BuzzerBeater Forums

I think they must have some moral code to lose in purpose. I personally would watch opponents skills all the time... even if its kind of lame.

I have a (rather baseless, so rather pointless) theory as to why 2-3 zone doesn't work for frigging anybody.

Are you ready to hear it anyway?

OK, here it is: The point guard is important.

I know, can you believe it? It sounds crazy, but the guy bringing the ball up the floor actually needs to be guarded by someone or he's in danger of setting up a successful offense, which could lead to points or other such nonsense.

I'm not in the mood to dig up the matchids, but I'm certain I've seen a few games where a powerful LI team was thwarted by a 3-2 zone with lots of OD. I'm thinking Heathens pulled it off at least once, but can't be arsed to check.

As little sense as it makes, has anyone tried playing a 1-3-1 against LI teams?

Last edited by darykjozef at 5/3/2011 9:25:01 AM

Yeah, after I posted I went through the trouble of finding his match history. It seems massive OD works best against LI teams, which is friggin retarded.

I'm saddened that this has four balls, because it's utterly illogical. I'd think that anyone who's read this thread would realize the possibility that the BBs didn't use 2-3 because there is an insufficient number of players in the BB-verse trained to excel in 2-3.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I hope the argument doesn't get reduced to baseless points like this one. It's almost as bad as political debate now.

I'm saddened that this has four balls, because it's utterly illogical. I'd think that anyone who's read this thread would realize the possibility that the BBs didn't use 2-3 because there is an insufficient number of players in the BB-verse trained to excel in 2-3.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I hope the argument doesn't get reduced to baseless points like this one. It's almost as bad as political debate now.

Not to pick on you specifically but I am saddened that you can't see the logic of my (superficial) study. The experts don't use it much and when they do they don't succeed.

I am even more saddened to see you retreat to the tired and worn out last line of defence that has been fought over so many times where the defenders of the 2/3 say, "it works fine, you just need a team where everyone had 14 OD, 14 ID and 14 SB to make it work." Absurd!

It's not logical whatsoever! There are many possible reasons for why the experts aren't using it. Assuming that the reason must be "because it's broken" is illogical by definition.

Nice straw man/appeal to ridicule combo in that last paragraph. Just what we don't need in this debate. I'll stick to defending the points I've actually made, thanks.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 5/4/2011 7:00:00 PM

If 2-3 isn't "broken," (ie there is indeed a certain type of team/player build that can benefit from using 2-3 zone regularly), then it holds little effectiveness in this game, as an incredibly small amount of people have these "2-3 zone" teams and hence had success with it.

Therefore, it needs to be scrapped or tweaked to favour other attributes, because of its ineffectiveness. I'd use Full Court Press before a 2-3.

If 2-3 isn't "broken," (ie there is indeed a certain type of team/player build that can benefit from using 2-3 zone regularly), then it holds little effectiveness in this game, as an incredibly small amount of people have these "2-3 zone" teams and hence had success with it.

Therefore, it needs to be scrapped or tweaked to favour other attributes, because of its ineffectiveness

Or, the aforementioned "certain type of team/player" needs to be developed. Just saying, if this team/player exists, then 2-3 should not be changed. Otherwise you've compromised a key design principle by changing the GE to fit the existing teams/players, instead of forcing the existing teams/players (if they want to use 2-3) to change to fit the GE.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 5/4/2011 8:38:36 PM

There are many possible reasons for why the experts aren't using it. Assuming that the reason must be "because it's broken" is illogical by definition.

Ignoring hundreds of posts on an issue and just taking one piece of evidence alone and saying that one piece of evidence alone isn't enough to prove the point is illogical. This is exactly the sort of strategy the tobacco industry used for years to fight the truth. Dispute all facts in isolation. Postulate highly unlikely but not impossible alternatives. Make extensive use of Argumentum Ad Hominem. This is what we are constantly seeing from your side of this "debate".

I think that you have faulsely identified my argument as a straw man argument because I added in extra details which you are unwilling or unable to provide but your fellow "2/3 isn't broken and the earth is flat" teammates have discussed. You merely stated possibility that:

the BBs didn't use 2-3 because there is an insufficient number of players in the BB-verse trained to excel in 2-3.

Yes so even in the NBBA, in fact in the whole game there aren't good enough players to make the 2/3 zone work. So it isn't broken, just no-one anywhere has good enough players to make it work.

Please explain how this isn't broken?

Seeing as I have already been labelled as using ridicule as a tactic I may as well continue.

The details I got from one of your buddies who had it revealed to him by an old Gypsy during a seance that you need players with great inside defence (the number 14 was mentioned, and it has to also be raining fish), equally good outside defence (no number was mentioned but I think we know what equal was, however the game must be played at midnight during the winter solstace) and when some people said that they actually did have players that good (incredibly rare) there was a further revelation made from deducing the meanings of crop circles that you also need equally good shot blocking (and to sacrifice a goat).

A man to man works with any player. You can run a 3-2 with guys with respectable OD and it does what it is supposed to and cuts down outside shots. A 1-3-1 needs a good center and then it does what it is supposed to. FCP does get a lot of steals but it does give up a probably unreasonable number of offensive rebounds but it doesn't need any magic players, just better defenders than the opponent has handlers and pasers. 2/3 needs players that even you admit don't exist in the BB-Verse to work. Broken!