Warrior General Games

Day 26 of the Season, 17 Games Played.

Players that I signed to high contracts on the first day of FA are just now achieving 100 Chemistry.

Players that I signed to medium contacts are still below 90% Chemistry.


Essentially over half of the season just suffering through games. Why does this game punish adding new players so harshly? It's bad for the owners and it's bad for the agents. Free Agency should be a vibrant exciting part of the game instead you get brutally punished by it.

If you want to make chemistry a thing it needs to be toned down. Either player's recover it faster or they start at higher than 50% when joining a team. After the first third of the season I shouldn't be continued to be punished by signing a FA. Something has to change with this.

When you punish teams for having FA you are just encouraging more and more super owners to either own all their own players or create multi accounts because of the ever present fear of having to change out a player in an offseason and suffer though 50-60% of the next season at diminished playing results.

Having less of a chemistry punishment would be especially beneficial to newer owners and agents, which is the only thing that is going to keep this game going and exciting.

Edit: Scratch everything I said, didn't realize there's only 5 seasons average in a player's career in GLB2.

Originally posted by coach_mean
I understand your passion, but I think it's currently fair and realistic. I like realism (yeah, yeah, I know it's just a video game). Anyhow, I like it the way it is.

Explain to me how this is perfectly realistic? NFL players that go to new teams don't have a chemistry bar that they have to suffer through for 60% of their season. Some NFL players come right in go a new team and perform just fine or even great. It's not an exact science like this game attempts to make it.

And, gasp!, some players even get traded during an NFL season and don't suck!


Make the chemistry improve faster based on snaps played or in game production if we have to be stuck on the 50% starting thing. If I have a FA QB playing 70 snaps per game and a FA LB playing 20 snaps per game maybe their chemistry improves at a different rate.

Something needs to change because the current situation is not in the best interest of the health of the game.

Edit: Scratch everything I said, didn't realize there's only 5 seasons average in a player's career in GLB2.

Chemistry is really only part of this game to keep people from changing their team make up game to game. But I have long agreed that the current wait time on getting to 100 chemistry is the worst part of this game. It consistently hurts people looking to get on teams. Nobody wants to bring them in because their chemistry sitting below 100 for more than half a season is less appealing that whatever they currently have on their roster.

I'd also like to see player chemistry reduced when a new coach or coordinator is assigned to a team.

I'm thinking around 10 games total to regain chem from zero, three or four from 50. Very slow gains at first and ramping up towards the end. If the main purpose is to prevent teams from in season roster changes this should be enough of a deterrent.

It doesn't punish people so heavily just because they need to sign free agents during to offseason. Really irritates me to get penalized so heavily over replacing inactives and other things not in my control.

Originally posted by coach_mean
If we're simulating youth football then you're right, but professional football is very VERY complex. From a spectator's point of view, one would think the sport is quite simple, but is far from the case.

Maximum Chemistry should actually take YEARS (multiple seasons) to reach. There's a reason why the list of players who have won Super Bowls with more than 1 team is very short. https://www.thoughtco.com/super-bowls-winners-more-one-team-1335475

If anything, I argue that chemistry in GLB2 is gained too fast and should be slowed down.


Dude you're being ridiculous. Every year tons of NFL players change teams and do just fine. There's only 4-6 seasons worth of a players life span on here- do I want to waste an entire half of season, maybe more if I have to switch teams more than once, because of some shit chemistry rule?

There is no mini camp, training camp, and preseason in GLB2. I'm paying 500 flex for my team and then I get screwed out of a competitive and enjoyable game experience all because I had to or wanted to add new players to my roster?

It's awful how it is set up right now.

Edit: Scratch everything I said, didn't realize there's only 5 seasons average in a player's career in GLB2.

The thing is people pay for their players and teams here. No one wants to watch a good chunk of a players lifespan plagued by suck. Owners don't like being heavily punished because some guy disappears.

The chem system is terrible (for the reasons stated above) and goes directly against the basic premise of this game which is to have people own teams and bring in other agents’ players to fill those teams. You have to expect that teams with an assortment of agents will need to fill openings each season, yet they are penalized for it.

A better system could be put in place to prohibit teams from swapping players out during the season for matchup purposes a long the lines of what Osiris suggested.

I am part of a lot of newbie teams. I tell them over and over not to sign anyone after day 5 because they will be much better off with a CPU player. It shouldn't be that way. Some newbie guy can't find a home for his player and the newbie owner wants him but can't take the chem hit by signing him. Everyone loses. Sure isn't good for new player retention.

Originally posted by Danthesportsman
The chem system is terrible (for the reasons stated above) and goes directly against the basic premise of this game which is to have people own teams and bring in other agents’ players to fill those teams. You have to expect that teams with an assortment of agents will need to fill openings each season, yet they are penalized for it.

A better system could be put in place to prohibit teams from swapping players out during the season for matchup purposes a long the lines of what Osiris suggested.

Taking a large salary hit for in season cuts of active agents. If no player can be afforded and at the minimum, a CPU player is added randomly at potentially a position that is less needed and the roster locks for the season.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I am part of a lot of newbie teams. I tell them over and over not to sign anyone after day 5 because they will be much better off with a CPU player. It shouldn't be that way. Some newbie guy can't find a home for his player and the newbie owner wants him but can't take the chem hit by signing him. Everyone loses. Sure isn't good for new player retention.

Right! God forbid if you are an agent with 1-3 players and your team folds at some point- you're going to get thrown into a scrap heap. Or if you're an owner and you have an agent who has multiple players on your roster and goes inactive. Consider yourself punished by the agent and the game on top of it next season when you try to replace the players.

Chemistry was always one of the worst parts of GLB. It appears that it is terrible here too. The entire system is counter the fundamental makeup of an online multiplayer game.

The easy fix is that all players start with 100 chemistry. If they are cut and then resigned to the same team they rest to 0. If they are signed and cut by different teams there is no change.

I can't imagine that would be very exploitable.

People need to be able move teams and the expectation should be that people will move teams from time to time. Punishing owners and players for what is normal play in an online game is downright foolish.

There are some real problems with GLB and I suspect that they won't ever be worked out and player retention will always suffer because of it.