BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Limit Switching of Defensive Assignments - +1

Limit Switching of Defensive Assignments - +1

Set priority
Show messages by
From: brian
This Post:
22
204488.1
Date: 12/12/2011 9:37:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
(203686.1)

Here's a good example of why this is a problem:

(17883)

See that PG at C going for 57 points? Nice. An unrealistic match-up created by defensive assignments.

This gimmick brought to you as fallout of a solution to cross-training.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
204488.2 in reply to 204488.1
Date: 12/13/2011 5:14:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i would more say that the amount of outside shot taken/created by big in patient tactic should be reduced even when i don't think that it is such a powerful tactic even today(but a pretty weird one).

But switching the defensiv assigment especially combined with the fact, that princeton usually use one position wouldn't change anything, then you play your Guard on PF and let him defend on SF and the game becomes weird even in more defensiv assigment when player couldn't switch anymore in defense cause they just could talk with the position besides ihim in timeous ;)

This Post:
00
204488.3 in reply to 204488.1
Date: 12/13/2011 5:15:25 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1111
Since this idea is back, I'd like to amend my original post by proposing that pg's and c's should be allowed to move up to two positions, rather than just one, as originally posed. This would allow all players to defend 3 positions closest in proximity to the one they are playing offensively.

The concept of defensive switching has made Man to Man defense a zone of proximity. Pre-game preparation has become more of a "rock paper scissors/roshambo/guessing game" than before. Limiting defensive switches, brings the zone of man to man back to a closer/more realistic version of basketball.

I don't know what Brian/King Drive Ballers thinks about my amendment, but this is where I'll end my contribution to this suggestion.

Last edited by SonnyVaccaro at 12/13/2011 5:19:43 AM

This Post:
00
204488.4 in reply to 204488.2
Date: 12/13/2011 5:57:06 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1111
i would more say that the amount of outside shot taken/created by big in patient tactic should be reduced even when i don't think that it is such a powerful tactic even today(but a pretty weird one).

But switching the defensiv assigment especially combined with the fact, that princeton usually use one position wouldn't change anything, then you play your Guard on PF and let him defend on SF and the game becomes weird even in more defensiv assigment when player couldn't switch anymore in defense cause they just could talk with the position besides ihim in timeous ;)


I'm not a programmer so I don't know how difficult it is to change game mechanics, and I don't like to ask people to put in work. I'm just asking to go 1/2 way back to how things used to be before it gets out of hand, meaning people putting in seasons of training into this tactic, and then people saying fix man to man. If a PF or C goes off in Patient vs Man to Man, I can live with that, as long as he gets properly abused on the glass and on the other end of the floor. Though a guard going off in Patient may be the basis of the argument, I think they can be treated separately as different topics.

This Post:
00
204488.5 in reply to 204488.4
Date: 12/13/2011 6:23:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
but people who make their team fitting to this circumstances would also be affected by your change, and creating big who don't hurt you on small positions aren't that common.

This Post:
00
204488.7 in reply to 204488.6
Date: 12/13/2011 8:13:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
The game forces us to play players at pg or c to single position train


Thats the issue. Creating a change to tactics as a roundabout way to solve that issue just creates more issues.

Different solution needed.


Ok, then remove defensive switching altogether. How it works in BB is not how it works in real life.

I like limiting def assignments as a practical solution.

Last edited by brian at 12/13/2011 8:15:39 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: Kukoc

This Post:
00
204488.8 in reply to 204488.7
Date: 12/13/2011 8:42:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
Ok, then remove defensive switching altogether. How it works in BB is not how it works in real life.
(203686.9)

From: brian

This Post:
00
204488.9 in reply to 204488.8
Date: 12/13/2011 8:48:06 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
or:

you're saying that i can force Bogut to guard Westbrook in iso

edit - and im not sure why your confusing a point forward with a point guard. does the GE allow us to see who brings the ball up the court and runs the offense? as you can see from the ceska/italy game, it appears that a pg playing at c was running the offense. your example doesnt support the need for def assignments.

my example above is much closer to what can be done and would not happen in real life.

Last edited by brian at 12/13/2011 8:55:03 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
204488.11 in reply to 204488.10
Date: 12/13/2011 3:42:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i think your suggestion would make sense, but to change the difficulty in the middle of the game at one game element could cause trouble in my eyes.

Even when you don't have to necessary forfeit games for it.