BuzzerBeater Forums

well there is one different factor: if the inside isolation ends up with best option playin guards at inside with rebounds pulled high there will be no more players higher than 196cm at all.. no inside players in game.. kinda weird isnt it?

Of course, but this is only based on one particular game. We will need more data.
Then, we really don´t know what "inside" or "outside" isolation mean. We tend to think that they are related to the focus of the attack (like the focus change from Look Inside to Run and Gun). But they perfectly could be related to which kind of player is chosen to be "isolated" in the attack: an inside or an outside player regardless of the focus that could be neutral.
In my opinion, these new tactics are designed "against" man-to-man defense, which are now dominant in the game. If you play zone, then it does not matter if you put a SG at the PF position, because when he shoots from outside he will be defended by a outside defender. But this is just my guess.

i dont see a point to create anything against M2M defense while it is very vulnerable for 90% of teams in BB.. but that is whole different story..
i will analyse this one game and next games and tell you the result than. what is crazy is that this tactic never showed up to be tested. i think things should be tested first before they influence whole game in important games. becose if you try to compete with the best here it takes few seasons to build up strategy and buy or train players sutiable for that and after 2-3-4 seasons what is half a year of focusing to one competition maybe than someone just releases nonsens without reasonable testing that my friend would piss you out and you lose your faith (if you had) to the game.. this was all hypotetical yet but the fact is this game doesnt work properly especialy for those who play it for a longer period of time and trust me there are some dolars in their supporters..

I see your point. The problem is that friendly matches are not really good for testing. Private League testing would definitely give Supporters an advantage against non-Supporter managers.
But I bet that if they have released these tactics, they must have fully tested it because they have all the tools to simulate any possible situation in their computers.
In this case we just need to have "patience" and "take it easy"... ;-)

There is no reason to defend BB's like you do in this thread. I really don't understand why Outside version of new tactics was for whole season in SC and inside wasn't. And even if they tested in their computers there is no knowledge among wide community and that's was zajino wrote. Now it can be lottery until we learn this tactics and long term strategies can failed against risk with unknown tactics. And also as soon as we have knowledge of new tactics some long-term strategies can be devalueted and the others capitalized ...
And about supporter and non-supporters and testing in PL matches. Non-supporters can find as many PL games as they want and they can study them even if they can't set the lineups.

I am not defending anybody, I am just giving my opinion.
From the beginning, the BB policy was not to give much information about tactics and how game engine works, but a short and ambigous definition in the rules. I expected the same for these new tactics.
As I said, friendly tests are not meaningful for most people.
PL tests can be seen by everybody, but only Supporters can know the actual skills of the players, and even you can organize a PL with your friends and make all kind of tests and experiments with the new tactics.
That's all I said.
My argument is that only one match is not enough to evaluate the tactic, and that the game always looks for the best shot regardless the tactic you chosed, and that we may have misunderstood the sense of "outside" and "inside" isolation.
If you have any argument against this we can continue with a nice discussion about this topic.
But if you just want to put some pressure on the BBs, then I´m sorry if I am not helping, but I am afraid it will not work (see the small/big countries thread).
From my point of view, including new tactics and the challenge of exploring them and making them work is the best and nicest part of the game, but this is just my opinion and the reason of my posts.

As I said, friendly tests are not meaningful for most people.

Inside Isolation and Inside Box and One wasn't introduced in friendlies no matter if we call them meaningfull or usefull or something else. That's the biggest problem. At least these 2 tactics couldn't be able to use in competitive matches this season.

If there is no significant complaints against Outside Isolation and Outside Box and One, I have nothing against them, they can remain in choice for competitive matches.

If Emilios theory about playing inside players in isolation like whatever they are able to play is true, is possible that this "one" in defence against him has to change everytime opponents coach change his mind, otherwise it probably not would be an effective defensive tactic. While is possible that you have to have this defender "inside".

Last edited by aigidios at 1/20/2011 9:31:25 AM

As I said, friendly tests are not meaningful for most people.

Inside Isolation and Inside Box and One wasn't introduced in friendlies no matter if we call them meaningfull or usefull or something else. That's the biggest problem. At least these 2 tactics couldn't be able to use in competitive matches this season.

Well, you can count how many matches you will lose by isolation putted against you. While there are not many managers which are using current tactics effectively, I dont see a point in introducing them later if developers are sure about them. If this would make a difference in B3 or a first league, perhaps these teams are supposed to wait for a new tactics little longer, because in high league it can make a difference.

Do I understand you right? Do you suggest skip them only for Level I leagues and B3 games and keep them for the rest?