Interest in a 4.0c GroupThink?

[QuikSand]

Just curious if there would be any interest in launching another multi-user cooperative FOF franchise? With the latest patch, it might prove entertaining to do... there seems to be some unexplored territory, I think.

-Use draft files imported from TCY?

-Make an effort to concentrate heavily on the team chemistry elements?

-Try out some new FA-related house rules?


I might be interested in joining something like this if there is interest. Perhaps it could even be a double-barreled GroupThink - with one group managing a college team in TCY, and another managing the pro team in FOF4 using those TCY files?

[mrsimperless]

Sounds fun. I've never been involved in one of these, but I wouldn't mind giving it a try. Just need to dig up the FOF4 cd...

[Fritz]

I have pulled in and out of this before, but....

I would be interested in Pro OC if this goes off.

My interest (besides the chemistry) is in maximizing utility from marginal players through the gameplan.

Originally posted by QuikSand
Just curious if there would be any interest in launching another multi-user cooperative FOF franchise? With the latest patch, it might prove entertaining to do... there seems to be some unexplored territory, I think.

-Use draft files imported from TCY?

-Make an effort to concentrate heavily on the team chemistry elements?

-Try out some new FA-related house rules?


I might be interested in joining something like this if there is interest. Perhaps it could even be a double-barreled GroupThink - with one group managing a college team in TCY, and another managing the pro team in FOF4 using those TCY files?

[Godzilla Blitz]

I'm game.

Interested in:

Game plan settings
Chemistry
Cohesion
Player Development
Key attributes (i.e., what attributes contribute most to an effective RB, etc.)

As an aside, I was seeing some things regarding chemisty that got me thinking that it was only calculated once per season, during training camp. I emailed Solecismic, and the reply came back that the effects of chemistry have been significantly increased in the latest patch, and that chemistry is calculated before each game.

[Coffee Warlord]

If (and this is a big if) I can find both CD and CD key, I'd be interested.

Or I could assist in TCY if you throw that in as well. Be more interested in personnel/scouting/etc than game plans.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm... if we wre to launch just a FOF career with this, I think the consensus might be to do something brutally difficult. Perhaps we play with some barbaric financial or transactional limitations - thus forcing us to focus heavily on role-players and castoffs... thereby placing more emphasis on things like team chemistry, gameplanning, and so forth.

Of course, we'd have to make wise decisions with our player selection - but it might be most intriguing to also have to seriously consider the other factors that are in this game but tend to get overlooked when a decent basic strategy simply nets you far more talent than everyone else.

[primelord]

I'd be interested again as well. I enjoyed the last two we did. I am up for really filling any position. Probably not an Co-ordinator spot since I have done both of them in the last two, but anything else would be fine.

[Fritz]

a basic idea:

you must keep team leaders (that is, they must be your first consideration) and you may not aquire players that conflict with them.

If a leadership role changes, you must move a player off the roster before the start of the next off-season.


This reduces the field of players to pick from, and works towards chemestry. I guess it works towards cohesion (some) as well.


edit:

you must start a leader. (often I find that leaders are not the best players. bad luck, huh?)

[primelord]

Originally posted by Fritz
a basic idea:

you must keep team leaders (that is, they must be your first consideration) and you may not aquire players that conflict with them.

If a leadership role changes, you must move a player off the roster before the start of the next off-season.


This reduces the field of players to pick from, and works towards chemestry. I guess it works towards cohesion (some) as well.


edit:

you must start a leader. (often I find that leaders are not the best players. bad luck, huh?)

I would be in favor of a rule like that. We basically played with that rule in our last group think and it was probably the only rule that made things at all challenging for us. And it cost us Kent Wolfe dammit!!!!

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by primelord
I would be in favor of a rule like that. We basically played with that rule in our last group think and it was probably the only rule that made things at all challenging for us. And it cost us Kent Wolfe dammit!!!!

well, we used the popularity rule heavily last time, and obviously it cost us in some areas. I'd defeinitely be interested in this, and would like to see a much larger emphasis on leadership/conflicts as well.

[primelord]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
well, we used the popularity rule heavily last time, and obviously it cost us in some areas. I'd defeinitely be interested in this, and would like to see a much larger emphasis on leadership/conflicts as well.

Oh you're right it was popularity not leadership. My bad.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Oh, wait.

You said "Group Think", didn't you? I thought you were talking about where we each play our own games, but use the same draft files, but that is obviously something different.

GroupThink means we all run the same team?

[Noble_Platypus]

I am interested. I play FOF4c all the time

[albionmoonlight]

I think that I would like to be a part of this one. I am also more interested in a coordinator spot than a talent evaluation spot (I am that guy who actually likes gameplanning as much as roster building).

So I make sure that I don't bite off more than I can chew--can former groupthink coordinators tell me how much time it took per week?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
Oh, wait.

You said "Group Think", didn't you? I thought you were talking about Group Sex, but that is obviously something different.

[Buccaneer]

My interest (besides the chemistry) is in maximizing utility from marginal players through the gameplan.

Fritz, my friend, you play a very different game than I.

[larrymcg421]

I'm interested in this. I'm much better at TCY so I'd be willing to handle any position (recruiting or O.C.) on that side. Or I'd be interested in a sports reporting type thing.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
Oh, wait.

You said "Group Think", didn't you? I thought you were talking about where we each play our own games, but use the same draft files, but that is obviously something different.

GroupThink means we all run the same team?

Yes, with the terminology we have used here before (admittedly pretty abstract):

"GroupThink" = multiple managers working together (usually in defined roles) to collectively manage one team

"Village Challenge" = multiple managers taking turns in managing one team

"Petri Dish" = multiple managers each using same draft files and managing different teams


I'm currently thinking #1 form the above... but I could be persuaded otherwise if there was a pull in a different direction.

[QuikSand]

For what it's worth, I have a mature FOF4 game (post-patch) that is sitting idle. I'd be happy to use those game files as the start for a new career.

Pluses - fictional teams, fictional players, mature statistics base and career leaderboard

Minuses - tough to get TCY draft files for the year 2020 (or wherever that game lies right now), no easy ability to use true "empty cupboard"

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by primelord
I would be in favor of a rule like that. We basically played with that rule in our last group think and it was probably the only rule that made things at all challenging for us. And it cost us Kent Wolfe dammit!!!!

[soapbox]
But there were no consequences otherwise. If you guys are going for another round of this, my suggestion is to really come up with draconian rules that does not significantly limit decision making - nothing something subtle like chemisty or leadership. Otherwise, you will endure the same un-challenging results.

By the way, the basis for my response to Fritz comes from my current TCY career. There are only two things I do in that game: recruit and fast sim each week. I do not even look at my roster except to figure out relative position strengths (to see where I need to recruit), let alone any details about any of the players. I am letting my assistants handle everything except recruiting and hiring. I am finding that the AI does a mediocre job in handling my team (but the game is designed to where I have to accept that for me). Even when the few times I let the AI handle recuiting for a few weeks, it does a terrible job (despite the ludicrous statement in the game saying you should let the AI handle it because it is too complex).

My point is that the AI in TCY and in FOF cannot manage your team adequately, let alone their own teams. This puts you, as the human gamer, far ahead by default in making decisions. Concentrate on those features that you deem fun in the GroupThink (whether they make that much of a difference or not) as well as coming up with rules to make it more competitive.
[/soapbox]

[Fritz]

I should say that if anyone else is itching to be OC, please speak up

[QuikSand]

Well... maybe we need to let this echo a bit more, but if we don't want to bother with TCY, then I guess this could be ready to go pretty easily. I could advance my last career (playing Lake Erie) to the next season, and post the files for anyone to download. We could semi-arbitrarily pick a team to take over, and go from there.

My thinking is that if we want to focus a lot on things like chemistry and cohesion, then we probably want to play a mature team, rather than my usual "empty cupboard" strategy. Perhaps we want to shed most of the existing team, but I think we'll be better served by making most of our initial personnel decisions out of a well-developed free agency pool, rather than from rookies and undrafted players -- we'll be able to build the team in our image more easily that way, I reckon.

So, that leaves us with the TCY dilemma. I'd love to be using TCY files, but getting a companion TCY career all the way up to 2020 or so sounds unreasonable - unless someone wanted to basically quick-sim a number of years just to get us to that point, and then have the TCY career go from there.

[Bee]

I'd be interested in being involved again.

[condors]

the AI has been much improved on drafting, if you want something challenging i would enjoy reading about another island of misfit toys dynasty(no drafted players ever)

[Coffee Warlord]

I'll look for my CD and CD key tonight for FOF. If I find it, I'm still in, if I don't, well, looks like I'm SOL. I'll let ya'll know.

[Bee]

House Rules:

If we want to involve team leaders, perhaps their jobs should depend on on the field performance? For example, if the O-line gives up XX number of sacks over 2 years the o-line leader has to be released/replaced? Each position group could have "required" stats that must be met or the team leaders have to be released. I would suggest at least a 2 year time period to avoid having to cut a player due to injury or 1 bad year.

I like Fritz's ideas as well with the possible exception of having to start leaders. I think that might take away a lot of decision making in roster management.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
I like Fritz's ideas as well with the possible exception of having to start leaders. I think that might take away a lot of decision making in roster management.

Nah.

There is one backfield leader (RB/FB/QB?)
One recievers leader (WR/TE)
One OLine leader (T/G/C)
One D7 leader (DE/DT/OLB/ILB)
one secondary leader (CB/S)

so 4 of 22 starters. Backfield is the only place where it might be a real issue, but then again, I like that.

[Fritz]

dola

I think the bigger challenge with what I propose will come when leadership shifts and players move into conflict and have to be jettisoned.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
Nah.

There is one backfield leader (RB/FB/QB?)
One recievers leader (WR/TE)
One OLine leader (T/G/C)
One D7 leader (DE/DT/OLB/ILB)
one secondary leader (CB/S)

so 4 of 22 starters. Backfield is the only place where it might be a real issue, but then again, I like that.

Isn't that 5 of 22?

I also thought the QB leader was separate from the RB/FB, but I could be wrong about that since I never paid much attention to team leaders.

[Godzilla Blitz]

As fun as this sounds, I'll probably have to take a seat in the stands. We've got a baby due in five/six weeks and work is getting busy; adding another thing to do will be a bit tricky. I'll be reading along though! I'm interested in seeing how this turns out, and would love to be able to download the game files to follow along as things move forward.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
Isn't that 5 of 22?

I also thought the QB leader was separate from the RB/FB, but I could be wrong about that since I never paid much attention to team leaders.

a quick look through one of my games show that the backfield is always led by a back. The QB does not seem to lead anything.

do you have some sort of small animal running around your bowels?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
ARE YOU MOCKING ME ???!?!?!?!

a quick look through one of my games show that the backfield is always led by a back. The QB does not seem to lead anything.

I think the QB is separate in that he has affinity/conflict with the position leaders. I don't know if there is just one QB that has those relationships or if all QBs do.

and yes.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm... I wonder if to establish complete team harmony, it might end up being necessary to have all your team leaders within one of the particular zodiac subsets... all your QBs and all your team leaders would have to be from the same group, and nobody on the team could be from those signs that are polarized against.

Might end up being pretty tricky...

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
do you have some sort of small animal running around your bowels?

I didn't know Marmel was going to be involved in this GroupThink...

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Hmmm... I wonder if to establish complete team harmony, it might end up being necessary to have all your team leaders within one of the particular zodiac subsets... all your QBs and all your team leaders would have to be from the same group, and nobody on the team could be from those signs that are polarized against.

Might end up being pretty tricky...

Wouldn't that in the end be the same type of approach we've taken before (only players from a certain state, or college conference, etc)? Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but in the end it's still increasing the challenge by limiting the pool of players we are choosing from. I don't know if it's even possible to increase the challenge any other way though...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
Wouldn't that in the end be the same type of approach we've taken before (only players from a certain state, or college conference, etc)? Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but in the end it's still increasing the challenge by limiting the pool of players we are choosing from. I don't know if it's even possible to increase the challenge any other way though...

Yes, I think it might end up that way - which I judge to be a bad thing, actually. I always felt like playing the agme with restrictions like that (geographical) ended up taking the decision-making away from me, and put the team more in the hands of lady luck (We do well if a stud QB comes along fromt he right state or school, we stink if one doesn't).

But it might not have to get that rigid. It certainly does look like the team would have to be built around the QB position, though. (Unless we were willing to just let those conflicts go)

[Bee]

Perhaps we could have a financial penalty based on affinity/conflict? Either a % reduction in salary cap for every conflict or players in conflict have to be paid double the requested bonus during contract negotiations? Something along those lines. That would give us the decision making back but at a cost. Just a thought.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Yes, I think it might end up that way - which I judge to be a bad thing, actually. I always felt like playing the agme with restrictions like that (geographical) ended up taking the decision-making away from me, and put the team more in the hands of lady luck (We do well if a stud QB comes along fromt he right state or school, we stink if one doesn't).

the difference is that the restrictions are fairly mild (better than half the signs can play on the same team) and they do shift over time

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
...and they do shift over time

Can you explain this?

I presume that you mean that as we acquire new team leaders, then the other players will have to ba adjusted.


I can see your point, though. If all our QBs are in a certain sign, then there will only be one or two other signs that have conflicts with them - so we might have team leaders from several different signs, and a scattered batch beyond that - with only a few signs that need to be avoided for any particular player.

I am interested in doing this... not trying to badmouth the idea.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand

I am interested in doing this... not trying to badmouth the idea.

ditto for me. I like the idea, but just want to make sure we look at it from all angles and try to brainstorm any adjustments before we get started.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Can you explain this?

Sure. Since sign X only conflicts with Y and Z it would be possible for you to have 3 players at TE who are X(leader), P and S. Over time P may become the leader. The leadership has shifted to P, which may not get along with R and S. Suddenly you have a conflict.

Also, players who may not have been available to you in FA because of this restriction one year might be fair game the next time they become Free agents.

This is very different than the static "Players from Texas" rule, which is devoid of any real strategy.

[QuikSand]

Okay, I'll take a stab at a set of house rules for the FOF side of this... with the presence of a simultaneous TCY career still up in the air.

- - -

PLAYER ACQUISITIONS
-Players other than undrafted rookies may only be acquired during the draft and the 20-stage FA process
-No initiating trades, other than tades during the draft involving current year's picks only
-Team may respond to trade offers that pass the standard fairness test (alter and confirm)
-Team may not accept a first round draft pick in trade for a reserve player
-Every FA offer to a player requesting any bonus (not including current team members) must include a signing bonus at least as large as the highest year's salary
-Team may make unlimited FA offers before the first week of free agency, and then no more than two more offers before the end of the FA process

ROSTER MANAGEMENT
-Team may not renegotiate or extend any player contracts
-Team may not enter the regular season with a chemistry conflict
-All positional team leaders must be starters for the team
-All positional team leaders must receive at least a qualifying offer from the team for a new contract

FINANCES
-Ticket prices for each level must remain consistent with lower of two closest teams, geographically
-If team runs an operating deficit, the following year the team must remain 10% under the salary cap
-The preceding effect is cumulative - two running annual deficits require staying 20% below cap, etc.
-Cannot have both scout and coach in the top ten salaries of the league

- - -

Quick first cut... what else do we need in there? Will this be too easy?

[QuikSand]

This really isn't all that different from what I usually play - except for the chemistry stuff, for which I can't reliably forecast a magnitude of impact. Do we perhaps need something tougher on player acquisition and/or financials?

And - my idea on financial penalties might be frought with problems... this could be an inescapable spiral. We do badly, and therefore lose money... so we have to get rid of players, causing us to do badly... and we never get out of the rut. Beats me.

[QuikSand]

One more thought... if there's going to be a concurrent TCY career, that could add another level of difficulty for us. I once played with a rule that I needed to have at least one player from the TCY school on at every roster position.

I don't know how we'd reconcile something like that with our team chemistry rules...but it's one more possibility, I suspect. Would force us to fill up teh roster with a bit more junk than we would otherwise, plus we might have some fun trying to get soemthing out of margina players who happened to go to VaTech (or wherever).

[Swaggs]

I will throw my hat in, if there is room. I have been looking for a good reason to get back into FOF4.

[Fritz]

I have a couple of other monor rules I like to use:

a coach with a losing record the season his contract expires can not be rehired (what have you done for me lately rule)

Last place in the division gets the coach fired (unless it is his first year with the team)

Last place in the conference gets the "starting" QB sacked (unless he is in his first 3 seasons)

Last place in the league gets the coach, starting QB, and scout canned.

[Bee]

If we go with running a concurrent TCY GroupThink, we'll want to make sure we have enough dedicated members to handle both dynasties (unless the TCY part will only be for generating draft files?). One of the things I've noticed with the GroupThink dynasties is a lot of interest early on and then real life interrupts and there ends up being only 2-4 people really making decisions.

The one concern I'd have with the rules at this point would be free agency. With the patched game, I think that's by far the biggest weakness in the game and we might need to come up with something to make that aspect of things a little more difficult.

[Buzzbee]

I'd be willing to sim through some TCY seasons to get up to 2020. Also might be interested in managing some aspect of a TCY portion of the challenge.

Potential angles at handling a TCY integration:

Must draft a player from the Solecismic 8.
(With 8 schools to choose from it probably wouldn't limit your decisions, but might affect what other players you draft)

Players from each conference always on pro roster.
(Might limit the player pool to some degree during periods of "cohesion turnover" without eliminating desision making)

Must have a player from "Select State U" on roster at all times.
(Probably not a good rule since it doesn't really affect play unless you had to get rid of said player due to cohesion. Would only affect one roster spot)

Can't draft "All-American's" or other "award winners".
(Reduction in talent level for the human team and increase in talent level for CPU teams)

Can't draft players leaving school early for the draft.
(Might have no impact, or might even eliminate potential busts, so this might not be a good rule)


That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

I'd be willing to create the TCY draft files and compile a list of players that were "off limits" during the draft (if of course there are any). I could even sim several seasons at a time and "queue up" the draft files if needed, so that you would have them ready whenever needed. Would eliminate the potential logjam of having to wait on the TCY "coaches" to finish their season.

[QuikSand]

Fritz, I like the "accountability" rules, and will include all of them as I update our working rules.

Bee, I agree - free agency is the weakest area we have to worry about. I like the rule forcing you to make most of your moves at the outset, rather than waiting for late-round values. Past that - what else? An overall limit on the number of players per year, or something of the sort?


On the matter of waning interest - there's litle we can do. Your observation is right on, but it's tough to sort out who will stick around and who won't. My inclination is to have a few people assigned to specific roles off the bat, and to have others who remain interested pick up more formal roles over time.

Maybe a good start would be once we pick our new team, we assign a position group to the potential participants - and get a full analysis of their skills, salary issues, and chemistry issues. The investment of time in that might be a good sign as to who's willing to stay with all this for a while.

[QuikSand]

Does anyone think that having a concurrent TCY multi-manager dynasty going on at the same time as this will be worth the hassle?

Or would we be better off just having a stock of draft files and possibly TCY saved games) as a resource.

I am split... I like the idea of having two connected dynasties running, but I fear that might be too many moving parts (and I don't think I'd have to patience to be perosnally involved in keeping the TCY thing afloat, tempering my willingness to endorse that option).