Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Rob.
One agent teams are the way to go and Corndog confirmed it. No reason to keep a team at vet after your players start hitting legend.

I'm not even sure there is a reason to keep a team in Vet past season 2 with the cost of career boosts...

Originally posted by Corndog
Oh, single agent teams do have a lot of advantages.

If you're doing it for the sole reason of avoiding a 5% penalty to attributes for a third of a season on a handful of players every few seasons, you are overreacting.

We see a relatively high correlation between low chem and botched snaps or handoffs. I would doubt that those are related to a flat 5% penalty only.

What I love is high leadership QBs botch handoffs on low chem frequently too, but guys on 100 chem don't do it with much lower leadership than 5% less than those high leadership guys.

Originally posted by Corndog
Oh, single agent teams do have a lot of advantages.

If you're doing it for the sole reason of avoiding a 5% penalty to attributes for a third of a season on a handful of players every few seasons, you are overreacting.

I enjoy the challenge of taking other agents players, that may not be built the way I would have designed them, and making it work, so it's not specifically me that it discourages. But this does leave me every season with agents falling inactive, or just jumping ship for whatever reason so I do understand the frustration of the 5% penalty that seems to cause more than 5% more mistakes in the sim. I just wanted to confirm to you from a less vocal member of your community that there may be some issues surrounding chemistry that you could address to make the most vocal and active members of your community happier and retain those members longer. I would personally hate to see any of the guys that complain about chemistry the most up and leave the game, even if that is overreacting. Humans do tend to overreact its in our nature as imperfect beings.

Originally posted by FairForever
We see a relatively high correlation between low chem and botched snaps or handoffs. I would doubt that those are related to a flat 5% penalty only.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
What I love is high leadership QBs botch handoffs on low chem frequently too, but guys on 100 chem don't do it with much lower leadership than 5% less than those high leadership guys.

Ah, so now we are actually talking about the issue.

The issue being botched snaps, not chemistry.

Originally posted by Corndog
Ah, so now we are actually talking about the issue.

The issue being botched snaps, not chemistry.

That is the most visible example of low chem. It was being used to explain the point that low chem does impact teams significantly.

Originally posted by Corndog
Oh, single agent teams do have a lot of advantages.

If you're doing it for the sole reason of avoiding a 5% penalty to attributes for a third of a season on a handful of players every few seasons, you are overreacting.

seems low....but should kill the chemistry whining if that is a confirmed legit factoid.

Originally posted by Corndog
Ah, so now we are actually talking about the issue.

The issue being botched snaps, not chemistry.

It's not the only issue, just the one I mentioned.

My FB PR fumbled in game 1 of the season. http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/171806
He has 100 Carry Grip. Why did he fumble? Chemistry.

Now perhaps it's not and the issue was completely RNG. But it's not my only example, just the most recent one.

Fumbles are higher with low Chem. Any player near the ball seems to suffer a hit.

A couple of seasons ago, bhall had Longhornfan's S* CB. His Pass D sucked until he hit 100 Chemistry.

If you really think it's only a 5% effect, check the code and TEST it. We don't believe it.

And as such, we buy/spend FLEX based on that perception.

Our perception is driving the reality. Like it or not.

Originally posted by Xars
It's not the only issue, just the one I mentioned.

My FB PR fumbled in game 1 of the season. http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/171806
He has 100 Carry Grip. Why did he fumble? Chemistry.

Now perhaps it's not and the issue was completely RNG. But it's not my only example, just the most recent one.

Fumbles are higher with low Chem. Any player near the ball seems to suffer a hit.

A couple of seasons ago, bhall had Longhornfan's S* CB. His Pass D sucked until he hit 100 Chemistry.

If you really think it's only a 5% effect, check the code and TEST it. We don't believe it.

And as such, we buy/spend FLEX based on that perception.

Our perception is driving the reality. Like it or not.



yea he has some points here.

Originally posted by Corndog
Ah, so now we are actually talking about the issue.

The issue being botched snaps, not chemistry.

lolno, the issue is chemistry.

Originally posted by Xars
My FB PR fumbled in game 1 of the season. http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/171806
He has 100 Carry Grip. Why did he fumble? Chemistry.

Nah man, 95 carry grip is way too low.

Originally posted by Xars

A couple of seasons ago, bhall had Longhornfan's S* CB. His Pass D sucked until he hit 100 Chemistry.


This. You got a S* with 100 Man Aware, C Tech, and 90 deflect. Solid physicals. At 50 chem he was god awful. He was worse than my run stuffing CB at coverage. At 100 Chem, it was night and day in difference.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
I'm not even sure there is a reason to keep a team in Vet past season 2 with the cost of career boosts...

This 100 times exactly.

Please lower the career boosts.

I've never had to retire a career boosted player.

Do you get 30% of career boost flex back?

yea corndog, if you're never going to fix chem, hurting long-time vet teams.... you need to at least REALLY cut down the flex cost for career boosting

you're ultimately losing money for the company for teams not sticking around due to chem