BuzzerBeater Forums

I happened to read yesterday this post (181900.16)

... in the same way that any offense other than base offense is by design weaker than base offense, for teams that have strong and balanced personnel

and (181900.24)

we're only going to actually make a change if we're convinced it's making the game better and not just producing a different imbalance

I wasn't playing in 2011, but I only need to read those two posts to be sure that BB-Charles is the responsible for BB being the best strategy game in the Internet ever. And his last version of the engine was the best version ever. And all changes after him, meant to be "solutions" to supposed "problems", that created more imbalances that needed new "solutions" ... only corrupted and degenerated Charles' engine.

From the first quote, we get a very clear example. How is "look inside" so dominant? Is Charles' fault? Oh, no! In his time, "base offense" was the best tactic. And other tactics were meant only to take advantage of weak points in the opponent.

Some "brilliant" mind decided that an inside tactic should give you, not only more inside shots, but also a better percentage for those shots. Why? Who knows ... complete nonsense!
After that nonsense, we need more nonsense to compensate LI dominance. And again and again.

So, if people want to go back to the golden age of BB, to the 50k users, the initial step is clear: let's go back to the last version of Charles'engine!

From the first quote, we get a very clear example. How is "look inside" so dominant? Is Charles' fault? Oh, no! In his time, "base offense" was the best tactic. And other tactics were meant only to take advantage of weak points in the opponent.

no, LI was always the best strategy excluding a few seasons around 2008 when after a GE change outside tactics became the best

maybe in theory base offense is still the best with some combination of skills on players that only Charles knew, but they never told us this skillset

But that is not what Charles is saying.

What I understand from his posts is:
If your outside shooting is better than his outside defense, you can take advantage with an outside tactic
If your inside shooting is better than his inside defense, you can take advantage with an inside tactic
Otherwise, a normal tactic is better.

But that wouldn't be the case if you get a bonus to your outside (inside) shooting, like it is the case today. Now, even with compensated teams, you have to play outside/inside tactic just for the bonus. So I guess the bonus comes from GE change after those 2011 posts.

EDIT. I have looked at some games from 2010, and it seems that ratings have the same bonus they have today from outside/inside attacks. I am confused ... why Charles said Base Offense was the best tactic when obviously it was not? Didn't he understand his own game engine?

Last edited by jesus.sanchez at 04/08/2021 07:43:07

"what the game engine was meant to be" and "what the game engine actually is".

But it is strange. If you give a team more interior shots and you give a bonus that makes those shots more likely to go in ... how could you say that "base offense" is better than "look inside"? That is nonsense. I thought that Charles was a good BB, but I have realized that he was not. But, still, BB is the best strategy game for Internet, so ... how can it be? was there back then a master hand who is not Charles, and Charles only talked nonsense like all the BBs that came after him?

Yes, but it is very strange. Charles said Base Offense was the best tactic. But you can go watch games from 2011 and you see that is not the case.

He said "for teams that have strong and balanced personnel". Imagine that we get two teams with players with skill=10 for all skills. We run games between those two teams, with different tactics ... do you think that "base offense" would prove to be the best tactic? Now? in 2011? I'd stake my life on that not being the case...

Charles, Mark and Forrest created Buzzerbeater.

And who was the main programmer for the game engine?

And there is no way we would revert to a former GE. There have been many changes since then, including on things impacting what happen during the games, so it would not be adapted.

I guess the input to and the output from the game engine is very similar now and in 2011.

OK, so maybe BO was a good tactic in 2011 when players were balanced. Then, what has changed during these 10 years in the game engine that has made BO a bad tactic with all kind of players?