BuzzerBeater Forums

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

I noticed that you only complain to my suggestions, so why don't you:

1. Stop assuming and putting words into my mouth (I'm ignoring you because you have made no valid alternatives to the things you were complaining about.)
2. Make a constructive suggestion just like Maupster did above.

I noticed that you only complain to my suggestions, so why don't you:

1. Stop assuming and putting words into my mouth (I'm ignoring you because you have made no valid alternatives to the things you were complaining about.)
2. Make a constructive suggestion just like Maupster did above.

First.
1. and 2. are saying the same thing, so you only have 1 point.


Second:
You want an in-game advantage for having the same players on a team for longer periods of time together. You want it in such a way that there are no apparent negative side-effects to it, and your suggestion for how it should be implemented benefits BOTs more than anyone...

So, rather than implementing it in your manner. Have the rate at which "experience" improves be less rigid and set in stone as X for league, y for cup, and Z for U21/NT games as ways to increase it.

and make those gains much smaller, but instead have hidden stats like aggressiveness, and clutch, for the chemistry, to where Player X gains experience A faster when playing with player Y, but when Player X is playing with Player Z, his experience gains A slower, because they have poorer chemistry.

This way you still get gains like you want, but, they are not just handed out and given to you like its entitled to you. You have to find the combinations to make it work better. Adds more challenge and fun.

I noticed that you only complain to my suggestions, so why don't you:

1. Stop assuming and putting words into my mouth (I'm ignoring you because you have made no valid alternatives to the things you were complaining about.)
2. Make a constructive suggestion just like Maupster did above.

Just because something is not on the same side as your suggestion, does not mean its not constructive. Try opening your mind up some.


There's been people making comments and ideas and suggestions about player chemistry for literal YEARS not BB seasons, but YEARS. So, forgive me, if I don't spam forums with suggestions and idea's that have been suggested before... without ever reading why they were shot down... like SOME people apparently do...

Last edited by RandyMoss at 12/8/2017 9:45:30 PM

My apologies if the earlier responses were vague and defensive, I felt like you guys were jumping the gun on my suggestion before I even detailed out the concept that I had in my head. Well now at least we're getting somewhere with the points you highlighted here.

What I actually have in mind is a soft bonus like enthusiasm (or replace the current enthusiasm system since it doesn't seem realistic to me) that evolves over time but capped at a certain level where teams don't overpower other teams who constantly add/sell players (bot teams are exempted from this bonus). Let's assume that the max bonus is equal to "zealous" enthusiasm which can be achieved when you keep a roster together for an entire season but every time you buy or sell players it drops by 1 level per player added/sold. Would that be feasible or is that still too simple?

BTW aren't overinflated TL prices the result of managers intentionally overvaluing players hoping that some new/inexperienced manager takes the bait? I see it all the time and have been a victim of that more than a few times during in the past.

Last edited by Pro_Shot 🇵🇭 at 12/9/2017 4:09:13 AM

What I actually have in mind is a soft bonus like enthusiasm (or replace the current enthusiasm system since it doesn't seem realistic to me) that evolves over time but capped at a certain level where teams don't overpower other teams who constantly add/sell players (bot teams are exempted from this bonus). Let's assume that the max bonus is equal to "zealous" enthusiasm which can be achieved when you keep a roster together for an entire season but every time you buy or sell players it drops by 1 level per player added/sold. Would that be feasible or is that still too simple?

This is doable, and makes a lot more sense than enthusiasm only built/used via TIE, Normal, CT.
It also makes sense that a team would be less enthusiastic if they had the same roster day in day out and were losing, or if they got rid of their better players for crappier players etc.

I also, do not think I have seen this specific take as a suggestion before. +1 sir