BuzzerBeater Forums

so in your opinion scoring 0 on 48 attempse FT is ok?

Even with smallest luck level there should be at least 20-30 % in my opinion

I know it is not real world but rest statistics are quite similar to real, like 2p efficency - 40-50 %, or 3p - 20-30%

so in your opinion scoring 0 on 48 attempse FT is ok?

Even with smallest luck level there should be at least 20-30 % in my opinion

I know it is not real world but rest statistics are quite similar to real, like 2p efficency - 40-50 %, or 3p - 20-30%

When a player has no skill in shooting free throws -- yes, it's quite ok. You're welcome to train free throws to rectify the situation.

so in your opinion scoring 0 on 48 attempse FT is ok?

When a player has no skill in shooting free throws -- yes, it's quite ok. You're welcome to train free throws to rectify the situation.

Really? You really honestly believe that?

If there's a game mechanic reason for having players shoot zero percent on FTs (as an incentive to make sure FTs are trained), then I'd buy that. Otherwise, it's a glaring weakness in the simulation of a basketball game. I'm with many of the others in this thread... a floor of 30% probability is reasonable, 0% is ridiculous.

I think it is well balanced. If everyone would be able to shoot them the training would be osbsolete. If your players are that bad you fell the pain but you can work it out. On the other hand I think there shouldn't be bigger difference between wondrous and better FT and jusr proficient one. First, you train whole team and players are usually at very different levels in FT - so it is up to you whether you want to train your worst again and again when others are getting almost no benefit because their level is more than ok already. And most importantly if the difference (between 10+ levels and others) would be harsher it would lead into really odd end of game unless game engine would change. It would be much easier to get into lost matches by fouling and becaue leading team would not do that on purpose it would be a strong disadvantage. It could lead to absurd situatuions when how many players losing team has to foul out would be crucial for the result of the game. Or how many players both teams have to fouled out if the recently stil leading gteam would ract the same way.

I think it is good as it is. I wasn't content at first than I realized it has to be like that. As long as FTs are that easy to improve there is no need to adjust anything.

If you want reality go on the court and play. This is a strategy based on basketball not a pure simulation.

If you want reality go on the court and play. This is a strategy based on basketball not a pure simulation.

I recognize that. All things being equal, though, the attraction of BB is that it looks a lot like real basketball. 0% FT shooters don't look like real basketball. Where we differ is on whether having 0% FT shooters achieves a strategic goal of the game... I don't think it does.

so in your opinion scoring 0 on 48 attempse FT is ok?

When a player has no skill in shooting free throws -- yes, it's quite ok. You're welcome to train free throws to rectify the situation.

Really? You really honestly believe that?

If there's a game mechanic reason for having players shoot zero percent on FTs (as an incentive to make sure FTs are trained), then I'd buy that. Otherwise, it's a glaring weakness in the simulation of a basketball game. I'm with many of the others in this thread... a floor of 30% probability is reasonable, 0% is ridiculous.

Atrocious free throw shooting is the game equivalent to someone who has never in his life practiced free throwing. It is quite acceptable to me that such a person might miss 50 free throws in a season.

so in your opinion scoring 0 on 48 attempse FT is ok?

When a player has no skill in shooting free throws -- yes, it's quite ok. You're welcome to train free throws to rectify the situation.

Really? You really honestly believe that?

If there's a game mechanic reason for having players shoot zero percent on FTs (as an incentive to make sure FTs are trained), then I'd buy that. Otherwise, it's a glaring weakness in the simulation of a basketball game. I'm with many of the others in this thread... a floor of 30% probability is reasonable, 0% is ridiculous.

Atrocious free throw shooting is the game equivalent to someone who has never in his life practiced free throwing. It is quite acceptable to me that such a person might miss 50 free throws in a season.

indeed.

if it wheren't this way, there would absolutely be no reason to show FT skill seperatly...
Every seperate skill has it's level, and those skills are used in calculations when something happens. As shooting FTs is something on it's own, I don't think any of the other skills need to go in that calculation (except form and maybe stamina versus the time played recently). One does not jump while shooting a FT, so why would JS skill be involved??
On the other hand, the FT skill MIGHT be used when calculating if a shot goes in or not, since not every shot is a jumper. If a player gets open, and shoots with no defender in his face, then I would find it logic that the FT skill could be part of the formula, along with JR to adjust to the distance the player is from the ring.

In my personal opinion, JSskill can not influence a FT. FT skill on the other hand, could influence the field goal percentage...

so why does a player get 0.4 from the field and 0 from the line? because he has decent JS, and refuses to jump from the line, while he jumps every time from the field, or dunks it, or lays it in ... ;)

Forget about realism guys, I know little about basketball, yet I won the cup two times in a row now, and played the POs in my leagues since when I started playing.
If it where about realism, I wouldn't be able to do this with my knowledge on basketball.

and now I will likely get a torrent of reactions over my head. ;)

I have to agree with the fact that 0-48 is quite ridiculous. Because a 0% of sucess in FT means that atrocious skill level is equal to never succeed. The guy could go 0-100, or in some cases I've seen around, 0-140 in the season.

If this makes sense, then by logic an atrocious passing skill should lead to an endless couting of TO's - since he wouldn't connect not even one pass. Because passing is not used only for assist couting, but for preventing TO's as well.

I think FT, like game shape and resistance, should be limited to profiency level. Because it's pointless to have a lvl14 in any of these, since the matchup with defender (like inside defense vs inside shooting, outside defense vs handling and so on) doesn't happen.

Starting with 25, up to 95 is a good thing.

you're absolutely right. The same is with rebounds. I got player with lowest rebounds' skill and:

average time per game: 19 minutes
average rebounds per game: 1,7


So how he's able to do something without any single skill?

Mentioned 1,7 is something similar to 20-30 % of FT efficiency - and it is exacly what I was expected from that game :)

There is no reason to compare these skills.

And why?
a)maybe his opponents were bad rebounders too; it also matters what his position in the game is
b)Sometimes the ball just bounces your way. All you have to do is to have two hands any at least one eye to see thew ball coming to you. No skill needed. (ok this a relity-wise argument and BB is just a game)

Rebounds have different structure of training than FTs have. i don't see any valid argument that impact of level of skill of one should emulate the other.

but you could have atrocious free throws and still hit 30% from the line, with high atrocious you made in average 20-25% i would say.

But rebounds are calculated a different way then free throw, because it is a team skill ...

So my player with atrocious inside shot could make layers, because i got an solid inside attack which helps everyplayer on court to finish inside. In free throw it's a think for the single player alone.