BuzzerBeater Forums

maybe 2 types of instruction can be a solution.
one for the expert users, one for the noobies.

now, wouldn't it be nice to have… personalized instructions, kinda like repositionings in HT? you'd be able to instruct each single player to focus on a given play style (drive to the rim, drive and dish, spot up, set picks, cut to the basket, flash to the post… whatevah!), which the guy would favor over the other options (kapono might drive to the rim a few times, but you'll mostly find him spotting up for the three).

Great Suggestion. Personal instruction will be a great asset I think. F.e. I would like to say to my PG that he shouldn't take shots, only when it's an easy open one etc, dunno if that might be possible "rather pass then shoot" or something. Or my SG should 'stay outside' instead of driving in every time.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 10/2/2008 8:44:20 AM

Well, I was just attacking B31's point, which I've seen many people try to make in different threads about how to "improve" the game. More complexity does not necessarily mean more fun. I just wanted to get that out there now, in the hope that it doesn't get repeated.

As far as your idea, I don't have a strong opinion against it, although I think I prefer things the way they are.

i don't know if i like this idea
i fear giving different orders to all my players could change the gameplay towards the creation of monoskilled "soldiers"

i don't know if i like this idea
i fear giving different orders to all my players could change the gameplay towards the creation of monoskilled "soldiers"

as we all know, jason kapono is the best player to ever bless a basketball court — and that's just because his coach instructs him to only spot up and shoot the long range jumper. :)

if you're doing one thing over and over again, the defense will adapt and take it away quite soon. the key is — this would set a preferential behaviour in order to skew the player's behaviour toward a given pattern, far from making him a one trick pony.

So,I think that GE had to make these reflections about players characteristics;it's not so important put more and more other choices in to line up the formation.I agree with you that the range of possible tactics is too limited,and some new tactics had to be created,like a box and one defence

So 10 000 options in setting tactics would be more fun that what we have now?

well, coaches think non-stop about plays to outplay the other team...

that's in one way you have to think about basketball... to outplay offense and defense... or else you'll lose...

i don't think also, that 10000 should be enough...Ü it's just that tactics are few... and if i may say... kinda tiring.

For God's sake, I'm not claiming that the current option allows one to simulate a real coach. I mean, duh. And you're right, not even 10000 options would.

The point is that there wouldn't be much demand for, say, a game where you have to design your own neural network to simulate coach behaviour. And I expect those who did play it would complain it wasn't flexible enough anyway.

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 10/2/2008 4:15:43 PM

but with individuell orders it is pretty hard to figure out, how the game works which is also important for an "rookie" that he stays at this game.

It is even not so easy to read the engine, but you could see effects in rating and could analys games with that. Even you could react in defense through open which got pretty hard, when he swithched his game play every 3 minutes because he substitutes a player.

So i thing, tactics with faocus like we ahve now a days are pretty good, and yeah they don't reflect the compete deep of basketball. but iw ould say that it is pretty hard to refelct more of it in this game, the problems of the box and one for example is that you just shot down star player(or maybe the guards in a triangle and 2), but what if when he doesn't play? In this case the coach switch the people who get man to man defense, and probadly this could be on a other position but here you cann#t impelnent such switch.