BuzzerBeater Forums

I set 3 players.
PG
A/A/A
SG
B/C/C
SF
Blank
PF
Blank
C
Blank

Let Coach Decide.

Coach picked starters and they were not A. C was played in A's spot. B played in B's spot until he fouled out. Then he was replaced by my worst backup.

Every other starter picked by the coach played 45 minutes.

Surely this is not what is to be expected?

(71953755)


Let the coach decided...

Difference between starters and bench is very big

Behave like a "Strictly" until Garbage....


This sounds like a strange mix.

I set a full blank lineup for today's PL game: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/71980201/reportMatch.as.... It's still in progress as I write this

So far, it looks better; only a single player subsituted at a time. This game is a blow out, so I can't say if this is typical of an experience. Also, the coach appears to pick good starters given the skillsets they have. I don't know if he is going to put in the backups in the 4th, but I would assume he would. I will edit this post to let you know if he does.

I don't mean this as a criticism, but I'm curious: are you going to change the substitution patterns of other substition options?

edit: it looks like the starters did come out. I do have some interesting choices at PF, but I think that's an artifact of my team not having any "true" bigs (the guy at C made sense, even though he is listed as an SF).

I did not notice any crazy substitutions or the coach moving players around like crazy as you "normally" would in a LCD/blank. I'm assuming that was the point of this tweek?

Last edited by tictacshack at 7/11/2014 8:27:29 PM

(71980393) I put 10 players on my roster, but did not assign any spots and Let the Coach Decide. Everyone was substituted normally except for my PF. He played 47 minutes.

My private game
LCD
Substitution was normally
I'm happy :D
(71987302)

First off, a word to the managers that tested the feature this Friday: the new BL prevention code was implemented at 6:30 PM CET (12:30 PM server time). Before that, the old game engine was used. That might be the reason why some games were affected, others didn't. We did that to make sure we didn't affect training again. Looks like the new code worked nicely. For lineups with less than 2 starters set, the new code calculated best for all of the empty spots and set the depth chart accordingly. Also, backups were set for all 5 positions the same way. If there were any games (that started after the implementation) that don't fit the picture, please let me know.

And now, a more detailed explanation or the reasons behind the change and strategy implementation description.

Why this blank line up option is being removed?
Blank lineup option was never meant to be a feature. It is an inadvertent unintentional result of a combination of settings. This is something that can happen in all complex systems like our own BB. We're not ashamed to admit that it was never meant to be this way and we believe that the BL "tactic" is something that gives some users unfair advantage in a match while at the same time saving them from having to buy and pay salaries for a larger set of players that they would otherwise need. Also, this gives the advantage of having almost perfect minutes every match. All for the price of having less control for training minutes (even though training is still possible!). As you can see, the balance of advantages vs tradeoffs is highly disturbed here.

Aren't there other things more urgent that need fixing? Like walkovers and game shape training?
We have worked hard for a long time on this code. It has taken seasons, without exaggeration. It's not only time to test and implement it, it's way past due. Had the situations with blank lineups improved during that time, we wouldn't implement it, but we don't believe it has.
We don't deny that there are other things that need to be addressed, but we can to fix one thing at a time.
While still not ideal, walkovers are still a part of this game. We cannot force users to supply enough players or to even have them in their rosters to start with. However, since so many users think they are a big problem, we will discuss the possible solutions and try to find one, but that's something that needs to be discussed more in detail in another thread.
Game shape training is similar in some ways, as it is a topic that needs more investigation on it's own. Is it overpowered? Maybe, the general consensus seems to be leaning that way, but the fact is that it is usually paired with blank lineups. Will BL prevention maybe offset the need to lower the effect of game shape training? Will other possible planned changes, like the stamina effect on game shape for all training types lower that need too? We don't know, time will tell. On the other hand, sacrificing training for a better game shape is a big tradeoff, so the claim that it is overpowered still needs to be confirmed and discussed. In another thread, of course.

Continued in the next post...

...continued from the previous post.

How is this going to be implemented? Will there be time for me to prepare my team for the changes?
The new code, as it is currently made, only kicks in for teams that have a suitable number of players dressed to avoid a walkover and a minimum of 4 empty starter spots set. When it kicks in, only the one already set starter position (if it is set at all) is kept in the recalculation of the depth chart. Other starter positions and all the backup positions are filled with the best lineup choices. This, in practice, means that the new code uses all the unused players to fill the starter and backup positions and the game engine then uses them as if they were set like that by the manager himself.
The implementation for all game types is planned for next season at the earliest. We are still in the first weeks of testing and a long way from confirmation of the code's efficacy. So, in short, yes there will be time, at least one season of it.
As I wrote before, the plan is to test and implement the code only after it is perfected. There are also some decisions to be made: should the minimum number of empty starter spots allowed be three or four before the code kicks in? Should existing backup settings be kept or replaced by the lineup generation? These things can be discussed here as they directly affect the implementation of the new code, but the priority should still be feedback from tested BL PL games.

EDIT: Conclusion:
We don't want to be one sided and we definitely don't want to anger our user base. Our general disposition is to work with and listen to our users, all in the common goal of making the game better. Sometimes, there are things we can discuss and put up for a democratic (well, almost, if you look at the second team discussion) vote, but it's our responsibility to make choices and decisions that we really believe will benefit the game the most in the long term. This time, the decision to move forward with the implementation of this code was made a very long time ago (before the whole second team experiment) and was never up for discussion. Also, we can't give every proposed game up for a vote because running a game via committee is very time consuming and inefficient.
We are aware that this will anger some of our users, especially the ones that use the loophole on a regular basis, but we can't let that stop us from doing the right thing. Every time we announce or implement a change, there are some users for and against it and that sparks a discussion and it's fine, because we like feedback and opinions, but we don't want to stop the development of the game completely in fear of angering users. We need to see BB grow and prepare for better times, which, I'm pretty positive, are still coming.

Therefore, I'm asking politely, please help us test and implement this feature whether you like it or not, as it will certainly save us time that we can then use to address other problems and develop new features. Thank you.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 7/14/2014 10:12:50 AM

Thank you for the feedback. I have a question related to the feedback you are asking from us:

Is there any way to verify that a lineup is chosen and if so what the picked lineup was (outside of watching the subbing patterns)? I set a blank lineup for my last PL game (8 PM server time). I set my next PL game to use the same tactics as the last one and it still appears as a full blank/LCD (I was guessing that it might have showed me what the new code had picked). I can kind of tell from the minutes distribution what the picks probably were, but I wanted to know if the code had actually picked those players.


Last edited by tictacshack at 7/14/2014 8:33:20 PM

(71980393) I put 10 players on my roster, but did not assign any spots and Let the Coach Decide. Everyone was substituted normally except for my PF. He played 47 minutes.

My game started at 20:00 server time on Friday. As you see my PF did not substitute during the game.

...continued from the previous post.

How is this going to be implemented? Will there be time for me to prepare my team for the changes?
The new code, as it is currently made, only kicks in for teams that have a suitable number of players dressed to avoid a walkover and a minimum of 4 empty starter spots set. When it kicks in, only the one already set starter position (if it is set at all) is kept in the recalculation of the depth chart. Other starter positions and all the backup positions are filled with the best lineup choices. This, in practice, means that the new code uses all the unused players to fill the starter and backup positions and the game engine then uses them as if they were set like that by the manager himself.

Marin, correct me if I'm wrong but this implementation will benefit BL even more. Now it's hard to train young players with BL. But if I set a trainee on PG (all three slots) and the other four positions will be blank, he will play 48 min. You wrote that only the blank positions will be filled with players so in the end it will be easier to train guys with the new BL. Or do I oversee something?