Baseline Seasons Stats for Total Pro Football 1.43

[jbmagic]

Skydog is doing a great job with FOF season stats.

I show you how Total Pro Football 1.43 version stats are. Arlie made a new patch update a few days ago.

check out TPF season average stats the game does for you. its found in the stats/folder.

i wish in FOF did this for you too.. It will save Skydog some time than to compute it all manually.


All Stats are per game

Total League Stats
Total Points, 39.68359375
Total Yards, 611.91796875
Total Plays, 136.80859375
Total Yards Per Play, 4.47280358621477
First Downs (Pass), 20.1828125
First Downs (Run), 11.63359375
First Downs (Pen), 3.959375
Third Down Conv, 10.0859375
Third Down Att, 28.23046875
Third Down %, 0.357271343572713
Fourth Down Conv, 0.7328125
Fourth Down Att, 1.5875
Fourth Down %, 0.440217391304348
Penalties, 13.88671875
Penalty Yards, 112.05859375

League Passing Stats
Attempts, 66.96484375
Completions, 38.203125
%, 0.570495245872951
YPA, 6.14291547570437
Yards, 411.359375
TDs, 2.33515625
INTs, 2.65546875
Sacks, 4.83203125

League Rushing Stats
Rushes, 56.01171875
Yards, 224.77734375
YPA, 4.01304135574308
TDs, 1.5578125
Fumbles, 2.52578125
Fumbles Lost, 1.37421875

League Return Stats
Kick Returns, 8.7734375
Kick Return Yardage, 197.21875
Kick Return Ave, 22.4790739091719
Kick Return TDs, 0.0703125
Punt Returns, 4.63671875
Punt Return Yardage, 52.33203125
Punt Return Ave, 11.2864363942713
Punt Return TDs, 0.0234375

FG Stats
FG Converted, 3.05859375
FG Attempts, 3.84375
FG %, 0.795731707317073
XP converted, 3.62109375
XP attempted, 3.72265625
XP %, 0.972717733473242

Punting Stats
Punts, 11.46875
Punt Yards, 491.48828125
Punt Ave, 42.8545640326975
Net Punting Yards, 416.76171875
Net Ave, 36.3388964577657

Defense Stats
Defense TDs, 36

[dubb93]

I seriously hope teams don't average over 600 yards and 40 points a game.

[Danny]

I seriously hope teams don't average over 600 yards and 40 points a game.

the totals are not per team. it is for both teams per game.

[andy m]

accurate stats are worthless if a game is no fun to play. even i could knock up something in BASIC that printed a bunch of realistic numbers on the screen.

[markprior22]

accurate stats are worthless if a game is no fun to play. even i could knock up something in BASIC that printed a bunch of realistic numbers on the screen.

I don't understand how people can say TPF is "no fun to play" compared to the FOF series. When the game was in development, many people on this board made negative comments such as "it doesn't matter how pretty the interface is if the engine is no good." Now, it's "well, it doesn't matter how good the stats are if the game isn't fun."

Granted, TPF did get off to a rocky start (JS) but, over the long haul, the game has proved to have a very solid stat base and an interface that is better than FOF. Every game has to stand on it's own merit but I think it's also fair to remind people that this is the first incarnation of TPF while FOF is on it's fourth or fifth version. The fact that this message board is so well established and is based on the FOF game is obviously going to skew alot of the posts. People here, for the most part, are loyal to Jim and that is totally understandable. I know that TPF isn't perfect...no game is but it drives me crazy to see these gross oversimplifications.

One thing I'd like to say to Andy M is this...if you think that all TPF does is print accurate stats to the screen...then please "knock up something" in BASIC similar to TPF and I will buy it. I promise. But, remember, at a minimum, your game has to at least have all the features/options that TPF has. It shouldn't be too difficult since TPF simply spits out stats. Let me know when the game's ready and I'll get my credit card ready.

[Ben E Lou]

but I think it's also fair to remind people that this is the first incarnation of TPF while FOF is on it's fourth or fifth version. I've heard that purported ad nauseum, but it doesn't hold one single solitary bit of water. I'm sitting at my PC. I have a couple of hours free. I want to play a baseball game. I have PureSim, OOTP, and Baseball Mogul on my hard drive. I'm not going to do a calculation of "Well, Mogul gives me about a 80 'fun rating' but it is on its 8th version. OOTP is only around a 72 for me, but it is on its 6th version, so that's 12 'fun factors' per version versus 10. However, PureSim is only in its fourth version. Even though it is only a 60, THAT'S the one I'll play, because that's FIFTEEN fun factors per version!"

Sounds silly, doesn't it? But that's what you're trying to sell me when I've got TPF and FOF on my hard drive, and you say that I should play TPF because it is in the first generation even though it isn't as fun as FOF. No. Of course not. Time is a precious commodity, and when any rational person decides which game to spend their time playing, they're going to play the one that is more fun right now, or perhaps the one that they can give feedback on that will give it the potential to be better SOON (as in within a few patches). I stopped my new dynasty on TPF because I realized that between the way RFA's are handled, the fact that you can't click on a player card anywhere, the fact that gameplanning is so nebulous and the fact that the interface can be so cumbersome in places, there is no chance whatosever that it will be more fun for me than FOF, until there's a TPF2. When time comes for TPF2 (or whatever it is called), I will give Arlie my full support in whatever capacity he wishes to make that game the best it can be, whether it be giving my anal-retentive feedback as a beta tester, in the early days of the release, or in some other capacity, but if at any point it becomes clear to me that TPF2.x can't be better than FOF5.x, 6.x, or 7.x (whichever one is around at the time), then it will get shelved, too.

BOTTOM LINE: I tried TPF1.43. Is it more fun than FOF1.1? Probably so. However, as I finish this post, I'm not choosing between TPF1.43 and FOF1.1. I'm choosing between TPF1.43 and FOF5.1c, and FOF5.1c is a better experience for me by a long shot right now.

[markprior22]

Fair enough Ben...you took the least of my points and jumped on it. I also said "each game has to stand on its own merit". I agree that different games appeal to different people. The main point I intended to make is how silly these extreme posts are. Both games are good and it's absurd for someone to say TPF is "no fun" because it does nothing more than spit out accurate stats. Foolish.

[amdaily]

The main reason I can't get into any of the Greydog games (Football and Basketball that I've tried) is beause of the interface. To many clicks to get a result, to many unsortable columns, no traditional windows boxes for negotiations, etc. Strip away the interface and both are solid simulations, but far to cumbersome to play :(

[Danny]

Grey Dog only has two games currently released, TPB 2005, and WreSpi. TPF and other .400 games have no correlation to those of Grey Dog when it comes to interface. They are being designed by different people.

The interface of TPB 2005 is much. much better than the previous version. While I'm sure some people prefer other interfaces, and some definite improvements can be made, the overall feedback from the interface has been excellent.

[Bee]

Fair enough Ben...you took the least of my points and jumped on it. I also said "each game has to stand on its own merit". I agree that different games appeal to different people. The main point I intended to make is how silly these extreme posts are. Both games are good and it's absurd for someone to say TPF is "no fun" because it does nothing more than spit out accurate stats. Foolish.

You say that SD attacked the least of your points, but I can't figure out what your other points really were.

Was it that you said TPF has a better interface? Well it's "prettier" and if that's all you judge by, then fine I guess. I think many here feel that accessibility and the display of information are more important and I really don't see how TPF is better in those aspects or even equal to FOF.

Was it that it had a solid stats engine? It's not bad, but early on there were some analysis done and several issues were found about the distribution of stats. Perhaps that was fixed, I couldn't get interested enough in the latest patched version to spend time in detailed analysis. Of course, I don't see where this could be a valid point in any case since andy said it had a solid stat engine...

The only other point I could get from your post was that people here "favor" FOF. Again, I disagree. This place has become much more than just an FOF site. I'd say if a poll were taken FOF would probably finish either 2nd or 3rd as the best text sim (hell, maybe even 4th). There are plenty of other text sims that people rave about all the time here...FM, FBCB, TCY, TPB, etc. Also, some of the previous releases of FOF were criticized pretty severely here so I really don't see the argument that we're all biased towards FOF as being a valid issue.

Best I can tell, SkyDog attacked your best point...

[markprior22]

OK...I'm gonna make this as clear as possible for the mentally challenged...MAIN POINT=Making such extreme statements as the one posted by andy m is just foolish. To say TPF just spits out stats is somewhat ridiculous. SECONDARY POINT=When TPF was in development, several comments were made here about how it might have a "pretty interface" but that wouldn't overcome a weak engine. Now this guy is saying the interface sucks and all it does is spit out stats. THIRDLY=I know that no software gets a "bonus" for being decent in its first version while another program is very good in its fifth. I wasn't even going to mention it but I think if you compare the first TPF to the first FOF, TPF blows it away. Not a point to stand on...just a throw away thought I wanted to mention.

I have come to a stark realization about this board. I must be the dumbest son of a bitch in the world or you guys are all charter members of MENSA. Everything I've ever posted on this board about TPF brings out protests galore (literally). I have a hard time believing that I am ALWAYS wrong about every point I make.

[jbmagic]

i love both Football Games FOF and TPF.

of course FOF 5.1c is better.

but for a 2nd alternative for a Pro Football Sim game, TPF 1.43 is pretty solid now. If you havent played TPF or put it away like i did when it first came out, try it now with the latest update to version 1.43. you will be very surprise how much this game has improved.

i enjoy playing both in Solo and Online league.

[QuikSand]

TDs, 2.33515625
INTs, 2.65546875


Interesting that leaguewide, there are more interceptions than TD passes. SkyDOg found this ration to be 1.1 in the other direction in his research... that seems like a fairly large departure. I don't know which better models the NFL, if that's important to you, but it does suggest some meaningful differences in the two systems (not surprising in itself).

[Bee]

OK...I'm gonna make this as clear as possible for the mentally challenged...MAIN POINT=Making such extreme statements as the one posted by andy m is just foolish. To say TPF just spits out stats is somewhat ridiculous. SECONDARY POINT=When TPF was in development, several comments were made here about how it might have a "pretty interface" but that wouldn't overcome a weak engine. Now this guy is saying the interface sucks and all it does is spit out stats. THIRDLY=I know that no software gets a "bonus" for being decent in its first version while another program is very good in its fifth. I wasn't even going to mention it but I think if you compare the first TPF to the first FOF, TPF blows it away. Not a point to stand on...just a throw away thought I wanted to mention.

I have come to a stark realization about this board. I must be the dumbest son of a bitch in the world or you guys are all charter members of MENSA. Everything I've ever posted on this board about TPF brings out protests galore (literally). I have a hard time believing that I am ALWAYS wrong about every point I make.

Why resort to the name calling or the "implied" name calling? I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking your counter points.

If you want to call andy out on being extreme in getting his point across, fine. But when you try to counter the actual point he's making (even if he does so with what you consider an extreme statement), expect your counter argument to come under scrutiny as well.

Here's andy's statement:

accurate stats are worthless if a game is no fun to play. even i could knock up something in BASIC that printed a bunch of realistic numbers on the screen.

He doesn't say that TPF only just spits out stats. The way I read it he basically says the game isn't fun and while the stats are accurate, that alone isn't enough. And if that were all that he was interested in, even he could write a BASIC program to get those. Heck, I don't consider that much of an extreme statement. Accurate stats don't mean anything to me either if the game isn't fun to play.

Your Secondary point again has nothing to do with andy's statement. I also think that what was said back then is still valid. A pretty interface with a weak stat engine isn't going to do well with this crowd. That doesn't mean that a pretty interface with a strong stat engine is the answer to everyone's prayers either. There's a lot of components that go into a game and the primary one for many people is for the game to actually be fun. Accurate stats are important and so is a good interface, but those things alone don't get it done. Do we have to now start naming off every component that goes into making a solid text sim? I hope not, because I'd hate to see Quiksand's list. :D

Your third point was addressed by SD. I actually consider that the strongest argument which is why I responded to your post to SD that he had attacked the least of your points. While IMO TPF falls well short of FOF2004, the fact that Arlie did such a great job with some aspects of TPF (the draft for example) speaks well for the future of TPF. It doesn't change the fact that SD is right that the current version number is meaningless when comparing games, but it does give hope that the next version of TPF could close the gap or even exceed FOF.

[cdunlap]

Does anyone have tha 1.42 patch for TPF?