Cohesion Primer
 

Even in the latest thread, there is misinformation being thrown around. And there's still some confusion on it in at least one of my leagues, so let's get this straight.

WHAT AFFECTS COHESION

• The "joined team" field.
• How much time you spent on "Team Functions" in TC in the current season.

That's it. Age doesn't matter. Overall experience in the league doesn't matter. There is absolutely no indication that anything affects cohesion besides the two factors above.

FACTS ABOUT THE COHESION SCREEN

• The numbers you see are not absolute; they are relative to the rest of the league. If your entire starting lineup has been together five years and there's a team with a lineup that has been together ten years (and you put an equal amt. of time in the touchy-feely stuff in TC,) his numbers will be much higher than yours.
• The top team *always* gets 100. In a fictional start, every team is up around 100 in every category. This doesn't mean they have great cohesion. It means they all have roughly equally terrible cohesion.
• The numbers you see on this screen only apply to the starting lineup from your most recent game. They do not change in the offseason until your team plays a preseason game. For example, I had a QB in IHOF retire after ~15 years with the team. All offseason long, until we had played a preseason game, we were showing as the top passing cohesion team.
• Your backups are not factored in on the cohesion screen. I could not find it, but I seem to remember a long-ago response from Solecismic that it is actually calculated on every play, based on the guys on the field. If that's true, it means that your 34/34 backup who has been on the team for 8 years is helpful, but only when he is playing.

WHAT AFFECT DOES COHESION HAVE?

• It is significant. In test leagues where one team was given the exact same talent, but cohesion was monkeyed with, the higher-cohesion team(s) outperformed the others season after season.
• All indications are that it affects offense more than defense. I say that because in a fictional league start, where every team has lousy cohesion, offensive numbers are low and gradually rise for roughly 7-9 seasons. After that time they stabilize pretty much right at the same level of offensive numbers you'd expect in a default-roster start, where teams have players who have been on the team for years.

Any further questions? If there are, I will add to this primer as needed.

I think you pretty much covered it.

I know there are some people out there who will say there is more to it because I've had that discussion with a few people over AIM who tell me that it is much more complicated than what this states.

Like what?

Oh wait, I think I misread what you were saying. I thought you meant "people are saying today that you are wrong." I suspect that you're actually saying "in the past people have said it's uber-complicated." Let me know if I'm reading that right.

I think he's saying in your face to certain people he has argued with in the past.

The only thing I'm not sure about is that it affects offense more than defense. In my tests, the biggest difference was in the secondary, which was were the biggest cohesion differential was.

^^^

That. I get tired of arguing with people about it. Saying that it isn't how you spelled it out to be. Now I can point them here. If they want to continue to be wrong, then let them.

What about red flags? I guess they do not impact cohesion. Are they lumped in with the affinities/conflicts system? Or a completely separate beast?

So how do affinities impact cohesion? Not at all?

Not at all.

IMO it's either b) or c). Either they affect affinities, or they're simply players who are more liable to hold out, be unhappy with playing time, get suspended or otherwise cause trouble. Maybe there's even a small chance they'll steal your credit card number and send it to their cronies over the internet.

So basically, it is no big deal and should not affect whether I want a player or not?

No, that's not what I said. I'd say not to be too bold getting them, but not to be scared of them either. You wouldn't get rid of a star because of a bad affinity, would you? If a player is worth it, find a way to compensate.

We don't really know how big of a deal it is. Anecdotally, it doesn't appear to be the sort of thing that consistently turns a 12 win team into a 4 win team, but we have no real understanding of how it works. It could be something that doesn't do anything most of the time, but wrecks a season every once in a while.

So can i ask using this example?

I am the Cowboys, Romo has been on the team since 2005, Kitna since 2010
In week 1 Romo starts and i have a cohesion of 80 for pass offense, but he is benched during the week 1 game and kitna comes in. At the end of the game (so cohesion prior to week 2) does the Cohesion account for Romo being the normal starter or does the Cohesion count for Kitna as he was the last QB to be in the game?

Secondly if my first or last passing play is out of a 2TE set will that give me a different cohesion to if my first or last passing play was out of a 4WR set, I ask as the starters would be different dependent on the offensive formation?

thank you in advance

From the initial post:

So if it's calculated each play and i have 4 Rookie WR's in the Singleback formation whilst in the Iform 2TE formation i have a pair of TE's that have been on the team for 8 years a piece then cohesion is going to be potentially very different for the 2 formations.

If that is the case then the Cohesion table only shows cohesion for standard sets. (1QB 1HB, 1FB, 2WR's and a TE) as you're saying the game shows the cohesion for the standard starters, not other formations.

The cohesion is based on the actual depth chart of the players, not the starters. For example, the passing cohesion it would be the starting QB, top 2 TEs, and top 5 WRs. The starters are weighted more heavily than the backups, i.e. FL #1 over FL #2 or SE #2, but they all play a role in your pass cohesion. Not sure how much more the starters are weighted, but it's a noticeable difference. The amount of time on team functions in training camp is the other factor. If you spend silly amounts of time on team functions in camp, your numbers will jump to the top, or near the top of the league for all categories, assuming you have relatively the same roster as the season before. But like has been stated, it's relative to where the rest of the league is at. Here's an example:

Team A:
QB, 2 TEs on depth, 5 WRs on depth
All have 2 years on the team and in the same position they were the previous season.

Team B:
QB, 2 TEs on depth, 5 WRs on depth
All have 4 years on the team and in the same position they were in previous seasons.

For the coming season, if Team A has 60 pass cohesion, and Team B has 70 pass cohesion, and each spends 3 hours on team functions, naturally Team B will still be higher after camp. However, if Team A spends 7 hours on team functions, and Team B spends 2 hours on team functions, Team A will surpass Team B in pass cohesion. Upping the team functions numbers help for only that season. It's not continual over multiple seasons. So, if my goal is to have a team with high cohesion, it's better to spend 6 hours in one training camp on team functions versus spending 2 hours per season for 3 years. The team that has spent 6 hours on team functions will always beat out the team who spent 2 hours in team functions for 3 years if everything else is equal.

I agree with Steel's comment.

I went through TC with the default value for team functions. When I began the season cohesion ratings were (2nd season):

*Passing: 90
*OL: 92
*DF: 90
*SEC: 88

I went back to a save pre-camp, added 2 hours to team functions and got:

100/100/98/100.

After week 1 of regular season all were 100.

Also noted with the allocated increase, I had two players whose loyalty factor went up 20/25 points(a team function impact).

Lastly, I had a new starters on the team to begin the second season( C, RDE, MLB) in both examples above.

I am now replaying the season (calling all my plays as usual) with the higher cohesion ratings. Will pay close attention to my team's defensive results as I gave up a lot of YAC the first time around.:banghead:

Steel, it seems like you differ with Ben here. You're saying that both starters and backups have an effect on cohesion, Ben is saying it's just the starters (and that it's basically a play-by-play calculation, with the cohesion screen representing just the snapshot based on the starters from your last game).

Is this a case of you having a different guess? Or having some evidence that Ben is wrong and you are right?


As for your thoughts about time spent in training camp being a factor, the magnitude of your findings is interesting, though I don't see that as refuting anything in the primer at the top of the thread. Do you?

When the 6.3 patch first dropped, I tested cohesion in single-player. I took control of all 32 teams(this took a long time to test it this way), turned injuries off, simmed a season, and saved the game right before training camp the following season. I experimented with different amounts of time spent on team functions for different teams. So, for example, if Buffalo started with 68 pass cohesion, I would spend 4 hours on team functions. If Baltimore started with 72 pass cohesion, I would only spend 3 hours on team functions. In this example, with the same starters from the previous season, Buffalo would always surpass Baltimore in passing cohesion. I did this many times, and altered the time spent on team functions with each team by intervals of 30 minutes one way or the other.

As for the players determining the cohesion, it's who is on your depth chart, for all groupings. Passing, offensive line, defensive front, and secondary. I say this with about 99.99% confidence. If you want to dispute this, this is easy to test as well. Pick up a WR either via free agency or in the draft. Put him as the #3 WR/FL #2. You will see different cohesion numbers than if he were to be the #5 WR, and you left your vet WR on the team at the #3 WR spot. It may only be a couple points, but there will be a difference. The only exception I noticed is if you have a veteran roster and spend a ridiculous amount of time on team functions compared to the other teams in the league. Even swapping WRs, your passing cohesion may hold, because the QB is the #1 weighted factor in determining pass cohesion. I can give you an example of what my PFL team looks like and how this works:

QB - 9 years on team
TE#1 - 8 years
TE#2 - 4 years
FL#1 - 4 years
SE#1 - 5 years
FL#2 - rookie
SE#2 - 7 years
WR#5 - 3 years

My passing cohesion was 100 with this setup. My starting FL then got hurt a couple games ago, which changed my depth chart.

QB - 9 years on team
TE#1 - 8 years
TE#2 - 4 years
FL#1 - rookie
SE#1 - 5 years
FL#2 - 7 years
SE#2 - 3 years
WR#5 - rookie

My rook WR who was my slot guy, is now my starter. My 4th WR moves to #3, my 5th WR moves to #4, and a rookie I had inactive all season is now my 5th WR. We were STILL 100 in pass cohesion, even with a different starter at FL. This has to due with the QB being on the team 9 seasons and the silly amount of time I spent on team functions in training camp. Again, each position is weighted, the starters more so than the backups, and the QB even more so than the WRs.

Before anyone asks, I can't really remember what the finding were for the TE on '3rd and short', 'passing down', and 'near certain pass'. I want to say changes to these 3 positions made a slight difference, but I really can't remember. I had all this info saved on my PC, and got a virus a couple months back that wiped everything clean. Again, this was on 6.3, but from my understanding, and just from what I have seen on 6.4 in multi-player, there should be no difference in how cohesion is done.

Your post is way too long for me to bother reading, especially when I see a huge error in the second sentence.

If you say so. Let me rephrase, I played by myself controlling all 32 teams. To say it was SP, I guess would be incorrect.:cool:

So, are you saying you set up a test MP league and controlled all teams?

My understanding is that cohesion is given on a relative scale, so the top team is given a rating of 100, no matter the underlying value, and the ratings from the other teams are calculated from this.

In the situation you describe, it's perfectly possible that your team still has a cohesion rating of 100 even with a reduction from losing your veteran starter. The thing to look for here is the cohesion rating of the second-placed team - did you take a note of that?

(There's also the possibility that cohesion ratings for other teams will have changed as well (through roster/depth chart changes), which makes comparisons a bit tricky unless you're running a test sim where you know that there are no roster moves or depth chart changes...)

Some people are getting wayyyyyyyy too caught up in the picayune here. The important information is in the first post. If there is truly some low-weight cohesion factored in the main screen from the backups, then it's still largely immaterial.

I think the 2nd place team went from 95 to 98. Not 100% sure on this, as I was more so concerned if my team remained at 100 or not.


And I'm telling you that's incorrect. Even if it's a 1 or 2 point difference, there is still a difference. A higher or lower number, even if it's only by 1 point isn't immaterial.

I find the Cohesion table quite useless at times, it's good for telling me if my pass cohesion is better than another teams pass cohesion, or if my secondary pass cohesion is better than another teams secondary cohesion, but what i want to know is this. Is my pass cohesion better than the secondary cohesion of the team i am playing and vice versa. The Cohesion table does not show this.

I know I'm taking the bait unwisely here... but what on earth might one do differently with this information presented the way you describe, rather than the way it's basically presented in-game now? (And I personally can't imagine actually taking any game-by-game action based on what we have in game, to be candid)

Well my Pass Offense obviously matches up against the oppositions secondary. So when i game plan i may see my QB and WR's have a distinct advantage over the secondary it is matching up against (be it overall rating or bars). With that in mind i may decide to pass more as i have this advantage.

But, i can not see how my pass cohesion matches up to his secondaries cohesion in real terms. Therefore my rating or bar advantage from the above scenario may be taken away partially or entirely as he has a better secondary cohesion.

I get the hypothetical, but thanks.

I just don't see how knowing whether "72 relative cohesion versus 76 relative cohesion" actually moves the needle, as compared to... oh, I don't know, say... HOW DO THE GUYS' BIG RED BARZ LOOK?

Call me old fashioned.

Yeah 3 or 4 points won't make a difference but i expect 30 or so may.

Hmm....how to respond to this...
Ah, there we go. Already done for me.

I think we all know 3 or 4 pts cohesion difference won't make that much of a difference but 30 or so will as shown in Ben's other thread. On Cohesion. - Front Office Football Central

Some people make the mistake that 100 pass cohesion vs 80 secondary cohesion means the pass attack has +20 cohesion when it passes. But to get a 100 pass cohesion may mean your players only need 4 years average on the team, to get 100 secondary cohesion may mean you need 8 years average on the team. Therefore the secondary cohesion in this instance is way higher than the passing cohesion giving them a big advantage according to Ben's other thread.

Obviously Jim may have coded the game to give each unit with 100 cohesion the same bonus but that would make no sense.

You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread already. First you say this:


You then come back on the VERY next paragraph and state this:


So, when a team comes out in 4 WR set the first play, the pass cohesion would be different than if they come out in I-Form 2 TE set, right? That makes 0 sense. If that were the case, cohesion would change anywhere from a few points up to 20-30 points every play. And you realize the 3rd and 4th WRs are backups, not starters? Yet you just stated that the cohesion is only affected by the starting lineup of the most recent game??? If this is the case, then the 3rd and 4th WR carry more weight on the depth chart because they started the most recent game if the team came out in 4 wide set, right?

You also state this about cohesion:


I'm sure this is the case. However, you then come right back and agree with Quik that's it's all about big red bars, rather than having a few extra points of cohesion. So, does 100 pass cohesion compared to the 2nd best team having say 94 pass cohesion make a significant difference, or was this study a waste, and I should just look for big red bars anyway, like Quik said?

Guys, this really isn't anywhere near as complicated as you seem to be insisting.

-We have a pretty good understanding of what matters for cohesion in this game

-Cohesion seems to be a meaningful but not overwhelming factor in team success

-In building your own team, it seems that "years with the team" is worth considering as a worthwhile element when assembling the list of guys who will actually see the field

-And with this information in hand, go forth and use it as you see fit


If you care to spend another month debating whether I should have used the term "substantial" rather than "meaningful" (or the practical equivalent) then i'll sit that out, thanks. Best of luck to you.

I find it confusing that a 100-30 advantage seems to have the same effect, roughly, as a 100-65 advantage. Who knows what difference 6 points of cohesion would make, based on that.

I am also not convinced either way whether certain aspects of cohesion are more important. Like Firefly I found the defense to benefit from cohesion the most during testing, particularly defense against the pass. I found the offensive passing game to benefit least from high cohesion. But Ben found the opposite.

I think there are quite a few questions still hanging around.

Yup. This thread reminds me why I have often thought I should just not bother trying help these people.

I really hate comments like that.

And people wonder why FoFC feels clickish and a group of the have and have nots.

Hey, take that up with the developer. Though I'd say it would make some sense. Starting C goes out, you think the OL has as much cohesion?




Cohesion calculated on given play != Cohesion displayed on cohesion screen between games

Seems like an easy distinction to make.


And I think the word you're looking for Yoda is "dickish."

I have to agree there, it makes SENSE that cohesion would change from play to play.


Well, that too. :lol:

Seriously, what do you want me to say? I'm not inclined to get caught up in the kind of insignificant minute crap that people are wanting to engage me on. I do very well in FOF MP because of things I've learned and intuited. I try to help people. And when I try to help, often the thread ends up with me just being annoyed.

Yup, I agree. Plus comments like you're post is too long and I will stuck my nose up in the air at you because I don't feel like taking a few minutes to read it. Those are the best ones.

Anyone else enjoying the irony of this in a thread about cohesion? *snicker*

In the interest of clarification that might be helpful... cohesion appears to be very meaningful/significant to the tune of as many as 4 wins in an environment of equal talent across teams. (That's with a team at 100 in all categories against teams at ~65 in all categories, so an unrealistic advantage that you will never see in a real game environment across an entire league.) In situations of varying talent levels, I'll take the big talent advantage over a big cohesion advantage every time, which seems intuitive or natural or "right" for a football game. As a general rule, if you're not going to improve your team from a talent perspective, it makes sense to accumulate cohesion, affinity, or cost advantages that will make you slightly better in other ways. But bars and gameplanning to exploit the matchups of those bars are more often going to win the day than a simple cohesion advantage, even a seemingly significant one.

As far as seeing a greater advantage in pass defense cohesion, I won't argue with the conclusion as it's an obvious theme of the results of the kind of testing described above. That being said, I tend toward thinking those results are a function of the poor passing cohesion of every offense you face when you run a one max/everyone else min test like this. The max cohesion secondary looks great at least in part (and probably largely) because everyone else sucks at throwing the ball. But that thinking is colored by years of play and experience with passing offense becoming significantly more proficient as teams reach mature cohesion thresholds. I "know" passing cohesion to be very important, so I'm thinking about the results you see in this sort of testing with that in mind.

Just for the record, I don't think that pass defense cohesion has a larger effect. In my testing pass defense showed the greater improvement from all 4 units, but it also had the biggest cohesion advantage in the test.

Do you think TE's figure into receivers or offensive line?

Receivers.

That's what I would guess, but the documentation doesn't mention them specifically.