BuzzerBeater Forums

Ben ik de enige die vind dat er iets gedaan moet worden aan de NTs?
Het valt mij echt op dat bijna elke ploeg 'Look inside' en 'Man to Man' speelt... Zo wordt het wel héél eentonig!

De game engine is te gemakkelijk gemaakt voor LI en MTM... Sommige teams hebben geen SG's meer. enkel PG's.

kzal het rap uitleggen wrm:

voor inside heb ge aanvallende nodig: een passing PG nodig ( HA, DR en PA) en IS ( en JS) op je PF/C

Verdedigende heb je nodig: OD en ID/RB/SB

Outside: Aanvallend: JS, JR, DR, HA op guards en JS en JR op je bigs.

verdedigend: dito als hierboven.

Echter, om je range deftig te maken, heb je een veel hogere hoeveelheid JS/JR nodig dan PA voor inside, en dus wordt je guard gewoon vele duurder. Omdat die dure guards moeilijk te onderhouden zijn, kiest iedereen ervoor om LI te spelen. Kijk naar de BBBL. Daar is het ook constant LI hoor. Zolang de GE berekingen voor het maken van verre shots door JR niet verbeterd worden, is LI de enige manier om te scoren...

Steeds meer en meer NT's zijn zich aan het specialiseren in LI teams. Onze eigen NT is daar geen uitzondering op, sterker nog. Onze eigen NT loopt helaas achter op de algemene curve. Dat is ook de reden dat ik uit de BBBL gedegradeerd ben. om een speler op te trainen naar de nieuwe standarden die de NT's hanteren in het opzicht van Guard. Qua Guards beginnen we de rest van de NT's eindelijk bij te benen. Maar de meeste andere NT's spelen tegenwoordig uitsluiten met PF'en. C's zijn uit den boze, en Belgie heeft slechts 2 rasechte PF's...

Je kan maar zoveel doen als de eigenaars van de spelers willen meewerken. En het is echt moeilijk om hen competitief te houden en te trainen wat je vraagt. Bij zowel de U21 als de NT doen we ons best.

Bij U21 is de LI tactiek nog meer aanwezig, want daar is OD en PA trainen voor guards, samen met IS, ID en RB trainen, veel gemakkelijker dan een degelijke SG te maken...

khoop dat je 'geklaag' daarmee beantwoord is ;) we doen ons best. meer kan je van ons niet vragen.

Ja en het ligt ook ni aan jullie he :)
Jullie kunnen niks veranderen aan de GE... Maar zou toch leuk zijn dat er terug meer variatie zit in het spel zelf?
Ik zelf weet niet hoeveel werk het zou zijn om er terug meer balans in te brengen, zodat teams terug opteren voor bijvoorbeeld een Motion of een RaG. Zo kan bijvoorbeeld onze nationale ploeg, beroep doen op goeie tactiek keuzes waardoor we weer iets meer kans maken in toernooien :)
Want zo blijft het ook voor nieuwe landen gewoon ontzettend moeilijk om ooit naar boven te klimmen!

Ja en het ligt ook ni aan jullie he :)
Jullie kunnen niks veranderen aan de GE... Maar zou toch leuk zijn dat er terug meer variatie zit in het spel zelf?
Ik zelf weet niet hoeveel werk het zou zijn om er terug meer balans in te brengen, zodat teams terug opteren voor bijvoorbeeld een Motion of een RaG. Zo kan bijvoorbeeld onze nationale ploeg, beroep doen op goeie tactiek keuzes waardoor we weer iets meer kans maken in toernooien :)
Want zo blijft het ook voor nieuwe landen gewoon ontzettend moeilijk om ooit naar boven te klimmen!

ik zou haast zweren dat ik iemand hoor klagen over mijn tactische keuzes :P

om aan de GE te sleutelen moeten ze duizende simulaties doen. Om te sleutelen moeten ze een goede reden krijgen om eraan te sleutelen en voorals nog is er geen andere buiten de klacht dat we teveel inside spelen. De Devs beweren dat je outside even goede resultaten kan krijgen als inside, maar ik moet de eerste ploeg nog tegenkomen voor wie dat effectief ook geld ( met hetzelfde totaal aan salaris voor de beste outside georienteerde ploeg als de best mogelijke inside georienteerde ploeg...)

Ik zeg ook niet dat ik het ni eens ben met jouw tactiek keuzes :)
Gewoon dat het algemeen voor ééntonigheid zorgt! :)

Complains that there are not many Belgian managers active on the forum ;(

Last edited by !ngkor at 1/16/2013 1:47:06 PM

I shall agree with Vinseks, lately I feel that playing LI / MoM is THE way to go. When you see PGs with 14-15-16 IS being bought for enormous amounts of money ... you can think it isn't about to change.

For a game that is tactically rich as basketball, it seems a bit worrying to see all the best teams playing all the same. I don't think it is about to evolve, but it could : perhaps turn the useless 2 - 3 defense into something usable, or lower the salary increase generated by inside defence.

That's all what this is about : a 19 OD is waaay cheaper than an 19 ID, thus everybody has a wonderful OD and a lower ID.

And yes !ngkor, there are too few belgian managers active on the forums, but what can we do ? :)

We can hope for better. This is called "the complaining wall" for a reason :p

I shall agree with Vinseks, lately I feel that playing LI / MoM is THE way to go. When you see PGs with 14-15-16 IS being bought for enormous amounts of money ... you can think it isn't about to change.

For a game that is tactically rich as basketball, it seems a bit worrying to see all the best teams playing all the same. I don't think it is about to evolve, but it could : perhaps turn the useless 2 - 3 defense into something usable, or lower the salary increase generated by inside defence.

That's all what this is about : a 19 OD is waaay cheaper than an 19 ID, thus everybody has a wonderful OD and a lower ID.

And yes !ngkor, there are too few belgian managers active on the forums, but what can we do ? :)

first off:

2-3 isn't useless. You just need the right players to play it. Just like you need Od to stop JS on bigs, you need OD to stop penetrating guard.

say you play 2-3. opposing guard dribbles your guard and penetrates. the C ( or PF or SF) then has to make a decision. Move towards the incomming guard to stop him, or stay where he is and give up an uncontested shot. If he does the later, then that usually means 2 easy points for the opponent. If he moves out towards the guard and the guard takes a jumpshot, you need OD to defend it. Say the guard wants to pass the ball to his teammate behind the C. You need OD to intercept (or pressure) the pass to force a turnover.

Now, most C's have OD lvl 5 (and i think i'm being a bitt optimistic with my llv 5 OD). a guard comming in with JS 12 vs OD 5 ==> no effect. Guard with PA 12 comming in and going for the pass against OD 5 ==> very little chance of intercepting that ball, let alone force a bad pass.

So, if you want to play 2-3 correctly, you need bigs with OD. Why do you think that most NT's are replacing all there C's by PF's. The PF's have a lower ammount of ID, RB and SB ( in most cases compared to a C). However, they got more OD. With the OD that those PF's got, you can actually use the 2-3 zone correctly Futhermore, having PF's with decent guardskills ( as you see them popping up all over BB nowadays) means that you can better play the Princeton attack.

So Motion and RaG might not be very good attacking options anymore with the new GE, but Princeton is very effective against 2-3 zone.

Whereas the focus used to be on Motion/RaG for outside and LP for inside, it now is Princeton for Outside and LI for inside. The idea behind the GE now is that a team full of SF's is better than a team full of primairy skill monsters.

That is why they introduced cross training, etc. Sadly it also reflects the NBA to a certain degree: Look at Durant, Lebron and Melo. At the Olympics, they played SF and PF spot. and they were untouchable.

Aslong as height isn't factured in when it comes to defense like it is in the NBA, then you'll keep have these players with wrong proportions.

I'm pretty sure that once people see the effects of a Bigman with JS 14 JR 13 playing in outside tactics, that they will start training those bigmen again and that you'll see that the other outside tactics become more popular again. But we got to face the facts: It's much easier to train Guards with a high amount of IS than to train Bigmen with a high amount of JS and JR without giving them somekind of OD. I'd love to try and play RaG with a PF with JR 13 (without that PF being a SF!) The problem is finding a person who's willing to train it.

so the 2-3 zone isn't useless. It's just that hardly anyone has the team to play it correctly.

Thank you for your most precise answer.

I learned much reading your post, and while I understand and agree on all discussed matters, you must reckon that a tactic that is only usable using rare (thus expensive) players isn't a good tactic. It should be "usable" at all levels ... or so I think.

I have recently bought a player with "surprising" skill in regard to his playing position, I must say I'm amazed by him, although this would have never been the kind of players I would have bought otherwise.

it's usable at all lvls tbh. In Div IV and III, you have trainee's with OD lvl 6-7 on the bigs. Their OD is enough for it to work. At II and BBBL lvl, you'd probably required OD 10-12 on the bigs for it to work really well. That is also the reason why most NT's nowaday's are replacing there C's by PF's. Not only are PF's harder to defend with their JS, HA and DR, but the small trade off in ID, RB and SB that you make, can be made up for by playing a succesfull 2-3 zone. And the bonus is that if your PF happens to have a decent JR, you can use him in the Princeton attack aswell.

So where as 5 seasons ago, The things deciding good teams from the less good where the teams with Passing PG's ( OD, HA DR and PA) and high attacking bigs ( high IS), Nowaday's, it's PG's with OD, HA, DR, PA, IS and preferably ID, with instead of having the C's with high IS, it's now PF's with less IS but more JS, HA and DR.

It's pretty realistic. just think of it. Dwight Howard ( Lakers C) if a big guy, but isn't very good at defending jumpshots (not great OD). Chris Bosh (PF) is much better in defending jumpshots (so better OD) and better in making jumpshots, but isn't that strong on the inside.

If you put Bosh vs Howard in a game, you'll see that Howard will dominate inside play ( in scoring defending and rebounding). Bosh will try to pull Howard away from the ring to take a jumpshot since his defense isn't very good at that...

Problem is, in BB, Bosh is gonna beat Howard 9 out of 10 times in a game. In Reality, Howard is gonna beat Bosh 9 times out of 10. The reason is simple: Howard is taller and thus makes it hard for Bosh to defend him inside. he'll try to push Howard away from the ring on attack too, to force him to pass or take a shot from futher away.

The problem with BB, is that it doesn't take the height of a player into account. Just imagen. You put a player 1 ( 221cm, IS 10, ID 10, RB 10) vs player 2 ( 198 cm, IS 13 ID 13 RB 13)r. In BB, player 2 will dominate player 1 ( assuming neutral tactics in attack and defense) both on attack and on defense. However, in reality, the difference in height makes player 1 much to strong for player 2 to apply decent defense. Give the ball to player 1 down low in the post, and he's practically walk over player 2 ( Player 2 will have to try and push player 1 away, but with such a height difference, chances are that player 1 weights more than player 2 and thus that becomes a nearly impossible task).

In BB, the players height only affects the trainingspeed. In Reality, it does much more. It would be very hard to implement the heightfactor in determinating rebounding etc. But because that is the fact, you'll see that guards with IS combined with a bunch of PF's will beat teams with normal guards and C's without secundairies. Just look at most NT's nowaday's. 5 seasons back, they had 400-500k Monster C's ( all primairies). Nowaday's, salary is much lower because you need good secundairies... You rarely see a C with more than 300k on NT's nowadays. Most of the large communities got PF's on their teams now.

As much as we like BB to be realistic, it's damn hard to replicate the real world into a Game. Imo, they've done pretty very well. But if they change the GE, they'll be improving some things at the costs of others. It's a trade off the Devs have to evaluate.

A change in the GE also gives large communities an advantage. Those communities have more players, with different builds. So they can addapt to changes much faster than mid-size or small communities.

So if you want to use the outside tactic, it's time to find what skills the bigs need for it to work well. i reckon a high Passing, JS, JR and secundairly HA and DR on the bigs would be required ( hey, that sounds like the description of a PF...) But untill someone makes a JS 14 JR 13 big and test it out, we won't know if that is what you need to make the outside tactic work...

I agree about player's height. Since it only affects player training, the GE only takes stats into account.

I also understand why most teams are now going for PF's instead of C. But isn't a little too sad if your starting 5 was down to 5 SF with only little difference ?

If the game is fine right now with PG or SG full of IS, so let it be. But then, it should also be possible to play outside with the right inners. As you say, perhaps high PA, JS, HA and DR should be enough. I understand these kind of players are quite rare on the transfer list, thus making it difficult (and expensive) to test, but right now I'm wondering if it would work out. I got an inner with such stats, and while he totally rocks on an inside play, I'm not quite sure about his outside play.

BTW, when playing outside, why is now princeton better than motion ? I have been playing motion often, and don't like slow tactics, thus princeton is quite unkwown to me. R&G I have forgotten since a long time, alas this is also an "old" tactic :(