Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. 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 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.