Team Chemistry?

vocquat · Post by **vocquat** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Is there such a thing as team chemistry in this game?

Post by **Minstrel** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:10 pm

Not in a measured way like the console games have gone to (with actual 'chemistry' bars that fill when players paly together more and they then play better) but there are several aspects of 'chemistry' present in EHM, yeah.

One is by mood, teams that get along (you'll see players say they feel the lockeroom has a good atmosphere) are happier. If you see a team that has turned against their GM (they'll say they belive the GM should be more patient / they've lost faith in their GM / they disagree with the treatment of a teammate) that spreads quickly to many players on a team being unhappy which leads to them not caring as much about putting in a good effort on the ice.

Some player combos will just work better than others; it's a general sense you can feel. My Blue Jackets Challenge team were the perfect example of this in the first season. They just weren't "clicking" and lost their first five games but were getting enough chances to win

I swapped just two players, putting Nash on second line and Doan to the first and from the very first game the new lines hit the ice we dominated.

A more specifc/easier to gauge version of that is players might list a favorite team or players; a player playing with a favorite teammate will have better chemistry with him and will be upset should you trade that player.

EDIT: I split this topic off because I think it's an interesting discussion point, and one a lot of people overlook when putting together a team; but it's essential to success with EHM.

nepg · Post by **nepg** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:27 pm

So there isn't a "cohesiveness" factor as in Front Office Football, just players' general attitude towards each other and the team?

Post by **Shadd666** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:34 pm

There IS a cohesion factor

But it's up to you to find it, as you'll never see a cohesion attribute with a number in front, like you could do to see how good the player is on his slapshot.

But cohesion, or team chemistry, or call it as you want, is implemented in the game

Post by **batdad** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:35 pm

I think I am going to test this...and in a practice game have Todd Bertuzzi, Dominic Moore, Trevor Linden and Chris Chelios (they hate each other in real life from way back, even before the NHLPA stuff.

nepg · Post by **nepg** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:34 am

What about Donald Brasheer and Marty McSorely on the same line?

Post by **batdad** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:35 am

I would say McSorley is too old for this...but already putting Chelios in.

vocquat · Post by **vocquat** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:06 am

It's just that no matter what team and what palyers (even after a fantasy draft), players always seem to be happy, finding the locker room has a good atmosphere and happy to stay with the team).

If they aver were unhappy, it was either because they weren't plying much or the media was overly critical

Post by **Minstrel** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:10 am

As I said that's just one indicator of chemistry in the game, and also just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen

Post by **Shadd666** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:33 am

Hell yeah! I had the "unhappy with treatment of a teammate" tag several times... Maybe i'm a bit too harsh with the guys

BlindEarth80 · Post by **BlindEarth80** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:19 am

Chemistry in EHM seems to reflect the way it actually works in real life for any sport. I'm glad it's not measured in a tangible way like the console games, because it can't be measured. It might not even exist.

Some people, especially sportswriters, seem to believe there's a magical factor of a group of people in a locker room either getting along like best friends and winning because of it, or fighting with each other all the time and losing. It's one of the biggest sports myths. The truth is, winning creates the positive chemistry and losing makes the negative. That's how it works in EHM. Teams start out relatively positive about their chances, player morale rises on the winning teams and drops on the losing teams, happy players perform better and unhappy players perform worse, and streaks occur.

There can be disruptions - such as trading away a leader - which affect the overall chemistry for a while. But most of the leaders (the players who are listed on other players' profiles as having an essential role on the team) are top players anyway, so the effect of losing them is more physical than mental. If they are replaced by comparable talent, it may take a little while to gel again, as hockey is a team sport and the players need to get comfortable with each other, but it'll happen. Tangible attributes are the largest factors in creating the wins that breed a positive attitude.

Post by **batdad** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:53 pm

Actually winning only helps chemistry go well. Trust me, seen a winning team where there were 15 cliques of players who did not get along at all. 1994 is a hell of an example on both Stanley Cup finalist teams. Especially the Western rep.

Also seen several losing teams who loved each other, and hung out like best buds in the world. Mainly because they were all laughing that they actually still had jobs.
Selfish players on winning teams do not make friends fast...Jan Bulis, can you hear me? Often, they can provide cause big problems in the room, which then turn the team into troubled times. Chemistry is a factor of winning, but it can be overcome.

In EHM this seems to be the case as well. I think it works well for the most part..but no matter what...23 guys are not going to all get along, and some will dislike others. I am in my third season with CBJ and I can smell how much Nash and Zherdev do not really like each other. I have em on the same line, with Sundin. Totally do not like the other guy carrying the puck! They hate it. If Zherdev scores, Nash does not. If Nash scores, Zherdev does not. They never get assists on each others goals, or on the same goal. NEVER! IT is hard to believe Zherdev has 50 goals in 60 games, and Nash has 40. (Mats Sundin has 88 assists already, Pitkanen has 50). Poor Mats, stuck in the middle. " If I pass to Nik, Rick will be widdled at me. If I pass to Rick, Nik will be widdled...ah to hell with it..give it to Joni and let him decide. darn, Phaneuf got another one!!"

Moved Nash to line 2 with Brule and Picard...Boom!! Nash and Zherdev both scoring like madmen. The team even with this hatred is 45-10-5.