FOF7 July 30th Developer Chat Log

[PhinsFan]

Originally Posted by Zee

I was also hopeful that something would be said about reducing the random variability of game outcomes, and bring the results back closer to the player abilities.

I think your saying something here that I have not liked about the game and wonder myself. If your referring to random variability of play outcomes that seem to happen too often when based on the Off and Def plays selections.

an example of what I'm saying would be
1. Def expecting the run, Off pass is incomplete 2 to 3 times in a row with High rated Off skilled players on the field

2. Def aggressively expecting the pass but gives up a huge pass play.

and the reverse of those as well. Seems those "big plays/stops" happen too much against a Def that is chosen to "stop that play/not stop that play" in my opinion.

Now granted
1. must be very difficult...very very to code the outcomes to begin with
2. many variables going into the algorithm to calculate the outcome
3. I think we need some variation cause it does happen in real life games
4 I would just like to see it toned down a bit if that is possible.
5. I have no idea how much to tone it down...lol. cause the game could become boring if it were tone too much.
6 I realize it may not change much and I could accept it but not like it...especially when I lose because of it...

[PhinsFan]

Originally Posted by aston217

Uh, the tools are freely available to everyone, extremely helpful, and do no part in unbalancing leagues.

I realize that my statement leads to this thought so I should try to change the meaning a bit.

1. freely available...I totally agreee
2. extremely helpful...yes they are, I use them myself
3. do no part in unbalancing leagues...I agree the tools themselves do no part. Unfortunately some don't use them (i have no idea why), maybe because no time, don't know how, use them but don't understand them?

I am not against the tools, I like all the tools. I wonder if there will be similar tools already in the game. Maybe if there are tools already in the game some players that don't use them may start using them.

My statement should have been more a long the lines of I wonder how that will affect the leagues if the tools we use now are not available.

[Dutch]

There is no way that all those tools will be recreated for FOF7. The key is to get as much data extracted from the game so that those tools can be created without hacking files (or however gstelmack, Celeval and Co. did it back in the day). Instead, just give us the data for our universe.

During the "Draft Reveal" stage, I would like to see an "Export Draft File" option.

For each stage, I would like to see an "Export League/Team/Player/Stats File" option.

For each season I would like to see a "Export past seasons" option.

In a format that would allow us to just throw that data into our web-sites for crunching however we see fit.

[isaccoubaldi]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

Ben, do you think that with all this financial changes in the new game, the "cap crunch" league have no future?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by isaccoubaldi

Ben, do you think that with all this financial changes in the new game, the "cap crunch" league have no future?

I would hope that there's no need for it and we can just get rid of it and keep going without it. I'm sure Jim hopes the same. But there's no way to know that until humans have tried to work the reneg system in the new game.

[Normie32r]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

I was going to trade my future away for a WR in the HFL, but after this chat was posted, I think Jim is going to balance things out considerably.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

He did a kickstarter for the board game (which I bought by the way, shame on the rest of you )

He should do a kickstarter for the computer game to help with money and resources. I think he would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of money he would get that would go towards improving the game.

I know he doesn't necessarily need the extra money to complete the game. But it couldn't hurt and maybe he can put in a condition if we reach a certain amount of money on the campaign he will hire graphic designer.

However, I realize that this is his baby and he may not want to hire anyone even with the extra money and I certainly respect and admire him for that.

Either way Jim, I am buying the game and am looking forward to it greatly.

This is a good idea.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Icy

Mixed feelings, in one hand i'm very happy about Jim getting back at it, excited about the new AI but besides that... a bit disappointed.

The customization part, i won't really miss it, maybe i'm too used to FM lack of customization, but i want to play the real NFL in a football game and the real MLB or NBA in baseball or basketball sims. I have tried to create fictional universes in OOTP, expended tons of time on custom unis, the perfect team names and alignment, etc and end losing interest an not able to feel immersed.

The UI part, it's already discussed every year for a while, and nobody changes it's opinion including Jim. As for it being expensive... well it depends... when i was heavily into modding games for fun, i did the designs for Wolverine studios games like Draft Day Sports Basketball, Draft Day Sports College Basketball, Music Wars and a Puresim version that never saw the light, as well as some screens mockups/ideas for OOTP like the deep chart/lineups one that was finally adopted, i don't think they were that bad for a non professional designer, and my "cost" per game was like a weekend at a hotel with my family, as i did it for fun and to learn more about design tricks, etc when i was into that.

If you are looking at professional UI designers with a big name, then yes, it's expensive, but if you recruit the right student, or specially game modder or fans, you will get it for almost nothing. There are plenty of game mods with same or even better graphics than professionally designed games, heck even some of the FM skins made by fans are way better than the shipped one, and they do it just for fun or personal ego of having their name printed in the game or other fans saying "thanks, you rock!"

I think Jim is too close minded about hiring others or just having anybody else putting it's hand over his projects in general (maybe i'm wrong and just a feeling I have based in his comments after years here or maybe it was because his bad experience at EA some years ago) and not aware of what is going on right now in the games industry, see iphone/android games/apps by indie developers with zero money taking over big companies like EA that is into big problems now in the mobile games biz because they are too big and too rigid in that fast changing world. The one man show approach is no longer an excuse but an advantage in some cases if you play it well.

Besides the AI improvements, one of the things i would have really liked is personalities in coaches/gm's, so every coach would have their preferred system, and every team would feel different, both on and off the field, instead of all them analyzing stats and acting exactly the same "perfect" and robotized way.

The scouts disappearing the coaches draft looks more of a way to make things simpler for MP at the sacrifice of realism and SP experience.

Overall i see this as a base and code cleaning to be able to release better games in the future, and maybe too influenced by some old hardcore players like Ben and others (no offense for name calling i hope, not saying anything bad) that share same vision about FOF and text sims in general than Jim, and that are more into studding how the game engine works at the cost of immersion, that want total stats accuracy without any "distraction" around it, and also about the competitive MP environment than about roleplaying being a coach/gm in SP that other text sim fans prefer (like me, that is why i always come back to FM). That is why i never buy text sims that are supper accurate match replaying machines but that have no career mode. I don't see those as "games".

I love stats accuracy as much as every sports nut, but once that side is covered, I want to feel i'm a coach/gm, and realism in a text sim for me includes also feeling and dealing with part of the stuff that a real coach/gm does, not only the stats part.

Imho the developer that found a nice mix for his resources as he is also an one man show (besides GDS publishing) is HeavyReign with his FBCB and FBB games.

Anyway i was focusing too much on the negatives, and we have not seen anything yet, as i said, i'm happy to see a top game developer back at doing what he does great, hope this will work well for him and we will have new versions every year and even other games like tcy 2 or even a game that integrates both in one for a full football universe.

Well said

[sjshaw]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

Feel free to PayPal me royalties for creating a derivative work of my question to Jim.

On the topic, yes, me and my five 1st rounders in IHOF's next draft will be less likely to take a WR over a QB, perhaps even a RB.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by isaccoubaldi

Ben, do you think that with all this financial changes in the new game, the "cap crunch" league have no future?

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I would hope that there's no need for it and we can just get rid of it and keep going without it. I'm sure Jim hopes the same. But there's no way to know that until humans have tried to work the reneg system in the new game.

I wish it could work, but I'm skeptical. Not a slight on Jim, just trying to be straightforward about it.

The AI system is going to, by whatever measure, have a "standard" for what reneg offer it will accept for a player. If Jim is persuaded that renegs are too easy in the current AI, he may make that standard a lower one than it is currently (which would move toward obviating the cap crunch league adjustment that has, to many of us, basically saved MP FOF).

The problem is that if the AI gets a good deal tougher so the savviest GMs have trouble doing the extensions they want, then you'll lose out on the other end. No matter what element of the game/puzzle you're talking about, there's going to be a range of skill levels. Some people will be very sharp with contracts and renegs, others won't. That's now it is now, and that's how it will be -- it's just human nature.

So, make renegs a lot tougher, and the poor guy playing his first season of all-out single player FOF7 is going to get really frustrated by either driving his team into cap hell, or losing lots of his favorite players due to the inability to reneg... or a combination of the two. This could spell a pretty bad experience for the less savvy player, and that could mean fewer of them stick around to become more savvy veteran players who love the game.

That's why I think this (among a number of other things) really deserves appropriate attention for the single player game (and hats off to Jim that this is on his list), but it needs to be customizable in some way to suit the needs of a less-AI driven multiplayer environment. Whether it's a slider, an on/off toggle, or whatever -- when we're playing human versus human, please please please let *us* decide whether we want renegotiations to be easy, hard, or illegal.

Do the best you can with improving the single player environment - yes.
Let us do what we want with the multiplayer environment - pretty please.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Lack of customization pretty much kills it for me. Not blown away by anything else either if I'm being honest.

Same here.

[PhinsFan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I wish it could work, but I'm skeptical. Not a slight on Jim, just trying to be straightforward about it.

The AI system is going to, by whatever measure, have a "standard" for what reneg offer it will accept for a player. If Jim is persuaded that renegs are too easy in the current AI, he may make that standard a lower one than it is currently (which would move toward obviating the cap crunch league adjustment that has, to many of us, basically saved MP FOF).

The problem is that if the AI gets a good deal tougher so the savviest GMs have trouble doing the extensions they want, then you'll lose out on the other end. No matter what element of the game/puzzle you're talking about, there's going to be a range of skill levels. Some people will be very sharp with contracts and renegs, others won't. That's now it is now, and that's how it will be -- it's just human nature.

So, make renegs a lot tougher, and the poor guy playing his first season of all-out single player FOF7 is going to get really frustrated by either driving his team into cap hell, or losing lots of his favorite players due to the inability to reneg... or a combination of the two. This could spell a pretty bad experience for the less savvy player, and that could mean fewer of them stick around to become more savvy veteran players who love the game.

That's why I think this (among a number of other things) really deserves appropriate attention for the single player game (and hats off to Jim that this is on his list), but it needs to be customizable in some way to suit the needs of a less-AI driven multiplayer environment. Whether it's a slider, an on/off toggle, or whatever -- when we're playing human versus human, please please please let *us* decide whether we want renegotiations to be easy, hard, or illegal.

Do the best you can with improving the single player environment - yes.
Let us do what we want with the multiplayer environment - pretty please.

That's an interesting thought, toggle or whatever to alter how the game looks at the finance part of the game depending on MP or SP.. I like that idea

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Do the best you can with improving the single player environment - yes.
Let us do what we want with the multiplayer environment - pretty please.

Perfectly summed up.

[conception]

I am excited about the possibility of another FOF coming out. I don't know if it will be the complete UI interface overhaul that would best sell the product that, under the hood, is a really good game, but it's still great to see that the best text sim for the best American sport is getting a new version.

[aston217]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The AI system is going to, by whatever measure, have a "standard" for what reneg offer it will accept for a player. If Jim is persuaded that renegs are too easy in the current AI, he may make that standard a lower one than it is currently (which would move toward obviating the cap crunch league adjustment that has, to many of us, basically saved MP FOF).

The problem is that if the AI gets a good deal tougher so the savviest GMs have trouble doing the extensions they want, then you'll lose out on the other end. No matter what element of the game/puzzle you're talking about, there's going to be a range of skill levels. Some people will be very sharp with contracts and renegs, others won't. That's now it is now, and that's how it will be -- it's just human nature.

I don't think this is has to be the case. The problem as I see it is that renegs are entirely too open-ended. When you can input, within financial constraints, any set of numbers you want, there is a virtually limitless amount of room to finagle and go 'full tilt' on the cap savvy. If you can squeeze an extra bit here or there, and the good players do and will, it definitely adds up, and pays off.

If, on the other hand, all deals -- from rookie free agents, to renegotiations, to FA offers -- were cookie cutter, fixed, non-open ended, that would cut the finagling out of the game, without necessarily removing context.

It'd have to be set up so that all teams do find it difficult to an extent, but you're provided with reasons why: well, this player did well, so he wants to test the open market, no capouts or any other alternatives. Or, this player outdid his contract, he's got 3 years left, but he is going to require a new deal now, and this is what it'll cost you.

GMs will have to make decisions, but sensible, meaningful ones: "how much" effort, on a simple scale ranging from 'minimal' to 'major contract', to extend on a guy, instead of the completely open-ended range of $10k demarcations from minsal to 40 million.

When you get into a bad situation, you'd know why: because you decided to go 'big' on re-signing that one guy, and there was no possibility for playing around with the numbers to scrimp 10% here or there.

[bhlloy]

16. Remove playing time choices from game plans. This will all be endurance-based.

Am I reading this wrong, or does this mean you pick a starter and you don't get to pick how much the backup plays? That's a pretty big step back at certain positions if that's the case (RB being the obvious one), although it didn't ever make much sense at others.

[Karim]

Potentially the lack of a GUI update is due to the current design not allowing it. Unless the simulation engine and various modelling components are extracted in their own layer, it could be next to impossible to slap on a modern GUI, especially with a technology like MFC. I've seen this in other projects and know first-hand the temptation to code in absence of design considerations when deadlines approach.

That being said, I've purchased every version of FOF and will buy this day one without exception. I only play as a GM in SP, and the improved AI will be the thing I'm most interested in. The coaches' draft kind of took me by surprise but we'll see how this plays out. All the work in game planning unfortunately has no impact for me. I much prefer if the coaches have a significant impact on game planning such that my choice as GM on who to hire becomes that much more important.

The Almanac and record keeping that Jim provides is still the best of any simulation on the market, FM included. I'm hoping that hasn't changed.

[Frankh]

I am for tougher contract negotiations. More player testing the free agent market. I would like a more capitalist approach.

Free agents would be more patient. No rush for signing. I would also know the details of the best offer made to a player (if I have an history of good business with his agent (no release of a client)). Because there is no rush and because of the open info structure, I think it would be easier to implement an algorithm for cpu-controlled teams.

Salary structure would adjust automatically if the free agency process is slow (including for the cpu-controlled teams).

On another subject (but not totally), I don't understand why some MP leagues do not allow to make offers to the head coach of another team at stage 1. Why ?

Managing is making decisions. When you can re-sign all the players you want to re-sign, you are not really managing.

Thanks to Ben and Jim for doing this chat.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

16. Remove playing time choices from game plans. This will all be endurance-based.

Am I reading this wrong, or does this mean you pick a starter and you don't get to pick how much the backup plays? That's a pretty big step back at certain positions if that's the case (RB being the obvious one), although it didn't ever make much sense at others.

I'm wondering the same thing, we can't pick the PT for our players?? I like the freedom to choose PT, I hope you reconsider it Jim. I love rotating my guys in and out, even if they have high endurance.

[aston217]

Frankh I don't know, but I think it's probably for the convenience of the owners. Scouting the coach pool is extremely tedious for everyone, and nobody is given a chance to extend their own coaches.

Also, as stands, the entire coach hiring season is basically "Let's reward the guys who have max luxury boxes and know how to play the silly financial numbers game."

That's frustrating and has no real value. We're here for the football immersion factor, not tweaking numbers. Game actions should revolve around real, sensible 'football' actions, not the knowledge of where to arbitrarily set your ticket prices so as to maximize the profits the game engine allows.

Other leagues combine Staff Hiring 2-3 and I forget the reason why.

I'm curious about the logic behind the PT thing as well.

[Solecismic]

The logic behind PT is that it's time to discard this notion that professional athletes tire like they're wobbly pixellated boxers inside Mike Tyson's Punchout.

If you can't do your best, coaches won't play you. If you're Albert Haynesworth and you have talent but refuse to do your conditioning work, you don't stay in the league.

So endurance is a limit, essentially how many plays you can give your best. There's no sense duplicating that function by adding PT numbers. Your best guy for the situation should be playing as much as he can. I don't know if it will get into FOF7, but endurance should also factor in the percentage of packages a player will be involved in. The next-generation FOF design includes far better package coordination and usage. If it doesn't look like it's going to work out, I'll keep the PT settings. Just a matter of development time.

I like PT in theory, but I think the best overall design, given what I've studied, is to remove it. Again, the question is whether I'll get enough in for FOF7 to justify that removal.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The next-generation FOF design includes far better package coordination and usage.

This is the piece that makes this come together for me, Jim.

Currently, I like fiddling with playing time, but in essence it really is just a proxy for "get this running back onto the field a bit here and there."

If you make it easier for me to instead say "get this catch-and-run back onto the field during more of my 3rd down situations when a swing pass is a pretty viable option" then I think I could comfortably join you in waving goodbye to the rote playing time assignments.

[alrith72]

will it be likely that players still become disgruntled etc about their playing time if we don't have the facility to set it?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by alrith72

will it be likely that players still become disgruntled etc about their playing time if we don't have the facility to set it?

This is more a starter/reserve issue.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This is more a starter/reserve issue.

Related: will disgruntled be based on depth chart, or something different? The classic example right now (and please excuse me if I missed this fix from a patch) is the WLB getting upset because you came out in nickel on the first play of the game and so he didn't "start".

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Related: will disgruntled be based on depth chart, or something different? The classic example right now (and please excuse me if I missed this fix from a patch) is the WLB getting upset because you came out in nickel on the first play of the game and so he didn't "start".

Sounds like a bug to me. There is a lot of code that's more than a decade old. I wasn't anticipating even looking at disgruntled/etc. I don't want to excuse bugs, but that's never been reported to support. It would have been a patch candidate from the start.

[aston217]

Hm, that's interesting. So I agree playing time and endurance are sort of redundant mechanisms, but does this mean we'll see less unusual things like the star receiver or safety who, despite being an elite athlete in peak physical condition, has no endurance?

There are big ol' nose tackles that aren't considered 3-down linemen (although I don't know if this is an endurance issue so much as a skills one? Vince Wilfork was once not a 3-down lineman in New England, but with a reshuffling of scheme he was perfectly able to handle a much bigger load of snaps)...there are RBs (I guess) that wear down with too many carries...but for the most part, a player getting more or less playing time seems to be a measure of their overall skill and value on the field, which is a coaching decision. Right?

I don't know too much about the disgruntled thing, but it seems like players need starts, not just PT, to get undisgruntled :P I'm not too sure on that, though.

[Sef0r]

As long as you ensure Offensive Lineman have 90+ END we should be okay, they should never come off unless they get injured or play really, really badly.

[RedKingGold]

Very excited for the new version. Fixing the WR balance issue was most important to me, just eliminate the superstrat and give me multiple ways to succeed. Everything else is gravy.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

I think you should withhold from playing the new version for about 3-4 months to give us all a head-start. Can we program that in somewhere?

[T-Storm]

As a fast sim single player, my biggest wish for a new FOF would be the ability to give the AI orders on how to handle certain things.

In essence I want to play the way I perceive Jerry Jones and Al Davis are/were running their teams. I want to draft and sign some star players. I don't want to have to sign players to fill out the roster. I don't really care all that much about the backup linebacker. I might not even care about the starter all that much. As such I don't want to have to spend time and clicks signing minimum salary guys year after year. I want that to be automated.

So far it was possible with some trickery to sign minimum salary guys for 7 years apiece. Still more clicks than I would like to use, but at least possible. With the shortening of contract lengths to 5 years I'm a bit cautious about that.

The same goes for my depth chart and playing style of my team. I want to tell my coaches "play this young QB right now and make sure that this old DE gets the sack record by playing in pass rushing situations" but again, I don't care all that much for my offensive line. Not enough to click through the screens whenever an injury hits.

I pretty much would like to set up my roster, depth charts and general philosophy (perhaps some details like "go for it on 4th time: always") once and then more or less forget about it until I want to make a change to them. Not because I have to change something due to retirements/injury or hold outs.

About evolving leagues: I assume it would be too hard to code to basically have the game look at what playoff teams of the recent past played like and have that become more or less the default playing style most teams strive for.

[Sef0r]

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by Sef0r

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

I guess I tend to agree with this post as well. Of course I am strictly a SP, since MP gets too involved in areas that aren't as fun for me as well as people who know in detail the way the engine works and so can exploit it.

[alrith72]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This is more a starter/reserve issue.

Agreed, but it was able to alleviate this by adjusting the playing time.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Sef0r

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

Agreed

[TRO]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Sounds like a bug to me. There is a lot of code that's more than a decade old. I wasn't anticipating even looking at disgruntled/etc. I don't want to excuse bugs, but that's never been reported to support. It would have been a patch candidate from the start.

I do believe this is a bug.

[aston217]

Originally Posted by Sef0r

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

There is a BPR issue.

At least in my MP leagues, you look at the top passing teams in the league, and you don't see them throwing for obscene amounts of yards. I mean, every time people complain about this game being too passing dominated, I think of the real NFL and well, just look at the passing leaders in recent years. How many 5000-yard passers have we had?!

However, to get there, real NFL teams throw the ball all the time, which in FOF is going to kill efficiency.

In past versions of FOF2k7, I am guessing from previous comments that the short passing game was too dominant, so that trying to stretch the field wasn't important enough. Now, stretching the field is too good. When NFL teams pass for 5000 yards, they don't average 10 yards per attempt. In FOF, if you're getting under 8, your passing game could use some work.

I don't believe there is a problem with the dominant WR (or any other similar, non-QB position), as it gives the gameplay keys to success to the worst teams in the league, accomplishing the point of the worst-first draft order. The only problem is throwing long with this much efficacy doesn't match up well with real world conceptions of what the numbers should look like.

It's tricky, you have to keep it so that it is important to be able to take the top off a defense, but not so important that concentrating on this destroys every other strategy. What seems like a potential solution to me is making it harder to run the ball (at present, it appears to be completely easy to run the ball). If you don't focus on run blocking and runners enough, your run game will be such a disaster that you'll have to rely on a 5-6ypa, 60% short pass game, or whatever it is.

[Ben E Lou]

The developer has tested it himself and agrees with the assessment of a number of long-term very successful MP veterans.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Now, my underlying argument is that the power of the WR-WR-QB position group is, in the game's current incarnation, just too heavily weighted. Many people, including quite a number of very successful FOF veterans, seem to agree with this assessment (if not necessarily any particular proposed solution).

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Without making a statement about my future plans, I have spent a lot of time in the last few months testing and straining the game engine (with the source code, I have the ability to create a test environment that even Ben would envy).

I'm almost embarrassed to admit the level of truth of the statement above. I'm deciding whether I should put out a patch this fall (not in the immediate future) just to address it. Because it would take a month or so of significant work just in itself. Please don't take anything in this response as a promise or even an indicator of anything.

[perez24]

Looking forward to the new game.

I have a question about preseason games. IRL teams limit projected starters to a certain number of plays based on the game. Is there any thought about including a feature where you can set the numbers of plays for starters, particularly in the preseason, in the new version?

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The developer has tested it himself and agrees with the assessment of a number of long-term very successful MP veterans.

So is it the BPR, or is it just the WR position in general?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

So is it the BPR, or is it just the WR position in general?

Personally, I'd say 1 and 1a, in that order. But if Jim has a view to share, I'd be interested, of course.

[QuikSand]

Here's an observation that seems ripe since Jim is engaging here at least somewhat.

Many serious MP leagues have witnessed an inversion of the value differential between current and future draft picks. In real life, the rule of thumb is that a future pick is downgraded (by one round?) to equate it to a current pick. In MP FOF, serious leagues are now routinely flooded by owners (especially savvy ones) who are willing to pay a premium to get out of the current draft and into a future one, even at no perceived gain in the potential slot (e.g. my 3rd and 4th this year for your 3rd next year).

I suspect there are multiple things at work... but since you (Jim) strive for realism and comparability to the NFL, I'd think this as a symptom would be troublesome to you.

I will also confess that I suspect your system of draft picks auto-signing beyond our control will actually exacerbate this problem. Without a number of sizable offsetting changes, I could definitely see me as an owner making sacrifices to deal away later round draft picks -- when my roster is already full and that 6th round pick isn't likely to make the team anyway, the last thing I want to do is be compelled to offer him a multi year contract with a bonus that I just have to eat when I inevitably cut him. Then, I start offering "my future 4th rounder free if you take my 5th-6th-7th off my hands" or other such nonsense - further deviating from any semblance of reality.

There's a context observation for you, that I think it worth keeping in mind as you tinker with the draft system, and so forth.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

So is it the BPR, or is it just the WR position in general?

It's impossible for someone without access to the source code to tease that out with 100% certainty. What we do know on this side of the curtain is that BPR is the most important attribute for WRs by a meaningful margin, and WR is the most important position on the field by a meaningful margin. I *suspect* that the issue is in the play resolution code more than in the position itself, but that's impossible for us to know.

[QuikSand]

Some quick unsolicited thoughts to make the draft, especially the later rounds, more worthwhile:

-DEFINITELY drop the salary differential between late round draft picks and undrafted free agents... right now that's a killer in cap-crunched leagues where the money is a real factor

-magnify the volatility effect... more random booms (and busts) across rookie players

-more narrow changes to player skills in rookie training camp (instead of just an overall boom or bust, have a report that "WR Schmoe has really honed his special teams skills in camp, and is angling to make the roster this way" or the like

-maybe make a diminishing returns occur in the free agent market...a marginal minsal free agent TE should be less interested in joining my roster if I already have 4 TE signed... making it a bit tougher for me to just load up everywhere with trivial downside

-perhaps rookies who are drafted are able to lose a lot more of their rust than even after-draft rookie free agents... an any event, find some way to encourage me to draft these roster fillers rather than just splash around with what's left over

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Here's an observation that seems ripe since Jim is engaging here at least somewhat.

Many serious MP leagues have witnessed an inversion of the value differential between current and future draft picks. In real life, the rule of thumb is that a future pick is downgraded (by one round?) to equate it to a current pick. In MP FOF, serious leagues are now routinely flooded by owners (especially savvy ones) who are willing to pay a premium to get out of the current draft and into a future one, even at no perceived gain in the potential slot (e.g. my 3rd and 4th this year for your 3rd next year).

I suspect there are multiple things at work... but since you (Jim) strive for realism and comparability to the NFL, I'd think this as a symptom would be troublesome to you.

I will also confess that I suspect your system of draft picks auto-signing beyond our control will actually exacerbate this problem. Without a number of sizable offsetting changes, I could definitely see me as an owner making sacrifices to deal away later round draft picks -- when my roster is already full and that 6th round pick isn't likely to make the team anyway, the last thing I want to do is be compelled to offer him a multi year contract with a bonus that I just have to eat when I inevitably cut him. Then, I start offering "my future 4th rounder free if you take my 5th-6th-7th off my hands" or other such nonsense - further deviating from any semblance of reality.

There's a context observation for you, that I think it worth keeping in mind as you tinker with the draft system, and so forth.

I think there's another layer at work here as well: 3-year minsal contracts. No player should ever, ever, ever sign one of these. You and I frequently have teams with 20 to 30 guys on 3-year minsal deals, though. A big reason that we have no room to sign a 5th round pick is that we've got decent vets making less money all over the place. (In case people don't realize it, 5th and 6th round picks cost more than veteran minsal; 7th round picks usually cost about the same.) If we had a tougher financial system and draft picks that cost less than vets, we'd be much happier to sign them.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think there's another layer at work here as well: 3-year minsal contracts. No player should ever, ever, ever sign one of these. You and I frequently have teams with 20 to 30 guys on 3-year minsal deals, though. A big reason that we have no room to sign a 5th round pick is that we've got decent vets making less money all over the place. (In case people don't realize it, 5th and 6th round picks cost more than veteran minsal; 7th round picks usually cost about the same.) If we had a tougher financial system and draft picks that cost less than vets, we'd be much happier to sign them.

Preach.

[scorp]

IMO the WR position issue is somehow in how a play resolves a WR has an significant advanantge over a CB or S covering him. A good ( 50s WR with appropriate bars ) will as a general rule will abuse a CB significantly better than WR even with double team help.
There isn't really such a thing as a shut down CB.

The best shutdown of a WR is a high read defense QB and doubling that WR all the time so the QB decides not tho throw the ball to him. that's a factor of the offense(QB) not really the talent on the defense.

[aston217]

I think that's speculative (about the read defense bar). I don't really buy into the idea that read defense can actually be a two-faced bar; the more, the better.

There are always so many factors involved that I find it hard to read into the numbers I see, but, my hypothesis is that the RD bar is fundamentally good. The more, the better. The more RD a QB has, the more he is able to deal with (or indeed take advantage of) double coverages.

I think the edge should belong to the receiver, even the worse one -- the general rule of football is that offense has the advantage over defense. It is easier to find openings that to shut down all possibilities consistently. Again, I think it's simply that real NFL teams do not throw long or deep with anywhere near the frequency and efficiency that you can get out of a good FOF setup. That's what pushes the YPA numbers way up in FOF compared to even the best NFL pass attacks.

(Heh, this is also quite speculative :P)

[scorp]

I think the read defense bar is fine, I'm just saying doubling a stud WR vs a team with a high RD QB is better than the actually defenders ability in stopping the WR from eating them up, which he will do when the ball is thrown to him, regardless of how good the CB covering him is.

[aston217]

Right, I guess what I'm saying is I THINK that if you're facing a team with one stud WR, you better hope that QB, all other things being equal, has a low RD bar. In that scenario, I'd say you're better off doubling if the QB has low RD than if he has high RD.

That's how I think it should work, but it's also how I think it does.

Somewhat going on a tangent, but I do think overall, double coverage considerations don't begin to compare with talent. Not just on the DB end, but often overlooked, talent in your pass rush. If you can't get hurries (automatic incompletions) on the QB, you are opening yourself up to high volume damage.

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think there's another layer at work here as well: 3-year minsal contracts. No player should ever, ever, ever sign one of these. You and I frequently have teams with 20 to 30 guys on 3-year minsal deals, though. A big reason that we have no room to sign a 5th round pick is that we've got decent vets making less money all over the place. (In case people don't realize it, 5th and 6th round picks cost more than veteran minsal; 7th round picks usually cost about the same.) If we had a tougher financial system and draft picks that cost less than vets, we'd be much happier to sign them.

Speaking of salary systems, I hope that the next version has a smarter AI when managing the salary cap. That kills a lot of the fun for me. Every season at least 1 or 2 teams dump their entire roster.