BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Look Inside tactic STILL far too dominant!

Look Inside tactic STILL far too dominant!

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
245985.113 in reply to 245985.111
Date: 8/27/2013 3:48:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
455455
So,are you saying us that a motion oriented team can work if they have three super good OD defenders(something like 20-20-19 and a perimetral defense much better than the ones that NTs have in BB)?
Yeah,that surely indicate to the avergae manager in BB that LI is not a too dominant tactic...


Those three high OD defenders all had salaries under 150K, if anything this is a case for motion's dominance. They were able to account for the majority of my team's offense and defense on their own, a feat comparable bigs wouldn't be able to accomplish. These weren't particularly difficult players to develop either, I never trained their secondaries. A high IS guard is much more challenging to create.

The fact that such a team, with a 35k PF and an 80k C (with proficient ID) could even compete with teams that have 15+ IS on their guards and monster bigs should say something about LI's dominance.



Interesting. You do make a good point that you can likely create more talented guards than big men if given the same amount of salary to work with.

But I do think that the reverse probably works too. But/Create 2 front courts players with dominant inside skills but built like solid all-around PF's for about $350-400K in salary. Play them with 2 guards and a SF totaling $165-215K in salary. Make the SF with better inside than outside skills. With all the perimeter players, you don't need to spend salary on JR and you can go with low JS too. Pump up DR because it's cheap, spend the most $$$ on OD and make sure PS and HD are at decent levels so that you can feed the inside players the ball.

That starting 5 costs the same as your team and I feel that they would win.

From: Steve Karenn

To: SM
This Post:
22
245985.114 in reply to 245985.111
Date: 8/27/2013 6:44:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
So,are you saying us that a motion oriented team can work if they have three super good OD defenders(something like 20-20-19 and a perimetral defense much better than the ones that NTs have in BB)?
Yeah,that surely indicate to the avergae manager in BB that LI is not a too dominant tactic...


Those three high OD defenders all had salaries under 150K, if anything this is a case for motion's dominance. They were able to account for the majority of my team's offense and defense on their own, a feat comparable bigs wouldn't be able to accomplish. These weren't particularly difficult players to develop either, I never trained their secondaries. A high IS guard is much more challenging to create.

The fact that such a team, with a 35k PF and an 80k C (with proficient ID) could even compete with teams that have 15+ IS on their guards and monster bigs should say something about LI's dominance.


I like how you missed the point here. It 's not like motion is dominating here, it's sky-high OD that is dominating here. You didn't show at all that motion is a legit alternative to LI at every level, you showed that if you have an OD better than every NT in the world, a team oriented on perimeter players can compete against inside oriented teams.
That's quite different

This Post:
11
245985.115 in reply to 245985.114
Date: 8/27/2013 7:46:35 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I like how you missed the point here. It 's not like motion is dominating here, it's sky-high OD that is dominating here. You didn't show at all that motion is a legit alternative to LI at every level, you showed that if you have an OD better than every NT in the world, a team oriented on perimeter players can compete against inside oriented teams.
That's quite different


*yawn*

Clearly, it's impossible to compete with a high salary LI team with an outside offense unless you have NT-level defense. I mean, look at:
(59082488)

This is an unfair example of LI dominance, since the road team started three bigs at SF, PF and C with more combined salary than the entire home team's roster. Look at how those 100k+ big men tear apart the sub-25k salary players they're going against... wait, what? The outside team won?

Less extreme examples:
(59082452)
(62072101)

Now that we've seen more reasonable examples at a level average users can understand, you might want to look at the game SM linked to and realize that it was a 1-3-1 so the OD rating was inflated. Besides, even that doesn't tell the story - the OD on the PF and C are really not reflected at all in that rating but they're definitely important.


From: SM

This Post:
00
245985.118 in reply to 245985.114
Date: 8/27/2013 9:06:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9494
I'm very aware of the point you're trying to make. All I'll say is it's much easier to build a high OD combo guard than a high OD LI guard. There's a reason I've been able to consistently beat LI with guards that have 19-20 OD (when 18 is very common), and bigs with less than 10 ID.

This Post:
00
245985.120 in reply to 245985.117
Date: 8/28/2013 12:27:41 AM
Infested Warriors
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
775775
Hmmm...You give some ideas.

#1 swap RB and IS salary for guards
#2 Swap OD salary effect in PG~SF formulas with say...JR, HA, PA...anything that currently costs less than OD, swap it around basically
#3 Swap JR with something cheaper in the same 3 formulas. For SF maybe swap IS and JR salary formula costs.

Surely just swapping the skills that impact salary (moving their position in the formula) shoudln'T take too much programming? We are talking maybe just 3 formulas PG~SF.
There might be reason to adjust bigs salary formula too...but I can'T think of any easy process...

Anyway surely this is osmething they could put together pretty quick and implement pretty easy. All those OD guys and IS guys seeing their salary jump and the shooters and passers maybe see their salary go down a bit...this would defenitely change things.


1)OD is cheaper than JS for SF.
2)Swapping JR for IS in SF's formula... are you serious? fighting an imbalance with another imbalance it's not the solution.
3) Maybe for guards not swap RB and IS, instead: actual RB = (IS+RB)/2 .
4)All salary formula adjustment necesary need a potential formula adjust.
5)All formula changes needs an exhausting study, not some random guy whims. Everything has to aim to a balance.

I agree that salary/potential formula needs a tweak. But a deeper, smart, minutely study tweak that only aim for an ultimate balance. Nor more, nor less.

PD: I wish i could fluently speak english as i speak spanish.

This Post:
00
245985.121 in reply to 245985.115
Date: 8/28/2013 4:49:28 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
I like how you missed the point here. It 's not like motion is dominating here, it's sky-high OD that is dominating here. You didn't show at all that motion is a legit alternative to LI at every level, you showed that if you have an OD better than every NT in the world, a team oriented on perimeter players can compete against inside oriented teams.
That's quite different


*yawn*

Clearly, it's impossible to compete with a high salary LI team with an outside offense unless you have NT-level defense. I mean, look at:
(59082488)

This is an unfair example of LI dominance, since the road team started three bigs at SF, PF and C with more combined salary than the entire home team's roster. Look at how those 100k+ big men tear apart the sub-25k salary players they're going against... wait, what? The outside team won?

Less extreme examples:
(59082452)
(62072101)

Now that we've seen more reasonable examples at a level average users can understand, you might want to look at the game SM linked to and realize that it was a 1-3-1 so the OD rating was inflated. Besides, even that doesn't tell the story - the OD on the PF and C are really not reflected at all in that rating but they're definitely important.


Oh wait,you are only ignoring the home court advantage in all the game you have posted here,and you are forgotting to say that the team that won these games was superior on defense

No one is debating that if you have a superior defense and the HCA you can beat inside oriented teams even using outside oriented tactics

*Yawn*

This Post:
11
245985.123 in reply to 245985.115
Date: 8/28/2013 5:14:38 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
952952
Your examples tell me this:

Before the game, first you lay the foundation (defense) which in your case was very good.

After your defense does the work, you have to score points. And here's where I think you're a bit wrong: You won a game with outside tactic where inside tactic would give you bigger win margin. If you have such suffocating defense, it does not matter which offense you employ since you are probably going to win with almost any (except maybe Inside ISO).

So let's say that for the same payroll you can get LI players that can do the same work on defense, but more on offense. Since I'm not a native speaker, I hope I made myself clear.

Advertisement