BuzzerBeater Forums

- I've never said that they used 2 bigs, just that they managed to win a WC playing 32 with THAT defensive dude
32 was always strong but nowadays more, it's like the first time in at least 30? seasons that both teams in the finals played 32 zone... especially with the defensive bigs and guards with high JS-JR-OD-DR-IS that we have now

- irrelevant to the conversation, i've never said that they won because of anything else.. the conversation is about the 32 + sb bigs being a bit too.... meta

- isn't THE solution, and i agree with you, but could be a "quick" solution for the time being, or, to the very least it can be a matter of discussion. Do we believe that this is a problem? What suggestions do you have in mind to combat this problem? What would happen if we were to put into action these solutions? Would they create more problems? Or would they partially fix some? etc etc etc

- Dude.... I know and understand that English isn't your first language but i even said that 8-20-20-20 isn't a max build as you said, since you can find with "ease" players with more ID and SB and RB 19
So why would i then say that a 8-20-20-20 guy is impossible?!
Exactly.... I'm keeping the order of the skills.... so when i write 8-20-20-20 i mean a defensive guy with IS8, ID20, RB20, SB20.... and when i write 20-20-20-8 i mean a guy with is20, id20, rb20 and sb8

i think the bigger problem in this game is to players is too much effective on unnatural position like gurds on C,PF and similar forwards on PG, SG and this is real problem

Ok, fair, but don't you think that by lowering the cost of IS on bigs you'd partially fix this issue?
Obviously you'd have to compensate by making something like OD more expensive, and maybe IS on guards more expensive etc

...only means bring back muh LI dominance, and literally nothing more.

I don't know, i think i disagree with this
Cause guards will probably still have just as much or more IS than bigs (if we were to lower the cost of IS on them)
However you might be able to create some big builds that are pretty effective in interior tactics, giving you the option to make the guards more guards since you have bigs that can attack on inside tactics

If on players such as (48272639) or (49872871) you could fit a +2 IS and +1 ID for example
You'd still have guards that have higher IS, DR and JS, hence the LI Dominance wouldn't return... but you might be able to win with a roster that has Guards that play as guards since you can specialize them into shooters or passers (and lowering the cost of PA would help too)
Big that play as bigs

Instead of having Manute Bol and Dikembe Mutombo as you're starting PG and SG

How about radically raising the level of guards' salaries on account of their IS? This should most certainly do the trick if the underlying problem to be solved is guards being too effective at 4 and 5.

For example i reckon this would create a new problems, for the last x seasons the game as had modification to favour exterior tactics and limit interior ones, doing so would eliminate interior offenses and the game would basically become RG/Motion dominant

Meta means a "strategy" that most of the community considers to be the most optimal way to win... and since having a 32 with shot blocking bigs is just cheap way to build strong team ahhaha that makes it meta ahah

32 with shot blocking bigs aren't meta, they're just the Most Effective Tactic Available ahah

How about removing the 3-2 zone?

I'm not sure if BB can separate mid-range shots and three-pointers, nor do I know if we have a way to control the ratio of mid-range to three-point attempts.
It seems like creating a new 3-2 zone might be challenging.

Why not just use the 1-3-1 zone instead?
At least its inside defense is weaker than the 3-2 zone, and it sacrifices rebounding.
I guess this should be more balanced than the current system.


Remark: Or, how about renaming the 3-2 zone and making both perimeter defense and inside defense neutral, similar to man-to-man, effectively turning it into a zone-based version of man-to-man?

Last edited by little Guest at 1/7/2025 3:46:59 AM

How about removing the 3-2 zone?

I'd also suggest removing the basket from basketball and just have guys run around with a ball.

All jokes aside, I'd prefer the idea of having even more defensive options like in the real game (Triangle-and-2, Square or Diamond variants of Box-and-1, half court pressing or flashing etc). Nonetheless, with each tactic having glaring weaknesses (GL using Triangle and 2 vs a good outside scoring team, and baseline cuts and drives vs a 3-2, low post to high post cuts and wing/corner 3's threat vs a 2-3 zone...).

Like how in offense, Passing becomes an even more important skill for tactics like Princeton, the game engine needs some potential revamping concerning how defensive values or defensive tactics deal with Driving, Shooting, Passing (Positioning perhaps as well). Which would give an greater incentive to scout the performances of other peoples games. Should I use an appropriate defense vs a team that seems to drive well to the basket, but shoot poor wide-open outside shots? Should I abstain from going a 2-3 zone because their PF seems to be chucking 3's non stop?)

Obviously, difficult to implement a rather intuitive game through mathematical equations.