BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Well, that is not humanitarian, but when you have someone with an arrow through his you can consider him dead unless he/she is very persistant in being alive.

What would you do - help that arrow guy, or hundreds of others which are suffering from a flu, which needs just soft treatment, but left without help can die in hundreds?

All the micro nations altogether compose something like one medium-sized. It's basic economy...

Nevertheless it is a question of weather to wash hands or feet ;)...

I believe that there two ways of curing micro-nations:

1. drastic increase the number of players (app?)
2. Let people choose weather they want to compete in their (micro))nation or Utopia (as we have it now) - the most competitive place to be (but with tanking problem).

As we haven't moved to the second point I hope developers haven't abandoned the first option and are working on it.

My guess is this game is fun and safe/stable for any nation currently around medium size. Any thing small or smaller is not as fun (although small is still probably fun) and rapidly shrinking more and more towards the not-so-fun zone.

The other thing that may end up or may already be a concern is what went on in the USA in Hattrick. It was a fairly large, fairly static country and the way it ended up working out frequently was new users going in to the bottom level (VI mostly), going 14-0-0 with huge goal differentials because they played bots, and then would go up and get plastered in V. For many teams the cycle of alternating great seasons with beatdown seasons lasted for as many as three or four promotion cycles before they finally got up consistently - and then the margin between V, IV and III often was much narrower.

I haven't seen many complaints on that here, but I could definitely see something similar happening in between, say, small and medium, where DII would be filled and there are relatively small but significant number of teams in III. But I think the league filling algorithm here is different so the teams here would at least likely be consolidated into fewer leagues upon demotion.