BuzzerBeater Forums

Exactly, my 1M salary team could do nothing against your 1M6 team during our B3 finals two seasons ago. Do you have to be cocky about it ?

I was just outlining the huge salary difference (1M6 vs 900k) in the game you linked to show us how to counter 3-2.

I'm not denying your huge experience/palmares and I'm sure you have a lot to teach us. Like for example what is the point of losing purposely cup and league finals during the time you had the strongest and most expensive team in the world :
(114303020)
(114415276)
(114415277)
(115620858)

Cheers

One more question: why RGB has 115/88/87/123/123 pp100 and DV has 91/94/89/47/55 pp100, and the final result is 87 vs 99? What's the meaning of pp100?

If you look at the stats more carefully, I had 12 more rebounds than him. Because of that and TO's and steals; I was able to take 12 more shots and 16 more free throws. That is like 20 more possessions. That was unexpected considering I have only 2 players with rebounding on the court. Maybe it was luck, or maybe RGB's bigs don't have much rebound.

Last edited by capali at 1/6/2022 9:50:51 AM

First of all, congrats to capali on winning the title! He's been on top for many seasons, gave a lot of thought to the way he built his team, and showed superiority on the GDP on a few occasions, including the finals.

The fact that I would win on most runs makes me feel a bit better about yesterday's game, and I actually think it's cool that there is a random factor in the game. It worked against me this time, but surprises happen in real life too and it's good to have them in BB.

But there are still a few points I wanted to address.

I agree with those saying that 3-2 might be becoming unrealistically strong. I can't understand how the big mans are able to defend, block and rebound so well at the same time. I feel that there has to be some penalty somewhere. If the outside players are unable to stop the opponent outside player from driving in, doesn't it make sense that it would be hard for the inside player to do all of that together in such a good way?

The fact that a player has 5 ID and I attacked inside and it's still doesn't mean a thing because the opponent "hides" him with the 3-2 is a good example of the overpower of this defense. This player was also somehow able to take 10 rebounds with awful rebounding, but I guess it's more of this random effect here than anything else.

If 3-2 works like that, what stops us from making outsides player with 25 OD, no ID at all, inside players with 25 ID, no OD at all, and just play 3-2?
As I see it, that's unrealistic, especially these days when players in real life (and buzzer too for that matter) get more and more versatile, and again, gives too much power to this defense. I think there has to be some penalty on these cases, maybe through fouls, which is actually the main issue I wanted to talk about.

I'm willing to bet that even on most of the runs that I won in, I still made more fouls. Even though my offense was supposed to create more mismatches than Capali did I still fouled much more. My Chinese player has 23 DR, 22 HA, 19 IS, 21 JS. Didn't get a single free throw. I had better flow, my OD grade was as good as his (even though he played 3-2 and I'm M2M), and still I made much more fouls that led to much more free throws that actually decided the game.

I really think it's about time that we change the foul system in Buzzer. The fact that it's mostly based on whether the player has the secret attribute of aggressiveness or whatever, and not based on well - how good of a defender he is - is crazy to me. I mean, it's ok to give it some weight, but it's crazy that it's the main factor. Mainly because we as managers has nothing to do about it, but avoid buying/training these players. If I could tell my players to be less or more aggressive and to do more or fewer fouls, the situation would be different. But to lose simply because my players like to hit more than the opponents? weird foul system in my opinion.

Anyway, congrats again to capali who learned the GE very well and used it perfectly. Really impressive season. See you next season

Last edited by Bill_tipesh at 1/6/2022 11:23:56 AM

Great insight from you about this! Too bad for your loss but amazing season! I'm going to comment on few things on this.

I agree with those saying that 3-2 might be becoming unrealistically strong. I can't understand how the big mans are able to defend, block and rebound so well at the same time. I feel that there has to be some penalty somewhere. If the outside players are unable to stop the opponent outside player from driving in, doesn't it make sense that it would be hard for the inside player to do all of that together in such a good way?

I agree that it's too good as a defensive option but overall the negative effect to offense balances it out. It would be difficult to nerf just the defensive side without actually affecting the usefulness of 3-2 zone. If nerfing the defensive side, they should also make it so players with 5-10 IS can score at least from dunks and free lay ups. That way the total amount of points would increase in 3-2 defensive games but the balance would stay as is.

If 3-2 works like that, what stops us from making outsides player with 25 OD, no ID at all, inside players with 25 ID, no OD at all, and just play 3-2?

Because you can't make 25 OD players that have enough offensive power to counter the downside of having only 3 offensive players on the court. If I understood correctly, DY had only 19 OD on few of their players. This is the compromise you have to make to have enough outside offensive power overcome the dilemma of having only 3 offensive players. So ironically this leads to situation that actually the weakness of 3-2 zone becomes the outside defense since 19 OD players can be pretty easily beaten by 20-22 JS players which there is plenty in the game currently.

I really think it's about time that we change the foul system in Buzzer. The fact that it's mostly based on whether the player has the secret attribute of aggressiveness or whatever, and not based on well - how good of a defender he is - is crazy to me. I mean, it's ok to give it some weight, but it's crazy that it's the main factor. Mainly because we as managers has nothing to do about it, but avoid buying/training these players. If I could tell my players to be less or more aggressive and to do more or fewer fouls, the situation would be different. But to lose simply because my players like to hit more than the opponents? weird foul system in my opinion.

I also believe there needs to be changes about this. Possibly tying weaker of the defenses to the foul proneness? That would also counter the unrealistic builds of having high OD no ID and vice versa. Maybe the bigger the difference is between these skills, more foul prone the player is? Young players would naturally have pretty similar defenses before they are trained so this would help the younger players a lot too. Fouls would become a problem only later if the players are trained to be too much focusing on one defense. This also would naturally nerf 3-2 zone a little bit or at least raise the requirements of the defensive bigs.

As some people probably know, Finnish national teams have focused on 3-2 zone for a while now and we've been able to build these players ready to play in NT already at ages between 23 and 25. Of course the skillsets are still a little bit limited at that time but still shows how little effort is needed to build top level bigs. If they would need ~10 more levels of OD not to be so foul prone, it would take 2 to 3 extra seasons of training which would make them be ready to play much later as well - similar age what players at other positions require to be ready. And of course the OD would take a little bit out of the potential. Although not much, but still might put you to a situation where you have to have 1 or 2 less skill points in the main 3 skills.

But as I said before, I really don't think 3-2 zone overall is that overpowered. Just a good option to build your team differently.

Last edited by atsii at 1/6/2022 1:52:30 PM