BuzzerBeater Forums

Bugs, bugs, bugs > Stricly Follow Depth Chart

Stricly Follow Depth Chart

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Tesse

This Post:
11
264873.8 in reply to 264873.7
Date: 11/9/2014 5:36:49 PM
Cruesli
DBA Pro A
Overall Posts Rated:
525525
Second Team:
The Milk
I think this has to do with the foul shooting or something. But 47 is pretty decent. That's still a near perfect training. I remember the percentages were less hard than we expected so I think more than 95% training.

Personally I can live with that. But then again in the last few seasons I usually train 2 players a 1 position or at the moment 4 players on 2-position. I like it better for my match performance.

Crunchy! If you eat fast enough
From: GM-hrudey

This Post:
00
264873.9 in reply to 264873.6
Date: 11/9/2014 8:35:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Ah thanks. so the free throw line is the reason for those other times when they make slightly less than 48 minutes. That makes sense.


It's not the only reason, of course, but it's one that's definitely noticeable. I get the ultra low stamina substitutions a lot on my utopia team even when only 8 players are dressed, but since I'm already training in two positions with lower potential guys I don't get too concerned about the extra couple of percent inefficiency.

This Post:
00
264873.10 in reply to 264873.9
Date: 11/10/2014 1:16:44 PM
TrenseRI
III.2
Overall Posts Rated:
36003600
Second Team:
ChiLeaders
So, once again: trying to play one player for 48 minutes in a match is not supported by the game design. It's not what the original creators wanted to support nor do I support it. Just putting it out there.

This Post:
33
264873.11 in reply to 264873.10
Date: 11/10/2014 2:40:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6161
I agree that it should not be supported or encouraged...except that it is encouraged, by requiring 48 minutes to train and only allowing one position at a time for effective training.

In my perfect world, training would not be by position, but any 2/4/6 players you choose each week on a sliding scale of training effectiveness. This would also mean we wouldn't have to play our center at point guard to train his passing.

This Post:
22
264873.12 in reply to 264873.11
Date: 11/10/2014 4:56:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I agree that it should not be supported or encouraged...except that it is encouraged, by requiring 48 minutes to train and only allowing one position at a time for effective training.

In my perfect world, training would not be by position, but any 2/4/6 players you choose each week on a sliding scale of training effectiveness. This would also mean we wouldn't have to play our center at point guard to train his passing.


How convenient it must be then that there is already a sliding scale of training effectiveness - a player who plays 46 minutes still receives quite a bit of training, even if they miss some last few percentage points from the ideal maximum. Of course, two position training is also possible, to allow even more players to receive training and to allow for more easily covering these lost minutes, though of course at a lower scale of training effectiveness. Likewise, now you can train a center in passing while playing him at center, at least as of this season, again with a lower rate of effectiveness.

This Post:
00
264873.15 in reply to 264873.14
Date: 11/12/2014 12:04:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
6161
Well said, Trainerman. I like the way game shape is managed by moderating minutes per week. Tying effective training to that concept seems logical. Right now the incentive is forced 48s and players out of position, or better yet, screw it all and just buy yourself a team. This is mostly a brilliant game, and I don't think any of that was the objective.

I wonder how many people give up on this game too soon because training a team appears futile.

This Post:
55
264873.16 in reply to 264873.15
Date: 11/12/2014 6:03:46 AM
TrenseRI
III.2
Overall Posts Rated:
36003600
Second Team:
ChiLeaders
Sorry, this is not the suggestions forum as Trainerman surely knows. He should keep his messages short, concise, on topic and to the point, otherwise I will not hesitate to delete them as I did now.

This Post:
11
264873.17 in reply to 264873.11
Date: 11/19/2014 6:12:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
I agree that it should not be supported or encouraged...except that it is encouraged, by requiring 48 minutes to train and only allowing one position at a time for effective training.

In my perfect world, training would not be by position, but any 2/4/6 players you choose each week on a sliding scale of training effectiveness. This would also mean we wouldn't have to play our center at point guard to train his passing. :)

It wouldn't even require a perfect world, just a logical world.

This Post:
11
264873.18 in reply to 264873.17
Date: 11/20/2014 9:43:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I agree that it should not be supported or encouraged...except that it is encouraged, by requiring 48 minutes to train and only allowing one position at a time for effective training.

In my perfect world, training would not be by position, but any 2/4/6 players you choose each week on a sliding scale of training effectiveness. This would also mean we wouldn't have to play our center at point guard to train his passing.

It wouldn't even require a perfect world, just a logical world.


A logical world would be nice. I'd move there. Unfortunately, Douglas Adams had it right: "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."

Advertisement