What needs to change in FOF MP???

[Dutch]

Since it's possible that a new version of FOF MP might come out in the next year or two...and it's possible that we are still in a point where we can affect change. What improvements should Jim be focusing on that will help FOF blossom with a new release?

[Dutch]

My biggest concern is the amount of time it takes to get through a season. Most leagues take 3 to 4 months for one season. When a new owner takes over, it could take up to a year to get their own signature on a team, where, imo, FOF MP makes it's money. Once you get your team, you start wanting more. My personal opinion is that the sweet spot is a one-month regular season and a one-month off-season.

[bulletsponge]

3-4 months? most leagues in in a season takes 2 months, some even faster

[cuervo72]

FOFL simmed 2042 Week 4 on 03/04/13, 2043 Week 4 on 05/17/13, so just about 2.5 months. It could be faster with more sims per week or condensing more stages (coach hiring) or eliminating other off days (days following the bowl, holidays) or simming on Saturdays. Thing is, as the simmer - I don't really feel like simming any more often than I do.

[Dutch]

I've always assumed that FOFL was faster than most. I think 4 sims per week is the most manageable expectation for this game.

That gets 1 month for regular season.
1 week for playoffs.
3-4 weeks for the off-season. This is probably where the most money is made in slimming things down a bit.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not seeing where the sim speed is something that Jim should be focusing on. The BFL and CCFL get through the entire season (offseason and regular season) in exactly 6 weeks. The GML takes 7 weeks. The FOFL and IHOF take roughly 2 1/2 months. IHOF. The IFL takes roughly 4 months. Jim could save some leagues a couple of days here or there by consolidating staff hiring or folding ticket prices into Free Agency or other things like that, but ultimately, two factors completely outside of Jim's control are *much* more important in this regard:

1. How often is the simmer willing to sim?
2. Are there enough people that find the answer to #1 reasonable enough to form a league?

[Dutch]

Well shit, my bad, I thought most leagues were still churning out a season every 3-4 months. Nothing to see here.

[Jughead Spock]

Roster moves via web/app would be nice.

[MRL17]

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

Roster moves via web/app would be nice.

This.

Actually, for MP at least, the ideal would be the ability to do everything in a web browser. I'm sure this is unrealistic, but I feel like it's the direction that MP wants to move.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Well shit, my bad, I thought most leagues were still churning out a season every 3-4 months. Nothing to see here.

Even if they were, I'm still missing how this would be an issue for Jim to address. Leagues are running basically the same number of sims (upper 30s to mid 40s) and varying in length by a factor of three or more (6 weeks vs. 18+ weeks). Jim trimming down the number of sims required isn't going to change the time much at all.

[Abe Sargent]

Contract stuff is wobbly. Last year, i offered a K a contract after both free agencies, and he turned it down, and then he was auto-signed to my team for half that money at vet min. This year, i offered a back-up quality emergency starter RB about 1 mill to sign for a year, he turns it down, but then signs vet min sal for another team and sits behind two players with more quality (plus he has high play for winner and I was just in the Super Bowl). These sorts of wonky things aren't very realistic, especially when they happen in the same sim. I'd hate to intentionally go into this with a light roster just so I can get players at vet min salary that I couldn;t have signed elsewhere.

[Julio Riddols]

I'd like the option to be available to have a GM-only league with coaches (who each come with their own unique game plans) able to be re-signed or fired in mid-season, with coordinators and position coaches able to be poached in the off season (if they are being offered a promotion). and I would like to see those coaches come with their own player preferences and styles. I want more to go into picking a coach (and subsequently players) than just trying to find big bars. I'd also like to see coaches for each position group. I'd like player ratings to be seen through the combined eyes of the head coach, position coach and scout, and vary wildly in some cases from one team to another. It would be fine if certain offenses/defenses are able to achieve more potential success, but harder to find players for and vice versa.

With rookies, I would like to see them start with a wide range of potential ratings at each attribute which gets narrower as time goes by, never becoming completely clear, but maybe down to a 10 point range or so, and those ratings to be tied to the ability of the position coach and head coach to develop them as well as the players work ethic. I'd also really like to see more types of red flags for players, as well as some who come into the draft injured. Players could be flagged for "takes plays off" or "locker room cancer" or "diva" or "injury prone" etc. These red flags should have some unseen negative effect appropriate to the type of red flag. I would also like to see green flags, like "gym rat", "high motor", "student of the game", and "natural leader" - I would like both the red and the green flags subject to the possibility of being changed for the positive or negative and for players to have multiple flags, both red and green. I think some of these should be revealed at the releasing of the draft class, but the rest should only be determined by interviewing the players, and not all coaches and scouts will see a flag where others will when possible. (For instance, "high motor" would be a trait that all scouts see, while stuff like natural leader or student of the game traits will be more widely varied based on the impression your scout and coaches get if you interview the guy.)

Basically, I want it to be harder for us to know what we have specifically, player development to be tied more to coaches, etc. A rookie should start with wide ranging ratings in most teachable things, with a range of something like 50 points above their initial "floor" ratings. Stuff like speed and strength can be pretty well defined, but stuff like zone coverage skill, hole recognition, etc should be revealed mostly by playing time, and coaches should also be able to narrow down what they have in their backups at maybe half the rate without any playing time required. Then, you narrow the player ratings over time. Some positions would take longer than others to narrow their ranges, like QB and WR would take the longest while RB would take less time. Not only will you not know your players true ranges, but those ranges can also be based on the system you are running.

I'd also like to see the prominent head coaches of the league turn down jobs if they don't like the personnel they will be inheriting, etc. Same for players as FAs. I'd like to see their preferences and style weigh more heavily on their choices. Reggie Bush didn't sign in Cinci because he was only offered the 3rd down back job. The same thing should happen in FOF. Players that are good players should not just sign with the highest bidder unless that high bidder is also planning on using them how they want to be used. In that same vein, I'd like to see something like "planned use" offerable in contracts, where you can tell a potential signee how you intend to use him and whether or not you follow through on that will help or hurt you in the future with other FA's.

And a few final wants: Full size preseason rosters with cutdown days, Practice squads with eligibility requirements like in real life, and the addition of the waiver wire.

Sorry for the wall of text, I am almost always full of ideas and wish I had the know how to design and implement them myself.

[BallHawk21]

I'd like to see an option where free agent offers could be prioritized and withdrawn all in the same stage. Example: If WR x accepts my offer then our offer to WR y is either withdrawn or reduced to a vet minimum offer during the current stage of free agency.

[Julio Riddols]

I like BallHawk's idea as well. Something as simple as free agent prioritization would be a great start. Adding on to that, it would be cool to be able to search players by current top bid in the player search during free agency. Either that or make the bids secret and just show which teams are interested in a guy.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Either that or make the bids secret and just show which teams are interested in a guy.

That makes the most sense to me.

[NawlinsFan]

Julio has hit on something I would like to see, much more involvement, influence and results based upon the capabilities of your staff.

There's another aspect of the game that I think should have some additional influence but I don't know what to do to change it - maybe one of the FoF legends here can expand on it....... the financials. I think they can be an important aspect of the game yet in most leagues you see teams bleeding to death losing money at an outrageous rate without seeing much of an impact.

How about the ability to "see" the potential draft pool showing their college results prior to the combine in early FA, a chance to select players of interest to "observe" during the combine much like interviews during the draft, followed by the pre-draft interviews and draft itself.

[Gallifrey]

I like Julio's comments on coaches and relation to player styles.

This is the one huge element to me that would make a difference. And I would like to be able to make a change mid season.

[Dutch]

Thoughts for making the off-season shorter.

Eliminate Staff Hiring (3 days) and allow owners to bid on coaches/staff throughout the off-season.

Eliminate Ticket/Franchise Tag (1 day) and allow owners to set tickets and set franchise tags before a certain stage is run.

Eliminate the Reneg FA stage (1 day)

Reduce FA to 6 stages (6 days)

Run Draft beginning in stage FA1:4

Reduce FA2 to two stages and add some interest to them. (3days)

FA2:1 would allow owners to bid on a finite number of UDFA (10 or so) that would choose which team it would go to based on the players characteristics (hometown, college, play4win, etc., dice rolls) and would simply receive a 1-yr min wage contract. You then have to decide whether to go after that guy further away that's better or just sign the local kid.

FA2:2 would allow owners one last shot to sign whomever else they want "for real", and as incentive, offer them a multi-year contract. (one-year FA deals would then be reserved for the pre-season/regular season stages)

Pre-Season would probably still have to be 4 days (get rid of that annoying 5th day that nobody cares about).

That's 15 stages (run every other day?) that could be eliminated in game and make the off-season shorter.

[DukeRulesMAB]

I'd like to see a mechanism for handling mid-week transactions that doesn't involve your entire depth chart getting auto-shuffled. This, of course, is for leagues without a "midweek" import; it often makes handling mid-season injuries a huge pain in the ass to accomplish while keeping your depth chart otherwise in place.

[Pyser]

if i had my way, game planning would be a thing of the past.

to me it's a GM game. it's pretty much in the title, too. as others have said, hiring your coaching staff should be much more important in just about every way. your coaching staff should really handle all your game planning, and determine the type of schemes you run. it's the GM's job to get players to fit the schemes.

[strickzilla]

Originally Posted by BallHawk21

I'd like to see an option where free agent offers could be prioritized and withdrawn all in the same stage. Example: If WR x accepts my offer then our offer to WR y is either withdrawn or reduced to a vet minimum offer during the current stage of free agency.

seconded

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Pyser

if i had my way, game planning would be a thing of the past.

to me it's a GM game. it's pretty much in the title, too. as others have said, hiring your coaching staff should be much more important in just about every way. your coaching staff should really handle all your game planning, and determine the type of schemes you run. it's the GM's job to get players to fit the schemes.

+1. i have to thank you and Ben for setting up the GML as it's more or less how i've always wanted to play. i want my sim to simulate professional football. game planning always felt like game breaking to me. or at least taking it outside realm of believability. i understand the total control people and there's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way but it's never interested me.

[QuikSand]

Taking game planning completely out of the game would be an obviously unwise move. Many of us like it, some like it a lot, and in this genre, depth and variety of interest is important.

I personally think the weakness with pinning lots of game interest onto the staff is that it's hard to see staff recruiting, retention, and bidding being a particularly interesting part of the game experience. We might criticize the specific of his staff hiring works in FOF now, but honestly -- what system would actually be interesting and still "realistic" to those who care about that? An open free market system? Using what scarce resources? Cash? Earned by what... Ticket sales and peanut vendors? Is any of that stuff actually interesting to manage?

To me, that's where all that breaks down. Great coach is available, you could improve your team by signing him, and... then what?

I think the system of staff and their effects could use buffing up, but I think the notion that the grass is greener over there in the land of no game planning is mostly specious.

[QuikSand]

Old thread on staff in FOF:

Thoughts on a more robust FOF coach/staff system - Front Office Football Central

[cuervo72]

I wonder if staff could interact with a revamped fan support/attendance system. In the NFL, there comes a time where a coach has to go. Either the guy has been there too long, or he just stinks to the point where the fans are in a state of revolt. Maybe this erodes ticket sales to the point where you would be best to make a move. Or maybe motivation and discipline for a coach starts to erode, not intrinsically for the coach but just with that team.

And for new hires, maybe there could be something that says, ok - this guy is a "name" coach, either because he is coming from college or has had past successes, maybe hiring such a guy brings a boost to ticket sales. Maybe it's as simple as a new line under 'Reputation.'

I also wouldn't mind more coaches occasionally taking themselves out of the pool - moving to the booth for instance. Or to fictional GM positions. I don't know. If there were just some wrinkles besides "make the most money, keep resigning the top guy forever" things might be more interesting (not the top guy, but my FOFL team has had the same HC for 25 seasons, DC for 26. And I still can hardly remember their names.)

And on attendance (yeah, not a MP matter), I'd like to see numbers move from game to game. Have it fluctuate based on the strength of the team, the strength of the opponent, rivalries, playoff hunt. Maybe if a team drafts a big-name player they see a sales boost. Or sign a big-name FA. That might be there now with popularity - but we have no feedback telling us this. An e-mail might be nice.

This might be stupid and frivolous to some, but I wouldn't mind a little bit involving merchandising. I suppose that is wrapped into...concessions maybe? But similar to the fastest/strongest man, maybe we could have a list of the top jersey sales by team/player. I dunno, immersion.

[Ben E Lou]

With all the cries over the years about "let the user customize," it's puzzling at best, disturbing at worst, to see several posts in this thread essentially asking Jim to force people to play MP a certain way. If a league wants to run FA in 12 stages as it is now, then they have that option. And if they want to speed it up, it's no problem whatsoever to combine stages. 10 of Dutch's 15 stages "saved" are stages that some leagues are already combining anyway, but not *all* leagues are. I don't see any reason to force a league that wants to use 3 or 4 of the FA2 stages to only use 2, when it's absolutely no skin whatsoever off of the back of the league that wants it faster to just...do it faster. If people want to play without game planning, there's a league for that that has openings. The last thing I'd want Jim to do would be to spend valuable development time to *remove* ways to play the game that are currently in the game.

[RedKingGold]

The most important thing, from my perspective, is to fix the QB-WR-WR mega-strat. Granted, if a team can get Aaron Rodgers, Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones on the same team, then they should have sizable advantage in the game engine which can be chalked up to SP AI not valuing WR's high enough or human error in MP.

Nevertheless, I should be able to figure out SOMEWAY to stop it, even if that means acquiring Darrell Revis, Champ Bailey (circa 2000) and other stud secondary players to do it. Even when attempting to acquire those big barz, however, stud WR's just beat everything like "rock beats scissors". Just give me some way to level the playing field and let other matchup strengths and luck dictate the outcome of a sim. If I face a team with QB-WR-WR in my division, I should be able to at least neutralize that twice per season by loading up on CB's.

Fix that, and anything else in FOFNext is gravy to me.

[Ben E Lou]

On Staff Hiring and all that, I'm firmly in this camp: fooling around with staff and the junk that goes with it pretty much sucks in every single text sim I've played, so PLEASE give us the option to just turn staff/coaching/scouts completely off. I agree that not having any interplay with a coaching staff would reduce realism, but having played these kinds of games for nearly 20 years now and seen...every...single...staff...setup...suck, I have little reason to believe that Jim or anyone else can create a system that doesn't create boredom and incongruity in MP.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

The most important thing, from my perspective, is to fix the QB-WR-WR mega-strat. Granted, if a team can get Aaron Rodgers, Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones on the same team, then they should have sizable advantage in the game engine which can be chalked up to SP AI not valuing WR's high enough or human error in MP.

Nevertheless, I should be able to figure out SOMEWAY to stop it, even if that means acquiring Darrell Revis, Champ Bailey (circa 2000) and other stud secondary players to do it. Even when attempting to acquire those big barz, however, stud WR's just beat everything like "rock beats scissors". Just give me some way to level the playing field and let other matchup strengths and luck dictate the outcome of a sim. If I face a team with QB-WR-WR in my division, I should be able to at least neutralize that twice per season by loading up on CB's.

Fix that, and anything else in FOFNext is gravy to me.

Yup. Given that Jim has publicly acknowledged that his own testing has revealed that this is a problem, I think it goes without saying that he's going to attempt to re-balance that area of the game. My main hope here is that whatever testing mechanism he used to make that determination can be used to root out any similar serious imbalances prior to something being released.

[isaccoubaldi]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

On Staff Hiring and all that, I'm firmly in this camp: fooling around with staff and the junk that goes with it pretty much sucks in every single text sim I've played, so PLEASE give us the option to just turn staff/coaching/scouts completely off. I agree that not having any interplay with a coaching staff would reduce realism, but having played these kinds of games for nearly 20 years now and seen...every...single...staff...setup...suck, I have little reason to believe that Jim or anyone else can create a system that doesn't create boredom and incongruity in MP.

I like a game where you are a scout-coach-GM.

For this reason I prefer to eliminate staff, scout and coach from the game and to improve the "gameplan part" of the sim with more depth and flexibility (for example I want to be able to assign coverage, play some hybrid 3-4, etc).

I think draft is the best part of this game (after the match). I like to have more infos about the rookies (stats from college, etc).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

With all the cries over the years about "let the user customize," it's puzzling at best, disturbing at worst, to see several posts in this thread essentially asking Jim to force people to play MP a certain way. If a league wants to run FA in 12 stages as it is now, then they have that option. And if they want to speed it up, it's no problem whatsoever to combine stages. 10 of Dutch's 15 stages "saved" are stages that some leagues are already combining anyway, but not *all* leagues are. I don't see any reason to force a league that wants to use 3 or 4 of the FA2 stages to only use 2, when it's absolutely no skin whatsoever off of the back of the league that wants it faster to just...do it faster. If people want to play without game planning, there's a league for that that has openings. The last thing I'd want Jim to do would be to spend valuable development time to *remove* ways to play the game that are currently in the game.

Sorry to have disturbed/frustrated you, Ben, not my intent, honest. So, to be clear, I'm not talking about "forcing" anybody to do anything. I'm talking about revamping the game mechanics so that we don't have a bunch of irrelevant stages built in for no reason. Nobody wants any of the stages I'm talking about removing anyway...and if they do, at what cost? Which gets back to my OP. Is FOF really keeping a bunch of irrelvant stages around at the risk of frustrating new owners in these leagues of ever-evolving ownership?

New Owner: "I gotta wait 8-12 months before I even start to realize this is my team and not the last guy's team...and now I have to wait until next Tuesday to see what happens in Stage 2 of staff hiring?" I just don't see that as a win for FOF MP.

To me, the benefit of having 15 additional and mostly irrelevant stages is so miniscule that it only makes sense to stream-line this aspect of the game. If anything, Solecismic should checkbox additional stage requirements. "Allow additional FA1 stages?" or "Allow additional FA2 stages" or "Would you like to add Staff Hiring and Ticket Pricing as additional stages" as your customization. The "Out-Of-The-Box" solution should always be geared towards the best layout.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mike D

So, to be clear, I'm not talking about "forcing" anybody to do anything.

Sure, you are. Maybe in your zeal to create what you consider the best setup, you're overlooking that. Here's a specific example:

Reduce FA2 to two stages

There are *tons* of leagues out there that run three stages of FA2. If you reduce it to two stages, you have forced them to run fewer stages and gained nothing for the leagues that are already doing it more rapidly than that.

Nobody wants any of the stages I'm talking about removing anyway...and if they do, at what cost?

Well, clearly some people do, otherwise there would be no leagues that use any of those stages. As far as "cost," that's exactly my point: there's zero cost whatsoever to having them in the game if some leagues want to use them, and multiple costs (development time, alienating leagues that want to run those stages one-by-one) to removing them.

Is FOF really keeping a bunch of mundane stages around at the risk of frustrating new owners in these leagues of ever-evolving ownership?

Again, that's not FOF. It's so absurdly easy to combine FA stages that it should be a league decision, not a mandate.

To me, the benefit of having 15 additional and mostly irrelevant stages is so miniscule that it only makes sense to stream-line this aspect of the game.

But again, there are many leagues and many ways that people play. To *you* these are additional, mundane, and mostly irrelevant. Most of them are that way to me as well. But I don't gain a thing by having Jim force leagues that I'm not in to reduce FA1 from 8 stages to 6, for example. And if I'm in a league that uses too many FA stages for my taste, I have the option to petition the league to reduce them, and if, as you claim, "nobody" wants the extra stages, they'll go away. Combining FA stages is something that is already very easily done at the league level and therefore doesn't need to be done at the game level.

[Dutch]

Ben, I think you are over-reacting. I'm not in a "zeal" to do anything, I'm not "forcing" anybody to do anything. The point of this post was to open discussion and dialogue, not stifle it. So I don't get what your angle is. I did nothing other than provide my personal opinion (clearly stated) and a possible way to fix what I saw as a negative for the product.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Ben, I think you are over-reacting. I'm not in a "zeal" to do anything, I'm not "forcing" anybody to do anything. The point of this post was to open discussion and dialogue, not stifle it. So I don't get what your angle is. I did nothing other than provide my personal opinion (clearly stated) and a possible way to fix what I saw as a negative for the product.

You're not "forcing" anyone to do anything, but if those ideas get implemented, they absolutely "force" some leagues to move more quickly through those stages than they'd like. That's all I'm saying. And I have no angle other than I think eliminating current features like game planning or forcing leagues to change a comfortable schedule are ideas that would end up hurting more people's enjoyment of the game than the number it would enhance, and therefore I wouldn't want Jim spending development time on them.

[Dutch]

I gotcha. But they are largely irrelevant stages, so I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that it's hurtful to streamline things.

People can add in days of doing nothing if they think they are going too fast.

Seriously though, the reason I think this is for Jim is because the "Out-of-the-box" solution should be the sweet spot, not the unnecessarily long drawn out version. It's a business decision in the end but I believe those extra stages should be relegated to the options/customization realm, not the other way around.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mike D

I gotcha. But they are largely irrelevant stages, so I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that it's hurtful to streamline things.

People can add in days of doing nothing if they think they are going too fast.

I've had discussions with people about this. It's not that they want to add in days of doing nothing. It's that they like having more opportunities to adjust offers. It came up fairly recently when the GML started and ended up voting to do three days of FA2 instead of just two. For many of those who voted that way (I voted two days), it wasn't a "slow down the league" vote. It was "I want two shots to adjust my offers, offer new guys, etc. Only one chance to make adjustments to my initial offers isn't enough." That's just one example, but ultimately, my thinking is that if you're going to err on something like this, err on the side of providing too many stages.

And let's be realistic, based on FOF's history, there's very little reason to believe that there would be a checkbox to add additional stages or any other sorts of meaningful custom options like that. I'd love to see it, but I'm certainly not expecting it.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Taking game planning completely out of the game would be an obviously unwise move. Many of us like it, some like it a lot, and in this genre, depth and variety of interest is important.

yeah, i know its a long shot. but game-planning is the easiest way to game the system and/or get unrealistic results. there's just no way jim can predict every way players will push his system

i'd be just as happy with a COMPLETE game planning overhaul. jim's card game seems to hint at this, so hopefully he's got something up his sleeve



as for ben's "all staff hiring is tedious", i see his point, but right now the system makes very little sense. at least being forced to choose a system for the season makes it a very important decision. i mean, at the very least, we can have 3-4 or 4-3 defensive coordinators, and once you pick that's all your defense can run for the season. then it's less tedious, and more important to your entire offseason.

[isaccoubaldi]

Instead of using coach you can use a point system to give more depth to the training camp. Now you can use points to increase the team knowledge of run/defense/pass/ets. I like to see an expansion of this system (with tactics, etc.). Nothing really revolutionary but that give more responsabilities to the GM instead to give more power to coach.

[BeerCloud]

i agree the the wr deal needs to be more balanced.

id also like to see an option to be able to play call against a live or ai'd opponent online in mp leagues. if a player cant show up that day the game plan and coach would come call the game.

id also like college to be a little more tied in to the game somehow. be able to scout players during the season and being able to hire college coaches etc.. and be able to fire the coach or members of the staff at anytime.

practices during the season. not a separate sim for it but tied in with the regular midweek or game sim. maybe similar to camp but be able to hold players out that are nursing injuries or maybe work on another players skills etc.

note: all these (except balancing wr issue) to be options that could be turned on or off. even the college be sold separately and be able to be coached as well. as i think there used to be a mod for it. i dont know how it worked so forgive me.

[isaccoubaldi]

Originally Posted by BeerCloud

id also like to see an option to be able to play call against a live or ai'd opponent online in mp leagues. if a player cant show up that day the game plan and coach would come call the game.

Not good for european players but this is a great idea!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've had discussions with people about this. It's not that they want to add in days of doing nothing. It's that they like having more opportunities to adjust offers. It came up fairly recently when the GML started and ended up voting to do three days of FA2 instead of just two. For many of those who voted that way (I voted two days), it wasn't a "slow down the league" vote. It was "I want two shots to adjust my offers, offer new guys, etc. Only one chance to make adjustments to my initial offers isn't enough." That's just one example, but ultimately, my thinking is that if you're going to err on something like this, err on the side of providing too many stages.

I think part of this is hoping for some game redesigns as well.

For instance, redoing the way FA2 is done. That's not about reducing 5 stages to 2...in and of itself. It could be done faster and better (at least in my mind).

So now I'm definitely going into detail here and I don't know if it's worth trying to articulate my thoughts here or not, but here goes.

FA2 - Stage 1: A bid on UDFA's. Let the games internal player characteristics shine for one brief moment. Give owners a certain number of contracts to offer (all being one-year/minsal contracts) and let the football player...based on hometown, college, play4win, etc....guide the decision of where to sign. That could generate some decision points about which guys you want to invest your limited number of offers too (instead of the current strategy of bidding on every single guy in the pool during this initial post-draft stage).

FA 2 - Stage 2: A last chance offer to use the rest of your cap money anyway you see fit on the remaining free agents by allowing multi-year deals. My thought here was to clearly define that stage as the last chance to eat up your dead cap space. Because once pre-season starts, all players in the FA pool, even good ones, would sign only a one-year/minsal deal (using the same logic above in FA2 Stage 1 if there are contentions). This could have the added benefit of making owners re-think that strategy of not caring that a 55/55 OG or DT is just sitting there. You have cap space and if you don't use it, that guy that goes 14-2 every season is going to snatch him up "for free" in the next stage. Might make people care...and with the reduced stages, might help keep people awake and paying attention longer.

(Although I get that might be construed as "too gamey".)

So I'm not only thinking we should simply reduce FA stages. I think there are better ways to run them to make the experience more strategic/interesting/relevant.

And let's be realistic, based on FOF's history, there's very little reason to believe that there would be a checkbox to add additional stages or any other sorts of meaningful custom options like that. I'd love to see it, but I'm certainly not expecting it.

You are probably right, but at the same time, he's always stated that there are certain components of the game he would like to do better, so maybe throwing out some ideas won't hurt.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by isaccoubaldi

Instead of using coach you can use a point system to give more depth to the training camp. Now you can use points to increase the team knowledge of run/defense/pass/ets. I like to see an expansion of this system (with tactics, etc.). Nothing really revolutionary but that give more responsabilities to the GM instead to give more power to coach.

I think a point system would be a tremendous improvement to the confusing system that is in place right now. And to avoid other confusion (such as which piece is weighted more valuable than others), I think there should be separate TC sections. One for Run D, Pass D, Run O, Pass O, ST to allocate points to and a separate one for Weight Training, Film Review, Chemistry. The first set of TC dictates what kind of philosophy you will have and benefits you in your GP design and the second set dictates what you think you can do to improve the team (spend it on developing your young QB? Spend it on strengthening your vets cohesion?).

[Bako]

I think Staff Hiring could be more fun and meaningful.

I'd like to see a description of the coaches style. Think about Defensive Coordinators of today. When I think of Rex or Rob Ryan I think of a blitz heavy/man coverage scheme. Monte Kiffin is known for the Tampa 2 and zone blitzing.

Offense is no different. Think of Mike Martz, what style of Offense does he specialize in? A GM would have to or try to tailor the Offensive personel to the style the coach specializes in.

When signing a coordinator or coach, we should have to take into account the styles of football they know well.

If a GM tries to force a coordinator who thrives in airing it out to run smashmouth, it should be less effective than him running the style he is accustomed to running.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Just give me some way to level the playing field and let other matchup strengths and luck dictate the outcome of a sim. If I face a team with QB-WR-WR in my division, I should be able to at least neutralize that twice per season by loading up on CB's.

+1

[aston217]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

On Staff Hiring and all that, I'm firmly in this camp: fooling around with staff and the junk that goes with it pretty much sucks in every single text sim I've played, so PLEASE give us the option to just turn staff/coaching/scouts completely off. I agree that not having any interplay with a coaching staff would reduce realism, but having played these kinds of games for nearly 20 years now and seen...every...single...staff...setup...suck, I have little reason to believe that Jim or anyone else can create a system that doesn't create boredom and incongruity in MP.

Ooooh, +1 here.

FWIW I do like the idea of a one-shot Late FA. With 5 stages, relatively few guys sign in FA2-1, and GMs have the opportunity to just look at who other GMs have offered and poach them, instead of taking the time to identify their own UDFA prospects.

But this isn't a game design/update issue so much as something up to the leagues on their own, as said.

---

One thing I'd like to see is more doubt in the draft. As much as I love the draft and how solvable it is, there is a degree of definite-ness, especially in late round 1, throughout round 2, and even in the later rounds, where you more or less know what you're getting. Besides, how much more valuable are later round draft picks when the athlete you're drafting has an outside-of-VSOL chance of blossoming, but is otherwise a project?

There could probably be a better balance here, and it would level the playing ground too. It's not that easy to get a good handle on the draft and owners who aren't extremely experienced are at a huge disadvantage.

--
An idea about formations. Strategically it's fun to design personnel groupings to use, and far more sensible than setting formation %s for specific formations.

Besides, does anyone really think about "I need this much I and this much Pro", as opposed to "I need the TE on the field in these situations, and I need 3WRs here."

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by aston217

One thing I'd like to see is more doubt in the draft. As much as I love the draft and how solvable it is, there is a degree of definite-ness, especially in late round 1, throughout round 2, and even in the later rounds, where you more or less know what you're getting. Besides, how much more valuable are later round draft picks when the athlete you're drafting has an outside-of-VSOL chance of blossoming, but is otherwise a "

Interestingly, the early build of FOF2k7 was like this, but was changed because there were complaints about the draft learning curve being too steep. This is one of those situations where realism takes a backseat to fun. Your top 5 pick dying in TC is not too fun in an FOF MP league.

[UK Rookie]

For me the players Starting Time/Endurance to me isn`t clear or defined enough.

I`ve had Starting CB`s set at 100% Playing time, 1 has endurance 5, the other 84, and both play the same amount of plays(roughly) through-out the season.This cannot be realistic/correct.

Also the QB pre-season playing time is a complete mystery.

You set him to 1,he plays 3 series and is out.Next game he`s still set at 1,he plays half way through the 4th Quarter?

[Yoda]

Each league has their own city/image/picture/ext file (that is- no need to use batch files).

The ability to have a corner lock down a particular WR on the offense. That is- I don't care where Calvin Johnson lines up (FL, SE, slot)- I want Revis on him.

The ability to set up different offenses for different QBs (when your back up QB comes in who doesn't have all the formations in your offense).

The ability to set different run directions for different RBs.

To be able to download and upload exports though the game itself.

Commissioner mode to be able to do everything a normal owner can.

Better integration with 3rd party utilities especially where the draft is concerned.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Each league has their own city/image/picture/ext file (that is- no need to use batch files).

The ability to have a corner lock down a particular WR on the offense. That is- I don't care where Calvin Johnson lines up (FL, SE, slot)- I want Revis on him.

The ability to set up different offenses for different QBs (when your back up QB comes in who doesn't have all the formations in your offense).

The ability to set different run directions for different RBs.

To be able to download and upload exports though the game itself.

Commissioner mode to be able to do everything a normal owner can.

Better integration with 3rd party utilities especially where the draft is concerned.

Yes on all of these as well.

[claystone]

1. The QB's game planning formation setting is always set the same way on the same formation when you hit "Rex". Now if i have a rookie QB with only say 9 formation learned, the way the system is now half of his formation he might know might not come up. So instead of going into the game with all 9 formation, the game might have only set up 4 in total. Now this hurts when playing in our GM league. The game should take into account the formation learned by the QB when setting up game plans for the team. I like to see this fixed.

2. This is a lng shot but i like to hear a broadcast play by play of the games being played. I don't know if there is a computer program that can read off the play by play to us so we can hear the game instead with crowd noise, etc.

3. I like to know who penalties are on.

4. I like to know what ties fumbles to players.

5. I like to know which player is covering which WR when thrown upon.

6. I like to see rookies college stats when they enter the draft.