BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > New inside zone or fix 2-3.

New inside zone or fix 2-3.

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Marot

This Post:
00
181900.80 in reply to 181900.79
Date: 5/5/2011 7:29:41 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
916916
So let me ask you then how many teams in the B3 has 3x 20 ID to put up in a 2-3 zone?


That's a nice theory, but in practice doesn't work because as i said(some lines above if you read) you lose lot of OD playing 2-3 and if you want to put a PF playing as a SF if he has 20 ID he can't have much OD.

And i repeat again why you need TOP players to run a 2-3 when in other zones that's not the case. You don't need for example if you run a 3-2 a player with OD 20 and ID 13(to cover some drivings).



From: Rycka

This Post:
00
181900.82 in reply to 181900.80
Date: 5/5/2011 8:36:22 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
272272
you lose lot of OD playing 2-3


but you gain lots of id and rebounds advantage when playing 2-3. and with 3-2 you lose that.

From: Marot

This Post:
00
181900.84 in reply to 181900.83
Date: 5/5/2011 9:52:18 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
916916
As it seems he thinks it's ok to lose RB from a 3-2 zone


Are you sure? If i don't remember bad, JK said that with 3-2 you don't lose rebound.

You gain some and you lose some


The problem of the 2-3 is that you lose OD, you also can't stop his inside centers and the few rebounds you can pick, yes theres a bonus on rebound, but if the ID doesn't work well then winning some rebound doesn't matter.

playing man man that may not be as effective as if you did the right choice but may not be such a difference as if you chose the wrong zone


M2M is by far the best defense in this game, in global terms. It's not about predicting where the opponent can attack you and surprise, it's just that 3-2 works really good against an outside team and 2-3 is just an epic fail against inside ones...





Last edited by Marot at 5/5/2011 9:54:06 AM

This Post:
00
181900.86 in reply to 181900.75
Date: 5/5/2011 3:00:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
My argument, at least, is that there remains a window of possibility that 2-3's ineffectiveness is caused by the wrong players being used, not the GE being broken.

We're not asking "does it work or not?" We all agree that with current popular builds, the 2-3 is ineffective at best. The next question is "Why is this so?" and to assume that the answer must be "2-3 is broken" is irresponsible.

This Post:
00
181900.87 in reply to 181900.86
Date: 5/5/2011 3:03:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
when the new ge was introduced, you heard nearly the same about inside attack and that you just could attack outside quite a while. When i read this they was proven wrong, but the players was also created to stop outside attacks ;)

From: Heathcoat

This Post:
11
181900.89 in reply to 181900.88
Date: 5/6/2011 12:42:13 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
2-3 was tested in a salary vacuum with players that are near impossible to create (see players they design, not train themselves over several seasons in the real competitive leagues).

You need an example of 2-3 working in realtime, otherwise you believe in santa claus even though you never ever got any Xmas presents.

As long as you never use it yourself to any success, you are a joke and every post you make on the subject is one.



Wow. Is this the way you think it works? Anyone who disagrees with you or even suggest anything other than what you say is just flamed. Even if they were considering the changes you demand how can they now? Show the whole community that they can be bullied and basically threatened if you dont get what you want? I have read through this whole post and at first I thought you were making great points. The deeper and deeper you get in this thread the harder it is to root for you, man. Harsh isnt the solution.

I think 2-3 is not working. I wish they could change it somehow that works. Until then I wont be playing 2-3 very much. The end.

Advertisement