FOF8 - Chemistry

[QuikSand]

It looks like there are meaningful changes to the chemistry system in FOF 8. Let's use this thread to share discoveries, insights, and questions.

(afterthought edit) For reference... a detailed old thread on the system FOF has used for a long time is linked below, with the caveat that "if you don't want to know how it works, don't read this thread"

https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=16893

[QuikSand]

First of all - the existing chemistry framework (based on 5 position groups, driven by a single leader within each group, and dictated by birthdate/leadership/personality) remains generally intact.

The obvious major change is that a player's number of "starts" (not sure if that is literally just starts, or if it's snaps/playing time generally) is some sort of prerequisite to taking on a substantial chemistry role.

I have seen a number of feedback boxes referencing speculative changes in team chemistry. When a certain high leadership guy was being signed, I got a note saying (paraphrasing) that he would become the position group leader with more starting time. After signing him, I would then get a chem-related popup when signing other free agents, essentially noting that the new player would be a chemistry fit with the leader-in-waiting (as opposed to the current leader).

[QuikSand]

Observation -- for those of us who really use the chemistry system, FOF 8 is a swift kick in the groin.

It's much, much harder to sort through players with those things in mind -- since chemistry effects are no longer shown on the primary player card, and the leadership/personality info is available only with an extra click and new window.

It's also a lot harder to build up good chemistry, with the "earned leadership" concept in full bloom. Too soon to say for sure.

My guess is, making a team substantially better through deep attention to chemistry may no longer be a viable option. It seems like too much work, and too unpredictable. I'll be disappointed (even if it is more "realistic" whatever that means in this context) as I liked having a wide variety of ways to field a quality team.

[QuikSand]

Data point: a TE I signed to be a chem leader gave me the "with more starts" message. He wasn't much of a player, but I force-fed him into the lineup, and after 8 games he assumed the leadership role (this happened mid-season). Not sure if 8 starts is a magic number... but it might be.

[Ben E Lou]

Choose/Edit Color Scheme and you can get rid of that extra click and turn it into a mouseover. Someone mentioned that in one of the threads here. Not sure which setting or who mentioned it.

[Antmeister]

Choose/Edit Color Scheme and you can get rid of that extra click and turn it into a mouseover. Someone mentioned that in one of the threads here. Not sure which setting or who mentioned it.

My guess is that he wants it directly on the screen without a mouse-click/mouse-over. That way he can go through his roster clicking the Next button instead of doing another action.

[Antmeister]

I do wonder, though, if Jim would entertain moving the chemistry info outside of the popup box since there seems to be enough real estate below personality for the chemistry.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh, I'm sure that would be better, but a mouseover is at least better than a click.

[Dawgfan19]

Observation -- for those of us who really use the chemistry system, FOF 8 is a swift kick in the groin.

It's much, much harder to sort through players with those things in mind -- since chemistry effects are no longer shown on the primary player card, and the leadership/personality info is available only with an extra click and new window.

An idea I'll probably explore is to export the game data and use an Excel VLOOKUP to join together the player_information and player_record data. That should provide the necessary information, including player names, chemistry info, birthdates, etc.

[QuikSand]

An idea I'll probably explore is to export the game data and use an Excel VLOOKUP to join together the player_information and player_record data. That should provide the necessary information, including player names, chemistry info, birthdates, etc.

Some nonsense like that is gong to be necessary to really use this stuff aggressively. Right now, I can go to the main list of free agents and sort them by personality traits... but that's necessarily a primary/secondary sort. So, if I sort guys by Personality then Leadership, a I slide through that list I'm seeing all the guys with 100 Leadership, in descending order or personality. With those numbers on the player card, this was an effective way to splash around for a position leader candidate. Now, with it hidden, it's a train wreck to do. Even on that sorted list, there's a mammoth difference to m between two adjacent guys: Ldr100/Pers4 (useless) and Ldr99/Pers98 (great) and I can't tell who's who without clicking (or mouse-hovering) each one of them.

Same thing whn doing a FA search by birthdate... it used to be simple to open up the8 guy in the right sign listed in a row by birthdate, and then by skimming their cards you'd see birthdate, experience, leadership, and personality -- everything you needed to tell if they guy could be useful. Now that's hidden, and an extra click for each guy.

I know it sounds like stupid griping, but it seems like a big loss for no real gain other than, what, some trivial change in rendering speed?

[QuikSand]

Just thought I'd post the contents of the help file here:

KEY (Attitude Advisory): Player - Player name, # - Uniform Number, Pos - Primary position, Start - Starting Position, Notable - icons showing whether the player is a potential clubhouse disrupter (Red Flag) or a Mentor (helps young players develop), Playing Time - the player's attitude toward his current playing time (unhappy players may be unwilling to sign a new contract), Chemistry - an assessment of the player's conflicts or affinities (only available when the option to use team chemistry is turned on).

Team chemistry is fairly simple in nature. The team is broken into five leadership groups (backfield, receivers, offensive line, defensive front and secondary). Each group has a leader, which can be any player on the roster. Every other player in the group may have a conflict or affinity with that leader. Conflicts or affinities can affect the performance of every player in that group. Quarterbacks may have conflicts or affinities with all of the other leaders on the team.

Newcomers to your team are only included in team chemistry when they have accumulated a few career starts. Past first-round picks are always included as well as players drafted in the first four rounds of the current year.

An asterisk


By the way no, I didn't cut that off. The words "An asterisk" just sit there - presumably we were about to get an explanation, but it dies on the vine.

[QuikSand]

A little digging - no precision yet, but this should prove helpful. And you have to love the little twist.

On rookie player cards, the "fingerprint" section includes a mention of chemistry. It includes one of these things:

QB affinities/conflicts (judged against your current offensive team leaders)
Player potential affinity/conflict (judged against the position group leaders)
Chemistry followed by one of these words: Mellow, Cheerful, or Sociable

So... while it's fairly obvious, here it is:
The one-word description of chemistry for non-affinity and non-conflict players is a guide to their personality strength.

Mellow = low personality (I'm guessing up to 33)
Cheerful = medium personality
Sociable = high personality (67+?)

So, the cruel irony here is that the only in-game use of the personality value is in the chemistry area (affinities and conflicts)... and for rookie players, the text line indicating the affinity or conflict takes the place of the rough estimate of personality strength. i.e., the only time you'd actually care about the information, it's withheld from you.

Eat it, chemistry people.

[DougW]

Cheerful

[QuikSand]

Another stick in the eye for chemistry types... not only is the vague band of personality strength hidden for all affinity/conflict players in the draft, but even after an interview it remains completely hidden.

In previous versions, at least we got to see the personality profile after an interview. It seemed like one of the valuable ways to use that tool, at least for those of us using that in-game angle.

[garion333]

I'm looking for some good news here guys and I'm not hearing it. I've never been a huge affinity guy, but did enjoy the small wrinkle it created. Sometimes the buff from affinities was a good edge to have.

At this point what I'm seeing is that I'd almost rather he ripped the system out in its entirety. Actually, maybe I'll just turn it off in sp and maybe push for the same in my mp leagues.

[aston217]

I sort of like the existence of an affinity system, but haven't been a big fan of the trouble. It's cool to see super affinity teams and I don't think those players would want MP changed.

For those of us like me, it's more of an issue only when I sign a guy who accidentally becomes a team leader with no warning, or when I have to try and deal with a roster group that becomes mired in different conflicts I couldn't see coming because I don't pay attention to birthdays for non-leaders who eventually become so.

There's gotta be maybe a better way to have a bonus/malus system as a reflection both of how you build your teams, and dice rolls, rather than a strict system of birthday matching that becomes harder to plan around.

[QuikSand]

So... it remains possible to build a heavy-chemistry roster. No way to tell how plausible it is in a seriously competitive environment, but it can be done in single player. Takes much more effort than before, clearly by design.

My current SP team just won back to back titles (while getting a 27 from Herb on roster strength after the second one) with an AffIndex (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2813826&postcount=27) of 78 (and that ignores the multiple "potential affinity" players we have aboard. There's no way to tell whether this team would be a power team without the chemistry boost (we have a strong passing roster) - it probably still would be.

[QuikSand]

So, the cruel irony here is that the only in-game use of the personality value is in the chemistry area (affinities and conflicts)... and for rookie players, the text line indicating the affinity or conflict takes the place of the rough estimate of personality strength. i.e., the only time you'd actually care about the information, it's withheld from you.

I'm disappointed that this remains even after the "fingerprint" section got its redesign in the first patch. Definitely better that the chem items are visible without a separate click for each player, but that does kinda hurt. Even after an interview, we know nothing about personality strength.

[QuikSand]

Not sure this is the place for this... but where and when is the "red flag" designation visible?

I just noticed that my 1st round pick has a RF... it didn't catch my eye until after the draft, in late free agency. I saw the notation for it on the "Attitude Advisory" screen, but it wasn't indicated anywhere on the player card. I didn't interview that player, though.

Can we see which players are red flags while we are drafting? If not... that seems like a curious design decision, as it was clearly available to us in previous versions.

[QuikSand]

Well, if the goal was to "pretty much emasculate" the chemistry system for a competitive FOF environment, the early returns are looking good.

Just finished a 34-round allocation draft in a competitive ML league (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/forum/forum.php). Looking through the rosters, it's pretty clear that around 30 of 32 owners paid virtually no attention to chemistry (except possibly avoiding players who showed up as conflicts, but mostly not even that), and really only one team made it a cornerstone (mine, duh). A second seems invested, but maybe not at the cost of overall talent.

And on a certain level, an allocation draft (building a team from the ground up) offers the best possible chance to organize chemistry, if you are so inclined. More so than the vagaries of year-by-year drafting and building, I think.

Too soon to say what all this means... but my guess is this element of the game has probably been marginalized enough to render it a rounding error for most serious FOFers. For better or for worse, I realize there are both sides out there.

[Ben E Lou]

Not sure this is the place for this... but where and when is the "red flag" designation visible?

I just noticed that my 1st round pick has a RF... it didn't catch my eye until after the draft, in late free agency. I saw the notation for it on the "Attitude Advisory" screen, but it wasn't indicated anywhere on the player card. I didn't interview that player, though.

Can we see which players are red flags while we are drafting? If not... that seems like a curious design decision, as it was clearly available to us in previous versions.I just checked an entire draft class, and zero red flags were listed in the csv output. I'm going to sim forward, check the csvs to find some red flag players, then interview them to test this.

[Ben E Lou]

Yup. So post-draft, there are 9 Red Flags in the class. Copying IDs here for my reference, as I'mabout to go back and interview them...

<table width="64" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><colgroup><col style="width:48pt" width="64"> </colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt;width:48pt" width="64" height="20" align="right">3337</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3450</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3510</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3687</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3719</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3773</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3838</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3945</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20" align="right">3997</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

[Ben E Lou]

Nope. Interviewing them reveals nothing. Post-draft, it also isn't on the card, but you can see it on the roster screen (true for FAs, too.)

[QuikSand]

One twist, also from an allocation draft -- my team has tons of rookies and other zero-starts players who are all showing up listed as having affinities, rather than "Potential Affinity" that I have gotten used to in SP. I'm assuming this is a function of the Allocation Draft start, but it also applies to players I have signed as undrafted free agents, rookies and otherwise.

[gstelmack]

FWIW, Red Flag was not available in the CSVs in FOF7 either. There is an Interviewed flag, but the scout results ("As Scouted", etc) are not there either.

[corbes]

Well, if the goal was to "pretty much emasculate" the chemistry system for a competitive FOF environment, the early returns are looking good.

Just finished a 34-round allocation draft in a competitive ML league (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/forum/forum.php). Looking through the rosters, it's pretty clear that around 30 of 32 owners paid virtually no attention to chemistry (except possibly avoiding players who showed up as conflicts, but mostly not even that), and really only one team made it a cornerstone (mine, duh). A second seems invested, but maybe not at the cost of overall talent.

And on a certain level, an allocation draft (building a team from the ground up) offers the best possible chance to organize chemistry, if you are so inclined. More so than the vagaries of year-by-year drafting and building, I think.

Too soon to say what all this means... but my guess is this element of the game has probably been marginalized enough to render it a rounding error for most serious FOFers. For better or for worse, I realize there are both sides out there.

As the owner of the second team mentioned in this post: it was the sheer onerousness of the process that kept me doing from what I would have liked to do, which would have been to build a chemistry monster right out of the gate.

[QuikSand]

FWIW, Red Flag was not available in the CSVs in FOF7 either. There is an Interviewed flag, but the scout results ("As Scouted", etc) are not there either.

But in FOF7, you could see it on the player screen and it showed up in the Draft Analyzer... and in FOF8, you cannot. Correct?

Sorry if this is tedious - just trying to separate out the technical side versus the practical. I'm really irked if the game's progress has taken away what seems like a fairly important facet here.

[Ben E Lou]

But in FOF7, you could see it on the player screen and it showed up in the Draft Analyzer... and in FOF8, you cannot. Correct?

Sorry if this is tedious - just trying to separate out the technical side versus the practical. I'm really irked if the game's progress has taken away what seems like a fairly important facet here.The "technical" part of it--if csvs are technical--potentially matters here: if he changed the csv output, that would indicate that it's a true design decision. Or if the csv output was different from the player card, that would be a 100% indicator of a bug. But given that I've determined that it's not shown in the csvs and Greg is saying that's no different from FOF7, that lets us know that we're in a nebulous area: could be a design decision, or could be simply that Jim just overlooked showing the Red Flag when he moved the personality stuff around in 8.0a. And as such, this has been reported as a possible bug to Customer Support.

That said, I think my preference here would be that the Red Flag would show up as part of the interview result, not just something that is globally available.

[QuikSand]

Got it, understood.

[QuikSand]

Also, FTR, I have taken substantial notes on gameplay (with real attention to chemistry stuff, where I suspect I'm looking more closely than anyone else) and have sent on to Solecismic as well.

[QuikSand]

Note that seems to belong in this thread:

In one MP league (same league noted above, started with an allocation draft - no clue if that's relevant), an owner has reported his position leaders changed right after the training camp stage. Not sure what this means, but a couple of possibilities seem to stand out:

-there's an annual re-evaluation of leadership roles as a part of the training camp stage, which may result in new guys taking over

-the hidden in-game formula used to determine which players are position leaders has some sort of pivot in it based on training camp... like a player's experience (or experience with the current team) is being incremented during that stage

In either case, for those of us watching this stuff... it seems like this could be a new twist. I have played tons of FOF2007 and FOF7 with a very close eye on chemistry, and have never noticed a change a this stage happening before, so I'm fairly confident this is new.

[QuikSand]

Another stick in the eye for chemistry types... not only is the vague band of personality strength hidden for all affinity/conflict players in the draft, but even after an interview it remains completely hidden.

In previous versions, at least we got to see the personality profile after an interview. It seemed like one of the valuable ways to use that tool, at least for those of us using that in-game angle.

Following up on this... it's just so annoying.

Anyway the in-game workaround (in MP, at least, unless you want to go through a whole backup-and-reload process in SP) is to release your group leader(s) until the potential affinity is gone, and then look at the player card to see his personality strength (and then don't export that file, of course).

Dumb as hell, but it's the best we can do given this odd decision.

[Kodos]

Sometimes Jim likes to make you jump through hoops...

[QuikSand]

Oh, there's no doubt Jim likes to make "me" jump through hoops.

Where "me" serves as a proxy for "someone who plays the game in a manner that the game allows, but the developer did not anticipate."

[Squirrel]

Just finished a 34-round allocation draft in a competitive ML league (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/forum/forum.php). Looking through the rosters, it's pretty clear that around 30 of 32 owners paid virtually no attention to chemistry (except possibly avoiding players who showed up as conflicts, but mostly not even that), and really only one team made it a cornerstone (mine, duh).

Watching from afar and hoping this works out well for you Quik. My GML team in FOF 7 became heavy on chemistry as cap space tightened and basically was a homage to your MP teams, which I had studied closely. Just starting to look at it for FOF 8 (as GML restarts) and it looks way harder to hit a high affindex.

[garion333]

I've decided it's easier to turn off chemistry in sp.

[QuikSand]

There is absolutely no doubt at all that turning it off is easier.

I think it's an open question whether adding that optional layer, and having it be one more complicating factor in team-building is a net positive. I think it's a really good thing to have in the game for that reason, despite its various eccentricities or the fine details of how it's implemented.

For whatever reason, I have become positively inclined to play this way, and what is deeply tedious to most gamers is actually interesting to me. I suspect the number of people who will find it worthwhile to invest deeply like I do is going to be really small. But will you find the occasional team who uses it here or there as a tiebreaker? Sure. Will you find lots of managers who basically just avoid conflicts? Sure. Will this be yet another lesser component (like sticking with your familiar low-rated guys for cohesion purposes, or cultivating a lot of special teams skill in your depth chart, or whatever).

[QuikSand]

Another item here, appears to be a small bug.

On my team I have a position leader, but another guy who is listed as having a "potential affinity." The latter guy would be our position leader if he received the requisite number of starts.

It appears that the messaging as I try to sign free agents is based on the -potential- leader, and not the -current- leader. I don't think I have documented this, but will ship it in. Seems pretty clearly to be a minor bug.

[garion333]

There is absolutely no doubt at all that turning it off is easier.

I think it's an open question whether adding that optional layer, and having it be one more complicating factor in team-building is a net positive. I think it's a really good thing to have in the game for that reason, despite its various eccentricities or the fine details of how it's implemented.

For whatever reason, I have become positively inclined to play this way, and what is deeply tedious to most gamers is actually interesting to me. I suspect the number of people who will find it worthwhile to invest deeply like I do is going to be really small. But will you find the occasional team who uses it here or there as a tiebreaker? Sure. Will you find lots of managers who basically just avoid conflicts? Sure. Will this be yet another lesser component (like sticking with your familiar low-rated guys for cohesion purposes, or cultivating a lot of special teams skill in your depth chart, or whatever).

Sorry, what I meant is that for my sanity it's just easier to turn it off than to fiddle constantly to get a handful of affinities.

I think everything you're saying applied perfectly to FOF7, but the stance Jim took in designing chemistry in FOF8 was that instead of ripping it out like I believe he wanted to do, he halfway buried it. In that sense, I'm just gonna turn it off in sp. I don't need the edge it might give me because against the AI as I'm always at an advantage against the AI.

[QuikSand]

Well, if the goal was to "pretty much emasculate" the chemistry system for a competitive FOF environment, the early returns are looking good.

Just finished a 34-round allocation draft in a competitive ML league (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/forum/forum.php). Looking through the rosters, it's pretty clear that around 30 of 32 owners paid virtually no attention to chemistry (except possibly avoiding players who showed up as conflicts, but mostly not even that), and really only one team made it a cornerstone (mine, duh). A second seems invested, but maybe not at the cost of overall talent.

And on a certain level, an allocation draft (building a team from the ground up) offers the best possible chance to organize chemistry, if you are so inclined. More so than the vagaries of year-by-year drafting and building, I think.

Too soon to say what all this means... but my guess is this element of the game has probably been marginalized enough to render it a rounding error for most serious FOFers. For better or for worse, I realize there are both sides out there.

Quick follow-up on this. Small sample size for certain, but my team in this league (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/teampageroster.php?teamid=2) has gotten out to a surprising 11-0 start. I honestly had forecasted 9-7. I am really not sold that this is due to anything but some lucky dice rolls and a favorable schedule... but at least one league member has speculated with frustration that it may be a powerful chemistry effect.

So... is it possible that in the new game, pursuing chemistry is harder but there's some internal offset built in to make its potential effects stronger? Possible, I suppose.

[Squirrel]

Data point: a TE I signed to be a chem leader gave me the "with more starts" message. He wasn't much of a player, but I force-fed him into the lineup, and after 8 games he assumed the leadership role (this happened mid-season). Not sure if 8 starts is a magic number... but it might be.

One problem among many that this creates is finding a way to get starts for a FB or RB2. If they don't get starts, they will never get to be an affinity, despite a lot of playing time. Don't like that

[QuikSand]

Tidbit: A suspended player can remain a position leader.

[Dawgfan19]

So... is it possible that in the new game, pursuing chemistry is harder but there's some internal offset built in to make its potential effects stronger? Possible, I suppose.

I think the jury is out until we get more data. Another even smaller sample size, but a team in a new MP league has 39 affinities with a 1 - 4 record. This was an allocation draft and the team has 15 rookies in the starting lineup. On the flip side, my team, with probably a slightly better than average roster, has 43 affinities and is 5 - 0.

It could be that chemistry can overcome only so much in terms of a poor roster.

[QuikSand]

One twist, also from an allocation draft -- my team has tons of rookies and other zero-starts players who are all showing up listed as having affinities, rather than "Potential Affinity" that I have gotten used to in SP. I'm assuming this is a function of the Allocation Draft start, but it also applies to players I have signed as undrafted free agents, rookies and otherwise.

Update on this observation. That league (CCFL) has just turned over from year one to year two, and suddenly my chemistry schema is gutted. (It's admittedly tricky timing that the game turned over seasons at roughly the same time the game got patched, so i can't be sure this wasn't one of untold numbers of undocumented patch effects)

So, in year two of this league, I suddenly have former chemistry leaders who are no longer registering as leaders, and tons of guys who formerly showed up with affinities who are now downgraded to potential affinities.

I fear I missed my shot with the one golden year with that team. We got the #1 seed but were beaten in the conference title game. Now, it at least appears that we're going to be a few notches farther behind with chemistry stuff for year two and beyond.

[Mobarak]

Just a question.. have you ever achieved anything close to what you had as far as chemistry with Baltimore in any other league that you had to build to get to.. and not an allocation draft?

[TAFIV]

One problem among many that this creates is finding a way to get starts for a FB or RB2. If they don't get starts, they will never get to be an affinity, despite a lot of playing time. Don't like that

this is actually pretty easy
1. slot your RB2 into the 212, 221 or 203 personnel
2. go to offensive game plan
3. look at the top section (1st down and 10 - at possession)
4. make sure the top 4-5 plays are whichever personnel set you have you're RB & FB in
5. almost guaranteed to get them starts since the starters of each game is whoever is in the first personnel set to hit the field

[henry296]

Just pick the 1st play in that formation. The plays are called in order.

[QuikSand]

Correct - it isn't hard at all to manufacture starts for offensive players, for this purpose. I think the seamless way to do it is to use a semi-obscure formation for your first scripted play, and slot your guy(s) in for that formation... and then (if you want) use that formation only sparingly if at all afterward. Half a season later, their switches will be turned on.

I'm not sure that this is better than it was, but that appears to be how it is.

[Squirrel]

All very well but the only MP league I play in is the GML which = no game planning. So I don't think I'll be able to do this there

[Dawgfan19]

Correct - it isn't hard at all to manufacture starts for offensive players, for this purpose. I think the seamless way to do it is to use a semi-obscure formation for your first scripted play, and slot your guy(s) in for that formation... and then (if you want) use that formation only sparingly if at all afterward. Half a season later, their switches will be turned on.

I'm not sure that this is better than it was, but that appears to be how it is.

I've been using the same strategy. This works for your backfield and receivers leaders.

Ironic the more barriers Jim builds to mitigate gimmicks, the more elaborate gimmicks we all create.

[Squirrel]

Another quirk. Some affinity-match draft picks are affinities from day-1 without needing to get to eight starts. Others aren't.

[Ushikawa]

I think I remember seeing that 1st round picks automatically qualify for affinities

[Squirrel]

The two I've seen, from my GML team, were 4th and 6th round picks. Here (http://gml.fof-belco.com/playercard.php?playerid=27049) and here (http://gml.fof-belco.com/playercard.php?playerid=27048).

[QuikSand]

I don't have game access, but I believe it says players drafted in the first four rounds are eligible for chemistry effects in their rookie year. Note - that isn't permanent (as I had hoped), it appears to be just for that first season, then the starts matter. Ugh.

[QuikSand]

While you can now see the Red Flag designation on the fingerprint section of a players in the draft pool, that apparently disappears after the draft is completed. It looks like the only way to tell about a RF with an undrafted rookie is by looking at the "Personality View" for all free agents.

[QuikSand]

Interesting observation -- I have a 2nd year player who started 10 games (676 snaps) in his rookie year, and who now shows up as a "Potential Affinity." I had previously thought it was a firm 8 games to escape the potential status.

Converted MP league, first FOF 8 season hasn't yet started. This is Late FA stage 1, maybe it will click over after the mythical Stage 2:2.

[QuikSand]

Another data point: have a 9y year guy with exactly 7 starts who registers as a position leader. (MP game, converted multiple times)

...and another guy, 5th year, on the same team in the same league, with exactly 7 starts and listed as a "potential affinity"

[QuikSand]

...and another guy who took over as a position leader with only 4 games played, 4 starts. (MP league, started in FOF 8)

[Squirrel]

Hmm. So perhaps the inference might be that the 8 starts is needed to be an affinity but not a leader?

[Squirrel]

Another quirk. Some affinity-match draft picks are affinities from day-1 without needing to get to eight starts. Others aren't.

I don't have game access, but I believe it says players drafted in the first four rounds are eligible for chemistry effects in their rookie year. Note - that isn't permanent (as I had hoped), it appears to be just for that first season, then the starts matter. Ugh.

I meant to post up here the source to confirm this - Jim answered it here (http://www.solecismic.com/frontierblog/uncategorized/responses-to-the-chemistry-question/); specifically:

The one change to the chemistry system is that if a player doesn’t have starting experience, he won’t count in the chemistry algorithm unless he was drafted the current year in the first four rounds

[r00k]

I obtained a FA WR with potential affinity for leader in the offseason and played him in all preseason games. He changed to leader status after game 1 after playing in only two plays. Multi player league.

[QuikSand]

Another item here, appears to be a small bug.

On my team I have a position leader, but another guy who is listed as having a "potential affinity." The latter guy would be our position leader if he received the requisite number of starts.

It appears that the messaging as I try to sign free agents is based on the -potential- leader, and not the -current- leader. I don't think I have documented this, but will ship it in. Seems pretty clearly to be a minor bug.

Follow up on this, with a practical note on how annoying it is.

Current team (MP converted league, no idea of these notes matter but I'm adding just in case) has a long time chem leader on the roster, but he lacks the starts to actually be the recognized leader. So on the roster screen, he shows up as inert, no effects. Fine.

However, when I peruse free agents, it looks like all the player reactions indicated (text color) are relative to HIM, rather than my actual current position leader (whom in this case I seek to oust from that station). So, when I'm trying to look for a guy who could become my new group leader, there happens to be a guy out there in precisely the right grouping, with a very high leadership rating (though not as high as the aforementioned no-starts ball-gagged affinity gimp)... who has enough starts and year of experience to become the position leader in-game immediately and would create maybe 6+ group affinities. He's exactly the guy we are looking for (well, I'd prefer higher personality). However, because he wouldn't overtake the neutered guy for hypothetical future group leader, he doesn't even register for a text color. That seems dumb, to me.

[Squirrel]

Is number of starts in the game's CSVs somewhere? Maybe I'm being slow but I can't find it

[zbuckley]

As a believer in the QuikSand chemistry team building philosophy I'm incredible disappointed with the direction of FOF8. I feel like it's just a moving target trying to strategist a whole team around this doesn't make sense anymore. You can't consistently count on who is actually going to be the team leader.

[QuikSand]

Well, it's definitely harder to do. But. it's still possible to do.

I don't think the "uncertainty" is insurmountable. But it will put you into a tough spot sometimes, where you have to decide whether it's worth force-feeding a number of starts to a player who otherwise wouldn't merit them, just to get his chemistry effects to kick in.

I think it's nearly impossible to have a virtually top-to-bottom affinity team now, or at least one with decent quality throughout the roster. You just have too many guys who are in years 2-4 of their rookie deals who don't start... on any normal-looking team.

I definitely built my allocation draft team (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/teampageroster.php?teamid=2) this way in CCFL, and that team is pretty good, #1 seed in each of its first two seasons, even with a major chemistry dropoff from year one to year two. I'm still committed to it in my other leagues, too, with varying degrees of success. But now, I am settling for lesser impact options than I would have in FOF 7, just because it's really hard to find the perfect guy to lead a group now (good enough to start, and the right combo of leadership and personality).

Little doubt that the developer wanted to tone this stuff down. I'm glad he didn't completely pull it out of the game, but it's hard not to feel singled out here, I can agree with you there.

[Ushikawa]

At first I didn't get your complaint as the popup was telling me that a guy was gonna be a leader even if he wouldn't get starts on my squad but then after blowing wads on a guy who will never see the field the leader did not change so I get it now. In some cases it did though. Still hoping it will change after TC perhaps...

We really shouldn't be complaining about exploits though, the days of signing FAs and 15 rated dudes just to pile up affinities should end and is really just an unfair advantage to those of us who have or take the time to make spreadsheets.

[Squirrel]

Here’s an example player from the GML who I think is an interesting case study on the FOF 8 changes.

http://gml.fof-belco.com/playercard.php?playerid=26612

You’ll see I’ve overpaid hugely to get him on our roster as our WR3 or maybe WR4. Why?

- I know he has high PER. I don't know that about anyone in the draft

- He has six starts at another team, which means I can get him to exceptional affinity by week 3, and if he doesn't pan out at WR he will at least have a special teams bar (in the GML we can’t game the depth chart to get starts to marginal WRs that easily; there aren't that many other excep affinity candidates with >8 starts in the population)

- He is year 2, which means I might keep him for years, and he might be good enough to get on the field and add cohesion. That presumes it’s still true that only on-the-field players contribute to cohesion not backups, and also bears in mind that now there is no way to manufacture cohesion in the TC stage

- I was able to sign him as a UFA to end in year 3, giving me a chance of re-signing him at something sensible then, perhaps through to year 6 - though not sure how likely this is, partly that's what I'm trying out

- He will be a position leader candidate eventually, around the time our current leader (who we have had to overpay also until recently) retires

I'd welcome thoughts on this. I’d say the first two points above, and some of the third point, are changes due to FOF 8, whereas the rest was also true in FOF 7.

And more generally, it seems to me that there’s more of a tension between cohesion and chemistry in FOF 8 than previous versions. So far for me, all the roster juggling needed to build the chemistry kills the cohesion. I’m enjoying trying to find an answer.

[Mobarak]

I was under the impression the chemistry bonus applied to the position group and not just the individual player..

[QuikSand]

...and another guy who took over as a position leader with only 4 games played, 4 starts. (MP league, started in FOF 8)

Interesting twist update...after 4 starts moved him into the leader role, I played him as a reserve - 8 GP, 4 starts, 185 total plays. Roll over the season, and now he's back to "Potential Affinity" (suggesting he needs more starts). Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

[Squirrel]

He has six starts at another team, which means I can get him to exceptional affinity by week 3

Not if he gets injured in week 1 and is out for the season. Oops!

[QuikSand]

Another confusing data point: I have a 4th round rookie listed as a "potential affinity" (I thought that was not supposed to be possible)

[zbuckley]

Here's another interesting data point. I have only rookies in my backfield and the leader is a 4th round rookie with 16 leadership. All the other rookies are 5th round picks and beyond or UDFA, and they all have higher leadership than the leader.

I did get the message on some of the UDFA's that they could become leaders with starting experience. My target leader has 65 leadership and i'll post how long it takes for him to become the leader.

[Squirrel]

Another data point: WR drafted by someone else in the 3rd round, then cut immediately, picked up as an FA by me, exceptional affinity after 4 starts

[QuikSand]

7th year backup QB, with only 1 start and 24 attempts, and a 95 personality, in a converted MP league. Shows up with multiple full affinities on his player page, but has the asterisk on the roster page.

Is that just the way all QBs are shown, there are no "potential" affinities on the player page? I'm guessing it must be, and I'm only noticing it now.

[QuikSand]

Tidbit: A suspended player can remain a position leader.

Hmmm... new data point in SP game. Leader suspended, clearly has the stronger numbers to remain the leader, but doesn't chart while on suspension. We'll leave this one as unresolved for now.

(This case: 11th 7r, 73 lead, 83 pers but suspended, outranked by 9th/63/61)

[brothergrim]

7th year backup QB, with only 1 start and 24 attempts, and a 95 personality, in a converted MP league. Shows up with multiple full affinities on his player page, but has the asterisk on the roster page.

Is that just the way all QBs are shown, there are no "potential" affinities on the player page? I'm guessing it must be, and I'm only noticing it now.

Did you ever find out what the asterisk means? My back up QB has affinities with all 3 O leaders, but he has that asterisk too.

[QuikSand]

Pretty confident it's the way the game indicates "potential" affinities for QB. There's a text space limit at play there, I'd guess.

Just confirmed. A MP guy of mine with 6 starts had the asterisk, but at 8 starts he no longer had it. Pretty conclusive, I think.

[Sharkn20]

What potential conflict means???

[Dawgfan19]

Another data point (perhaps already mentioned but I couldn't find a reference after briefly reviewing this thread):

In one of my MP leagues, I had a player change from a potential affinity to an affinity after only 3 starts. On the same team, but a different position group, another player with 3 starts is still a potential affinity.

[QuikSand]

Yeah, the exact trigger seems like a variable, but I haven't sorted out why it's lower for some players. Could be random, but more likely it's connected to something like personality, leadership, play for winner, etc. It does seem like 8 starts is good enough for all (nearly all?) players to engage, though.

[Dawgfan19]

Agreed, lots of variables in play. But since leadership and personality ratings impact affinities and the strength of the affinities, I'd guess those factors are likely. I also had a safety on the same team (3rd position group) become an affinity after 5 games. There is a correlation between the personality rating of the leader and the number of games trigging the affinity. But this theory has not been verified.

[garion333]

As with basically everything in this game I'm sure it's a dice roll. Higher personalities, leadership, etc., probably equate to better dice rolls to flip the switch on affinity.

Every week a player starts they probably get a +1 to their affinity roll so that by ~8th week they get a positive roll.

I'd be surprised if we ever figure out exactly what causes the affinity to trigger because of the variables and behind the scenes dice rolls. If it were as simple as "does player have X starts?" then we would figure it out in no time, but rarely is anything that simple in FOF.

[Squirrel]

Correct - it isn't hard at all to manufacture starts for offensive players, for this purpose. I think the seamless way to do it is to use a semi-obscure formation for your first scripted play, and slot your guy(s) in for that formation... and then (if you want) use that formation only sparingly if at all afterward. Half a season later, their switches will be turned on.

I'm not sure that this is better than it was, but that appears to be how it is.

I call this the 'happy formation' and have started using it now the depth charts in the GML are no longer rexed. I went back to have a look at how it got on in the most recent GML season.

The skill position lineup for the first offensive play of each game was

TE Mattes 36/66 PER 78
TE Hutchins 9/12 PER 90
TE Tuitele 18/41 PER 98
RB Boyer 35/52 PER 78
RB Derks 28/28 PER 92

and the objective was to get each of these guys to 8 starts.

The play was a run inside by RB Boyer, and the result of the play in each game was:

Week 1, 4 yard gain
Week 2, 5 yard gain
Week 3, 4 yard gain
Week 4, false start penalty
Week 5, 1 yard gain
Week 6, 2 yard gain
Week 7, 6 yard gain
Week 8, 12 yard gain
Week 10, 6 yard gain
Week 11, 5 yard gain
Week 12, 3 yard gain
Week 13, 4 yard gain
Week 14, 4 yard gain
Week 15, 8 yard gain
Week 16, 3 yard gain
Week 17, 4 yard gain

Seeing as we went 14-2 I left the gameplan and depth charts untouched for the playoffs. I viewed the happy formation as something of a lucky charm.

DIV, 3 yard gain
CONF, 3 yard gain
BOWL, 4 yard gain

Is this an exploit that needs to be banned in MP FOF? No, I don't think so. It's just another hoop for the chemistry crowd to jump through. But I think if Jim was trying to attach the chemistry dynamic more obviously to the players who get more playing time, the >8 starts condition might have been better set as say a >100 snaps per season condition, at least for these offensive skill guys that we have more control over. Or alternatively, and this would be my preference, define the 'starters' as the 11 players on each side of the ball who get the most snaps, not just the players who happen to be on the field for the first play.

Anecdotally I get the sense that FOF 8 is more aggressive at retiring free agent affinity players than FOF 7. And perhaps a by-product of the happy formation may be unusually early retirements for players, even key contributors, who may get lots of snaps but get zero starts. This hasn't happened to me yet, but I have seen it elsewhere.

[KODIAKBEAR]

So what does character, intelligence, and Wants Winner actually mean in the game?

[Mobarak]

I'm so excited to see these answers!

[Ushikawa]

I have heard Intelligence is related to penalties.

Wants Winner means when consudering offers extra value is given to Winners.

[Squirrel]

I have heard Intelligence is related to penalties.

How Can I Reduce My Penalties In FOF8??? – Front Office Football Multiplayer Resources (http://www.fof-belco.com/2017/01/14/how-can-i-reduce-my-penalties-in-fof8-intelligence-matters/)

[Ushikawa]

Nice, wonder if the engine distinguishes between penalties an INT is more related to presnap stuff, while opportunity and talent differential would be more related to holding or DPI and finally Discipline having more to do with personal fouls.

[QuikSand]

The game docs say that a former first round player will always be included in the chem equation (regardless of starts). I have a player proving otherwise -- drafted pick 1.11 (note: it was my second pick of that draft, I guess that could be the issue here) but didn't start any games in year one -- now shows with a "Potential Affinity."

[bomber33bomber]

Have a few questions about FOF8 Chemistry.. Experienced FOF Player but first time messing around with Chemistry in the game..

- Personality: what does personality do? the higher the personalty, the higher the affinity with the leader? in what way does personality impact chemistry/affinity?

- Leadership: what does leadership mean? like the higher the leadership is the higher likelyhood that the person will be a leader? For a follower, does leadership impact the affinity with his group leader?

- High Personalty Low leadership... these guys will be good followers for the leader?

- Low Personalty High Leadership... this guys will be good leaders but bad followers? Does a low personality leader impact how strong the follower's affinity with the leader?

- Low personality QB. I have a low personalty (22 personality, 62 leader, 6-27 Birthday, Group 6) QB and a good FB leader (80 leader, 81 personality, 4-25 Birthday, Group 4) .. the QB should affinity with the FB but he doesnt.. not sure why. Is it because of the low personalty. This was also true for the WR leader (91 leadership, 64 personality, 5-17 birthday, group 4) also..

- Performance Impact.. how much impact does chemistry have on the group performance do you guys think? is it worth the time to deal with it?

- Chemistry impact the whole positional group right? so even if the affinity is with all the bench players, the starters will play better? true?

[garion333]

- Personality: what does personality do? the higher the personalty, the higher the affinity with the leader? in what way does personality impact chemistry/affinity? It determines the strength of the chemistry effect. More personality, more positive/negative effect. You can have leader with 0 personality and they're completely useless as no one will be an affinity with them. Personality for non-leaders is also important for determining how strong the affinity (or conflict) is, if any.

- Leadership: what does leadership mean? like the higher the leadership is the higher likelyhood that the person will be a leader? Yes For a follower, does leadership impact the affinity with his group leader? Leadership only determines chance of becoming a leader.

- High Personalty Low leadership... these guys will be good followers for the leader? Potentially, yes.

- Low Personalty High Leadership... this guys will be good leaders but bad followers? Does a low personality leader impact how strong the follower's affinity with the leader? These guys will be bad leaders and unlikely to form chemistry with a leader due to low personality.

- Low personality QB. I have a low personalty (22 personality, 62 leader, 6-27 Birthday, Group 6) QB and a good FB leader (80 leader, 81 personality, 4-25 Birthday, Group 4) .. the QB should affinity with the FB but he doesnt.. not sure why. Is it because of the low personalty. Yes,
your QB is struggling to develop chemistry because he has no personality. This was also true for the WR leader (91 leadership, 64 personality, 5-17 birthday, group 4) also. Again, pretty sure it's your QB's lack of personality. Might require a leader with higher personality to make
up for it. See note below on Disposition.

- Performance Impact.. how much impact does chemistry have on the group performance do you guys think? is it worth the time to deal with it? Personally I think chemistry is a nice thing to have and something to work toward, but I prefer talent over chemistry. The teams that go all in on chemistry (Quik, Squirrel) tend to perform well but I don't see them dominating in FOF8. It's a viable path, but FOF8 made it tougher to build a chemistry juggernaut. I don't think it's worth going all in, but you may enjoy it.

- Chemistry impact the whole positional group right? so even if the affinity is with all the bench players, the starters will play better? true? Yes for cohesion, probably for chemistry. I'm not 100%
certain on the chemistry bit.

FOF8 added in "Disposition" which labels players as mellow, sociable, etc. Mellow is bad for chemistry as it means they're less likely to develop chemistry. Sociable is the opposite.

[Squirrel]

Bomber, garion nails it as always, but just to put numbers to it...

Players only seem to qualify for affinity stuff if they have 8 starts or more (except players drafted in rounds 1-4 playing in their rookie year, who count towards affinity regardless).

Whoever has the highest LDR among the players with 5 or more years of EXP is normally the leader. Having more EXP is the tiebreaker when the LDR is close between guys, say within 10 points or so.

You then add up the PER of the leader and the follower (i.e. the players in the right affinity groups, so 3 likes 5 and 10 and so on) to gauge the affinity. More often than not >150 is exceptional, >100 is strong, >50 is mild.

That's why you want leaders with high PER. In the draft, if a player is badged as 'cheerful' they typically have PER > 66.

Same approach applies between the QB and the position leaders on offense, if they are in groups that like each other, add up the PER of both and look for whether it beats 150, 100 or 50.

As a rule of thumb, but I would say that if you get more than 10 exceptional affinities on a roster, and 3 exceptional affinities between the QB and the position leaders, you're well on the way to a .500 record in any MP FOF league, and you will completely dominate in SP.

As garion quite rightly points out, teams following this approach across MP FOF such as my GML and IHOF teams are often capping out...for my teams lately the cap-out is at 12-win regular seasons and divisional round playoff exits. Quik performs far better than this, so I'd say my failings are likely my execution, but it might be chemistry as a strategy more broadly, I don't know.

What I would say is I don't think I've ever seen a team with >10 excep affinities, plus QB excep affinities, pick in the top 10 of an MP FOF draft regardless of talent level, cohesion, gameplanning or anything else. I think there's a lot more leeway when drafting when you know the player will be a strong or excep affinity if he gets 8 starts.

I haven't got enough experience to have a view on whether the impact of any of this is different in FOF 8 vs previous versions. The mechanics got harder as the 8 starts conditions came in with FOF 8.

[bomber33bomber]

thanks Squirrel. thanks Garion. Great answers to my questions.

Garion, i never knew you knew anything.. shocking!

[bomber33bomber]

a few more questions...

- does leadership and personality change and grow yearly? how fast?

- 8 starts.. is playing time a factor? i can just start them on the 1st play on 1st down and it'll be all good from that after 8 games?

[Squirrel]

LDR and PER are constant through a career, no change.

8 starts means 8 first snaps in the game, yeah. Easy to do for the offense skill players (see up this thread), harder on D. If you can figure out how to do it on D let me know!

[garion333]

For offense, guys who are into chemistry tend to run weird plays to get certain starters their GS badge. It's stupid and I wrote to Jim explaining the requirement to start games is arbitrary and leads to much silliness. I hope he reverts chemistry back to pre-FOF8 ways.

[hrd12]

I'm in a MP league with a few friends and I'm trying to understand the chemistry part of the game. I cut the old leader for cap reasons so I started working to get some chemistry fits for the new leader (Aries -- 4/9). A LG in free agency who should be a fit (Scorpio -- 11/11) does not show up as a match when I offer the contract. I tested it by signing him as the commish and he doesn't show up as an affinity or potential affinity.
I also tried trading for a T (Gemini -- 6/16) as the commish to test it further and he didn't show up as an affinity or potential affinity. Fwiw, I didn't sim the stage, so maybe it just needs that to add those players as affinities?

The help file says
"Newcomers to your team are only included in team chemistry when they have accumulated a few career starts."

If that is the case I'd assume he'd at least be a potential affinity? Thanks!

[Ushikawa]

The sum of personalities needs to be 100 for an affinity

[QuikSand]

The sum of personalities needs to be 100 for an affinity

I'm not certain it's exactly that simple, but yes - the magnitudes of the personality rating of the group leader and other player determine whether it's an Exceptional, Strong, (unlabeled), or Weak affinity... and in some cases it will simply fly under the radar and not show up in game at all.

[QuikSand]

Thought experiment.

Lots of us try to build a coherent offensive chemistry, usually building out from a build-around QB, and putting groups into place who work with him. I think that's the default for most chem-heavy teams.

But, are we doing it wrong?

If we center the whole offense on the 7-8/8-9/11-12 groups, frex, we end up looking at the exact same pool of players for fits, and most importantly, for leaders.

Maybe we are better off diversifying. If we ditch the QB connections, and spread our chemistry into three groups, that would lessen the problems in finding a suitable leader/fit in the group where we need one.

On my organized team, if I need an 8-9 receiving leader, I have already used lots of those guys elsewhere. They are on my team in various roles.

But if my RB chem is elsewhere, then I haven't had any use for that low-rated 11-12 fullback. He could be out there to sign and switch over to play TE. Same for that underweighted C. Every time we're searching for a leader, instead of stepping on our own toes, maybe we're better off by deliberately diversifying.

The downside: single affinity, rather than double/triple, for your QBs
The upside: much better selection of affinity gimp players

[Squirrel]

I've thought about this in IHOF where my affgroups are currently in a statistically unlikely QB drought. Too much inertia effect to switch so far

[Ushikawa]

I don't get your comment. There are 4 affinity groups not just the 7-8/8-9/11-12 one.

And yes I saw Jim's note about some being better eladers than others.

[QuikSand]

I don't get your comment. There are 4 affinity groups not just the 7-8/8-9/11-12 one.

My point is this. There are two basic ways to try to go heavy chemistry:

-Align the whole offense around a QB and his backups, to maximize QB affinities... frex, your 11-12 starting QB would push you to invest in leaders from the 7-8 or 8-9 groups, so those leaders will not only connect with their own groups, but also with the QBs.

-Just focus on each chem group separately and don't worry too much about QB affinities.

I think, for the most part, the heavy-chem community has taken the former approach. It is, admittedly, easier to remember, and it has the benefit of adding the QB chemistry which might be meaningful.

I'm suggesting that maybe diversifying leadership on your offensive groups might be worth the trade off. You lose the QB chem (or most of it) but on theory you gain in the number of players who can serve as leaders or mostly-chemistry assets. Finding high-personality, high-leadership guys is tough enough... it's extra tough to find three such guys to lead your team in three separate position groups, especially if you're constrained to just one or two zodiac signs. Open it up, and just by the numbers it would be easier to find a 10-11 RB, a 2-3 WR, and an 8-9 OL leader.

[Squirrel]

(anyone reading this who is interested in playing MP FOF with a chemistry team might think about picking up my IHOF team Iowa (http://www.fof-ihof.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32601), which I've had to walk away from as I don't have the time. It's a pretty cool setup with a young QB and a full chem structure in place)

[QuikSand]

...and IHOF is a long-standing league with a lot of tradition/history, and all the BELCo bells and whistles. Rated A++++++ would play again.

[SocratesJC]

I'd consider playing a league. I've never done so before though and would require a little coaching. I've been playing SP since the end of the FOF7 era.

[Squirrel]

I'd consider playing a league. I've never done so before though and would require a little coaching. I've been playing SP since the end of the FOF7 era.

I'd be happy to be available to you by PM if you're looking for some help from an experienced player to get up and running.

[Squirrel]

And in case of wider interest, to help SocJC or any others thinking about picking up my IHOF team...my view is that the team should hit .500 or better, with playoff upside, in the medium-term if the GM keeps broadly to the following ideas:

1. Follow the chemistry system, which means leaders in group 3 and followers in groups 5 and 10. Only exceptions: Star players, P, K and LS

2. Specifically, try to sign in FA every player available with >=8 starts who is either (i) group 3 with LDR > 70 and PER > 70 or (ii) group 5 or 10 with LDR <70 and PER > 30

3. Where the player has clearly above replacement-level talent, include bonus $ in the contract; otherwise don't. Preserve cap flexibility and bid hard on affinity stars / starters who come up in free agency (they are worth more to you than the next GM by a hard-to-quantify but clearly-non-zero margin)

4. Draft players in groups 5 and 10 only, except for star prospects (i.e. first round draft picks) in which case disregard affinity and draft BPA

5. When cutting down to 70, 60 and 53 ensure 1 leader in each position group and otherwise cut to leave the best players available, but when two players are similarly good preserve cohesion by keeping the longest-serving guy on the team

6. Overdraft group 5 and 10 QB prospects and establish as much QB depth as possible. Try to have at least 2 and ideally 3 QBs with PER > 80 on the roster

7. Rex everything unless you're very good at gameplanning i.e. you've somehow been able to quantify to yourself satisfactorily that you add value by gameplanning

8. Because the talent level on your roster will be lower than all non-affinity teams, be unusually careful about giving rookies snaps as they can be dangerous to put in by disturbing the balance of your team. Normally, let rookies develop a year or two before making them active, and be comfortable with the idea of sending in instead lots of 40/40 affinity guys who may well surprise you by putting in league-average performance because of the chemistry

I think that's everything that I'd view as of core importance. Will think about it some more

[tzach]

this is a great post -- kudos to squirrel (and quiksand through this thread) to openly and selflessly outline how to build a chemistry-heavy team.

[TeamBills59]

How did chemistry work before FOF8?

[QuikSand]

How did chemistry work before FOF8?

Long answer distilled reasonably: mostly the same, though it's gotten tougher to do silly patchover stuff to keep it going... it's always been built off a zodiac system with the effects derived the same way... now only players with starts count, and it's tougher to position stitch guys absurdly to help build the framework.

[sdoug78]

Would anyone happen to haver a copy of the zodiac chart for the chemistry they are able to post please?

I have found some old threads where it had been posted but they are no longer available.

Thanks

[QuikSand]

FOF7 Chemistry Chart (http://www.fof-ihof.com/chemistrychart.php)

[tzach]

if you want more info about the average traits of each personality group, i have made some info available at


https://sites.google.com/view/tzach/personality-traits

[sdoug78]

Great, thanks for these :)

[garion333]

if you want more info about the average traits of each personality group, i have made some info available at


https://sites.google.com/view/tzach/personality-traits

They have different traits? He didn't just use the zodiac stuff for determining the grouping but gave the groups different traits? Holy crap. Time to start collecting Geminis!

[Ben E Lou]

They have different traits? He didn't just use the zodiac stuff for determining the grouping but gave the groups different traits? Holy crap. Time to start collecting Geminis!Dude, they used to have different *talent* levels, too.

[garion333]

Dude, they used to have different *talent* levels, too.

https://i.giphy.com/media/xT0xeJpnrWC4XWblEk/giphy.webp

[QuikSand]

bumping just for fun

[TeamBills59]

I have a gut feeling that the zodiac chemistry system will be replaced by a more realistic system in the next Front Office Football game.

[Izulde]

I have a gut feeling that the zodiac chemistry system will be replaced by a more realistic system in the next Front Office Football game.

The Zodiac Braves would be saddened by this development.

[QuikSand]

Okay, weird twist in my IHOF roster. Sharing here because... well, I didn't think this could happen.

Roster page is here, for reference in the moment: http://www.fof-ihof.com/teampageroster.php?teamid=29

Current leader is the FB Reese: 8th year, 1-2 group, 77 Ldr, 88 Pers
...a semi-important guy I'm watching is rookie Hall (50/27), who registers NOTHING despite being in the 9-10 group

If I release Reese, new leader is Tousha: 3rd yr, 12-1 group, 79 Ldr, 70 Pers
...and with him as the leader, Hall clicks up to "potential affinity"


So... would that affinity disappear based on too-low numbers once Hall got his starts? (Now, I'm guessing that's the full explanation) I just didn't expect the chemistry listings to improve by moving to a lesser leader. But here I am.

Any thoughts? (Hall might boom in camp and make the RB group tricky for us)

[tzach]

hmm intriguing. we know that higher LEA will give stronger affinities for the same PER, but in this case the change is minimal, and the PER of the new leader is significantly lower.

[Squirrel]

Don't get this

[Ternvig]

So I looked into the combined personality strength for my QB affinities.

There dosn't seem to be a correlation between affinity strength and combined personality strength in my team or i'm missing something?

QB1 and Oline leader - combined 133 - Strong affinity
QB 2 and QB 3 (both 91) combined with backfield leader 146 - affinity
QB 2 and QB 3 combined with receiver leader 131 - Affinity

Pos. Per. Ldr.
QB1 89 70
QB2 91 77
QB3 91 31
OL 44 69
WR 40 95
RB 55 100

QB2 and RB combines for both highest combined per strength and and leadership but manages only 'affinity'

When predicting affinity strength whats the 'other factors' at play?

Note: QB2 and QB3 are signed midseason.

[QuikSand]

I know that in the recent video we did, Squirrel dropped a rule of thumb that the sum of the two personality ratings is a decent rule of thumb for an index of the affinity strength.

I don't think he meant that it's gospel, pure and simple. Whatever arithmetic there is in-game is surely more complex than just Pers+Pers. Jim appears to be fond of using rather inexplicable formulae for this sort of purpose... like the metric for what player takes the group leadership role, it's easy to approximate but not completely solved, to my knowledge.

So... is it possible that QBs simply are hard-wired to get along more closely with their offensive lines than with running backs? Sure, it's possible.

So... on your comment "There dosn't seem to be a correlation," let's just adjust that to "There dosn't seem to be a perfect correlation," and we should be all set. There's obviously a strong correlation, and the two players' personality ratings are clearly the major determinants. If there's some noise around the fringes here and there, that's evidence that we don't have this fully nailed down, fully granted.

[QuikSand]

When predicting affinity strength whats the 'other factors' at play?

So, my guesses would be:

-experience/age of player(s)
-duration on team
-number of starts/games/snaps on team
-one or more of the other personality ratings

But I have yet to see anyone rally dig into this.

[QuikSand]

Side effect of my long term immersion into this garbage:

I looked at the clock just a bit ago, I have a big meeting at 10 I'm preparing for.

I saw it was 9:23

In my mind, a little voice piped up remember, 9-23 is in the 8-9 group, not the 9-10 group

ugh

[Ben E Lou]

Side effect of my long term immersion into this garbage:

I looked at the clock just a bit ago, I have a big meeting at 10 I'm preparing for.

I saw it was 9:23

In my mind, a little voice piped up remember, 9-23 is in the 8-9 group, not the 9-10 group

ugh:lol::lol::lol:

[QuikSand]

Overheard in a recent FOF discussion:

sure sex is great and all, but have you ever signed an injured guard as a free agent just to IR him, force him to lose twelve pounds, ruin his career with a position switch, and benefit from a "free" affinity for one season in fake football?

[VirgOhNo]

Starting a new SP save today and going chem-heavy. I'll use post #108 above as my guide.

I suspect there will be some value here just in preventing me from fixing what ain't broke.

Using a different team-building approach, I just won the FO Bowl in an SP save and had planned ahead so that I could keep the team exactly as it was for the next two seasons. And then I did what every real-life NFL owner who annoys me does: tinkered too much with the team in the next offseason. Now we're 3-and-4 and getting worse every game. :)

Thanks so much for sharing this approach. I'm very excited about diving in.

[QuikSand]

enjoy!

post a dynasty thread

[QuikSand]

enjoy, maybe a dynasty thread?

[VirgOhNo]

enjoy!

post a dynasty thread

I absolutely will!

A few chem questions (apologies if these have been answered elsewhere):

1. Do the 8 starts have to be for my team or just across a player's career?

2. Do the position group leaders need to be starters? Do they even have to be active? What about on IR?

3. Do coaching changes affect chemistry?

Thank you for sharing. Really have enjoyed the YouTube vids, too.

[QuikSand]

1. Do the 8 starts have to be for my team or just across a player's career?

8 starts over the career is enough to switch chemistry effects on forever


2. Do the position group leaders need to be starters? Do they even have to be active? What about on IR?

doesn't matter, even IR


3. Do coaching changes affect chemistry?

no apparent effect

[QuikSand]

1. Do the 8 starts have to be for my team or just across a player's career?

8 starts switches the chem effects ON forever


2. Do the position group leaders need to be starters? Do they even have to be active? What about on IR?

doesnt matter, even on IR


3. Do coaching changes affect chemistry?

doesnt appear to have any effect

[VirgOhNo]

Thank you!