Post thoughts of FOF4 gameplay after 4.0c patch.

cincyreds · 07-03-2003, 09:36 AM

I am at work, but I am suppose to get off early. I cannot wait to get home and try FOF4 with the new patch.

Post your thoughts here.

Dutch · 07-03-2003, 09:46 AM

Went through one season with took about 1.5 or 2 hours of time (from start of game 2002 thru to Championship game) and everything went fine. (Like patch 4.0b)

The coolest part for me so far is when I look at the bowl champions instead of it showing

2002 Tampa Bay

It now shows

2002 Tampa Bay 31, Indianapolis Colts 20

Cool!!!

But of course, it's the simple things in life that make me smile.

Bee · 07-03-2003, 09:49 AM

I downloaded it last night and had enough time to play one season and conduct one draft. What I noticed was it seemed to me the overall talent in the draft is somewhat reduced (although that could have just been a weak draft). I'm hoping the overall talent was reduced making it harder to get the steals in the late rounds. I also noticed players I targeted were often being drafted before I could get them suggesting a much improved draft AI.

I was playing with a OPU game, so that can also throw things off a little. One thing I did notice though is that after the season there were a couple free agents that looked prett good according to my scout. No computer team offered them contracts. I picked them up to see how they look after a training camp or two. Either the free agency AI is still somewhat flawed or the change made to the scouting accuracy (tied to the difficulty level) is dramatic enough that it can make things more difficult in free agency (making bad players look half way decent).

cincyreds · 07-03-2003, 09:52 AM

Quote:

2002 Tampa Bay 31, Indianapolis Colts 20

Like I said in another thread, SWEEEEET!!

I am looking forward to getting home and giving it a test run myself.

Alf · 07-03-2003, 10:16 AM

The smarter draft AI would be a really good feature.

Fritz · 07-03-2003, 10:37 AM

my bitch of the day - still no export/import of gameplans.

RPI-Fan · 07-03-2003, 12:44 PM

Quote:

my bitch of the day

I was expecting you to say 'Marmel'

cthomer5000 · 07-03-2003, 12:50 PM

anyone playing with imported drafts? I want to know if the talent level has come down, and if the computer will actually draft Inside Linebackers?

QuikSand · 07-03-2003, 01:12 PM

I'v estarted up an OPU caree of my own... early returns suggest that the draft will be much tougher post-patch. All the obvious tells for brekaout players are gone, and divining players hwo won't live up to expectations is a much, much subtler exercise than before.

Tough to say yet whether the pendulum has swung too far (in the direction of complete randomness with booms and busts) but I'm enjoying building my team in this game for the first time, really.

I'm only a couple years into my OPU, but I'm already getting a sense that there are a lot fewer star-caliber players in the post-patch game than before. That may change over time (as some guys break out, etc) but it could really change the game's overall dynamic, I think.

Bee · 07-03-2003, 01:37 PM

If the bust/boom were not completely random, would it still be considered bust/boom? I mean if we can predict it, doesn't it just become another part of the evaluation process. For example, if Ryan Leaf were predicted likely to bust he wouldn't have been drafted where he was and therefore wouldn't have been considered a bust. Conversely, if Joe Montana had been predicted to boom he wouldn't have lasted until the 3rd round.

I really need to get home and play a few seasons...

QuikSand · 07-03-2003, 02:08 PM

Well, particularly on the "bust" side of the equation, since the majority of players in the game simply do not live up to theie evident expectations, it's a bigger deal to talk about busts here than just identifying one remarkable bust from recent memory.

I'm not saying that more randomness is bad... but I would stick to the argument that complete randomness is not a good thing. It's a tough balance to strike, I suspect.

If you keep doing the best you can, and of your last 20 first round draft picks only three of them were worth a hill of beans... that upends tha gameing exprience. Why ever bother with the draft - why not just trade away your picks to get veteran players that you know will do well for you, since they are proven? Complete randomness, coupled with very frequent deviation from the apparent skill levels, is a negative combination. (I'm not saying we're there, I'm saying it's an issue)

MIJB#19 · 07-03-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
If you keep doing the best you can, and of your last 20 first round draft picks only three of them were worth a hill of beans... that upends tha gameing exprience. Why ever bother with the draft - why not just trade away your picks to get veteran players that you know will do well for you, since they are proven? Complete randomness, coupled with very frequent deviation from the apparent skill levels, is a negative combination. (I'm not saying we're there, I'm saying it's an issue)

Not to sound like a playbreaker, but isn't that the latest NFL real life trend, with the Dolphins, Titans, Rams, the 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers and the 2002 Raiders as good examples?

Bee · 07-03-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
Well, particularly on the "bust" side of the equation, since the majority of players in the game simply do not live up to theie evident expectations, it's a bigger deal to talk about busts here than just identifying one remarkable bust from recent memory.

I'm not saying that more randomness is bad... but I would stick to the argument that complete randomness is not a good thing. It's a tough balance to strike, I suspect.

If you keep doing the best you can, and of your last 20 first round draft picks only three of them were worth a hill of beans... that upends tha gameing exprience. Why ever bother with the draft - why not just trade away your picks to get veteran players that you know will do well for you, since they are proven? Complete randomness, coupled with very frequent deviation from the apparent skill levels, is a negative combination. (I'm not saying we're there, I'm saying it's an issue)

I definitely agree about the frequency of the deviation, but I'm not sure about the complete randomness of the bust/boom itself necessarily being a bad thing. If it happens too often, it would make the draft completely worthless. If it doesn't happen enough, it overvalues the draft. I think if the bust/boom becomes predictable it again eliminates some of the risk and tends to overvalue the draft. I think you need the complete randomness of the bust/boom to throw in some risk, but at a reasonable frequency as to not destroy the value of the draft.

QuikSand · 07-03-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MIJB#19
Not to sound like a playbreaker, but isn't that the latest NFL real life trend, with the Dolphins, Titans, Rams, the 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers and the 2002 Raiders as good examples?

There is no question that there are busts in real life football. It's a very common phenomenon. I think it's open to argument whether it is a completely random event in the real world. I'm certain that some would offer a robust argument that good scouting affects the likelihood of busst in real life.

My point is that this is yet another area where the game does not necessarily want to reflect real life. Even if in the real world this is a completely random event, is that what you want in a game? At some point, having this be completely random and also very common - you completely distory the value of the draft, as I argued above. I thin it's tough to support a statement that this is a good thing for either realism or playability.

Subby · 07-03-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
My point is that this is yet another area where the game does not necessarily want to reflect real life. Even if in the real world this is a completely random event, is that what you want in a game? At some point, having this be completely random and also very common - you completely distory the value of the draft, as I argued above. I thin it's tough to support a statement that this is a good thing for either realism or playability.

This is one thing that makes OOTP so difficult - at least from an on-line league perspective. The development a player gets is so completely random that it takes almost all team-building skill out of the equation...

albionmoonlight · 07-03-2003, 02:34 PM

Does it look like players who are drafted lose any red bars? Or is the "bust" limited to not living up to the green bars?

Bee · 07-03-2003, 02:34 PM

Of course, the ideal situation would be to add in a multitude of factors (scouting combine, college stats, interviews, etc) that would play into calculating a reasonable change of identifying a breakout or bust player. Those factors could enter into the likelihood of a player busting or breaking out. While still being random, it would allow you to identify the chances of a breakout or bust. Since FOF doesn't allow for anything like this to be incorporated without a major overhaul, I think complete randomness with a reasonable frequency is the better option.

Bee · 07-03-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Does it look like players who are drafted lose any red bars? Or is the "bust" limited to not living up to the green bars?

Players can lose red.

Solecismic · 07-03-2003, 09:32 PM

Don't forget that the better your scout, the closer your impression of a player to reality. One possible "tell" is comparing the scout's score to the 2.0-9.0 assigned by the league's scouts. If your scout is very good, he'll often lead you in the right direction.

The balance between randomness and knowledge is vital here, I agree. Also, there are two completely different types of booms and busts. One is more common, and simply relates to scouting errors. The second is completely random, and happens after the draft. This is much rarer. It's akin to getting Ryan Leaf into training camp and discovering on day one that he has no work ethic.

Ben E Lou · 07-03-2003, 09:40 PM

Poor Ryan Leaf. He's become the poster child for FOF busts.

Bee · 07-03-2003, 09:42 PM

Maybe we can get him on the cover of the next version? He should be cheap...

Bee · 07-04-2003, 10:25 AM

Back to the subject...

I've now played a little more with the game post patch.

The quality of the draft definitely seems to be less, which I think is a very nice improvement.

The computer AI seems to do a MUCH better job drafting. Most picks seems to be logical and quality players no longer fall through to the late rounds constantly like in the pre-patch version.

The roster management AI still seems off. For example, I had a 2nd year RCB (rated 51/85) who the computer didn't want to start in front of a 4th year RCB (rated 27/29). That's not even close IMO. There have been a few other depth chart issues about starting who I consider to be the wrong player, but this one was the most obvious.

sabotai · 07-04-2003, 11:42 AM

"I had a 2nd year RCB (rated 51/85) who the computer didn't want to start in front of a 4th year RCB (rated 27/29). "

I'm not sure if this is the case with you, but I have noticed that at times the scout's "numbers of 50 actual, 70 potential didn't really reflect the player's abilities.

Sometimes I'll have a guy that has bars better than someone else, yet have scout overview numbers that were lower. And sometimes it has been as extreme as the example you have given.

Bee · 07-04-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sabotai
"I had a 2nd year RCB (rated 51/85) who the computer didn't want to start in front of a 4th year RCB (rated 27/29). "

I'm not sure if this is the case with you, but I have noticed that at times the scout's "numbers of 50 actual, 70 potential didn't really reflect the player's abilities.

Sometimes I'll have a guy that has bars better than someone else, yet have scout overview numbers that were lower. And sometimes it has been as extreme as the example you have given.

Definitely not the case here. The guy rated 51/85 was significantly better than the guy rated 27/29 in every rating.

I'm familiar with what you are talking about though, but that's not the problem here.

sabotai · 07-04-2003, 02:12 PM

Hmm. My only other thought (other than the AI is being retarded) is that perhaps the AI is seeing better than you in that it sees that the player is going to bust. You said he's only 2nd year, so I'm wondering if by year 4 or 5 his ratings will drop. And thus the AI is seeing something or knows something we do not when it does the depth chart.

07-03-2003, 09:49 AM	#3
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I downloaded it last night and had enough time to play one season and conduct one draft. What I noticed was it seemed to me the overall talent in the draft is somewhat reduced (although that could have just been a weak draft). I'm hoping the overall talent was reduced making it harder to get the steals in the late rounds. I also noticed players I targeted were often being drafted before I could get them suggesting a much improved draft AI. I was playing with a OPU game, so that can also throw things off a little. One thing I did notice though is that after the season there were a couple free agents that looked prett good according to my scout. No computer team offered them contracts. I picked them up to see how they look after a training camp or two. Either the free agency AI is still somewhat flawed or the change made to the scouting accuracy (tied to the difficulty level) is dramatic enough that it can make things more difficult in free agency (making bad players look half way decent). Last edited by Bee : 07-03-2003 at 09:50 AM.

07-03-2003, 10:16 AM	#5
Alf Pro Starter Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Rennes, France	The smarter draft AI would be a really good feature. __________________ FOFL - GML - IHOF - FranceStats

07-03-2003, 10:37 AM	#6
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	my bitch of the day - still no export/import of gameplans. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

07-03-2003, 01:37 PM	#10
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	If the bust/boom were not completely random, would it still be considered bust/boom? I mean if we can predict it, doesn't it just become another part of the evaluation process. For example, if Ryan Leaf were predicted likely to bust he wouldn't have been drafted where he was and therefore wouldn't have been considered a bust. Conversely, if Joe Montana had been predicted to boom he wouldn't have lasted until the 3rd round. I really need to get home and play a few seasons... Last edited by Bee : 07-03-2003 at 01:37 PM.

07-03-2003, 09:40 PM	#20
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Poor Ryan Leaf. He's become the poster child for FOF busts. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

07-03-2003, 09:46 AM	#2
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	Went through one season with took about 1.5 or 2 hours of time (from start of game 2002 thru to Championship game) and everything went fine. (Like patch 4.0b) The coolest part for me so far is when I look at the bowl champions instead of it showing 2002 Tampa Bay It now shows 2002 Tampa Bay 31, Indianapolis Colts 20 Cool!!! But of course, it's the simple things in life that make me smile.

07-03-2003, 01:12 PM	#9
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I'v estarted up an OPU caree of my own... early returns suggest that the draft will be much tougher post-patch. All the obvious tells for brekaout players are gone, and divining players hwo won't live up to expectations is a much, much subtler exercise than before. Tough to say yet whether the pendulum has swung too far (in the direction of complete randomness with booms and busts) but I'm enjoying building my team in this game for the first time, really. I'm only a couple years into my OPU, but I'm already getting a sense that there are a lot fewer star-caliber players in the post-patch game than before. That may change over time (as some guys break out, etc) but it could really change the game's overall dynamic, I think.

07-03-2003, 02:08 PM	#11
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Well, particularly on the "bust" side of the equation, since the majority of players in the game simply do not live up to theie evident expectations, it's a bigger deal to talk about busts here than just identifying one remarkable bust from recent memory. I'm not saying that more randomness is bad... but I would stick to the argument that complete randomness is not a good thing. It's a tough balance to strike, I suspect. If you keep doing the best you can, and of your last 20 first round draft picks only three of them were worth a hill of beans... that upends tha gameing exprience. Why ever bother with the draft - why not just trade away your picks to get veteran players that you know will do well for you, since they are proven? Complete randomness, coupled with very frequent deviation from the apparent skill levels, is a negative combination. (I'm not saying we're there, I'm saying it's an issue)

07-03-2003, 02:34 PM	#16
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	Does it look like players who are drafted lose any red bars? Or is the "bust" limited to not living up to the green bars?

07-03-2003, 09:32 PM	#19
Solecismic Solecismic Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Canton, OH	Don't forget that the better your scout, the closer your impression of a player to reality. One possible "tell" is comparing the scout's score to the 2.0-9.0 assigned by the league's scouts. If your scout is very good, he'll often lead you in the right direction. The balance between randomness and knowledge is vital here, I agree. Also, there are two completely different types of booms and busts. One is more common, and simply relates to scouting errors. The second is completely random, and happens after the draft. This is much rarer. It's akin to getting Ryan Leaf into training camp and discovering on day one that he has no work ethic.

07-03-2003, 09:42 PM	#21
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Maybe we can get him on the cover of the next version? He should be cheap...

07-04-2003, 10:25 AM	#22
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Back to the subject... I've now played a little more with the game post patch. The quality of the draft definitely seems to be less, which I think is a very nice improvement. The computer AI seems to do a MUCH better job drafting. Most picks seems to be logical and quality players no longer fall through to the late rounds constantly like in the pre-patch version. The roster management AI still seems off. For example, I had a 2nd year RCB (rated 51/85) who the computer didn't want to start in front of a 4th year RCB (rated 27/29). That's not even close IMO. There have been a few other depth chart issues about starting who I consider to be the wrong player, but this one was the most obvious.

07-04-2003, 11:42 AM	#23
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"I had a 2nd year RCB (rated 51/85) who the computer didn't want to start in front of a 4th year RCB (rated 27/29). " I'm not sure if this is the case with you, but I have noticed that at times the scout's "numbers of 50 actual, 70 potential didn't really reflect the player's abilities. Sometimes I'll have a guy that has bars better than someone else, yet have scout overview numbers that were lower. And sometimes it has been as extreme as the example you have given.

07-04-2003, 02:12 PM	#25
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	Hmm. My only other thought (other than the AI is being retarded) is that perhaps the AI is seeing better than you in that it sees that the player is going to bust. You said he's only 2nd year, so I'm wondering if by year 4 or 5 his ratings will drop. And thus the AI is seeing something or knows something we do not when it does the depth chart.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)