BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Moratorium on ALL new changes for one year

Moratorium on ALL new changes for one year

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
182276.127 in reply to 182276.126
Date: 5/5/2011 5:02:41 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
Yeah, they're different schemes. 2-3s need versatile forwards that can rotate and deny. It shuts down post attacks and dribble penetration, but is vulnerable to outside shooting.

Maybe we need to take a step out of this "2-3 stops inside offense, 3-2 stops outside offense" dichotomy, because it seems to create confusion about what players perform the best in the 2-3.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 5/5/2011 5:02:59 AM

From: Edju

This Post:
22
182276.128 in reply to 182276.81
Date: 5/5/2011 10:13:00 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
So the BBs themselves almost never use it, and when they do they lose. I will leave everyone to draw their own conclusion from this.


My team blows and I could use 2-3-3 Zone and it wouldn't matter.

The reason I haven't used it has nothing to do with the game engine, game design, or any other conspiracy theories.

I simply felt it wasn't the best choice to use against my particular opponents.

Now, draw your own conclusion from that.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
From: Heathcoat

To: Edju
This Post:
22
182276.129 in reply to 182276.128
Date: 5/5/2011 1:11:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
It seems that the opposing forces in this argument arent that far apart from each other. Some say it is completely broken, while others claim it is merely impractical

I would love to have a player with all skills at 12, however I seriously doubt I would play this player at C, this is a Forward. Building a team specifically to make 2-3 work pretty much means that is what you would be running every game. I dont consider being completely predictable and a one-trick pony a step in the right direction

Last edited by Heathcoat at 5/5/2011 1:15:01 PM

From: Heathcoat

This Post:
00
182276.131 in reply to 182276.130
Date: 5/5/2011 9:34:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
I see your point, not sure I agree. Teams that operate in the red just to compete is an example. Should we punish those who handle their finances properly by giving a break to poor economic decisions when they run rampant? I get what you are saying about this particular subject, but I dont think it applies across the board. Good managers adapt to the game, not the other way around.

From: Heathcoat

This Post:
00
182276.133 in reply to 182276.132
Date: 5/6/2011 12:13:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
It seems like you didnt read what I said very carefully and just reacted. It's cool man, as I said I too think it is broken. I just dont agree that bending the game to every player need and want in all situations is the answer. Just voicing my opinion, as you have done over and over and over ad naseum. Feel free to save the flamage for the next guy foolish enough to try discussing it with you.

From: Coolbobj

This Post:
00
182276.136 in reply to 182276.135
Date: 5/6/2011 3:34:57 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
152152
Aren't there 2 2-3 debates on the suggestion forums, one of them need to be closed, we have enough 2-3 zone debating on BB.

Check the Suggestions they are important
Advertisement