Warrior General Games

The low contract [?] hover states:
The amount you are willing to pay this player.

A low value contract costs less, but the player will have a maximum chemistry value of 50.

This says nothing about gaining chemistry it say you will have a chemistry value. WTF does this mean as my low contract players only gained 3 chemistry. Is this suppoed to say:

A low value contract costs less, but the player will have a maximum chemistry regeneration value of 50.

Please clarify and fix if needed. Thx

It means your max chemistry can only be 50.

In other words. Low contract is bad. Real bad.

Originally posted by bhall43
It means your max chemistry can only be 50.

If that is the truth and my players play with only 50 max chemistry, why did all my low contract players gain half the chem of my medium players?

Something in the description is off. Hopefully bort or corn can jump in here and clarify and update the description.

Originally posted by DONKEIDIC
If that is the truth and there is nothing more,Then why did all my low contract players gain half the chem of my medium players?

Maybe the gains are % based and 50 is taken as 100 with a low contract.

Originally posted by bhall43
Maybe the gains are % based and 50 is taken as 100 with a low contract.

Yeah I think it is 50% of chemistry gained, and 50% of total chemistry, because 50 max would not affect players with below 50 chemistry.

Just looking for a note fix and some clarification.

Were you a blind coach all last season, or just a lazy one?

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Were you a blind coach all last season, or just a lazy one?

Did you ride the short bus to school? You are one of the internet people I would love to meet in person just to see the mess you would be irl.

How does coaching have anything to do with contractual finances? Learn to logic.

You are a sad, sad boy.

BTW are we getting an answer on this? Since obviously it is written incorrectly.

I can confirm that low contract players also do gain chemistry slowly. No idea if they'll fix the text, though.

Originally posted by DONKEIDIC
Did you ride the short bus to school? You are one of the internet people I would love to meet in person just to see the mess you would be irl.

How does coaching have anything to do with contractual finances? Learn to logic.

You are a sad, sad boy.

You had to watch your team somehow last year to be a coach, or at least a good one. You may ask if I rode the short bus to school but I KNOW you did because it was obvious last season after a few games that low contracts gained chemistry slower and vv for highs.

I don't have a problem with my logic because you don't understand things, it's the other way around kid.

Originally posted by DONKEIDIC
Did you ride the short bus to school? You are one of the internet people I would love to meet in person just to see the mess you would be irl.

How does coaching have anything to do with contractual finances? Learn to logic.

You are a sad, sad boy.

Not sure if you're mad cuz you're a bad coach or because you are too dumb to realize that none of your players need to have low contracts, so why even bother?

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
You had to watch your team somehow last year to be a coach, or at least a good one. You may ask if I rode the short bus to school but I KNOW you did because it was obvious last season after a few games that low contracts gained chemistry slower and vv for highs.

I don't have a problem with my logic because you don't understand things, it's the other way around kid.

AGAIN YOU FUCKING MONGOLOID IF MY PLAYERS HAD NO LOW CONTRACTS HOW COULD I SEE THE EFFECTS DUMBFUCK?

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Not sure if you're mad cuz you're a bad coach or because you are too dumb to realize that none of your players need to have low contracts, so why even bother?

As for you, keep trolling. This is a simple question that I do not need your comments on. The description clearly states an incorrect fact. How does your comments add to, or change that? It does not. So suck it.

EDIT: Oh I see now why you think what you do. lol

It actually doesn't state an incorrect fact.

The statement is factual. It just doesn't mention anything about how quickly one gets to said max of 50.

Originally posted by Homage
It actually doesn't state an incorrect fact.

The statement is factual. It just doesn't mention anything about how quickly one gets to said max of 50.

true...i guess it wouldnt hurt to state in in the description, tho