BuzzerBeater Forums

Well 1 part of tactics (as the real life) is to have the right players to use them. But you cant resist to exploit for example the poor big men of the opposite team even if you dont have the right players to do it. You are talking for the good players that the 90% of them cant bought from the majority of the teams. We all know that the ideal is 1 player have 20 on all of his skills, but we all know that we cant have that.

O fcourse if i play against much weaker team than mine i should win anyway, couz after all good players is the 1st

We dont have the chance to change tactics during the game, so i would love my trainer to listen my advices, couz he is just a machine, he knows only 0 or 1. So i want my trainer to follow strictly my instructions. If i am wrong, then i can use the ratings to evaluate what i did wrong, and the next game i will adjust my team/tactics.

Maybe after all the problem are the ratings. They dont give us the proper feedback. The less that we are impact the game the less fun we get


Last edited by JohnnyB at 1/25/2010 5:21:38 PM

No, something is wrong with some managers, because tactics are quite useless if you don´t have the appropriate players.

Tactics are useless without the adequate 5 starters and 5 backups.

The faster you learn this, the faster you will get to the top and win games.

I am not really interesting is a conversation like this. Please, my god, enlighten me! :D
Seriously, I guess we are talking two different languages. Of course the best manager is the one that adapts the best to the game engine. Of course the best manager is the one winning the most.

Tactics are not so important in BuzzerBeater

That's exactly my point. They should be more.
But not because I am not good enough to take the best from the GE... because it would be more fun. As simple as this.

I am not sure what you are talking about. To me, setting a line-up is a part of setting tactics. So I would say that tactics are incredibly important in BB.

Ok, I have read some of the points of people defending the new engine and I am starting to understand them. Here is my main issue, though:

-the new tactic that is emerging is for people to play PGs at the SF position when they play look inside. This does two things: it bolsters your outside defense so that the SF cannot make passes. It also allows you to get the ball into the hands of your big men at a fairly high frequency.
-it is a great way to find a fairly inexpensive SF. Not many SFs in the world can do everything. But there is almost no trade-off here. You defend well and you play offense pretty well using a PG here. Of course, PGs are fairly rare, too and this is driving up their prices.

But does this not seem unrealistic? Would you put an NBA PG up against Lebron and expect good results?

I have a suggestion to end this silliness, but again my question is: is this the way we want BB? If so, then there is no point discussing suggestions.

But does this not seem unrealistic? Would you put an NBA PG up against Lebron and expect good results?

The Pistons played Stuckey at the 3 for long periods on LBJ & others, with good results. I merely point this out as I am a Pistons fan!!!

There are alot of Post on this one, so please forgive me if someone else has already brought this up. Push the Ball seems to be the best Tactic, most BBB Finals have been won playing this way & your coach will play to where the team is having the most success. I play this way mainly & see a better performance from my team, although my Offensive flow is down compared to LIS or RNG.

The points per 100 shots, would this be affected by the 3pt shot, miss 2 3's=6--miss 2, 2"=4 & vise vercer. Bigger affect on your scoring percentage, one way or the other?

I do go along with the idea that the 3-2 Zone is too strong when defending the Inside, yes you could argue that the inbound pass would be harder, but good drivers, aka Wade, can & would eat up a 3-2 zone because they wouldn't need the inbound pass.
I've only been in this game since Christmas, so I'm still learning, so please be gentle if some of my comments don't make sense. :-)

The Pistons played Stuckey at the 3 for long periods on LBJ & others, with good results. I merely point this out as I am a Pistons fan!!!

Well, I do not know the game of basketball very well. But if a PG is a good option against a SF in real life, then I guess BB has it right and there is nothing to complain about.

But does this not seem unrealistic? Would you put an NBA PG up against Lebron and expect good results?

Of course it's unrealistic. True well-rounded SF's are very rare and historically haven't performed at a high enough level at their position to justify the costs to create/buy them.

The new GE made it difficult for the average big man at SF to perform successfully by finally increasing the importance of offensive flow skills. Now it's easier to succeed with more of a guard type player. It's not ideal, but considering the restraints caused by training options, it's definitely an improvement.