BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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)

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

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.

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

So, it really might be a difference between logarithms.

I'm not quite sure when you mean with this, since I lack some mathematical knowledge, but it seems that 14 vs 12 indeed is a smaller difference than 4 vs 2.

I'm not quite sure when you mean with this, since I lack some mathematical knowledge, but it seems that 14 vs 12 indeed is a smaller difference than 4 vs 2.

Yes, it seems. I was half-way wrong with it. You might better understand the logarithmic thing as decremental performance. An example, suppose you are studying for a test, everybody starts with qualification 1 and the max is 10, if you study 1 hour you get a 4 (this means 1 hour equals an increment of 4-1(minimun)=3), if you study two hours you get a 6 (2 hours equals an increment of 6-1(minimun)=5). But, while the first hour gives you an increment of 3 in your qualification, the second hour only gives you 2 (6-4(qualification with 1 hour of study)=2). That is a decremental performance.

In my general idea I had an understanding of decremental performance in the difference of skills. When It seems that skill levels itself have decremental performance and not their difference as I thought.

So, yes. It seems that 15 vs 14 is a smaller difference in performance than 5 vs 4. I was wrong when stated the opposite. But when looking in my idea, I was pointing the right direction when thinking that somehow skills (or his difference) needed to have decremental performance.

But this is about to bring another issue. If in the simulation the increase in performance from 18 to 19 is not as high as from 10 to 11 and you start to consider the cost in salary of 19-18 compared to 11-10, you realize you are paying much more money for less performance.

This is something I will start to consider when planning training and searching the market.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/25/2009 8:25:24 PM

Or maybe it is even simpler than that. Maybe instead of a difference it is a sum:

-for inept vs awful:
(4/(4+3))=57% chance shot goes in

-for 15 vs 14:
(15/(15+14))=51.7% chance shot goes in