Some MP folks say they want live staff draft. Not sure it's worth it. Here's why.

[Ben E Lou]

I've checked into this before when people have complained, and have yet to run into a case where the guy "should" have been replaced at the time the team in question picked. Below is just one example, from today, of why I strongly suspect that the results that we're getting with the preference lists are quite close to what we'd get if we drafted live. We had our GML pref draft this morning, and of course when the results were posted, there was a standard "why didn't my ____ get replaced???" question.

The answer in this case (and I suspect in all of the cases where this comes up) is pretty simple: "because at the time you drafted, there was no better option."

This particular person had the #14 slot. Here's a breakdown of that pick:

ORIGINAL ASSISTANT COACH: Sam Miley GML Staff Page

ASSISTANT COACHES PICKED BEFORE #14
Cincy picked #6 and hired this guy: Wayne Sanderson GML Staff Page Suitability = 58

ASSISTANT COACHES PICKED AFTER #14, IN DETAIL
Indianapolis picked #16 and hired this guy: Kenneth Kaplan GML Staff Page Suitability = 49
KC (18): Marty Blaine GML Staff Page ---50;
MIN (23): Quinn Keyes GML Staff Page --- 52 (Was fired by KC when they made the hire at #16, so was ineligible to be picked by DET)
BUF (25): Wayne Woodson GML Staff Page ---45
TEN (27): Lance Quinones GML Staff Page ---57 (Fired by BUF at #25, so also ineligible to be picked by DET)
OAK (28): Jamie Bialo GML Staff Page ---51
CHI (30): Edward Robertson GML Staff Page
SFO (32): Quentin Sampson GML Staff Page

BOTTOM LINE

THE GUY DETROIT KEPT: Kendall Kowalkowski GML Staff Page (suitability=54)

THE GUYS DETROIT COULD HAVE HIRED INSTEAD
Kenneth Kaplan GML Staff Page Suitability = 49
Marty Blaine GML Staff Page Suitability = 50
Wayne Woodson GML Staff Page Suitability = 45
Jamie Bialo GML Staff Page Suitability = 51
Randal Downs GML Staff Page Suitability = 50
Sam Miley GML Staff Page Suitability = 47

Now, we don't know what weights he put in, but of these guys, the only one that looks like he might have any chance whatsoever of being picked over the guy DET already had, and only if he cranked up scouting really high AND young talent pretty low would be this guy: Marty Blaine GML Staff Page Otherwise, it looks like the decision to stand pat was the right one there.


As I said above, I've checked this a few times when someone complained, and have come to the same conclusion every single time. (This is the first time I actually documented the results.) While people may feel like they have less control by entering in preferences, I'm not sure that there's actually a meaningful difference that would make it worth the time we'd have to invest to pick manually.

[Sharkn20]

I am very sorry but I need to disagree, I would like to have the opportunity of a live draft in MP as well, but not charging with more work to our dear commisioners, instead of that I think the devolpers should create an utility to do it on-line in the same way that we have our Live Draft for players.

This is a huge mistake by the FOF7 game and must be fixed to enjoy the MP experience as it should be.

Now Coaches are a lot important and is not fair to don't have the option to pick the coach that you exactly wanted for your team.

Again is not a thing that the Commisioners must allow us in our MP leagues, is an obligation for a game developers to finish the product

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Sharkn20

I am very sorry but I need to disagree, I would like to have the opportunity of a live draft in MP as well, but not charging with more work to our dear commisioners, instead of that I think the devolpers should create an utility to do it on-line in the same way that we have our Live Draft for players.

This is a huge mistake by the FOF7 game and must be fixed to enjoy the MP experience as it should be.

Now Coaches are a lot important and is not fair to don't have the option to pick the coach that you exactly wanted for your team.

Again is not a thing that the Commisioners must allow us in our MP leagues, is an obligation for a game developers to finish the product

Do WHAT??????? First and foremost, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to have an expectation for a client-based game to create a server-based draft, which is what you're suggesting here. There's not a single client-based text sim that has a server-based online draft that the developer provides. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. Not even for AMATEUR drafts, let alone for staff drafts. So if you're claiming that FOF7 is "unfinished" because there's no server-based draft provided by the developer, then you are also claiming that no MP text sim out there is "finished." Not FOF2K4. Not FOF2K7. Not FOF7. Not OOTP 1 through 15. Not FBCB. Not DDSCFB. Not DDSPFB. Not BBCF. None.

[Sharkn20]

All right, don't be angry man... I still thinking that the MP experience is limping without that Staff Draft Online available... But I am a big fan of FOF7 and enjoying the game in 3 different on-line leagues since long time ago (starting with fof2k7) as you know...

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not remotely angry, really more completely flabbergasted that someone would think that something like that is a game-developer responsibility, given that it's never been done before.

And I disagree wholeheartedly about the staff draft online being an enhancement to the MP experience. I know that for me it would be nothing more than annoying to have the staff draft delay the league moving forward to revealing the draft class and drafting, and I'm fairly certain that once most people actually did it and ended up realizing that they're creating unnecessary league slowdowns for a handful of detailed-oriented grognards to get a slightly better "fit" once every five seasons, the annoyance would spread. Now that it is clear that I'm going to get pretty much the same staff using the preference list that I would if I picked live, I don't want a live draft to happen in any league I'm in. I don't want to spend multiple days on that foolishness. And to be clear, even before I realized that the results are pretty much the same, I commented here and in one of my leagues (I think the CCFL) that I was starting to lean toward "hope no one creates a utility to do this live." FWIW, I've conceptualized an online tool that might allow for a better "one shot" staff draft that I might be able to introduce to my leagues soon, but I've just had other coding priorities lately.

[NawlinsFan]

The staff draft gave me a defensive coordinator whose skill set was O-Line.


Didn't matter much as I am a sucky GM.

[garion333]

Just thought I'd point out I didn't actually ask why my coach didn't get replaced. I had my setting at 50, so next time I'm putting it to 100. If I could fire the jackass I would. (Can I??)

I hate my assistant's scouting bar and wanted nothing more than to get rid of him. I'm not, however, questioning why it didn't happen. Shoot, you have me ranked as the second best overall set of coaches. I just want better Scouting.

I had hoped that the way I ranked my preferences would've allowed him to be replaced (basically I put Interviewing, PD and YT all the way down). Next I'm putting 100 and hoping someone with scouting falls in my lap.

Yes, I would've liked to have had Blaine.

That said, a live draft would've been nice, but it would simply take too long and I'd rather just get the stage over with.

[gstelmack]

Yeah, if you put it at 50, it's only going to replace him with someone noticeably better. Set your bar preferences (crank scouting, reduce others) and set it to 100 to get him replaced. But if the candidates suck by your preferences, it still may not.

[aston217]

I can see why people will feel it's odd that you get such pinpoint control in the SP experience over staff drafting, but not in MP.

However, I am extremely grateful that I don't have to comb through the league for coaches anymore. Yeah, the lack of control can feel scary, but everyone plays under the same system. Four clicks & submit - and then see what happens - is great.

It is a little weird, though. I was thinking of replacing my offensive coordinator, so I left that setting at 50. I also had to replace my assistant coach, so I had that setting at 100. I wanted a good scout in my offensive coordinator, but I didn't get one. Instead, I got an AC who's a great scout. Which I'm not sure is quite what you need in an AC. But hey.

[sawblade300]

My thought on this is...if you understand what each coaching position does and what you need, it's rather easy to set the preferences to get what you want. If you really want to replace a guy, make sure you set it to 100. That's, in most cases, a sure fire way to get a new coach. But you also have to have the preferences set high enough for what you really want in that coach, otherwise, as stated above, he won't get replaced, because there isn't a better coach available.

I don't mind the way it's done now. I'd rather not bog down leagues an extra day or two for something that in the grand scheme of things, may not be worth it. There's so much more in this game you have control over and can do. Actually...if there's one feature I would like to see come back, it would be being able to set your playing time for each position again.

[Caligari]

I think there is a definite perception of a lack of control in what feels like an important area of the game, and that is the real problem.

Many people seem to be uncomfortable with what the staff screen is asking you to fill in, and are unsure (I'd hazard to guess) what the results should be. When the draft plays out there is no feedback (beyond hirings) to indicate what the system thought you wanted, how it ranked the available staff at the time, and why it selected (or did not select) from that list.

It isn't that its processes are incorrect. I simply think it is that they are opaque to the point where most people have effectively no control over what they get.

That implies work is needed in this area.

It is possible (from what Ben has shown in the OP) that leagues could somehow create enough information to show GMs more about the staff available when their selections are made, which might help some to understand what has happened.

I suspect that the game's interface itself needs to provide a more obvious link between the values entered and the people who are available and then chosen. I'm thinking about an interface tool which shows how the current available staff would be ranked (including your incumbent) given the biases you have entered.

There still remains the problem (or perceived problem) that you may want to focus on different skills for different staff which you select at the same time, but I think with the right feedback this wouldn't be such an issue.

There are areas where the "fog of war" hides mechanics from you in a way that enhances the game. I just think GMs don't feel that who they hire as their coaching staff is an area where they should be left in the dark.

[Sharkn20]

Is any possibility to promote one of your Coordinators to HC of your own team, or your AC to Coordinator?
I could just wait until the end of my next MP league to see that in the screens but maybe you can answer me straight here... I don't know if it is possible.

[Ben E Lou]

Hmmm...it wouldn't be hard to present a report of what guys were signed at each point. Looking at it now...

[Ben E Lou]

OK. I just automated the info I provided above. Here it is for the CCFL's latest staff draft...


7.KCY: Tucker McPike. hired as head coach. Suitability=69
11.TEN: Kelly Shea. hired as head coach. Suitability=64
13.NOS: Dale Glover. hired as head coach. Suitability=58
19.CAR: David Chapman. hired as head coach. Suitability=64 (fired as head coach at slot 11 by TEN)
20.DAL: A.J. Creech. hired as head coach. Suitability=63 (fired as head coach at slot 19 by CAR)
24.DET: Emmitt Dougherty. hired as head coach. Suitability=63 (fired as head coach at slot 13 by NOS)
30.NED: Sherman Heilprin. hired as head coach. Suitability=59


11.TEN: Herman Huffman. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=56
13.NOS: Rondell Bollin. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=62
14.GBY: Nate Tjandranegara. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=58 (fired as offensive coordinator at slot 13 by NOS)
19.CAR: Trevor Coffey. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=57 (fired as head coach at slot 7 by KCY)
20.DAL: Nate Davidson. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=67 (fired as offensive coordinator at slot 19 by CAR)
27.IND: Winston Dix. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=56 (fired as offensive coordinator at slot 14 by GBY)
30.NED: Darryl Low. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=45
32.PHI: Roger Shonek. hired as offensive coordinator. Suitability=53


2.SFO: Marc Griffith. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=56
5.SEA: Edwin Greeley. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=64
7.KCY: Trevor Sweeney. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=60
13.NOS: Bob Clark. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=60 (fired as defensive coordinator at slot 7 by KCY)
14.GBY: Gerald Levine. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=57
15.CIN: Santiago Emerson. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=64 (fired as defensive coordinator at slot 14 by GBY)
19.CAR: Wyatt Madison. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=61 (fired as defensive coordinator at slot 5 by SEA)
20.DAL: Sedrick Adam. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=61 (fired as head coach at slot 24 by DET)
22.WAS: Kyle Norris. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=60
24.DET: Edwin Dorsch. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=57 (fired as defensive coordinator at slot 15 by CIN)
26.NYK: Rusty Hodges. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=51 (fired as defensive coordinator at slot 19 by CAR)
27.IND: Troy Purdy. hired as defensive coordinator. Suitability=54


2.SFO: Burt Mason. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=58
11.TEN: Josh Silvers. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=56 (fired as defensive coordinator at slot 20 by DAL)
13.NOS: Brendan Holliday. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=58
14.GBY: Deon Shelton. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=52
15.CIN: Joseph Lindblad. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=53
19.CAR: Freddie Anderton. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=49
21.BUF: Richie Blais. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=35
23.TBY: Ryan Lynn. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=51 (fired as assistant coach at slot 19 by CAR)
25.PIT: Deion Diaz. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=44 (fired as assistant coach at slot 15 by CIN)
29.SDO: Brady Fahey. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=51 (fired as assistant coach at slot 13 by NOS)
30.NED: Kaleb Bullock. hired as assistant coach. Suitability=57 (fired as assistant coach at slot 29 by SDO)


2.SFO: Alejandro Engram. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=61
7.KCY: Josh Thompson. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=59
13.NOS: Iker Mounts. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=57
14.GBY: Karl Summerlin. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=61 (fired as strength coordinator at slot 7 by KCY)
18.STL: Damon Burke. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=62 (fired as strength coordinator at slot 14 by GBY)
19.CAR: Santiago Mello. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=58
22.WAS: Hayden Kennedy. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=50
24.DET: Craig Sims. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=57 (fired as strength coordinator at slot 19 by CAR)
27.IND: B.J. Bober. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=51

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Caligari

I suspect that the game's interface itself needs to provide a more obvious link between the values entered and the people who are available and then chosen. I'm thinking about an interface tool which shows how the current available staff would be ranked (including your incumbent) given the biases you have entered.

Well, the "easy" (Jim will shoot me for saying that, it probably isn't) way, if it isn't already done this way, is to have the "suitability" rating in the staff screen adjust to your preferences. Unfortunately, you enter the preferences AFTER getting to look at the staff screen - the preference setup would need to be decoupled from the "extend staff" process, or done before it, for this to work.

A utility could be written to do this, but unfortunately there is no clear indication of what bars for staff are weighted in what way. Hmm, maybe it's time for some regression analysis to see how FOF maps staff bars in specific roles to the suitability rating.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ben

19.CAR: Santiago Mello. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=58
22.WAS: Hayden Kennedy. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=50
24.DET: Craig Sims. hired as strength coordinator. Suitability=57 (fired as strength coordinator at slot 19 by CAR)

That's an interesting combo, wonder if WAS had a weird bar preference setup.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, the "easy" (Jim will shoot me for saying that, it probably isn't) way, if it isn't already done this way, is to have the "suitability" rating in the staff screen adjust to your preferences. Unfortunately, you enter the preferences AFTER getting to look at the staff screen - the preference setup would need to be decoupled from the "extend staff" process, or done before it, for this to work.

A utility could be written to do this, but unfortunately there is no clear indication of what bars for staff are weighted in what way. Hmm, maybe it's time for some regression analysis to see how FOF maps staff bars in specific roles to the suitability rating.

I was definitely thinking that this would have to be Jim's work in the game itself, as there are too many unknowns (it seems to me).

And I'm sure it wouldn't be a trivial matter, so I'm not holding my breath.

[timmae]

The problem with the staff draft in game is that it takes a deeper understanding to set up the fields that we can adjust to obtain the type of staff you are after. People want an easy "pick this guy" solution when in fact Jim has created a system that isn't list based but more of a scouting system. I love it as it requires me to review the needs in depth and really decide what traits are important. I can still target guys that are not as suitable if I choose by adjusting the exact traits I am assigning values to. This also allows sim base decisions on staff that other teams cut which is awesome. A list based system just wouldn't allow it. I agree that an elongated staff draft for a live draft is not justified nor needed.

[WheelsVT]

The problem with getting the draft utility to handle the staff draft was making sure it accurately handled the "amenable" part in-game exactly. This changes for every pick, which in addition to adding a lot of complexity makes lists difficult to do too and to show GMs who they should be looking at when it's not their pick. So I haven't been able to capture it in code properly and that's what killed it the first time around.

I see both sides of the argument. I'd like to at least give leagues an option to do it live, but real life has been insane this year for me to code up a better approach.

My idea is that in the draft utility a GM has a list per position initially sorted by the suitable value and a -NOHIRE- cut-off line to move around if they have someone in a given position. This allows "I'd hire these 5 head coaches, but nobody else" setups. When their pick comes up the top guy above the line would be hired if available and amenable, or just the top guy in the list if they don't have someone in that position. With this sort of setup you could give all GMs X amount of time to adjust their lists before the staff draft runs all at once. It gives back control without forcing a long process (but if you still wanted the full draft you could).

[WheelsVT]

Dola, and if I coded this up and a league ran a one shot deal we could walk the results through the game manually, find the bugs where someone un/amenable was or was not selected, correct the pick in-game based on a GM's list and not screw up the game while still allowing us/me to work toward properly implemented logic.

It sounds a little painful but I -know- there will be bugs to be worked out, and I'm not up for destroying drafts and troubleshooting issues at all hours. This way it's almost a scheduled and controlled thing that gets a successful draft and works toward a bug-free tool.

[BeerCloud]

After a few seasons with the staff draft imo I think a coaches free agency is still best. Like we do with the players except with 3 or 4 stages.

Is it possible for the coaches cards to show their stats like the players cards do?
For example if I'm looking at an Offensive Coordinator I want to see what his teams ranked in running, passing, overall etc.. each year. Then we could use his stats history, along with his bars like we do with the players. I think it would add a nice dimension to the game.