BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Is one level always one level?

Is one level always one level?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
113010.11 in reply to 113010.8
Date: 9/24/2009 8:19:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409
I think that the level inpact graph isen't linear but rather looks like a sigmoidal curve (like an S) with high inpact increase in early and mid levels which flatens out more and more in the end.

It seems clear to me that a +20 JS Isn't that much better than 15 JS when both players have exact levels on the other skills. (Exept stamina and FT most likely)

However, It is when the "right" skills are combined when it seems possible to get an synergy effect which increases the players overall abillity. Of course it also depends on the opposition, game shape etc.

This is just my theory and I can not prove anything ;)


I think +20 JS is actually better than 15 JS. The thing to consider here are the differences compared to defensive match-ups. For example, in this case, 15 JS against 9 OD would be very good; +20 JS against 9 OD will be a kind of better or equaly effective as the case with 15 JS. BUT, 15 JS against 16 OD is not a good deal while +20 JS against 16 OD would be very good.

For me, every level of difference counts equally, but I'm always having in mine the opposition. If, in the same example, you train your JS to 20+ and the best defender of your legaue is 14; you are not doing the most effective training (assuming of course, league is your primarly goal). But, this a whole different level of analysis.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/24/2009 8:20:59 AM

This Post:
00
113010.12 in reply to 113010.11
Date: 9/24/2009 8:48:00 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


I think +20 JS is actually better than 15 JS. The thing to consider here are the differences compared to defensive match-ups. For example, in this case, 15 JS against 9 OD would be very good; +20 JS against 9 OD will be a kind of better or equaly effective as the case with 15 JS. BUT, 15 JS against 16 OD is not a good deal while +20 JS against 16 OD would be very good.


This is interesting, and is pretty close to what I was thinking. However, I'm still interested in what you would prefer over these options:

-5 IS vs 4 ID
-15 IS vs 14 ID

(ie: a case where you have exactly one level difference)

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
113010.13 in reply to 113010.12
Date: 9/24/2009 8:58:06 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409


I think +20 JS is actually better than 15 JS. The thing to consider here are the differences compared to defensive match-ups. For example, in this case, 15 JS against 9 OD would be very good; +20 JS against 9 OD will be a kind of better or equaly effective as the case with 15 JS. BUT, 15 JS against 16 OD is not a good deal while +20 JS against 16 OD would be very good.


This is interesting, and is pretty close to what I was thinking. However, I'm still interested in what you would prefer over these options:

-5 IS vs 4 ID
-15 IS vs 14 ID

(ie: a case where you have exactly one level difference)


For that two skills in a very reductive analysis, I'm indifferent.
But,

5 RB vs 4 RB
15 RB vs 14 RB

I would say 15 RB is better than 5 RB against their respective match-ups.

This Post:
00
113010.14 in reply to 113010.12
Date: 9/24/2009 9:02:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2828
I'm not convinced that each "level pop" increases skill equall. I still belive that it's more of a differance in 7 IS vs 6 ID than 13 IS vs 12 ID.

If feels a bit to simple that skills are added or subtracted in offence vs defence, it has to be a more complex formula.



Last edited by Dr. Mike at 9/24/2009 9:06:12 AM

This Post:
00
113010.16 in reply to 113010.14
Date: 9/24/2009 9:06:35 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
Ok, now what about stamina? My own observations say that increasing stamina has much more effect at the low levels (atrocious-awful). However, increasing from strong-prominent has almost no effect (in terms of minutes spent on the court and player ratings).

Any other opinions?

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
113010.17 in reply to 113010.14
Date: 9/24/2009 9:13:35 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409
I'm not convinced that each "level pop" increases skill equall. I still belive that it's more of a differance in the 5 IS vs 4 ID than 15 IS vs 14 ID.

If feels a bit to simple that skills are added or subtracted in offence vs defence, it has to be a more complex formula.



I'm not saying is *simply* added or subtracted. I'm saying skills are compared and that what is relevant to the GE is not the skill level but the difference. This difference might work in a logarithmic(not sure if is correctly written) fashion, this means that 1 level of difference is more than the half of 2 levels of difference.

I'm not sure if this second part of my *theory* is being clear enough. I will put an example (numbers just for the example):

15 IS vs 14 ID = 5 IS vs 4 ID

2*(15 IS vs 14 ID) = 2*(5 IS vs 4 ID)

15 IS vs 14 ID < 10 IS vs 8 ID

2*(15 IS vs 14 ID) > 10 IS vs 8 ID

Not sure if it is clear enough.

Another thing I am considering, just considering, in my *theory* is that skills levels below 8 (not including 8) are treated in a little bit different way than higher ones. But this is not something I would defend strongly.



Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/24/2009 9:53:26 AM

This Post:
00
113010.19 in reply to 113010.17
Date: 9/24/2009 10:15:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


I'm not saying is *simply* added or subtracted. I'm saying skills are compared and that what is relevant to the GE is not the skill level but the difference.



In that case, why does it seem that the optimal strategy in BB is to improve your defense before your offense? If it was a simple matter of adding and subtracting, it shouldn't matter what you improve first.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 9/24/2009 10:15:55 AM

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
113010.21 in reply to 113010.19
Date: 9/24/2009 11:39:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409


I'm not saying is *simply* added or subtracted. I'm saying skills are compared and that what is relevant to the GE is not the skill level but the difference.



In that case, why does it seem that the optimal strategy in BB is to improve your defense before your offense? If it was a simple matter of adding and subtracting, it shouldn't matter what you improve first.


I insist is not a *simple* matter of adding and subtracting. There are several things influencing a shot decisition regardless the *simple* compared result of the match-up, wich is only one(maybe the most important) input among other things to consider.

Plus, I really do not think that training defense is something like a dominant strategy in BB. Sure, good defensive teams will do better than bad defenders having all the rest equal. Just like good offensive teams will do better than bad attackers.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/24/2009 11:43:44 AM

Advertisement