BuzzerBeater Forums

Actually it's almost universally true that lower-league teams, if managed correctly, will revamp their roster exponentially more often than a well-established DI team.

I don't know whether this is wrong or right but a statement as smug as this one needs proof.

Actually it's almost universally true that lower-league teams, if managed correctly, will revamp their roster exponentially more often than a well-established DI team.

I don't know whether this is wrong or right but a statement as smug as this one needs proof.

A well-managed lower division team has space to rise up the ladder, which increases their income. As their income increases, they face the financial capacity to upgrade the roster, and the necessity to do so in order to match up with the stronger teams they find at lower levels. As opposed to this, in the long run all established DI teams will be running at their financial limit, so it will be hard and indeed unnecessary to revamp the roster.

I am not sure this statement is 'smug' or why it needs some sort of an elaborate 'proof'. It is simple application of common sense and it should be pretty obvious to see its logic.

While perhaps this is true in some huge countries I find that playing in my small little country I could change my roster weekly if I chose to.

Smug is using words like 'universally' and 'exponentially', and phrases like 'if managed correctly' as if you were privy to the 'correct' way to manage a team and others weren't.

Elaborate proof is not necessary. Something more than an opinion would be nice if you are going to make grandiose statements as if they were facts.

While perhaps this is true in some huge countries I find that playing in my small little country I could change my roster weekly if I chose to.

Smug is using words like 'universally' and 'exponentially', and phrases like 'if managed correctly' as if you were privy to the 'correct' way to manage a team and others weren't.

Elaborate proof is not necessary. Something more than an opinion would be nice if you are going to make grandiose statements as if they were facts.

The 'exponential' part will be 'universally' true when the game moves beyond its toddler stage. In 5-manager countries you might do as you wish, but this particular case really tells you nothing about the situation overall.

The 'exponential' part will be 'universally' true when the game moves beyond its toddler stage. In 5-manager countries you might do as you wish, but this particular case really tells you nothing about the situation overall.

Operative words here being "will be." Not now. Probably in the future. Universal I take to mean the game in whole, not just the big countries.

wow you needs to go to the ring and join the contender fight

The idea of this thread was to bring out how chemistry is lacked in this game and would benefit all teams. Allot of teams say you can’t have more then 1 troubled player on a team before he starts making the team worse.

An option would be to get rid of the enthusiasm and replace it with chemistry. When the chemistry is up they play better and when it is down they play worse.

You can also have a player’s chemistry number as well instead of just the teams. You have your glue guys which make the team play better and bring the rest of the guys together and then you have your freaks who might be great at something put might also cause friction within the team.

Anybody who ever played a n a real competitive team will know this to be true and those same people understand that the enthusiasm should go as well.

This can be implanted with the upcoming season as well as there is enough time to set it up.

You are correct. I apologize to Kozlodoev for my first post and to the thread in general for taking it off-topic.
I have to agree that making a "team chemistry" component contingent on how long teams remain unchanged or x% unchanged doesn't seem to jibe with the overall standard gameplay which involves tarining, selling, and buying players as integral parts of the game.
In real life, team chemsitry can change overnight based on a mountain of variables. I have played on teams with great chemistry that got our asses kicked on the floor. I have also played on teams with poor talent that achieved greater successes because of a belief in one another. And I have played on teams where guys literally hated one another but we kicked ass, mostly out of spite I think. I think it would be very difficult to add any sort of realistic "team chemsitry" component to the game.

hey im not against this whatsoever.

well if we are going to do this, we add a number of dimensions to the game. such as player attitudes, preferences, etc

i mean would you buy a player even with a hell of talent if he is selfish or even hot tempered? to a say compare to a entertaining or hard working type of player.

the idea is good, right now im thinking of the components of this chemistry your saying.

because even with a right pg, a selfish player in a lineup is a somewhat a good thing especially with good skills. but at times he ruins the teams charisma.

i played basketball too, when we have a point guard as long as you run and make yourself open you will know for sure youll get the pass, but when our sg/sf comes to play we dont move a lot because they just happen to shoot the ball everytime they got the ball.

even though their stats are high, actually no one in the team whats to be on the floor with them even our pg at times doesnt pass it to them even though how open they are just to keep the other 2 on the floor sync with each the 3.

but at times when we needed the points they become go to guys that deliver but at times even killing us.

all im saying is, you speak of chemistry as if its nothing but a natural thing that happens but overall there are components that factors this and i cant seem to picture some of what is said to the overall picture of what you guys what to draw.

sorry a little more explanation will do.



Last edited by Shoei at 9/2/2008 3:23:36 AM

of course there is more to it it but you can make it more realistic within the team then the enthusiasm. I'm not saying it will be perfect and every coach will have to figure out how he wants his team and how it works for them. Take tons of talent and hope it works out. Pick up a Rodman like the spurs and let it ruin you or be the bulls and let Rodman be the missing piece to the puzzle.

Every idea need tinkering and so does this one. But the general idea is there and simple enough. Have a chemistry number for the team based on players coming in and out how often you use the same starting 5 and how long the team has been together.

just as examples

it does make sense but your letting me a puzzle that has a lot of pieces missing.