Moreover, it completely screws new people in smaller nations, basically ensuring that if they start at a very high league (like... Japan's JBBL!!!), they cannot even purchase the players that they need to compete.

Reply to this

By: Jason
To: cws33

385379.5 as reply to 385379.3
01/09/2014 16:24:29

This is exactly how I feel...The gripe has long been that either LI can be exploited, or the other offensive tactics are not strong enough to make it worth building a team that plays a different tactic....so instead of addressing that (fixing it) like you said, they came up with a band-aide that totally kills the realism of the game.

Can you imagine the Phx Suns getting criticized back in their RnG days with Nash and company because they were too predictable with Nash pushing the ball, and they should play Low Post on some nights...Or Phil Jackson and the Lakers/Bulls taking a bad rap because playing the Triangle offense was just too predictable and boring and they should mix it up for the sake of doing so? Sorry Shaq, we are going against our Low Post strategy and going to start firing away from 3 because it just looks bad relying on you every night!

Completely silly...Teams should play to their strengths, but now in BB, playing to your strength seems to come with a penalty.

Reply to this

By: Jason
To: INA-malice_201

385379.6 as reply to 385379.4
01/09/2014 16:27:39

Hey Malice...I assume you are talking about the restriction on purchasing better players when you are a low ranked team, which is separate from the GDP issue....

Ii never considered this though with teams starting out in D2 or D3 in smaller country leagues....Is that issue really affecting new teams across the board, or just an occasional issue?

Reply to this

By: INA-tetrahydroc_98
To: Jason

385379.7 as reply to 385379.5
01/09/2014 16:45:21

i agree jason, it seems rather pointless feature, if anything a balancing of strategy should have came, if they equalized the strategy's, it should come down to team builds as a whole. strategy's should be equal as far as what goes in and what doesnt.
of course different strategy's call for taking more shots, and inside shots are the most commonly made/taken shots. so maybe this could be achieved by tweaking the inside defence/shot blocking a bit so players make a smaller percentage of the shots against better defenders. all this GDP feature does is make a user think about changing his tatic, which if hes built a team to one tatic then why would he bother? i could see how it might effect users deciding to try and have good inside and outside scoring so they can run multiple tatics, but that should be what every team wants to do anyways. if they evened up the tatics i think you would see players start building squads that do both well

Reply to this

By: INA-Hassan Donnelly_295
To: Jason

385379.8 as reply to 385379.1
01/09/2014 16:54:10

i'll be the contrarian: i think the move to prepare for another's tactics is plausible, but with the caveat that the prep is worth only a couple of points, not enough to overcome, say, HCA or depressed enthusiasm. to be specific: it's not that the Phoenix Suns had to change their strategy -- let them play basketball the way they see fit -- GDP is for the team that is facing the Suns: how do we counter a fast-paced offense? right now, i don't see a problem, and indeed it makes the game a bit more competitive and strategy intriguing. IF the effect is limited . . .

Reply to this

By: Jason
To: INA-Hassan Donnelly_295

385379.9 as reply to 385379.8
01/09/2014 17:10:15

I hear you, but the problem is when you have a case study like the USA NT team, where there was a 41 point swing based on how GDP was called...that's excessive, and shows how impactful it can be. Again, this idea came about because the Games Designers heard the gripes about how powerful LI had become...the answer was to either fix LI, or make other tactics stronger and a better option...not penalize teams for running the same tactics every game, just like 99% of real teams do.

There are few teams in the NBA who have the ability to play multiple ways....but even a team like the San Antonio Spurs who has been a team that can match up well against fast teams, slow teams, and everything in between...but even then, the way they adjusted was to either speed up the pace, or slow down the pace; but their offense didn't completely change...It's not like they said okay, tonight, we are going to go through Duncan, but tomorrow night, it's all about outside shooting.

Again, my gripe, is that this is simply a band-aide to the bigger issue. Take a team like mine, I don't have outside scorers...don't even want them....I am as predictable as they come. We play to our strengths, but now because of being predictable, I get penalized? That's just strange to me. You might know I am going to go inside, but knowing that shouldn't make your guy with 12 ID stuff my guy with 18 IS....Player ability should still be the bigger determinate.

Last edited by GM-Jason at 1/9/2014 3:24:27 PM

Reply to this

By: INA-Jelme_117
To: Jason

385379.10 as reply to 385379.9
01/09/2014 21:45:54

Really harsh assessment, but I can't say I disagree. The effect is very pronounced at both high levels and low levels.

Reply to this

By: INA-Sir EmZ_792
To: Jason

385379.11 as reply to 385379.1
01/21/2014 13:03:08

GM Jason, I also agree with you. I even post it in the forum, "Bad effects of GDP" in the english section. Now the basketball simulation is now reduced to a guessing game. Well maybe it's better to start to seek the counsel of Nostradamus

Reply to this

By: INA-Sir EmZ_792
To: Jason

385379.12 as reply to 385379.9
01/22/2014 09:25:45

Your right, I strongly oppose the GDP, its really frustrating that the reason of implementing this GDP, is the "LI" issue. If there is a fault in a system, you have to do something about the fault, you cannot untie a knot, by tying another knot. New teams will also be affected, they will be compelled to utilize other tactics even if they are not used to it. In the long run with GDP, this basketball simulation will become a rock-scissors-paper game, 33.33% to guess if it is normal, outside focus, inside focus. and then if it is fast, slow or normal phase.

Reply to this

View message in thread.

BuzzerBeater Community

Press Blog

GDP