BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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*

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.

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*

You're right, they're all home games for me. But let's look at that first one a little more in depth rather than just dismissing it outright because it's a home game. Here are the individual position matchups:

PG: 34k SG vs. 91k SG
SG: 66k SG vs 101k SG
SF: a 26k SF vs. a 116k PF
PF: a 20k SF vs. a 70k PF
C: a 18k PF vs. a 141k C

Now to be fair, the players I started at PF and C are being trained still but even so, if LI is so dominant, how precisely can a lineup such as I fielded not get completely obliterated down low against a lineup like that (which was in good GS, incidentally)? How can it survive against teams putting up prolific and sensational inside attack ratings?

Oh, and it's not because of super high defensive builds, either. The highest ID on my roster is 13, the highest SB is 8, and the highest OD is one backup with 15. But of course the three guys I'm training who took up the PF/C minutes do all have 10 OD along with their ID, and I'm convinced that matters greatly. But if only there were some way for me to test that against great teams in a private league scenario to get some sort of idea how it'd hold up . . . ;)

The problem is that the salary of the players you quoted is greatly influenced by some skills that doesn't worth their cost.
You pointed out that the highest SB of your team is 8.That's help to keep the salary of your big man low for the level of their primary skills.Do you know how much SB have the big man you played against?Because, if SB drove up the salary of the adversaries big man,in reality the difference between the primary skills of your and his big man is smaller than what salary indicates

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.

I'll respectfully disagree with you at least as it pertains to my team - certainly as it relates to me running LI being a better choice. My three 'trainees' that played PF/C are not at all suited for inside offenses, other than oddly enough inside iso - the average IS for them is under 9, but all have double digits in handling, driving and OD (as well as ID and RB). And the guards are much better suited for outside offenses - especially the actual good ones.

And building an LI team with the same defensive choices would be much harder - if we brought IS up to parity with where I'm going on the ID/RB for the big men, the salary would start to skyrocket. Their job is going to be to rebound, defend, and then shoot jumpers or threes when guarded by the traditional big men or drive against zones.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 8/28/2013 8:05:16 AM

The problem is that the salary of the players you quoted is greatly influenced by some skills that doesn't worth their cost.
You pointed out that the highest SB of your team is 8.That's help to keep the salary of your big man low for the level of their primary skills.Do you know how much SB have the big man you played against?Because, if SB drove up the salary of the adversaries big man,in reality the difference between the primary skills of your and his big man is smaller than what salary indicates

Well, to be perfectly honest, the 8 SB appears on the guy who started at PG and also on a player who didn't appear in the game at all. The highest for the five guys who played SF/PF/C was 6. As far as the opponent, feel free to check out his record both in the IBBL and against several of the top-1000 teams in the world that are in the PL and see how effective his offense has been against teams far better than my own.

But of course, SB isn't the issue here - the real skill that jacks up salaries on big men the most is IS. Maybe the discrepancy is more that I'm not wasting money on that pointless skill. ;)

I'll respectfully disagree with you at least as it pertains to my team - certainly as it relates to me running LI being a better choice. My three 'trainees' that played PF/C are not at all suited for inside offenses, other than oddly enough inside iso - the average IS for them is under 9, but all have double digits in handling, driving and OD (as well as ID and RB). And the guards are much better suited for outside offenses - especially the actual good ones.

And building an LI team with the same defensive choices would be much harder - if we brought IS up to parity with where I'm going on the ID/RB for the big men, the salary would start to skyrocket. Their job is going to be to rebound, defend, and then shoot jumpers or threes when guarded by the traditional big men or drive against zones.

That's why I said entire payroll and not just the bigs. If you play outside tactics, your outsidep players take bigger paycheck. And ditto for inside offenses. So your backcourt would have less salary than now, and that salary would transfer to the bigs. Basically same payroll.

You don't have to worry about ID on your bigs, as opponent's bigs will score almost equally good against ID 10 and ID 12 while the difference in salary is not negligible. You can somewhat compensate with OD and better RB on bigs.

You don't have to worry about ID on your bigs, as opponent's bigs will score almost equally good against ID 10 and ID 12 while the difference in salary is not negligible. You can somewhat compensate with OD and better RB on bigs.

LMFAO

The problem is that the salary of the players you quoted is greatly influenced by some skills that doesn't worth their cost.
You pointed out that the highest SB of your team is 8.That's help to keep the salary of your big man low for the level of their primary skills.Do you know how much SB have the big man you played against?Because, if SB drove up the salary of the adversaries big man,in reality the difference between the primary skills of your and his big man is smaller than what salary indicates

Well, to be perfectly honest, the 8 SB appears on the guy who started at PG and also on a player who didn't appear in the game at all. The highest for the five guys who played SF/PF/C was 6. As far as the opponent, feel free to check out his record both in the IBBL and against several of the top-1000 teams in the world that are in the PL and see how effective his offense has been against teams far better than my own.

But of course, SB isn't the issue here - the real skill that jacks up salaries on big men the most is IS. Maybe the discrepancy is more that I'm not wasting money on that pointless skill. ;)

SB drove up the salary of a big man as much as a primary skills,but is not necessary as a primary skill.
Look at the salaries say little about the strength of a team