BuzzerBeater Forums

I think it would be an interesting feature with player chemistry. What I mean with that is that some players get along with some players, but not others.

This could not be a set number that all of the same goes along, cause once you have figured this out it would be to easy. Nor could it be in the same manner as a regular skill, where you at high levels get along with everyone. It would have to be a hidden attribute that gets randomized between every player they play with. If a new player enters the team, a relation level gets randomized between him and every excisting player on the team (The ones already on the team has this relation between eachother from before). This process would be repeated every time the player gets to play with a player he haven't played with before.

I think this would make it even more exciting to see how a player performs in your team. If he doesn't fit, so be it, you just have to sell him and find a better suited one. This player would not have lost his value because he could go along with other players, and if this is the player you are going to build your team around, you have to play him with all the players on your team to find the black sheeps, and then sell them.

One consequence is that we would probably see very good players on the transfer market more often than we do now. You also have to get to know your team better, thus making you more commited, addicted and eventually supporter ;) (But you don't have to be. Supporter, that is.)

I think it makes game too difficult for newbies.

Well, the chemistry could be at a decent point between most or all of the players you start with, but at some point you would want some new players, either for training or reinforcement. The thing is, this is the same for any team, there will always be a risk that the player will not suit you team. On the other hand, you could end up with a player that lifts your team to new heights.

It would definitly add realism, and since this would be a random factor, and you can't figure it out in advance, it makes no sense to spend time on trying to figure it out before you have bought a player. And you can still use that player if he is incompatible with someone already on your team, he just won't perform as well as he could have. If at some point you set a lineup without the players he is incompatible with you will experience a higher level of output from that same player. The point is, you can still play the game oblivious to these factors, or you can go indepth to try and get that little edge over your longtime rivals...

I really don't think it would be an important factor until the more advanced stages of the game.

Really, is it too difficult?

A real life example: the turkish football/soccer club Fenerbache. It has loads of money, buys plenty of top shelf players (fairly often), and still has problems beeing as good a club together as the individual players skills should add up to. Sometime lineups with some players play extremely good for a period, but then they buy a new superstar to be even better, ending up with a mediocre total performance.

Celtics: Histrically always had more emphasis on the team and teamplay rather than building around a single(or two) superstar players.

Well, the chemistry could be at a decent point between most or all of the players you start with, but at some point you would want some new players, either for training or reinforcement. The thing is, this is the same for any team, there will always be a risk that the player will not suit you team. On the other hand, you could end up with a player that lifts your team to new heights.

It would definitly add realism, and since this would be a random factor, and you can't figure it out in advance, it makes no sense to spend time on trying to figure it out before you have bought a player. And you can still use that player if he is incompatible with someone already on your team, he just won't perform as well as he could have. If at some point you set a lineup without the players he is incompatible with you will experience a higher level of output from that same player. The point is, you can still play the game oblivious to these factors, or you can go indepth to try and get that little edge over your longtime rivals...

I actually like it

Really, is it too difficult?

To calculte how about 750,000 players are fitting to over 50,000 teams? I think it might be difficult.

Last edited by inimene at 8/12/2009 12:37:17 PM

I actually like it

Yay! ;D

To calculte how about 750,000 players are fitting to over 50,000 teams? I think it might be difficult.

Not to worry, the almighty BB's can fix EVERYTHING *wink wink*

: the turkish football/soccer club Fenerbache. It has loads of money, buys plenty of top shelf players (fairly often), and still has problems beeing as good a club together as the individual players skills should add up to. Sometime lineups with some players play extremely good for a period, but then they buy a new superstar to be even better, ending up with a mediocre total performance.

Celtics: Histrically always had more emphasis on the team and teamplay rather than building around a single(or two) superstar players.

but to stay on this examples, the celtics doesn't make hire and fire to get a team who "like" each other - for them this is surely part of the scouting like it was in many clubs.

The bad mood in Fenerbache is mostly a result from the infrastructure with fanatic fans(who sadly make death threat or destroy cars/houses of unsuccesful coaches or players who have a bad start), and afaik also the press is very demanding and could adrenalize the fans.

So it is no random prozess in my eyes when buying a player it is part of the planing, and good surroundings.

I don't like to have such random process in things we don't do that often, especially if you had to buy 4-5 players till your star player fit to your team and in the end you pay the double amount such bad streaks could happen - and aren't really fair because you can not influence it.

Maybe we could use a mood, to punish teams who build heavily on their rooster which normally leads to players scared about their job, or teams who donn't change their rooster because such team could become "saturated" and lazy. But did we really need that?
Isn't it sometimes fun to rebuild the rooster, or necessary when you change your training for example?

We take the risk in buying the player with high "physicality" rating. Messing up his performance. You could also look at the players "form" as his satisfaction with his team and the minutes he is getting. If he does not receive enough court time he get's irritated and does not feel like a part of the team. If he get's too much he get's tired physically and mentally. Simple imo. No need for another stat that overwrites those 2 + experience.

physicality has also his advantages, and you could see this ability when the player isn't instantly created, with chemistry it is total luck.