What needs to change in FOF SP???

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

My gut feeling is there are many more people who play against the computer in FOF than are in multiplayer leagues. So what are improvements that Jim can make to the single player experience to take this great game to the next level?

Hopefully, this isn't too much like the other thread, but I do feel it is important that we don't ignore the single player experience.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Off the top of my head, I would like the UI to be revamped. Don't know if it is possible to get it to look like it did under EA, but perhaps a middle ground between how it was then and how it is now.

[Racer]

Better cap management for computer managed teams would be my #1 probably.

[jholtan56]

I only play single player, with time, family, and work restraints. I love this version, and have gotten endless enjoyment from it.

I have a couple of things I would like to see in the game:

1. I would like the ability to have roster bonuses in addition to signing bonuses. Also, I would like to see guaranteed money. The main temptation in the NFL is now guaranteed money. This would give the general manager flexibility in signing players to contracts with limited cap space in year 1 of a contract, while guaranteeing money in future years. Roster bonus money is all counted in the year of that bonus. This allows teams to use up the remaining cap of a year, just like in the NFL now. Teams often turn next years salary into a roster bonus this year minus the league minimum. The players get their money now, and are happy to do it.

2. The restricted and franchise players. These players should be allowed to be poached by other teams. Other teams should have the ability to make an offer to these players in return for compensation of draft choices by the team that poaches them. The original team should have the ability to match these offers. Mike Williams of the Steelers, and Vincent Jackson of the Chargers were recently victims of the restricted tenders. Their teams gave them an offer that gave them compensation if another team signs them. How great would it be, to force a competitor to match an offer that would be tough to fit in their cap, but easily fit yours, and only give up a draft pick in return. Sometimes it would be a high pick, but some are only an original draft pick designation. This is not often used in the NFL today even though they could, but my opinion is that is because of the collusion of the owners, and a wink, wink, agreement to not poach each others players.

3. Keep a statistic for total money earned. Have a career earnings list that breaks it down by position, year drafted, salary/year, etc. It would be great to see the breakdown of where the money is spent, and on what position.

I would love to get some feedback. Any other ideas?

[sqvirrel]

More flexibility with in-game adjustment of depth charts.

We can adjust offensive depth charts in-game, but not for any defensive formation or for the offensive line - even in the event of injury.

Also would like to see some of the play timing repaired. Kickoffs invariably take 30 seconds plus when returned which makes absolutely no sense. Also plays at the end of halves, would like a play set for 'end zone or throw away'. As it stands, if you try to run a play with less than 15 seconds there is a great chance that the half will run out unless your team scores - even if your team has times out remaining. Along that vein, a team should be able to run a play with 8 seconds or less remaining while still leaving time for a times out after the play.

Finally, a warning along the lines of 'this will be your last play of the half' in cases where the clock is running. As a coach you have no sense of how much time your team has to get off a play, spike the ball, get off another play, etc. I don't know how often I've had my team take a shot at the end zone with a running clock and less than 30 seconds only to see the clock expire.

[T-Storm]

Better AI roster/cap management.

Game plans and rosters evolving dynamically over time/no hard limits on what can be done. E.g. if I find success in throwing only 20+ yards 30% of the time, I want to see AI teams copy that to some extent. And them also changing their approach to roster building in accordance with the evolving game.

And allowing me to set a preferred depth chart that I don't have to micro manage every game.

[xcom44dan]

I love single player as it is... It's just far too easy. I hate having to set myself flimsy house rules because the AI can't manage the cap/make intelligent signings . Alas!

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'd like to see coaches actually coach, and have a style. Have them prefer a system & run it.

The AI should have some sort of allowance per position. When a team has a 2nd year QB it drafted 1.1 that needs to develop it probably shouldn't drop a $148m contract on a guy that threw 20 int's the previous season & never was any good (or really hasn't played much at all) THEN draft another QB at 1.2 who isn't ever going to see the field, THEN proceed to extend them all in a few seasons.

More trade offers by computer teams would be interesting also. And if they made offers during the draft... oh yeah! As it is, I only see trade offers at one time & then it's always a team offering me complete crap for a good player.

[Vaevictis_386]

This applies just as well to MP, it drives me nuts in both SP and MP.

It is too hard to tell what defensive players are doing. If a DB gets beat by the WR, I want to know it. If someone on the D line is getting dominated, I want to know it.

[ccblah]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis_386

This applies just as well to MP, it drives me nuts in both SP and MP.

It is too hard to tell what defensive players are doing. If a DB gets beat by the WR, I want to know it. If someone on the D line is getting dominated, I want to know it.

This. Without a graphical representation of what is going on, there needs to be some text to tell you in more detail what is happening. Was the WR wide open? Who did the WR juke to get free for big yac? etc etc

[conception]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I'd like to see coaches actually coach, and have a style. Have them prefer a system & run it.

The AI should have some sort of allowance per position. When a team has a 2nd year QB it drafted 1.1 that needs to develop it probably shouldn't drop a $148m contract on a guy that threw 20 int's the previous season & never was any good (or really hasn't played much at all) THEN draft another QB at 1.2 who isn't ever going to see the field, THEN proceed to extend them all in a few seasons.

More trade offers by computer teams would be interesting also. And if they made offers during the draft... oh yeah! As it is, I only see trade offers at one time & then it's always a team offering me complete crap for a good player.

Great suggestion, and the QB one is a huge one that can really affect my enjoyment of league longterm. We all know how QB centric the game is (not unrealistically), and seeing the best QB's coming out get drafted by the same teams is frustrating both from a building my own team standpoint and from a realistic competition standpoint. Since these teams NEVER trade these young QB's because of the cap hit reason, it's not as if they are utilizing what would actually be a sound strategy of hoarding talent in order to get even more in return than they paid to get it, and it basically means that numerous franchise QB candidates are off limits to both myself and the other AI teams. Also, the AI team that drafted the QB is seldom benefiting itself by drafting another talented QB that will scarcely ever see the field, especially when the one they have has no receivers to throw to.

[Bundy13]

1.Better drafting QB logic for AI,it's frustrating to see some team select a QB with their top 5 pick while they already have great(88/88) and young(third year) QB.

2.Cap system that doesn't force you to put house rules and make another AI team cut 45 players every single year.

3.Better looks;some kind of photo for players and a better UI for all game.

4.More information during game like results of DB vs. WR and OL vs. DL matchups.

5.Less important BPR bar for WR's and also less important WR's.

[searmh]

I would also like to see coaches coach...when you hire a coach he has a philosophy or strategy so if you REX'd formation percentages, blitz percentages etc they would match the coaches philosophy

love SP its all I play

[Julio Riddols]

The AI decision making is the one aspect of this game that has never been that good. For SP, it is imperitive that this be remedied. Even if the salary cap has to be eliminated for AI teams, that would be fine. That said, the player acquisitions teams make should also have some semblance of realness. The QB thing has been discussed, and I think one of the weirdest things about the draft is the fact that an AI team will not draft a QB until at least round 4 if they don't draft one in round 1, But I digress.

I think a team with "franchise quality" players should never draft a replacement for them in the top 2 rounds of a draft unless they are a: near retirement, b: coming off a major injury, or c: not likely to be re-signed after the current season. I would consider franchise quality as being rated in the top 5% of all players (signed or unsigned) at that position.

Say team A has the 3rd pick in the draft in an average class with talent spread pretty evenly. They currently have a 74 OVR QB (4th best at position) in year 8 with 3 years left on his contract and no injury problem, a 66 OVR RB (11th best at position) in year 7 with one year left on his deal and no injury, and a 71 OVR LCB (7th best at position) in year 5 with 2 years left on his deal and an achilles tear with 22 weeks left to heal. There should be no QB on their draft board until pick 65 at the earliest. I could see a RB being a possible choice, but RB's are easier to get later in drafts and tend to have a shorter career span, so value wise that doesn't make much sense unless there is an amazing prospect out there. Absent that, I would say a new LCB should be top priority. I want to see the A.I. generally think the same way. They should evaluate perceived talent level in the draft, weigh it against their needs, and draft accordingly.

Maybe there could be a calculation done after FA 1 ends that helps determine all this. Teams should essentially rate the top 300 prospects in the order they prefer them and select direct from that list no more than 1 at any specific position until after round 3. SE/FL, LCB/RCB would be considered seperate from each other, so in total the AI would have 22 positions to choose from to fill aside from P/K. All 22 of those positions should be weighted according to talent on roster, free agent talent available, and draft talent available.

I think if there could be a way for individual users to manage A.I. personnel tendencies both globally and for each individual team, that would help us at least be able to tune it til we feel right about it. The CPU just needs to be more well informed when drafting and signing FA, somehow.

Also it should probably be noted that drafting should not be as detrimental to A.I. teams now with the new Rookie wage scale in place. Teams won't be getting caught with tons of high paid young players blowing up their cap anymore now.. But I think a lot of the problem with SP lies in the computer teams current inability to manage and field a realistic quality of team year in and year out. Everything else that could/should be worked on applies to MP, IMO.

[Marmel]

League size customization. Expansion. Contraction. Customizable league rules/finances.

[Pyser]

i really loved being able to take over an expansion team

since the league is pretty locked in to 32 teams, it would be nice to have "start as expansion team" at the beginning of a gm career

[searmh]

Would love to see more college stats when scouting potential draft picks...another, not so good, nfl game shows college histories for players before draft. Would love to see more info prior to draft day about college kids

[Dutch]

If Chemistry stays can you build in some sort of chemistry checker so I know I'm not about to trade a bunch of draft picks for some jerk that hates my leadership? As it stands right now, I have to go look that info up and I'd like that to be easier if possible.

[mventres]

Aside from the above...

1. Interactive trading would be cool, a dialogue between the computer GMs and SP.

2. A "rumor mill" indicating some hints of trade talk/injuries/etc around the league

3. Some sort of "trading block", indicating which players are more sought after than others (i.e., bidding on the trade)

4. Team status: rebuilding, retooling, go for it all, etc. The status would impact heavily the types of moves teams make.

5. Peering into the draft 1-2 years in advance would be really nice...usually the likely top picks are known quite a bit in advance, I'd say a good year, with the last few months organizing things out.

6. Pre-post combine. Where player skills are evaluated beforehand by scouts, then actual stats are applied at the combine, with under/over performers, risers/fallers (also due to personal issues or injury)...

[OldGiants]

SP needs to be divorced entirely from MP. Two separate and not necessarily equal games. If that means the MP game does not sell well, so be it.

[spazz]

More variety with the coaching staff. I'd love to see positional coaches , and the ability to hire head coaches from coordinators/positional coaches from other teams, regardless of contract length

[Dutch]

I would like to know more about why I am hiring the coaches. I still get confused by what playcallingmeans when I am submitting a pretty straight forward gameplan with all %s built in.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by mventres

4. Team status: rebuilding, retooling, go for it all, etc. The status would impact heavily the types of moves teams make.

This is an excellent idea.

[xcom44dan]

Another thing that I've just thought of (Cosmetic, and not strictly limited to sp)...

It would be great if there was a really simple way of applying custom pictures to player profiles.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by xcom44dan

Another thing that I've just thought of (Cosmetic, and not strictly limited to sp)...

It would be great if there was a really simple way of applying custom pictures to player profiles.

Without a real face-gen/player image utility this would be a massive under-taking for the end user.

[Carman Bulldog]

Not sure where I should put this, but the thing I always loved about FM/EHM was the player grades. It was a quick way to see who was performing well and who was not.

With the guys at Pro Football Focus doing player grading (and from what I understand, a number of NFL teams subscribing to their grading), I think performance grades should be incorporated into the next FOF.

The Pro Football Focus grading system is discussed here. Whether you use that, or even a 1-10 scale, etc. would be a big addition.

I think this would really help in evaluating some positions such as O-Line, DT, DB's, etc.

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Without a real face-gen/player image utility this would be a massive under-taking for the end user.

not really....look at PureSim baseball for example

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by searmh

Would love to see more college stats when scouting potential draft picks...another, not so good, nfl game shows college histories for players before draft. Would love to see more info prior to draft day about college kids

Agreed

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

SP needs to be divorced entirely from MP. Two separate and not necessarily equal games. If that means the MP game does not sell well, so be it.

Agreed!!!

[Autumn]

I was just looking at some players and was thinking--why the heck do we have sack percentage for offensive line players and nothing else? Sacks are arguably the least relevant number for the linemen, given that the QB has a huge effect on how often he gets sacked. What I want to see are hurry numbers for the linemen, if the game engine actually assigns someone blame. In a future version I would hope we'd have some kind of O-line stat that might actually tell us something about their involvement in the passing game.

[aston217]

Rex logic could use some work, Jim.

This experience is from MP, but I suppose this applies to both equally, so I'll phrase it in a SP context.

I simmed a game where the QB in the starting slot was listed as OUT. This should not require a roster change. Rex should say, "OK, let's put that guy into the QB3 slot and move the other two guys up."

What Rex actually said was this: "Let's sign the top-rated free agent. Let's put him in the starting position, over the guy who was previously QB2. Even though that guy is rated 2 points higher, has an affinity, and 9 years of cohesion. And even though the street free agent has a conflict. And even though the other available QB is 12 points higher in OVR. Yes, let's start this guy. Oh, and we'll have to find someone to cut, I guess...."

[QuikSand]

There's an internal algorithm of some sort that creates a player's "contract expectation" -- it's relevant to a degree in MP, but it's a big deal in single player. I think it's in need of a good look.

Case in point, and all veteran players will recognize this as fairly common:

RB1 - 6th year guy, rated 48/48, big bars in receiving skills, decent overall
Last yr - 10 starts, 230-964 3TD, rec 51-395 2TD
Career - 66 starts, rush 1189-4810 20TD (4.05 ypc), rec 229-1817 2TD, 33 fumbles, no return stats

RB2 - 5th year guy, rated 48/48, lowish endurance, bars in speed things
Last yr - 16 starts, 282-1384 13TD, rec 38-356 4TD
Career - 33 starts, rush 912-4300 35TD (4.71 ypc), rec 141-1338 13TD, 9 fumbles, no return stats

Okay... the two guys are rated the same overall (with in-game weighted ratings). RB2 has clearly been more productive stat-wise, there's little doubt about that. And he's a year younger. I think there's a case that RB2 would command a fair bit more than RB1...right? (In a MP league, I have no doubt that's how the market would sort this out)

In-game, here are their demands:
R1B wants 4yrs, $42.6m
RB2 wants 1yr, $1.88m

We see this all the time. In the game, it seems there's a lever of some sort -- certain guys basically consider themselves roster fillers, other guys consider themselves top tier players. Usually this is sensible, but fairly often around the fringe, this kind of thing happens.

A player's self-assessed value is an important part of the game. It affects renegotiation willingness in multi-player (a big deal) and it makes a big effect on cap management in single player as well.

This is really worth a look and a rethinking.

I'd like to think that any player who has posted star-caliber stats should start out with high expectations. And perhaps, as the FA stages progress, if the player doesn't get the fat deal he's expecting, then he ought to adjust to the market (more starkly than they do now) and definitely shorten his preferred contract length as well.

[rockmedic109]

A nice add-on would be an option to populate the almanac with actual NFL records. Adding franchise records would be a bonus. Extra for a franchise retired numbers.

With MP being a major function, this probably wouldn't work, but being able to switch stats on a coach when beginning a new game. I spend a long time restarting till I get the coach I want for whatever game I am setting up {eg...poor defense playcalling and Very Good Offense playcalling......and never less than VG avoid injury}.

An injury stat for players?

Being able to look back a prior years' draft. Like a year tab on "View Drafted Player Status".

[nilodor]

I'd like to see another layer added to players and coaches. Something along the line of schemes or playbooks.

For example you may have a defensive co-ordinator that has a cover 2 playbook. Players who play in that system will gain experience in the playbook to maximize their performance. They will also gain some benefits for other playbooks with similar ideas. On top of this each player would have a fit rating based on the main schemes, the easiest examples being 3-4 vs 4-3 end or free vs strong safety.

I get that players are already rated in components of these schemes like run defense and pass rush but I think this would add some realism where a player may be good in the 4-3 defending the run but playing 3-4 end doesn't work because of their size. Or linebackers being good in Cover-2 but are not as effective in other schemes.

I think this would make it tougher to optimize a roster, make filling out a roster a bit more interesting as well as finding coaches (do I change scheme and make some of my better players irrelevant for a better coach?). I also think that it would help make it possible to win in different ways. Maybe it would be tough to implement properly or you would just wind up chasing fit guys but I think it would be a lot more interesting and a bit truer to the NFL experience.

[rockmedic109]

I've got an idea. I don't know if it would work with the current system or if it would be too much of a workload to program.

Right now, when we start a new game, we take over as GM just before preseason. Always struck me as a little off. Wouldn't a new GM be hired before then?

Wouldn't it be better if the game started at the beginning of the new year. You could hire the coaches you want, draft who you want and not have to worry about someone else's choices?

[Pyser]

kind of along those same lines, it would be nice to have an option to take over as an expansion team. even if the team obviously exists, you could still do an empty cupboard career, or an expansion draft to start.

[nilodor]

Random idea: How much would it change the game if players no longer showed their potential bars? All you would get would be the players current bars and then some impression from your scouts what their overall potential may be, or maybe just a guess at how developed they are. I think it would improve the draft because you would wind up with some guys who look like studs who never really develop and other guys who have very low bars, but maybe have good college numbers or something who develop into late round studs. I don't have much time to think this through right now, but just wanted to post it before I forgot it.

[Pyser]

bens challenge points thread got me thinking about house rules for SP games. it seems that the easiest house rule of all is using WAY less cap space than the AI gets. it would be great if there was an option in SP to just adjust a cap slider for your team only: "set your team's salary cap at x% of league's cap".

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Pyser

bens challenge points thread got me thinking about house rules for SP games. it seems that the easiest house rule of all is using WAY less cap space than the AI gets. it would be great if there was an option in SP to just adjust a cap slider for your team only: "set your team's salary cap at x% of league's cap".

For the most part, that's true, though with the current game there's the issue of a big disconnect between the salaries that players request and the value that they bring to your team. I've reduced my team's cap all the way down to 25% in messing around with SP, but that's still more than enough to shuttle in good WRs and good-enough QBs because the game doesn't recognize them as being such, and thus allows you to sign them for peanuts. But on the flip side positions like OG and DT cost a tons, so by reducing the cap a lot, you effectively eliminate the possibility of having good players at those positions.....ever. I wouldn't want this feature at the expense of dealing with some of the problems that it might mask to some degree.

[QuikSand]

Since this thread has sort of turned into a "general thoughts and wish list stuff" forum, I'll shoot again.

LEARN FROM THE GUNNER

For a tiny amount of screen real estate, adding the gunner slots for special teamers really adds something to the depth charting in the later versions of FOF (I don't recall when it got added). Even if it doesn't add a ton, it gives me one more thing to think about as I'm drafting that 5th rounder, or as I'm fiddling with roles for everyone who's active. It's undeniably a good thing, and if I don't like it I can hit up Rex for his auto-pick.

So... learn from this. Small add, good dividends. What else could we do this with?

OFFENSIVE WEAPON - one guy, put him into this slot and the offense should make a few extra efforts to get him the ball in creative ways - screen passes, end-arounds, and so forth. In the current NFL, I'm thinking this is the way you semi-replicate guys like Darren Sproles, Percy Harvin, and maybe even a wildcat QB. I don't want to necessitate a massive playcalling logic shift -- but I'd like a way to turn that intriguing-skills backup WR into a guy who gets 3-5 touches a game, without necessarily benching my studs to do it.

DEFENSIVE FREE ROLE - Pick one guy, slot him here, and see him maybe a bit more active, more on the hunt for a big play, more blitzing, etc.

In both cases, I think leaving the slot empty is a viable option, and maybe best unless you have a really well tailored guy.

[aston217]

What else could we do this with?

Long snapper!

And...emergency 3rd QB.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by aston217

Long snapper!

And...emergency 3rd QB.

Doesn't the game already offer these?


To add to QS' list, how about the ability to differentiate between the PAT/short FG kicker and the long FG kicker?

[aston217]

Well, sort of, but any old guy can be a long snapper. In the NFL, teams often have to draft specifically for the position. And it's a guy who would do literally nothing else. It's even a position where the best LS's in the league have to get paid to be kept around.

FOF won't allow a team to have less than 3 QBs on the roster. The NFL will, and some guy (like a WR) is often designated the 3rd QB, right?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by aston217

Well, sort of, but any old guy can be a long snapper. In the NFL, teams often have to draft specifically for the position. And it's a guy who would do literally nothing else. It's even a position where the best LS's in the league have to get paid to be kept around.

FOF won't allow a team to have less than 3 QBs on the roster. The NFL will, and some guy (like a WR) is often designated the 3rd QB, right?

Sure, I didn't put it into that perspective.

[Pyser]

jim already announced long snapping specialists would be in the new game

[Vaevictis_386]

It would be useful to list players by salary and rating (current and potential), sortable by position.

[QuikSand]

If there's a serious point to the "finesse running" setting in the current game, it has publicly eluded everyone. So, that ought to be rethought.

The current NFL has a variety of special elements in game planning... Bubble screens, receiver end-arounds, waggles, read option plays, and the like. I'd like to get this diversity into FOF to a reasonable degree.

I'd love it if the skills of the coaching staff, coupled with the time spent in training camp, and the cohesion of the players, ended up with a "budget" that could be used to inse things like this into as given gameplan as the equivalent of "things the team worked on in practice and is ready to use this week." This could add a lot not only to the game planning side of the game, but to the staff hiring side, also. You hire the FOF equivalent of Chip Kelly and he automatically grants your team a variety of these skills - so in part you know what you're getting. A different coach might have different skills/expertise he gives to to start out with. Add a coordinator and he brings some complementary skills/expertise to your staff. Then, each team goes into camp with list of things it wants to add to its repertoire for the year - working like FOF 2001 did with training camp. Based on the skills of the coaching staff, and the other things rated above, the team goes into the season with a level of "expertise" in various things... The Bill Parcells team might excel at smash mouth running, the Chip Kelly team will do a lot of horizontal stretching and hurry up, and the June Jones team will excel with multiple receiver sets, etc. But we as the gamer get to work from that base and build a week by week gameplan drawn from that expertise... And we seed in for a given week how heavily we want to use certain things, feature a certain "weapon," use u usual formations, etc.

Same could apply to the defensive side of the ball...ingesting list the like stunting DL, zone blitzes, false looks, Designated QB spy, read and react, defensive free role, and so forth. Part, but not all, of this could be to choice to focus on certain kinds of offensive systems -- sort of like bringing in a gadget running QB to run the practice team during one week to help prepare your team to face that sort of guy the next Sunday.

Just connecting several things that have already been in this game, and have been mentioned here already. I think there's rich potential here.

[flounder]

I like it. It reminds me of the way FM handles tactics. You can have up to three different formations and tactics that you spend time working on in practice. As you spend more time, your team's familiarity with each tactic increases and their performance in the matches increases. If you switch to an entirely different system, your familiarity is very low and your team will struggle with it.

You could do something similar with FOF. Choose certain combinations of formation and play (inside run, short pass etc.) to work on during practice. Each week you could pick new ones to implement for that week's game. Like you said, coaches could have varying levels of expertise with different combinations. You could have some kind of RPG system, where coaches could earn perks like "Master Tactician" where the penalty for introducing new concepts week to week is reduced.

Something like this would make the coaching chess match much more accessible than staring at screens of gameplanning numbers.