

In some sense the goal of a game isn't to make the game as easy to play as possible, but rather to create an interesting challenge to tackle... so the question is whether this would create an interesting challenge or an annoying one.

the problem is not that the game is easy or hard it seams slightly frustrating when you choose subs and thy end up not playing in my last league game i have chosen a sub for every position on the court (i have 2 subs for the SF and the same guy subing for the PF and the C) i end up going to overtime and at the end of the game my PG and SG got 52 mints and there subs are good players in the PG position there is hardly a different between the 2 (the only thing i think of that could affect the couch was that the sub just return from an injury) and the SG was not as good as the started but still to give him 1 minuet seams slightly offensive and my SF end up playing 44 minuets (his original position is a PG so you can say that he was way batter then the sub SF) and my center played for the full 53 minutes wail his sub only was subing for the PF (the only position on the court that got dissent time handling)

i used the chose from depth chart until 4 as my couching tactic witch dident seams to help at all

its really hard to follow your description the way you laid it out... try using this kinda format

my depth chart was

PG) A B C
SG) C D _
SF) E F D
PF) G _ H
C) H I _

so that your starting lineup was thus players A,C,E,G,H and then you can talk about them with respect to those letters later in the post when you describe how much playing time each player got... I would use letters rather than their real names for simplicity and clarity.

sure thing i am sorry for the inconvenient

player A played 52 minuts
player B with is almost as good as A played 1 minuet (one thing is he just return from an injury that might explain it)
player C played 52 minutes (he is my team best player)
player D played 1 minuet (he is not as good as player C but he is still a good player it is slightly offensive for him to play one minuet)
Player E played 44 minuets (he is my normally opening PG)
Player F played for 9 minuets (he is my normal opening SF)
Player G played 31 minutes (the only distantly distribute position)
player H played 22 minuets (but he was the sub for bouth player G and I)
player I played the full 53 minutes (he is one of my best players but ther is no risen to let him play the full time + OT)

as i sad thecouch was order to fallow the depth chart until 4

i hope that was batter Nir (:

But Romania NT played 2 times this evening to test better the GE? :p

Is this a bug or not? I'm not so expert in NT...