Tema: II.2

Suggestion....make it possible to regulate the percentage of shots taken from 3 pt range when playing 3pt offense. Taking 47 shots in one game from 3 pt land isnt close to reality, in fact its a good example of one of the many things wrong with basketball. Why not provide us with a slider or something to regulate a percentage of shots to be taken from 3pt land.

I think PPM its TIME you actually start listening to peoples suggestions. Over the years you have lied, misrepresented your ambitions. Ive seen the same 4 sports "in developement" for YEARS. You little game site is DYING a slow death, but here in the usa, managers are leaving, seasoned vets...
ZERO EFFORT on ppms part to do anything productive.
Always held out hope the bulls4ever would start his own site similar to this,or even Cap. BOTH could do a better job with their eyes closed.
rant over for this week.

Unless your GS yeah your right.

I am about done with basketball on here. Yet another loss, makes 4 in a row, don't know what else I can do. Just lost to a lower-rated team that was playing on VL the whole game...I'm just getting plain frustrated and this game doesn't make any sense to me anymore.

I am about done with basketball as well. I have won 4 games this year and I just don't understand how to improve other than buying more and expensive players. It just doesn't make since to me on how the game works. Height seems to make no difference and I can't tell if playing different tactics makes a difference, I just get my ass handed to me no matter what tactics I choose. I shut down my handball about 3 months. But I will stick with hockey and soccer.

To be competitive in your league your starting 5 should have average OR 600-650, you have 450. So no matter what tactics you play, you will lose. That actually makes sense, and is also true in real life. If you check the market, players with 550 OR(although not trained with the best ratios) go for less than 1M, so in one's week sponsor money you can upgrade your team by a lot. If you spend a bit more and have some luck on the market, you can maybe even compete for a playoff spot. I believe you will find the same problems in hockey and soccer.

Yeah that 550 is mostly accurate. Though I've seen a 541 go for north of 6 million. (Good Q's) I've also saw a 581 go for 30K late at night once.

because you started late, you wont be able to "compete" as far as bringing a great player from SA or even train your players. your tactic must be just making money and spend on market.

making money: invest on arena and HR mostly
market: go grab some cheap veterans

If you are buying a mediocre 25+ yo player, you probably shouldn't care about his Q's, especially if you are behind in TF. This is a short term solution, to be a bit more competitive and get better sponsor contracts in the future. In a season and a half from now, you'll be able to replace him by 650 OR player for the same price...

Maybe...I've been searching since January for 600 OR players with good ratios going for less than 10 million and haven't gotten one yet. They seem to all go for at least 20 million.

I paid 55M for a former NT player from a dead team. and ratio isn't right neither but fixable in one season. he is currently 725 OR

a player on not perfect ratio but high Or that can be fixed in one season is still way better than ... er.. not buying anyone

there are many 24 players that in 2 seasons could be replaced and teams "willing' to let them go "cheap". I did miss a few 10M players with good ratio for not being online...

There is a cutoff at 600 OR right now, since that's what's needed for being competitive with the majority of the teams who started from day 1, so if you are looking for 600+, that's gonna cost you some money. Anything below 550 can go for as little as 10K. The thing is, even with 550 players, you can win matches here and there. Just yesterday I lost to a team whose strength is 38 for the second time this season(mine is 52). As bullsever says, this cutoff will go up as long as teams didn't hit the max facilities. More developed teams are getting better youth from improved facilities that catches up very fast with the veterans. Teams who are behind must jump on those players, that's the fastest way to close the gap. By waiting to develop your own players you are just increasing the gap.

Okay, so my starting 5 has an average OR of 599 (which is really dragged down by 1 player, but he is highest rated on the team for PF). So what gives? Why do I keep losing to less talented teams? I'm training my players with the best ratios as laid out in the guide, have good chemistry and experience, don't usually waste a lot of energy (which might change due to my record as of late), have pretty good facilities...and my team is sliding BAD for some reason. I just can't figure it out.

I didn't scout your players, so can't say anything about the ratios (nobody knows the best ratios), BUT:

I looked at all of the teams above you in your league. Your team strength is 43, all other teams have strength >43, except for NC Swish and the Grizwolds(who are not far from 43). Also, the average OR of their top 5 players is almost the same as of your players(I think all of them are slightly higher than yours).

You say you have pretty good facilities. Well, that's only relatively true, because they are not better than your opponents facilities. I just looked at TF, and you are behind almost everyone. The same is true about your coaches.

So I don't see why you are so frustrated to be below those teams. Your team is exactly where your OR puts you - very close to the playoff, but not in the playoff. If your OR was 10-15 more, you would be in the playoffs. This is something you can fix in the near future. But if you just keep training the same players, the gap will only increase, since you are behind everyone in TF!

Moreover, most of your losses to those teams are by less than 10 points. When the OR and the ratios are more or less the same, many games are decided mainly by random and some other nuances (homecourt advantage, experience of players, tactics, familiarity of players with the tactics, height of players, matchups ...).

You say you have good chemistry and don't waste energy. Well, other teams do so too, so you don't get any advantage here!

Besides, each of these nuances has very small influence. Many people expect that changing the tactics will instantly win games. That's not how it works. It can add(or subtract) two or three games to the win column in the entire season.

Your team is not BAD, it is what it is.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't expect my team to be one of the best in the league. What I expect of my team right now is to easily be in the top 8 teams in the league, and my recent string of bad losses is perplexing. Yes, my team strength is 42 (now), and that actually puts me as the 5th strongest team in the league. I've recently lost to teams with team strengths of 41, 38, 37 (twice), and 32 (!). I expect some randomness, but I should at least be winning half of those games, at the very least. Looking at AOR12, my team is 8th, which should put me on the edge of the playoffs, not very close to or out of the playoffs. Combining team strength and AOR12, my team should sit comfortably in the playoff bubble (as it has for awhile), but there is a disconnect somewhere....

As for facilities, I realize my TF is tied for 8th best, but that doesn't really have an effect on games, only on how well my players are improving. As previously mentioned, the quality of my top players and team strength says that my team should be doing a lot better than they have recently. When you look at my regeneration facility, it is 3rd best in the league, so it's not like my players are getting overly tired. And again, my total facilities put me at 8th in the league.

Looking at my shooting, I'm rated 4th in the league in that attribute, but my 2FG% and 3FG% are 10th and 11th, respectively. Passing is 5th, but I'm 13th (!) in assists. Rebounding is 4th, but I'm 12th in rebouding. and defense is 7th while I'm sitting at 7th in points against and steals, while sitting at 12th in blocks. Looking at these overall numbers, something seems very off to me. Don't you think it's weird, or at least interesting?

So, even when I change tactics or whatever, it shouldn't make that much of a difference, especially if my players have good chemistry. But just looking at the whole picture, what am I missing?