Warrior General Games

So I have a pro QB on a CPU team that I'd like to move to a real team for his Vet season. He's not good enough to justify a career boost though. If he starts at 0 chem, he's going to have a terrible final season regardless of what happens. I really can't imagine any team wanting to sign him unless they were in really dire straits. I think it would be good if all signed Vet players start at 50 chem; it decreases the penalty for replacing players for whatever reason and it makes sure that a player's final season isn't guaranteed to suck.

2 Sides to this....

1) The above average player side. I was in the same situation last off season as you were. My above average running back signed w/ a team and he played below average till the chem got higher.

2) The other side to this is the farm teams that could easily replace whole teams with little to no penalty.

I would much rather have a +20 chem bonus for being on a team by the start of the new season.

Yeah, this is way too helpful for farm teams. While I'd be in favor of an across the board increase in chemistry for the offseason, a veteran only bonus is just a nonstarter.

Agree - good for farm teams...

but also bad for whatever Vet player your QB would be replacing. Makes players much more expendable - so while it might help you -- some other guy would be saying "dang! all the way to Vet on a human team and now I get kicked off my team!"

Makes more sense to do this based on signings in the off-season than a bonus to VET.

said it before, will say it again, chemistry is the least fun mechanic in the game. It's a terrible, high side-effect solution to the problems it's intended to solve.

Wasting a season of watching your player under-perform is not fun. Period.

But it stops owners from kicking players off the team and replacing them at will. As long as you stay with the same team you are fine. It is doing what it is intended to do.

Originally posted by Galithor
said it before, will say it again, chemistry is the least fun mechanic in the game. It's a terrible, high side-effect solution to the problems it's intended to solve.

Wasting a season of watching your player under-perform is not fun. Period.

Agreed. It's not like we pay for a team that comes with drone players. These joes could be the only player an agent has and who would want to watch their one player suck for at least a third of the season

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
But it stops owners from kicking players off the team and replacing them at will. As long as you stay with the same team you are fine. It is doing what it is intended to do.

It doesn't stop any of this. I've turned over half my roster nearly in 5 seasons despite the chemistry hits. Most of the players we cut have simply retired instead of finding new homes. Chemistry is no barrier to cutting ineffectively built players and "screwing" over those agents.

And the side effects are awful.

Example: S* Pro QB, Yukiko Amagi, is on his 3rd team in 5 seasons. Laggo watched him play with low chemistry his rookie, seasoned, and pro seasons. His sophomore season was spent the majority of the time with an inactive owner. His journeyman season was spent on a team that had already decided to shut it down following the season, so cares were low. He's simply watched two different teams completely fold. Chemistry is punishing him in a way that can't possibly have been intended. He hasn't gotten to see Yukiko compete on an even playing surface since rookie (when everyone's chemistry is awful).

It just needs to be done away with and mechanics for preventing collusion needed to be rethought. Chemistry is a terrible, terrible solution.

Debuffing a player, that's paid for by an agent, to punish an owner or GM for "sketchy" roster management practices doesn't make any sense. Ever. The reason the player is eating the chemistry debuff is almost always outside the control of that player. It SUCKS.

I think players signed in offseasn outside of rookie should start at least at 50 chem, and the effect of low chem should be reduced by 50% or so.

Originally posted by Adderfist
Makes more sense to do this based on signings in the off-season than a bonus to VET.

That would be even better, I think.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
But it stops owners from kicking players off the team and replacing them at will. As long as you stay with the same team you are fine. It is doing what it is intended to do.

I don't think it does, really. I cut inactive players as a GM all the time. Replacing them hurts my team. I don't cut active players in general, but I might drop them on the depth chart. I have run across terrible owners/gms who kick people off for little reason, but that's not really disincentivized by the chem changes. Bad owners will do bad things.

It sucks to lose a season's productivity to chem, especially if you boost your players. It sucks even more for that to be the last season.