BuzzerBeater Forums

You mention "logical builds that fit player archetypes better" as your goal. It's important to have clarity on what your desired goal is, what does "player archetypes" mean for you?

Is it: PG = passer, SG = scorer, SF = defender(?), PF = Inside scorer, C = Shotblocker?

I feel like the NBA has a lot more bigs who can pass and shoot 3s like Jokic, tall guards who can do it all like Scottie Barnes, and is moving towards a break from traditional archetypes.

Informing and wanting to know your thoughts about several areas in "man to man vs 3-2 zone" topic

In real life basketball around 70-80 of inside shots are defended by bigmen. Of course they play differently than bb, cause they use less zones and more tactics like drop coverage, switching, doubling and so on. Do bb bigs in man to man defend similar percentage of inside shots? I do think 3-2 should have more inside shots defended by bigs than man to man, but man to man should still reach atleast 70 percent. It is one of reasons why 3-2 is so reliable - bigs defend post

Another aspect in regards to man to man is if OD is "nerfed" on bigs, then there appears exploit where opponents can sometimes put their shooter at c/pf on offense and abuse bigs. Sort of like how reverse patient was. Man to man would remain inferior to 3-2. Fix coud be to add tactical option of switching on defense not just based on positions, but also on opponents players


Rebounding now depends on energy. Does that mean that young trainees who have to play 48 min will also lose out on this? That just makes training even more difficult. Are there any plans to lower minutes requirement to 36, so that managers can stop putting players for 48 min in a game?

Shot blocking being too strong in combination of 3-2 zone could have been solved rather easy by just finding way how to make shot blocking on jump shots less effective & "bigs" breaking 3-2 zone with ability to shoot easier than in past.

If you want realism, having modern basketball would mean that centers and especially every PF can shoot 32-38% for 3 on high volumen. Against modern 3-2 zone, teams just switch to 4-1 offense and by default one of bigs gets wide open, or elite passers break zone with interior pass through zone.

Lot of us, who are in mist of expensive rebuilds ( hall of fame potential players, paid real money at age of 18-19, + expensive max head coaches + seasons spent in training ) are now feeling screwed over with new patch because we selected and trained players based on old tactics, and now training is:
1) harder due progressive fatigue
2) slower, due changes
3) selecting players based on skills that now have different cost levels leaves us in really bad spot


Overall, if you want more realism, your actual aim should have been to find ways how to make OD & SB less effective, to not have 68-78 games, and more of actual basketball games, with +100 points scored every game.
Also it's hard to talk about realism when you have so many players out there with +165 skill level. Basically every A tear team has his own version of Lebron.

Also main reason why so many teams in meta had shotblockers comes from sheer fact that having well balanced PF/C with inside scoring AND inside defense being 20 or higher costed too much. It's your salary calculation that caused high end role players ( like 20 SB, 20 ID, 2 jumpshot , 8 inside shot ) not other way around.
Also in personal experience, "all around Cs" neither were good at defense nor offense, but costed crazy money. That's why nobody wanted to us them.

Needless to say, you have issue with "elite passing" that costs crazy money, yet has almost ne practical effect in game. Hence, as we talk, there are only 13 players on market that have passing over 16, and all of them are either centers or terrible players. That's yet another way how you could have solved low scoring & super unrealistic impact of OD & SB. By simply making passing offset them. But no.

Not picking on you, but I don't understand what's with the realism and 165+ players. Surely, you don't want to give the richest 10-15 teams the best players and call it a fair fight? This is normal if you are playing a multiplayer game because everybody wants to be involved or at least have a shot.

I agree (some strongly) with the other points but I have seen the high-skilled players complaints on discord, as well.

Hello

It’s 2-4 real life year to get that 165+ player . If 15 people have it out of,13k thousand members in the game. what the complaint really?

A few miss mistake in training that player never reaches over 125+. 140 if ur lucky , & its not free ,upfront cost, Is 7 million+. this. Is before you even created anything., that nothing to sneeze at. Then 2-4 real life years creating the player.! With no mistakes

Team salaries increasing every week, trainers , stamina game shape.. not easy!!! Those 15 top manager or whom ever earned it.. so yes, i want them to have it, if they earned it..

Last edited by Big city at 8/10/2026 12:48:41 PM

What did they earn? The top 15 managers you mention are almost never the ones that trained these 165+ monsters, they just bought them after another very devoted manager spent real life years doing the training part.

What did they earn? The top 15 managers you mention are almost never the ones that trained these 165+ monsters, they just bought them after another very devoted manager spent real life years doing the training part.

Your problem with that is what? We can look every thing negatively or we can embrace it took 2-4+ real life years to create the player to come to the game. Somebody took the risk to create and somebody took the risk to buy ! It doesn’t lessen the risk of a lost.

And they sell for 3mill+. Again not cheap, 15 out of 13k managers, The odds of me or you facing such team is 0%.

Shot blocking being too strong in combination of 3-2 zone could have been solved rather easy by just finding way how to make shot blocking on jump shots less effective & "bigs" breaking 3-2 zone with ability to shoot easier than in past.

If you want realism, having modern basketball would mean that centers and especially every PF can shoot 32-38% for 3 on high volumen. Against modern 3-2 zone, teams just switch to 4-1 offense and by default one of bigs gets wide open, or elite passers break zone with interior pass through zone.

I actually agree with this sentiment strongly, this leads to a question I want to lead with BB-Marin on this front:

I'm aware that you tinkered with the formula and do not plan to visit much more salary recalculations for a little bit, but if you are not intending to enforce stricter costs on OD skill (because we have yet to see the effect of 3-2 nerf, as it is still in testing phase) , is there

A ) Discussions discussing the impact of 20 + X Skill in the game (legendary +5, so 25, 24,23, etc.) It was said before that 20 vs. 22 isn't much of a difference, but if that was the case, how come I see numerous upon numerous 22+ skill in IS and OD on the TL? Obviously there is value in there for Top level League 1/B3 teams and their respective NTs. I'm not saying kill these players entirely, but there should be drawbacks and "penalties" for going each skill beyond 20, because today it is rather simple to go and make a level 23 (skill) player. (say, light penalty for 21, and progressively grows the further away from 20 you go to 25, 26, etc.)

B )Discussions in the 3-2 Zone Nerf to fundamentally involve "PF" more on offense. so far the archtype isn't value much on the TL, as you have players like this guy
(51024208)
who should be dominating the game from PF slot. Right now if you plug that build as PF against 3/2 zone he's facing guards for jumpers and bigs for interior defense. There should be a way that a very skilled PF "breaks" the 3-2 just like the OP suggested in the quote.

Due how much their salaries go up, majority of trainers end up giving their "Lebrons" to richest teams & top 15 anyway.


Look at B3 tournaments and how almost all teams are created. It's not home grown talent, most of them just, for one or more seasons, buy best players from TM, mostly because they have infrastructure for bloated salaries, where majority of coaches who spent actual years training those guys, often don't.

If you are stuck in 3rd division for whatever reason, and your prospect goes from $50K to $110K you will either sell him or make your roster worst for financial sake. In both cases, it won't help you.


But this irrelevant to a topic, bigger issue with new "loophole fixing" patch is ignoring how loopholes were created in first place. With poor game engine, that kills any offensive creativity, strongly overvalues defense, players literally teleport in 3-2 zone as almost all outside shots are somehow contested by guards, and almost all inside shots are contested by 2 ( shotblocking Cs ) .

PF spot is being complete and utter waste, where even if you have some PF who should be shooting well from outside, game engine does not allow any sort of offense where you could benefit off it.


I think that lot of game-fixes could have been achieved by simply adding motion offense that includes variation of 4-1 offense ( that would be direct counter for 3-2 zone ).
Small roster issue? Well, BB already has one useless defense, pressing, so why not rework pressing into progressive fatigue of opponent that will be punishing for small roster teams? Or have them foul out bit more in run& gun due more possessions played?
Want to prevent every team from overusing SB center? Well... One of ways how to NOT achieve it is to make "all around centers" even more expensive, while still being two-way- useless.


Salary cap & taxing on money hording should have been announced at least 2 seasons ago so players can adjust over time.