BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Is one level always one level?

Is one level always one level?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
113010.19 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

This Post:
00
113010.22 in reply to 113010.21
Date: 9/24/2009 11:50:44 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
I completely understand your argument but what you are saying is that the differences between levels is the same no matter how high you go. So it is still a "function" of a simple difference.



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.


That's not my experience. However, if what you say is true, it fits well with your "not so simple difference" theory.



Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
113010.23 in reply to 113010.19
Date: 9/24/2009 11:56:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959


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 think it have to do with the numbers of comparisions, when your guard use his od against nearly every action of his opposing player - it seems to be lucrative to have an advantage.

Another thing because you do it, it when you have new created players, they will be a missmatch, till they get scorer takes a while(more skills), and with the improvement of OD you elimate the missmatch and a four man offence is in my eyes stronger then a defence with a "hole"(hope i could say that in english)

This Post:
00
113010.24 in reply to 113010.22
Date: 9/24/2009 11:58:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409
I completely understand your argument but what you are saying is that the differences between levels is the same no matter how high you go. So it is still a "function" of a simple difference.


Sure. Otherwise a NT game will look very, very different than a III Div Game.



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.
That's not my experience. However, if what you say is true, it fits well with your "not so simple difference" theory.


That strategy worked good for you. I'm sure some others managers will tell you that focusing on offensive skills was the clue to win for them. I would say a balanced team worked for me.

I really want to state clear that I'm not saying that focusing on defense is a bad strategy. I just do not think it is THE dominant strategy. (Precisely, I do not think there is a dominant strategy. Unprecisely, not a really dominant at least)

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/24/2009 6:34:48 PM

Message deleted
This Post:
00
113010.26 in reply to 113010.22
Date: 9/25/2009 7:18:23 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
I always thought that 2 low levels difference (4 vs 2) was a larger gap than 2 high levels difference (14 vs 12) in the matchup ratings. That's why they changed the rebounding model, since it was getting too random at the higher levels. I think the other ratings still behave like that.

I'm not sure though.

This Post:
00
113010.28 in reply to 113010.27
Date: 9/25/2009 10:33:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
There we go, straight from BB-Forrest (god I love the dutch "BB quotes thread)

(66639.2)

rebounding I think needs to be rebalanced, I think it worked well for low rebounding skills but the algorithm we are using makes the relative advantage of 1 point difference in rebounding diminish as rebounding skill gets higher. I would like to retune this so that a difference of 1 level gives a fixed advantage across the entire spectrum.... there are similar retunings that probably need to be done across the GE... I am hoping we will do this at the start of next season, but we haven't had a full internal debate about it, and it would be a major retuning project and so we would be concerned about changing the game balance too rapidly.



Last edited by BB-Patrick at 9/25/2009 10:34:09 AM

This Post:
00
113010.29 in reply to 113010.28
Date: 9/25/2009 10:38:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409
So, it really might be a difference between logarithms.

Advertisement