BuzzerBeater Forums

well my team i ignored last season and somehow ended up in D3.. which i clearly dont belong.... i think i could play just about any strategy and win ;)

anyway.. it was just a feeling.. now im getting the feeling that maybe i'm wrong and outside teams are doing ok....

most of my feeling is based upon the nba tuning i did where i had to raise all the 3 point shooting to get it to match reality.. but i could have also just retuned the ratings system an accomplished something very similar....

there are a ton of parameters to fiddle with.
EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ (66639.86)

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:49:21 PM

I have been looking recently ALOT for inside players, they all have IS,ID and RB and maybe a little bit stamina and maybe a little bit free throw... Noone seems to train driving, which I believe should be important as well for an inside player. (but I am a noob, and might be totally wrong).

IT is relatively hard to train anything other than IS, ID, RB and SB for big men. Therefore, even though in reality they can use Pass, JS, and even OD, people tend not to go out of their way to train these skills.

Guards, on the other hand, can train JS, JR, OD, HN, PS and DR with a relatively simple rotation and without sacrificing (too much) performance. My sense is that OD, JR, JS and PS are the critical skills there, and everything else is gravy.

Taking the 4 core skills as described, I don't think a 4-skill guard is in any way inferior to a 4-skill center.

This is, of course, just my interpretation of the situation. I guess the point I am trying to make is that I don't think you don't have to train something just because you can or just because it pops fast, as I am afraid quite a number of people do right now.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 1/1/2009 5:36:42 PM

i know what you mean, the average 3point percentage is lower then the reality ;) But the system works and is pretty fair, for teams with stronger inside or outside player(i would say outside managers has a little advantage now because of salary etc.).

But i won't risk the balance to make the game, more real.

That was to be expected, 4 inside trainers rushing to post that everything is just all right, let's not change anything Kinda funny.

I have more weeks of jump range training than any other training, by a big margin, and still my percentages are going down, even facing inside managers with guards with low salaries.

There is quite a big number of teams not playing with 30k$ + players at every spot you know, and the game might not be happening the same way for us than for national teams and top teams in national leagues.

There is quite a big number of teams not playing with 30k$ + players at every spot you know, and the game might not be happening the same way for us than for national teams and top teams in national leagues.

You know also, that national teams have balanced rooster who could play both inside and outside + i expect that the managers mostly got elected because they know the game.

When inside tactics was soo powerfull, why do Nationalteams play so much outside focus games are the managers dumb?

I also play this game with weaker playrs, but it looks pretty similiar because my opponent have weaker players to at this stage of development from my team so the matchups was pretty similiar.

I have more weeks of jump range training than any other training, by a big margin, and still my percentages are going down, even facing inside managers with guards with low salaries.

So what happens when you increase outside shooting +5% like Forest plans? That means the percentage raise from average 33 to 38 percent, i expect most teams playing outside strategies ;) Actually you could have succes with both strategies, which is pretty fine in my eyes but they are crazy because i even don't see that i am an inside trainer^^

mate... before you jump the gun, (assuming i am one off the guys saying everything is all right, since I did say that) I train guards and play OD and Outside offensive attacks... the game engine will never be 100% alright in a game like this. that is impossible, but the game engine is very close to the 100% and I think the results I see always make sense when you look at the real statistics and not at the team ratings/player ratings. I think most people agree with me they don´t make a lot off sense.

Your statement about most players not playing with 30k$ + salaries I feel is spot on. Outside the top teams, teams are not balanced and you will not get balanced results.... I agree with that...

With regards to the percentages going down, this is what I ment before and already was confirmed. Inside players only need 3 skills. IS, ID and RB. Outside players only need JS, JR, OD and PS. Most people I talked to say OD is the slowest to train skill. So the fact you have to train 1 more skill and 1 skill is the slowest one to train, maybe that is why on the long run you might loose out compared to people training inside skills. I believe (and only time will tell this) that this will even out, because guards fetch a lot more cash than an IS player. You make more money when you sell a few trainees and you can buy inside guys...

When inside tactics was soo powerfull, why do Nationalteams play so much outside focus games are the managers dumb?

Yes.

Sorry, just kidding. Couldn't help myself

i dont know of a way to gradually go between what we have now and what we want to have...

what we have now is that getting a rebound is picked from a distribution proportional to the ratings.... sounds reasonable right?

but there is a big difference between picking between a level 1 and 3 and a level 11 and 13. In the first case, the level 3 gets a 3x time advantage in rebounding.. in the second its almost a toss up and so who gets more rebounds is actaully just a function of a) who had more defensive rebound opportunities and b) luck, which is how you are getting the "buggy" rebounding results you are getting now.

on the other hand, what i would propose to do is look at the mean rebounding on the court.. subtract that off and then have the weighting be a sigmodial function of the difference from the mean... so there is some maximum advantage you can have over rebounding... a sizeable but finite advantage... (so one team can never get all the boards).

EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ (66639.86)

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:49:46 PM

i dont know of a way to gradually go between what we have now and what we want to have...

use weight and both algorithms, one who use absolute differences and one who use relativ difference.

For example:
absolute difference Team A gets Rebound 55%
relative difference Team A get rebound 51%

weighted relatives difference/absolute -> 3/1
result -> 52%

so you get an slithly change to the way you like it, with a pretty basic way of implementation.

This depends on how the GE calculates the percentage probabilities. It is easy to find the midpoint ex post, but I am not so sure this can happen in the process of game simulation.