BuzzerBeater Forums

Hi,

I may not be as experienced as you in BB yet I have some usual objections

1. Short roster is not dominating and affecting the balance:
A short roster has already been penalised by shape update every week as if a player plays 96 minutes, the game shape next week is more likely to decrease.

To claim something is not dominating, we must see other ways of winning. Is there any match that one of the teams played a larger roster than a 7 or 8 guys? It's not even 1 percent. The runner-up team in B3 last season played with 5 yet you spoke as if the other team played with a full roster. So, I must admit I don't understand your logic here.

2. Short roster is not strange in a real clutch game:
For games like B3, the short roster is commonly used in NBA playoff. It is not strange to see superstar like James and Kobe to play 48 minutes in a clutch game in the playoff.

Do you know how many matches did LeBron played the full 48 minutes of a match in his entire career? 4. When the real NBA stars do it, people are in awe but that's just a regular day at work for a lot of BB players.

3. The remove of short roster contradicts the existing training system:
Most managers will put a player to play for 48 minutes for training purpose.
If we decrease players ability as they play for 48 minutes, does it mean that the training team will suffer a debuff?

Yes. I totally agree with this. For a long time, I have been expecting a better minute-management system from BB. Just like in MyGM mode in NBA 2K series, allotting minutes and planning the game beforehand.

6. Economy impact:
Short roster teams are the main force to hire those players with extremely high salary, which is already with a lower value.
If we simply limit it, these high salary players will be even less attractive and the value of low salary high ability SF would be much more attractive. The strongest team will be 7-8 SF with a salary between $120,000 to $150,000, which ultimately makes BB more monotonous.

I am an economist in real life and for that I'll just say, trust the market. It will find its own balance. There could be chaos in the beginning but in the end, the market will always find its balance. People will be inclined to train more diversified players, not overtrain in the salary-burden skills.

Yes it is. 5 superstars with 9 stamina beat 8/9 good players rotation 9/10, with the lone episode probably due to injury or foul trouble.

Don't you think this is quite realistic though? In basketball, superstars are far more important than depth. An NBA team with 5 superstars would easily crush a team with 8 good rotation players.

Yes it is. 5 superstars with 9 stamina beat 8/9 good players rotation 9/10, with the lone episode probably due to injury or foul trouble.

Don't you think this is quite realistic though? In basketball, superstars are far more important than depth. An NBA team with 5 superstars would easily crush a team with 8 good rotation players.

they why we never see a 48x5 game in the NBA playoffs?

they why we never see a 48x5 game in the NBA playoffs?

Because no team in the NBA has 5 superstars. In must win playoff game's though, it's not uncommon for superstars to play 44+ minutes. Also B3 games are played in arcade mode, where injuries and minutes don't carryover. If NBA teams could play games where they didn't have to worry about injuries or players being tired for their next game, I'm sure we'd see a lot more players getting 48 minutes.

Right now I think the situation is fine because while a 5 player lineup may be the best for the B3, there are still risks to it (like injuries and foul outs) and it's certainly not the best strategy for league and cup play. There are tradeoffs and tradeoffs should be part of BB as they make for richer strategy.

If we eliminate 5 man rosters as a viable option, then the best strategy in all situations probably becomes an 8/9 man lineup. Managers no longer have to make any tough decisions regarding roster size and makeup since there's an optimal choice that works everywhere, including league, cup and B3 play.

Not to mention, if we make it harder for player's to get 48 minutes this makes training harder especially if you're trying to remain competitive at the same time. Competitive teams may end up forgoing training altogether, leaving it to farm teams and tankers, which I think we can all agree, wouldn't be good for the game.

Stamina needs to be fixed. I get the argument that a sufficiently good player is still worth playing over a lesser substitute, but if it was just a matter of overwhelming skill, the 5 player lineups should logically be blowing out their competition in the first half before getting clawed back in the second.

Instead the opposite happened to me tonight (114234608)

How does it make sense that a team that has played 36 minutes straight, without meaningful rest aside from the half time interval, can explode for 35 points in the fourth quarter when they didn't even score that many in the entire first half?

Far from fading over the course of a game, these 5 player lineups get better as the game goes on, which is not how the human body works at all. Not even if you're an elite athlete can you realistically play 48 minutes of basketball at 100% all the time.

Agree. +1.

Enough with the ignorant and imaginary takes. Tatum lead the NBA in MPG in the last playoffs, which incidentally were WITHOUT travel as all the games were played in the same place.

Tatum averaged 40.6 MPG for 20 games. The number of games he played more than 44 minutes? ONE: game 6 against Toronto that ended in a DOUBLE OT. Murray (39.6 MPG) had 4 such games (44+) out of the 17 he played, but ZERO over 45.12 minutes.