BuzzerBeater Forums

You can always play zone.

as you can see from the ceska/italy game, it appears that a pg playing at c was running the offense.

By your logic P.Fanesi was running Italys offence. I see everyone but the PG "C" dissing out assists. As you can see the PF playing at PG is actually a pretty good passer. Hostivar is known for his weird tactics, but he has always had great all around skilled players. If you think this is a great tactic, try to use it. You will mostly lose those games though.
This option was added to make training a bit easier. A lot of managers wanted this change and feel it was an improvement to the system. I never had a problem with the old system, but the current one seems better. Perhaps disallowing the use of defence assignements for NT's?
I don't see this as a big problem. This can be countered with zone defence (the new box one aswell). Usually these games end with a loss for the testing team. What's the difference who scores those baskets? The end result is what matters.

Last edited by Kukoc at 12/13/2011 8:28:29 PM

I agree with this, imagine the other team shooting open jumpers after open jumpers and your players keep camping a lot in the middle, or the other team keep going to the basket/go inside and then your players just watch from the perimeter... they gotta do something... well, now we can't cause the AI is too stupid for that.

This post is coherent, accurate and relevant! You are an enigma, Wolph.

Its the same though if the opponent goes LI and you played 3-2 zone....I think the coach would switch the defense after the first quarter if it was that obvious it wasn't working.

True, it is similar. some "rock, paper, scissors" tactically planning has always been the case, thats just the reality of this game. you can blank the lineup and let the GE do the heavy lifting in player selection, usually with good result. tactically, would a blank lineup, maybe even blank tactic, solve this? Is that what we want? I'm not sure on either of those.

I think they might just consider removing defensive reassignment and allow us to train any skill at any position. That would be a much better solution I think.

The latter has been my preference since the beginning. You could still have incentive to train a player out of position. Maybe you get a X% boost to passing training your center at PG instead of C.

Allowing some switches in role in zones might even them out in usability with MtM, making the game more interesting than LI MtM.

I agree in wanting to see more deviation in which tactics* are more successful. As always it comes back to the players and training. You can't play some tactics as well as other based on players available and training is the biggest hurdle to the evolution of player skill-sets. There has been several changes to encourage this evolution in training and player skills without much success.

*tactics, not metagaming gimmicks.

Last edited by brian at 12/14/2011 5:19:24 AM