BuzzerBeater Forums

we've thought about adding a team chemistry modifier that would be best for teams that have been together the longest.

what about something similar to the NT? if they drop or replace a player it effects enthusiasm...

ive got a dead cert NT player that aint in his NT as the manager is scared of the enthusiasm drop!

if this was similar then it would encourage organic growth and teams would evolve only when upgrading...

good point mouthlino,
unless the modifier calculates with all payers in the team, not just the line ups.

I see an other posible downside though.

This might encourage teams to stick to their players too long, thus keeping players that get a little old to be succesfully trained.

we've thought about adding a team chemistry modifier that would be best for teams that have been together the longest.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate in this instance to add a season-ticket-holder/ merchandising /attendance modifier? It would create more of an economical equilibrium between the teams who DT and those who don't, and add a smidgen of realism.

In reality, if a team bought and sold as many players as some teams here are, the fan base would be completely confused by a constantly changing roster, the jerseys for new players couldn't be made fast enough to sell before the player himself is sold, and supporters would have trouble deciding whether to attend a home game because they have no idea who will be playing in any given game.

Not that I would know if either method would have any programming advantages over the other; just throwing an idea out there so this thread can hurry up and die.

Edited by darykjozef (12/29/2007 1:13:05 PM CET)

Last edited by darykjozef at 12/29/2007 1:13:05 PM

what about something similar to the NT? if they drop or replace a player it effects enthusiasm...

ive got a dead cert NT player that aint in his NT as the manager is scared of the enthusiasm drop!

if this was similar then it would encourage organic growth and teams would evolve only when upgrading...

is no-one going to second this?? surely this is a way to prevent massive roster changes... then when you upgrade players it would take the player a week or so to fit in at the level the team was playing at before (which is similar if not obviously faster) in real life...


this would stop people hoarding cash and only buying ahead of playoffs and the more i think of it the more realistic it seems... if a player signs for a team with already 20 people on roster the average persons enthusiasm on the team is going to drop...

if buying 5 players in a week dropped enthusiasm from 7-5 then people (i know i would) would definitely think twice unless it was a genuine team improvement...

Edited by Superfly Guy (12/29/2007 3:25:47 PM CET)

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 12/29/2007 3:25:47 PM

That's a great idea to build on, but I don't think that goup chemistry should only be about having the team that has played together for a very long time. If the same guys keep playing together season after season, then they will probably loose some edge after a while.

You will almost always be able to find teams that contradicts a general principle. But of course trading too much is a bigger problem for group chemistry than having a too static roster.

*bump it up*
i think we still need to talk about this, heard the italians have something to add ^^
in the german forum we had also discussions about this issue...
here is my statement, i like daytrading, its a big part of my time in BB, yes i made a few millions (hate me for that), but on the other side i invested lot of time and nerves...
so i dont know why people want to stop it, most of them say its unrealistic ok you get a point on this but on the other side its a game and not real life there is many other things unrealistic as well...
some say daytraders raise the prices an made the inflation, i dont think so, i think they do the opposite thing coz at first they take a lot of money out of the game (transfer fees) and also stable the prices on the market, coz they wont bid to much on players to still make some profit and by bidding on players which were put on for a to low price, so in the end they the ones which make the difference between similar players smaller...
also what you do with your money in the game you build your arena, pay your roster and staff and thats it? i dont like sittin on my money i try to invest it to make my team better and the only way to invest/spend money is the transfer market,

if you like a communism basketball simulation its fine, take the money out the game, let slaveworkers build the arenas, get no income from supporters and only play with training and tactics and if you need new players order lower division teams to give you their best players ;)



Last edited by CitB at 3/9/2008 5:05:18 PM

Nobody wants to take money out of the game, but as a basketball management game basketball decisions need to be at least as important as market decisions. When someone trades often enough that they can always afford to buy the best players on the market then the game becomes purely economical because training decisions and roster decisions become moot.

I believe a management game should be about all aspects of management and not about who has the most time to spend working the market. Money management is extremely important, it just shouldn't be the most important.

I still believe the best way to deal with the situation is to cap transfers. You could limit transfers weekly, or by season, or pre/post all-star game, that part isn't quite as important.

This allows those with the skills to make profit on the market still make more than most, but nobody can make enough strictly off of transfers to the point where it limits the importance of other decisions.