Warrior General Games

Every dot that hits legend on your roster should give you a free high chem slot to use on a FA.

If you wanted to fix chemistry you could do something based upon the number of new players coming in.

If a roster of 40-ish players swaps in a few (lets say 5 new players) the long term chemistry hit should be less than what it would be if there was a larger influx of new players.

Let's say HKD decides to recruit a new starting offensive line. That's 5 new guys that we are adding.
The 5 new guys start at 50 chem, but their chem goes up 10 for every league game, so after 1/3 of the season...the new guys are "full members of their new team". Because the new players are minimal in number, the established HKD players can help transition the new players to the HKD way of doing things.

However, if we wanted to say that HKD decided to blow up their balanced offense and go with a pure running attack and had 11 new guys join the team, well then maybe it's 5 chem per league game, so full chem wouldn't happen until after week 10.

This would make owners think twice about overhauling their core team, yet give them the flexibility to enhance their team without a huge chem penalty.

The 10 chem and 5 chem numbers were just to make explanation simple. Someone more adept at math than me could probably come up with a pretty good formula. Something like (0.4 chem per league game) x (the number of returning teammates) = amount of chemistry added per league game. If you had 40 returning players, this would be 16 chem points added and the player would have 98 chem after 3 league games....something like that. If there was only one returning player, that would make for an extreme problem, but maybe a cap of 4 chem per league game is the floor?

I also don't think salary should accelerate or decelerate the amount of chem given as I have seen just as many cases where the new HIGH PAID player has caused more problems than he's solved.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on chemistry.

The problem is chem punishes owners for cutting players but doesnt really punish players for jumping ship cause a lot of the time they just retire the dots or take them to a better team which they dont mind eating the chem for a bit. Its just a straight punishment on teams who are trying to fill.

At this point as long as someone isn't able to switch the core of their offense or defense at will mid season, why does it even matter if they come out as a completely new team with a new identity the next season?

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
The problem is chem punishes owners for cutting players but doesnt really punish players for jumping ship cause a lot of the time they just retire the dots or take them to a better team which they dont mind eating the chem for a bit. Its just a straight punishment on teams who are trying to fill.

I agree, there should be an equal penalty to discourage players from jumping ship.

If you penalize players for jumping ship you are also penalizing them for finding a team after their team folds or resets. No need to penalize players. They cost enough money as is, let them play to their full potential. Remove offseason chem hit.

CPE are a prime example of a team completely retooling as such (brand new team in a older tier) and how it kills to be at 50 chem early on. no VET team should be punished for having to stay in VET once their original player cycle ends

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
The problem is chem punishes owners for cutting players but doesnt really punish players for jumping ship cause a lot of the time they just retire the dots or take them to a better team which they dont mind eating the chem for a bit. Its just a straight punishment on teams who are trying to fill.

Disagree.

The owners have the ability to lock up a player for an entire season. If the player decides to retire (happens all the time in RL...Patrick Willis, Robert Smith etc) or goes to another (better?) team, that's the player's right. It's up to the team owner to create an environment which makes the team the players are on desirable enough for them wanting to stay.

I'd like to see the Career Boost and Ability Point boost cheaper, myself.

I am always for cheaper but I really don't think that is much an issue right now for most people nor will you likely see any changes on the prices front if GLB1 is any indication.

Originally posted by pastim
Disagree.

The owners have the ability to lock up a player for an entire season. If the player decides to retire (happens all the time in RL...Patrick Willis, Robert Smith etc) or goes to another (better?) team, that's the player's right. It's up to the team owner to create an environment which makes the team the players are on desirable enough for them wanting to stay.

so team owners have no rights? thats a load of crap owners spend the flex to finance the team and its not right to punish them because some agents are fickle.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Every dot that hits legend on your roster should give you a free high chem slot to use on a FA.

If nothing else with Chemistry is done, then this should be it. It's the very least they can do. It's common sense.

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
so team owners have no rights? thats a load of crap owners spend the flex to finance the team and its not right to punish them because some agents are fickle.

But I would suggest that owners DO have rights. They have a player signed to a contract for a full season. They own the home that player is going to play in for the next 45 days. Also, they have the ability to cut the player, without cause, as they seem fit. So the owner DOES have plenty of rights.

Anyway, This is mixing topics IMO.

Topic 1 is chemistry. How can the game handle the topic of chemistry better?

Topic 2 is player movement. Maybe a way of fixing the player movement dilemma is longer contracts?

Whereas the two topics are linked, they aren't the same issue.

Chemistry is just stupid, adds zero value to the game.