BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > New inside zone or fix 2-3.

New inside zone or fix 2-3.

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
11
181900.68 in reply to 181900.67
Date: 5/3/2011 7:29:25 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
916916
Just a quick question, what kind of player you prefer Serge Ibaka(he is really good at SB) or Marc Gasol?


If you pretend that people train SB, that skill should have a lower salary. What a manager can't do is to have an inside player with IS-ID-RE-SB that's an insane salary and even that the impact on the 2-3 is still not big enough(i don't think that having bigger SB will make 2-3 more efficient).

You can't ask the teams to sacrifice a lot just to run a ''2-3 in good conditions''.

That's why on this game people prefer a player like Marc Gasol with IS-ID-RE with lower salary than having 1 player with ID-RE-SB with lower IS because it's not worth his salary.


PD: It happens in real life, SB is ok, but it's not that important. On this game SB it raises a lot the salary, it's at the same level of inside shot, inside defense or rebound, but you can't put it on the same level importance.

This Post:
44
181900.69 in reply to 181900.68
Date: 5/5/2011 3:36:36 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
Changing your strategy to conform to the GE: Good
Changing the GE to conform to your strategy: Bad

Just putting that out there. Saying that something tested ad nauseam by the BBs is "broken" is likely hyperbolic, and is definitely harmful.

This is exactly why I posted (182276.1). As a design principle, changing the GE based on popular strategies will destroy BB. That is not hyperbole.

This Post:
00
181900.74 in reply to 181900.70
Date: 5/5/2011 4:29:01 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
I think we all have to, don't we? I'd like to assume that the BBs who create the game we play don't tell flat out lies to us.

If the BBs say 2-3 has been tested, I'll believe that it has been tested. It's just as foolish, if not more so, to believe that 2-3 has not been tested.

This Post:
00
181900.75 in reply to 181900.74
Date: 5/5/2011 6:00:16 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
406406
Why dont the 2-3 fanyboys show us evidence (mainly by running such a D) that this system really works. All we hear ad nauseam that the system works...

From: Marot
This Post:
00
181900.78 in reply to 181900.76
Date: 5/5/2011 6:54:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
916916
We are boosting IS and OD so high that there is hardly any chance that we will be able to counter them wit normal levels of ID and SB.


And you don't think people are training JS high? The only difference is when defending against it you can just hit 3-2 and get a big boost to your outside defence.



True, i know some teams in B3 that has 2 or 3 players with JS over 20, but the difference is that with a 3-2+ high OD's they can be countered, but if you face so high IS's there's nothing you can do with 2-3, the only thing it's to defend m2m.


---

We are facing different problems with the 2-3;

A) I don't think is reasonable we need top players to play with 2-3, there aren't other zones with this high levels needs and you can play 3-2 without problems or 1-3-1 in some cases.

B) Most of the problems of the 2-3 is that even if you have a great OD in the PG-SG-SF, it's so huge the lose of OD that most of the times makes you lose the game, letting easy shots for the opponent outside players.
I can understand that if you play 2-3 the outside players help to defend in inside, but helping doesn't mean leaving the paint undefended



Please fix the 2-3, we don't ask make it stronger, we just ask a balanced inside zone.


Fix 2-3 or make a new inside zone.

Last edited by Marot at 5/5/2011 6:55:23 AM

Advertisement