BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't think outside attacks are too strong.
The problem is that often you find yourself with players inadequate to the new game engine.
No one force people who plays look inside or low post to use C with atrocious in any other skill beside ID-RB-IS. Personally I like to buy my PF-C with some OD (at least mediocre, I'm in Italian IV) and passing (less for the PF, more for the C. My current C got a respectable in passing) and I found out it works. Sure, I'm playing against weak defenses, but (training dwarves) i routinely alternate between motion, R&G and look inside/low post and it seems to me that if you know which kind of player suits best a particular offensive tactic you can play almost any one, given the player with the right secondary skills.

If you really want to focus on a particular offensive tactic probably you can, just be sure to have the right men for that tactic.

On shotblocking: My PF has 10 in SB (one of the reasons why I was doubtful on purchasing him) and he's averaging 4 blocks per game.In the last 2 non-cup games he played he pulled out 5 and 6 blocks in less than 30 minutes and one opponent was quite strong. Being a relative check he surely has life easier in IV than in Serie A.

Seriously, if you (and other GMs) are saying that I should not even bother looking at game ratings, why not just junk them? Or maybe just call them "Deliberately meaningless ratings (DMR)".

I've never said this.

Team ratings exist so that you can gauge the approximate average strength of players fielded in a certain game, in several aspects (outside shooting/defense, inside shooting/defense, passing). It does this very well.

What it does _not_ necessarily do is explain why game A or game B was lost -- at least not universally. It can certainly give you ideas in some cases, but game simulation is primarily (if not exclusively) based on individual match-ups.

This makes reading the box score significantly more complicated than reading the team rating. For example, even if you seegreat OD team ratings, this doesn't mean that they come from all outside players -- maybe they come from an exceptional PG and SG, and the team got killed at the SG position. Or if you see great inside attack ratings, this doesn't mean the team was capable to get enough shots inside to win the game.

The one thing that pushes my buttons is when people's reaction to these issues is "The game is messed up", rather than "What am I doing wrong?". The game is what it is, and it has given us all an predictable environment, in which there is a reasonable number of alternatives of how to win the game.

I don't feel that It's easier to scoring inside , that's a problem .

I don't feel that It's easier to scoring inside , that's a problem .

I believe is not a problem. Scoring outside and inside should be equally interesting in order to keep a balanced game(not making any strategy to be strictly dominated by the others)

They way I'm seeing this is that it is easier to move the ball to outside players in order to get 3ps and long 2pt shots than getting it under the rim(makes sense, right?) but it is harder to convert that long outside shot than the opportunity your C eventually gets when the ball is his hands and their foots on the paint(for me also makes sense).

ok so anyone here still think that outside tactics is not waaaaay stronger then inside tactics just look at my last game

(18104229)

Really? You dont wonder why your SG is taking 28 (!) shots compared to the 13 your center is taking? And your PG took 14, your PF 13..

Maybe your guards couldnt get the ball inside. Your inside guys were screaming like hell to throw them the ball, they would easily dunk their oppontents WITH the ball true the hoop..But the ouside D of the opponent was just to hard to come by, not enough handling and passing for your guys (read as offensive flow).

I guess your guards thought: if i cant pass it, ill have to shoot before shot-clock stops running. DAMN, another miss.. DAMN, 1-17 3-pointers.

Not trying to be rude here. But just want to point out that easily saying R&G is the upper tactic by default isnt the best 'tactic' to win games in the future

Last edited by Maupster at 1/7/2010 10:23:10 AM

Good point, but why the guards doesnt need good offensive flow to go? Its enough to have great guard shooters to win games, but the opposite doesnt work? why? have you seen any team in real life having success without there big men to be able to pass? and if big men need good passing why not be able to train it? (please dont tell me about team training) Do you know how hard is to find a good passing guards out there? Do you know that is way easier to find shooters? and of course way cheaper.

Those are some facts that are making outside attacks much easier to built.

and if big men need good passing why not be able to train it?

I actually had a problem- I wanted to train my PF and also my PG. I thougt, that I will train passing. So, I played my two league games normally, and on scrimmage I played PF 48min on PG position. Hopefully, tomorrow morning both of them will pop. That shows actually, that you don't have to be farm team, crazy, or something else to train passing for big men. In fact, training it is quite simple. And if you're in cup, then you will have to choose a game, where you can blowout your opponent, and play your big men as guards there. It shouldn't be hard for you, or is it?

As Mav fav you consider Harris as a good PG? If yes then i can understand why you think that Parker is great 1 too. As a Mav fun you should know what is great PG. You had for several years the 2 times MVP, and now you have 1 of the best ever even if he is on his last days of his career. Deron? Paul? Those are great PG's not Parker. Even Rondo is better passing guard than him. Better player? Hardly. Do you think that Rose is great PG? he can drive at will but what about his court vision?

Parker is more product of the system than anything else. What he can do great? drive to the lane and use his unstoppable floater, using his quickness. Is he a great passing G? No. Just check his stats. Is he getting better? for sure thats why he can shoot some mid range shots. Parker will start fading away as soon as his athleticism dismiss. AI anyone?

Why Nash is playing at his 35 like an MVP? because he has great skills, 3pt shooting/passing/court vision. Qualities that will be there even when he will be 40.