BuzzerBeater Forums

It should have been explicit in the guide. I'm certain it takes the best case scenario of the players into account. I understand the role for a test but I was always under the impression that the guide was explicit in nature. Basically unless someone told you, how would you figure out that you had to use a blank lineup in order for let coach decide to work?

Anyway, Marin is suggesting that blank lineups/LCD can still be used HOWEVER you will need to declare two starters. This is a nerf but as I tested today it certainly does not remove it as a strategy. You will just need two very high stamina players in the starter roles. It will also be more effective when you are likely to win the game by more than 20 points as your starters will sub out in the 4th.

No where in the User Guide or Help Forum is there an explanation of "Blank Lineups" or even a mention thereof. I remember asking Rick Smits Clogs about why Silverbacks rotation was so different and he said something about blank lineup. I guess at the time I just figured I was training players so it didn't apply to me. I didn't even consider the ramifications of using the lineup during the playoffs. If you look at the guide...it mostly talks about training and stuff, however, the best teams practically live off blank lineups. But this is not in the user guide?!?

Last edited by lawrenman at 7/5/2014 12:40:52 AM

Anyway, Marin is suggesting that blank lineups/LCD can still be used HOWEVER you will need to declare two starters.

Where did you catch that? The way I figured it out is: any blank position you leave, the coach will put someone into it?

Last edited by Aleksandar at 7/5/2014 8:02:53 AM

Personally, I think that all starter sports should be filled or the GE will pick a starter randomly for you.

I'm not sure if this has been covered, but do we know why this blank line up option is being removed?

Also isn't the ability to forfeit a game much more hurtful to this game than anything? I mean what's worse than setting your lineup and then after the game finding that your training has been screwed up because someone has forgotten to set their lineup or worse just decided to give you the two freedom rockets and purposely didn't set a lineup.

I feel like we are addressing minor issues here when the elephant in the room is the walk over issue.

Well, I definitely agree that LCD/blank is meant to be a feature. To be honest, LCD/setting a lineup is what is broken. I think the way to fix it is to have the match-setter code translate LCD to a blank lineup for everyone.

This is managerial game and I think manager should take responsibility how players will play. In that sense I think removing advantage for empty line up, both minutes and performance wise is very good.
Looking forward for this change!
Must wait for next PL to test it...

This is managerial game and I think manager should take responsibility how players will play. In that sense I think removing advantage for empty line up, both minutes and performance wise is very good.
Looking forward for this change!
Must wait for next PL to test it...

I have never looked at the game this way. I have looked at the game from the economic/training/management viewpoint. The actual managing of the actual game is horrible. You have next to no control. You do have control over your team economics and training if you like but in game control doesn't exist. I love the pick an inside offense for game day but you are down by four in the closing minutes and start launching threes even though you have almost no shot at making them since there is an outside shooting penalty associated with an inside offense. You can't make an in game decision to run an outside offense. Why? Because you already have a coach. We as users aren't the coach. I like the blank lineup. I use partial blank for training. I couldn't imagine trying to train and be remotely competitive in USA d2 without it. I won't ever be a three trainee 48+ per week guy. The blank lineup is by far the most realistic feature of the game day management and BB wants to take it away? Unrealistic is playing guys 48+. Unrealistic is having to manage your superstas minutes to under 72 in a week to manage form. Realistic is having a rotation in constant flow managing the effective levels of players on the floor. Have you ever seen a game where the coach pulls the whole starting five at the five minute mark in the fourth quarter and reinserts them three minutes later? That's Strictly Follow Depth Chart and that is strictly stupid. If peoe want to manage their team that way, have at it. It's robotic and ridiculous. Don't take the best part (the only working part) of the in game management away. Forcing teams to have 10 or 12 man rotations to balance minutes is going to kill the expensive national team guys. Who will be able to afford those guys if they have to carry two or three more with significant salary so they will sub in the game. Not well thought out with zero feedback from the people. Might be a turning point in this three plus year supporters run.

Perhaps the Game Code should be adjusted so that some players can be forced to play 48 minutes barring injury or foul out...no matter the situation. I would predict that nearly everyone would prefer this method. Maybe have a player or two designated for this each game.

Secondly, perhaps the game code could be adjusted so that SFDC looks for optimum times to sub in/out players instead of doing several subouts of starters at the same time. This is by far the worst part of SFDC. Its having a lineup of losers in the game at the same time thereby forcing bad shot selection.

As is there is a very significant advantage to using BL/LDC. Marin's proposal is to limit the effectiveness by 40% or so in comparison to Set Lineup/SFDC. My biggest complaint is that knowing about this option is not very intuitive. If there are changes significantly effecting lineups it should be explained in the guide and its effectiveness in comparison to setting a lineup.

It's about sacrifices. This entire game is about sacrifices. How much of a sacrifice do you make to train your own players. A lot if you single position three, considerably less if you do two, and none at all if you don't train. To me game shape training is way more over powered than BL, but I am fine with it because owners that utilize it sacrifice somewhere else. Most complaints in this forum are about things that don't benefit the complainer. Unless the other options for substitutions are fixed, the robotic options just won't be appealing to me. Of all the things that could use a tune up on this game, this seems to be the one that didn't need it. If it is to help people that train, I train just fine using it, but I sacrifice by not having a real third trainee. I don't want to spend a significant portion of my payroll on 10th or 11th guys on the roster. Did anyone even consider the TL ramifications of this? This all seems extremely half assed.

I agree that possibilities to control games is very poor. However I still think that there should not be remarkable benefits in performance by using empty lineups. There are also some other options than lets coach decide and strictly follow depth chart, which I have used a lot

The point is the "remarkable benefits" come with sacrifice. Just the same with game shape training which I think has more substantial returns than a blank lineup. If you are willing to make the sacrifice, why shouldn't it be an option?