BuzzerBeater Forums

I used to think like that, but from watching NTs I've changed my mind. It seems that an 18-16 matchup is maybe not quite equivalent, but not all that much different from an 8-6 matchup. Whereas what I believe Charles keeps hinting at is that for example a 15-10 matchup is not much different from an 18-10 matchup (all other things being equal, which they usually aren't) - once you dominate, you dominate.

This doesnt make any sense. Why would be anybody so cruel to force you be as good as possible?

Hmm, the question is if this kind of domination isnt against the idea of multiskills itself. I would understand that if there would be any point around lvl 15, where you are starting to pay most (but getting almost nothing), so the further upgrades wouldnt be so relevant, but if it isnt that way, is possible that there doesnt exist any multiskill recipe (well the JS/IS have to be logically smaller) against monstrous lvl 18 guys in defence.

Perhaps these skills like handling, driving, passing, jump range should lead you more often into situations where player dont face full lvl OD of the opponent, if he is slower and sligtly less able to handle things. Therefore OD isnt supported by other skills well (like the real ability to avoid passing would be pretty much based on his ability to pass). If it isnt like that, is kind sufficient enough to have monster OD.

There are several ways to think about this issue.

Last edited by aigidios at 10/22/2010 10:09:43 AM

Again, confusion. I can afford a 300k player, but the tradeoff isn't worth it. I have four starters between 100 and 150k salary, if I have to get rid of one of them, or lose depth, my team gets worse.

I was kind of waiting for that comment. It comes down to salary cap raising petition again. If you could afford 300k player with your other 4 (100-150k) starters. What prevents you from using that additional salary to spread out between positions? Let's say you had 150k starters before, now you have changed to 180k starters. Nothing really changes. The economy is still moving towards equilibrium. If players overall skill will improve then salarys will drop and perhaps in 3-4 seasons those monsters might be an option. Still unevenly trained players will be unwanted. Top teams are looking for players that have the best skill/salary ratio. Those are the teams that could theoretically employ those players, but unless those managers will get significantly dumber, none will go for the one man show. If we lower the salarys considerably for all players right away, we will have a situation where a lot of teams incomes per week are raising to the roof again.

in the past the relativ skill diffference was considered today it is the absolute ;)

Well indeed, but Its not about results Im arguing, but about the way that player have to look like.

If I would set the lineup against Heathens, would be with PG and SG at OD on 20lvl, SF somehow below and inside skilled and played low post, the only thing which I would wanted from my guards in advance would be passing, because OD is such a universal thing, where doesnt matter how good you are anywhere else, it just prevets everything itself, great JR, JS, HA, PA, isnt it like that?

Maybe Im wrong, but the point is simple. To have here a game where is necessary to support offensive skills by other ones, I think would be healthy to have it in the way so defensive skills have to be supported like that as well, to be effective. In that case will not make monstrous defence so much difference, because its usually followed by lacking of other skills, as well as having monstrous JS itself doesnt make much difference if that player cannot move properly.

So the only interrested thing on these 20lvl bi-skilled monsters would be theirs salary.

Last edited by aigidios at 10/22/2010 10:48:29 AM

If you could afford 300k player with your other 4 (100-150k) starters. What prevents you from using that additional salary to spread out between positions?Let's say you had 150k starters before, now you have changed to 180k starters.

You would shift less power from the other role,as the concept of salary formula it's the same for all the role and teh difference between a 180 and a 150 player would be less than a difference betwen a 150 and a 120 player
I'm not saying that the one-moster will became the best strategy in just a moment,but some teams can finally start to consider it.That's basically it's a point of the discussion that many users underrate,the freedom to choose among more strategy and tactics with some chance of winning.