Does chemistry matter?

[diamondgirl]

Does chemistry really make any difference?

I am blessed to have many lineup options. I could send out like 50% perfect lineup. Has maybe 20% chemistry. Pretty decent win count.

Or, like I do - I click and play and try to build a team. Its pretty enjoyable to rack up some good chem numbers and still seem competetive.

So now I have a lineup of 80%+ chemistry, using many golds and even a silver to boost. Definitely not my 100s. But team looks good.......

This team sucks. Dead last.

But hey, they have 80% chemistry, so that was fun.

The perfect cards carry almost zero chemistry points, they're unusable if this is the route you enjoy.

So what matters? Should I just click "create my depth charts" after stacking my best cards?

[HRBaker]

Certainly not an expert, but it seems the best outcomes come from a "balance" between card values and chemistry. I see the same thing your suggesting; 100% chemistry or 100% card value doesn't play as well as 50% chemistry and "almost" my best cards.

Generally I build my best "card value team" then adjust a few positions if chemistry can be improved with little sacrifice of card values.

[diamondgirl]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Certainly not an expert, but it seems the best outcomes come from a "balance" between card values and chemistry. I see the same thing your suggesting; 100% chemistry or 100% card value doesn't play as well as 50% chemistry and "almost" my best cards.

Generally I build my best "card value team" then adjust a few positions if chemistry can be improved with little sacrifice of card values.

I just dropped my PT team to 23% vs 84%.

Sending in the big boys. Who hate each other and bang each other's wives. But they will WIN

[Magus978]

The power of friendship appears to be ineffectual. At least to my untrained eye. I was mediocre without high chemistry before I blew it up, now after a few weeks to find my level again I'm mediocre in iron with high chemistry.

The takeaway here (at least for me) is that a team of high ability who always swipes left on Tinder will almost always overcome a team singing kumbayah in the locker room before each game. The power of friendship? More like the power outage of friendship.

*pauses for the boos to come in*

I'll get my coat.

[diamondgirl]

Originally Posted by Magus978

The power of friendship appears to be ineffectual. At least to my untrained eye. I was mediocre without high chemistry before I blew it up, now after a few weeks to find my level again I'm mediocre in iron with high chemistry.

The takeaway here (at least for me) is that a team of high ability who always swipes left on Tinder will almost always overcome a team singing kumbayah in the locker room before each game. The power of friendship? More like the power outage of friendship.

*pauses for the boos to come in*

I'll get my coat.

Man, I am a Blue Jays lifer.

You basically described the team in one 'joke'.

[bailey]

It seems to me in silver that playing the live mission reward cards with their high chemistry is a strong strategy. The vast majority of the silver league teams have completed the live missions, but most of them try to improve by playing other cards that lower chemistry and most of those teams just do worse.

[diamondgirl]

Originally Posted by bailey

It seems to me in silver that playing the live mission reward cards with their high chemistry is a strong strategy. The vast majority of the silver league teams have completed the live missions, but most of them try to improve by playing other cards that lower chemistry and most of those teams just do worse.

Trying to find balance.

But I updated my tournament rosters - lowered chemistry by 60% on most.

Won 1 and finished 5th twice overnight. Recency bias is winning.

[HRBaker]

It bothers me greatly that the Dev's give us little to base an action on. Yes, they give us a summary of what chemistry is, how it works to get the highest team chemistry numbers, but nothing on how it actually effects a game beyond "improved performance".

I have to conclude the "fog of war" is purposeful. But I have to question whether that's the right approach.

Wouldn't it be better to say (for example); "here's a table that shows what ratings are "improved" and by how much based on Chemistry totals 1-100." Then the calculator-heads could have a field day calculating what players help their team and which ones don't...

Instead, we're all guessing - never knowing if we're helping our teams or not.

[diamondgirl]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

It bothers me greatly that the Dev's give us little to base an action on. Yes, they give us a summary of what chemistry is, how it works to get the highest team chemistry numbers, but nothing on how it actually effects a game beyond "improved performance".

I have to conclude the "fog of war" is purposeful. But I have to question whether that's the right approach.

Wouldn't it be better to say (for example); "here's a table that shows what ratings are "improved" and by how much based on Chemistry totals 1-100." Then the calculator-heads could have a field day calculating what players help their team and which ones don't...

Instead, we're all guessing - never knowing if we're helping our teams or not.

I mean, for a game based solely on analytics, it'd definitely be nice to know how those analytics work.

Agreed 100%. Maybe not for casual players / fans. But would be so helpful. Same as combinators. Explain more.