Curious affinity observation

[QuikSand]

I'm sure there are existing threads this could have been appended onto -- but I'm too lazy to look.

Here's the deal: single player game, long-time team, very high chemistry effects already at play

I drafted a QB, using a late round pick, eyeing him as a triple affinity guy (though unaware that his personality would be as lo as it was, I am not bothering with interviews, just playing pretty quickly)

Here are the numbers I thought would be relevant:

Rookie QB born in the 5-6 group, personality rating of 27
Backfield leader: 10-11 group, 9th year, 100 Leadership, 89 Personality
Receivers leader: 10-11 group, 9th year, 83 Leadership, 89 Personality
O Line leader: 10-11 group, 11th year, 98 Leadership,62 Personality

Now, I have invested more time and attention into the chemistry system than anyone else, I reckon -- and I would read this fact pattern pretty simply. The QB has a low enough personality that he' not going to register an affinity with the OL leader, even though they are in compatible signs -- but since the RB and WR leaders are pretty high in personality, that will probably rate, at least as a "mild" affinity.

And what do I see?

Mild affinity with [receivers leader]

That's it. That's the list.

So... here we have a pretty perfectly controlled setup -- the two leaders from the RB and WR group are of identical experience and identical personality... but one of them has enough connection to register his affinity, and the other one doesn't. Before seeing this, I would have guessed this was impossible. Now, I assume there's some minor factor we just haven't identified before, and it's nibbling around a marginal case here.


I admit that I can't see how this becomes actionable information in any way. But if I can't share this here, where can I go?

*shurg*

[Fonzie]

I would've guessed this to be impossible as well, based on what we know about the chemistry system. Or at least based on what we thought we knew. Hrmph.

I'll throw out two possibilities that might explain this, for which I will offer absolutely no supporting evidence:

1) When imagining how to shoehorn QBs into a chemistry system, I'd probably do as Jim has done and have them bonded to all offensive position groups. I'd be temped, however, to recognize the unique relationship between the pass throwers and the primary pass catchers by putting a subtle but real emphasis on their relationships. Perhaps a 5-10% boost or so;

2) Alternatively, perhaps the emergence of an affinity/conflict depends on a weighted amalgamation that includes leadership as a minor player.

I dunno that I really buy either of those possibilities, given what has already been pretty clearly established about the chemistry system in FOF. But that's all I got.

Interesting finding, QS. Thanks for sharing.

[QuikSand]

I would lean #1, but it can't be a big deal.

[thenewchuckd]

How about the possibility that there are decimals to the personality trait but you only see the integer value?

[Ben E Lou]

How about the possibility that there are decimals to the personality trait but you only see the integer value?I'm roughly 99.9% sure the answer to that is "no."

[aston217]

I made a post where I noted that I had two players who had affinities with the same leader had different levels of affinities, but the guy with the stronger affinity had weaker personality.

It's possible that position has to do with it.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - On Cohesion. (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2415364&postcount=38)

Never mind, the leader was a WILB with 89 personality. 4th-year DE with 44 personality (133 total) was 'exceptional'. 5th-year NT with 62 personality (151 total) was 'strong.' Maybe just some randomness going on there.

Your case is definitely more extreme, but both show something similar regarding cohesion. But based on my above example from the OSFL, decimals wouldn't really make a difference anyway.

[MIJB#19]

I'm roughly 99.9% sure the answer to that is "no."Maybe not a decimal thingy, but could it be that the first '89' is actually a 400 and the second 89 is actually a 399, where in the given situation a 400 is required to have the affinity to be listed? Or that leadership scores has more effect than expected.