BuzzerBeater Forums

Bugs, bugs, bugs > New GE

New GE

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
10593.7 in reply to 10593.5
Date: 1/3/2008 1:54:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
I've also been experiencing the same problem, and I think this is (hypothetically) a great solution.

This Post:
00
10593.8 in reply to 10593.4
Date: 10/28/2008 6:22:00 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
Here's how I set my orders, using "Strictly follow depth chart". Let's call the players A, B, and C, and everyone else gets lower-case. Depth chart, starters in bold:

PG: A, B, C
SG: B, w, x
SF: C, y, z

Now imagine that A gets two quick fouls while starters B and C are still in the game in their starting positions. (This isn't the only case where the problem occurs, but is probably the clearest illustration.) What should happen?

What should happen, IMO, is that the GE figures out that B or C should shift over to play the point and that w or y should come in to the game.


Yay! Sounds like this is going to be addressed with the new changes. /crosses fingers

This Post:
00
10593.9 in reply to 10593.8
Date: 10/28/2008 6:36:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
224224
I figure this can be a great improvement, logically speaking. However...

Imagine I train Cs, one position. My PF gets in foul trouble, so the coach decides it's a great idea to shift over my C to the PF position. The result? My C gets 20 minutes as a PF and 10 as C (roughly speaking, the numbers are the first that came to mind).

Sounds like an amazing way to make an already volatile system even more unpredictable...

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
10593.10 in reply to 10593.9
Date: 10/28/2008 6:41:39 PM
Le Cotiche
III.1
Overall Posts Rated:
772772
I figure this can be a great improvement, logically speaking. However...

Imagine I train Cs, one position. My PF gets in foul trouble, so the coach decides it's a great idea to shift over my C to the PF position. The result? My C gets 20 minutes as a PF and 10 as C (roughly speaking, the numbers are the first that came to mind).

Sounds like an amazing way to make an already volatile system even more unpredictable...


so why did you put your C as PF rotation if you didn't want him to play there?

This Post:
00
10593.11 in reply to 10593.10
Date: 10/28/2008 6:45:50 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
224224
so why did you put your C as PF rotation if you didn't want him to play there?

As long as the new GE does this only when I have listed a player at both positions in the depth chart, that's fine.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."