BuzzerBeater Forums

I oppose adding a training-specific substitution pattern just for training purposes because it feels very boring.
This game require us to observe the behavior patterns of the computer coach on the field and then find ways to master it to achieve our goals.

As far as I know, the distribution of minutes between the starters, backups and reserves varies depending on the game situation (such as whether it enters garbage time).
Also, using a substitution pattern such as Coach Picks from Depth Chart, if the starters are significantly weaker than the backups, the backups will have noticeably more playing time.
Besides, no one said, for example, that backups for different positions can't be the same player.
There are different arrangements to try, which might produce different results.

I oppose adding a training-specific substitution pattern just for training purposes because it feels very boring.
This game require us to observe the behavior patterns of the computer coach on the field and then find ways to master it to achieve our goals.

As far as I know, the distribution of minutes between the starters, backups and reserves varies depending on the game situation (such as whether it enters garbage time).
Also, using a substitution pattern such as Coach Picks from Depth Chart, if the starters are significantly weaker than the backups, the backups will have noticeably more playing time.
Besides, no one said, for example, that backups for different positions can't be the same player.
There are different arrangements to try, which might produce different results.

Please explain to me how I can make one of my players play approximately 28 minutes with the current game configuration.

I still haven't managed to do it, except once when I injured a prop.

If the score leads significantly, using Follow Depth Chart, the starters' playing time is about 28 minutes, give or take a few minutes.
This game (129647754) is an example, the starters of my PF and C positions play 28 minutes and backups play 20 minutes.

If the score is very close or even slightly behind the opponent, then Follow Depth Chart is indeed not effective.
However, if the backup players are significantly stronger than the starters, using Coach Picks from Depth Chart might work.
For example, in this (old) game (37151492), my PG starter plays 29 minutes, and the backup plays 19 minutes.

If there is no restriction on a single position playing for 28 minutes, and the backups are close in strength to the starters, it is possible to achieve this by using Coach Picks from Depth Chart or Let Coach Decide.
In this B3 game (129757425), TWT's Z. Bevalds plays 25 minutes, and according to BBAPI, he plays 8 minutes at PG, 8 minutes at SG, and 10 minutes at SF.
I guess TWT probably set Z. Bevalds as the backup for the PG, SG, and SF positions.

I disagree that this is good or sufficient. The total minutes played by my listed starter will depend on his stamina level, skills related to the backup, and score of the game. In other words, 3 things out of my control in that specific moment. If I want to have roughly 50% split between my starter and sub then the only option is to blow out my opponent. Which depends on the skill level of my opponent and available players.

OK

In basketball games, when the scores are close, the playing time for the starters is usually longer because the coach wants the most experienced and skilled players on the court to help secure the victory for the team.
Generally, the playing time for starters ranges from about 30 to 40 minutes in a 48-minute game.
It is rare for the playing time of starters and bench players to be nearly equal.

If you say this is a special strategy aimed at preserving players' stamina for more important games, then I can accept it.

Hello, I know this very delayed in replay I wanted to join the conversation, I wasn't member of the game when conversation was taking place so forgive. Me for my replying .

I'd like to propose an alternative solution that might address some of the issues you've raised.

Consider implementing a system where players can gain stamina by sitting out games, rather than relying solely on dedicated training weeks. This approach could have several benefits:

- *Reduced roster management complexity*: By allowing players to gain stamina through inactivity, you might not need to maintain a large roster to manage player fatigue. This could simplify roster management and reduce the strain on smaller teams.
- *More realistic simulation*: Players often improve their endurance through rest and recovery in real-life sports. Simulating this aspect could add depth to the game.
- *Tournament strategy*: This system could introduce new strategic considerations for tournament play. Coaches might need to balance player rest and activity to optimize performance.

Regarding your points about the current system, I understand that the binary nature of stamina training can be limiting. However, the proposed system could offer more flexibility in managing player stamina.

Some potential benefits of this approach include:

- *More nuanced roster management*: By giving coaches more control over player stamina through game participation, you might create more opportunities for strategic decision-making.
- *Increased realism*: Simulating the impact of rest and activity on player stamina could make the game more immersive and realistic.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this alternative approach in your respective insight view to the game . Do you think it could address some of the concerns you've raised about the current system?