BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Testing the "empty lineup prevention" code in Private League matches

Testing the "empty lineup prevention" code in Private League matches

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
259887.123 in reply to 259887.122
Date: 9/12/2014 11:20:55 AM
Red Devilsss
Bartar
Overall Posts Rated:
289289
@Others: I would like to have some feedback on LCD+completely empty lineup, if possible. Thanks.

(75238456)
Substitutions was normally

This Post:
00
259887.124 in reply to 259887.123
Date: 9/12/2014 2:53:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
@Others: I would like to have some feedback on LCD+completely empty lineup, if possible. Thanks.

(75238456)
Substitutions was normally

(75247834)
empty lineup, LCD, substitutions seem to be normal. It was a tight game so the starters played nearly all the time cause my backups suck - at least most of them.

This Post:
00
259887.125 in reply to 259887.122
Date: 9/12/2014 3:12:14 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
Yes, seems like the set position is also overridden. I'll check if I can find a cause.

This problem seems to be still existing:

today's game (75235423)

Simon MacKechnie should have been starting PG.

play-by-play:
POS Starting-Five
PG G. Sutherland
SG B. Penkov
SF S. MacKechnie
PF G. Marasco
C G. Walsh

He started playing SF and played 42 mins as SF.

This Post:
11
259887.126 in reply to 259887.122
Date: 9/19/2014 11:23:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4444

@Others: I would like to have some feedback on LCD+completely empty lineup, if possible. Thanks.


Not sure what the intended changes are, but my game with LCD+empty lineup was really strange.
One of my normal backups played 48 min at pg. my normal pg started at center, etc.
(71990909)

This Post:
00
259887.127 in reply to 259887.126
Date: 10/1/2014 4:36:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
Still nothing changed:

(75286025) lineup set:
PG: Simon MacKechnie / - / -
all other positions empty
LCD

play-by-play:
POS Starting-Five
PG G. Sutherland
SG B. Penkov
SF S. MacKechnie
PF G. Marasco
C P. Buchwald

Simon played 28 mins at SF.

----------

(75247843)
lineup set:
all slots empty

play-by-play:
POS Starting-Five
PG R. Geugelin
SG A. Stoebner
SF G. Quellmelz
PF T. Harjans
C T. Nürnberg

The selected lineup was perfect. Due to my bad backups they only played as the garbage time kicked in.

This Post:
00
259887.128 in reply to 259887.127
Date: 10/4/2014 3:30:18 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
Still nothing changed:

(75286025) lineup set:
PG: Simon MacKechnie / - / -
all other positions empty
LCD

play-by-play:
POS Starting-Five
PG G. Sutherland
SG B. Penkov
SF S. MacKechnie
PF G. Marasco
C P. Buchwald

Simon played 28 mins at SF.

----------

(75247843)
lineup set:
all slots empty

play-by-play:
POS Starting-Five
PG R. Geugelin
SG A. Stoebner
SF G. Quellmelz
PF T. Harjans
C T. Nürnberg

The selected lineup was perfect. Due to my bad backups they only played as the garbage time kicked in.

Same lineups yesterday. The bug is still there. Not much time left for fixing and testing if the fix is working, I'm afraid.

This Post:
00
259887.130 in reply to 259887.129
Date: 10/4/2014 10:37:53 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
Because of that: (259887.122)

and because of the description of the blpc.

This Post:
11
259887.131 in reply to 259887.130
Date: 10/14/2014 4:01:46 PM
TrenseRI
III.2
Overall Posts Rated:
36003600
Second Team:
ChiLeaders
OK, thank you everyone for your help and persistence (especially Karangula). This *feature* is still definitely far from ready and will not be implemented at the beginning of this season. Maybe later on? We'll see.

So far, we hadn't made much progress due to the fact that the testing parameters were too great. This is something I intend to fix. Let's start with the basics...

1. A change in the code: if there's less than 4 starters set, the *feature* will kick in. This means that you need to set at least 3 starters in order to avoid the new code wiping out all of the starting lineup and setting a completely new one on it's own.

2.Reporting: I love the way Karangula and darkonza report their testing and would advise everyone to adopt a similar format. If you don't know what I mean, check out this post (259887.127) and this one (259887.116). I'd love to get a combination of those, so here's a template:

Match link: {the link to the match}
Sub strategy: {LCD for example}
Lineup set: {if any, leave empty if none set, make sure to confirm the lineup after the match by loading in in the tactics page}
PG
SG
SF
PF
C

Lineup started: {the exact minutes would be great, but considering how hard it is to get them, a subjective approach also works}
PG
SG
SF
PF
C

High number of substitutions: {yes/no}
Opponent had a high number of substitutions: {yes/no}

3. Effectiveness: Determining the success of the *feature*; I need to know if the game had the great amount of substitutions that's usual for BL/LCD games, since that is a sure way of seeing if the lineup was filled by the new code. If it wasn't, the substitutions start almost instantly at the beginning of the match and keep happening at almost every chance.

4. Methodology: first of all, let's test if the code works on a very narrow set of parameters and then change one thing at a time. So, as a first step, I'd like everyone to try and set a true LCD/BL with as many players in the roster as available. Completely empty depth chart, LCD, full roster. Next week try setting a full depth chart, LCD, full roster. Then alternate and report the findings. Once we see if there are any differences, we'll move on.

Hopefully, this should be a start of getting somewhere with this. Thank you everyone for participating, I really appreciate it.

This Post:
00
259887.132 in reply to 259887.131
Date: 10/14/2014 4:14:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
1. A change in the code: if there's less than 4 starters set, the *feature* will kick in. This means that you need to set at least 3 starters in order to avoid the new code wiping out all of the starting lineup and setting a completely new one on it's own.




Is it less than four or less than three? And do we need to test having backups filled in vs. leaving the backups blank, or is it just going based on the starters?

Advertisement