BuzzerBeater Forums

ok ok its your suggest :(:(:(:(:(
i'll go like a little puppy to my own hole!!

The point is that no good will come from having a completely different suggestion at the same thread.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 1/29/2012 8:52:25 AM

ok ok its your suggest :(:(:(:(:(
i'll go like a little puppy to my own hole!!

The point is that no good will come from having a completely different suggestion at the same thread.

you are a dreamer!!!
no good will come from any thread these days xddddddddddddd

I hope and believe that something will.
The question is why you are using those thread if you don't believe they have any essence?...

When one of the starters is subbed, and his backup had been defined differently than he has, than all relevant players will play upon the backup definitions.

is pretty much chaos imho for me, to combine it ;)

When a starter is substitute then...
if( starterDefenceStrategy(subPlaer) != backupDefenceStrategy(subPlaer) )
then use backupDefenceStrategy(subPlaer)
In addition, perform verification on player that is (starterDefenceStrategy(thatPlayer) == backupDefenceStrategy(subPlaer) ),
and update accordingly.
Repeat that until there is no more players to update their deffence strategy.

As it is already half coded, than no... It is not chaos, and not hard to impelement

it is chaos since this lead to configuration where 2 player like to play the same position ;) And it is weird that the game changes around backup in priority, hey don't give Kobe the Ball anymore Mettaworld peace is on court ;) And if it the other way round, the coach ahd to sub like an icehocky game to make it still fitting.

Else you nearly have to create priority list, for nearly all possible lineup quite easy when you coach a game himself, but pretty much work if you bring it on paper or into an lineup here.

Edit: And yes i know that the Kobe example is offence, since most star are more defined through offense and i am the big nba expert ;) But often you make it comfortable for the stars, and those defences switch are always decision looking at the whole lineup, and one change always need at least one other change, and there would be chaos.

Edit2: maybe an NBA example which fits
Dalas
PG: Kidd(def PG) - Beaubois(def. SG)
SG: Carter(def SG) - Terry(def. PG)

With both combos on court it makes sense, and will most likely be like that. But when Beaubpois come in for Kidd, did you really think that Carter will defend the one? Also the assigment on Kidd and Terry on the court, will most likely decided on the lineup of the opposition at the time, and not let Terry always defend the one, since he is more important as a back up ;)

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/29/2012 1:42:29 PM

I did not understand what you've meant.
Currently on your example, the example you've brought could not even cover the case where the Kidd-Carter couple defending PG-SG, and the Beabois-Terry couple deffend SG-PG.

As I wrote, this suggestion can have a more complex form that will cover all cases (including the Carter-Beoubios example), but it WILL be too complex to implement and to clumsy to define at the strategy-game page.
The current suggestion add some complexity and possibilities with a rather low price (implementation and user-I/F).

There are cases where white or black are not the best options, and the gray area gives best result.
This is the case here.

I did not understand what you've meant.
Currently on your example, the example you've brought could not even cover the case where the Kidd-Carter couple defending PG-SG, and the Beabois-Terry couple deffend SG-PG.

are you serious? That the simplest case of two position defenceassigments, and you already don't understand it. How a more complex form should work without distracting users.

As I wrote, this suggestion can have a more complex form that will cover all cases (including the Carter-Beoubios example), but it WILL be too complex to implement and to clumsy to define at the strategy-game page.

since the older won't work really, the clumsy alternativ would be better but you already said why not.

There are cases where white or black are not the best options, and the gray area gives best result.
This is the case here.

that the simplest off def. change, how it should get better with more complex substitutions. Your suggestion would make more sense in an Icehockey manager, where you have different lineup who got exachange in a group.

I did not understand what you've meant.
Currently on your example, the example you've brought could not even cover the case where the Kidd-Carter couple defending PG-SG, and the Beabois-Terry couple deffend SG-PG.

are you serious? That the simplest case of two position defence assigments, and you already don't understand it. How a more complex form should work without distracting users.

I think you did not really put too much in reading that post.
I'll try to explain again, slowly, so you could understand it faster...

What I've wrote is that on current system (not my suggested one, but the one that BB implemented and we are using...), you even cannot perform the above case:

where the Kidd-Carter couple defending PG-SG, and the Beabois-Terry couple deffend SG-PG.

This case is covered by my suggestion.

As I further explained, my suggestion is simpler enough for user and implementer, but still add some freedom and option (as explained above [hope I don't need to repeat that again...]).

Last edited by Pini פיני at 1/29/2012 6:26:14 PM