Hello,
Understandable. I agree with your assessment, but the core issue isn't the 3-2 defense itself—it's the massive, unmanaged variation in allowed skills. No skill should ever go past 20. Even if players hit 20 in certain attributes, tactics should come with built-in penalties and bonuses, factoring in a double or triple dice roll RNG.
Take tactic requirements, for example. If a specific tactic requires a mandatory minimum skill level to play effectively, players will never truly know—because nobody knows the hidden game code. What we *do* know is that every build stems from a foundational base of training and specialized Li-training. Because the game has been running a certain way for over a decade, those requirements eventually became common knowledge, which is why 3-2 works the way it does.
The developers should have adjusted every single tactic. For instance, there *were* adjustments made to stop Low Post (LI), giving players a clear idea of what skills were needed to build for it. Right now, however, nobody can tell you what skills are actually required to successfully run a full-court press, other than stocking up on 17 players to throw mass bodies at every minute of the match and just letting the coach figure it out. You're essentially forced to press your luck—and that's a huge problem.
Let’s be honest: elite jump-shooting guards are not cheap. Now, you expect that same expensive offensive player to also play lockdown inside and outside defense? Imagine that cost, combined with the salary floor, trainer costs, and weekly player upkeep. When the price to afford them becomes astronomical due to tax penalties, why on earth would any manager create that type of player?
On top of all that, you're just guessing the entire way regarding the required defensive skills. It’s simply too much guesswork and way too much risk involved. Factor in stamina issues once players hit 27 for heavy minutes, short roster penalties, and affordability penalties, and you have to ask: how is a manager supposed to afford expensive "box inside" players or properly run a 2-3 zone?
So, rather than blindly guessing, managers default right back to man-to-man or the 3-2 defense. Why? Because it's cheaper, and it's simply more effective. This core issue—fixing and balancing the various tactics—is currently buried deep in the game forums. I sincerely hope the new owner reads this and sees the debate we are having, because these are critical points.
By the way, I'm not saying the admins haven't done good things; this is just pointing out the persistent issues that need to be addressed.
Last edited by Big city at 10/5/2026 10:37:18 AM