BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm not liking this feature either. It shifts some power to weaker teams that are in a nothing-to-lose situation while stronger teams will be reluctant to use it except vs a bot.

Plus I think it's unrealistic in every way to force teams to use different tactics every game in order to avoid losing the guessing game every time. I can't think of many pro teams that won championships using a variety of different tactics each game.

since being competitive both inside and outside is more expensive in several ways.

I guess we could counter that new problem by raising the minute optimum from 60 to 70 - that way we would see a more realistic utilization of the top lineups too. (assuming GS training will be removed too).

To me it never made sense to start the best players one game, only to bench them for another - just for the sake of gameshape.

I would guess the new GDP will cause more people to not bet on defense (and play m2m) instead of betting defensively since the cost in case of error would be less severe.

Another thing that might happen is teams playing 3-2 (which some say is also efficient vs Inside offense) on defense and betting on the opponent playing inside in order to balance their chances, i wonder if these things have been simulated before implementing?

To me it never made sense to start the best players one game, only to bench them for another - just for the sake of gameshape.

I agree this make no sene compare to IRL basketball, where teams consistently field their best players almost every games.
However from a gameplay perspective, it is meaningful, forcing managers to make tough decisions, especially for teams that go far in the tournament, managing three difficult games a week is really challenging. Indeed I think it is one of the core element of the gameplay.

On the other hand GDP, neither make sense as far as RL basketball is concerned, nor from a decision making point of view.
As, in many cases, the choices will be pretty obvious. If you play a team with a dominant tactic or a dominant player, choose the orientation accordingly. You'll gain something either by making the good prediction or by enticing the opponent to an inferior tactic. If the opponent doesn't have an obvious strength just play as usual with no GDP, and man to man.

This is some kind of the mess now. So now BB is forcing users to choose non-dominant strategies instead of fixing them. BB was on the the right track, by increasing SB effects and decreasing salaries, but they had to go even further and should have reduced effects of OD. Now you see often how SG with pretty decent JS and JR are shooting 10-20% from outside because opponent has players with lvl 20 OD. So now what can we expect, to crush these outside players even more if we guess tactics right and reduce outside shooting to 5-10%?

The fix to that is to reduce the cost of JS and especially JR, and to make training JR faster. Increasing the cost of OD for PG builds would also be a very good step. I think Wolph is the one who has pointed this out the most, but the root of the problem is that there are the two required outside skills to make three point shots (JS and JR) and only one skill to defend them (OD) which also has a metric buttload of other additional benefits.

Interesting data. I'd agree that passing will not save the day here, the only hope I have is basically handling+driving on the shooter. Which is why GDP is bad for my 40% plans, since the resulting skill profile is so unique to Motion (due to potential limitations) that I don't see what else such players could be good for. Maybe I'll have to settle for 35% then and add some inside threat, sigh.

Princeton with good JS/JR on your big men can help somewhat with that, though I can't see 40% for the *team* being viable at a high level. You might be able to get 40% semi-regularly out of those two positions at least.

If the problem is that teams can't use outside offenses effectively, then I agree that decreasing the cost of JS and JR (and increasing their training speed) is a much better solution. We certainly need to improve the percentages of outside shooting in general, but this guessing game change will just decrease percentages from inside offenses.

I would guess that most look inside offenses will still use this tactic as the outside offenses are still ineffective against good teams, just now with a penalty.

If I was running buzzerbeater and caring about user retention and the large numbers of users leaving, I think I would be hesitant to implement an arbitrary solution which will effect the majority of users who have all spent years building their teams and players to perform under the assumptions of the current game engine. Now our players become less effective and less valuable on the TL. How many people will spend the years rebuilding their teams versus just quitting out of frustration?

If I was running buzzerbeater and caring about user retention and the large numbers of users leaving, I think I would be hesitant to implement an arbitrary solution which will effect the majority of users who have all spent years building their teams and players to perform under the assumptions of the current game engine.

There are many other factors that make this solution pretty bad - just think of the time you have to spend for scouting your opponents and - in my opinion the worst mistake - using this feature on mobile devices will be a pain in the ass. Setting proper lineups on a mobile device is the most complicated thing to do in this game.

Cheap or not you still have to pay salaries for them so it's still expensive to maintain balanced team.