BuzzerBeater Forums

Excellent passing among PG/SG, your SF and PF need good passing too, around 10-12 preferably.
Good junpshot but also decent range, your PF will shoot more 3’s (at least for me. SG and SF still shoot way more), your C will shoot the odd 3 too.
Basically good passing and range is a good start. driving and dribbling are also important, also ont forget JS.

The offense runs through the PF primarily. So I'd say as much PA as you can get at that position will be most beneficial. I've had PFs with 15 and 19 PA and that really unlocked abilities of the tactic even more.

You will want the best shooting at the PG and SG positions. This includes having JR, however it's not as crucial as I used to think for the position. Along with that you will want high DR and HA because your guards will still go inside for layups. Usually these looks are off the pass from your big man.

As for the C position, they will do a combination of inside and outside shots. So you will want a guy that can hit a JS, but also go inside and get a layup or dunk.

As for the PF, definitely want a great combination of outside shooting, inside shooting, and passing.

Your offensive flow was inferior to their OD (only 13 assists), and together with the fast pace this caused your guards to take bad shots early on the clock - a text book example for when not to use fast non-inside tactics, sorry to say.

Against a good OD, the only thing worse than a contested outside shot is an uncontested one.

What means "repositioned" shooter?

What means "repositioned" shooter?

For example, you put your SG (best shooter of the team) on Center position and play patient.

Gonna put in some logic

1 LI (only consider other tactic if you are training or built weird, even predicted this is often the best)

2 LP (to avoid prediction or focus on foul outs for a shallow opponent), inside isolation sometimes works same (avoid prediction)

3 PtB (to avoid prediction)

4 BO (to avoid prediction)

5 Patient (to exploit training potentially or other holes in a team/utilize specific offensive player)

6 Princeton and isolations (when someone is training/weak competition because of OD hole- plus prediction possibility)

7 R&G is for points playing teams that don't understand and haven't stacked OD to the gills, otherwise it's a useless tactic

8 Motion is basically useless if they have OD I think


I wonder if we went over last couple seasons of b3 how the different lists of tactics would fare up versus win % when said tactics were used.... but the sample size on some tactics (other than LI really) may be too small to represent any statistical accuracy. DI finals and cup finals in nations of 300plus users as well as the knockout round of b3 only might be a large enough pool to get most of the tactics relative win %s. If we exclude all the same tactics versus same tactic (LI versus LI) that should prove most telling of all- how often does LI lose to other tactics at the top level, predicted or not and how do the other tactics do under the same evaluation.

how often does LI lose to other tactics at the top level, predicted or not and how do the other tactics do under the same evaluation.

i'll just add one thing on this part
LI does not lose to another offensive tactic as it goes up against defensive tactics.

if a team A plays LI and m2m and the opponent (team plays OI and 2-3 , team A lost, but the offensive tactic lost to the 2-3 zone.

i know it seems like i am nitpicking your statement but the conclusion should be read differently.

the best offensive tactics are not better as one is more resource demanding than another, but defensive tactics are the true indicator of what offenses work the best.
unfortunately, good OD offsets almost completly outside tactics. if you have od 10on big men you could care less what the other team is playing (RnG Motion Patient or whatever)
wheas inside tactics require not only id but also SB, also some OD on the opposing passer and it is harder to stop.


i think a solution to this would be either to nerf OD to loosen up outside tactics effectiveness, or bump up SB/ID to offset inside offenses

Unfortunately basketball is a two way game where the team that scores the most wins.

Therefore whoevers offense did the best, surely defense a factor, wins.

For example if a team is very bad at offense, it doesn't matter if the other team is good or great at defense, the team still isn't going to score very well.

Defense is important but you can't win with defense because there are no points scored on defense.

This is why basketball is an offensive game and offensive players that can guarantee points are the most valuable. It's logical.

If you hold the opponent to 1 bucket but you can't score one yourself, you still lose. Defense just can't win. Only scoring buckets wins.

Now that said, if you want to include defense in the picture, fine. I am happy with simply comparing the offenses strategies alone regardless of defense or even prediction. This will work great for LI since there is nothing that really stops it. You just need a stronger opposing LI or some massive help from prediction most of the time (and or just a much better team). There have been some games that make it look otherwise here and there lately.

IF you want to put in all the offenses versus all the defenses and come up with pace-adjusted scoring efficiency you are gonna need a lot more data and a lot more complex analysis.

so by *your* understanding of *my* reasoning, if an opponent has OD 6 and ID 12, you would still attack inside because LI is the bast and that is your best skillset.


as for can't win w defence. maybe ask your self if you understand game mechanics when a lucky fan comes into the game and scores agains od 17.

as for comparing offenses just among themselves, all i can say is like if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, DEFENSE will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

Unfortunately basketball is a two way game where the team that scores the most wins.

Therefore whoevers offense did the best, surely defense a factor, wins.

dont want to get into a further argument as i already switched priority to low on this thread.

a perfect analogy to what you said, but in real life, to be clear, is the following.

unfortunately basketball is a game that prioritizes playing tall guys.
therfore whoever is bigger wins. surely leaping ability matter as you can be tall and weigh 150kg and not jump more than a french fry, but height is still the trump card.

i am in the wrong for engaging in a subjective and relative argument. this is not even philosophy.
i agree w the rankings of the offenses based on the most frequent skillsets available and what defenses are being played today. some miught come to the same conclusion based on different arguments. it really does not matter. niether to you or me why others think you the other is wrong, short sighted or narrow minded, even more so when we agree.