BuzzerBeater Forums

Planning on winning any league game through 3-2 and SB this season, Manon?

.....that's how I won most of my league games last season.

What's with so many GMs tanking? I'd assume after the plethora of nice words you guys do love the game with its complexity and perks. Were we all wrong taking you guys at face value when you were telling us that? Sorry for the provocations, but it is seriously disappointing that people who are tanking are telling others how they should play the game instead of following their own advice and suggestions. Knowing the type, I wouldn't have put it past Nik0, of course, but I thought you knew better.

All I have said is to build players for the level your playing at.

This does not mean anything written like that. So if I want to promote in D1 in 2 seasons should I build players for D2 because that's my current league level? Similarly if you start in D5, should would you stop at players who can start for in D4 and D5? Is there a rational argument for it? Because all I'm hearing is, "well you can just put him on the bench, if you underestimated yourself and you make it to D3". A lower potential player is almost never a better choice, under any circumstance, except if you don't have money upfront. A higher potential pays dividends even if he's not trained perfectly (but trained nonetheless), a lower potential can help you as well, but when you don't have a use for him anymore or when you need money you'll sell him for far less profit. And that's even for players who have been trained very well.

So there you have it, from an investment perspective and value for money you have to realise you're giving bad advice, Manon, and the fact that in your reasoning you, as a D1 team, would be the beneficiary of the behaviour you are proposing is kind of suspicious. The only reason to buy a lower potential player is if you don't have enough money and you want to get someone to train.

I have a trainee in Utopia 6'2'' 19yo MVP, he is 8/4/8 9/8/6 3/6/4/7 8/7 (35872040), I bought him 2 weeks ago for 68k. Do you think 68k is not affordable?

From where I'm sitting, it seems you're saying: you lesser managers train starter-allstar potential, so we can buy cheap backup players, and leave the MVP+ to me and the other D1 managers. If you ever make it to D2 or D1 good luck overpaying for better players. If this is the case, I'm extremely disappointed. Otherwise, I invite you to provide some better argument on why people should go for lower potential players, than "you don't need them, because worse builds are achievable even with lower potential and better builds are for D1 teams".

Also please do look at the example player I posted and tell me at what level he will be a liability for your team.

In D3 as starter he would work ok, in D2 as a backup, too. And if he had more DR and less OD I would be happier. Now tell me what your estimate sale price for your 108TSP guy at 24, when you promote to D1, would be. Now compare that to a 108TSP with 11/6/8 12/12/9 16/15/14/5 MVP http://i.imgur.com/BtRTbVw.png who is still very much trainable and costs less than 80k in salary (perfectly normal for a starting D2 big man).

At any rate this guy is for sale: (34359550)
If you think a D2 team like you will be next season should go for the build you posted, then why not buying him and demonstrate your theory by example? This guy won't get there but close enough: you might sacrifice some OD for better primaries.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/17/2015 6:37:49 AM

Just know 1 man wont get it done playing box 1.

Aside from Patient, that is true for any defensive or offensive tactic. My team has always been balanced anyways.

I was asking about box-1 defenses because I've seen people using it having closer games than I expected. It might have been a fluke, but I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss it as such.

Anyone else has experimented with box-1 defenses?

Yes it just so happens that the last 2 users who are tanking and giving (bad-in my opinion) advice to others are GMs. GMs being like 30-40 this seems to be a quite high percentage compared to the average user, hence the focus.

And what do we repeat over and over ?

They have said several times they like the challenge, told off other managers for suggesting making the game easier in some aspects. Manon in particular always claimed that he liked to explore new roads. That the complexity of the game is good. How does tanking fit with the narrative?

The issue I have is about hypocrisy, clearly. Some people who have told us that they enjoy the challenge in the game and are here explaining to younger managers what they should do, but do they apply those suggestions to themselves? No, they tank to cash money and bag a great trainee. Perhaps we should make a thread about the logic behind tanking and how good it is for BuzzeBeater? Not to mention all the challenges you have while doing it.

Of course, I would say the same thing of Mike Franks or myself if we decided to blatantly tank to get money when rebuilding. I don't think that's ever going to happen. I would cower in shame, since I've also said repeatedly that I like the challenge and the difficulty level of the game.

Note that I was one of those defending Misagh's strategy when he won B3 the second time, thinking that it was perfectly legitimate. I just think that if you criticise that time of behaviour, then you need to be coherent and avoid blatantly tanking (which is different than rebuilding), if you say you like the challenge, you need to be coherent and avoid just banking in order to raise millions from gates and player sales.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/17/2015 7:06:35 AM

Which GM reinstated my comment about geriatrics? Just curious...

I deleted it because it was not appropriate and it was fairly personal, yet someone had the good idea to go and reinstate it. I had to delete it again myself. Well done.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/17/2015 7:14:59 AM

Now, we are totally off-topic, mainly my fault, so you can answer if you wish, but I'm stopping here

good call and thank you

So for those interested tonight i won a game using Outside Box n 1 defense and a Outside Isolation offense.

Opposition had played Patient most of season, so i banked on that again and the OI offense was to counter the fact that he had poor outside players on his roster.

His starting 5 have a salary about $80k more than mine. And it was an away game, but i probably had higher enthusiasm, but still it was a nice win using non-standard tactics.

my last two games i have beaten the ladder leaders in my league. They shot a combined 49 from 167, 29% FG%

Defense being the key obviously.

I left a lot info in my last reply lol.. I think thats as about as indept we are going to see until someone else tinkers with it more ..I have played it few times, I think I left the part some could look at to figure it.. I don't have the defensive specialist to make it work like it should. Because theres non to work with, to do so.

yes the game can be close but you need 1-~2 all defensive specialist to do so.. and a balance defensive team all around.. Some tactic are dominated all the way for a team for example LI.. you need a cookie cutter, . I feel Box-1 is the same.

I feel box-1 is a team culture tactic. a cookie cutter tactic build like LI