Tweak Player Loyalty

[Mike Donlin]

One of the things that has always bothered me about Player Loyalty is that it is transferable. In other words, if a player who is "Loyal" is traded from one team to another, he suddenly becomes loyal to that new team, and this can have quite an influence come contract time.

That's just crazy.

It also bothers me that "loyal" players, even stars, will likely resign with their team after their arb years. I do not have any numbers, but that seems extremely rare in MLB. There is the occasional Eric Chavez, but for every Chavez there is a Giambi, Tejada, Ramirez, etc. etc. etc. Players may well sign with their original team, but only if they get something approaching what they would get on the Free Agent market. Right now, that doesn't happen.

IMO, loyalty ought to work like defensive skills: a player has a hidden loyalty rating to a given team, and the number of years he remains with that team, the higher it gets. However, if you trade him, it gets reset to zero. Or, maybe, if you piss him off by not starting him or something, then it will also go down. And almost no player should qualify as "loyal" when he is up for contract renewal, especially if he is a star. (Perhaps all players can drop one-level their walk year.)

But as it is now we have these simplified personality types (Minimal, Normal, Loyal) that do not at all reflect reality, and actually go far towards distorting it.

/obligatory



/obligatory

[Long_Long_Name]

I don't think it's crazy. I agree that it can be tweaked, but some players do have a higher loyalty to any team they are a member of than others. I mean, it's just that... a player can be part of a team for 10 years and not feel any kind of attachment to that team, just like a player can get traded three times within 2 years and be loyal to their team no matter what happens.

I also don't think the word loyalty is the best one.

[Long_Long_Name]

Dola,

Loyalty, as a trait of character, doesn't fluctuate based on transactions. So I don't think that "it's just crazy".

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Loyalty, as a trait of character, doesn't fluctuate based on transactions.

That's generally true, but there have been exceptions.

[DerekT]

I think it should more be a "reaction to team" then loyalty.

For example most Free Agents would not want to sign with Florida right now (and yes Florida isn't exactly looking to sign free agents) or the same way player probably dreaded hearing from 1999-2003 "traded to montreal".

That should be the factor, and it can be based on stuff like championships, payroll, treatment of player, role on the team, etc. That way if a player is looking for a championship he not going to a loser team. Or if a player wants to be a star he won't go to a championship team that he won't be able to play on.

While I doubt it you could do it now, it would be nice to have fan reactions deciding this as well, not just with someone being a star. But lets say someone like Roger Clemens who was a star in Boston and then have fans turn on the player (I know there are better examples, this is the only one I could think of).

[Mike Donlin]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I don't think it's crazy. I agree that it can be tweaked, but some players do have a higher loyalty to any team they are a member of than others. I mean, it's just that... a player can be part of a team for 10 years and not feel any kind of attachment to that team, just like a player can get traded three times within 2 years and be loyal to their team no matter what happens.

I also don't think the word loyalty is the best one.

I agree that loyalty is not the best word for this, but I'm not so certain about your first claim. Player Loyalty is an attempt to graph a personality type onto a fictional player--and without more than anecdotal evidence, I'm not sure that it is realistic.

I much prefer Derek T.'s suggestion, that loyalty would owe more to the behavior of the team and less to any inherent characteristic of the player. Though, to be sure, this may unduly complicate things.

[akw4572]

How about something like what is in FM? Player Happiness (Current), and Player Loyalty (like his hometown team or a climate or something similar)?

[Mike Donlin]

Originally Posted by akw4572

How about something like what is in FM? Player Happiness (Current), and Player Loyalty (like his hometown team or a climate or something similar)?

Exactly. Let's hope this gets borrowed too.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by DerekT

I think it should more be a "reaction to team" then loyalty.

I would suggest a dynamic "Loyalty to current team." This would change if, say, the team jacked the player around on a contract negotiation, if he was a starter, if he was benched, if he was popular/unpopular locally, if the team fell apart, or if he was traded to a new team.

It would be set based on W-L record, contract, starting status, etc., when a player was acquired and reset when he was traded.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Loyalty, as a trait of character, doesn't fluctuate based on transactions.

I looked into it, and people who were traded/released say yes, it actually does.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

I looked into it, and people who were traded/released say yes, it actually does.

No, it doesn't. It's like, if you're faithful to your girlfriend, and she cheats on you, you're not going to be more likely to cheat on your next partner. Your faith in your new girlfriend might not be consolidated as soon as you start to date her like it was to your old girlfriend who you've been with for 4 years, but it doesn't change the fact that you have the same amount of loyalty as you did before.

[Mike Donlin]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

No, it doesn't. It's like, if you're faithful to your girlfriend, and she cheats on you, you're not going to be more likely to cheat on your next partner. Your faith in your new girlfriend might not be consolidated as soon as you start to date her like it was to your old girlfriend who you've been with for 4 years, but it doesn't change the fact that you have the same amount of loyalty as you did before.

Face it, LLN, you're a doormat.

[DerekT]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

No, it doesn't. It's like, if you're faithful to your girlfriend, and she cheats on you, you're not going to be more likely to cheat on your next partner. Your faith in your new girlfriend might not be consolidated as soon as you start to date her like it was to your old girlfriend who you've been with for 4 years, but it doesn't change the fact that you have the same amount of loyalty as you did before.

I think thats an apples and oranges compairason. A better compairason would be workplace. Lets say for example you work for a company, been loyal to them for 15 years and they go under. You get another job at a different company, your role is reduced from one of the best salesmen to just another drone and within a year get a job offer that does 5 times the amount of money. Now tell me your as loyal to your second company as your first company

Its the same way how player who may be loyal to their team now, if traded to Florida probably won't be loyal to Florida.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by DerekT

I think thats an apples and oranges compairason. A better compairason would be workplace. Lets say for example you work for a company, been loyal to them for 15 years and they go under. You get another job at a different company, your role is reduced from one of the best salesmen to just another drone and within a year get a job offer that does 5 times the amount of money. Now tell me your as loyal to your second company as your first company

Its the same way how player who may be loyal to their team now, if traded to Florida probably won't be loyal to Florida.

If you'd read my previous messages, you'd know that I agree with you on that. Well, except that you claim that my comparison sucks for whatever reason. The situation you just described shows a variation in circumstancial affection, not of a person's loyalty. I'm just saying that some people are more likely to develop an attachment - that's what loyalty means, since in the game it doesn't vary. I'd be all for what you seem to want, but it's not a person's loyalty trait we're talking about here, but how circumstances affect that trait.

If anything, I think the best thing to change would be to have the loyalty rating as it currently is, except that there would be a "current attachment level" that would be there. If a player plays for a team for 10 years and has a good relationship with the fans and media, then his attachment level will rise - if he gets traded, it falls. However, the more loyal the player is, the higher the attachment level will change, too, so the loyalty trait would help shape the attachment level as well as circumstances.

But that might be a bit complicated.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

No, it doesn't. It's like, if you're faithful to your girlfriend, and she cheats on you, you're not going to be more likely to cheat on your next partner. Your faith in your new girlfriend might not be consolidated as soon as you start to date her like it was to your old girlfriend who you've been with for 4 years, but it doesn't change the fact that you have the same amount of loyalty as you did before.

Speak for yourself. Over time, sure, it might get better, but I think you're in the vast minority if you think how you're treated by someone doesn't change you. Some people might be less likely to change, like perhaps yourself, but you're not everyone.

There's not much in the world that doesn't change.

WRT to OOTP, if a team treats you well (gives you plenty of playing time, offers you fair contracts, etc) then over time I think your loyalty should slowly increase and it wouldn't fall by as much if they did jerk you around somehow every once in a blue moon. Once a player is traded I think most players would probably have about the same or slightly less loyalty as they did to their previous team (some might have a significant drop or jump), but unlike a team they've been with awhile decreases in loyalty would be more likely and drastic with a team you have not been with long.

EDIT: I just saw your latest post about the distinction between likely to develop loyalty and current loyalty. I still think both change in people, but the former probably does less quickly. I don't think we really need 2 loyalty ratings in the game, but if it helps Markus to program it though then that's fine.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it really does, LLN. I asked some guys I know from my college days whom it had actually happened to about it, and all three told/wrote me that it did.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by kq76

I think you're in the vast minority if you think how you're treated by someone doesn't change you.

Well put. That's probably the key point.

[Deft]

I believe the current loyalty ratings are fine but resigning players should be influence by their loyalty ratings and the following.
Are
Are they starting the position they like?
Have they been with the organization for a long time?
What is their local popularity?
Have they been making competitive money their career?
Is this their hometown team?
Are there players on this team from their country that speak their language?

[Dan Theman]

Hmm - well, I think treating loyalty as a trait is probably the best approach. Traits CAN change, but are very slow to do so (if ever).

Markus mentioned how team location will now influence player reaction, and there's likely some effect from team history (if the player had been there before). The combination of the trait/environment/history variables looks about as close to reality as Markus may want to try.

Then again, the more real the better the game (excluding fans from Kansas City j/k)

[QuestGAV]

A loyalty/happiness rating whose rate of change depends on a (hidden?) loyalty trait would seem like the best of both worlds.