BuzzerBeater Forums

I commend you for posting this. Similar thoughts have crossed my mind hundreds of times, but every time I came to the same conclusion - they probably suck, but in different ways.

For example, things like OI and II. We know how it works and what we need, but II is an inferior version of motion and OI is a waaay inferior version of patient (at least that's how it went with my experiments). So objectively, you can use them, but there's no reason to, when we have a better alternative.

Things like rng require specific players. High JS/JR guards and massive rebounds. To own a team made to play RNG in second division you'd have to pay salaries that could only be maintained in the first division. And even then it might be too expensive. So it sucks in a different manner.

Things like 2-3 requires a specific meta (and since we're shifting towards outside, it's even worse now), and 1-3-1 requires a both a motion-like meta and very specific players that an average player a) can't afford them b) can't find them c) doesn't have the time to make them.

Although your post has been made to provoke Justin to give us more info/spark some changes in inferior tactics, I thought I'd pitch in. Even though I didn't really say anything new to you.

Last edited by Kritulys at 09/05/2021 01:11:23

I've noticed a leap in efficiency while playing outside. At least in certain tactics.

And the balance was more of a nerf to LI rather than a buff to outside. I think this can be seen from team ratings in the end game report. 13 inside rating is now somewhat comparable to the ones of 11 pre balance.

We can find players useful when they are either good at IS, or good at both JS/IS, but without IS? Sorry, 3-2 zone will definitely take good care of you.

But then again, if we make JR cheaper, we start banging our heads at a new wall - completely overpowered players with waaaay too big tsp's. A.k.a power creep.

Because there will come a time where a 20js/20jr/20is wont even be much of a big deal without salary restrictions.