Warrior General Games

The current set up just sucks. I understand that when a team turns over half a roster that it should effect them, but right now if a team has a ton of changes, they are screwed until well after mid season.

My proposal is 1 of 2 things:

1. let the 4 current pre- season games add more to chemistry than they currently do.
I may be incorrect but I think you get +1 per day for chemistry to recover and you do not get anything for a win or loss in a pre-season game. In addition to the +1 daily, If you win a pre -season game you get and additional +2 and if you lose the game you get a +1. Playing a game with your team should increase the chemistry.

or

2. Let Scrims run during the pre-season increase the chemistry.
Limit it to 5 scrims and you get an additional +2 for a win and a +1 for a loss or tie. All of this being contingent upon a couple of things.
1. Must be a ranked Scrim.
2. Scrim must be against a team with at least a 50 man roster
3. Team has to be a higher ranked team than your team is
4. must be in the same age bracket or higher than you.


Sounds simple and is pretty simple. Would help the teams out that do not have a constant farm of dots pouring in season after season. Would alsoincrease scrims which cost flex points so therefor adding more to Bort's purse.

I hate chemistry more than any other part of the game. Id rather get rid of it completely, but short of that this idea gets +1000

I agree with this. I know chem can really help a team that stays complete. Just seems like some teams start so far down that they have no chance to climb out of the whole before 3/4 of the season is gone. +1 from me for sure.

Chemistry is stupid..should be eliminated.

Originally posted by vinman
Chemistry is stupid..should be eliminated.

part 3 of my suggestion tbh

Any suggestion to reduce the effects of chemistry or eliminate it are terrible suggestions--doing so would allow networks to shuffle over entire rosters onto promoting teams without any penalty.

The suggestion above pretends that there is some sort of "tradeoff" involved with deciding whether to play the scrims or not, but in truth any team that wants to win will BOTH play the scrims proposed above WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY putting as bland of an offense and a defense as possible so that nothing of any value is leaked out by having publically viewable scrims.

-1. A really poorly thought-out suggestion

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Any suggestion to reduce the effects of chemistry or eliminate it are terrible suggestions--doing so would allow networks to shuffle over entire rosters onto promoting teams without any penalty.

The suggestion above pretends that there is some sort of "tradeoff" involved with deciding whether to play the scrims or not, but in truth any team that wants to win will BOTH play the scrims proposed above WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY putting as bland of an offense and a defense as possible so that nothing of any value is leaked out by having publically viewable scrims.

-1. A really poorly thought-out suggestion

so you think that it works fine like it is? You dont own a team. probably Don't coordinate and probably dont see the effects that chem has on a team.

chemistry is yet another poorly thought out concept. bort should have made it much more specific, like qb/wr, or offensive line, secondary, etc, or even by individual player. as is chemistry sux. chemistry can destroy a team yet its never considered when teams get moved into elite. seen it too many times where teams with horrible chemistry is moved into elite, then gets destroyed every game which then destroys morale making it even harder for the team to recover. i would rather see a system where players pay bts to improve their relative chemistry

I'm not as down against chemistry as you all are but GLB missed a golden opportunity to do as the OP suggested. Having scrims actually positively effect (positive ONLY because you don't want to negate the other uses scrims have such as special tourneys) on team chemistry would not only help those team owners but scrims cost flex so... more scrims = more flex. Can't believe GLB missed that.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I'm not as down against chemistry as you all are but GLB missed a golden opportunity to do as the OP suggested. Having scrims actually positively effect (positive ONLY because you don't want to negate the other uses scrims have such as special tourneys) on team chemistry would not only help those team owners but scrims cost flex so... more scrims = more flex. Can't believe GLB missed that.

What? Why would I open my team to insta scrim if a team could gain chemistry? The 4 scrims in preseason are only to fluff the populous through the boredom of the playoffs and off season, and give a couple freebees.

the penalty will still be there for roster turnover. It can just help with the acceleration of re-building the team chem.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I'm not as down against chemistry as you all are but GLB missed a golden opportunity to do as the OP suggested. Having scrims actually positively effect (positive ONLY because you don't want to negate the other uses scrims have such as special tourneys) on team chemistry would not only help those team owners but scrims cost flex so... more scrims = more flex. Can't believe GLB missed that.

exactly. It is a win-win. GLB wins and team owners win.
Guess it makes too much sense to most of us.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Any suggestion to reduce the effects of chemistry or eliminate it are terrible suggestions--doing so would allow networks to shuffle over entire rosters onto promoting teams without any penalty.

The suggestion above pretends that there is some sort of "tradeoff" involved with deciding whether to play the scrims or not, but in truth any team that wants to win will BOTH play the scrims proposed above WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY putting as bland of an offense and a defense as possible so that nothing of any value is leaked out by having publically viewable scrims.

-1. A really poorly thought-out suggestion

Why should there be roster penalties at all. Who cares if rosters are shifted, there is no competitive advantage to have rosters on one given pro team or another.