Twenty Questions With FOF2007 Developer Jim Gindin

[Ben E Lou]

A BIG thanks goes out to Jim! He took the time, in the midst of what I'm certain is a *VERY* busy season prior to his big move, to provide FOFC with this exclusive content. Also, thanks to those of you who took the time to formulate questions. If yours didn't get in, know that if this goes well, it's something I'll contact Jim about doing again in the future.


1. What improvement to the series in FOF2K7 are you the most proud of, and why?
I'm most proud of the new game planning and the AI used to generate a computer team's game plan. The game now takes a much harder look at a team's next opponent. And the options available for composing a game plan give you much more control over your team's "personality" on the field without forcing you to spend a lot more time on planning than in the past.


2. What are the top features that you'd like to add down the road for future versions and/or updates?
What I'd most like to add is not necessarily what I will add, because some of the best features may take several months on their own and it might be a poor business decision. I would most like to see a 2D representation of on-field action along with a revamping of how playbooks are created. The big question is whether people would still buy the new game if those were the only major new features.


3. Is limitation to what gets added to each successive version of your games a function of your time or hardware/software? In other words, can you forsee a time where either you've invested enough time or technology progresses enough to reach the point where you no longer feel the need for major enhancements and the product itself is essentially "mature."
The product is mature in that the core has held up for years and I have an engine in place for producing results representative of what you'd see in a football game. We're moving into an uncertain time for PC games. Right now, I push the memory limits of computers made maybe three years ago. Today's FOF wouldn't run on the computer I was using when I started out. I try not to go beyond three years, though. I don't want to force people to buy a new computer to play the game, as is the case with many of the graphics-oriented games produced by major publishers.

However, the day that I run out of major enhancements I'd like to add to the game is the day I should quit this business. If I don't have the enthusiasm I had back in 1998, it's time for you to choose to support other developers. So far, I have no problem coming up with things I'd like to try for the future that will fit the memory limitations. The question with new development is more business justification and marketing than finding things I'd like to add to the game. The '07 game was particularly ambitious with regard to new features directed at hard-core sim fans like myself, but it remains to be seen whether that was a good decision from a business perspective.


4. What innovations from MP players surprised you?
The sophistication I found in game plans that actually used a team's specific strengths and weaknesses to create a scheme that was hard to defeat. I had to work a lot harder to train defenses to keep up.


5. What aspects of the game are you dissatisfied with?
I always want more in the way of graphics. I'd like to be able to spend more and have a professional artist design more of what I use within the game. However, I don't ever want to sacrifice two key areas of what I do provide. One, I don't want to manifest any situation where graphics prevent me from providing as much information on a single screen as humanly possible. And two, I don't want the game to play full-screen. Windowed gaming is what I prefer, and multi-tasking is one of the huge advantages of a PC.


6. When BnR coverage talks about safeties being in a zone, does that mean the safety's zone coverage rating is used (or is it still BnR)?
With '07, pass coverage is a lot more sophisticated than in the past. Each position uses different weights for each rating in each coverage set. Even the pass pattern run makes a difference (that can't be game-planned yet, which is part of why I'd like to add playbooks in the future). I don't talk about engine details a lot, because I want people to figure these questions out for their own teams and learn without my help. But you will see bump skills matter more for a cornerback than a safety in that defense. Not that bump skills are all a cornerback needs to cover a receiver successfully in that situation.


7. Is training purely for position switching and getting a player to "ideal" weight, or can it impact individual skills? For example, will bulking up a DT make him a better run stopper, or will trimming down a RB make him a little faster, but a little less powerful inside?
Weight matters in many ways, depending on the position. As does height to a lesser extent.


8. There has been quite a bit of confusion regarding the underrated/overrated tags. It seems like underrated players almost always get worse, and overrated players almost always get better. Can you
clarify this statement from the game's help file: "{You will learn about} whether your scout feels the player is better or worse than his overall rating."?
The comparison being made is what your scout feels after more extensive interviewing compared to the generic combine/scout rating. If you're seeing those results consistently, perhaps I'm factoring in the combine results too much in the first half of this calculation. Balancing scouting versus combine numbers is very, very delicate.


9. The game now indicates when a player is "tired"; does that mean as long as a player isn't listed as tired, endurance has no effect on effectiveness?
Endurance is essentially a cap on how much a player can compete. You'll notice that if you set a player with weak endurance to participate in 90% of the game, he just can't do it (this varies by position). Tiredness is based on endurance, but when a player is tired, he might not play as well.


10. Since cornerbacks and safeties don't have pass rush ratings, what ratings, if any, should we look at to determine whether a defensive back will be an effective or ineffective blitzer?
Look at the offensive line and the players being kept in to block. A defensive back doesn't stand much of a chance of getting to the quarterback if the blitz is recognized. I'd run less blitzes against teams that don't give up a lot of sacks, and teams that have low numbers of running back receptions. Defensive back blitzes are more a function of good defensive game planning in the NFL, not individual skills. Don't listen to the propaganda.


11. Why don't tight ends get charged with giving up sacks? Does this mean that tight ends are not involved in pass blocking despite having the rating?
They probably should be charged once in a while. They definitely matter in the engine, there might be a problem with how sacks allowed are credited.

12. Does the game engine treat I-Formation, Pro, Strong and Weak sets differently?
Yes. Since formation affects how the defense positions itself, some formations work better than others with the run or the pass.


13. Is play-action simulated, meaning does success running the ball improve success in passing on non-obvious passing downs?
That's something I'd like to add. But definitely, the more success you have running the ball, the more you'll be able to throw the ball later in the game. Effective play on one side changes the defense's expectations over time.


14. What's the biggest improvement you'd like to make to TCY if you ever do TCY2?
I would like to add a full play-calling mode based on playbooks. There is no play-calling in The College Years and the engine is a few versions behind the Front Office Football pro game. The engines must be kept separate for many reasons (game rules, effectiveness of formations, range of ratings), but that doesn't mean it isn't easier to get TCY up to par than it was developing FOF to that level in the first place.


15. Do you watch NFL football games and relate what you see to things that are and are not part of your game? Is watching the NFL "research" for your job or is it just a weekly pleasure for you like the rest of the world?
I watch a lot of NFL football. I would say mostly just for pleasure, but I always have a notebook nearby, and if I see something I'd like to model in the game, I'll write it down. Many of the engine improvements for '07 came out of notes made while I was watching games. For instance, with the Giants tonight, I made a note that maybe it would be fun to have a quarterback with high ratings who never plays up to those ratings in big games. When it comes times to design the next game, I'll evaluate that note and decide whether it's kind of esoteric and random or something people would enjoy. That would help with my long-term goal of getting people more used to looking at statistics in addition to the ratings.


16. How is your move going? Is the house completed? When will you be completely settled in in Ann Arbor?
The move is hopefully the end of a process that began early in 2004 when I started interviewing builders, looking at land and drawing preliminary house designs. We found the land in mid-2005, and broke ground in February of this year. We're looking at getting our Certificate of Occupancy in two or three weeks and hopefully moving by the end of January. I saw the house for the first time in early December. It's just amazing, almost overwhelming, to see something we've put so much time into take shape. My wife and I have had a hand in just about everything that's gone into the house, down to what's in the walls. It's so much more involved and rewarding than simply moving to an existing house.


17. What do you see as the most important team and player statistics when it comes to winning in the NFL?
There is no one answer there. You can't have a team of all-stars under the salary cap, so every team has a certain number of strengths and weaknesses. Analysts typically look at the top team in the league and make statements like that based on that team. Right now, you need a great rushing offense, a quarterback who won't kill you and at least a solid defense that can make plays, because that describes San Diego today However, I do believe that you can't win without a quarterback who can move the offense. So I look at average yards per pass play on offense and defense, along with number of interceptions. Add those three together, and you're looking at San Diego and Philadelphia right now as the top teams in the league.


18. You've dropped a lot of hints lately that seem to point towards you developing a partnership with another software company. Would keeping total design control be a part of any agreement you might make?
I'm going to try and see where all these years of hard work can take me. Primarily, it's about finding the right relationship that benefits all parties, not making unrealistic statements about control. I think, given my experience and what I bring to the table in terms of a game engine and other key pieces, that I'd have considerable design input in changes to those modules. But, regarding other pieces outside of those areas, it's silly to expect that the person paying the bills won't want to call the shots.


19. Does the game look at a player's age in determining retirement or is it based solely upon years experience; does it consider injury history or the previous year's statistical performance?
Years of experience and games started in the past season are by far the most important factors in determining retirement. Injury condition, age, contract status and the level of current play are also factored in to a lesser extent.


20. Will the draft file creator be released in a future patch so people without the previous versions of FOF can create draft files?
A small piece was added to '07 that will allow for much more accurate and realistic importing of TCY draft classes down the road. The idea was that the next version of TCY would be much more closely tied to FOF, in that FOF now uses a piece of TCY to make certain calculations. I think the draft class creator should be in TCY, not in FOF. I haven't yet decided what's happening this coming fall, but this issue will be resolved in some manner, whether it's adding to a new product or to an update.

[Dutch]

Thanks for the info. FOF and Jim's thoughtfulness in designing this game will never cease to amaze me.

[Emiliano]

Very interesting content. Thanks Jim!

[Ben E Lou]

Thoughts...

Originally Posted by Jim G.

I'm most proud of the new game planning and the AI used to generate a computer team's game plan.

I must agree that it is quite impressive to see the variety that AI teams use. You'd never see the kind of variance in run/pass percentages and passing distances in previous versions that I'm seeing in this one.

What I'd most like to add is not necessarily what I will add, because some

of the best features may take several months on their own and it might be a poor business decision. I would most like to see a 2D representation of on-field action along with a revamping of how playbooks are created. The big question is whether people would still buy the new game if those were the only major new features.

That's an interesting question. Those sound like features that I'd use in MP, but would use maybe once or twice a season (deep in the playoffs) in SP. Given that the vast majority of game purchasers never touch MP, on the surface it would appear that this is a no-brainer. However, I can't help but wonder if these two features would continue to attract the "coach" type players. As per previous discussions, FOF's feature list has always seemed to me to trend toward the GM/fastsim type player. The addition of Solevision in this version definitely has piqued the interest of more coach-style players. I'd be curious to see if others on this board think that this might help continue to open up a new segment of the market to Jim.

4. What innovations from MP players surprised you?
The sophistication I found in game plans that actually used a team's specific strengths and weaknesses to create a scheme that was hard to defeat. I had to work a lot harder to train defenses to keep up.

I am told that Shaun "The Solution" Duncan eagerly awaits the challenge.

One, I don't want to manifest any situation where graphics prevent me from providing as much information on a single screen as humanly possible. And two, I don't want the game to play full-screen.

Preach the Word. Preach!

With '07, pass coverage is a lot more sophisticated than in the past. Each position uses different weights for each rating in each coverage set. Even the pass pattern run makes a difference (that can't be game-planned yet, which is part of why I'd like to add playbooks in the future). I don't talk about engine details a lot, because I want people to figure these questions out for their own teams and learn without my help. But you will see bump skills matter more for a cornerback than a safety in that defense. Not that bump skills are all a cornerback needs to cover a receiver successfully in that situation.

This entire answer is great, great news to me.

Weight matters in many ways, depending on the position. As does height to a lesser extent.

Hmmmm....first MP training camp is in a little over three weeks, and I've done very little testing on this. I know what I'll be doing when my wife is out of town over MLK.

The comparison being made is what your scout feels after more extensive interviewing compared to the generic combine/scout rating. If you're seeing those results consistently, perhaps I'm factoring in the combine results too much in the first half of this calculation. Balancing scouting versus combine numbers is very, very delicate.

Ah! That makes sense then. My take so far is that yes, combine results are being factored a little too heavily in the generic rating. However, I can definitely see how this needs to be balanced, as I assume the AI teams end up picking at least partially based on those generic ratings. I'd hate to lose the challenge element of the draft.

Endurance is essentially a cap on how much a player can compete. You'll notive that if you set a player with weak endurance to participate in 90% of the game, he just can't do it (this varies by position).

I've definitely noticed this, and my observation is that this works *much* better in FOF2K7 than in the last version. In the past, I basically ignored endurance for positions other than RB. In this version, I *HAVE* to have a decent backup for my zero-endurance RDT.

Originally Posted by Chuck D

Don't listen to the propaganda. believe the hype.

But definitely, the more success you have running the ball, the more you'll be able to throw the ball later in the game. Effective play on one side changes the defense's expectations over time.

Nice!

For instance, with the Giants tonight, I made a note that maybe it would be fun to have a quarterback with high ratings who never plays up to those ratings in big games. When it comes times to design the next game, I'll evaluate that note and decide whether it's kind of esoteric and random or something people would enjoy. That would help with my long-term goal of getting people more used to looking at statistics in addition to the ratings.

That reminds me of a question that I should have asked. I wonder if the "unrated" statistics that are tracked in the game are telling us anything meaningful. For example, players aren't rated (that we can see) for how they do in the red zone, but we have situation stats for them in the red zone. Is that just a cool stat to look at, or are we actually learning something about the players' abilities from it?

The move is hopefully the end of a process that began early in 2004 when I started interviewing builders, looking at land and drawing preliminary house designs. We found the land in mid-2005, and broke ground in February of this year. We're looking at getting our Certificate of Occupancy in two or three weeks and hopefully moving by the end of January. I saw the house for the first time in early December. It's just amazing, almost overwhelming, to see something we've put so much time into take shape. My wife and I have had a hand in just about everything that's gone into the house, down to what's in the walls. It's so much more involved and rewarding than simply moving to an existing house.

I can't imagine how much fun it will be to see this come to its final fruition.

[wbatl1]

Very good information here. Thanks a lot Jim!

[wade moore]

Thanks Jim!

I hope we get to do this again to answer some of the questions that had to be cut out...

[MizzouRah]

Thanks Jim!

2. What are the top features that you'd like to add down the road for future versions and/or updates?
What I'd most like to add is not necessarily what I will add, because some of the best features may take several months on their own and it might be a poor business decision. I would most like to see a 2D representation of on-field action along with a revamping of how playbooks are created. The big question is whether people would still buy the new game if those were the only major new features.

Yes.

[st.cronin]

ping: SI

Make it happen, guys.

[Bad-example]

I don't want the game to play full-screen.

Booo! Full screen means more room to present more information without scroll bars and extra clicks.

[Eaglesfan27]

If just 2D was added, that would be a must buy for me. Solevision has made me realize I enjoy the game much more when I play it slowly and see game by game play out. Maybe I'm biased, but I think Solecismic would add plenty of customers if 2D was the only major improvement in the next version of FOF. Then again, I wonder how many fast simmers wouldn't upgrade if that was the only major improvement.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by JimG

2. What are the top features that you'd like to add down the road for future versions and/or updates?
What I'd most like to add is not necessarily what I will add, because some of the best features may take several months on their own and it might be a poor business decision. I would most like to see a 2D representation of on-field action along with a revamping of how playbooks are created. The big question is whether people would still buy the new game if those were the only major new features.

5. What aspects of the game are you dissatisfied with?
I always want more in the way of graphics. I'd like to be able to spend more and have a professional artist design more of what I use within the game. However, I don't ever want to sacrifice two key areas of what I do provide. One, I don't want to manifest any situation where graphics prevent me from providing as much information on a single screen as humanly possible. And two, I don't want the game to play full-screen. Windowed gaming is what I prefer, and multi-tasking is one of the huge advantages of a PC.

18. You've dropped a lot of hints lately that seem to point towards you developing a partnership with another software company. Would keeping total design control be a part of any agreement you might make?
I'm going to try and see where all these years of hard work can take me. Primarily, it's about finding the right relationship that benefits all parties, not making unrealistic statements about control. I think, given my experience and what I bring to the table in terms of a game engine and other key pieces, that I'd have considerable design input in changes to those modules. But, regarding other pieces outside of those areas, it's silly to expect that the person paying the bills won't want to call the shots.

Why do I get this feeling that he is talking about Sports Interactive and joining forces with Marc Vaughn. It just seems to fit so perfectly with what they already do. I really, really, really hope this happens.

Originally Posted by JimG

3. Is limitation to what gets added to each successive version of your games a function of your time or hardware/software? In other words, can you forsee a time where either you've invested enough time or technology progresses enough to reach the point where you no longer feel the need for major enhancements and the product itself is essentially "mature."
The product is mature in that the core has held up for years and I have an engine in place for producing results representative of what you'd see in a football game. We're moving into an uncertain time for PC games. Right now, I push the memory limits of computers made maybe three years ago. Today's FOF wouldn't run on the computer I was using when I started out. I try not to go beyond three years, though. I don't want to force people to buy a new computer to play the game, as is the case with many of the graphics-oriented games produced by major publishers.

Now that I have gotten this explaination, it makes sense from a business standpoint since you can reach more people with with different system specs. I guess why I have been a big believer in having some graphic, whether that is colored circles moving across the screen or somthing more sophisticated, is because I would really like to coach football games and know how my moves are having an effect on the game. As it currently stands, I have given up the coaching aspects after so many games because I don't know how badly someone is getting beat by a wide receiver or how a defensive lineman is owning my center. Plus did a sack occur because of a blown blocking scheme or was the running back ineffective in blocking the linebacker.

I understand that it won't be the easiest thing to program, but if the game offers the ability to coach, there at least needs to be more information on how plays occur because this is how I base my decisions on who to change on my personnel.

Besides all of that, thanks for the Q & A. Lot of good information here and congrats on the move as well. This is my first venture into multiplayer, so this game is going to be even more interesting than it already has.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Why do I get this feeling that he is talking about Sports Interactive and joining forces with Marc Vaughn. It just seems to fit so perfectly with what they already do. I really, really, really hope this happens.

I also get that feeling. I'd love for it to happen even though I think the transition with OOTP wasn't very smooth from my perspective as a potential buyer of the first joint Markus/SI product.


Thanks for taking the time to answer all of these questions, Jim. I'll echo others - I hope your move continues to go smoothly.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Booo! Full screen means more room to present more information without scroll bars and extra clicks.

Full screen = bad. Can't stand it - means you can't do anything else while playing (work, take dynasty notes, talk on IM, etc.). First thing I do when I get a new version of FM is change it from full-screen to windowed mode.

[MizzouRah]

If FOF goes to the SI interface, not sure I'll purchase any more iterations. Just my opinion, but I do not like their interface.

[mhass]

Very cool, Jim. Thanks for taking the time. My player card says Loyalty = 99.

[Raiders Army]

That was a great 20 questions/answers. Thanks Jim.

Originally Posted by Celeval

Full screen = bad. Can't stand it - means you can't do anything else while playing (work, take dynasty notes, talk on IM, etc.). First thing I do when I get a new version of FM is change it from full-screen to windowed mode.

I would tend to disagree there. I think the future of PC gaming is going to be dual screen. There's so much more you can do with two screens not only in sports games (one is the game keeping stats and the other the action), but also in action games (one is the game is the action, the other objectives, map, etc.) and RTS games (one is the game, the other build orders, strategies, etc.). After working with two screens at work during a warfighter, you can get so much more information out of two screens.

Although XP has supported dual screens, I think the combination of Vista and the relatively low prices for LCD monitors will be the turning point in dual screen gaming. It wasn't conceivable to put two CRT monitors on your desk at home and two LCD monitors were just too expensive.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Jim

Look at the offensive line and the players being kept in to block. A defensive back doesn't stand much of a chance of getting to the quarterback if the blitz is recognized.

Hmmm.... I missed this the first time I read it. Are y'all reading this like me, that OL intelligence makes a difference in picking up the blitz?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Hmmm.... I missed this the first time I read it. Are y'all reading this like me, that OL intelligence makes a difference in picking up the blitz?

Nope. The way I read it was it was one of three things:

OL's Pass Blocking Rating
QB's Read Defense
QB's Intelligence

I would tend to think that it would be QB's Intelligence.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I would most like to see a 2D representation of on-field action along with a revamping of how playbooks are created. The big question is whether people would still buy the new game if those were the only major new features.

I bet you could get people to pay $10-$15 for the .1 release this time around if it included that...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Nope. The way I read it was it was one of three things:

OL's Pass Blocking Rating
QB's Read Defense
QB's Intelligence

I would tend to think that it would be QB's Intelligence.

And I was thinking more in line with whether or not you left a RB, FB, and/or TE in to pick up the blitz.

With FOF bringing as many as 3 blitzers, if you are too aggressive here and don't have two of these guys staying home when that big blitz comes, the math would suggest you are one or two guys short...hence, the scheme wins the day, not the talent of the blitzing CB.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I would tend to disagree there. I think the future of PC gaming is going to be dual screen. There's so much more you can do with two screens not only in sports games (one is the game keeping stats and the other the action), but also in action games (one is the game is the action, the other objectives, map, etc.) and RTS games (one is the game, the other build orders, strategies, etc.). After working with two screens at work during a warfighter, you can get so much more information out of two screens.

Sure, works great if you're not, say, traveling with a laptop.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Sure, works great if you're not, say, traveling with a laptop.

Tru dat

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And I was thinking more in line with whether or not you left a RB, FB, and/or TE in to pick up the blitz.

That's how I read it. If those guys are left back to pick up the blitz, plus their Pick Up Blitz ratings.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And I was thinking more in line with whether or not you left a RB, FB, and/or TE in to pick up the blitz.

With FOF bringing as many as 3 blitzers, if you are too aggressive here and don't have two of these guys staying home when that big blitz comes, the math would suggest you are one or two guys short...hence, the scheme wins the day, not the talent of the blitzing CB.

Look at the offensive line and the players being kept in to block. A defensive back doesn't stand much of a chance of getting to the quarterback if the blitz is recognized. I'd run less blitzes against teams that don't give up a lot of sacks, and teams that have low numbers of running back receptions. Defensive back blitzes are more a function of good defensive game planning in the NFL, not individual skills. Don't listen to the propaganda.

Bolded part mine. I would think that the rating in question would be on the QB to let the RB, FB, and/or TE to stay in and block as opposed to the blitz pickup rating of the RB, FB, and/or TE. The QB recognizes the blitz and changes the protection. That's my interpretation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Bolded part mine. I would think that the rating in question would be on the QB to let the RB, FB, and/or TE to stay in and block as opposed to the blitz pickup rating of the RB, FB, and/or TE. The QB recognizes the blitz and changes the protection. That's my interpretation.

Your bolded phrase is what caught my eye, too. My experience is that Jim chooses his words carefully when he's talking about his game. That says to me that someone has to recognize the blitz.

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

ping: SI

Make it happen, guys.

that is EXACTLY what I was thinking.

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

If FOF goes to the SI interface, not sure I'll purchase any more iterations. Just my opinion, but I do not like their interface.

To each his own and that was my initial reaction to SI and the first EHM and the first time I played OOTP 2006. However now that I am accustomed to it - I prefer the SI interface over everything else that is out there.

FOF with the SI interface and 2D graphics would be incredible to me.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

To each his own and that was my initial reaction to SI and the first EHM and the first time I played OOTP 2006. However now that I am accustomed to it - I prefer the SI interface over everything else that is out there.

FOF with the SI interface and 2D graphics would be incredible to me.

+1

Also SI seems extremely well suited to putting together a combo FOF-TCY game.

[DolphinFan1]

Great answers by Jim.

I still don't understand the overrated/underrated tags. Could someone put it in English please?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Your bolded phrase is what caught my eye, too. My experience is that Jim chooses his words carefully when he's talking about his game. That says to me that someone has to recognize the blitz.

I changed my mind. I think it's the Read Defense ability as opposed to intelligence. From what I can tell (no empirical evidence) I think intelligence remains the same over the course of the player's career. Read Defense will change (and I'm not sure if it ever goes down). Thus, as the QB matures he will be able to recognize the blitz more readily. I'll quicksim a little to see if the Read Defense ever goes down (not sure why it would).

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I changed my mind. I think it's the Read Defense ability as opposed to intelligence. From what I can tell (no empirical evidence) I think intelligence remains the same over the course of the player's career. Read Defense will change (and I'm not sure if it ever goes down). Thus, as the QB matures he will be able to recognize the blitz more readily. I'll quicksim a little to see if the Read Defense ever goes down (not sure why it would).

Why are we assuming the QB reads the blitz, and it's not the Blitz Pickup of RBs/FBs?

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Look at the offensive line and the players being kept in to block. A defensive back doesn't stand much of a chance of getting to the quarterback if the blitz is recognized. I'd run less blitzes against teams that don't give up a lot of sacks, and teams that have low numbers of running back receptions. Defensive back blitzes are more a function of good defensive game planning in the NFL, not individual skills.

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Hmmm.... I missed this the first time I read it. Are y'all reading this like me, that OL intelligence makes a difference in picking up the blitz?

I would read that to think OL pass blocking (i.e. the right scheme), and players left in to block. I don't necessarily see anything that implies intelligence has anything to do with it (at least, outside of what / anything intelligence usually has to do with it).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Why are we assuming the QB reads the blitz, and it's not the Blitz Pickup of RBs/FBs?

I agree. I see no reason why a RB blitz pickup rating would not include a recognition component. I see that more plausible than the QB read defense rating -- I see that more affecting the passing game/playcalling. Let's also not forget the "sense rush" rating for QBs. Perhaps it may also mean more than pocket awareness after the snap.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Why are we assuming the QB reads the blitz, and it's not the Blitz Pickup of RBs/FBs?

As above, I was assuming it based on the fact that the blitz is recognized before the snap. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that after the snap RBs, FBs, or TEs have the option themselves to stay in and block if they recognize the blitz. I always thought it was the QB's responsibility to direct players to stay in and block. Those of you with more actual football experience can correct me.

That being said, from what I could tell in a limited experiment Read Defense has nothing to do with how many times the QB is sacked.

[Dutch]

I think we've all seen a running back stay back to pick up potential blitzers but failed to be anywhere near the right spot, or flat out not see a blitzer from the opposite side. I've seen RB's pick up an opposite field blitzer from time to time where he had to damned near sprint across the path of the drop back QB to take out a blitzer.

Some blitzers feign pass coverage, some pass coverage guys feign blitzing. The QB, pre-snap can only do so much. In many defensive schemes, nobody knows who's blitzing until the ball is snapped. That then becomes the guys who've been left in to cover extra blitzers to recognize where they are coming from, hence my interpretation of the Blitz Pickup Rating.

I can't see it meaning anything else. Jim has already stated that the opposing blitzers don't have a rating (edit: corners and safeties and possible just extra blitzers in general), so the Blitz Pickup rating doesn't seem like a counter to anything other than whether or not all the blitzers are picked up.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think we've all seen a running back stay back to pick up potential blitzers but failed to be anywhere near the right spot, or flat out not see a blitzer from the opposite side. I've seen RB's pick up an opposite field blitzer from time to time where he had to damned near sprint across the path of the drop back QB to take out a blitzer.

Some blitzers feign pass coverage, some pass coverage guys feign blitzing. The QB, pre-snap can only do so much. In many defensive schemes, nobody knows who's blitzing until the ball is snapped. That then becomes the guys who've been left in to cover extra blitzers to recognize where they are coming from, hence my interpretation of the Blitz Pickup Rating.

I can't see it meaning anything else. Jim has already stated that the opposing blitzers don't have a rating (edit: corners and safeties and possible just extra blitzers in general), so the Blitz Pickup rating doesn't seem like a counter to anything other than whether or not all the blitzers are picked up.

That's precisely why I was thinking intelligence. The reason I was thinking linemen (for DBs) is that the help file specifically says that the blitz pickup rating is with regard to blitzing linebackers. Combine that with Jim's statement that DBs rarely get to the QB if the blitz is recognized, and my new theory is that when they send a DB or two, the linemen AND RBs have to recognize the right person to block. That would seem to me to be the most logical application of what we know about the ratings.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

That's precisely why I was thinking intelligence. The reason I was thinking linemen (for DBs) is that the help file specifically says that the blitz pickup rating is with regard to blitzing linebackers. Combine that with Jim's statement that DBs rarely get to the QB if the blitz is recognized, and my new theory is that when they send a DB or two, the linemen AND RBs have to recognize the right person to block. That would seem to me to be the most logical application of what we know about the ratings.

"blitzing linebackers" threw me. I don't know, Ben. The help file says "their ability to pick up blitzing defenders". If anything, I have myself convinced that pickup blitz rating is a RB, FB, TE's ability to find the attacking extra blitzers.

I've considered intelligence to be used more for player development. It's a factor that goes into making other player ratings, but is not neccessarily something that is factored in to each and every play.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

"blitzing linebackers" threw me. I don't know, Ben. The help file says "their ability to pick up blitzing defenders". If anything, I have myself convinced that pickup blitz rating is a RB, FB, TE's ability to find the attacking extra blitzers.

I've found that the csv help file usually has more info than the actual game help file:

Column AS: Running Back's Blitz Pickup - the ability to handle a blitzing linebacker.

[Dutch]

Ah, good catch. Also, another thing that just shot holes in my theory is that TE's don't have the pickup blitz option like I was suggesting.

Oh well, it was a good theory while it lasted.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

To each his own and that was my initial reaction to SI and the first EHM and the first time I played OOTP 2006. However now that I am accustomed to it - I prefer the SI interface over everything else that is out there.

FOF with the SI interface and 2D graphics would be incredible to me.

I ploded through EHM last year, but for some reason, I don't like their interface. Like you said though, to each his/her own.

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I ploded through EHM last year, but for some reason, I don't like their interface. Like you said though, to each his/her own.

I found the EHM interface a lot more cumbersome then what the OOTP one has morphed into and I don't play the soccer one, for the simple reason I don't know,care about or follow soccer other then the 8-year old variety.

I also absolutely HATED OOTP 2006 interface the first month it was out - however once I got use to it now I find everything else lacking.

what I REALLY want is FOF detail and accuracy with Madden graphics and FBPro coach type approach. If we ever got that my wife would undoubtedly leave me for lack of attention.

[mhass]

Just to squelch all the talk of TE's not giving up sacks, it happens a lot. Here's just one example from a current SP career.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Nice. That's been fixed then from 2K4. They were never credited for sacks in that version.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

[/size][/font]

I bet you could get people to pay $10-$15 for the .1 release this time around if it included that...

And you see exactly why I answered the question in this manner:

"What I'd most like to add is not necessarily what I will add, because some of the best features may take several months on their own and it might be a poor business decision. I would most like to see..."

That would be a full new version in and of itself. It would certainly take me the full year, and would probably be a fair thing to charge full price for as a new version.

But the biggest trouble I have right now is people who think I'm somehow cheating them out of their favorite potential new feature because I'm asking full price for a huge amount of work on my part.

FOF '07 is probably the biggest version-to-version update I've made in terms of my time and effort since the first game. But since FOF is at a more "mature" stage in development, there's more diversity in potential new function. I went after the hard-core audience this time.

Maybe that was a mistake, I won't know for sure until probably after the draft when more reviews are in and I have a good picture of how many sales I'll have.

So, if I choose to go in one specific direction, a lot of people will look at the next update and say, "why is he charging for something that doesn't benefit me in full?"

That's why going after something major like a 2-D representation combined with new playbooks, and calling that a full new version, might not be a smart move on my part even though it's what I want to do if there's a "Version 7.0" and would represent what I think is a fair amount of work for a full new version.

I honestly think the time has come to join forces with an established publisher. So they can contract out the fluff and I can focus on the game. And with an established publisher calling the shots, I think some of the anger would dissipate over decisions made over which new features to include and which not to include.

I see a lot of, "Game X includes this function, why can't FOF?" Well, FOF has some things Game X doesn't. I probably can and would do anything with FOF, given enough development time. But what I choose to include has to come at the expense of something else, that's just the way it works.

I hope people still want diversity in their gaming experience. If every text sim out there had an identical feature set, there wouldn't be much sense in competition, would there? That approach only makes sense with physical goods, not intellectual property goods like a computer game.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I hope people still want diversity in their gaming experience. If every text sim out there had an identical feature set, there wouldn't be much sense in competition, would there? That approach only makes sense with physical goods, not intellectual property goods like a computer game.

Absolutely and agreed.

But I think the general thought process here is that you take a fantastic game (FOF) and you add the best parts of other great games to make an UBERGAME. Like adding a dollop of whipped cream and a scoop of fresh blackberries to that killer piece of key lime pie.

Wait, did I say that last part out loud? :o

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And you see exactly why I answered the question in this manner:

"What I'd most like to add is not necessarily what I will add, because some of the best features may take several months on their own and it might be a poor business decision. I would most like to see..."

That would be a full new version in and of itself. It would certainly take me the full year, and would probably be a fair thing to charge full price for as a new version.

But the biggest trouble I have right now is people who think I'm somehow cheating them out of their favorite potential new feature because I'm asking full price for a huge amount of work on my part.

Believe me, I fully understand. I was just throwing out a half-tongue-in-cheek not-so-realistic third alternative, where you could do the major upgrade, get some money back from it (albeit losing money based on effort), and then put effort into the next full upgrade. I was just going off the theory that you basically went 3 years without doing anything new this last time, you could do something for one of those years this time and get paid for it.

But I understand exactly where you are coming from. I did see a comment about 2D in one of the other threads about "why can't FOF get it?". It is my understanding that you have a statistical engine, where you derive results based off probabilities from the play calls and the attributes of the key players involved in that play call. Switching to a 2D engine completely changes that approach to the game, where you are actually simulating what each and every player does during the play. Now you do probabilities on much smaller portions of each play, with the 2D sim replacing some of the gross probabilities from before. And now you're adding within-the-play AI, where each of the 22 players on the field has to make intelligent decisions based on what the other 21 choose to do.

It's a HUGE deal. And despite my bit above, something I would be willing to pay full price for. Getting people to understand, though, how much effort was involved when all they see from the front-end is a fancy new game viewer is dicey at best.

Of course, I'll also pay full price if it DOESN'T include a 2D engine, because I enjoy this as a GM sim.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I see a lot of, "Game X includes this function, why can't FOF?" Well, FOF has some things Game X doesn't. I probably can and would do anything with FOF, given enough development time. But what I choose to include has to come at the expense of something else, that's just the way it works.

I've got news for you: even within the game development community among people who should understand, I see this same question regularly. People don't understand that the real answer is "because Game X doesn't include feature Y that we do." Things like "Shooter X has super-detailed characters and fancy lighting, why doesn't Shooter Y?" The answer is "Because Shooter X is rendering a single room and maybe one turn of a corridor and has exactly enemy to fight, while Shooter Y is in an outside strip mall with a parking lot full of cars and 30 bad guys shooting at you." Do you want 1 character with 30,000 polys to fight, or 30 characters with 1,000 polys each?

[MizzouRah]

He could do 2D where the game still derives the results, it just plays out in front of you like TCB or EHM does. The dots will go where the game engine tells it to, basically.

FOF is one of the only text sims where I feel like a fanboy... so put in 2d and I'd pay full price without even thinking about it, but I see where others might not want that as much as I do - although making the AI much harder in terms of roster management, maybe make coaches more involved in terms of personalities go, newspaper style reports, etc... would be great as well.

You have so much I still believe you could do on your own, without any other involvement, but do what's best for you.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And you see exactly why I answered the question in this manner:

"What I'd most like to add is not necessarily what I will add, because some of the best features may take several months on their own and it might be a poor business decision. I would most like to see..."

That would be a full new version in and of itself. It would certainly take me the full year, and would probably be a fair thing to charge full price for as a new version.

But the biggest trouble I have right now is people who think I'm somehow cheating them out of their favorite potential new feature because I'm asking full price for a huge amount of work on my part.

FOF '07 is probably the biggest version-to-version update I've made in terms of my time and effort since the first game. But since FOF is at a more "mature" stage in development, there's more diversity in potential new function. I went after the hard-core audience this time.

Maybe that was a mistake, I won't know for sure until probably after the draft when more reviews are in and I have a good picture of how many sales I'll have.

So, if I choose to go in one specific direction, a lot of people will look at the next update and say, "why is he charging for something that doesn't benefit me in full?"

That's why going after something major like a 2-D representation combined with new playbooks, and calling that a full new version, might not be a smart move on my part even though it's what I want to do if there's a "Version 7.0" and would represent what I think is a fair amount of work for a full new version.

I honestly think the time has come to join forces with an established publisher. So they can contract out the fluff and I can focus on the game. And with an established publisher calling the shots, I think some of the anger would dissipate over decisions made over which new features to include and which not to include.

I see a lot of, "Game X includes this function, why can't FOF?" Well, FOF has some things Game X doesn't. I probably can and would do anything with FOF, given enough development time. But what I choose to include has to come at the expense of something else, that's just the way it works.

I hope people still want diversity in their gaming experience. If every text sim out there had an identical feature set, there wouldn't be much sense in competition, would there? That approach only makes sense with physical goods, not intellectual property goods like a computer game.

If you put a 2d engine into the game, I would pay full price for it no questions asked.

[SteveMax58]

I think it also depends on how detailed you want to get with the 2d characters & presentation. Simulating AI for every player on the field sounds like a monster undertaking, perhaps requiring a complete DB rewrite at a minimum...but canned sprite animations based on the engine's "mini-results" or simple X & O style may be good enough to get the job done. Nobody plays text sims for the graphics, so a simple representation of the dynamics you simply cant put into the play-by-play becomes an incredible addition.

I dont think anybody...ok I'll stop using that word...I dont think a lot of people would complain about that type of major addition costing full price. FOF2k7 is my first FOF purchase, and I'm completely hooked & would gladly pay full price for such an upgrade. I think the 2d engine might actually change the way many quick-simmers play the game as well, thus adding to the enticement.

Also...One added side benefit, is that if you make it to also take into TCY's unique attributes from FOF, it might be an almost 2 for 1 effort in terms of development time. But naturally, I wouldnt know the engines or DB structures well enough to know if thats accurate...but at a minimum, I would think the "lessons learned" quite helpful anyway.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

With a 2d engine and some smaller additional tweaks (edit coaching names, give them certain coaching styles; tighten up AI roster/contracts a little bit) -- I would pay full price for one and buy another for a friend of mine.