BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Research

Research (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
219860.6 in reply to 219860.5
Date: 6/10/2012 5:10:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
CONCLUSION - In conclusion, I won't discourage balanced teams, they have their own set of advantages, and can beat balanced teams if the balanced team are not as 'balanced' in skills as necessary. Once again I can't stress the difference between 'salary-balanced' and 'skill-balanced'.

So, both types have their good and bad points:

1. If you have a completed arena, then by all means go a buy a monster team with good offense and defense on all positions! ;) Of course this is not always possible, hence the research...-

i. Balanced beats unbalanced if the 'balance' is properly distributed. Let's say 60-40 to balance.
ii. Balance costs more financially, but is very long term because young monsters in unbalanced can cost a lot, so managers tend to buy veterans.
iii. Unbalanced has the element of surprise. How many teams want to attack an 80k big man when they see a 20k guard on the team??

So in conclusion both teams have advantages and disadvantages.

This Post:
11
219860.7 in reply to 219860.6
Date: 6/10/2012 5:12:40 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -

I would like to thank all the balanced and unbalanced teams who unknowingly helped my research a lot. I wouldnt have been able to do this without your help.
One of the teams was Tungi's team. Thanks Teru. His AMAZINGLY balanced team helped me a lot with my balanced team research.

I hope you guys enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it!

And yes, if you guys enjoy my thesis, you could award me my PHD :P

This Post:
00
219860.8 in reply to 219860.7
Date: 6/10/2012 5:16:28 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
Please bear with me. This is my first research. If you guys have doubts about my experience, I managed an India IPBL team that got banned in a misunderstanding. This is a new team I'm managing. My total experience is around 3-4 seasons. All constructive critisism(and praise ;) ) will be much appreciated.

Last edited by Dr. Iron Man at 6/10/2012 5:17:10 AM

This Post:
11
219860.9 in reply to 219860.3
Date: 6/13/2012 11:18:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1212
I find it interesting. There's just one thing I don't agree with.
You say balanced is better and more expensive. Then... what's the definition of better? You win more while spending more?

If you want to see it from a tactical point of view, you should have kept the other variables constant throughout your experiment. I respectfully believe that your conclusions are invalid, because salaries shouldn't have differed much. Nice try though.

This Post:
00
219860.10 in reply to 219860.9
Date: 6/14/2012 12:06:15 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
A balanced team is more expensive to buy but IS LONG TERM, hence the money gets compensated over seasons. This is because young, high-salaried guards and big men are very expensive so people tend to go for older guys.
Second of all, are you kidding me??? If salaries are the same, THEN the research is invalid. It will be balanced vs balanced. To be unbalanced salaries HAVE to be different.

This Post:
00
219860.11 in reply to 219860.9
Date: 6/14/2012 12:07:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
Balance costs more financially, but is very long term because young monsters in unbalanced can cost a lot, so managers tend to buy veterans.

This Post:
00
219860.13 in reply to 219860.12
Date: 6/15/2012 10:08:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
I used the law of conservation of salary. Let's say the unbalanced team has two post players salary 100k and two guards salary 20k. SF salary 10k. Then the balanced team will have big men and guards and SF ALL salary 50k.
That's what I meant, not four monsters with 80k salary! :P

By balance I meant salary wise balanced and intro skillset balance(center having good JS,HAN, and PAS). Otherwise they'd just be mono-skilled, wouldn't they?? :/

I took the backup factor to be null. Only starters, all have strong GS, and all have average stamina.

This Post:
00
219860.14 in reply to 219860.13
Date: 6/15/2012 10:11:14 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
I also stated that the beasts on the unbalanced team have to be mono-skilled because players with salaries greater than 80k AND good secondaries go for a LOT. (as much as 3 million in my experience). This kind of expenditure is not practical for our average team.

This Post:
00
219860.15 in reply to 219860.12
Date: 6/15/2012 10:15:51 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
It will be balanced vs balanced. To be unbalanced salaries HAVE to be different.

Sorry I meant salary distribution has to be different. The unbalanced team has to have a couple of beasts and 'not so beastly' guards and SF, whereas the balanced team will have balance all across the board.

This Post:
00
219860.16 in reply to 219860.11
Date: 6/15/2012 6:12:02 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1212
On one of the first posts you say that you want to research if it's worth having a balanced team considering that an unbalanced one has specialist. But seems your focus is tactical, then your conclusion is that a balanced team is better in the long term. Sorry, I don't get it. I still believe that a short term analysis should be made with similar salaries and a strategic research should more elaborated finances.

Advertisement