BuzzerBeater Forums

But there's no balance in real sport, not at least in NBA. LI is what most successful teams use, putting pressure on the defence team. So the defence team has to give up something if they switch from m2m.
Although if 2-3 zone is no good vs Low Post, it is questionable.

If 2-3 works and everyone played 2-3 then everyone uses R&G tehn everyone playes 1-3-1 nad that shuts the R&G down.

having an antidote to LI will not kill it as a strategy. You'll need a team that can run LI AND maybe Patient or motion etc. So you can mix it up. Then your opponent will also have to mix it up a bit. Different teams will build for different strategies and it will be fun...

Until over hundreds of games we find another overpowered strategy. Balance can be acheived, but not overnight . I think the goal should be a balanced game where no strategy hands down dominates all others and has no counteraction.

In game design balance is a critical element anytime you give the user options. If the options are not balanced then its usually referred to as a difficulty rating.

Yes it will not kill the strategy they will use LI but will start to build Outside dominating teams because it will be cheaper to do that, instead of buying expensive SF people buy 2-3 extra SGs, the prices of players trained out of position will go down. People came a long way realizing how to play LI effectively and when that day came people asking to shut them down. I am actually closely looking for Marot's lobbying to change 2-3 zone and thinking about going back to RnG because BB has tendency to change things if people are discussing the topic very intensively.

I always played outside tactics, i have 3 good SF's which decided to make them really good on inside skills, but specially wanted to have an outside SF's, some kind of Kevin Durant. Since i realized it's really hard to play an inside zone i changed my training plan and my roster, now i'm playing LI and training diferent. Most of the teams i checked last season season that promoted are playing LI, i don't think this is a random fact.

And it's not just me who try to explain that 2-3 is a weak zone on our community others managers are also complaining there is a lack of inside zones(some of them are playing Div 1) this thread is just an example of many others.


Anyway don't worry you can train-have the team you want. We just ask that if they don't want to fix 2-3 at least give us another zone, maybe it's our problem we don't say it really clear, i don't want a powerfull inside zone, i just want a zone that can work against an inside team, where you can lose/win with it, but with the 2-3 you will lose the 90-95% of the times unless you are much better than your opponent.

You can't pay an inside player with IS 17-18, ID 18 and RE 16-17 that's lot of salary, 2 players like this is insane.

What this kind of teams did and are doing is to invest the training in the outside players. As I said they train lot of JS&1n1on SF-PF so apart from having IS around 15-17 on the PF-C, they can have a PG-SG with IS around 8-10 and maybe the SF over 10. Also this kind of teams have huge OD so the ID raised as secundary.

And this teams that improved the inside players&outside IS, but also driving&JS are better than a team that just focused on having nice inside skills like the ones you suggested.

It's the most common training on Spain 1n1&JS in SF-PF.

Last edited by Marot at 5/17/2011 3:03:08 PM

???

This are just some offensive inside teams, don't change my words... I also know teams that have players with ID over 15. I know from 1 team that has the C with ID 20 and PF ID 17, both having nice SB(since that players trained lot of ID) that prefers to play m2m than 2-3. If with that players you can't perform a 2-3...

Last edited by Marot at 5/17/2011 3:46:48 PM

(32895254)

Canicas inside players have good ID-SB, but they aren't good enough to play a 2-3, he also has a really good SF.

I would like to hear why this team is doing so poor in a 2-3, leaving the others players with;

SF* 8-12 FG, 1-3 3FG
C 8-18 FG
PF 7-10 FG
PG 7-13 FG

Overall 41-77 FG, 3-8 3FG

Ah, they played on Canicas home and the game shapes were similar for both teams.



That's unreal, please fix 2-3, but don't confuse more managers saying they haven't good teams to perform 2-3(lack of ID-SB), when Canicas is by far good enough to perform a 2-3.

Thanks.