BuzzerBeater Forums

You could start a new thread on personality if you want to suggest it, but I can tell you here that the likelihood of this actually getting created are significantly less than the likelihood that my wife will be okay with the idea of me taking another dozen wives and making her sleep outside on the terrace. Not that it hasn't stopped me from suggesting that, either (which explains my limp). I don't want to you discourage your suggestion. I definitely think it would give a lot of new depth to the game. It's just that the complexity involved just seems to go way beyond the scope of the BB simulation. Remember, it's also not realistic that we can see things like a numeric skill level for players' skill. Can you imagine knowing if a real player's JS was a 5 or 7? It's totally unrealistic player evaluation information, but that's just the nature of the game. If personality were a new component, I think we'd see no end of complaints about how this one more thing that we have to worry about with managing our teams and there would a ton of debate about how personality should be created and how it would work. We already get a ton of discussion about the hidden Aggressive attribute as it is. Personality would dwarf Aggressiveness in controversy. That's why I suggested what I suggested, since I think those two items, particularly the latter one, should be both feasible to implement without too much difficulty (easy for me to say!), and are not terribly controversial (and both very reasonable, if I can say so myself).

Ahahah you did discourage me a lot

Yeah I can see how big an earthquake it would be to the simulation.
Too bad it wasn't thought of at the very beginning of the development (I think that at that early stage a good solution could have been found).

Well this is a nice story that tried (too) hard not to relate to the facts that:

1) A player (and a key player more than others) will assist his new team much more when he will be part of the team for few weeks (AKA "team-chemistry").
You brang the example - how does Miami played at the begining of the season and how at the end of it [exluding their finals... :+) ]

2) The pre-camp is not for training and getting back to shape as independent parts (players).
It is about creating a "team-chemistry".

3) It is not normal that the MVP of a team will be bought seconds before playoff.
The affect of that should be even more negative to a team "team-chemistry" wise.

You brang the example - how does Miami played at the begining of the season and how at the end of it [exluding their finals... :+) ]

bad streaks happen, for a short second you didn't believe that you can not echange key parts and still be succesful.

Detroit and NY both get better after teh melo deal, to bring an example with an push even over a longer period. At least i never saw a manager sayng we had to keep all player, and beware of fresh blood. Normally they say they want to keep a core, a in negoations with all players and then bring in new blood.

There always different roads to implement things.

Yes, it would be best if it could take any characteristic a player has.
But, it will be good enough to have any affect of the "team-chemistry" at this game.

Currnet game just give to much power for auction.
It is not about building a team it is about being a good eBay trader.
It is event not that, as there is unfair advantage to those who are flexible with time.
This game needs to be more focused on its assence - BB managing.

Well, I guess I'll need to repeat myself over again...

A good player is a good player.
Hence, getting a new player which is much better than the one you have will (very "suprisingly") get your team better.

BUT...

This team will be much better few weeks afterwards when the "team-chmistry" will be developed.
Again - Miami approves both this cases.

I disagree with your proof. The counterproof? The Boston Celtics. Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett sure didn't need a lot of time to develop chemistry to win a championship. And while you see Miami as a great proof, the fact that they won a conference championship in their first season with their super free agents is evidence that the team actually was pretty darn good, not a total failure in spite of what chemistry issues outsiders will read into the team. But did Utah ever win a championship with their Hall-of-Fame combination of John Stockton and Karl Malone? That was great chemistry, but they couldn't win a title. Again, chemistry is such a difficult item to get a handle on that I wouldn't even know where the BB developers would begin to try to figure this out.

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.