BuzzerBeater Forums

1. Managing minutes, as Kukoc said, will make the game too easy. In this game you need to get 48 minutes to get full training. If we are able to select how many minutes players can play then training becomes simple and there is no challenge. Getting 48 minutes for all 6 players so that you can get full training for everyone isn't easy to do. But if you can select how many minutes each player gets then it is almost impossible not to get full training for everyone (excluding injury).

2. I like the idea.

3. I like the idea but I don't see it happening for a long time, and I wouldn't want complicated options. Perhaps something simple like an option next to each player that says "More offensive", "neutral" or "More defensive" which determines where their focus lies. Other options such as "Play aggressively", "neutral" "Play passively" could also be interesting.

Having an option that allows you to control the minutes a player plays per game makes training and game shape handling way too easy.

I have an U21 NT and a full NT player, and a HOF 19 Year old SG, I'm still training them all. I need to keep their game shape in check whilst also winning games (usually..not this season) and ensuring they both get 48 minutes. I need that magic 60-70 minute range each week to keep their GS up and have then get 48 + minutes.

Having the option of setting minutes makes it way too easy for me to manage this. It takes the thought out of deciding who to play and whether to play them as a starter or backup. If I know I'm gonna blow a team off the park, I can play my other trainees as a starter and they'll get subbed after 26 minutes or so, if I know it's a tough game, I'll most likely play them off the bench, all this whilst the main trainee is playing his full minutes at PG.

I relegated a few seasons ago for training purposes cause I played this guy (10058043) at PG all season. I'm doing the same again this season. Do I wish training was easier? YES! Do I want it to be? No. Cause then I can win and train at the same time. You can't have both. (well you can.. sort of, if you train them in the right position =D)

It's challenging, but that's what makes the game fun. You can't have everything handed to you on a platter.

I don't agree with the buyout price either, the auction format works just fine.

I don't think he meant that lets say you set a player to play 30 mins will mean exactly 30 mins. There can be a "random" factor, if u set the player to play 30 mins he might get 35 or 25 depending on how the game is going. It will still be hard to control the minutes and i dont see it as a bad idea... I totally agree its a bad idea if you set him to play 30 and he actually plays 30 but as long as there is a random variable to the equation, im fine with.
I agree.
I agree with naker's simplistic tactics suggestion.
Instead of a buy-out clause, they can simply shorten the auction period from 3 days to 2 days since very feww feww fewww people bid before the last half an hour of the auction and those who bid early only do that to bookmark the player. So by decreasing the period of the auction, managers get more flexibility without changing the dynamics of the TL.

Minute management is completely irrational in this game - most of the time my best players dont even reach 10 minutes a game, tried different settings (let them play, dont let them play, coach decides, coach decides not...) and still dont have a clue how minutes are distributed. lol

Setting minutes would make my BB-life much easier.

Also having an option that says "when up by this amount slow the tempo" you say the AI makes in game changes but it doesnt... my team was up 30+ points in its last game and was still chuckin up 3's when there was 10+ seconds on the shot clock. In a situation like that you should have an option that says when up by so much go for the lay ups inside shots and vice versa..when down by so much start taking more 3's

because it is working :)

Switch to inside shot, who are maybe more difficult for the team could help you to loose the lead.

And you didnt get what I am saying. You can switch to inside shot during the game.

So let me get this straight. You would like your team with outside focused tactics, start to go for layups (when up by 30) against an opponent who has only inside def and is playing 2-3 zone? To make sure you miss all those shots and give them an opportunity to get back into the game?
The game engine is fine, you give your team orders and game engine makes small corrections (looks for the best shooting opportunitys) when needed. The only thing missing atm is letting your team play for point difference instead of blowout rule coming into effect.

Can someone tell me why it should be hard to get as many minutes to your players as you want? And if your answer is training (or BB or something else) would be too easy, then I'd like to know why training should be hard or shouldn't be easy?

There are some "tricks" in minute management that make no logic. For example: you play with "strictly follow depth chart", if on foul trouble "let them play" and you put the same player as a starter, a backup and a reserve for the same position. With my logic you should then get 48 minutes to that player in any situation (except injury, fouled out), but that's not how it works. If you end up leading 20+ points in the 4th quarter that player will be substituted to another one and hence fails to get all 48 minutes.

Unless you have only assigned 5 players for that match so that it's unpossible to make the substitution... If you have assigned 8 players then still might happen that the player you want to get 48 minutes gets taken off during a blowout in the end and the guy whose minutes aren't that important will play.

IMO the minute management system really could use some improvements.

Last edited by hoo-cee at 10/17/2010 8:45:37 PM

If you have assigned 8 players then still might happen that the player you want to get 48 minutes gets taken off during a blowout in the end and the guy whose minutes aren't that important will play.

Unless you assign those 3 sub players to specific spots.

I'd like to know why training should be hard or shouldn't be easy?

Because people want to play challenging games.

You can assign well sub players and still there is nothing guaranteed.
(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/26583723/reportmatch.as...)
This substitution (Portocarrero for Capela on PG) is one of most ridiculous I have ever seen on BB. Does it have any sense to boost lineup at 1:07 before the end while leading 99-32?
My suggestions are:
Suggestion 1)
"Strictly follow depth chart" should be really strictly even in last 2 minutes or at least should be strictly in last 2 minutes if there is 20+(?) points difference. In close games I have nothing against this non-wanted substitutions.
Suggestion 2)
I can imagine split this option to two:
A) "Strictly follow depth chart" - strictly for whole 48 minutes
B) "Strictly follow depth chart (except for last 2 minutes)" - behaviour as present option
I can imagine option A) can cause drop in Fan Survey if it's used and team loses the close game.

I think even without these substitution situations training would be very challanging. Because training for example passing for PF/C, inside def. for PG/SG etc. is still very challanging even if you swap positions in defence.