BuzzerBeater Forums

Delete LI? Do you want more variety? So...

nice work. could you also share the offensive and defensive Statistics of both teams from buzzer-manager? that would help to see them in context

Awesome!
The influence of SB in a nutshell. Not that I hadn't already been convinced, but I am more convinced now!

Delete LI?

Hmm. Extreme move but this might be the one of the best ideas yet.

Delete LI?

Hmm. Extreme move but this might be the one of the best ideas yet.

No, it's not (though if everyone were forced to run Princeton exclusively I'd be in decent shape). ;)

Fix the salary formulas, or rebalance the engine, or fix the problems in 2-3 and you've got a winner. Giving up and just eliminating the tactic overall is a loser.

Fix the salary formulas, or rebalance the engine, or fix the problems in 2-3 and you've got a winner. Giving up and just eliminating the tactic overall is a loser.

I've always said that the problem is deeper than just improving SB and fixing 2-3. Right now OD suffocates 3 point shooting and until that end of the equation is also fixed I predict outside offenses will remain dinosaurs in BB. Top division bigs shoot 55-65%. SB will help decrease that but the guards are all still shooting 30-38% with low 3-point %'s. Top division in Canada didn't have a single player shoot over 30% from the arc last season with a decent # of attempts.

Bet those guards are taking tough shots because of LI offense and/or have low JR.

Fix the salary formulas, or rebalance the engine, or fix the problems in 2-3 and you've got a winner. Giving up and just eliminating the tactic overall is a loser.

I've always said that the problem is deeper than just improving SB and fixing 2-3. Right now OD suffocates 3 point shooting and until that end of the equation is also fixed I predict outside offenses will remain dinosaurs in BB. Top division bigs shoot 55-65%. SB will help decrease that but the guards are all still shooting 30-38% with low 3-point %'s. Top division in Canada didn't have a single player shoot over 30% from the arc last season with a decent # of attempts.

That could easily be fixed in the salary formula too, though. Make OD for PGs as expensive as it is for a SG for a start and suddenly those high OD/PA guys are getting their salaries jacked up just like the high JS/JR SGs. Maybe reduce the cost of JR (and improve the training speed) so you're not stuck with guys with 12 or less JR going against a wall of 18+ OD with the inevitable result. And all they really need to do to make 2-3 much more effective is have the inside guys have their ID rather than OD defend passes down low as well in the 2-3 - because the fundamental problem is how easy it is to generate uncontested shots. Add in some general tweaks like maybe shotblocking leading to drawing a lot more offensive fouls on penetrating guards, low handling/driving maybe leading to open big men muffing the ball when it's dumped to them much more frequently, and perhaps you peg LI back some. Maybe bump up the shooting percentage slightly on uncontested jumpers and threes for skilled players, and lower the effectiveness of OD against JS/JR by including SB into the calculation (so a high OD/low SB guard would be great at pressuring, but easier to shoot over than one with balanced OD/SB). You'd need to have pressure train SB too, and of course some of these ideas would likely be painful initially, but they're all alternatives that are better than just removing LI, and then eventually LP, and if people ever figured out how to build effective II teams that too.

It could be fixed with the salary formula like anything else, the problem is that managers have spent years pumping up OD in their training and now you'd be telling them that their players are way too expensive. The market would suddenly be flooded with expensive guards that are now less desireable.

I think a change like this needed to be made a long time ago to work properly because all the top players are already built the way they are. Just like the SB tweak, I would just keep tweaking the game engine to get the desired results. Tweaking the salaries will only create a lot of really pissed off users.

Bet those guards are taking tough shots because of LI offense and/or have low JR.

I bet you'd be wrong.

Here's a team in Canada D1 that plays strictly motion. They're average/above average every season and usually have one of the top 5 payrolls in the division. And every season their 3 high priced perimeter players (Kearns/Simmons/Lavigne) with high JR all shoot under 30% from the arc. Some seasons under 20%. One of the 3 is around 40% this year but that looks like a complete aberration based on his history.

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/24945/stats.aspx?season=23&sortBy=rating

Sure there's an argument that you need to get JR up higher to combate the high OD levels but 1: JR is extremely expensive in the salary calculator 2: Based on the terrible % it produces right now, it simply doesn't look like it's worth it's high price. 3: For some odd reason, players with 9-10 JR don't seem to shoot 3's that much worse than players with 16+ JR. That right there discourages many owners from training it.

This just isn't my opinion, this was already being discussed when I joined BB almost 10 seasons ago and absolutely nothing has been done to alter it since that time.

I think a change like this needed to be made a long time ago to work properly because all the top players are already built the way they are. Just like the SB tweak, I would just keep tweaking the game engine to get the desired results. Tweaking the salaries will only create a lot of really pissed off users.

But deleting the tactic won't cause pissed off users? ;)

But yeah, changes should have been made some time ago. It's pretty sad that a single skill in the game is what forces turnovers, is the best defense against outside shots and arguably the best defense against inside shots as well, and even worse that said skill is essentially free for big men and way too cheap for PG and SF salary formulas (and avoiding JR keeps you in that nice PG formula).