BuzzerBeater Forums

I'd like to bump this thread again, because I still think the problem is there.

The 3-2 zone tactic is really bugged imo.

In this game: (1422) We played a man-to-man + normal + home, our defensive ratings:

Perimeter Defense strong (medium)
Inside Defense respectable (high)
Rebounding respectable (medium)

Then 1 week later: (1456). We played a 3-2 zone + normal + home, our defensive ratings:

Perimeter Defense average (medium)
Inside Defense respectable (low)
Rebounding respectable (high)

National teams' enthusiasm drops very slow, so there ain't a huge difference there. Funny thing is that we put our best outside defenders in the game in the 2nd match, because we want to test the maximum, while in the 1st game we just balanced out and played with our best man, instead of aiming at OD.

We see 2 full levels less PD here, while we expected it to be higher, especially due to the 3-2 zone and the OD aimed player selection. There is nearly no difference in ID (-2 sub) and RB (+1 sub), which is strange as well, since 3-2 should at least decrease ID. I don't know if it has an effect at RB, that's not in the rules so maybe it doesn't affect RB.

But it is very strange imo.




Last edited by BB-Patrick at 5/5/2008 2:58:49 PM

I think that whole 2nd game was completely bugged.

lol. The dutchies blew you away hehe. (although you prolly hadn't any enthusiasm left)

Btw I don't think the bug is in the engine code, I think it is a presentational error in the written defensive ratings / word ratings.

The outside offense of the USA is respectable (medium), and our PD is average (medium). But when you check the points per 100 shots you see that our guards kind of blew them away. Both guards of the USA are around 70 pts per 100 shots, while the written ratings say the outside scoring is 1 full level higher than our defense.

I think our defense should be around proficient/strong, but due to the presentational error in the written ratings it says average(medium), but the pts per 100 shots show that our guards defense was better than their offense.



Last edited by BB-Patrick at 5/5/2008 3:04:45 PM

lol. The dutchies blew you away hehe. (although you prolly hadn't any enthusiasm left)

Roughly .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

Ah not even under 0, nothing to whine about then

I hope you can check this up in your special bug fix day ;). Because I think there really is something wrong with this tactic / shown ratings.

I hope you can check this up in your special bug fix day ;). Because I think there really is something wrong with this tactic / shown ratings.

Yup, I agree. Though I was initially suspicious, it does seem like perimeter defense zones don't work as intended. Or at least don't seem to visibly affect the OD ratings.

Yeah in my previous posts i've posted a few examples and my thoughs.

My thoughts are that the tactic does work as intented, but it's another presentational error in the written ratings.

These two games (2 games after eachother) are the best examples I think.

(1422) normal, man-to-man, strong(medium) PD
(1456) normal, 3-2 zone, average(medium) PD

and here is an explanation about these matches (24361.30) (24361.32)

Hmm my examples are all of NT matches indeed (because I rarely play 3-2 zone)

But the topic starter, who was the first to adress this problem, used club matches as example. So I guess it affects both of these.