Alright Boyz, Here We Go!!! (Front Office Football 8 Thoughts)

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Route Running matters a lot for receivers getting targets.

I don't think that is important anymore. Now RR is for how well the WR runs the route. If he is the hot route and is not in double coverage, he should get the target. At least is what the help file says

RR was important in FOF7 To get targets as you said.

[wustin]

Messing around with the defensive playbook and apparently the OLBs don't rush at all if you pick defenses with No Blitz (I also have the blitz choice set to always). It'll always be the those three linemen rushing.

[wustin]

dola

yeah you have to make sure you have Blitz 1 on all of your plays which is strange

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by wustin

dola

yeah you have to make sure you have Blitz 1 on all of your plays which is strange

The WLB doesn't blitz on pass down automatically now.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Sharkn20

I don't think that is important anymore. Now RR is for how well the WR runs the route. If he is the hot route and is not in double coverage, he should get the target. At least is what the help file says

RR was important in FOF7 To get targets as you said.

I honestly suspect this is pretty much unchanged. Now we see more of the underpinnings of who the primary receiver is on a given play, but overall I think this works basically the same way that it used to.

There's a primary receiver. Game rolls dice involving the receiver's "route running" skill (and likely something from on or more defenders) to determine if the receiver i open enough to be targeted. If that passes, the play progresses to more dice rolls (pass is on target, pass is defensed) to determine the play outcome. But if that first check fails, the QB then moves on to a secondary target, where presumably a similar cycle happens.

Route running remains a threshold figure for how many targets your receiver is actually going to see (as an add-on function the gameplan you install), I remain pretty convinced.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Route running remains a threshold figure for how many targets your receiver is actually going to see (as an add-on function the gameplan you install), I remain pretty convinced.

I would agree.

If you have a WR with high RR but also low Avoid Drops (for example)...you're going to want to bury him to an outlet receiver...but even still, I'd bet RR takes precedence in the outlet tree of the logic and if your primary and secondary receivers have low RR...welp, there he is again, grabbing a good chunk of the targets! So be careful what kind of WR with high RR you get. Same as FOF7.

[garion333]

Originally Posted by jaboo

If a DE is rated 0 for all 3 pass defenses, what does that mean? I assume the rating is for when they drop back in zone blitzes. I have several DE's whose best fit says 3-4 WLB, but they're both rated 0 for pass defenses. If I play them at will linebacker will they have no pass coverage skills?

The answer to your question is that he will likely be a liability as a coverage linebacker, however, as a WLB with a ton of pass rushing ability I'm sure the gameplan will have him blitzing all the time.

A zero doesn't mean he has no skill in that category, just that he has terrible skills in that category. We see 0-100, but the true ratings are hidden behind the scenes.

Also, if an otherwise very good power rb is rated below 10 for 3rd down running, does anyone know what that means? Is he really going to be that bad on 3rd downs when his inside power is over 80?

You would ideally want someone with both. Will he be really bad on 3rd downs? Maybe not, but he won't be as good as someone with a high 3rd down bar.

Think of it this way, FOF is a game of dice rolls. Let's setup a scenario. On 2nd and 1 you run it up the gut to get that "easy" 1st down. You get a dice roll for Power Inside + Hole Rec. Let's say you get stuffed and held to 0 yards. Bummer, but you move on.

Now, on 3rd and 1 you run it up the gut and again get dice rolls for Power Inside + (maybe) Hole Rec. Let's say those fail and you get stuffed and held to 0 yards. You will then get another dice roll for 3rd Down Running, which is what the game uses to determine how good a player is at getting extra yardage on a 3rd Down run. If you have a 0 in that you are not likely to get the extra yard or two you need, you will be entirely reliant upon your other skills.

tldr Your other skills can makeup for a deficiency, but I'd rather have 3rd Down Running on a back who is trying to pick up the short yardage 1st down.

Keep in mind in the above scenario I don't actually know how Jim has coded stuff, but it helps to think about the dice rolls as the entire game is decided by them. It's entirely possible 3rd Down Running is a percentage de/buff and not a separate dice roll, but I don't truly know.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I honestly suspect this is pretty much unchanged. Now we see more of the underpinnings of who the primary receiver is on a given play, but overall I think this works basically the same way that it used to.

There's a primary receiver. Game rolls dice involving the receiver's "route running" skill (and likely something from on or more defenders) to determine if the receiver i open enough to be targeted. If that passes, the play progresses to more dice rolls (pass is on target, pass is defensed) to determine the play outcome. But if that first check fails, the QB then moves on to a secondary target, where presumably a similar cycle happens.

Route running remains a threshold figure for how many targets your receiver is actually going to see (as an add-on function the gameplan you install), I remain pretty convinced.

Did you have evidence by numbers?

I would say the target goes to him and then he has disadvantage when the dice rolls start in deciding if he is catching that ball or not. A good route runner will get open. A bad route runner will have less catches and more interceptions thrown his way. But as it is stated I do understand is how succesful is the player running that route.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by jaboo

If a DE is rated 0 for all 3 pass defenses, what does that mean? I assume the rating is for when they drop back in zone blitzes. I have several DE's whose best fit says 3-4 WLB, but they're both rated 0 for pass defenses. If I play them at will linebacker will they have no pass coverage skills? Also, if an otherwise very good power rb is rated below 10 for 3rd down running, does anyone know what that means? Is he really going to be that bad on 3rd downs when his inside power is over 80?

I believe from the help there are no zone blitzes. It tells me not to think about changing him to a linebacker. I think the best fit might be more based on height/weight.

[korme]

Trying to make a basically no-run, almost 100% pass offense. Very gimmicky. I just want to see what numbers I can create. Hit 5800 passing yards just recently, but a 33-23 TD/INT ratio with a 41 QB and above-average WR-WR-TE combo. Fun.

[EagleFan]

A couple oddities:

The Colts released a safety that was 2nd in the league in interceptions with 7 (3 returned for touchdowns) before the last week of the season. The Colts were in a playoff race but lost the final week and missed the playoffs.

In the same season the Bengals had their kicker punt 55 times even though their punter was healthy but only played in 7 games. Their punter averaged 46.2 yards per punt. Their kicker averaged 32.1.

[AlexB]

More I've played this game, the more I think it's become over-complicated with no added benefit tbh.

Depth charts are a chore (and I'm not sure they're not broken), game planning is a chore, getting around the game is much worse than before, I just don't find it fun.

However, I do still like FOF7, and will continue to play that on/off, and don't begrudge buying the game as the money spent on previous iterations of FOF have more than justified another £20 investment.

[EagleFan]

Another oddity:

The 2023 Legend of the Game:

QB Chase Daniels, PHI - in 7 years as a backup he played a grand total of 17 games with 1 start (0-1)

Legend must mean something different.

This is with the following retirees that year:
WR Dez Bryant - 514 receptions for 5878 yards with 47 TD
WR Travis Benjamin - 424 receptions for 5464 yards with 33 TD
WR DeAndre Hopkins - 419 receptions for 5597 yards with 35 TD
LB Von Miller - 447 tackles, 22.5 sacks
S Earl Thomas - 493 tackles, 16 INT

[Titletown]

Originally Posted by AlexB

More I've played this game, the more I think it's become over-complicated with no added benefit tbh.

Depth charts are a chore (and I'm not sure they're not broken), game planning is a chore, getting around the game is much worse than before, I just don't find it fun.

However, I do still like FOF7, and will continue to play that on/off, and don't begrudge buying the game as the money spent on previous iterations of FOF have more than justified another £20 investment.

How much user interaction is there with the developer before he adds or refines different features in the game? I'm new, that's why I'm asking.

[chinaski]

I hate having to put in the ftp info twice for MP leagues. Once on creation, and then once again on first import.

[AlexB]

Titletown - A reasonable amount, there have been a few discussions in developer's corner. No issue at all with that tbh, and the support is really second to none.

My last post was made immediately after the realisation I didn't like the new modules in the game, and so was just negative, with no constructive feedback. So I'll try to elaborate.

I didn't like gameplanning before, and to be fair FOF8 is more intuitive, even if it is very tedious, so that's net equal with FOF7 for me. I won't use it in either game.

So my two main problems are the way of accessing information and depth charts.

Getting to the screens you want is IMO much more difficult than previously: I've posted before about how I think the menu is cumbersome, and if you want to hide results, having multiple windows open all the time isn't possible as you get spoilers. It is very useful to have multiple windows open between games, and comparing players, etc, but having to go through multiple sub-menus to see PotW awards, stats, transactions, football guru, personnel, scout reports, etc is not intuitive or easy.

However, the personnel screens are what did me in the end. Got an injury to a WR who was a FL/SE in some formations, and a slot in others, pulled up the offensive personnel screen, started to work out who would be best moved into which position for the first personnel group for that one week, and thought 'I'm gonna have to do this nine more times on this screen, and then redo it all over next week... You know what, I really can't be bothered'

I've thought about it, and to me it would be easier if there was a simple list of each of the positions: FL, SE, slot, TE1, TE2, RB, LT, LG, C, etc and for each one we specified our top three players. This would apply to all formations, but you specified a 3rd down back and a short yardage back, and blocking TE needs to be a separate position too for short yardage situations.

If a player is injured and out, there would no need to reset the list if you didn't want to, the game would just move to the next player on the depth chart. If injured but active, you might want to move them up/down according to the injury/back up ability. But even this would mean one or two changes rather than multiple changes for multiple formations, and would give you just as much control as the current system.

As there's no playing time specification any more (and this is why I think the personnel usage might be broken) the game should sub in players when starters begin to feel tired, just like FOF7 did. And in pre-season this should happen a lot. Just before giving up, I had a pre-season game where Jay Ajayi ran the ball 27 times, there were two QB scrambles and two end arounds. No backup RB had a carry. This is either a bug that needs to be fixed, or we need to be able to dictate percentage usage again.

Similarly on defense, I think two lists for each position would work: run/pass, you list starter and back-up for each position against both the run and the pass. The game then puts in the relvant people for goalline, base, nickel and dime/prevent according to the situation/your teams ability.

While I dislike the offensive personnel screen and way it seems to work, I hate the defensive one, in that you can never vary the defensive formation against certain offensive personnel groups. E.g. you will never play nickel for example against a 212 formation, even if you have the best front seven in the league but absolute scrubs for DBs, the game will not (as I understand it) allow a gameplan/rex to use nickel as the base package against 212 to play an extra DB and hope that the front six as it would become can be stiff enough against the run.

These personnel screens and fixed defensive packages seem to me to be a huge backwards step from FOF7, as does the system of not subbing in players (assuming that it is currently working as intended) and the new menus.

When I fire up FOF7 again, I will miss being have to have two FA cards up at the same time to compare, and I will miss the extra sortability of the stats, but tbh that's all I will miss.

Hopefully that has clarified my previous post, and given some more constructive feedback on my reasoning. Obviously these are my opinions and mine only, and I think I am almost certainly in a very small minority.

[Titletown]

OK. Thanks. I was curious to know if the changes had popular support.

[chinaski]

I closed the allocation draft screen and have no idea how to open it again.... anyone know?

[TAFIV]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I hate having to put in the ftp info twice for MP leagues. Once on creation, and then once again on first import.

i only had to do it on creation, the import just had to put in a password that ben sent us via both pm and email, btw chinaski you're on the clock

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by TAFIV

btw chinaski you're on the clock

Thanks, working on it now.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I closed the allocation draft screen and have no idea how to open it again.... anyone know?

Had to close the game and reopen. Then the Allocation Draft button was available.

[TAFIV]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Had to close the game and reopen. Then the Allocation Draft button was available.

you don't draft in the game that's just for looking at players, drafting being done here CCFL Front Office Football Conscriptor version 2.6.1

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by TAFIV

you don't draft in the game that's just for looking at players, drafting being done here CCFL Front Office Football Conscriptor version 2.6.1

I know, im playing SP to figure out the new game.

[Ned Doolittle]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Titletown - A reasonable amount, there have been a few discussions in developer's corner. No issue at all with that tbh, and the support is really second to none.

My last post was made immediately after the realisation I didn't like the new modules in the game, and so was just negative, with no constructive feedback. So I'll try to elaborate.

I didn't like gameplanning before, and to be fair FOF8 is more intuitive, even if it is very tedious, so that's net equal with FOF7 for me. I won't use it in either game.

So my two main problems are the way of accessing information and depth charts.

Getting to the screens you want is IMO much more difficult than previously: I've posted before about how I think the menu is cumbersome, and if you want to hide results, having multiple windows open all the time isn't possible as you get spoilers. It is very useful to have multiple windows open between games, and comparing players, etc, but having to go through multiple sub-menus to see PotW awards, stats, transactions, football guru, personnel, scout reports, etc is not intuitive or easy.

However, the personnel screens are what did me in the end. Got an injury to a WR who was a FL/SE in some formations, and a slot in others, pulled up the offensive personnel screen, started to work out who would be best moved into which position for the first personnel group for that one week, and thought 'I'm gonna have to do this nine more times on this screen, and then redo it all over next week... You know what, I really can't be bothered'

I've thought about it, and to me it would be easier if there was a simple list of each of the positions: FL, SE, slot, TE1, TE2, RB, LT, LG, C, etc and for each one we specified our top three players. This would apply to all formations, but you specified a 3rd down back and a short yardage back, and blocking TE needs to be a separate position too for short yardage situations.

If a player is injured and out, there would no need to reset the list if you didn't want to, the game would just move to the next player on the depth chart. If injured but active, you might want to move them up/down according to the injury/back up ability. But even this would mean one or two changes rather than multiple changes for multiple formations, and would give you just as much control as the current system.

As there's no playing time specification any more (and this is why I think the personnel usage might be broken) the game should sub in players when starters begin to feel tired, just like FOF7 did. And in pre-season this should happen a lot. Just before giving up, I had a pre-season game where Jay Ajayi ran the ball 27 times, there were two QB scrambles and two end arounds. No backup RB had a carry. This is either a bug that needs to be fixed, or we need to be able to dictate percentage usage again.

Similarly on defense, I think two lists for each position would work: run/pass, you list starter and back-up for each position against both the run and the pass. The game then puts in the relvant people for goalline, base, nickel and dime/prevent according to the situation/your teams ability.

While I dislike the offensive personnel screen and way it seems to work, I hate the defensive one, in that you can never vary the defensive formation against certain offensive personnel groups. E.g. you will never play nickel for example against a 212 formation, even if you have the best front seven in the league but absolute scrubs for DBs, the game will not (as I understand it) allow a gameplan/rex to use nickel as the base package against 212 to play an extra DB and hope that the front six as it would become can be stiff enough against the run.

These personnel screens and fixed defensive packages seem to me to be a huge backwards step from FOF7, as does the system of not subbing in players (assuming that it is currently working as intended) and the new menus.

When I fire up FOF7 again, I will miss being have to have two FA cards up at the same time to compare, and I will miss the extra sortability of the stats, but tbh that's all I will miss.

Hopefully that has clarified my previous post, and given some more constructive feedback on my reasoning. Obviously these are my opinions and mine only, and I think I am almost certainly in a very small minority.

When I have a Player go down (i.e. out for the game) I pretty much just hit "recommend" and leave it at that. It's just too much work to fix depth charts every time a guy is out. I want the game to be fun, not tedious.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Ned Doolittle

When I have a Player go down (i.e. out for the game) I pretty much just hit "recommend" and leave it at that. It's just too much work to fix depth charts every time a guy is out. I want the game to be fun, not tedious.

As I don't gameplan, if I did this then it becomes me facilitating a computer program rather than playing a game - I'm basically only drafting and picking up FAs.

Another thing I've thought that might help make resetting offensive personnel less arduous if the current system must remain (although I still prefer my previous suggestion tbh) would be to have an option to 'lock all OL', 'lock all RB', etc. Hitting reccommend is simple, but if you want to give certain players playing time to develop, that will also reorder all positions, not just the changes in the position you are interested in changing.

At the minute to lock everything other than WR, to continue my earlier example, takes 100 clicks (estimated - game not open atm), and that's just not going to happen.

If you had a 'lock all positions' button, and then unchecked 'lock all WR', the same job could be done in two clicks. 'Recommend' would then allow you to focus just on the area concerned, you can cancel and exit to avoid changes if need be (an 'undo' button would be even better) and then go back in to make the changes you want based on the recommendations.

The UI is really unfriendly if you want to make this type of change atm.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Titletown - A reasonable amount, there have been a few discussions in developer's corner. No issue at all with that tbh, and the support is really second to none.

My last post was made immediately after the realisation I didn't like the new modules in the game, and so was just negative, with no constructive feedback. So I'll try to elaborate.

I didn't like gameplanning before, and to be fair FOF8 is more intuitive, even if it is very tedious, so that's net equal with FOF7 for me. I won't use it in either game.

So my two main problems are the way of accessing information and depth charts.

Getting to the screens you want is IMO much more difficult than previously: I've posted before about how I think the menu is cumbersome, and if you want to hide results, having multiple windows open all the time isn't possible as you get spoilers. It is very useful to have multiple windows open between games, and comparing players, etc, but having to go through multiple sub-menus to see PotW awards, stats, transactions, football guru, personnel, scout reports, etc is not intuitive or easy.

However, the personnel screens are what did me in the end. Got an injury to a WR who was a FL/SE in some formations, and a slot in others, pulled up the offensive personnel screen, started to work out who would be best moved into which position for the first personnel group for that one week, and thought 'I'm gonna have to do this nine more times on this screen, and then redo it all over next week... You know what, I really can't be bothered'

I've thought about it, and to me it would be easier if there was a simple list of each of the positions: FL, SE, slot, TE1, TE2, RB, LT, LG, C, etc and for each one we specified our top three players. This would apply to all formations, but you specified a 3rd down back and a short yardage back, and blocking TE needs to be a separate position too for short yardage situations.

If a player is injured and out, there would no need to reset the list if you didn't want to, the game would just move to the next player on the depth chart. If injured but active, you might want to move them up/down according to the injury/back up ability. But even this would mean one or two changes rather than multiple changes for multiple formations, and would give you just as much control as the current system.

As there's no playing time specification any more (and this is why I think the personnel usage might be broken) the game should sub in players when starters begin to feel tired, just like FOF7 did. And in pre-season this should happen a lot. Just before giving up, I had a pre-season game where Jay Ajayi ran the ball 27 times, there were two QB scrambles and two end arounds. No backup RB had a carry. This is either a bug that needs to be fixed, or we need to be able to dictate percentage usage again.

Similarly on defense, I think two lists for each position would work: run/pass, you list starter and back-up for each position against both the run and the pass. The game then puts in the relvant people for goalline, base, nickel and dime/prevent according to the situation/your teams ability.

While I dislike the offensive personnel screen and way it seems to work, I hate the defensive one, in that you can never vary the defensive formation against certain offensive personnel groups. E.g. you will never play nickel for example against a 212 formation, even if you have the best front seven in the league but absolute scrubs for DBs, the game will not (as I understand it) allow a gameplan/rex to use nickel as the base package against 212 to play an extra DB and hope that the front six as it would become can be stiff enough against the run.

These personnel screens and fixed defensive packages seem to me to be a huge backwards step from FOF7, as does the system of not subbing in players (assuming that it is currently working as intended) and the new menus.

When I fire up FOF7 again, I will miss being have to have two FA cards up at the same time to compare, and I will miss the extra sortability of the stats, but tbh that's all I will miss.

Hopefully that has clarified my previous post, and given some more constructive feedback on my reasoning. Obviously these are my opinions and mine only, and I think I am almost certainly in a very small minority.

Has Jim said anything, anywhere about these changes?
Maybe we understand these new modules better if Jim explained to us what his philosophy, his thinking was here?

[garion333]

Oddly enough, I'm actually finding myself feeling much like AlexB. In sp, I only ever draft and handle free agency. I use sp to keep fresh on drafting, really, since the AI is simply too easy for me to beat.

That said, I'm not finding myself settling into the UI. The "Put Yourself in the Front Office" screen isn't something I'm liking at all. Honestly I think it would be more useful on a tablet or touchscreen than using a mouse. It's certainly large enough to be used that way.

I feel like I can adjust to that screen though, even if I probably will never click on certain features anymore since they're buried (ie. Green Page, Sage, Sports Radio, etc.). Those screens held little value of me though were cool to have. Now that I have to navigate the "Put Yourself" screen to find them I pretty much forget they exist.

My absolute least favorite part is that I can't access most of the Gameday - Planning screens outside of the season. This is truly baffling to me. I want to see where I'm putting guys in at so I know where I need to target new players for. Do I have enough coverage LBs for Nickel and Dime? Do I need another Pass Rushing DT/DE? Do I have enough TE's for Goal Line? These are all questions running through my head that I used to have direct access to, visually. Now I can't visual those in the offseason except through the Roster and Position Distribution screens. Really seems like we're arbitrarily locked out of that view for no reason. Perhaps there's a technical one.

I can't help feeling like I'm whining. As I play the game I feel like I should be adjusting, but the more I play the less enthused I am. I'm seriously thinking of dropping out of mp when leagues convert. Maybe it's me, I don't know, but I can't shake the negative feelings I'm having.

[AlexB]

Been thinking about it today, and I've come to believe the game is torn between two identities, and doesn't really fit either perfectly (or it fits the one side that doesn't appeal to me perfectly, but not the one that does!)

From Football Frontier Blog:

The new game features custom offensive playbooks, new player participation charts, a more realistic game planning system modeled after how professional coaches prepare for games, enhanced multi-player support and a more efficient, cleaner user interface.

Front Office Football is designed to represent a snapshot of professional football as it exists under the current salary cap system. You play the role of the general manager of a team and try to maximize team performance and your franchise’s finances.

All of the new features in the first paragraph have nothing to do with being a general manager, which is what the second paragraph states is the aim. There's a more confused identity than before.

And this was part of an answer Jim gave to a suggestion I made on gameplanning on the Steam forum

...Something like this was considered for FOF8, but when I sketched it out I thought it got us right back to why I changed everything around in the first place - it's just not what NFL coaches do...

That last phrase, along with the new features, is what the new game is about. There has always been a bit of a crossover, but the new game is more focussed on the coaching, not the GM role. The FOF name is now more of a misnomer than it was before.

And I think that is my problem: I prefer the GM stuff, with a bit of control over player usage and depth charts than would be the case IRL, but not the gameplanning/coach role. The GM stuff has actually gotten a bit dumbed down over time - staff draft, no inseason renegotiations (although to be fair I never did that anyway for the same reasons Jim took them out - I tried to play to the same calendar as the AI so as not to get an unfair advantage), no development of contracts/salary cap management, etc.

And unfortunately the little bit of control I did enjoy on the playing side is not as effective as it was in FOF7

So it's a philosophical difference that really means the new game is not meant for me, and unfortunately I've only now realised this. However, as said above, based on the fact that some of the patches for FOF in the past felt like new games, I don't regret buying (hell, I even bought Up & Down The River ) I just regret not realising what I was buying.

[Hammer]

I am finding the gameplaning side of the game very odd. Not really feeling it. Incredibly complex on one side, yet in others control is taken away.

For me at this point it looks like I cut back to 1 league and play the game properly or hit Rex a lot. I will quickly become disengaged from leagues by hitting Rex. Not ideal.

[Firefly]

I haven't had a chance to play THAT much (15 hours have taken me to the end of Week 2 of season 1 - building my preseason playbook and especially a defensive gameplan took ages). It's a very ambitious version and I love the real football detail in the help file and the game.

My main complaints at this point:

• You get 78 or so defensive plays... but you need at least one per situation, leaving you with one play for most situations. It's almost like, instead of setting a run/pass%, you're stuck with fixed strength/weaknesses for the duration. That's incredibly flexible and incredibly rigid at the same time.
• Compounding the last point, 3rd and long includes anything from 3rd and 6, maybe less, to 3rd and forever. How do you deal with this. I guess this is where you use your ability to have two defenses, not 1st and 10.
• Can't use a kickoff specialist. Even if you have him and make him active, the game won't use him. No personnel screens for kickers.
• Speaking of which, the personnel screens are a turn off not of themselves, but because of endurance issues they have to be adjusted every game. If there's an issue with endurance the game should automatically use the backup more instead of having the user remove a player from some formations only to reinsert him again the following week. Too much work here. Again it seems like a case of too much flexibility along with too much rigidity.

Will FOF8 be more fun in SP than in MP? I don't know, I'm having visions of GMs running the unexpected play from the unusual formation to exploit the one defense per situation thing. And in MP you'll simply have to do all the work every week.

[QuikSand]

Anyone have a clear sense how "starts" are being assigned? I just noticed that for my last SP season, a WR I used pretty sparingly (23 plays, it appears) was credited with all 16 starts, while my workhorse TE (160 targets) got zero. Before I declare/report it as a bug, posting here to see if anyone else has sorted this out.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Anyone have a clear sense how "starts" are being assigned? I just noticed that for my last SP season, a WR I used pretty sparingly (23 plays, it appears) was credited with all 16 starts, while my workhorse TE (160 targets) got zero. Before I declare/report it as a bug, posting here to see if anyone else has sorted this out.

The NFL counts whoever was on the field for the first play as the starter. What formation is your first take possession.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm...I'll have to look at that. I thought I had Rex re-doing my gameplan every week, but if not, maybe I just had some oddball play/formation as the first scripted play for every game.

I'm aware that's how starts are supposed to work...just hadn't thought through how this could be accurate.

[Ben E Lou]

And if you are using the same game plan each week, don't forget that the sections are scripts, not just random pulls. If the first play in every game is from 104 or 005 and you rarely/never use that package/player again, there ya go.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Yeah, that.

[QuikSand]

FYI, that's the confirmed cause. I had indeed taken control of my gameplan, and the first play listed on 1st/10 to start a drive was a 104 formation, meaning the TE is off the field and the hobo WR was (I guess).

[yabanci]

The ratings order for defensive front players is bad.

It should be changed to:

run defense
pass rush technique
pass rush strength
m2m
zone
b&r
etc

rather than:

run defense
pass rush technique
m2m
zone
b&r
pass rush strength
etc

It's illogical not to have ratings of the same type grouped together as they always had been for defensive linemen and are for every other position. Wish he would change it in a patch.

[yabanci]

Another thing that's very odd is that EVERY defensive end has zero pass defense ability, even if his ideal fit would be at OLB, but EVERY defensive tackle has at least some pass defense ability.

For example, in my game a defensive end like Khalil Mack at 250 lbs whose ideal front fit is a 3-4 WLB is zeroed out in every pass defense rating, but a 350 lb nose tackle like Dontari Poe is actually quite decent in pass coverage.

I wonder if it's a "bug" or whatever you want to call it. If anything, either all defensive linemen should be zeroed out in pass coverage or it should be the other way around (i.e., defensive ends might show some pass coverage ratings but not defensive tackles).

[QuikSand]

Whether that DE/DT coverage thing is a design decision or bug, it ought to be remedied.

[QuikSand]

Ok, next mystery. I'm (unwisely) trying to fiddle with my defensive gameplan. I see that I get a batch of 12 formations to use, up to three per situation. I do not see the pretty common 212 offensive formation anywhere on that menu, so I cannot select what defense I want to use when we face that.

Didn't see anything on this in the help file. I feel like I must be missing something obvious. Is 212 some sort of default that I don't need to enter anything for, perhaps?

[Abe Sargent]

I agree that this game continuously moves in a coach direction when I want fleshed out GM options. I have always asked for more GM options when negotiating contracts. We've actually lost an option. But I want performance bonuses, voidable years, clauses that prevent a trade unless the player agrees, and more. For example, one of the tools modern day Gms use to deal with the future cap is to move money to this year with a bonus for being on the contract at a certain point, rather than the signing bonus or salary. Have 20 mill in cap space this year but you you'll be tight in a couple fo years? You can move future salary from a star player to this year, in guaranteed roster bonus, which does not count as a signing bonus ammelortized over the course of a player;s career.

And these additional options are easy to do.


In real life, an RFA is given a certain offer that matches their status, Other team can make an offer to that RFA and then give the team the option to match or get the draft compensation. That's not how the RFA system works here at all. In real life, can sign a franchise tagged player from another team in real life for two firsts or a right to accept the negotiated offer. Where is that option here?

Where is my transition tag?

Where is my practice squad? In real life, I can have a small practice squad of talent that is not part of the cap, other teams can sign from, and can be used to groom and grow talent right alongside of the rest of my team during the year, even though they can;t play in games. Getting a few UFas in the practice squad to see what they will do over a season of practice with the real folks and how they might grow is something I'd really value.

Where are my waiver claims for players that are cut?

The GM options for this game that resemble real life are often pretty limited. And unfortunately for a GM enthusiast for me, who never touches the coach side of the house, nor do I ever want too, that has never been the direction Jim has ever wanted to take his game. Would I like to see one or two new GM features each gam release to move us closer to reality? Absolutely. But that's not what the brand is.

And the game is fine. It works. There are other games that better represent that side of things out their for their sports, and I just have to hope that someday, either Jim will move FOF towards the GM side of the house for players like me that want that, or another game will come along that does that better than FOF does and I'll be a super happy Abe!

And you all are right, we've lost a few, minor, tools in the GM toolhouse. FOF8 is not the best FOF ever. But it's still FOF and I likes it.

[Jstraub]

GMs in real life also let free agents walk because they can get compensatory draft picks; sometimes as high as a 3rd rounder.

No comp. draft picks in FOF8

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I agree that this game continuously moves in a coach direction when I want fleshed out GM options. I have always asked for more GM options when negotiating contracts. We've actually lost an option. But I want performance bonuses, voidable years, clauses that prevent a trade unless the player agrees, and more. For example, one of the tools modern day Gms use to deal with the future cap is to move money to this year with a bonus for being on the contract at a certain point, rather than the signing bonus or salary. Have 20 mill in cap space this year but you you'll be tight in a couple fo years? You can move future salary from a star player to this year, in guaranteed roster bonus, which does not count as a signing bonus ammelortized over the course of a player;s career.

And these additional options are easy to do.

I agree that all these would be good things; I also am definitely a 'GM player'. I'm not as certain they would be easy to do. Relatively speaking, to implement? Of course. But there are already ample demonstrations of the AI not being able to compete with the current tools. More GM options would almost certainly exacerbate that. I've long-assumed(with some evidence based on conversations with developers of other games and my own middling programming knowledge) that this is one big reason why cap management, contracts, etc. tend to be dumbed-down in these kinds of games. The more things that are available which allow a human to abuse the AI, the easier the game becomes.

Given the choice, I would take the 'simplistic' FOF with better AI over a more complicated system with the AI we presently have. Of course the best of both worlds would be to have both, and I'm well aware that good AI is extremely hard. I don't mean this as a shot at the developer here.

[wustin]

Moving around my players in the personnel screens is too tedious. Also I would like for Rex to generate a conclusive gameplan week by week from the playbook instead of randomly grabbing plays where you pretty much keep rolling until you get the run percentage you want.

And perhaps kick up the passing offense like how it was in FOF7 but I don't care too much about this.

[TAFIV]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Ok, next mystery. I'm (unwisely) trying to fiddle with my defensive gameplan. I see that I get a batch of 12 formations to use, up to three per situation. I do not see the pretty common 212 offensive formation anywhere on that menu, so I cannot select what defense I want to use when we face that.

Didn't see anything on this in the help file. I feel like I must be missing something obvious. Is 212 some sort of default that I don't need to enter anything for, perhaps?

there is a scroll bar 212 is towards bottom

[TroyF]

Just finished a game. I'm leading 23 to 17 with 35 seconds left. The AI has the ball at their 3 yard line on a 4th and forever. He tried to pass and gets sacked in the end zone. I'm now up 25-17 and receiving the kick. My kick returner, a rookie nickle back with decent potential, fumbles the ball on my 14 yard line. The AI thrown in the end zone and. . . the same guy who fumbled intercepted a pass to clinch the win.

I wonder if this guy had any idea of how close his little pixiliated career came to ending.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Just finished a game. I'm leading 23 to 17 with 35 seconds left. The AI has the ball at their 3 yard line on a 4th and forever. He tried to pass and gets sacked in the end zone. I'm now up 25-17 and receiving the kick. My kick returner, a rookie nickle back with decent potential, fumbles the ball on my 14 yard line. The AI thrown in the end zone and. . . the same guy who fumbled intercepted a pass to clinch the win.

I wonder if this guy had any idea of how close his little pixiliated career came to ending.

This is why I play the game, awesome game story.

[aston217]

But I want performance bonuses, voidable years, clauses that prevent a trade unless the player agrees, and more. For example, one of the tools modern day Gms use to deal with the future cap is to move money to this year with a bonus for being on the contract at a certain point, rather than the signing bonus or salary. Have 20 mill in cap space this year but you you'll be tight in a couple fo years? You can move future salary from a star player to this year, in guaranteed roster bonus, which does not count as a signing bonus ammelortized over the course of a player;s career.

And these additional options are easy to do.

I would argue against all of these. The financial system is open-ended and complex enough that a small number of players are able to maximize or even understand it in MP. It's not a level playing field, and part of that is you can't design balance around a system that's too open-ended. It's also just silly, because it devolves to games such as who notices which FAs to update your offers by $80k bonus in each stage.

My teams are routinely signing fairly decent free agents to 3-year, $9M offers with 30k bonus and minimum year one salary; the salary often goes something like 2-3.5-3.5. That qualifies for the veteran minimum and now he costs $1.3M against the cap. If he's any good, I'm happy to keep him the following year, again at no bonus risk to me. I rarely see the veteran minsal line targeted this way.

In your example, those are all cool GMing tools, I agree. But the GMs that use them also employ deeply experienced, full-time numbers crunchers to inform their decisions. Either a few players will really figure out the ins and outs in MP and break the system, or the salary cap must give so much cushion that there's little point in it to begin with. In SP, there's almost no chance for the AI to be intelligent in this area. In effect, a skilled human player pushes the right buttons and gets an "Extra Cap" bonus and then dominates from that elevated position. This is already too mnuch the game.

I'd prefer a strictly controlled environment where balance can be dictated. Players of any skill level make decisions with fairly self-evident risks and rewards, and then deal with it. As opposed to dividing the field between those who figure out the intricacies of the cap game, and those who don't.

On the other hand, things like letting a FA go in order to get a compensatory pick, that I'd love. This isn't about being the GM who squeezes all the cap money into all the right places; it's a simple stay/go decision on a player with relatively straightforward upshots and downshots. Strategic versus mechanical (i.e, numbers crunching, detailed engine knowledge) skill.
---

Similar thoughts on the coaching aspect. I think Jim has to acknowledge both his own strengths and those of his players. He is very, very good at modeling the NFL accurately. We, on the other hand, are very, very bad at knowing what real life stats "should" look like.

The solution is straightforward to me: put almost complete control of modeling the different things NFL coaches do inside the game engine, and expose to the user only a set of very simple, non-game-breaking choices.

I realize the drawback to this is the game loses a lot of its sandbox aspects, but IMO, well-defined realism enforcing game engine limitations are fair game. I'm coming at this mostly from the perspective of balance.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Ok, next mystery. I'm (unwisely) trying to fiddle with my defensive gameplan. I see that I get a batch of 12 formations to use, up to three per situation. I do not see the pretty common 212 offensive formation anywhere on that menu, so I cannot select what defense I want to use when we face that.

Didn't see anything on this in the help file. I feel like I must be missing something obvious. Is 212 some sort of default that I don't need to enter anything for, perhaps?

Originally Posted by TAFIV

there is a scroll bar 212 is towards bottom

OK, I thought maybe I was losing my mind.

The 212 formation is definitely there when I check on my desktop computer, but it's definitely not there when I search on my laptop. I have some of NawlinsFan's graphics hacks added to the latter -- that must be the problem. I'll post any follow-up in his threads.

Thanks for the feedback.

[QuikSand]

Confirmed - the problem is in the custom elements.bmp file. I've gone back to the original... and as a side note...oh, sweet, sweet red bars how I have missed you.