BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Team chemistry

Team chemistry

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
99410.12 in reply to 99410.11
Date: 7/12/2009 10:20:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2222
I like this idea of having team chemistry added to offensive flow... i've always been intrigued if whether chemistry is added in BB as it supports players who don't buy players and just concentrate on training...

From: chihorn
This Post:
00
99410.13 in reply to 99410.11
Date: 7/14/2009 11:34:46 AM
New York Chunks
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
943943
Let's keep in mind that sometimes chemistry gets worse over time. Players get tired of each other, get into fights, etc. Shaq and Kobe. DiMaggio and Mantle. Jeter and A-Rod. The Beattles. Things break up over time. Only the fans really like the consistency of the identity of their favorite teams. Players maybe get to know each other better on the court and, yes, can learn to play together better, but it can work the opposite way sometimes, too, when a player decides he needs to be a bigger star. Anyone remember how Charles Oakley got traded from the Bulls? He was complaining that there were no offensive plays drawn up for him to specifically get the ball. (Um, Charles, you have MJ and Scottie who can score all night long. Just keep having those 20-rebound games and we'll win...) Trading Oakley got the Bulls Bill Cartwright and a draft pick (Will Perdue), and actually improved team chemistry, leading the first Bulls threepeat. In short, chemistry is not a given, and can't really be woven into team performance in a basketball sim.

Don't ask what sort of Chunks they are, you probably don't want to know. Blowing Chunks since Season 4!
This Post:
00
99410.14 in reply to 99410.13
Date: 7/15/2009 1:15:16 AM
Balls of Steel
IV.10
Overall Posts Rated:
123123
[Let's keep in mind that sometimes chemistry gets worse over time/q]
I will agree that sometimes this occurs. Terrell Owens and ANY team he has played for are prime examples. However more players get along than those who do not. Or put in more realistic terms, even if they may not like them personally, they respect the PLAYER who is their teammate. And having played with a teammate over time allows you to anticipate how he might react.

So I like, and endorse the Team Chemistry concept.


This Post:
00
99410.15 in reply to 99410.13
Date: 7/15/2009 5:14:03 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4646
Let's keep in mind that sometimes chemistry gets worse over time. Players get tired of each other, get into fights, etc. Shaq and Kobe. DiMaggio and Mantle. Jeter and A-Rod. The Beattles. Things break up over time. Only the fans really like the consistency of the identity of their favorite teams. Players maybe get to know each other better on the court and, yes, can learn to play together better, but it can work the opposite way sometimes, too, when a player decides he needs to be a bigger star. Anyone remember how Charles Oakley got traded from the Bulls? He was complaining that there were no offensive plays drawn up for him to specifically get the ball. (Um, Charles, you have MJ and Scottie who can score all night long. Just keep having those 20-rebound games and we'll win...) Trading Oakley got the Bulls Bill Cartwright and a draft pick (Will Perdue), and actually improved team chemistry, leading the first Bulls threepeat. In short, chemistry is not a given, and can't really be woven into team performance in a basketball sim.


I think it's too difficult adding team chemistry, too.
The game doesn't need it imho.

This Post:
00
99410.16 in reply to 99410.15
Date: 7/15/2009 7:19:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
In general, I like the team (on court) chemistry suggestion. I don’t think it would be to prevent day-trading, but to model the fact that players learn how the other plays and play together better over time – like Stockton and Malone for example. Adding improvements to execution/offensive flow might be the way to go.

Not sure about team cohesiveness…that’s a little more difficult to say how it works in real life. Would be nice if we could move anyway from the HT PIC/MOTS model though. I really don’t think that models real basketball much, IMHO.


Steve
Bruins

This Post:
00
99410.17 in reply to 99410.13
Date: 7/17/2009 5:46:15 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2222
Let's keep in mind that sometimes chemistry gets worse over time.


I do believe this also... i never thought that chemistry could be an all-pro additional feature, if ever this would be considered in the future

This Post:
00
99410.18 in reply to 99410.17
Date: 7/20/2009 11:51:29 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
33
I believe there should not be a team chemistry, but some sort of enhanciment of the efectivness of an offensive tactic.

Teams that always play look inside should be more effective than those 1 a time teams.

Its the counterpart of beeing easily discovered.

From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
99410.19 in reply to 99410.18
Date: 7/20/2009 12:29:43 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
if you always play a tactic you could optimate your team on it, and get a better "li" then a flexible team which could play both already. I think the mix betwen specialized teams, and more flexible teams is pretty balanced today and giving the unflexible teams an advance could make the game a bit boring. In my eyes it would be better if they make the flexibel teams more stronger.

This Post:
00
99410.20 in reply to 99410.19
Date: 7/20/2009 7:49:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
66
That is a good idea, but that might open up a new can of worms(not that it is a bad thing). I mean, you can do that to the defensive side too. Can you imagine the decisions you would have to make concerning your best defense or the defense more equal to the type of offense your opponent is playing?

Here is something else to think about. What if each player had a rating on each of the offenses and defensive tactics? That way you could base your whole offense to make the teams offensive flow run smoother. A percentage scale would be good. For example, we got a player who is 50% run and gun, 25% motion, 25% base. In his next game he plays in the run and gun. After the game, he is now 55% run and gun and either motion or base loses 5%. Or do you you think a point system would be better?