Holy Grail for FOF challenges?

[QuikSand]

For some time, I have been fiddling around with various challenge ideas -- sets of rules that add to the interest and challenge of a solo FOF career. For those who have been around these parts a while, you have seen any number of these ideas (many lousy, some less so) documented over the years.

Over time, I basically concluded that for me... there were two goals I was trying to achieve:

#1 - CHALLENGE: I want to make the game more difficult to play, overall. Most long time players of FOF realize that there are a variety of weaknesses in the game -- some are bugs, some are just AI shortcomings, and so forth. By using rules -- varying from simple "house rules" on to more challenging restrictions, you can try to enhance the challenge of the game.

#2 - RELEVANCE: I use this term to encompass the more subtle goal, of having a sense that it's your decision-making that actually guides the team to success or failure. Some challenging rule sets can make the game very tough... but by restricting the player's actions too much, it ends up placing the real success of the team too far outside his control. Ideally, I want to still feel like I'm "earning" my wins, rather than benefitting from good fortune.


So, along the way... I have had a lot of good times playing the FOF games (including the latest version, but also many, many careers in the various earlier iterations) looking for a perfect balance of these two goals. I don't think I have ever found a perfect balance -- but have enjoyed a lot of the attempts for varying period of time.


Open-eneded topic here... just thouht I'd start it. I'll offer a thought or two about my most recent challenge idea below, and we'll see if there are any new or different ideas that this discussion coaxes out of the woodwork.

[QuikSand]

My own most recent chalenge career was documented in a fairly spartan dynasty thread: The MinSal Challenge

Concept is exceedingly simple -- all my players must be signed to contracts for the absolute minimum amount allowable for their years of experience in the league. No bonuses, no rookie draftees, no trades.

Eventually, I added a half-hearted clause to prevent dipping into the free agent pool after the season started to enhance the roster. I did, however, continue to do this sometimes to re-sign former position leaders for affinity purposes. Debatable whether this rule needed to be firmed up, or otherwise clarified.


Bottom line:
CHALLENGE: A
RELEVANCE: C

I had a devilishly tough time making my team very good under these rules -- I ferquently had "decent enough" players at most positions, but without ever having a truly star-caliber player on the roster, we ended up having the lowest roster rating in the league year after year, and probably with a winning percentage of about .400 to .450 overall. You want tough? This was pretty tough, at least for me.

I'm not totally convinced, however, that the "relevance" was there in full. I was making mostly common sense roster decisions, and using gmaeplans that varied in attempts to best use my players -- but I'm honestly not sure what I could have done all that differently to get better results. In my post-scropt to the dynasty thread, I muse about a long-term cohesion-building strategy that might be possible (but beyond my patience, it seems) -- but am not at all convinced that it would work any better. It might be that this challenge provides lots of minute decision-making, but that the sum of all that effort is just to maintain a more or less mediocre team, whose year-to-year results will be the product more of happenstance than planning.


Almost certainly NOT the holy grail... but a pretty interesting and very challenging concept.

[Celeval]

Hm. How about a personality-driven challenge.

- No player can have a personality greater than that of their position leader.
- No player can be a better player than their position leader (current rating).

[cthomer5000]

Do you think there can be a holy grail? To me the fundemental problem with the challenge aspect is that the computer simply doesn't evaluate talent as well as we think it should. My gut feeling is that you're always going to be trading Challenge for Relevance (or vice versa).

[QuikSand]

Another challenge concept that I, and others, have tried in the past is the Island of Misfit Toys challenge. (I think a search for those terms will reveal a few dynasty threads... that title has become pretty widely-used, I think)

Concept there is also very simple: All your players must jon the team as undrafted rookie free agents. No draft picks, no veteran free agents, just bring aboard the best rookies that nobody else wanted.


Bottom line:
CHALLENGE: B
RELEVANCE: C

I have fared reasonably well under these rules in total, and I think a lot of it springs from the long-term power of playing time on player development. Even pretty marginal players, given a few years as a starter, will often develop into useful, solid players. Get a few decent breakout players along the way at key positions, and your roster can actually get pretty good in time. In FOF 2004, it's certainly possible to win it all under these rules if things break well for you (especially at QB).

(Incidentally, this challenge had a special element of entertaiment back in FOF 2001, when undrafted rookies were open to signing 7-year minimum salary contracts)

The big downside here is in relevance. In this career, if you don't luck out and get a quality player at a certain position (largely a function of the draft itself, not really your decision-making abilities) then you can end up really hurting. I tended to have real trouble at OT and DE in particular, but if you can't get a QB to work out, your team simply won't do well at all -- and it can feel like you are a passenger rather than driver.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Do you think there can be a holy grail? To me the fundemental problem with the challenge aspect is that the computer simply doesn't evaluate talent as well as we think it should. My gut feeling is that you're always going to be trading Challenge for Relevance (or vice versa).

I don't think it's a zero-sum proposition, no. Just look at most people's basic house rules -- they keep you from taking advantage of certain game weaknesses (trade AI, imbalanced game plans, whatever) but still allow a very wide degree of freedom in meaningful decision-making. I think you can increase challenge, and even if that does yield some diminution of your degrees of decision-making freedom, you can retain enough meaningful decision-making to keep the outcomes within your control.

[albionmoonlight]

#1 and #2 operate at some level of tension, as I am sure that you know.

Pretty much any decent human player is better than the game AI. That's not a criticism of Jim--that’s just the reality of the limitations placed by our desktop CPUs and how much code one man can write.

In order for #2 to be in play, there have to be patterns and predictability in the game/challenge. If it is too random, then you have no control over it.

However, any patterns and predictability that are in the game will eventually be found out by a good player who is paying attention. That’s what our brains do--find patterns.

Sometimes, a challenge is fun because you are still trying to find the optimal way to beat it. As soon as you do, it becomes autopilot.

One challenge idea I devised that may help to combat that is the Dan Snyder challenge. Put a bunch of crazy owner demands in a hat (Let’s spend our first round pick on the fastest WR left on the board; Our starting RB just said something bad about me in the media--cut him; We need to be making a profit with this team within 3 years; etc.) Every offseason, pick a demand or two and you have to do what the owner says. There is still the problem that any given season could be out of your control, but overall (if you pick the demands carefully) you should have a balanced gaming experience. And it is harder to get used to this challenge because it changes every year.

[KWhit]

Has anyone tried to run a career playing with a lower salary cap than all other teams? I was thinking of giving this a go (it has worked fairly well for a challenge in OOTP). Basically, play full out - no house rules except that your salary cannot exceed a certain percentage of the current league salary cap. I'm not sure what an appropriate number would be - maybe 75%.

I haven't played SP in a while, so I'm not sure if this would be enough of a challenge. It may be too easy to fill the roster with cheap free agents and keep your salary low.

[condors]

personally i like playing Island of Misfit Toys (no drafted players ever)

For Me:

Challenege:B (i am almost always in the playoffs but only win 1 title a decade or so)

RELEVANCE: B i like to think i have something to do with this(trying to identify who i believe will be a boom) but i believe its mostly luck what is leftover.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Hm. How about a personality-driven challenge.

- No player can have a personality greater than that of their position leader.
- No player can be a better player than their position leader (current rating).

First thought - personality score is tough to use for anything, since you can't sort for it (as I recall).

My fear here, overall, would be that this turns into a quick hunt for the ideal position leaders (get highly skilled guys, with high personality scores) and building a team around them becomes fairly straightforward.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Has anyone tried to run a career playing with a lower salary cap than all other teams? I was thinking of giving this a go (it has worked fairly well for a challenge in OOTP). Basically, play full out - no house rules except that your salary cannot exceed a certain percentage of the current league salary cap. I'm not sure what an appropriate number would be - maybe 75%.

For me, this turned out to be surprisingly easy to overcome.

In FOF 2004, there are quite a lot of solid players who simply don't get big contracts every year. Frequently, they are sitting around in the after-draft late free agency, dropping their demands, and often open to very affordable deals.

If you avoid committing big money and signing bonuses to single star players (including top draft picks) and focus on spending wisely among affordabl free agents and promising youngsters... it's not too tough to put together a dominating team for half the league's salary cap.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

One challenge idea I devised that may help to combat that is the Dan Snyder challenge. Put a bunch of crazy owner demands in a hat (Let’s spend our first round pick on the fastest WR left on the board; Our starting RB just said something bad about me in the media--cut him; We need to be making a profit with this team within 3 years; etc.) Every offseason, pick a demand or two and you have to do what the owner says. There is still the problem that any given season could be out of your control, but overall (if you pick the demands carefully) you should have a balanced gaming experience. And it is harder to get used to this challenge because it changes every year.

I like that. That could make for a very entertaining dynasty read.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

First thought - personality score is tough to use for anything, since you can't sort for it (as I recall).

My fear here, overall, would be that this turns into a quick hunt for the ideal position leaders (get highly skilled guys, with high personality scores) and building a team around them becomes fairly straightforward.

Eh, you're right, I thought Personality was one of the ones in the Personality tab to sort by. This would also require players to be highly talented with high personalities and high leadership skills - a combination I've found hard to find before, which is what brought this up.

[chinaski]

Ive been playing by your MinSal rules for 7 seasons now and im finding it pretty difficult. The best ive managed was a 8-8 in the 4th year. 6th year, i went 1-14-1.

What about a Agent Challenge? All players on your team have to be signed by the same agent.

I like Albionmoonlights' idea, having a crazy 8 ball for house rules would be awesome. Kinda like the Madden Challenge idea, but for house rules.

[cartman]

did somebody say "The Holy GRAY-UHL"?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by chinaski

What about a Agent Challenge? All players on your team have to be signed by the same agent.

Tough to sort by also.

In general, I found the rules that basically amount to a "smaller player set" (this, or the various geographically-restricted or school-restriced challenges) basically amounting to a pure and simple trade-off between challenge and relevance. If you restrict your player pool so much in order to make the game tougher, it becomes increasingly just the luck of the draw to see what sort of players come along that fit into your eligible subset.

I had a great time playing with a team of players from only Ohio colleges (long ago) but it was essentially just me as a passenger, waiting for a good QB to finally come from Ohio State. Once he did, voila! -- my team got good all of a sudden.

[mhass]

One idea I had toyed with was a variation on SkyDog's Bear Bryant Challenge as follows:

1. You pick one major college program and all players on the team have to have gone to that school. If the only kicker from your school requires three first-round picks to acquire, so be it. If you have 53 players from your school, but not all positions are represented, move people.
2. Once the entire player pool from your school is depleted, if required to make a 53-man roster, you can expand the pool to the same conference as your school but only after the draft so you're sure every player from your school is seen.

This one is tougher to sort on but you can at draft time. Plus you'd have to pick a larger school just for volume. Otherwise, it might be a challenge if you were moving Ohio State linebackers to fullback or punter to make the depth chart work.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by mhass

One idea I had toyed with was a variation on SkyDog's Bear Bryant Challenge as follows:

1. You pick one major college program and all players on the team have to have gone to that school. If the only kicker from your school requires three first-round picks to acquire, so be it. If you have 53 players from your school, but not all positions are represented, move people.
2. Once the entire player pool from your school is depleted, if required to make a 53-man roster, you can expand the pool to the same conference as your school but only after the draft so you're sure every player from your school is seen.

This one is tougher to sort on but you can at draft time. Plus you'd have to pick a larger school just for volume. Otherwise, it might be a challenge if you were moving Ohio State linebackers to fullback or punter to make the depth chart work.

Yeah, but this is definitaly an F in the relevance department.

[QuikSand]

Well, it would probably promote a lot of creativ gameplanning. You might get dealt a hand where your only worthwhile players are two stellar wideouts, one defensive end, and one safety. How do you set up that offense, with no QB worth a damn? What kind of defensive formation do you use?

I have thought about doing this -- understanding the big limitations in "relevance" -- and it might be next in my queue.

I'm thinking the guys from any other school would need to be 0/0 skil players, just to be fair. You don't want to have the main avenue to win become getting quality guys from adjacent schools or the like.

I might give the "Buckeye State" challenge another ride at some point. Ohio State... CIncinnati... and then the occasional small school standout. Sit back and wait for a quarterback.

[Plundun]

What I don't like about the Island of the Misfit Toys idea is that it doesn't offer tough decisions during the draft. You just have to sit back and use a wide net to scoop up potential breakouts after the draft. I like to have a rule where the only players I can add are my 7 draft picks and then 3 rookie free agents(or more as I don't have the injury setting at 200).
It will be a long slog if you use empty cupboard but even starting with a good roster a high percentage of your draft picks have to contribute, otherwise you will run out of steam. If injuries strike FA signings have to be the bottom of the barrel.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I like that. That could make for a very entertaining dynasty read.

I'll be open to being your highly demanding owner!

Seriously, you need a human owner to make it a fun challenge, I think. Just find the right FOFCer to be your 'owner'.

Hmm, sounds like a fun multiplayer league, with 32 owners and 32 hired GMs...

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

I'll be open to being your highly demanding owner!

Seriously, you need a human owner to make it a fun challenge, I think. Just find the right FOFCer to be your 'owner'.

Hmm, sounds like a fun multiplayer league, with 32 owners and 32 hired GMs...

This would be interesting. I do think that having a real "owner" type person who tells you what to do and all that or restrict you somehow would be interesting. More so for me in baseball, since that's my thing. But yeah.

[stevew]

I've been trying to come up with some sort of challenge to play on my own as well.
The goal would be to have a "replace from within" mentality for your team. Consider yourself a small market team, which can't afford 40 million dollars of bonus money each offseason for free agents. When you do spend, it will be on your guys.

The first thing I thought of was to first "Identify" what your team is all about. Are you a smash mouth team? Do you Air it out. Is your focus on defense? Basically, some NFL teams you can look at, they always have a reputation. At the beginning of the challenge, you define which role your team is, and don't stray from it.

Financially, a more challenging concept would be to retain your starters from year to year, and to only replace them from other players you have previously drafted and developed. Keep your cap at default setting, you won't be dipping into the FA pool for anyone other than minimum salary Special teams guys(returners, kickers or punters), or rookie FA. Maybe you get the exception to sign one FA in secondary FA. But he has to be considerably better than the starter at your position, and you have to pay his full price demands.

Don't renegotiate anyone's contract, you'll pay full FA market to keep any of your starters. Unless the guy is a 75 or higher in loyalty, or a fan favorite, as you can keep those guys. If a guy is not a starter, you must let him test the FA market, as he may potentially get a look to start somewhere.

Make all contracts as flat as possible, with little variation in salary from year to year. It would be bad in the clubhouse to cut a long term starter just cause he has a big baloon payment in his deal. You should never have a future years cap value larger than the cap. Retaining Fan Favorites is a must at all costs.

Relevence wise, the goal would be to develop players for your system. Every draft pick you made would be important, as you'd have to look 2-3 years down the line for potential needs. Financially, you couldnt just quick fix your team by dumping all your players, and quick rebuilding via FA.

[gottimd]

Sign all/only Punters and Kickers, change positions to fill your roster spots, win the championship.

Challenge Called: FOFC Kicking ass!

[Rando]

I came up with what I called the Revolving Door Challenge after I discovered no longer "playing" my house rule game (no drafting, no trading, no playcalling, no gameplanning, and so on). I was doing little more than hitting the "simulate" button each week. I wasn't feeling relavant, or even particularly challenged (how could I feel challenged, if I didn't feel like I was actually doing anything). So I decided that instead of trying to create systems that make the game more difficult by preventing me from doing things (sacrificing interaction for diffuculty), I would try and make things more of a challenge by making me do things... bad things.

The central idea to the challenge was that I had to cut my 46 best players every year over the course of the regular and preseason. A short version of the rules follows:

1. Each regular and preseason week (with the exceptions noted below) I must cut the player who had the best individual performance the week before based on a individual perfomance scoring system.

2. Each regular and preseason week, I must also cut my highest "Potential" rated player.

3. These cuts must be made before I made any other roster moves. (to prevent me from just signing a high potential player and promptly cutting him)

4. In the result of a tie for either cut the tiebreakers are; Current Rating, Position Leaders, Positive Affinaties, Mentors, highest Cap Cost, and finally just cut them both.

5. On weeks where there was no game the previous week my two highest "Potential" players must be cut.

6. On BYE weeks (both regular and preseason) in additon to the best player from the previous game, my two longest tenured players on the team must be cut (same tie breakers as before) to ensure that no suffiently mediocre players slip through the cracks. If the pre-season BYE is in the first week of the preseason (which it usually is) and there is no previous game best performer to cut, I must cut my three longest tenured players.

7. Players who are supposed to be cut based on the above rules, but who are injured and cannot be cut, must be put on injured reserve regardless of the severity of the injury.

There were, initially, no other house rules. I was free to do whatever else I wanted to try to win.

What I found:
CHALLENGE: F (at the begining)
RELAVANCE: F (by the end)

The Results:
I made the playoffs the first three years of this challenge (10-6, 9-7, 10-6) inculing a trip to the championship game in year three. Salary cap issues (which I had thought would be something of a problem) were non-existant after year two. Even thought there were no other "official" house rules, I found myself playing under a couple of unofficial ones, "No signing players who want a signing bonus" (any player good enough to demand even the smallest bonus is just going to get cut and that bonus instantly becomes dead money) and "No drafting" (once again, signing bonuses) and still doing rather well.

To try and crank up the difficulty, I impossed a "No playcalling" rule. It worked, to a degree. I went 7-9 and 9-7 the next two years, barely missing the playoffs (and a division win, on tiebreakers) the second year. I probaly should have just left it at that, but I still felt that my team was simply doing far better than it really should. I mean, by this point my team was composed entirely of crap players, most of which I had to cut and replace with even crappier players, what business did I have competing for a division title?

So I impossed a "No gameplanning" rule and a "No signing FA's until after training camp" rules. This seemed to work quite well and I ended up going 3-13, 2-14 and 6-10 before I abandoned the project. Yes I had made it more difficult, but only by going against the original spirit of the challenge and restricting aspects of gameplay. It may have been more difficut, but there wasn't a real sense of challenge because there wasn't much of a sense of relavance. I couldn't feel any particular sense of accomplishment with those extra four wins I picked up in the last year of the challenge, because I felt like I really had nothing to do with them.

The Good
I actually found playcalling to be much more interesting the first few years of the challenge (before I disallowed it). I was forced to call plays based on something other than feeding the ball to certain players over and over again because the computer seemed incapable of stopping them. I had to keep in mind each player's stats when calling plays and decide whether or not getting the next first down was worth not having the guy who gets it on my team next week.

The Bad:
Pretty much everything else. I felt more "involved" in this challenge than I had been in my previous house rule games, but I can't really say it was any more fun.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

For me, this turned out to be surprisingly easy to overcome.

In FOF 2004, there are quite a lot of solid players who simply don't get big contracts every year. Frequently, they are sitting around in the after-draft late free agency, dropping their demands, and often open to very affordable deals.

If you avoid committing big money and signing bonuses to single star players (including top draft picks) and focus on spending wisely among affordabl free agents and promising youngsters... it's not too tough to put together a dominating team for half the league's salary cap.

I remember running a career like this with FOF2001. I think i'm going to give it another go with FOF2004 because i think it could be challenging given enough house rules surrounding it.

House Rules:

1. Must have 50% or more of the salary cap free during pre and regular season.

2. Cannot initiate trades. Can accept unaltered AI-initiated trades.

3. Must use all 7 draft picks each year, and cannot trade up or down.

4. Cannot sign ANY players after the draft. This will result in having to take a full 53 into the draft and will eliminate the possibility of building the team with a lot of undrafted rookies.

5. Players cannot be signed during the year unless absolutely necessary (meaning I will do as much juggling as possible, anything to make it legal without having to sign someone).

6. No voidable years in any contract offers.

7. No renegotiations. Players must hit the FA market. Restricted FAs must be offered the exact contract they are asking for to be retained.

[QuikSand]

For whatever reason, I got inspired to launch up a time-waster career in FOF 2004, using the Buffalo Bills and only players from NY state colleges.

We got lucky with a playable QB in the very first draft class (a late rounder who has been okay) but have yet to really get anywhere with the team. Through six seasons (I think) we have yet to post a .500 season. Our defense is just awful - though we landed two DEs in the last two drafts, so there's some room for hope. The LB corps and secondary, though... *holds nose*.

[cthomer5000]

FWIW, I've been playing my above-mentioned challenge, and i'm currently hovering aroun .500. We've been 7-9, 8-8, 9-7, 5-11, then 8-7-1 (and in the playoffs for the first time).

The 5-11 season was after my stud QB suffered repetitive concusssion syndrome right at the end of year 3. He sat out all of 4 and returned about 5 weeks into year 5, where he showed a huge decline but was still "good" intstead of oustanding. The hardest part is not being able to sign players after the draft. You have to manage your salary cap extremely well pre-draft, otherwise you have to cut below 53 just to make budget.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I remember running a career like this with FOF2001. I think i'm going to give it another go with FOF2004 because i think it could be challenging given enough house rules surrounding it.

House Rules:

1. Must have 50% or more of the salary cap free during pre and regular season.

2. Cannot initiate trades. Can accept unaltered AI-initiated trades.

3. Must use all 7 draft picks each year, and cannot trade up or down.

4. Cannot sign ANY players after the draft. This will result in having to take a full 53 into the draft and will eliminate the possibility of building the team with a lot of undrafted rookies.

5. Players cannot be signed during the year unless absolutely necessary (meaning I will do as much juggling as possible, anything to make it legal without having to sign someone).

6. No voidable years in any contract offers.

7. No renegotiations. Players must hit the FA market. Restricted FAs must be offered the exact contract they are asking for to be retained.

This sounds like a pretty good set of rules to me. You're inevitably going to get a lot of that salary space used up by your draft picks (which I presume you force yourself to sign like them or not). Looks challenging... dunno how much I'd enjoy it on "relevance" grounds, though.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This sounds like a pretty good set of rules to me. You're inevitably going to get a lot of that salary space used up by your draft picks (which I presume you force yourself to sign like them or not). Looks challenging... dunno how much I'd enjoy it on "relevance" grounds, though.

In a sense, isn't it kind of liking running the Bengals for years. With the exception of the bar on signing undrafted free agents, it seems like they were always under budget, couldn't come with any decent trade ideas, and never did anything innovative with contracts (with the exception of morals clauses). I'm not saying it is exactly the same, but it makes it a little more "relevant" IMO.

[QuikSand]

You know, playing a "GroupThink" career under a set of rules like this might be interesting.

I know most people are all focused on multi-player, and we have largely set aside the idea of the collaborative multi-player idea... but it might be interesting to launch something of that sort. A crippling set of challenge rules might be a good way to go ot make it interesting.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Has anyone tried to run a career playing with a lower salary cap than all other teams? I was thinking of giving this a go (it has worked fairly well for a challenge in OOTP). Basically, play full out - no house rules except that your salary cannot exceed a certain percentage of the current league salary cap. I'm not sure what an appropriate number would be - maybe 75%.

I haven't played SP in a while, so I'm not sure if this would be enough of a challenge. It may be too easy to fill the roster with cheap free agents and keep your salary low.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

For me, this turned out to be surprisingly easy to overcome.

In FOF 2004, there are quite a lot of solid players who simply don't get big contracts every year. Frequently, they are sitting around in the after-draft late free agency, dropping their demands, and often open to very affordable deals.

If you avoid committing big money and signing bonuses to single star players (including top draft picks) and focus on spending wisely among affordabl free agents and promising youngsters... it's not too tough to put together a dominating team for half the league's salary cap.

Perhaps a limit on how many players you can sign in late free agency might boost the challenge. Reduce your cap by a certain % and perhaps allow yourself one guilty pleasure from the post draft FA pool. It might offer a decent challenge, as you might not be able to keep those high priced superstars. Yet, it doesn't really limit the player pool too much to make it a luck of the draw situation.

By limiting your splash in the late FA pool you not only hamper your own ability to pick up cheap, quality players, but you also help boost the AI teams by allowing them to pick up those cheap, good players.

I would imagine that this type of challenge would result in acquiring a large number of 'specialists' such as an offensive line that is very good in pass blocking but putrid in run blocking, thus making them more affordable. It would probably result in pretty good success in the regular season, but failure in the playoffs when you meet up with more talented and balanced teams.

Just tossing out an idea, FWIW.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Perhaps a limit on how many players you can sign in late free agency might boost the challenge. Reduce your cap by a certain % and perhaps allow yourself one guilty pleasure from the post draft FA pool. It might offer a decent challenge, as you might not be able to keep those high priced superstars. Yet, it doesn't really limit the player pool too much to make it a luck of the draw situation.

By limiting your splash in the late FA pool you not only hamper your own ability to pick up cheap, quality players, but you also help boost the AI teams by allowing them to pick up those cheap, good players.

I would imagine that this type of challenge would result in acquiring a large number of 'specialists' such as an offensive line that is very good in pass blocking but putrid in run blocking, thus making them more affordable. It would probably result in pretty good success in the regular season, but failure in the playoffs when you meet up with more talented and balanced teams.

Just tossing out an idea, FWIW.

I think that would, indeed, be the way to go to make this sort of thing sufficiently tough. cthomer's idea above incorporates this... and sounds like it's about the right formula to me.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This sounds like a pretty good set of rules to me. You're inevitably going to get a lot of that salary space used up by your draft picks (which I presume you force yourself to sign like them or not).

Correct. It blows when i have to take a player who isn't worth nearly the money I'm about to spend on him as well. Even worse, I accepted a trade that involved a 1st rounder, and totally wished I hadn't when the next year rolled around. You get used to cutting high-round picks quickly when necessary though (although the dead cap space is a killer with this sort of restriction).

I'm finding it moderately challenging, but I'll admit I haven't been doing nearly as much in gameplanning as I could. I haven't adapted to my personnel as much as I should. In reality I probably could have made the playoffs in 4 of the 5 years.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

You know, playing a "GroupThink" career under a set of rules like this might be interesting.

I know most people are all focused on multi-player, and we have largely set aside the idea of the collaborative multi-player idea... but it might be interesting to launch something of that sort. A crippling set of challenge rules might be a good way to go ot make it interesting.

I'd be interested, probably on the scouting end much more than gameplanning. I guess it'd be best with some sort of fixed schedule, so i knew exactly when I had to have something done by.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

You know, playing a "GroupThink" career under a set of rules like this might be interesting.

I know most people are all focused on multi-player, and we have largely set aside the idea of the collaborative multi-player idea... but it might be interesting to launch something of that sort. A crippling set of challenge rules might be a good way to go ot make it interesting.

Rather than a Group Think, would it be interesting to start up a 'house rules' league where each team has its own set of house rules, or perhaps even its own set of goals? Championships might be nice, but what if your primary, or maybe secondary goal is to have the leagues best rushing defense? Maybe your teams goal is to have the most sacks. Perhaps your team has a house rule to only pick first rounders. Wins and losses might not matter, as long as you follow the house rule that all your players must be rated between 40 and 60.

Just a silly idea spurred on by your post.

[QuikSand]

You have me interested, cth - I'm starting my own career under those rules as we speak. how do you like the nickname "The Chokehold Challenge" for that rule set? (One of my old favorites was "The Straitjacket Challenge" from years ago under other very punishing rules... I seem to lean toward the bondage references for some reason)

[cthomer5000]

You've got my endorsement for "The Chokehold Challenge."

[QuikSand]

Under those rules, corey -- do you actually place any value at all on draft picks? I just got a pretty solid offer (in ordinary terms) for one of my players -- but it is already clear to me that my draft picks are mostly a distraction from the center of the team, the quality cheap free agents I can sign.

I wonder if, eventually, the best way to play is just to cut most of your draft picks quickly - eat the cap hit, and clear out some salary space to use on already-developed free agent players?

Anyway - I started a dynasty thread on this... seems interesting, at least at the moment.

[cthomer5000]

The draft became a little lottery-esque quickly. In year 3 or 4 I found myself having to take a guy who was completely unworthy of the salary he was about to receive. And I fully regretted trading for the additional 1st rounder, since i basically had to overpay 2 guys that year.

So that's probably the biggest issue with this challenge... you start feeling the draft picks are very low of the relevance scale. Maybe drop the rule on trading up or down? Or just allow trading up but not down? Dunno, there's a fine line between making it more interesting and making it very easy to succeed. :shrug:

[QuikSand]

I agree - tough to balance that.

If I'm going to draft, I want a sense that my draft picks mean something. Right now (entering my third draft) I'm sensing that all I want is to get a decent first rounder, and then get affinity fill-in guys (and punters, kickers, and return men) with my later picks who can play a couple cheap seasons and get the hell out of the way. Doesn't seem like the ideal attitude.

But I'm already in trouble cap-wise, and am cutting decent veterans because I can't afford their veteran minimum salaries. Ugh.

[QuikSand]

So, I have been playing under cthomer's "Chokehold" rules... and in short, I am finding it either too eay to beat, or I have benefitted from some luck. In either case, my team pretty rapidly became a league power, won a title in year three, and has won at least one postseason game in each of the two years since. I was able to afford my solid starting QB, and have done okay with bits and pieces around him, even with a serious rash of injuries.

I wonder -- what could be added to those (already pretty comprehensive) rules to make things even tighter?

Maybe a rule that the only time I can pursue free agents is in week one of free agency? I am finding that waiting out my mediocre players until weeks 16-20) gets them to calm down and accept cheaper deals, in many cases - maybe this adds an additional strain on the budget.

I don't like readjustaing the salary cap -- 50% just barely allows you enough room to move and make some decisions... drop it much lower, and you'll just turn it into a luckfest of what cheap young players are around to be signed.

Still thinking... it's a good set of rules, I'm just frustrated that we got good so quickly. I was expecting it to take longer and more work.

[QuikSand]

Just one additional note here -- I think that there is a sort of twist in this that wasn't that obvious to me. Under these "chokehold" rules, you really don't get max value for a top rookie -- spending that money just prevents you from spending money on a quality, fuklly-developed free agent veteran player. So, in essence, having a high pick is a hindrance in this career.

My team got off to a quick start, and earned pick 32 by my fourth draft, Since then, I have been picking at something like 28 and 27... always late in round one. This turns into a benefit, actually -- I'm not getting a super-stud player liek I might at 1(3), but I'm also not paying my guy star salaries, and am more able to afford a few extra veterans (who probably help the team more anyway).

It's a sort of reward structure -- win, and you get rewarded by not having to pay a rookie top dollar. Success begets success.

[QuikSand]

So, I am once again fidgeting for a novelty FOF career, as my two multi-player teams are basically done with their offseasons. I just launched a basically wide-open career (taking over a terribel team, and trying to save them... but reaching the SuperBowl in year two has taken the steam out of that pretty quickly). So, I'm thinking about some new set of restrictions to launch a new SP career...

[flere-imsaho]

"The Dan Snyder Challenge"

Every year, before FA, you select three random numbers between 1 and 16:

1-QB
2-RB
3-FB
4-TE
5-WR
6-C
7-OG
8-OT
9-P
10-K
11-DE
12-DT
13-ILB
14-OLB
15-CB
16-S

The three numbers can't be the same.

Whichever positions are selected, you must sign the top FA available for each position, and not to a one-year deal (unless that's what he's asking for).

Furthermore, you can't enter the regular season with any affinity conflicts. So, if one of those new FA come in as a position leader and screw up an entire group, you've got to cut the other guys.

[QuikSand]

Might be challenging (or maybe not, I guess) but I wonder about relevance. If all my major decisions are governed by dice roles, I think I'd feel about as irrelevent as ... well... as the coach of the Redskins.

[QuikSand]

Here’s a list I have been working on… to play a new single-player FOF career, with the idea to play “all out” within the rules, and still find it to be challenging and interesting (as described at length above). Nothing too clever in the first draft, but I’m open to suggestions for things to do better.


Tentative List of Challenge Rules

“Empty Cupboard” beginning… empty roster, no players from before our first draft

Any FA contracts offered bust be exactly what the player seeks.

No contract renegotiations ever, no franchise tag.

No initiating player trades, only may accept offered trades that pass the “fairness test”
Trades of picks allowed within the current year’s draft only

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

One challenge idea I devised that may help to combat that is the Dan Snyder challenge. Put a bunch of crazy owner demands in a hat (Let’s spend our first round pick on the fastest WR left on the board; Our starting RB just said something bad about me in the media--cut him; We need to be making a profit with this team within 3 years; etc.) Every offseason, pick a demand or two and you have to do what the owner says. There is still the problem that any given season could be out of your control, but overall (if you pick the demands carefully) you should have a balanced gaming experience. And it is harder to get used to this challenge because it changes every year.

Here are some starters I just came up with. If you like this idea, I am sure that the community here can come up with dozens more.


The passing game is fun, and it puts people in the seats. For the next two seasons, 75% of our offensive plays need to be passes.

Boy, I was just watching some film of that Larry Czonka. Now there was a guy who could play. Make sure that our fullback gets at least 10% of our offensive touches this season, OK?

Someone once told me, "if you have two running backs, it’s because you don’t have one." That makes sense, right? I thought so. Which is why our primary ballcarrier better have at least 200 more attempts than anyone else on the team.

I love our running back. Sign him to whatever extension he wants. No questions asked.

I was just reading where our highest rated player in terms of future potential was making fun of my height in the press. Trade him to a team that didn’t make the playoffs last season. Get what you can for him.

I know that you think that you are smart. But it is players who win championships--which is why you are going to sign the highest rated guy in free agency this season.

You know who is useless? Tight Ends. Which is why we better design an offense that does not use one for the next two seasons. Ok?

Bend but don’t break. I like that. It’s a good maxim for life. Especially the not breaking part. I think that our defense should not run any M2M or BnR this season. All zone, baby.

Hmmm... you know what’s fun? Sacking the quarterback. But we need guys to do it. Make sure that you draft the defensive lineman with the highest pass rush ratings this draft.

Where’s the beef? It’s on our team is where. I just signed an endorsement deal with Omaha steaks. As part of that, we need to make sure that we draft the two heaviest guys in this year’s draft, regardless of position.

You know that the best conference around is the SEC, right? Those good ole boys can play some football. So make sure that we only draft SEC players for the next two seasons, OK?

Defensive wins championships. And I want to win a championship. Finish in the top half of the league in yards allowed this season.

[BrianD]

Could you limit yourself to only using QBs that have been converted from other positions?

[stevew]

You could limit yourself to having to draft QB's in the later half of the draft and turning them into WR or RB, or FS, but you couldnt turn another position into QB.