BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Moratorium on ALL new changes for one year

Moratorium on ALL new changes for one year

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
182276.54 in reply to 182276.53
Date: 4/25/2011 5:59:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
I think you mischaracterize the situation by saying that there is a danger that they might do something based on the recent discussion. They may do something because several seasons of semi-completely ignoring 2-3 has left the game extremely unbalanced.

I obviously believe that Charles is right that under specific circumstances a 2-3 / SB combo is doable even in the current engine. But it's unclear what that means: even if there are circumstances in which SB helps, the other skills seem to be useful in a much larger variety of circumstances.

I think what Charles has to say goes hand-in-hand with the sentiment that today's "behemoth" players are inefficient and should be trained differently, hence the salary penalty. There's an arms race to build the best guards and bigs, but efficient and versatile players for the most part don't exist.

When I saw the title of your post, I thought it was an argument against making changes that had not been announced enough in advance. I would have agreed with that, but I guess I disagree with the reason that motivates you: I don't find that the BB cave in too early to pressure on obvious point, but rather that they usually cave in too late (witness tanking: first they said there wasn't a problem, made up some numbers that you'd ber worse off, and then ended up seeing the light of reason and changing things anyway...)

I still think the salary floors were implemented too hastily, because some teams got screwed in the process for doing nothing but competing and promoting. I'm motivated because I think the BBs would make changes more effectively if the community didn't expect them to be made ASAP. Maybe it took a long time for the salary floors to be implemented, but how much of that was spent trying to tell the managers they weren't needed, instead of exploring solutions? My point is that the dialogue between BBs and community, and the resulting alterations made to the game, could be improved.

This Post:
00
182276.56 in reply to 182276.55
Date: 4/25/2011 6:16:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
You need to define "efficient and versatile" for me. I would be willing to share with you via BB-mail the skills of my players to see if they count as efficient enough for your purposes. I can promise you that they aren't good enough to run a 2-3 zone without major problems (and at a previous point I used to own players who by your understanding should be even more suited: still to no end).

More balanced, really. Especially at the forwards, and in the balance between OD and ID (ex: of course 2-3 won't work if your PF has low OD). Those balanced players aren't trained enough and they go for huge prices on the TL because they're so rare. Your team is awesome, no doubt, but if you have strong secondaries at every position and balanced forwards, you'd be one of the few.

Amen to that. I'm just not sure that a moratorium on all new changes is the answer.

Might not be. The idea would be to make the process of changing the game more arduous. There are other ways to do this, but a moratorium would be easy and would give the community peace of mind.

This Post:
00
182276.59 in reply to 182276.57
Date: 4/25/2011 7:50:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
So it seems that the view you'd need to defend is that although there are players that would make you better at running a 2-3 they make you worse at running MTM.

Just as there are players that make you better at running R&G or Motion, and worse at running LI or LP.

Teams are built around tactics, so no team that can run any tactic will be specialized enough to run one or two tactics well. Maybe the problem is that managers train/buy players that work best in man-to-man, but it's also possible to train players who are great in the various zones (but weak in M2M).

Interchangeability is not only a false ideal; it takes the strategic team-building element out of the game. What fun is it if you're trying to do nothing else but fit into a singular mold?

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/25/2011 7:51:43 PM

This Post:
00
182276.61 in reply to 182276.58
Date: 4/25/2011 7:53:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
Hard to make a concrete judgment one way or another without knowing the skills of his teammates.

This Post:
00
182276.63 in reply to 182276.60
Date: 4/25/2011 7:56:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
I'm not trying to paraphrase Charles, and some of this is devil's advocate-esque in nature - the point being that alternate explanations may exist, beyond "2-3 is broken."

But it's my understanding that 2-3, 3-2, and 1-3-1 have inside/outside emphases, so if you build a team that can play those, isn't that preferable to going M2M? (Depending on your matchup of course.)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/25/2011 7:57:25 PM

Advertisement