BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OK, so after we basically agreed on the need, we are now deep in the "how".

There can be many ways.
Another will be to add it into the skills.

Let's assume that it affects Passing (for example);
The Passing skills of that player will look like:
Passing: "Normal value" ("current value").

Where "Normal value" is the value that player will have when chemistry will be achieved.
And of course "current value" is the current level of passing due to the fact that "team-chemistry" had not yet been fully achieved, and as a result he may not exploit his passing ability to the max (will not know how his player moves, where the best position to pass them the ball, etc.).

By that, there are no question that needs to be answer.

Your suggestion about experience is just the same suggestion but with regard to a different skill parameter.
The only thing is that I find it less affected by "team-chemistry" issue.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 10/30/2011 4:35:22 AM

We have already discovered (in all the earlier chemistry threads), that increasing chemistry will give an advantage to older teams in this game. It would be harder to promote and compete with the older teams. This is not good for the game. Changing chemistry (optimum time being 3 years per player) does not work, too many variables and the game would get too complicated to calculate. Taking personalitys (suitable personalitys, personal colors etc) into game, would eventually favor one type of players/teams. Raising the prices of those players and lowering everyone else. This is bad aswell.
We could set the deadline to 2 weeks, before the playoff starts. But as it is now, whenever "the player is not eligible" deadline passes, TL almost dies. So perhaps, that aswell, is not that good for the game. The end of the season is pretty boring anyway (unless you have a long playoff run), removing 2 weeks of active (more players get sold near playoffs for obvious reasons) TL might not be the best idea.
I also think that in highly competitive leagues. The guy who spends average will not make playoffs. If his plan is to ace the relegation games, then by all means, let him buy players for those games. It's a strategy like every other. Getting a player, that is great and has decent GS before playoffs, is really expencive. Is it the most productive strategy, I doubt it. If you can spend average and make playoffs, with enough money to strenghten your team and actually have a chance against HC, then by all means, you are a great manager. Moving the deadline 2 weeks, just makes everyone buy even players with bad GS. As it takes 2 weeks to repair that.
The only way we can stop superstar shopping before playoffs is GS. We already got to that in those numerous threads about chemistry. The only thing needed to discuss is: to what level should the players GS drop. Should it go to GS 1, GS 3, drop by -2 levels. I don't think team entu should be affected. Affecting the whole team with one transfer, would eventually decrease TL activity to minimal.

Last edited by Kukoc at 10/30/2011 12:40:53 PM

1) TL activity is not the goal.

2) Currently as you said, there is a great peek near playoff time, so we can lower TL avtivity and keep the average TL-activity level.

3) "Team-chemistry" should affect the team, but mostly the new player.

4) This change of event (adding the feature) will not directly lower the TL-activity, but more likely will spread it along the season.
It will make the users to think more on effects of buying a player any time of the year.
This is definetly part of BB managing.

5) How does it needs to look along the year?
Exactly like in the real world!
A player that had played last season and a player that had joined the team at pre-season will not "pay" due to lack of "team-chemistry".
A player that will be bought at any time that week, will suffer from it.

6) Regarding the first point - yes, older teams will have this advantage and they deserve it - they've plan ahead, like a BB manager should.
On the other hand, they suffer from that they are not strengthening their team with new players.
So this is also a good thing - allowing the user to plan and decide and take this things into consideration.

Again, "team-chemistry" will only affect one year at most, so it is not that bad...

1) Killing TL completely is not the goal.
2) Currently there is a bit more transfers at the start of the season (draftees) and near playoffs (teams getting ready for playoff runs). TL pretty much is stagnant during the season and almost dies off after the deadline. What you are trying to do is only make it viable to trade during offseason.
3) "Team-Chemisty" should affect the player (via GS) and this affects the team, if you want to improve that GS you have to play that low GS player.
4) This will drastically lower TL-activity during the season. This does nothing to spread it along the season.
5) We have no player contracts. Using salary per skills is the better option for this game. Thus we can't have it like in the real world. That way TL is pretty important to dump excess salary or improve your team. It's pointless to punish the team and the player the whole ongoing season. Lowering GS should be enough (as it affects all skills).
6) Old teams should not just get an advantage from staying stagnant or switching players only during preseason and then just avoid TL like a plague the whole season.
It's pointless to ruin the player for the whole season, just because you sign him during the season.