BuzzerBeater Forums

Poor suggestion. This would create a bigger cap between new teams and old teams. We have game shape, enthusiasm and experience. I think we do not need another attribute to do the same thing.

That is true but one way that can be neglected is by having a minimum games cap for team chemistry.

e.g these values are just arbitrary to illustrate the point but say each player plays to 80% of his skills when he is initially bought to simulate the fact he is new to the team and does not know how the team works yet. When he has been in a team for half a season, he plays to 90% of his skills and when he has been in the team for 1 season he plays to 100% of what his skills are.

That way new teams are not dropped behind. It is only whatever the time frame you put in to have the players play at full skills.

That is true but one way that can be neglected is by having a minimum games cap for team chemistry.

e.g these values are just arbitrary to illustrate the point but say each player plays to 80% of his skills when he is initially bought to simulate the fact he is new to the team and does not know how the team works yet. When he has been in a team for half a season, he plays to 90% of his skills and when he has been in the team for 1 season he plays to 100% of what his skills are.

That way new teams are not dropped behind. It is only whatever the time frame you put in to have the players play at full skills.

I think stamina acts very similarly to how you describe (with the exception of there is no limit other than the time it takes you to train you guys up to the optimium stamina level)

Unless would be sometimes comolicated to team-up some fellow players. I think would be interresting to solve a complication that new player perhaps plays good on his own, but quite doesnt belong there.

I think that it is what team chemistry is about.

Last edited by aigidios at 4/14/2010 7:52:56 AM

This has been suggested before. I understand where the idea comes from, but chemistry is not the sort of thing that is formulaic, and for all the things you suggest, well, since you bring up Phil Jackson...

Kobe and Shaq.

They won championships together. Not much chemistry, though, and they've now each won championships without each other, so their success seems to be less about chemistry than talent.


Shaq and Kobe
Shaq and Kobe
Go together like Darth Vader and Obi
This I tell you brother
You can win titles without the other

Ug, I shouldn't have written that. My apologies.

I love BB because you can always imagine how everything affects the game.
Why we do not need team chemistry attribute: We have GS - you can take it as. If someone is considered a star, he plays too many minutes -> thus his gs will drop. His sub will get too few minutes thus his gs will also drop (he is unhappy with his playing time). Perhaps look at stamina as another chemistry marker. Playing a star with low stamina will make him perform below his capabilitys if his sub is not skilled enough etc.
We already have to worry about aggressivness factor when shopping for that new star. Having to worry about chemistry aswell will make the transferlist unstable. Did Gasol start to play bad when he went to Lakers, did Butler Haywood start to suck when they were traded to Mavs. You could also argue that keeping the same players together for too long will mess up chemistry as well. What would you suggest then if the core plays together for 3 seasons they are at theyre best? What happens when someone is added in the middle of that time? Will all the team get weaker, or will the new player just touch the ball less? If the core plays together more than 3 seasons will the chemistry start to degenerate? Perhaps someone is tired of seeing that C's ugly mug every day? Tired of that SG never passing when driving? Or tie the chemistry to players individually? Someone just can't get along with anyone, can't get along with some players etc. I think there are too many variables in chemistry thus would fundamentally change the game and it seems unnecessary. Not everything can be implemented from real life, it would make a mess of this game. Consider building a new arena every time you want to expand. Getting less money just because you are situated in a smaller city or country. Training system is not really real aswell. No contracts, day trading (buying selling 50 players a season). But these are things that work best the way they are implemented now, I'm not saying don't change anything. I just feel we do not need another "chemistry" attribute.

Last edited by Kukoc at 4/21/2010 1:14:12 AM

We have GS - you can take it as. If someone is considered a star, he plays too many minutes -> thus his gs will drop. His sub will get too few minutes thus his gs will also drop (he is unhappy with his playing time). Perhaps look at stamina as another chemistry marker. Playing a star with low stamina will make him perform below his capabilitys if his sub is not skilled enough etc.

In (your) dream world, everything could be a chemistry marker.

You just lack imagination:(

So, is a chemistry system possible?

I made a quick guess on how one could work:

Have each player be assigned randomly, a color, say out of 5 colors. That can be their "personality." Then assign a number 1-5 which corresponds to how strong that personality is.

Then when on a team, players with similar colors play better together. Also you could add a conversion factor for the personality of each individual.

For example: Say your current team has mostly guys with red personalities. You might target other red personality players, so they all play better together. As for the conversion factor. As a team sum up the numbers for each color. If the most dominant color(red) is twice over the other ones, then every other week the players that weren't red decrease one or however much, and keep doing until there's more players with different colors acquired.

This would really help bot teams though if the start with a dominant color.

Just an idea, but I'm sure it would take a lot to make that all work. Comments welcome.(Hope this is on the right board.)