BuzzerBeater Forums

i had succes playing 2-3 -> not broken ;)

before or after game engine changes ?

a few games of proof please ?

and what skills made 2-3 effective ?

before, no after ... What do you think ;)

I made those examples also more often here, and i don't know your roster and can not say what the different.

(26297901) - not mine team, but a weaker team which played me away and was winning till his PG was injured and his SF fouled out.

(26297795) - my opponent had a really good roster, and his offense not really work ;)

(29598029) - lower effort, strong opponent, right tactic

(26297894) i win but it was a game betwen number 2 and 16 in the table, and a 6 men rotation isn't also a good choiche especially against an inside team.

Yes this examples are a bit older, but i don't use it that often because you should to be sure your opponent played it, and this examples was from an old post which i could find quite easily.

I think I played it too briefly but I don't like any game where the more you spend the more advantages you get. I think this was the game but I admit I am not 100% on this. This reaction is natural and typical for players and BB naturally has that issue too.

It was. This was one of the many flaws of GLB, but the game was at least playable (if you spent money) before the admins started listening to too many complaints and making gigantic changes every season.

You like to talk about how my points are opinions not facts. This statement by you is an opinion. You have no proof. Have you conducted a survey of 5,000 ex-players and discovered why they quit? You are merely speculating and then attempting to transfer your speculation into proof for your argument about BB. Maybe it wasn't a good game. Maybe people didn't like the pricing policy. Maybe it looked good but lacked depth (the Grid Iron game I tried seemed like that).

What? I'm not saying GLB and BB are exactly alike. (For one, BB is a basketball MMORPG...) I'm saying that GLB had a problem and I don't want BB to have the same problem. I know that this particular problem pissed off managers because I talked to a lot of them and this general sentiment is all over the forums, or what remains of them.

So you think when the NBA has an expansion and teams can't compete in their first season they would be allowed to have 3 rookies that they are training and 2 lucky fans playing each game? The salary floor is still really really low but it does make the game a bit more sensible and has been widely praised as it has no effect on 95% of teams but stops those wrecking the game for others.

I like the general idea of the salary floor, but I think it was too hastily implemented. It should have been done without any managers being screwed - instead of "works for 95% sucks for 5%". There's another thread for that though.

I hear all these arguments all the time from you and others saying the 2/3 zone is fine you just need a team of players with 14 OD, 14 ID and 14 SB to make it work. What? If you had such extreme players and I doubt there are many in the entirity of BB with that combination then you could make any defence work. Players do not complain because they lost, they are complaining because it is not doing what it is supposed to do, defend the basket against inside shots and provide help defence against inside players. There are about 4-5 threads running at the moment on the 2/3 zone so I wont rehash all the evidence here. There are 60,000 players, how can you possibly say there has been been"little to no use of the defense with forwards with OD and a center with SB"? If the top teams in the top leagues in the world Spain, USA, National Teams can't make it work what sort of level players do you need?

As you said, there are a lot of threads on this topic. All I'll say is that none of them provide enough evidence (and by "enough" I mean at least 100 high-level sims, preferably 1000+) to do anything close to conclude that BB is broken. Charles does have that evidence, and he controls for variables, so him saying that it works over and over is a not-so-subtle way of telling us to train players differently if we want to run the defense.

Why? If my car broke down every week I would change something and get it fixed or buy a new car.

Your car has a "working" standard to which all repairs aspire to. It works or it doesn't. BB is an evolving game and the parameters are defined as the game is constructed. You don't replace broken parts; you create new parts and ensure that they work in conjunction with what already exists.

One year of no changes would be the surest way of killing the game but that I admit is only my opinion. However the game playing public play games for fun and excitement. How is a game that leaves bugs unfixed and doesn't have any new features for a year going to keep it's players happy.

How about some positive praise for all the fantastic changes the BBs have made over the last year.
Delete multiple BB mails.
See the nations and if it is a new flag on the scrimmage page.
Salary floor.
Much beter draft system.
No wages in offseason for teams not playing.
Reduced salaries of the top players.
Injuries go away over the offseason.
Position played listed in players game history.
Fixed the BBB.


I am sure there are dozens of other positive changes but these are just a few of the things the BBs have done to make our wonderful game even better.

I like a large majority of these changes. Most are cosmetic, others (draft) were in development for a very long time and were implemented with caution, others (fixing the BBB) don't affect the GE or league play.

Nothing wrong with putting more cosmetic changes into the game, but anything that affects the GE or the league/cup structure should be implemented with as much caution as humanly possible. The moratorium idea is a means of letting the community understand the gravity of major change, and discuss changes without the expectation that they will happen overnight.

Except that ideal balanced 2-3 forwards have the same or lower salaries as the popular forwards of today, and SB in a center can be emphasized to the same degree as the other inside attributes without increasing salary all too much (if you cap total insides at the same number).

Thank you for very reasonable and considered answers. I feel much better about this debate now.

If forwards train OD when they are 7'2'' they will train OD about as quick as 5'10'' guards do ID. That will slow down the training of other skills. Therefore if more time was spent on OD the other skills would be lower. lower RB, IS or ID- take your pick.

so i posted this on u21 debate thread in my country, but i guess it fits here. i saw these players on transfer list, but i can't give links, you all know why.


french, last season played u21:

Jump Shot: strong Jump Range: inept
Outside Def.: strong Handling: mediocre
Driving: respectable Passing: mediocre
Inside Shot: tremendous Inside Def.: marvelous
Rebounding: marvelous Shot Blocking: prominent
Stamina: average Free Throw: strong

lithuanian, last season played u21:

Jump Shot: proficient Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: atrocious Handling: awful
Driving: average Passing: respectable
Inside Shot: stupendous Inside Def.: prodigious
Rebounding: stupendous Shot Blocking: mediocre
Stamina: pitiful Free Throw: pitiful

which one is better? France advanced to semi-finals, Lithuania did not. i think i'll pick lower rb, is and od. after all a team is playing, not a player. and theres too many factors, like gameshape, enthuasiam, skills of other players on your team etc, that comes into play. why do i need big salary's if i can be effective with lower main skills. btw i was 8th in league last season by the amount of player salary's. i've won the league.

Last edited by Rycka at 4/23/2011 6:52:13 AM