My most sincere congratulations to the BB team on addressing the "Look inside issue" thanks mostly to the GameDayPrep strategy.
It is a pleasure to finally see these games, along with the fact of enjoying a way richer experience:
(28276)
(28304)
(28248)
(28191)
First match, Italy only won by 4 despite using Princeton and having tremendous outside scoring against average perimeter defence and a 2-3 zone. Both trams also went a combined 0-3 on GDP. That's a horrific match entirely due to the existence and psychology of GDP.
Second match, neither team even played look inside. Low post isn't overpowered; this match even works as an example of that. As an aside, this (excellent) match may have been even "better" (i.e., closer) if both teams did use look inside. Not that I'm advocating that. I'm truly not.
Third match is 4th ranked Czech Republic against 57th ranked Denmark. And it shows. Mind you, it shows absolutely nothing about GDP or look inside. A continuing theme.
Fourth match, neither team used look inside, and the team that got both GDP guesses incorrect and used a 2-3 against a neutral offence won the game. Yet again, a perplexing example.
---
A better solution would have been to severely weaken or remove look inside, you know, because it's outrageously overpowered. The only consistently overpowered offence. An offence that continues to be overpowered. Implementing GDP, a feature that severely affects every offence, introduces a gigantic luck component, and does nothing to actually weaken look inside, is impossibly stupid. The difference between an incorrect and correct GDP guess with all other variables the same is what, 30 points? The psychology of GDP and deterrence of using look inside is the only "benefit". But in a single game sample or in a best 2 out of 3 playoff series, you only need to get lucky with a tactical choice or GDP choice once. That's exactly what it is, too. Luck. GDP makes BB a glorified guessing simulation.
Last edited by Stajan at 5/16/2014 7:50:16 PM