BuzzerBeater Forums

Hi

This game is facing a new imbalance between tactics, most of the outside teams when we have to face a good inside team, we find that the best defense that we have now it's to play m2m, while the inside manager can play with 3-2 working much better than 2-3 or inside box does.

2-3 is a weak zone, just give you a real bonus of rebound, but makes you weaker on the outside defense and even if you play a 2-3 with a good SF with nice ID you can't stop their PF-C. I've seen lot of games and tried the 2-3 with NT and i got the same result, with NT's it's more evident that 2-3 is just a zone to forget. Also inside box doesn't seem to solve this problem.

Arrived to that point, the game it's turning really boring, lot of teams are just changing to play LI and training all the season OD to their rookies. I had the best outside attack in all IV, and most sure it's quite good on III, but if i have to face a team with high's OD, playing me 3-2 and LI it's really hard to beat that since i can only play m2m.

This is creating an imbalance in the game, just an example the 4 teams that promoted to div 1 in Spain were playing LI. Most of the teams in Div II plays LI and most of the teams that promoted to Div II are playing LI.

This B3 season was another example, most of the teams playing LI and the outside teams can do nothing when they face a 3-2, not to talk that when you play in your opponent court, facing a 3-2 it's nearlly impossible to score a 3 point shoot, we won't see many Ray Allens in this game...


Please fix the 2-3 or create a new inside zone that works good, just as good as 3-2 works.


Thanks,

Marot.

charles said, in the last days that for a 2-3 zone it is important that the players could block shot else the help defense isn't effective.

for a penetration by a small player is no so important (in real basket) shot blocking as his size by example, if u are 7 feet tall, u can be a 1 level blocker but if a guard that makes 6 feet goes inside, the taller one makes changing the shot yes or yes

if you are a skilled guard, you have no problems with a noobish big guy going inside. And blocking have a lot to do with anticipation and timing, and yes it is easier when you are big because it isn't always necessary to jump(or jump later) which could bring you in a bad situation.

But a 7 fett tall guy, will learn it faster and would most likely be created with a higher starting skill - so liek always in BB you could train it.

And personally i think you could use 2-3, it isn't that bad as it was always made in the forums also without those good blockers. The problem is that if your opponent don't play inside you get into deep trouble.

edit:

but in the other side u have a poor (called this way for no using bad words) zone defense in a 2-3 which in the best way u need ID and BS

Even when it is OT, did you think we had to change JS? Because for a jumpshot you always need range, but an Insideshot work alone ;) I think it isn't wrong that some things are affected by different skills.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 4/21/2011 6:28:00 AM

charles said, in the last days that for a 2-3 zone it is important that the players could block shot else the help defense isn't effective.

As moutlinho said i also doubt about Charles words, maybe theoretically are true, but in the practice doesn't seem to happen.

But the fact is that there is an imbalance between zone, you can play a 3-2 with any player you want(since he has good OD) and the zone works fine(unless you got a PF-C with OD 1) but in terms of 2-3 it fails and as i said i higly doubt it's because of SB...

Any competitive team that wants to win a championship and faces an inside team plays 2-3 and i doubt that the best teams doesn't have the 'right players to set a 2-3', managers just realized that 2-3 is not a competitive zone.

On the past, before the BB's introduced the real zones, lot of teams were playing 2-3 against inside, but now with the actual zones, 2-3 doesn't win you a game, it won't make you leave the opponent with 60-70 points.

Every inside team that faces a 2-3 ends with high scorings and lot of assist.

But the fact is that there is an imbalance between zone, you can play a 3-2 with any player you want(since he has good OD) and the zone works fine(unless you got a PF-C with OD 1) but in terms of 2-3 it fails and as i said i higly doubt it's because of SB...

Any competitive team that wants to win a championship and faces an inside team plays 2-3 and i doubt that the best teams doesn't have the 'right players to set a 2-3', managers just realized that 2-3 is not a competitive zone.

as i said, i tried it and the succes wasn't that bad, besides the quarterfinal in the cup ;) And i have stupid SB values, too low that they should matter and to high for the salary(~10). But at least my Big have good blocks amount for this, when i compare then with other bigs with better blocking^^

I can not tell with which rosters the BB, made their test but the question is should we design our roster to play tactics we want, or should tactics work fine with every roster. I would say that many teams would consider neutral offense as worse strategys against opponent of your strength, and i would agree with that in most cases. But their is hostivar, who desing the team, that can play it and was very succesful with it.

From BB-Charles word; (180713.144)

Do you have a comparable example? If there's an imbalance, I'm certainly willing to look for a solution

From the 16 teams that play in first spanish division(one of the hardest league in BB);

-13 teams play most of the times LI

-3 play outside tactics and one of the made a 'stand by' this season.


Is this just random? I dont think so, all of them are experienced managers who are playing on the first league over 5500 users, it's a huge imbalance.

Why?

- It's really hard to score a 3 point shoot against HCA+3-2 zone.

- LI bonus in rebound is really strong.

All this things are as a result that outside teams haven't any good inside zone to play.


The game is dramatically changing to just LI mirrors :/

Last edited by Marot at 4/22/2011 7:31:15 AM

We are not asking any imbalance that then makes the outside teams soo powerfull with that zone, we are just asking balance in the game.

-I would fix 2-3, specially from the lose of the OD. It's a huge lose, the 3-2 doesn't lose much ID, but when you play a 2-3 you lose soo much OD. The PG-SG are suposed to help in the inside defense, but they have to care from the outside shots.

They are leaving much spaces(out of the zone) for the opponents players even if your PG-SG have great OD, there's nothing you can do to stop open shots.

And this is creating an imbalance because you make 'harder' to score from the inside so most of the times this ends with the oppoent PG-SG trying lot of shot attempts with nice % and wining the matchs(this is the tipical situation of a match report, when a team uses the 2-3)

You try to defend hard from the inside with the 2-3, but then you see how you can't make nothing to stop open shots.

- Also It's not reasonable that if you are playing a 2-3(with high ID's) the opponent PG-SG-SF(but most of the times the SF it's not a 100% SF) start driving under the basket with a lot of succeed. And this outside players most of the times doesn't have a high driving or an IS between 1-7.

If you play a 2-3 it's because you want that your SF-PF-C make really hard to penetrate near the basket, but in this game when you play a 2-3 it seems your SF-PF-C are sleeping.




Anyway, maybe we have different cultures of basketball, in Europe we care a lot from defenses and when a team is playing 2-3 it can be a good solution to stop the other team in the inside, 'but the 2-3 of this game must be based in NBA tactics or so, because the 2-3 we play in Europe are done to defend and not to let the other team score you so easy.

On a serious 2-3 you defend hard in the inside(leaving the PF-C with low %), you control the rebound and there are helps on the open shots.

On this game we are tired to see that when you put a 2-3 the other PF-C make REALLY HIGH %;

15/20
16/21
22/28

etc.


Last edited by Marot at 4/21/2011 7:47:14 PM

This may be true, but it does not prove your point.