BuzzerBeater Forums

Basically the idea here is for team to develop chemistry the more seasons they play together just like in real-life basketball. Take the concept of teams like the 1998 Bulls or the Spurs with Manu, Parker, Duncan.

Teams get a performance boost when these players are active on the roster, as an added bonus, players of similar nationalities (due to familiarity with language, culture, etc). gain chemistry twice as fast compared to foreign nationals.

This will encourage teams to invest in a long term plan for their teams and as more players become mainstays on the team, the the bigger the performance bonus. New players that come to the team will slightly decrease the current bonus level but will increase over time as they become familiar with the team and the system.

Coming from a team with almost no trades in 2,5 years.. Just saying..

Im a Pacers fan. This Indiana Pacers team irl got totaly renewed last season and the 2 seasons before.. Only starter Turner and third PG Young are at the Pacers for more than 2 seasons.. And they currently have the best chemistry i have ever seen a team can have.

You want to get awarded for sticking with the same team, homegrown players, players from your own country, you get awarded financially in this game tru taxes and fanshop currently.

But when teams get in game better for sticking with the same team over and over again it will suck the fun out of this for many many managers. And its not a realistic approach because like i said, team chemistry could get created with new 'fresh' players also, as stated above..

By your standard BB should give ingame advantages when sticking with the same team but also when bought new players..

You are correct when players play together for a longer periode of time they know eachothers way of thinking wich result in more indepth tactics. Duncan, Parker, you are spot on.. But arent there also a gazillion players to name who played (to) long together and f# up teamchemistry? It goes both ways.. Should BB implement that 2?

Currently the market NEEDS fresh players badly so i would award teams for getting fresh players for better chemistry to stimulate a more active transfer market..

pic.twitter.com/YX9SQvu2v2

And in case you haven't seen the Pacers play recently, watch this short teamplay clip from their last game.. And remember, almost all players are there from 20 games to max 2 seasons. And ask yourself: Am i seeing top notch teamchemistry or not?

Last edited by Maupster at 11/29/2017 4:20:48 AM

I wasn't implying that all teams that played together for more seasons are always successful, normally there are outliers here and there. But there's no denying that a majority of successful teams have benefited from playing together longer, just look at the Olympic basketball teams from Europe like Greece, Spain, Lithuania, Serbia etc., where they have established a solid team of veterans that have played multiple national team games together, these are the types of teams that give team USA a run for their money.

What I want BB to implement is a not-so-complicated version of this where you are rewarded for training, and retaining. Sure, you may want to sell your other trainees for a profit and buy new players which will impact the bonus but the benefit of keeping that newcomer for several seasons will far outweigh the initial negative impact on team chemistry as the new player(s) gets used to the new system and develop his skills during this process.

Am i seeing top notch teamchemistry or not?

The potential is there and the young guys need a few more seasons under their belt to develop and get back to winning form, not this season though. No offense but I've seen better passing off a broken play from the Warriors and the Spurs based on previous experience. ;)

I wasn't implying that all teams that played together for more seasons are always successful, normally there are outliers here and there. But there's no denying that a majority of successful teams have benefited from playing together longer, just look at the Olympic basketball teams from Europe like Greece, Spain, Lithuania, Serbia etc., where they have established a solid team of veterans that have played multiple national team games together, these are the types of teams that give team USA a run for their money.

What I want BB to implement is a not-so-complicated version of this where you are rewarded for training, and retaining. Sure, you may want to sell your other trainees for a profit and buy new players which will impact the bonus but the benefit of keeping that newcomer for several seasons will far outweigh the initial negative impact on team chemistry as the new player(s) gets used to the new system and develop his skills during this process.

Am i seeing top notch teamchemistry or not?

The potential is there and the young guys need a few more seasons under their belt to develop and get back to winning form, not this season though. No offense but I've seen better passing off a broken play from the Warriors and the Spurs based on previous experience. ;)

Fans also get tired of seeing the same players ev ery season, unless said player is an absolutely dominant freaking superstar, or the team is absolutely crushing it (like the spurs did).

EX: I'll use the Cleveland Browns NFL Football team as an example. They have been horrible since 2007. downright awful. one winning seasons since then, only 2 seasons with 7+ wins total.
Now they have had Joe Thomas, whom you could argue is one of the best LTs to ever play the sport. AM I going to buy his jersey every season? No. I have his jersey already, why would I get more? With the lack of success, and no other all-world players, there's no other jerseys for me to really want to buy. Further more, since they're not winning much, I'm not going to shell out money to see them in person.

By contrast to that, there was a point when the Cleveland Browns were completely dominant and steamrolling the entire league over and over and over. Same concept, I'm not buying jerseys of players I already have the jersey of, and if the team is winning every single year. Game after game, year after year. Then I'm still not going to pay to go to games, because I already know they'll win. So I'll save my money for playoffs. Or, i'll pay for the 1-2 rare matchups where it should be a good game and the outcome doesn't seem likely determined already

Most fans are like that in every sport. You go to the games to see how the new players are, either rookies, or new FAs, you show up to games that you expect to be more competitive contests. Most people don't want to see a blowout, or their team blown out.

While I like the concept of team chemistry and all that. Your idea for it is waaaaaaay to oversimplified.

What if you got 4 guys that DESPISE running LI, but you constantly run LI. Should that negatively effect their team chemistry? it should? but i don't think you cover at all in your chemistry for players playing specific tactics and such. Does it cover for players All of a sudden performing worse than they had before in their career? dropping from 2nd scoring options to 4th, etc?

There are a lot more ways to NEGATIVELY influence a team's chemistry, than there is to positively influence chemistry. Very specific and direct as the most common. Salary. You think players like making the exact same $ for 10+ seasons?

EX: I'll use the Cleveland Browns NFL Football team as an example.

I don't watch football so I wouldn't know the context of your argument, but I have watched the Bulls play sincet before the three-peat years and I have bought Jordan jerseys and shoes almost every season they were together.

There are a lot more ways to NEGATIVELY influence a team's chemistry

Like what?

You think players like making the exact same $ for 10+ seasons?

Not accurate. Doesn't salary increase/decrease according to their skills every season?

EX: I'll use the Cleveland Browns NFL Football team as an example.

I don't watch football so I wouldn't know the context of your argument, but I have watched the Bulls play sincet before the three-peat years and I have bought Jordan jerseys and shoes almost every season they were together.

There are a lot more ways to NEGATIVELY influence a team's chemistry

Like what?

You think players like making the exact same $ for 10+ seasons?

Not accurate. Doesn't salary increase/decrease according to their skills every season?

Bolded, italcized part.
Here in BB... if they are trained. then it goes up.

In real life... your salary is different jhust about every year. whether or not you get better or worse. And salary doesn't go down, for quite some time.
On top of that, people get upset if they are... say: averaging 30 minutes a game, and 18 ppg. but are getting paid less than some guy coming off the bench for 12 minutes a game, averaging 4 points per game.


As to ways on a team that negatively impact chemistry:
One player taking all the shots
one player not passing
coaching scheme doesn't highlight the skillset of YOU as a player
Unhappy with contract
unhappy with record
personally don't get along with another player.... (Delonte West and Lebron James... West had sex with leBrons mom, which made lebron not like him, and even though he was really good for the Cavs, they got rid of him)

I can go on and on.

As to browns example: You don't need to watch games to use Google. I could have also done an NBA example, or NHL, or World Cup, or Olympics, etc etc etc. But I guess "general concepts" were not clearly described by me. I apologize. working through non-1st languages is difficult sometimes to convey meaning.

I wasn't implying that all teams that played together for more seasons are always successful,

Sorry, but yes you are.. From a Buzzerbeater perspective you are.. We are not on a Nba.com/forum ;)

Read your own OP..It says in short:

"The longer BB players are on your team, the more benefits. Newcomers to a team, downgrade those benefits untill those newcomers are long term members of the team"

So in BB you want teams that play together for more seasons are more successfull financially or ingame.. The longer the core stays together , the better the chemistry...

I told you up front, thats not how it works IRL. Sometimes an old and long together squad can have awfull chemistry bc of bordedome alone and is dying for the need of new fresh blood.

Your suggestion contradicts that.

After that i have given you a small clip/sample of the current Indiana Pacers who do have extremely good team chemistry, wich are a new together brought young team, who are aroundly world praised, almost everybody predicted them to be bottem dwellers, high picking in the draft.But no, they are a current young well put together play-off team, and you are downgrading that, talking about better skillsss/talent on other teams/plays and that you have seen better?

You are clearly missing a point:

The Pacers are playing above their talent bc or chemistry, while being shortterm together. Wich contradicts your O.P...

Have you seen leading Oladipo, who is with his third team now, leading this Pacers? Have you seen Lance who cant hit the ocean on other teams connect with the new boy Sabonis? New lad Im-hitting-it-all-bc-i-like-the-chemistry-Bagdanovic?

Im sorry to say, but you are mixing up chemistry with skills. We have a different understanding of team-chemistry. But for sure IRL adding a new player can up the chemistry, and a team with the same players can downgrade the chemistry. Those 2 contradict your opening post, you wanting benefits for playing the same players.

And thats not a problem that you like playing familiar players, you can get attached to those samenames/skills, but BB needs a more open active market more. Giving benefits to hold onto your players just isnt the way to go now. Not for chemistry reasons. Like i said there are also tons of RL reasons why you shouldnt hold on long for the same squad..

And since seriously most of the managers in this game (and i dont blame them, they are just not tuned in) are checking in once and a while, dont change their team team , dont care for results that much, why would you favor them with ingame benefits for managers who are actifly changing there team to get better. Doing so making the transfermarket more active keeping prices lower..

What I want BB to implement is a not-so-complicated version of this where you are rewarded for training, and retaining.

Bb is already awarding this via taxes..

Im training 3 homegrown players from 18 to probably 29, i understand what you want from BB, but it would just not favor the more active teams compared to the once a week-login managers-who dont really give a peep-and prob.-dont buy supp anyway..

Last edited by Maupster at 12/7/2017 4:23:19 PM

I wasn't implying that all teams that played together for more seasons are always successful,


Sorry, but yes you are.. From a Buzzerbeater perspective you are..

Sorry, but you clearly cut out the part of my post where I said there are outliers here and there and insisted that this is my point which is not.

Sure the pacers are playing well but if the same group played for 3 or 4 more seasons would they be worse than where they are now?

We are not on a Nba.com/forum ;)

Yet here you are going all on talking about the Pacers. ;)

We have a different understanding of team-chemistry

Let's leave it at that.

Last edited by Pro_Shot 🇵🇭 at 12/8/2017 12:48:39 AM

I wasn't implying that all teams that played together for more seasons are always successful,


Sorry, but yes you are.. From a Buzzerbeater perspective you are..

Sorry, but you clearly cut out the part of my post where I said there are outliers here and there and insisted that this is my point which is not.

Sure the pacers are playing well but if the same group played for 3 or 4 more seasons would they be worse than where they are now?

We are not on a Nba.com/forum ;)

Yet here you are going all on talking about the Pacers. ;)

We have a different understanding of team-chemistry

Let's leave it at that.

The problem is you cant have it both ways in BB, you either award it ingame or not...

Im talking about the Pacers to only show you chemistry is obviously there, you dont need to be together for a longer period of time..

You are talking about the nba, show the good part of teams sticking together ( you dont talk about the gazillion reasons why sticking together with the same players over and over is tricky...) and you want that part of chemistry teams into buzzerbeater.

You want BB to tell the managers to stick with the same team even more, to do nothing really and get rewarded basicly for doing nothing and make the playermarket even more crippled..

Have you noticed the insane prices for players, the amount of managers bidding on the same players compared to seasons ago.

BB really needs more players on the TL. With less insane asking prices.. If we need something to change, it would be the mindset to be active more with your squad, not less..... People are putting on insane askingprices, hoping managers will bite.. And most of the time the managers who pay those insane prices are the managers who sit on there hands for months ( who get awarded with your suggestion) and suddenly want to buy a player for 150% of the marketvalue.

Therefore im saying, you are not on nba.com/forum. Your suggestion sounds nice, but it would not help the game... It would not stimulate a manager to be active and most managers are doing nothing already.. That should be your startingpoint in the discussion here.

And teams already get rewarded for sticking with there trainees via taxes, players Newly bought are getting a hit in game shape.

I would suggest to get a boost in chemistry for buying a player (maybe sell 1 too) once a season or so that has at least 80% of the average TSP of the team. This will boost the managers and market to be more active. This will stimulate to ask less for your player because you want to sell/buy..

New players arent a bad thing. They can be yes. But your suggestion makes them..

Last edited by Maupster at 12/8/2017 4:19:07 AM

I noticed you didn't respond to my reply to your reply.

the one where i clarified things, explained things, that were (i guess) Vague, and gave you numerous examples of things that negatively impact chemistry.

Its clear to me between your lack of response, and then how you responded to the other guy. That you are 100% deadset in that your way must be right and is the only right way. Why bother replying at all if you aren't having an open dialogue, but trying to force your opinions and beliefs upon others?

Why not explain a way, for it to:
1. Make sense
2. Be fair
3. Be implementable