Personality Profiles

[Solecismic]

In Front Office Football, I use astrology as a quick and understandable approach to the concept of adding personality conflicts within a locker room.

I'm not a believer in astrology myself, nor do I expect customers to learn all about water signs and cusps and all the nuances of Galileo's planetary charts (yes, Galileo is considered one of the forefathers of astrology). It's just a concept everyone can quickly identify with and apply to personality.

The problem is more a long-term one. While the concept is easy to "get", it's not realistic. The image of Tommie Harris striding into the Bears' locker room, draped in love beads, asking his new linemate, "hey, dude, what's your sign?" Well, funny. But not confidence-inspiring for people who play the game a lot and have put in the time to learn its functions.

We've just been discussing the whole Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator assessment on the forum. This is a more comprehensive approach to personality, and one that has many psychologists convinced there is a way to explain group dynamics from analyzing people's responses to questions.

Essentially, through MBTI categories, one can model group dynamics. What makes a player a team leader? Why do conflicts develop? It's a much more realistic paradigm.

I've thought about incorporating some of the subtleties of MBTI into my work for a long time now. The problem is that I don't want customers forced to learn all about psychology. These are games. While I may think it's a lot of fun to read about psychology (I grew up with a sister and a mother who went into this field), a lot of people don't.

So my topic for this developer's corner is whether people think it's better to use a hokey, unrealistic, but understandable shortcut to add a new function to a game. Or is realism of paramount importance?

In cases like this, I don't know. It's not as cut-and-dried an answer as some pieces of the game, like the on-field play-resolution engine, where the answer is always to make game-play as realistic as possible.

[Ben E Lou]

First off, my gravest public apology to Jim here. Because threads in this forum are moderated, they don't show up on the list of threads in the forums. The Pushing and Pulling thread was showing up as the latest and greatest here, so I didn't realize this was here.

[Ben E Lou]

As far as my own response, I'd say that I don't mind the astrology model, but my primary wish in this area is something that isn't 100% predictable. That's the one "real-life" thing I'd like to see modeled: NFL teams don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt every single time they sign a player whether said player is going to be positive/neutral/negative with regard to team chemistry. However, team chemistry is 100% predictable in FOF, and it therefore encourages people to do things like convert a player from QB-->S-->LB because he'd be a good position leader, or draft the same guy and not sign him year after year because he is a triple affinity QB, or to create a roster that looks like this:



I think you have to consider the natural competitiveness of the multiplayer environment when making these types of decisions. If you create a chemistry model that can be easily predicted and exploited, then it will be predicted and exploited.

[DaddyTorgo]

You probably made Jim think that we didn't care.

FWIW I agree with you. Some degree of randomness. And hell, some degree of having it be unknown isn't bad.

You could have some sort of system where we get a basic primer on MBTI-types (or just make it known that's what it is and let people google it), and then within that have some variation that doesn't show up in the tests and only shows up through events (emails about events outside of the playing-field for example), that would "modify" the "base" MBTI personality type so it wasn't quite so exploited.

Or have the player's MBTI type change over time within a set range?

[Hammer]

I'm easy either way when it comes to the chemistry model. I feel increasing the importance of cohesion is extremely important amongst other things, but I guess I shouldn't wander off topic.

[path12]

I think you can use it under the hood, I'm not sure that as a player I need to know the exact methodology of the personality component of the game, just that there is one.

For an example, you could use various Meyer Briggs subtypes to have a player personality described in one or two words -- Driven. Quiet. Strong willed.

That sort of thing and let the player figure out how to merge those personalities into his squad. That's fun. Trying to interpret how an INPT and a ENJF or whatever are going to mesh is a pain, IMO.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I don't know. I think MBTI is too much. That is 16 personality profiles, plus I would assume in real life we don't always know how they mesh so how would you model that in a game.

For my money, and I am sure I am in the minority because I always tend to prefer things that are simplified, but I would only want a few basic personality profiles that would not be applied to everyone so you have some real decisions to make.

ie. the diva profile which makes taking somebody like a T.O or a brandon marshall a gamble...do you upset team chemistry for the talent

or the leadership profile for maybe somebody like Trent Dilfer where you realize you arent getting as much talent but the leadership skills make it worth it.

I honestly think and maybe I am wrong, but for the vast majority of players, character isn't considered all that strongly because mainly everyone is a professional and tries hard. Its the outliers that should be modeled and they should be few and far between.

[gstelmack]

We already have some of it with Leadership / Wants Winner / etc. Really I'd rather see the Red Flag expanded a bit, and a bit more pertinent info about what's going on. I'd like to see players get Disgruntled / Unhappy with a reason - no playing time, hates that the other WR is getting the ball more, can't stand player X in the locker room (and cool if like 15 guys say they can't stand player X), annoyed that so-and-so got a huge $30million 1 year deal, ticked off that you released player Y that he liked, disappointed he hasn't been given a contract extension, and a lot of it modified by having strong leaders on the team to overcome the issues. Plus I need to know things like "slacking off in practice", "digging in hard on contract negotiations", "WR runs wrong route because he has not played with QB enough", etc. Things like cohesion, affinity, playing time, and contract grievances are one big package that are separate with effects you never have explained to you aside from the fact that "Demanding Trade" means "Won't Sign an Extension". Everything else is just guesswork, we have no clue how "Mild Conflict" is affecting the team aside from knowing that it's worse than "Affinity".

[kcchief19]

I concur with points made by Ben and gstelmack. I would like personality traits that are more dynamic and are linked more toward events than attributes.

For example, a player may came into the league with a red flag but eventually mature into a mentor with affinities. Likewise, a good character guy should be able to developer into a red flag character. The example of a player signing a big contract might make him disliked by other players or give him a big head.

I'd also like to see the relationships more multi-faceted as well. For example, my backup guard may love his offensive line leader but he might hate the left tackle or hate his QB.

The astrology aspect doesn't bother me. It's simply a known naming convention. I actually like the idea of having a more in-depth psychology indicator like MBTI that is more multi-faceted.

I like gstelmack's ideas in that regard and expand on that. Perhaps instead of absolute personality types you have dynamic personality traits that can change but determine chemsity. Leadership, Wants Winner and Intelligence are good example of traits that could change over the years. How about something such as Practice Committment (could tie into development as well as cohesion and development) and Community Involvement (connects to popularity, salary, attendance)? I'm sure there are other ideas as well.

To me the drawback of an MBTI vs. astrology is that they aren't all that different, it's just a different naming convention. If the MBTI is static and absolute, all you're doing is going from one variable to four variables and going from 12 different types to 16 types. While you could create different combinations of affinities due to the the increased variables, I think you're still going to have skepticism from people who don't put stock in MBTI.

But I think the most valuble improvements to me would a system that is dynamic and less absolute. Everybody on the team might want me to sign that free agent QB, but what happens if once he gets there everyone hates him? What if the quiet, shy linebacker whose been with my team for 10 years slowly and steadily earns the respect of his teammates and becomes a leader? We see some of that in FOF now but like Ben pointed out, it's too predictable and absolute.

[OldSchool]

I've played a couple of games that handle this by having a hidden rating assigned to each player for cohesion. The team will gravitate over time towards the mean rating of the players on the team. The amount of disparity between the players on the field is what determines the cohesion impact.

This is nice because if you have a guy that's been on the same team for 10 years, then goes somewhere else for a season and comes back, he slides right in.

I don't like things like the zodiac approach since as you say its artificial, it never changes, and it introduces tedium trying to mix and match birth dates. I'd love to see a system like what I'm talking about above, and keep the warning boxes that tell you how good of a fit a player is going to be right off the bat.

As far as Myers Briggs, personally I've always thought it was bunk that just gained momentum once corporate HR dollars got behind it, bringing it into a game would be a big mistake in my opinion.

[Dandelion]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So my topic for this developer's corner is whether people think it's better to use a hokey, unrealistic, but understandable shortcut to add a new function to a game. Or is realism of paramount importance?

Depends on what kind of game You want to design, I guess.. should it be a Football Management Simulation or a Social Networking Simulation with a Football team as the playfield?

I'm with Ben in his opinion of quote: "If you create a chemistry model that can be (easily) predicted and exploited, then it will be predicted and exploited."
Furthermore - concerning realism - I am not really sure about Football Teams sending a potential new player to a psychological examination before they hire him (or don't hire him, depending on the result..)
So what we should expect would rather be some kind of... psychological scouting.. in the way of "looks like a nice guy, teamplayer, a bit greedy maybe but not too much - should fit in" with a big margin for scouting error..

And there should be a lot of possibility for changes in the players psychological "values" over his career.. See Randy Moss as an example. Before he went to the Patriots, I guess most people would have seen as "Red Flag" player, able to disrupt a team.. primadonna.. whatever.. as far as I've heard through TV, Press etc.. he seems to have changed to be not only a true leader on the team, but also one of the best "team players" who puts team success ahead of his own needs/desires.
So as there should be the possibility for a player to change a team, there should also be the possibility to have it work quite the opposite, with the team changing the player into a better (or worse..) person.

How far You'd take that psychological chemistry model? Well, depends on how much detail You'd want to have in the game.. the human mind has quite a lot place for likes and dislikes.. "You've seen that new LB? Man, that hairstyle he has looks frigging ugly, doesn't it? Guess he's a total bum.." or " I really can't take that team leader serious with that wannabe beard he tries to grow.." might be pushing it to the edge a little..

I'd personly rather have a more simplified psychological/chemistry system, unexploitable at best, and more detail in the gameplanning part of the game.

[NiteMaestro]

I have an idea... Use the MBTI, and that would be rather straightforward, with our scouts being able to see 'aspects' of those scores. I.E., Personality strength could be an expression of Introvert vs. Extrovert. Wants Winner could be competitiveness, or greed, or some combination of both.
Make it so they have a set 'personality' that can fluctuate depending on situations but remains largely the same, but that is hidden in the 'personality' we're given.
So someone may have a high leadership, but is it because he's a 'strong silent' type? Is he a yeller? Is he cerebral?
That would be something to be subtly revealed in the emails via little quips like "Player X spent alot of time in the film room this week" (which may allude to him being cerebral, or him being competitive).

Also, it may be interesting to look into coach/scout personalities and their impact on things as well. Or possibly to consider individual grudges or idols. I.E., a rookie QB may not have great combines or whatever, but if a scout sees he idolizes your old starter, it may be worth picking him up as the older QB's skills may 'rub off' on the young guy. Or something like that...

Then so you don't "get rid" of the zodiac thing, consider making it random... For example, two guys personality wise 'should' get along, but due to zodiac (and a random low % roll) they can't stand each other. They may warm up over time, but for some 'strange' reason, they just don't click. Or perhaps a volatile player suddenly finds everything working out just fine with a new QB. They're personalities should clash horrifically, but due to some zodiac intervention (and another low % dice roll) they get along like brothers...

Make sense what I'm getting at?

Use the zodiac as a 'random modifier' of sorts, to cause just enough inconsistency that personality, affinity, and conflict aren't a 100% given.

[Firefly]

If you want to stick to the astrology model, I suggest including the astrological sign and element in the player information page, color coded. For example, water signs can be green, air blue, earth brown, and fire orange-red. Players with the same element would be compatible, and earth-air, water-fire pairs would be incompatible. Of course, this would create a lot of personality issues, so why not randomize it within this model? Meaning, players of conflicting elements could only be neutral or antagonic, while players of armonic elements could be neutral or compatible. That way there's both chance and an easy, predictable model.

BTW, I'm surprised that someone who doesn't believe in astrology would know that Galileo -as well as Copernicus and others- were students and practitioners of the art. Even astronomers do their best to ignore that fact. Good for you.

[cyril]

I am all for using real life personality profiles, would definitely increase the immersion factor by a lot for me. Yes, affinities and conflicts may become predictable in some way, but that's how personalities work in real life work, and all of us possess intuition on how these things work in our day to day environment, so I don't see why people need to educate themselves on the whole psychological aspect of it (if so, all the better, how many of us could use some better understanding of human relationship?)

If these could be incorporated in the game, it could only make us feel that our decisions on mixing certain players or not have more impact on the outcome, which increases enjoyment of the game. It's definitely way better than astrology and a personality that is a single score (I simply couldn't relate to a 99 personality score vs 0 personality score.)

To make player interaction less determined on the outset, maybe introduce various different factors into the equation, with different weights. That way we players would have an idea that certain players may not mix well, but because of these other factors, they could become good buddies and improve teamwork, for example.

I remember when EA Head Coach 09 came out, I am more than happy to see that each player has a personality type, albeit it's just one single word. I am happy that Jim is thinking in this direction.

[Warhammer]

What I would like to see, but it might be too much forsome people is to have personality roll into player ratings.

For example, a 55/55 player plays like a 65/65 player because he has good cohesion and his entire LB unit is one giant affinity. Other teams see him as a 65/65. Now, he becomes a FA, but when he comes to the new team, he does not gel as well, and plays like a 52/52. As he becomes more entrenched on the team, his rating goes up. But there are still conflicts on his unit, so he peaks at 56/56.

[QuikSand]

I know it's pretty popular to claim that, perhaps in the name of realism, a predictable model for this sort of thing is not ideal. I put this into a "be careful what you wish for" basket.

(And yes, this comes from the guy who pretty clearly makes a lot of use of the current chemistry system, witness Ben's thread and "examples" above)

I really don't think that having totally (or largely) unpredictable elements like this in the game would add to my enjoyment. If I draft the stud player my team needs, and then for reasons that are unforeseen to me he turns out to hate other players on the team or otherwise disrupts things, causing me to have to upend other things that I have really invested in... well, I don't think that adds to the sort of enjoyment I get out of a game like this. If that sort of problem is going to trace back to a label/tag something like the "red flag" in the current FOF (or an expanded version of the same), then I can handle that as a trade-off I accept or don't. But to reassemble something like the chemistry system we have in FOF now, but simply remove the elements that make it predictable I think would make a real dent in the "enjoyability" factor of this sort of game.

My mantra in this sort of game is this: What I want is a game that requires me to make meaningful decisions that substantially drive meaningful outcomes for my team. Realism is great, and simulating the NFL is a real value added. But what I really want is a game where I am engaged, challenged, and rewarded/punished for my decisions. Having pure dumb luck play too great a role undermines what I want out of a game like this.

The predictability in the current chemistry system means that I can decide whether I want to invest in this sort of thing for my team. It is a trade-off, it limits some other decisions that might have helped my team in other ways. But to me, I like that it's my decision that counts there. The actual implementation (looking at birthdates, and the other silly stuff that goes with it if you really pursue it) is of less consequence to me overall. What I like is that you can make an active decision to go for a "good chemistry" team and try to gain an advantage on your rivals that way. Eliminate the predictability, and you may emasculate this potentially interesting and rewarding strategy, and you lose something from this game, I think.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

My mantra in this sort of game is this: What I want is a game that requires me to make meaningful decisions that substantially drive meaningful outcomes for my team. Realism is great, and simulating the NFL is a real value added. But what I really want is a game where I am engaged, challenged, and rewarded/punished for my decisions. Having pure dumb luck play too great a role undermines what I want out of a game like this.

The other part of this is the feedback in how your meaningful decisions drove the meaningful outcome. Great, I've got an affinity, I know that's better than a conflict, but in what way and how much?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I know it's pretty popular to claim that, perhaps in the name of realism, a predictable model for this sort of thing is not ideal. I put this into a "be careful what you wish for" basket.

(And yes, this comes from the guy who pretty clearly makes a lot of use of the current chemistry system, witness Ben's thread and "examples" above)

I really don't think that having totally (or largely) unpredictable elements like this in the game would add to my enjoyment. If I draft the stud player my team needs, and then for reasons that are unforeseen to me he turns out to hate other players on the team or otherwise disrupts things, causing me to have to upend other things that I have really invested in... well, I don't think that adds to the sort of enjoyment I get out of a game like this. If that sort of problem is going to trace back to a label/tag something like the "red flag" in the current FOF (or an expanded version of the same), then I can handle that as a trade-off I accept or don't. But to reassemble something like the chemistry system we have in FOF now, but simply remove the elements that make it predictable I think would make a real dent in the "enjoyability" factor of this sort of game.

My mantra in this sort of game is this: What I want is a game that requires me to make meaningful decisions that substantially drive meaningful outcomes for my team. Realism is great, and simulating the NFL is a real value added. But what I really want is a game where I am engaged, challenged, and rewarded/punished for my decisions. Having pure dumb luck play too great a role undermines what I want out of a game like this.

The predictability in the current chemistry system means that I can decide whether I want to invest in this sort of thing for my team. It is a trade-off, it limits some other decisions that might have helped my team in other ways. But to me, I like that it's my decision that counts there. The actual implementation (looking at birthdates, and the other silly stuff that goes with it if you really pursue it) is of less consequence to me overall. What I like is that you can make an active decision to go for a "good chemistry" team and try to gain an advantage on your rivals that way. Eliminate the predictability, and you may emasculate this potentially interesting and rewarding strategy, and you lose something from this game, I think.

To be clear, I don't want a totally or even largely unpredictable system. But I also don't want one that's 100% predictable, either. I would enjoy getting the email after TC that the solid-but-not-great FA LB I just signed had an unexpected personality conflict with my solid-but-not-great DT. That would also make me have a meaningful decision to make: do I trade/release one of them, or do I soldier on?

I suspect that the difference of opinion here is the result of Quik always building teams that way, and me never doing it. I'd like to have a system whereby I can't just do what I do now: largely ignore it apart from "just avoid signing conflict guys." I'd like for a conflict to pop up despite my ignoring it.

I liken it to the most recent patch for Civ4: Beyond The Sword. Prior to this, I had the option to pretty much ignore Espionage entirely, setting spending to 0%. But now, the AI opponents use it often enough that if I completely ignore it all the time, it will hurt me. As it stands now, ignoring chemistry never *hurts* me. Sure, if I'm in a league with Quik or RKG (the only people I know of who really go after chemistry hard and heavy,) one could argue that I am hurt by not going after it as hard as they do. But I'm never potentially hit negatively by it. I'd like to get away from that. I suspect that by adding at least a small amount of randomness to it, it would end up coming into play for the many people who play it the way I do, and wouldn't hurt *that* much the very small handful of people who play it like Quik does.

[Gallifrey]

I am a big fan of having chemistry in the game, and if it is an unknown formula to me where I have to act on a hunch and not an easy to solve formula the better.

I like the idea of a guy being listed as say "Strong willed, wants to win". Now that could be a Dan Marino which is good. A leader he will turn out to be that pushes guys to play to win. Or he could be an all about me guy that wants to be the star, contract at the top of the league and everyone hates.

[CU Tiger]

While I agree strongly with gstelmack, I would also like to add, I think ideally it would be reduced a bit.

Regardless of what we think, the 3rd string OL has ZERO effect on team chemistry on Id wager a minimum of 29 NFL teams. Unless he gets in a fist fight with a star or is Eli's closet gay lover (I keed, I keed) the majority of the team doesn't even care if he is there.

I guess Id like to see it have more impact but n fewer players. Everyone has an opinion on TO, but if not for TO in Dallas last year many players would not have even noticed Jason Whitten off the field.

[iBomb1st]

I don't particularly like the astrology system. I feel it is too contrived, and neither fun nor realistic. As to the responses of an unpredictable conflicts not being fun... well i guess we have different ideas of fun. Chemistry is a very important part of building a team, but you should never know exactly how guys would gel. Knowing ahead of time just ruins it for me. So contrived. I would like to see a semi-hidden system somehow. I really like MBTI. As mentioned, Head Coach 09 did this and I really feel like it gave players unique personalities that made them feel like real players to me... not just a rating number. I also think a better email system needs to be involved to give a better feel... I want a reminder/example of why I need to handle conflicts. I want to get an email about my selfish showboat WR causing trouble and walking out of practice. Its a nce aesthetic touch that would do a lot IMO. As of now it's kinda this mysterious thing where yes, I see a screen that says I have so and so conflicting but I never see any example of it in action. I say MBTI, with some sort of hidden variable, just to keep it interesting. Jim mentioned he didnt want people to be forced into studying MBTI, but unlike astrology, for the most part its common sense. People would see a few key words about their personality... to me this seems much more intuitive then an astrology chart.

[NiteMaestro]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

While I agree strongly with gstelmack, I would also like to add, I think ideally it would be reduced a bit.

Regardless of what we think, the 3rd string OL has ZERO effect on team chemistry on Id wager a minimum of 29 NFL teams. Unless he gets in a fist fight with a star or is Eli's closet gay lover (I keed, I keed) the majority of the team doesn't even care if he is there.

I guess Id like to see it have more impact but n fewer players. Everyone has an opinion on TO, but if not for TO in Dallas last year many players would not have even noticed Jason Whitten off the field.

I have to disagree... Everyone has an impact on the team chemistry.
If that 3rd stringer for some reason just 'clicks' with the starting guys, that may be enough to move him up the depth chart, and I think that should be part of the game.
The 'best players' on the field aren't always the best guys in the league, and I think the game should reflect that.
Example? Look at the Raiders and Lions in recent history.

Originally Posted by iBomb1st

I don't particularly like the astrology system. I feel it is too contrived, and neither fun nor realistic. As to the responses of an unpredictable conflicts not being fun... well i guess we have different ideas of fun. Chemistry is a very important part of building a team, but you should never know exactly how guys would gel. Knowing ahead of time just ruins it for me. So contrived. I would like to see a semi-hidden system somehow. I really like MBTI. As mentioned, Head Coach 09 did this and I really feel like it gave players unique personalities that made them feel like real players to me... not just a rating number. I also think a better email system needs to be involved to give a better feel... I want a reminder/example of why I need to handle conflicts. I want to get an email about my selfish showboat WR causing trouble and walking out of practice. Its a nce aesthetic touch that would do a lot IMO. As of now it's kinda this mysterious thing where yes, I see a screen that says I have so and so conflicting but I never see any example of it in action. I say MBTI, with some sort of hidden variable, just to keep it interesting. Jim mentioned he didnt want people to be forced into studying MBTI, but unlike astrology, for the most part its common sense. People would see a few key words about their personality... to me this seems much more intuitive then an astrology chart.

While I agree with most of what you said, I think that astrology should play a minor 'wild card' role. There are cases where people should get along great according to MBTI, but for some reason cannot stand one another. No one really knows why, but for the sake of the game, blaming 'astrology' could be fun. I.E., you have two guys that should gel together well, but because one was born in the year of the snake, and the other in the year of the tiger, the first cannot stand the second constantly yelling. Meanwhile, because that 'tiger' is a Virgo, and the 'snake' a Cancer, the yeller can't figure out why the hell the other dude is so 'goddamned sensitive all the time'.

I think that'd make for interesting commentary/emails... Don't you?

[perez24]

However you do the team chemistry approach (my preference would be MBTI but that could be a bit complicated), I would like to see how the red flags/ affinities/hatreds are impacting the team, as a couple of others have suggested. For example, if my nickel corner hates the offensive line leader it might not matter but if he hates the secondary leader or maybe even some other defensive leader that could be a problem.

[Fritz]

before chemistry was added to FOF, I did some myself in a spreadsheet as way to enhance the game. The one part from my system that I miss is the chemistry between a player and the coach (now coaches.)

That a reserve WR does not work well with a reserve TE that is the clubhouse leader does not bother me, but how he interacts with the HC or OC does. How the players are assinged to a category is not important to me. Zodiac is fine. I think it would be nice to see these masked for rookies with revelation coming some time later (number of year, number of plays, whatever.)

(as an aside, I would like to see a universal 'good guy' or the opposite of a red flag.)

[Dutch]

I think chemistry is a nice value-add for the game. I also think that the astrology bit is a neat way to implement it. Sure it's unrealistic, but it's almost like a little mini-game inside of FOF, so it's got it's place.

I agree with QS that investing a lot of time into a somewhat-random implementation wouldn't be as fun as we think it would be. But I wouldn't mind seeing the current implementation expanded upon in future releases.

The foundation for FOF advancement is already in place on the player cards. I think there are some really interesting ways to utilize this data that seems mostly unused.

For instance, the players hometown goes a long way to define the player culturally. Why not exploit that?

Instead of astrological signs, how about geographic affinities/conflicts? Might make more sense.



There are 6 cultural regions in the USA.

1. New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. The South
4. The Mid-west
5. The South-west
6. The West

But we could expand upon that and come up with 12 cultural regions.

1. New England (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI)
2. Mid-Atlantic (NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD)
3. The Southwest (TX, OK, AZ, NM)
4. The Pacific Southwest (CA, NV, UT, CO)
5. The Pacific Northwest (WA, OR, WY, MT, ID)
6. The Deep South (AK, MS, AL, LA, TN, KY)
7. The South Atlantic Coast (FL, GA, SC, NC, VA)
8. Mid-west Industrial (WI, MI, IL, IA, OH, WV)
9. The Old Mid-west (ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO)
10. East Coast Urban (NY, PHI, BOS, DC)
11. West Coast Urban (LA, SF, OAK, SEA)
12. Central Urban (CHI, CLE, DET, STL)

(I'll let you figure out how to break them up evenly)

But it would probably be easy to make common sense correlations. East Coast generally doesn't like West Coast, but likes New England and Mid-Atlantic...etc, etc...

Same concept really, but might be more comprehensive...

As for Red Flags, personally, I hate the 'Red Flag'. First of all, there is absolutely no way to quantify any benefits/negatives. Nothing scientific and nothing perceived. For all we know, 'Red Flag' is another way of saying 'Red Herring'...there is no negative effect, and it's only the players own opinion about the 'Red Flag' that matters.

So having said that, it's kind of interesting, but mostly it's just frustrating. I'd like to know it's a known negative and why...but I'd rather not know all players are 'Red Flag' before being signed. Some guys should develop into 'Red Flags' and others should have their 'Red Flag' fade away.

Again, it's all how it's implemented. It's got to be interesting, it's got to be relevant, and it's best if there is some level of ease of use (not neccessarily easy to master though).

The current system works, but it could be better, but be careful if you overhaul it, it could be worse too!

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

My mantra in this sort of game is this: What I want is a game that requires me to make meaningful decisions that substantially drive meaningful outcomes for my team. Realism is great, and simulating the NFL is a real value added. But what I really want is a game where I am engaged, challenged, and rewarded/punished for my decisions. Having pure dumb luck play too great a role undermines what I want out of a game like this.

I'm with you on the meaningful decissions making, but the current system just isn't really much fun to work with.

In real life terms, new players with a zero impact role make zero impact in the locker room. I'd much rather see a system that has stuff hidden, until a player has been on the team for like half a season. As Ben writes, I'm more intersted in all of a sudden finding out my new MLB and my star DT don't get along well. To me having a choice between seperating the two to save peace or to cowboy up and hope they keep winning and not start whining about each other. That's much more interesting in decission making to me than hire a 3rd QB, 9th and 10th OL, 8th DL, 7th LB, etc. just because they were born in the right month.

As someone else wrote earlier in a somewhat similar fashion, give me a list of players that clash and gell, that's something I can relate to. Potentially add a list of past friendships, meaning reunions of college roommates or guys that played together at the Carolina Bobcats.

[Jughead Spock]

I like the chemistry aspect, and think it's about right in the system. I think if anything were to be changed, have volatility affect it as well. Could lead to great emails like 'Smith and Jones were best friends, but Jones slept with Smith's wife... now they're a conflict, and Smith is demanding a trade'. Definitley don't want to see it get too random, there's too much of that already.

[markusg77]

I like the personality aspect of the game very much.

The MBTI as a replacement for the current system is a great idea.

There could be a "level of depth" of chemistry to be set before the start of a league, so each player/league can decide how deep they want to delve into the chemistry bit.
The option to switch it off, should definitely remain available.

Finally, I like the predictability of the current system. Though it would be interesting if players could grow together or clash...

[Julio Riddols]

I have to wonder.. What is even the point of these spam posts like this? What is the purpose?

[david thomas]

I'm easy either way when it comes to the chemistry model. I feel increasing the importance of cohesion is extremely important amongst other things, but I guess I shouldn't wander off topic.