BuzzerBeater Forums

i am not a fan of tactics switch during a game.

well I am but I think by now you know. I think it belongs to basketball. you don't play with one tactic the whole game, you must be flexible and react. otherwise you wouldn't need coaches on the bench. you could train a bunch of guys in the practice and then tell them: go out and play run and gun! and they would do it.

Coaches are there to modify and react on game situations. If you can't do that, then a significant part of the fun being coach/manager is missing. I still love this game more than any other bball simulation online. what I suggest would just be an improvement of an already very good game.

but this makes it to easy, to find the right offense which kill the defense porpose ;)

Normally you play defense depending on your opponent, if he switch offense you switch defense. This is probadly realistic but boring, because then i could make a standard lineup, and play always the right tactic, if yjust one team change tactics is bad for the game balanced because you destroy "reads" of the opponents with it.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/11/2010 4:43:47 PM

yes you destroy reads on opponents who play a diverse game and use different tactics and settings. You still will be able to read those who play aways the same way. And there will still be championships to be won with teams that play always the same way, because they just have a very strong team.

But in case teams are equal tactical cleverness will triumph. And that's like real basketball I think. And you feel in the game, you feel having influenced the match rather than just have given one instruction for the game.

yes you destroy reads on opponents who play a diverse game and use different tactics and settings. You still will be able to read those who play aways the same way. And there will still be championships to be won with teams that play always the same way, because they just have a very strong team.

But in case teams are equal tactical cleverness will triumph. And that's like real basketball I think. And you feel in the game, you feel having influenced the match rather than just have given one instruction for the game.

did you think the most clever is the one who fall back first, and then make the adjustment to catch the opponent, short before the finish so that he didn't get an wrong tactic indikator which gives him a sign to react. Or did you think it is smart, damn i am in front, now i had to change my d and offense, because maybe my opponent change it.

For superior teams a good indicator, because they could react when something goes wrong, tactical surprised get reduces through it in my eyes because for the week team probadly the change will come to late or to random if you choose a small margin.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/11/2010 5:46:26 PM

did you think the most clever is the one who fall back first, and then make the adjustment to catch the opponent, short before the finish so that he didn't get an wrong tactic indikator which gives him a sign to react. Or did you think it is smart, damn i am in front, now i had to change my d and offense, because maybe my opponent change it.

you see how much fun and variation such an option brings. you totally got it right: First of all you will have to scout opponents to see how they usually play. Then you anticipate their moves, which means: you can not be sure they will exactly play in the same way against you, because they might fear that you scouted them and have made adjustments to beat them. So you anticipate each others moves.

A team which is behind, still has to make up the difference. For example if the difference is 15 to 20 points, it will still be difficult to catch up, you might need an entire quarter or more for that even with a favourable tactic, if teams have equal strengths. And then again eventually, you have foreseen in a tactic such as "if -after 35 minutes-, team -up by 15 points-, switch to -3/2 zone- in defense and -patient- in offense". Which would eat up time. You will have to play around with that then, but it is a lot of fun to see if you were able to anticipate correctly, or if you'd been totally predictable.

In the end it will in 90 % of the cases be still the stronger team, who wins. Only if you got totally owned by all your tactical decisions your weaker opponent would have a slight chance of winning. You should again be aware, I am not talking about letting league 4 teams win against league 2 or 1 teams. tactical cleverness is interesting when equal teams meet each other. A weaker team has always a certain disadvantage because of the missing skills to win against a better team, even in a perfectly favourable tactical set up. The weaker team will still make less shots/ defend worse than a good or great team. A weak team would not be able to wipe out a much better team with just the right tactics.

this anticipation is pretty different if you just vary the time or the poitn of different, and then we again could have the random tactical change, like discussed we have before in choosing if who mostly say minute X.
And that making offense too powerfull and taking tactic out of defence, which just make good teams stronger and removing tactical depth.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/12/2010 3:15:39 AM

I think you overrate the offensive ability to score. A good percentage to score in a season is what? 50-55%. Even the best players of the world don't have better stats that that.

Are there players who have played more that 10 season games and have a percentage over that? I don't think so, and if, then it's not realistic.

A wrong defensive set up against an offensive system doesn't mean naturally that you will be overrun in 5 minutes.

You also gave me another idea: What if we could control when timeouts are taken and what is going to be modified in the timeouts? For example: "If team -0-10 run- , take timeout and switch in defense to -man to man- and in offense to -look inside-"? Like that the if-modifications would be done in timeouts, like a real game. Oh wow that would be sooo awesome.

As there are 7 possible timeouts, we could say in 4 timeouts (full timeouts) modifications can be done tactically, and in 3 (30 sec timeouts) you can just change line up. and you can not change both in any timeouts, as it would take longer to explain the tactic switch and change the line p at the same time.

so your try in making tactics more important, is to make them less important?

And maybe you won't catchup ten points in ten minutes, but over a game you make them easily with a tactic - and as i say you can not react to it and even not predict just ebcause yu don't want to play normal focus offense who are exactly made for your purpose.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/12/2010 5:00:29 AM

How come you still do not understand that it is pointless to put in tactics for every "IF". If you are down by 5 point at 35 min mark, if you are down by 10 points at 26 min mark, etc. The list can be endless. With your switching tactics every 5 mins, negates having any tactic at all. With setting offencive and defencive tactics every quarter, I can assure you that I can play the entire season without anyone having a chance to get any of my games right, without being superextremelucky. Game engine is developed for those timeout changes and end of the game subs, tactics.
Humor me: what if you play run&gun against an opponent who plays 2-3 def. You are down by 15 at the 38 min mark. Let's say you're "IF" comes in now and changes your tactic to full court press and LI. You would be slaughtered.
+ your suggestion makes the game even harder for newcomers to start playing. Thus noone sticks to the game with 283718726 different tactic choises to go through before every game.
I hope this get's locked soon.

I hope this get's locked soon.

We don't lock Suggestions threads unless they spiral into repetitive flaming.