Conflicts - Affinities

[Alf]

How do you measure the on-field importance of conflicts amongst your players ?

For example, in my IHOF league (Bordeaux Vinyeards), one of my DE starters has a strong conflict with the DL leader (yeah, I messed up by trading my current leader without checking possible conflicts because my conflictual DE was'nt there last time I checked what would happen if I chnaged leaders).

Do you say the conflictual guy plays way lower than his ratings ? Or is it minimal impact ?


Thanks for your inputs.

[Blade6119]

In my experience its noticeable...enough where i avoid it when possible...not earth shattering, but dont expect too much improvement on last season

[QuikSand]

This is obviously tough to quantify. To the best of my knowledge, the only attempt to isolate this has been in this thread:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=42651

This was a team with universal affinities, with one season run 15 times. Then, it was run 15 times after substituting thethree offensive position leaders (affinity monsters) with guys who created partial conflits in the position groups. No on-field player usage was affected, as all three leaders were reserves. (There would have been some effect of cohesion, which I regrettably did not measure)

The results were pretty meaningful -- but this was a pretty extreme example, admittedly. How much having one or two conflicts matters is a real unknown, as is the ultimate effect of having a deliberately pro-affinity team... it's presumaby in the game for some reason, but none of us really knows how big a deal it is.

Sorry there's not more out there...



(Oh, and sorry that the IHOF trade has put you in this spot, Alf)

[Alf]

Thanks for the replies, I'll go through that thread

(QS, that's purely my fault for not checking conflict after acquiring DE Nygaard, before Nygaard, I had no conflicts so trading Bycroft was indeed of no consequences)

[QuikSand]

Gotcha, I thought it was our trade that messed you up - glad that's not so.

[Chubby]

I'm a believer in affinities. I wasn't until last season when I made a concerted effort to have zero conflcts. as QS said, it's hard to quantify the effects.

[Joe]

in previous seasons in the IHOF, Jared Brimberry had 2 strong conflicts with position leaders. I eliminated 1 of those conflicts altogether, so we'll see if it makes a change in his play.

[Celeval]

I'm a strong believer in affinities, and have tried to improve that aspect of the team every season. We'll see whether it actually gets me anywhere - I have some doubts that it'll help my suspect defense.

[Kodos]

Jim's team never has conflicts. That's proof enough for me.

[chinaski]

do we have that zodiac chart floating around for reference?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by chinaski

do we have that zodiac chart floating around for reference?

Also handily linked from the Codex thread, stickied atop this section:

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...threadid=16893


There is a zodiac table in the initial post that has been edited to be accurate to the day.

[Alf]

FWIW, I signed cheap backups to be team leader to get rid of those conflicts. Thanks to all. Especially QuikSand and MIJB

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Also handily linked from the Codex thread, stickied atop this section:

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16893


There is a zodiac table in the initial post that has been edited to be accurate to the day.

aaaah, thanks & thanks for your work on it! dont know how i missed it. :/

[Samdari]

Wasn't there a spreadsheet someone had made at one point? Is there a link anywhere?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Alf

FWIW, I signed cheap backups to be team leader to get rid of those conflicts. Thanks to all. Especially QuikSand and MIJB

I have wondered if there is any association to cohesion and how long your player has been a team leader. If there is a correlation, it may be counter-productive to change your team-leaders just to fix conflicts. Unfortunately, I'm probably just adding more questions to the pile.

[AlexB]

Always wondered this: if a team leader and a player have a 'strong conflict' but then someone else comes in as team leader, do the original two forget they hate each other?

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Always wondered this: if a team leader and a player have a 'strong conflict' but then someone else comes in as team leader, do the original two forget they hate each other?

im under the impression that conflicts/affinities only matter with the leaders. So yes, they would disappear. maybe just maybe, they do stay around and we dont see it - possibly adding another twist to the overall cohesion of the unit?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Alf

FWIW, I signed cheap backups to be team leader to get rid of those conflicts. Thanks to all. Especially QuikSand and MIJB

D'oh! I have to learn to stop helping my biggest rival for success in the IHOF!

[Narcizo]

Is there any evidence that a player with an affinity with a team leader who is also a mentor gets improved benefit from that mentorship? I'm guessing it's probably too hard to prove but it would be convenient if that were the case.

[rewissick]

I've always thought that affinities & conflicts work 'on the field', while mentors can help ratings development. So a young player with an affinity to his position leader (who also happens to be a mentor) would get a double benefit, but not any improved benefit in one area or the other. Somebody back me up on this!

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by rewissick

I've always thought that affinities & conflicts work 'on the field', while mentors can help ratings development. So a young player with an affinity to his position leader (who also happens to be a mentor) would get a double benefit, but not any improved benefit in one area or the other. Somebody back me up on this!

I dont think it works that way. Ive always been under the impression conflicts/affinities is just a performance modifier. The greater it is, the more the players performance gets a +/-. In one very non scientific case, i have my starting RB; who has a extreme conflict with our scrub 3rd string backfield leader. both have been with the team since the start of the league. when both are active, the starter always seems to underperform, when the leader is inactive - he always performs the way i expect him too. ive noticed this for a long time, over 100's of careers. thats just the impression im left with. seems like theres been a Skydog study on this at some point. ?

[rewissick]

Actually, that's exactly what I was trying to say...'on the field' = 'performance modifier'. Sorry if it wasn't a bit more clear.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by rewissick

Actually, that's exactly what I was trying to say...'on the field' = 'performance modifier'. Sorry if it wasn't a bit more clear.

ah yes, i see now. consider yourself backed up!

he gets the ratings acceleration off the field and the performance boost from the affinity on the field. double bonus!

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by chinaski

im under the impression that conflicts/affinities only matter with the leaders. So yes, they would disappear. maybe just maybe, they do stay around and we dont see it - possibly adding another twist to the overall cohesion of the unit?

It's that latter bit I was getting at

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

It's that latter bit I was getting at

i was stressing maybe, i think its pretty unlikely - buuuuuut it sure would be easy for jim to add it to the cohesion equation. ive always thought cohesion was only built thru time spent playing together. maybe jim will start feeding us some new nuggets of info soon. this game is getting old, spill it jim!

[Fonzie]

One question on this topic: I've always assumed that affinities/conflicts affect the position group's game performance regardless of whether the involved players/leaders are on the active roster. But does anyone know if this is assumption is true? In other words, do affinity effects go away if your leader/affected player(s) is/are inactive?

And on a related note: are affinity effects still in force when, say, the leader is on IR?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

One question on this topic: I've always assumed that affinities/conflicts affect the position group's game performance regardless of whether the involved players/leaders are on the active roster. But does anyone know if this is assumption is true? In other words, do affinity effects go away if your leader/affected player(s) is/are inactive?

And on a related note: are affinity effects still in force when, say, the leader is on IR?

I have yet to see anyone offer any tests or results ot indicate one way or the other. It's a pretty tough thing to test, in any event, especially at that level of detail.

[sovereignstar]

Current state of chemistry in FOF = a farking joke

It's a travesty that I have to pay attention to guys' birthdays in the offseason. This part of the game needs improvement *badly* in the next version.

[Fonzie]

Thanks for your help, gents. I suspected there wouldn't be much evidence either way, but wanted to see if anybody had any suspicions.

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Current state of chemistry in FOF = a farking joke

It's a travesty that I have to pay attention to guys' birthdays in the offseason. This part of the game needs improvement *badly* in the next version.

I agree.

And in general I'd like to see Jim do a much more thorough job of documenting how things like affinities work. Guesswork, especially for something as apparently important as affinities, sucks.

[sovereignstar]

I (and I'm sure most everyone else) would much rather see a CM/FM-esque system where personalities are king. In the MP basketball league I'm in, the JBL, there are X amount of personalities. Players will like/hate/feel indifferent to their teammates and to differing degrees. Here are some of the personalities:

abmitious
argumentative
arrogant
charasmatic
confident
dedicated
demanding 
disruptive
driven
eccentrical
egotistical
emotional
flamboyant
friendly
heroic
impulsive
inspirational
introverted
irrational
lazy
leader
mentor
professional
quiet
rebellious
relaxed
selfish
showoff
troublemaker
unassuming
unstable
weak
workhorse

How much more fun and realistic would it be drafting a troublemaker in the 3rd round who you have no idea how he'll mesh with your current team? Family problems also are an interesting aspect in the JBL.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Thanks for your help, gents. I suspected there wouldn't be much evidence either way, but wanted to see if anybody had any suspicions.



I agree.

And in general I'd like to see Jim do a much more thorough job of documenting how things like affinities work. Guesswork, especially for something as apparently important as affinities, sucks.

FWIW, put me in the camp of players that LIKES that we don't know how some of this stuff works for sure. If we know everything, this just becomes formulaic.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Current state of chemistry in FOF = a farking joke

It's a travesty that I have to pay attention to guys' birthdays in the offseason. This part of the game needs improvement *badly* in the next version.

I'm glad we have chemestry turned off in the multiplayer league I'm in. No trade blocks that say: "I'm looking for a gemini who can play linebacker and likes long walks in the park."

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Thanks for your help, gents. I suspected there wouldn't be much evidence either way, but wanted to see if anybody had any suspicions.



I agree.

And in general I'd like to see Jim do a much more thorough job of documenting how things like affinities work. Guesswork, especially for something as apparently important as affinities, sucks.

I agree, I wish I knew what effects affinities/conflicts would have on my team. However, this is something that I wish was fleshed out a bit more. The birthday thing doesn't bother me that much, but there are better ways of doing it.

That said, I don't want to have a roadmap for everything with teambuilding, but would like to know who the troublemakers are, or if someone would potentially be a troublemaker.

The flip side of that, I DO want a roadmap for how things affect each other on the game planning screen. I DO want to know the algorhythm for plays, etc.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by wade moore

FWIW, put me in the camp of players that LIKES that we don't know how some of this stuff works for sure. If we know everything, this just becomes formulaic.

Bingo. We should *NOT* be able to test and quantify everything about Chemistry. We don't know how it works in real life. Is Chemistry hurt or helped when a malcontent is on the sidelines in street clothes? Does the team play better when the popular leader is on the bench cheering them on? Hard to tell IRL, and it should be hard to tell in FOF.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Bingo. We should *NOT* be able to test and quantify everything about Chemistry. We don't know how it works in real life. Is Chemistry hurt or helped when a malcontent is on the sidelines in street clothes? Does the team play better when the popular leader is on the bench cheering them on? Hard to tell IRL, and it should be hard to tell in FOF.

If we're going to take this into the Land of Approximating Real-Life Football, I'd argue quite the opposite: management would have a very good idea which inactive players were causing problems in the locker room. They'd almost certainly be able to tell if players on IR are hanging around the locker room for rehab or not, and it would be relatively easy to gauge how much those players are influencing their colleagues.

I'm not arguing that we need to have the entirety of affinities spelled out for us, but this is almost certainly something that a real-life GM would be able to get a handle on.

[Fonzie]

Dola-

I'm asking these questions because I'm in the process of deciding on a few roster moves in one of my MP leagues that could significantly impact affinities. My O-line leader, who sucks, is injured and could go on IR to free up a roster spot I might be able to use on a useful player. I also have a slightly dinged up backup QB with multiple affinities whose roster spot I could use. In both cases I'm completely in the dark as to whether or not I'd lose the affinity benefit of those guys. Perhaps I'll need to mess around with this a bit in SP.

[Ben E Lou]

He knows which guys are causing problems in the locker room, but he can't quantify how that translates to on-field performance. That's all I'm saying.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

He knows which guys are causing problems in the locker room, but he can't quantify how that translates to on-field performance. That's all I'm saying.

And unlike a real life GM, we already know that locker-room relations do affect performance - Jim told us so. Given that, it shouldn't be much of a leap to conclude that we'd know if changes in a player's roster status would affect those locker-room relations (and thus on-field performance).

Just my $.02. Like I said, I might play around with this a bit to see what, if anything, can be learned here.

[Ben E Lou]

Ummm...a real-life GM knows that locker-room relations impact performance, but he doesn't know to what extent ("...but he can't quantify..."). That sounds very similar to the situation here.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Dola-

I'm asking these questions because I'm in the process of deciding on a few roster moves in one of my MP leagues that could significantly impact affinities. My O-line leader, who sucks, is injured and could go on IR to free up a roster spot I might be able to use on a useful player. I also have a slightly dinged up backup QB with multiple affinities whose roster spot I could use. In both cases I'm completely in the dark as to whether or not I'd lose the affinity benefit of those guys. Perhaps I'll need to mess around with this a bit in SP.

In similar situations, I have gone ahead and sent the players to IR, assuming their chemistry still counted. For what that's worth.

I don't see what degree of "messing around" leads you to a solid answer on this one, really.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

In similar situations, I have gone ahead and sent the players to IR, assuming their chemistry still counted. For what that's worth.

I don't see what degree of "messing around" leads you to a solid answer on this one, really.

That would've been my automatic action as well, had this thread not gotten me thinking about the extent to which we really don't know how affinities work in the game.

I hate it when I think.

But yeah, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that those affinity contributions must still "count" even when inactive or on IR. We know that leadership doesn't change when a leader is inactive or placed on IR, so it would be surprising if affinity contributions would change under similar circumstances.

Thanks everyone for tolerating me thinking this stuff through out loud.

[flere-imsaho]

I appreciate what Jim's tried to accomplish with affinities, but I've always preferred the Football Manager method (which I believe came in with CM3).

[3ric]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Wasn't there a spreadsheet someone had made at one point? Is there a link anywhere?

Yeah, wade did the original sheet, and I improved on it a little - links to both versions are in this thread:
http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/viewt...r=asc&start=20