BuzzerBeater Forums

Might also improve the enjoyment if there werent so many predictable 100 point wins against tankers.

plus id suggest that quite a few tankers end up going bot because they get totally bored from tanking

That was my point - there are casualties on both sides. When you play against tank - you are bored. When you tank for two seasons - you get bored.

And as long as you one can make good profit on tanking - people will tank. Rising minimal salary could help or making spectators devastate their arena when loosing by 100 points ;)...

I like the idea of having your fans riot and destroying part of your arena when you lose by a large margin.

Certainly would deter tanking even more

Okay I have drawn up another poll and included in it 3 great ideas from the discussions in this forum and also excluded from it the 4 bottom vote getters from this original poll

Please vote at (264729.1)


Please join the discussion at (264729.1)

Last edited by Sid Vicious at 11/2/2014 4:13:48 AM

My test of tests is for a non-LI team to play the same game twice once with LI, and once with whatever other tactic, and see if the can actually only win by not playing LI. Always I saw that even a team good at other offences was still better at LI.

Last season I didn't run Princeton or other outside offenses nearly as often because of concerns over GDP. Late in the season I picked up a very high IS player (especially compared to my other players) and ran LI in the playoffs. My team shot under 5% from the field in the first quarter and never really caught up - the 18 IS guy ended up shooting 20% from the field that game. Thanks to garbage time I cut the deficit from 21 to the final margin of 12, but I might be the one example of a team that did worse running LI than I would have with just about any other offense.

A link to my season on buzzer manager:
(http://www.buzzer-manager.com/calendrier/30851/?saison=28)

Now, to be fair, I lost to the same team in the same situation a few weeks back when I ran Motion into his low post, but the deficit was about 7 points give or take a bucket most of the fourth quarter. And part of the reason was that they were a better team. But adding an 18 IS forward and running LI still ended up killing my offense in the playoff rematch.

I can't figure out for the life of me why there are still micro nations. It just seems like common sense to start lumping some of the into regions of at least a hundred users so you can have two full divisions. I feel your pain.

Srry I don't use buzzermanager.

I think high IS bigs is a big mistake with trying to get LI to work...and if you had a team build for something else and picked up high IS thinking that would help.....

LI works if the team is built to flow, DR on bigs and IS on guards.

I didn't mention he had 16 DR to go with his 18 IS (plus 11 JS, 14 HA and 9 passing, though that's not really significant at this level). LI used to always work really well for me in lower leagues because I had good passing and handling all around, despite not having IS. In this case, I figured it would work better because if worse came to worse, I'd have the 18 IS maybe make a difference on contested shots and putbacks (especially with the LI rebounding boost). I think more than anything it was a stupid decision on my part based on frustration with last season, especially since I bought the guy thinking he'd work in an inside isolation and then went with LI anyway.

I guess my point is I find it hard, considering the salary formula, to imagine a player that is bad for LI that at the same time is any good for much of anything else.

The closest I can come to is a guard with no IS and a bunch of other stuff...but since IS costs him no salary.....its just gimped not to be LI capable.

If I didn't agree with you so much, I would think it was funny that you're saying that LI is always more effective as long as you have guards built to succeed with LI. ;)

Well, I still think it's funny. But it's accurate - the way the engine is set up definitely incentivizes that.