No Playing Time Settings? If So, I'll Love And Hate That In MP.

[Ben E Lou]

I absolutely abhorred all that foolishness that you had to do in FOF7 and previous versions to optimize preseason playing time, especially in leagues with injuries on. In that regard, I'm going to love not doing all that junk. but at the same time, the first time I'm in a league that has injuries on in preseason and I get an O-2 in Pre5 to a starter who has "Some" rust going into that week, I'd imagine I'll want to curse Jim's name.

[General Mike]

I think there is still foolishness you have to take care of, but I'm not sure where it is. In the single player I started in the preseason, I started Eli Manning in the first 3 preseason games, and he still had rust, because he only had 11, 13 and 15 plays respectively in those games. That was using a REX gameplan.

[aston217]

How does playing time / rust shake out in the preseason now?

[SlyBelle1]

Not a fan of not being able to influence preseason time at all....already had top RB lost for the season when injured playing late into the game which would never happen in real life.

[henry296]

I'm not sure I like not controlling the playing time. In my sim, I've got Leveon Bell who has an endurance of 66. I don't like putting the backups in based on package, because he might miss a critical play. Therefore, he is the starter in every package, but almost always gets every carry. I wish we could put a percentage use backup, but let it override for late/close games.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by henry296

I'm not sure I like not controlling the playing time. In my sim, I've got Leveon Bell who has an endurance of 66. I don't like putting the backups in based on package, because he might miss a critical play. Therefore, he is the starter in every package, but almost always gets every carry. I wish we could put a percentage use backup, but let it override for late/close games.

Agreed. On D in my SP career Suh is my best DT. But if he plays in all packages with 55 endurance there is an extreme concern about his durability.

So I've taken him out of 212 and 005 packages, the former which makes a huge difference, and no endurance concerns. But it also means that if the opponent runs exclusively 212 and 005 packages, Suh will not see a single play.

In MP it means you can in theory with a bit of detective work competely eliminate your opponents best defensive players if you run packages where you know that they are not on the field. That can't be right.

[Brian Swartz]

Does the game not just sub out a player for a down or two if they are tired? Sounds like I really don't understand how this works.

[AlexB]

It could be me misunderstanding, but if that is the case, what reason is there for the analyze depth charts button and detailed concerns over durability?

I'd much prefer to stick my best players in their positions for every formation and let the game sub them out for a couple of plays if tired, but that analyze button suggests to me that that's not how it works.

I'd love to be wrong tbh, as it's a major flaw for me as I currently understand it.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Does the game not just sub out a player for a down or two if they are tired? Sounds like I really don't understand how this works.

I think it is supposed to, but in my case with Bell, he is not getting subbed out at all even with Endurance at 66. In my last game, he had 33 carries and 8 targets and my other running back had 0 carries. I'll check the plays when I get home.

[Hobart]

Isn't this Jim's attempt to mimic the way the NFL works though? In week 1, Suh actually played on 82% of MIA's defensive snaps, meaning he was probably in on all but a couple of packages. Could a really detail oriented opponent figure out a way to keep that player off the field on most plays? Probably, but it would require twisting a game plan into so many knots that there's a good chance it would lead to a terrible offensive performance and a lot of familiar plays for the defense. After all, even with a 200 play playbook, there are only so many plays that are going to be designed for each personnel grouping.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by henry296

I think it is supposed to, but in my case with Bell, he is not getting subbed out at all even with Endurance at 66. In my last game, he had 33 carries and 8 targets and my other running back had 0 carries. I'll check the plays when I get home.

Here are some ore details on Bell. In 2017 he was in 402 rushing plays with 381 carries and invoked in 556 pass plays. His primary backup had 38 carries and they came in 3 games where he had 25 of those carries in big blowouts. My team had a total of 611 pass plays.

My last game we won 43-21 and bell had 33 carries and none for the backup. Ben ended up with 3 carries which was one scramble and two kneel downs. In this game, he only had 3 targets. He was in 68 plays and the backup was in none. He only missed two plays which probably were empty backfields formation.

On defensive he palyes in all formations were never subbed.

[MattG]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Does the game not just sub out a player for a down or two if they are tired? Sounds like I really don't understand how this works.

When I SIM entire entire seasons if they are in every formation they get every play...at least for RB's. Which sucks because what formation do you not include your stud RB in? I know the 3rd down back subs in on 3rd and 4th with more than 3 to go...but what about 3rd and 2 when I really need a 1st down and the formation with my backup is called? I understand there are different personnel for different packages but at certain times when the chips are on the line you bring in the play makers.

[Brian Swartz]

For my current game I simmed history ahead and it just so happens that I have the best RB in the league. It appears that you're right; looking at the personnel screen they have him not in a few of the packages. I'm leaving that stuff up to Rex but it does seem to be curious design choice to require a different formation for this kind of issue.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Simple solution, add back the Global Playing time setting and a Top backup per position group.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by AlexB

It could be me misunderstanding, but if that is the case, what reason is there for the analyze depth charts button and detailed concerns over durability?

I'd much prefer to stick my best players in their positions for every formation and let the game sub them out for a couple of plays if tired, but that analyze button suggests to me that that's not how it works.

I'd love to be wrong tbh, as it's a major flaw for me as I currently understand it.

Agreed, I just commented about this on the other thread

[Sweed]

I am enjoying fof8 but this is a real bummer for me too. I play as the Rams and if I want Donaldson in packages against passing formations 5 wide, 4 wide, I have to sacrifice his run stopping ability in goal line package? He'll just get too tired?

I've been fighting too to get Gurley even 20 carries per game because if I let the Coordinator set the depth chart my second HB gets the 1-1-3 formation and Gurley sits. Guess which formation we run out of the most with AI setting the game plan? Yeah, 1-1-3. I took over the depth chart and was able to get Gurley touches by keeping him out of the 2-1-2 package. This however still leaves a "slight concern" warning.

I think we should be able to put the best players into any or all formations. Let us set the player's global playing time by position group. If I have Donaldson in all packages and set d-line to 80% I get the "tired warning" I can try changing it to 75% to make him safe. Or I can take him out of one formation, if I choose, and see if 80% play time in the remaining formations makes him safe.

Same for Gurley. Put him in all formations and then find the max percentage he can play and stay safe while being available for all offensive plays. Sure I may have a critical situation come up and he's not on the field with this system and that's ok. Player's do take themselves out on occasion for whatever reason, exhaustion, stinger, etc so that's realistic enough.

What a team doesn't do is totally eliminate "every down" players, especially stars like Donaldson or Gurley from playing in a particular formation. They put them on the field for as many plays as they can and rest them when they need to.

Originally Posted by A-Husker-4-Life

Simple solution, add back the Global Playing time setting and a Top backup per position group.

Yes for the most part. Others may not agree(and I understand why) but I'd be happy wit the current "one selection" depth chart and let the AI pick the subs. I always hated filling in the subs for O-line, d- line for each situation etc.

[henry296]

I have yet to notice a big downside to playing your best players in all packages even with some concerns. In the one year, I played Bell to death he played all 16 games (some with a probable injury) and was Offensive Player of the Year.

[henry296]

I just found an good example of a relatively low endurance player. My first round pick last year had an endurance rating of 31. I put him in all formations and got the extreme concern when I did analyze on the formation screen.

At the end of the year, he played in 590 of 613 pass plays and 376 of 397 running plays. He ended the year with 14 sacks as and 3-4 defensive end.

Maybe I got lucky he didn't get hurt or maybe he was ineffective in the 4th quarter, but his low endurance didn't seem to hurt him or prevent him from playing all of the time.

[Hammer]

Just going through my first MP pre season. It seems it is just as time consuming pulling guys in and out of the depth chart. Maybe more so depth chart(ssss).

I set my QB playing time to 9. I want the young guy to take every snap for the game. Yanked at half time. What is with that?

It seems this game can't decide whether it wants to give us massive control or none at all. Is this another example or is there another setting I should be aware of?

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Just going through my first MP pre season. It seems it is just as time consuming pulling guys in and out of the depth chart. Maybe more so depth chart(ssss).

I set my QB playing time to 9. I want the young guy to take every snap for the game. Yanked at half time. What is with that?

It seems this game can't decide whether it wants to give us massive control or none at all. Is this another example or is there another setting I should be aware of?

Preseason is different and it will automatically sub out starters.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I set my QB playing time to 9.

No, you did not.

[Hammer]

I don't think it would hurt for 9 to be an overriding number, play all game. A fella in the VFL is reporting setting 9 and his QB throwing 2 passes then getting yanked.

I feel like I am moaning about this version constantly. I guess I am. So much good work but currently looks like an unfinished project.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I don't think it would hurt for 9 to be an overriding number, play all game. A fella in the VFL is reporting setting 9 and his QB throwing 2 passes then getting yanked.

I feel like I am moaning about this version constantly. I guess I am. So much good work but currently looks like an unfinished project.

You and the unnamed dude in the VFL need to read what I highlighted above.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

No, you did not.

Confused. Yes I did. Not sure what you are trying to get across here?

You are saying 1 is the new 9?

[sirotka33]

He is saying the setting '9' will yank your QB the quickest.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Confused. Yes I did. Not sure what you are trying to get across here?

You are saying 1 is the new 9?

Can you not read the setting there????? 1 yanks your QB the least. 9 yanks it the most. It's right there in black and white. That old setting is gone. This is an entirely new setting.

[Hammer]

I can read it perfectly Ben. In FOF7 9 (most) was the correct setting if you wanted your QB to play the whole game. 1 (least) got your QB yanked quickest.

I tried 1 last night, and my QB was yanked in 8 or 10 plays.

So therefore I presumed it must be 9 I required. I got a whole half game at 9.

On further inspection just now, whether I put in 1 or 9, when the QB is yanked seems pretty random in pre season.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I can read it perfectly Ben. In FOF7 9 (most) was the correct setting if you wanted your QB to play the whole game. 1 (least) got your QB yanked quickest

It was a completely different setting in FOF7, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. It was "Starters' Playing Time." 1 was the lowest for QB's, 9 was the highest. That setting no longer exists, so I'm not sure why anyone would try to pretend that it does.

There is an entirely new setting called "Substitute Starting Quarterback During Games." 1 is least. 9 is greatest. Put in a 1, and he'll get substituted the least. Put in a 9, and he'll get substituted more.

As far as it being preseason, the Help File is your friend...

The Substitute Starting Quarterback During Games setting determines how frequently you remove your starting quarterback for performing badly. This choice is modified by where you are in the season. During exhibition games, starting quarterbacks are usually substituted regardless. In the playoffs, they are almost never substituted.

(FWIW, I tend to suspect that the playing time for different Preseason weeks is different, though I haven't yet found documentation to support that theory.)

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by henry296

Preseason is different and it will automatically sub out starters.

Not the case with my brief use of the game - my starting RB played every down in preseason when listed in every formation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Not the case with my brief use of the game - my starting RB played every down in preseason when listed in every formation.

I think he was referring to QBs. as per the help file entry I posted, preseason is most definitely different.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think he was referring to QBs. as per the help file entry I posted, preseason is most definitely different.

I know you've always been keen to maximise rookie usage in preseason, and have probably played the game more than anyone else.

Do you consider control over playing time in preseason, and in the regular season for that matter, to work fully and properly, and if so (it's a genuine question) how have you been able to control it to your satisfaction?

[henry296]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Not the case with my brief use of the game - my starting RB played every down in preseason when listed in every formation.

I haven't paid attention to RBs, but I have seen my OLine substituted during preseason and defensive players.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

(FWIW, I tend to suspect that the playing time for different Preseason weeks is different, though I haven't yet found documentation to support that theory.)

Don't have any in front of me, but I believe the box scores from Preseason week 4 (game 3 for most teams) bear this out.

[Ned Doolittle]

The way I manage it is I play my important players in preseason games 1 and 2, and then bench them for preseason games 3 and 4. I do it so that they don't start the season with any rust, and if they get injured they'll have 2 weeks to recover. If they're going to get injured I want it to happen early in preseason when there's time to recover during meaningless games. It's annoying to have to manage depth charts like this but I want to minimize getting screwed by injuries.

[ezlee2]

I try to sit any stars on my team that any league that I play in that does not turn injuries off in the preseason. I personally don't think that the rust really matters. Even if it does, I refuse to risk a major injury in a game that is meaningless. Plus, the rust is always gone after that first game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I know you've always been keen to maximise rookie usage in preseason, and have probably played the game more than anyone else.

Do you consider control over playing time in preseason, and in the regular season for that matter, to work fully and properly, and if so (it's a genuine question) how have you been able to control it to your satisfaction?

I've done some crazy stuff in preseason, like throwing a bomb on every single play back in FOF2K4 when development was tied to the total number of plays in which your guys participated. (More incomplete passes = stopped clocks = more total plays.) But to be 100% clear, I don't do that stuff because I enjoy doing it; I do it because I'm a hyper-competitive S.O.B. who can't stand the thought that one of my opponents is out there maximizing something and I'm not. As a result, this is the foolishness I had to engage in with FOF2K7/FOF7 Preseason if injuries were on:

Game 1: QB at 9 for playing time, all starters at 100%.
Game 2: QB at 3 for playing time, starters at 35%. (In FOF2K7, where they could be set individually, I'd adjust that number upward for low-endurance players and positions like WILB and FB that aren't on the field as much.) Make young players who are going to start but aren't fully developed into backups for this week, because they'll get more playing time than the starters.
Game 3: Check to see any of my starters were in less than 85 plays in games 1 and 2. If so, put them in places where they get a few more snaps (WR3, dime CB, backup TE...whatever...this often meant playing people out of position in really silly ways, but it worked). Otherwise, make my best 14 players inactive for rest of preseason and reset playing time to 100%. Move young players who will start BACK into the starting lineup to get benefit of 100% setting.
Game 4: Move starters that I had to leave in for week 3 to inactive.

And then of course for regular season game 1, I'd have to switch the starters back in, since all scrubs started game 4. That's why I *GREATLY* prefer playing with injuries off: you can just play your scrubs the first two games, play your starters the next two games...and they're already in there as starters when the regular season starts, so you don't have to make all those moves for week 1.

That was mind-numbingly annoying, but necessary to maximize effectiveness. I like this system mostly as it is *precisely* because it gives less control. This means that the grognards who *enjoy* this kind of button-mashing have less opportunity to gain an advantage so I don't feel like I need to do it. The only thing I'd change would be to go back to guys sitting out when they're tired, rather than having to micromanage for endurance through personnel package manipulation. Not only is it the sort of micromanagement I don't care for, but it feels very artificial.

And to be clear, in this version, like in the past, I mostly just let the AI handle my depth charts in SP anyway to move things along more quickly, so that's no change for me. I only pay attention to all those details when I'm competing with other humans, and would prefer not to have to even then.

[aston217]

[cleancoder42]

Something I've noticed in CCFL through first three games. In game 1 I had Sub QB = 1. My starting QB was subbed out in Q3 @ 10:48. I was leading 26-0. Also this was a first down, but it was an earned first down, so middle of the drive.

Second game, Sub QB = 5, Starter played whole game, neither team is ever up by more than 10 points.

Third game, Sub QB = 1, Starter pulled in 3Q @ 11:49. Again on earned first down, middle of drive. I was losing 24 - 7.

Until I saw this thread I was starting to wonder if maybe this setting was mislabeled, and 1 meant quick sub, with 9 meaning no sub, but that's not what Ben is seeing.

I'm wondering why my QB was pulled so quick. The first one, maybe you could say blowout, but 26-0 is not really that big a lead in 3Q. In game 3, 24 -7 is surely not game over yet.

Additional note, while I value my starter significantly over the backup, the game only values my starter a bit above the backup (34 overall - 27)

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by cleancoder42

Something I've noticed in CCFL through first three games. In game 1 I had Sub QB = 1. My starting QB was subbed out in Q3 @ 10:48. I was leading 26-0. Also this was a first down, but it was an earned first down, so middle of the drive.

Second game, Sub QB = 5, Starter played whole game, neither team is ever up by more than 10 points.

Third game, Sub QB = 1, Starter pulled in 3Q @ 11:49. Again on earned first down, middle of drive. I was losing 24 - 7.

Until I saw this thread I was starting to wonder if maybe this setting was mislabeled, and 1 meant quick sub, with 9 meaning no sub, but that's not what Ben is seeing.

I'm wondering why my QB was pulled so quick. The first one, maybe you could say blowout, but 26-0 is not really that big a lead in 3Q. In game 3, 24 -7 is surely not game over yet.

Additional note, while I value my starter significantly over the backup, the game only values my starter a bit above the backup (34 overall - 27)

How was the yardage in that 24 - 7? It is a big difference between you outgaining the rival but turnovers causing mayhem. And rival destroying you already...

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've done some crazy stuff in preseason, like throwing a bomb on every single play back in FOF2K4 when development was tied to the total number of plays in which your guys participated. (More incomplete passes = stopped clocks = more total plays.) But to be 100% clear, I don't do that stuff because I enjoy doing it; I do it because I'm a hyper-competitive S.O.B. who can't stand the thought that one of my opponents is out there maximizing something and I'm not. As a result, this is the foolishness I had to engage in with FOF2K7/FOF7 Preseason if injuries were on:

Game 1: QB at 9 for playing time, all starters at 100%.
Game 2: QB at 3 for playing time, starters at 35%. (In FOF2K7, where they could be set individually, I'd adjust that number upward for low-endurance players and positions like WILB and FB that aren't on the field as much.) Make young players who are going to start but aren't fully developed into backups for this week, because they'll get more playing time than the starters.
Game 3: Check to see any of my starters were in less than 85 plays in games 1 and 2. If so, put them in places where they get a few more snaps (WR3, dime CB, backup TE...whatever...this often meant playing people out of position in really silly ways, but it worked). Otherwise, make my best 14 players inactive for rest of preseason and reset playing time to 100%. Move young players who will start BACK into the starting lineup to get benefit of 100% setting.
Game 4: Move starters that I had to leave in for week 3 to inactive.

And then of course for regular season game 1, I'd have to switch the starters back in, since all scrubs started game 4. That's why I *GREATLY* prefer playing with injuries off: you can just play your scrubs the first two games, play your starters the next two games...and they're already in there as starters when the regular season starts, so you don't have to make all those moves for week 1.

That was mind-numbingly annoying, but necessary to maximize effectiveness. I like this system mostly as it is *precisely* because it gives less control. This means that the grognards who *enjoy* this kind of button-mashing have less opportunity to gain an advantage so I don't feel like I need to do it. The only thing I'd change would be to go back to guys sitting out when they're tired, rather than having to micromanage for endurance through personnel package manipulation. Not only is it the sort of micromanagement I don't care for, but it feels very artificial.

And to be clear, in this version, like in the past, I mostly just let the AI handle my depth charts in SP anyway to move things along more quickly, so that's no change for me. I only pay attention to all those details when I'm competing with other humans, and would prefer not to have to even then.

Cheers for the reply - agree with the part I've bolded completely, and hopefully that will change. Want to like the game, trying to make it work for me..

[cleancoder42]

Originally Posted by Sharkn20

How was the yardage in that 24 - 7? It is a big difference between you outgaining the rival but turnovers causing mayhem. And rival destroying you already...

He wasn't playing that bad, if it was up to me, I surely would have kept him in.

Here's his #'s: 12/21 for 196 yds; 1 TD 1 INT, 84.6 rating.

I suspect that the AI likes my other QB better and is looking for an excuse to play him, but I guess I don't really know that.

[yabanci]

I think preseason playing time is very flawed in FOF8, except for the QB position where there is a setting. Just focusing on AI teams, their starters play nearly every snap. Not saying it should go back to previous versions, but there must be a way for the game to handle playing time in a more realistic fashion without making it too cumbersome or annoying. I don't know what that is.

The pattern for preseason playing time in real life is pretty well set. I would be happy with something as simple as starters play first quarter in first game, to second quarter in second game, to third quarter in third game, none or hardly at all in fourth game. All 60 players should be active for preseason games. The rust factor should be relaxed and only show up when a guy really sits out the preseason because of injury or coach's choice. I'm sure people can come up with much better ways to do it. Anything that would make it more realistic would be welcome to me.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by yabanci

I think preseason playing time is very flawed in FOF8, except for the QB position where there is a setting. Just focusing on AI teams, their starters play nearly every snap.

I actually think the QB position is the worst of all. You have a setting which isn't doing what it says it does.

[TAFIV]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I actually think the QB position is the worst of all. You have a setting which isn't doing what it says it does.

it does do what it says you just need to read the full description in the help files

The Substitute Starting Quarterback During Games setting determines how frequently you remove your starting quarterback for performing badly. This choice is modified by where you are in the season. During exhibition games, starting quarterbacks are usually substituted regardless. In the playoffs, they are almost never substituted

1 is least likely to substitute while 9 is most likely, but it doesn't say anywhere that 1 will never sub or 9 will always sub, it simply affects the chances of your coach subbing the QB. It is not an option set in stone.

[Hammer]

I suggest you run a few pre seasons at 1 and 9 and have a look over the results. You will find you can do what do what you want with the slider....you will have no control.

I set it to 1 and he was out in 8 or 10 plays. Set it to 9 and he played half a game. Its random.

I don't want to get into a debate as to whether its as intended or not. I am just saying it is crap and has taken the game backwards.

If I want to give a rookie a full run out in PS1, I can't. It's impossible. If anyone thinks that is okay they must have shares in the game or be family.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hammer

If anyone thinks that is okay they must have shares in the game or be family.

Nope. Someone might think it's ok because...

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I like this system mostly as it is *precisely* because it gives less control. This means that the grognards who *enjoy* this kind of button-mashing have less opportunity to gain an advantage so I don't feel like I need to do it.

Originally Posted by Hammer

I don't want to get into a debate as to whether its as intended or not.

Then why'd you say this???

You have a setting which isn't doing what it says it does.

..when you know that "what it says it does" is...

During exhibition games, starting quarterbacks are usually substituted regardless.

It is doing what it says it does. The use of "usually" there indicates that it's either random or scripted week by week. You've mentioned about running the preseason at various settings. Have you checked it game-by-game, or are you setting it to a setting for the first game, then changing the setting the next, etc.? Is a particular week getting the QB more snaps every time? (I don't know for sure. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. As I've mentioned, I suspect that there's a difference in usage depending on what week.)

[Hammer]

Okay i know you are intelligent guy Ben so your consistent bias and blinkered thinking is raising a flag with me. I am questioning why you seem so adament in pushing an obviously flawed game. Asking us to lie and write positive reviews when so many of us have mixed feelings. A financial motive perhaps? An unbiased discussion once again seems beyond the realms of possibility.

Last time we were at odds you told me I couldn't gameplan in FOF7. I didn't know what I was talking about, blah, blah. Now you have watched me win 4 bowls with my average team first hand. You just seem to want to shoot people down who disagree with you, I am not even convinced you believe what you are saying sometimes.

[digamma]

Oh good grief.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Okay i know you are intelligent guy Ben so your consistent bias and blinkered thinking is raising a flag with me. I am questioning why you seem so adament in pushing an obviously flawed game. Asking us to lie and write positive reviews when so many of us have mixed feelings. A financial motive perhaps? An unbiased discussion once again seems beyond the realms of possibility.

That's awesome. Having read this, I might *now* have an entirely different financial motive from the one you're suggesting, 'cause it sounds like aluminum futures across the pond might be a wise investment. That sort of thinking requires a MASSIVE tinfoil hat.

(And in case it isn't obvious, of course not. I have no stake in FOF other than my own personal enjoyment of this hobby.)

But seriously, I have stated specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically what I like and don't like about this game. I completely get that you don't like having as much control. You seem to be unable to acknowledge or understand that others think differently from you. I'll say some of the things that I like that you don't like again, so that perhaps it will be clear to you:

1. I greatly prefer not to deal with crap that I consider to be mundane mindless micromanagement such as listing my backup at every single position (including a freaking #2 punt returner??? Really???? Ugh.) , preseason playing time, how much more to throw when I have a 9-point lead, etc.
2. I am quite competitive, though, so in versions of the game where this stuff is allowed, I have done all of it and more in attempts to maximize my team's effectiveness. (In other words, if others can do it and there's a significant advantage to be gained, I need to do it, too.)
3. Therefore, the more of the stuff that I consider to be mundane mindless micromanagement that is removed from the user, the more I am going to enjoy multi-player. (In other words, if everyone is subject to the AI's whims in preseason, that's one more task that I find tedious and can ignore.)

There may be some details of how it's handled that aren't ideal. But hear it again: if an area of the game I don't care about in the first place has issues but those issues over time will affect everyone equally, I'd like to see it improved, sure, but it also doesn't really negatively impact my enjoyment of a game.

With regard to reviews, I stated precisely why I want the game to get positive reviews: it'll bring more fresh meat for MP, and help ensure that there are future versions of one of my favorite computer games. I'm not sure how I can be more straightforward than that, or why those motivations don't make sense to you. Who *doesn't* want those things to happen for their favorite games???

Last time we were at odds you told me I couldn't gameplan in FOF7.

That is 100% false. Either you severely misinterpreted something I said, or your long-time enmity towards me is causing you to remember discussions very differently from the way they actually went down. Go back and re-read any of those dialogues. I've *never* claimed that you couldn't game plan. Not once. Ever. I said repeatedly that game planning does not make the level of difference that you think it does. And I absolutely and unequivocally stand by that statement. I'm not sure how that has gotten interpreted as me saying you couldn't game plan.

Now you have watched me win 4 bowls with my average team first hand.

...with a 73/73 QB. In my opinion, that makes a much bigger difference in FOF7 than your game plan, my game plan, or anyone else's game plan. My code consistently has your team in the top third of the league, mainly because you have the 5th highest-rated QB. I know you think otherwise, but I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. What's the big deal about that, and why do you continue to insist that me thinking you're wrong is "shooting you down."???We disagree. It's ok to disagree. No two people are going to agree on everything. Why does it seem to be so important to you that I agree with you? It doesn't bother me that you disagree with me.

Finally, I was dead serious about those questions. I have no idea the answer to them. Do you know? I say again....

You've mentioned about running the preseason at various settings. Have you checked it game-by-game, or are you setting it to a setting for the first game, then changing the setting the next, etc.? Is a particular week getting the QB more snaps every time? (I don't know for sure. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. As I've mentioned, I suspect that there's a difference in usage depending on what week.)

If you've done a 10ish-or-more run test and compared total plays and the time in the game the QB was removed (not just passes thrown,) in the same week with the same game plan, rosters, etc., and that data indicates that it's truly random, I'd love to see that and would encourage you to report it to Customer Support. If there's truly a bug there, then let's get it fixed.

[Hammer]

Just doesn't make sense Ben. I go over the AI wins every year, consistently. Your QB has been better than mine. Firefly has been causing me the most bother yet his QB isn't even 50 lol.