NBA Sims 2008.....

[Metsis]

I just remember from a baseball game called 'High Heat'. MLBPA wouldn't allow them to adopt real salaries so they had to use the point system. When you modify a player's rating, he will lose his portrait since he no longer represents the real MLB couterpart. (or so MLBPA thinks)

I found your idea of 'similar ratings get along well' a very nice idea though.

Guess why NBA Live series has never had real salaries and use points instead. I do think that this is changing especially if they bring in some of the more managerial side. NHL games didn't have fights initially cause NHLPA didn't aprove, but they got it in there eventually.

There are no good or bad personalities, there are just different personalities.

NBPA is coming around... I don't think they want to be the ancient ones in this line of work. I don't think that NBPA is going to withold information that much... It's only a game and they want to make it realistic and thus need a little information. Making EA use points, well that's just dumb and makes everything a bit harder.

I hear there are going to be real salaries on NHL and some sort of a cap for them too. A maximum cap cause NHL teams are not as restriced salary wise as NBA teams are...

I want to see some team chemistry... That's the reason Atlanta failed to make the play-offs last season for example.

[Vins15]

I just remember from a baseball game called 'High Heat'. MLBPA wouldn't allow them to adopt real salaries so they had to use the point system. When you modify a player's rating, he will lose his portrait since he no longer represents the real MLB couterpart. (or so MLBPA thinks)

I found your idea of 'similar ratings get along well' a very nice idea though.

Guess why NBA Live series has never had real salaries and use points instead. I do think that this is changing especially if they bring in some of the more managerial side. NHL games didn't have fights initially cause NHLPA didn't aprove, but they got it in there eventually.

There are no good or bad personalities, there are just different personalities.

NBPA is coming around... I don't think they want to be the ancient ones in this line of work. I don't think that NBPA is going to withold information that much... It's only a game and they want to make it realistic and thus need a little information. Making EA use points, well that's just dumb and makes everything a bit harder.

I hear there are going to be real salaries on NHL and some sort of a cap for them too. A maximum cap cause NHL teams are not as restriced salary wise as NBA teams are...

I want to see some team chemistry... That's the reason Atlanta failed to make the play-offs last season for example.

i agree if NBAPA just allow EA Sports to have real salaries ... and yes team chemistry is an important part of b-ball..the bucks did not make it to the playoffs two year ago with Ray Allen,Sam Cassell,Glen Robinson is cuz of their chemistry they just don't fit...cuz players on the team are negative and the basically don't like each other...if they had the chemistry like 3 or 4 years ago they'd be in the close to the finals..

[Andrew]

Actually Andrew this was done pretty much perfectly in NCAA Football 2004 with the Sports Illustrated feature, Sure they didn't have rumors, but maybe it could show who was on a hot streak or who is shaping up to be on the all-star/rookie teams. Later in the season it could show whos in the MVP/6th Man/Rookie/Defensive/Most Improved Player award running like NCAA's Sports Illustrated Heisman/Maxwell/Bednarik/Best QB/Best RB/etc. awards. Also you will probably never tire of just checking out this feature if it was done exactly like NCAA 2004's.

I'm aware of that, and I agree. Award Watches and news about streaks and so forth would be good, but I think that feature articles would get repetitive.

[chipper]

Personality will be hard to design. Suppose there are 3 players A, B and C.
A and B are good teammates so are A and C. But B and C hate each other. How could this be implemented ?

Also, say there is this player who had troublesome relationships in Team A. He then gets traded to team B and he gets along with new teammates very well. That means everybody in Team B will hate everybody in team A.

Anyway, i found another way of designing this. Not as detailed but kinda easy to design and implement.

create a random pair of players and mark the relationship as either "good' or "bad".
For e.g. Jason Kidd and jim Jackson will be paired as "bad relationship". stockton and malone will be paired in a "good relationship". A team with more good relationships will have better chemistry.

As the season progresses, we can have randomly generated relationships. A struggling team is more likely to generate bad pairs. A team full of scorers also have higher chance. just a thought.

[Metsis]

On your idea chipper:

This would not have to be so. As I've said it is team chemistry I'm talking about. So one player really wouldn't effect it so much. The average or total of the different chemistries would tell the tale. Most players would be rated about 70-80 range and thus the team average would be around 72-78. Now there's a good difference between the two. Some of the good guys would have ratings about 90 and some more lone wolf or bad boys would have 60. Now if you take bad boy (60) and you put it in team A with chemistry average of 80 you have a 20 point difference and if you put him in team B with chemistry of 72 there would only be a 12 point difference. This difference is what I'm talkin about, the player A (bad boy) would be more comfortable in team B, but most of the players in team B would still be comfortable in team A as well. This is the chemistry thing.

The other thing that you wanted to pull out was the personality thing. Again this would work out like the chemistry, but still a different thing. This would more effect a players choices come contract negotiation time etc. or wanting to be traded etc. Being alone on a team is not a very good thing. Again most players would be rated 70-80, but some really good guys, by the book guys would be rated in 90's and dennis rodman type would be more in the 60's. But here the teaming up would be important. If there are no other players on the team with similar rating (+-5) then the player wouldn't be too happy at the place and it would effect his game, but not the entire teams play. But if he had one or more similar thinkers he would feel more like home and thus be more willing to re-sign with the team or even taking a little paycut to cut the costs or settle for less money then he could get elsewhere. On the other hand, you can see what Odom is trying to do now, he's doing all he can to get out of the Clippers cause he personally thinks that he needs a change of scenery. Again pretty much the same implementation, but a different effect. Personality would effect his game performance.

Then there could be one more thing rated... Motivation... Again most players would be rated 70-80, but the ones going where they get most of the money would be rated below the average and the title seekers would be rated a little higher. The average would mean that the player mostly likes to play and produce for the team, but the guys after the money or the title would more likely to do just that. Money seekers would see all the offers and be more likely to choose the one with most money on the table and title seekers would choose the team with the best opportunities to get a title. Now don't get me wrong, everyone wants to get a title, but most people want to do it with their team.

Example: Jason Kidd
Chemistry - 95
Personality - 90
Motivation - 80

He brings tons of high chemistry and leadership into the team. He's a good family guy with solid values and respects people. And his motivation is to win a title, but he's wants to do it with the New Jersey Nets.

With age, the chemistry ratings would usually go up (locker room players and leaders with example and mentors that the veterans are), personality ratings would go toward the average (they are more likely to get along with all types of players) and motivation should move toward one end (player gets more motivated to go after his goal as he grows older and becomes more determined and realises that time is ticking and if he wants to realise his dream he has to go for it)

That's a little more detailed explanation of things... What do you think of that chipper?

[Vins15]

how about also a coach and player chemistry or gm and player chemistry...it'll help the relationships between coaches and players..for eg...Phil jackson likes Kobe the most and they have a good relationship so Phil Jackson will probably run more plays for Kobe and stuff...

[Metsis]

The coaches could have their own personality ratings and thus they would like other players better then others.

Coaches should have some ratings for game style, which would effect the team play and effort in simulation... With some coaches you would score a little less, but allow a few less baskets too. Or some coaches could really boost your offense with little effect to defense or cause some defensive lapses every now and then.

[Andrew]

Using the Dennis Rodman example, there needs to be some kind of rating to moderate the attitude/chemistry/motivation aspect.

After all, the Spurs traded the Worm for Will Perdue, thinking that it was no big loss and the only impact he'd have on the Bulls would be negative. Instead, he helped them win three more titles.

Anthony Mason has a reputation for having a big ego and a me-first attitude, but he managed to fit in and play an important role on some of the top teams in the 90s.

Perhaps this could be addressed by the personality of the coaches. Bob Hill tried to tame Rodman, and lost Rodman's respect and dedication. Phil Jackson let Rodman be Rodman, but also made it clear that the Bulls needed him to do a job. The difference is evident.

[Swoosh]

Metsis,just a note about the chemistry thingy, u are talking about a bad boy with a low rating in a very good team,thus a rating difference of 20 or something u said, and he would feel as good in team A as in team B(where the difference would be only like 12 or something), but wouldn't it also be possible that the player with the low rating would elevate his game to a whole new level and become a very good player in the team, or in an extreme case a star, even just a solid sixth man. Am i missing your point or is this a valid point what i just said? It could be just me

[Metsis]

Metsis,just a note about the chemistry thingy, u are talking about a bad boy with a low rating in a very good team,thus a rating difference of 20 or something u said, and he would feel as good in team A as in team B(where the difference would be only like 12 or something), but wouldn't it also be possible that the player with the low rating would elevate his game to a whole new level and become a very good player in the team, or in an extreme case a star, even just a solid sixth man. Am i missing your point or is this a valid point what i just said? It could be just me

Okey the bad boy (player x) has a chemistry rating of 60 (overall could anything between 50-99) and Team A had chemistry of 80 and team B 72.

Now because player x brings his chemistry of 60 into a team, it effects the overall chemistry a little, but just a little if the roster is full. But what would effect that players personal achievements would be the difference between his chemistry and the team chemistry (either 20 or 12). By some mean or measure this difference would effect the players performance. I didn't say that he'd feel as good (atleast I didn't mean to), but I said that player x would feel better (and thus play better) in team B then team A, but the players in team B would propably still get along and play well in team A. So not everyone in team B would hate everyone in team A.

My point was with the whole better worse thing was that when you get a new guy (whether he's starting or not) he would play a little differently. Like the player x in question might score a point more in team B then in team A or get a rebound more or something. So a player could really thrive in an environment, but also he could get bored and unproductive in others.

Jim Jackson took over for Hedo Turkoglu in Sacramento last year, and the team didn't change that much. So Turkoglu was propably a bad match with the team anyway although he played a very solid game a year before. His difference in chemistry could have increased and a couple of aquisitions last summer changed the team chemistry into the wrong direction and thus having Turkoglu play a little off key and now he's with another team. And I think Turkoglu will be a better match in San Antonio.

A team chemistry would not make or break a guy, but it would help him to get you the best performance he can possibly give or just leaving him as an outsider and thus not realising his potential. Remember that someone in the Wizards organization told Ben Wallace that he'd never make it in the NBA and how good is he now??? A change of scenery did wonders for him.

But again I say that these are just examples of how this could be implemented and I think that they are good ones too. This is not going to be in Live 2004 atleast not in this format, but this is a way to implement the chemistries inside the teams.

These have never been tested and I don't know how the game calculates if a shot is succesful or not or wheter you get a steal, but one more factor for "team condition" could be added and it would effect the players game. "Team Condition" would include the chemistry, personlity, motivation and coach operands and the average of those would be used. I really don't think that the Utah team that went to the finals had that much chemistry, but Malone-to-Stockton (personal relationship) worked so well that they got the job done. This is just my point-of-view.