BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Team Chemistry/Familiarity

Team Chemistry/Familiarity (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
199501.29 in reply to 199501.28
Date: 10/28/2011 12:25:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
You brang the example - how does Miami played at the begining of the season and how at the end of it [exluding their finals... :+) ]


bad streaks happen, for a short second you didn't believe that you can not echange key parts and still be succesful.

Detroit and NY both get better after teh melo deal, to bring an example with an push even over a longer period. At least i never saw a manager sayng we had to keep all player, and beware of fresh blood. Normally they say they want to keep a core, a in negoations with all players and then bring in new blood.

This Post:
00
199501.30 in reply to 199501.23
Date: 10/28/2011 1:14:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
There always different roads to implement things.

Yes, it would be best if it could take any characteristic a player has.
But, it will be good enough to have any affect of the "team-chemistry" at this game.

Currnet game just give to much power for auction.
It is not about building a team it is about being a good eBay trader.
It is event not that, as there is unfair advantage to those who are flexible with time.
This game needs to be more focused on its assence - BB managing.

This Post:
00
199501.31 in reply to 199501.29
Date: 10/28/2011 1:19:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
Well, I guess I'll need to repeat myself over again...

A good player is a good player.
Hence, getting a new player which is much better than the one you have will (very "suprisingly") get your team better.

BUT...

This team will be much better few weeks afterwards when the "team-chmistry" will be developed.
Again - Miami approves both this cases.

This Post:
00
199501.33 in reply to 199501.23
Date: 10/28/2011 7:57:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
237237
Second, I strongly think there should be an earlier deadline for play-off eligible player transfers. This is in part related tot he realism of the chemistry issues in this thread (see, I'm not totally blind to the chemistry issues), since even though I'm not in favor of a chemistry factor here, I think it is strange that a team can easily buy a player who is instantly the best player on the roster and be a huge factor in the playoffs without playing more than a game or two in the regular season with the team. But this is also in part to the strategy that I see teams employ a lot (I've almost done this myself) of saving cash all season with an average team, and then just buying a championship roster at the absolute last moment. Sure, it's a strategy that can work and anybody can do this, but I think it detracts from the enjoyment of the game. It really stinks for a team to smartly manage a first place team all season and then have some other team roll the dice with a huge deficit-spending splurge for the playoffs wreck the playoffs for him (or her). Therefore, I propose a playoff roster deadline two weeks before the end of the season.


Thats a good idea. I've always said the same thing where the consistent winning teams are screwed over by teams that semi tank and buy up a week before playoffs. However, I think this should be in a separate suggestion thread as it sidetracks fromt he current discussion on team chemistry

This Post:
00
199501.34 in reply to 199501.23
Date: 10/29/2011 3:47:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
766766
My two cents on this topic.

i dont think there should be a 'game change' with regards to team chemistry. Rather, id like to see the merchandise benefit for having the same players week in week out, be higher. At the moment, the merchanise im getting for having what i believe to be a fairly stagnent team, is about $5k (rough guess) a week.

Really, it should be higher IMO.

So maybe just make that simple change? it would provide more financial reward for the OP and everyone else who wants a team chemistry benefit.


This Post:
00
199501.35 in reply to 199501.34
Date: 10/29/2011 4:59:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
I believe that there should be a "money affect" for having a team who are familiar with each other, and that current revenue for that is not high enough.

But, I also believe that the price on the court must be defined.
Current situation is that teams just tank all season long and just before playoff buy a player that cost much more than any player they have. This should also affect the play on court. Just like on real basketball, when a player become more affective only after getting some "chemistry" with his teamates.

This Post:
00
199501.36 in reply to 199501.32
Date: 10/29/2011 5:16:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
1) The Boston Celtics and Miami had good players, so after pre-camp and a full (82 games long) season they've been able to get to the place they got.

BUT, as I already wrote...

2) Miami started very poorly, as they had no "team-chemistry".

3) It is not by chance that the phrase "team-chemistry" is something regulary used in sports.

4) A player who is part of his team for more time knows the plays better, knows how the strengths and weakness of its teamates, etc.
This should be affected in the Game-Engine.

5) How should it be implented is not a problem.
There are several ways to handle it.
For example, not allowing that player to have more than certain Game-Shape for few weeks.
Another one - lowering his current status (Passing, Defence etc.) for few weeks by few points.
etc.

This Post:
00
199501.37 in reply to 199501.35
Date: 10/29/2011 11:00:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
766766
I think your tanking-buying expensive player just before playoffs tactic, would be resolved if they changed the point at which a player cannot play for you in the finals.

At the moment its only the 2nd or 3rd last regular season game? Or something like that. Change this point to be like, 6 games before the finals. This would negate this problem.
Any player bought just before this point would have built up enough 'team chemistry' of which you talk about.

I think that this is a better solution, rather than introducing a new game-engine based thing into the equation.


This Post:
00
199501.38 in reply to 199501.37
Date: 10/30/2011 2:57:18 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
Yes, this will most definitely will resolve the "hard" case that I've brought as an example for the need for this feature.
On the other hand, this is just that - the extreme case.

A team that start the season with a roster will be better than a team that have the same players but just acquire an important piece (to have that roster) "seconds" before current game.

Regarding the difficulty of this feature - it is a very easy one.
The time that a player is part of the team is already part of the code.
Now, just add the easy calculation of chemistry and you're finished.

This calculation can be as simple as - GS = (current GS)*(Games in team/4) when (Games in team) < 4, or any other calculation.
This formula had been brought not as the suggested formula, but just to prove that it shouldn't be too hard.

This Post:
00
199501.39 in reply to 199501.38
Date: 10/30/2011 3:41:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
766766
Your suggesting that a team that keeps the same roster all season should have better team chemistry than a team who purchases a player mid-season.

I agree with this.

I just dont agree with a game-time game-engine change to reward this.

it would raise too many 'how the fudge did i lose game X" kind of questions? Did i lose the game because of tactics, game shape, enthusiasm, matchups? Or because of that purchase i made last week?

I dont really want to have to be asking that question every time i lose. BUT..... i do want a better reward for keeping my team intact throughout a season.

Another alternative answer to this, could be that the longer a player stays in one team, the faster his experience increases? It would allow for the use of an existing feature, which everyone understands and doesnt change that much to the game as a whole, but allows for some kind of in-game benefit which would be seen by the players improved experience.







Advertisement