BuzzerBeater Forums

Bugs, bugs, bugs > minutes not correct

minutes not correct

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
138532.12 in reply to 138532.10
Date: 3/31/2010 11:45:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
Points to follow if you want to have your player on court for 48+ minutes:
1. Make sure you have him assigned as started, sub ,reserve (one training spot means use 9 players or less for the game).
2. Make sure your player has enough stamina to run the offence/defence selected.
3. Make sure you blow out your opponent or let your team get blown out (every close game your coach will sub in need of better rebounding, better FT, better 3p shooting etc)
4. Make sure you select let them play and strictly follow depth chart.
5. Make sure your trainee aggressivness is not high level (you can prolly see this early in his career, it's better to sell those overaggressive players).
6. Make sure your player does not get injured often (gotta love that random).
I have stated these things plenty of times. Gotta copy those somewhere in case someone complains again about the same thing. Getting 48+ minutes in a game is not supposed to be a walk in the park, unless you are playing a scrub team in scrimmage.

This Post:
00
138532.13 in reply to 138532.11
Date: 4/1/2010 5:42:28 AM
Talentinho
DBA Pro A
Overall Posts Rated:
476476
Second Team:
De Grote Spelers
If that really is the case, act it as if he fainted, I can accept that. However, it does make me wonder why the coach didn't call a time-out, since he had not used a single one thus far? And yes, I know and understand training is not supposed to be easy, but shouldn't the coaches primary concern be to achieve the goal the manager has set for him? By calling a time-out, somewhere in the game, he would have still followed orders. Yes, there's no crying over spilled milk, but I would only like to know if you do not find it strange for a coach to not call a time-out to reach his achievement, with nothing else on the line anymore?

This Post:
00
138532.14 in reply to 138532.13
Date: 4/1/2010 7:51:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
Why doesnt coach tell the player with 5 fouls, to let his opponent score instead of fouling him? Or perhaps suggest that with even 4 fouls? You are trying campaign for the option to implement "play him 48 minutes nomatter what". Next rule would keep players playing with injury etc.
I like that when targeting 48+ with one game it adds some suspence. You take a risk, usually it works, sometimes crap happens (injuries, fouling, close games). You just have to take those missed 25 seconds like a man. Crying over something so trivial in the bugs section has no value in the long run.

Last edited by Kukoc at 4/1/2010 7:53:31 AM

This Post:
00
138532.15 in reply to 138532.14
Date: 4/2/2010 9:39:05 AM
Talentinho
DBA Pro A
Overall Posts Rated:
476476
Second Team:
De Grote Spelers
You are seeing what you want to see, instead of the point I'm trying to make. It is ridiculous that you come up with a bizarre statement that a next rule would keep players playing with injury. Totally beside the point. I am in no way advocating that. I am talking about the logic of substitutions. As Forrest stated, somewhat manager input, then still it does not make sense to not use a time-out but bring in a player who wasn't selected for that position. And in no way am I asking whether or not you enjoy the suspence or you telling me you think something is trivial or not. So if you discuss, you should stick to the facts and not voice your opinion. So once again, I'll ask Forrest, do you think under these circumstances I have shown here, that it would be more logical for a coach to take a time-out instead of taking out that player?

This Post:
00
138532.16 in reply to 138532.15
Date: 4/2/2010 9:54:05 AM
1986 Celtics
IV.21
Overall Posts Rated:
88
that depends on whether you think the coach is more concerned with winning the game or completing training.

If its a close game, particularly if he is down.. saving his timeouts for the end of game situation is highly valuable.

He of course can't tell whether the game is going to be close with perfect timing... we are not going to alter the coaching logic to make training easier in the game.... there is just no compelling reason to mess with the Game Engine logic in that way.. which could produce other unexpected bugs etc.

This Post:
00
138532.17 in reply to 138532.16
Date: 4/4/2010 6:43:01 PM
BC Hostivař
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
11991199
Second Team:
Jirkov
Game engine fuzzy logic is sometimes very ridiculous (sorry for that word), especially when playing player out of position.
This game (20714222) I would like to play Jones 48 minutes on SG.
2:29 left he was substituted at my lead 126:41.
1:02 he went back, so he lost 87 seconds. It couldn't be caused by stamina, guards playing on SG with lower stamina than Jones's have no problems to play 48 minutes. And I have many other examples of strange substitution which broke 48+ training.
You wrote that game engine is not designed training-friendly. I think even with repositioning for defense is not so easy to train players out of positions 48+.
I think game engine should be more training-friendly or there should be more training options, for example training anything on any position or at least more balanced possibilities (there are no single position trainings for SF and PF at the moment etc.).