Warrior General Games

Originally posted by bigpimpin123
Originally posted by killertoad

The fact that The Gods are favored gives us hope. Since they were dissed all year and set as underdogs and won the majority of those games convincingly. Let them continue to be an enigma to the code....and not to our defense

Good luck Gods. Let's give em a show!!! Free beer at my bar after the game.

What games? Do you mean last season? Sure aren't any convincing wins this season for us. But yes, we have quite a few convincing playoff victories so far, each season too

Well all of the new blood you brought in for the playoffs might scare off a lesser team. Hell your defense isn't even the same one we saw last game. That's OK. We're ready.

I think you misread Toad, bigpimpin. He was giving us a compliment and saying we outperformed the prediction threads.

Anyway, good luck to the Titans. It's going to be another close one and a stray FG will probably decide it.

We did? I never really thought so for the predictions that seemed somewhat accurate. Then again, none were really accurate with our squad.

I wonder what our average point differential is in playoff games.

You guys kinda messed yourselves up late season though with all the chemistry hits you took. So the predictions were biassed towards non-chem hits. I think that if you guys hadn't taken such big chemistry hits you wouldn't have lost even half the games that you did... just my 2 coppers.

We'll see how important chem really is I guess.

If you knew what we were doing you might not think that. Chemistry causes a 4% difference from 10 to 100 so it should have minimal effect (we have 91 offense, 72 defense)

Originally posted by bigpimpin123
If you knew what we were doing you might not think that. Chemistry causes a 4% difference from 10 to 100 so it should have minimal effect (we have 91 offense, 72 defense)

The overall chemistry must count for something. If not, why have it.

idk special teams?

I remembered reading Bort saying somewhere it only counted for 4%, but others have said Bort actually said 9% so I may have remembered wrong. With forum search turned off I can't find the thread to verify it.

Anyway, the chemistry hits probably did account for more than I figured, but still, chemistry losses are temporary and we got players out of it that will potentially be staying with us for 2-3 seasons at least, if not longer, so in the big picture I consider the tradeoff worth it.

I'm convinced that chemistry was a major reason why the Bandits lost all those close games early this season. As our chemistry has gotten up, the team has played better and strung together some wins, including some upsets over the Strike and the Bearcats.

Originally posted by Mattarchy
No quality wins for Brisbane?

how about over Newcastle?.... or earlier vs. last seasons champs, Canberra?


Brisbane blew a 29 point lead to win by 4 points, and the game ended with Canberra on the Brisbane 4.5 Yard line.

Doesn't sound like much 'quality' in that win. Another play on the clock and it wouldn't have even been a win

Originally posted by bigpimpin123
If you knew what we were doing you might not think that. Chemistry causes a 4% difference from 10 to 100 so it should have minimal effect (we have 91 offense, 72 defense)

Agreed, the team I GM in Africa had great Chemistry when it was 1-10. Then I made about 60 roster moves and flatlined the chemistry, and guess what, the roster moves far outweighed the Chemistry losses and we've won 5 of 8 since then.

Chemistry is like the difference between winning or losing a game in overtime, not the difference in a 16th place team upsetting a 1st place team like some people seem to think

Originally posted by Vilita
Originally posted by bigpimpin123

If you knew what we were doing you might not think that. Chemistry causes a 4% difference from 10 to 100 so it should have minimal effect (we have 91 offense, 72 defense)

Agreed, the team I GM in Africa had great Chemistry when it was 1-10. Then I made about 60 roster moves and flatlined the chemistry, and guess what, the roster moves far outweighed the Chemistry losses and we've won 5 of 8 since then.

Chemistry is like the difference between winning or losing a game in overtime, not the difference in a 16th place team upsetting a 1st place team like some people seem to think

I don't think anyone would think that chemistry would override adding much better players to your roster.

Originally posted by wombat killer
Originally posted by Vilita

Originally posted by bigpimpin123


If you knew what we were doing you might not think that. Chemistry causes a 4% difference from 10 to 100 so it should have minimal effect (we have 91 offense, 72 defense)

Agreed, the team I GM in Africa had great Chemistry when it was 1-10. Then I made about 60 roster moves and flatlined the chemistry, and guess what, the roster moves far outweighed the Chemistry losses and we've won 5 of 8 since then.

Chemistry is like the difference between winning or losing a game in overtime, not the difference in a 16th place team upsetting a 1st place team like some people seem to think

I don't think anyone would think that chemistry would override adding much better players to your roster.

Exactly.

The changes that the Bandits made during the off-season were mostly to replace players who wanted to join their team/friend's team, etc. The new players were not higher levels than the ones they replaced, so the team did not necessarily get better. The main difference was in the chemistry.

I agree that I think it tends to help the closer games more as IC's chemistry was much better than the U Canes in game 1 of the season and we are 2 fairly similar teams... we just edged them out.
Our game against Rawle Tech where they out-leveled us by 1-2 levels in most positions and we both had 100% chemistry in all 3 bars, the expected result occurred, a Rawle Tech win.