Solecismic Q&A: End-Of-Half Logic, RB Endurance, "Timing" Rating

[Ben E Lou]

First off, a big "THANK YOU" to Jim for providing more information about these issues that I know have had a number of people (myself included) confused.

Q: At the end of halves and games, it appears that FOF doesn't recognize when a team should be trying to score but also run out the clock before they score. For example, a team trailing by 3 points or less will call time out immediately after every play when clearly in FG range late in the game, and this can give the other team a chance to score. Was there an attempt to address this in 6.1?

A: There was a fix trying to improve when time outs were called, but nothing addressing this particular problem.

In FOF, the end-of-half management is limited by the fact that the game independently assesses the situation on every play. This means that it may come to the conclusion that the best strategy is to preserve time and call a time out, then on the next play decide the best strategy is to run conservative plays setting up a field goal as time runs out.

Sometimes, those strategies don't mix well, and you get a head-scratching moment like the one you describe.

There are two features I need to implement in the future, both of which are a little beyond what I'd attempt with a patch. First, I'd like to put in a sort-of "state machine." What that means is that at the beginning of a play, the game would review its goal and, unless there was reason to change the goal, proceed accordingly. The second change I'd like to make is to add some sort of limited control over the duration of a play. Right now, there is a "hurry-up" flag you can apply. But that's broad-based. As a result, I've had to increase the number of seconds teams feel they absolutely have to have in reserve when deciding if there's time for "one more play" at the end of a half.

Both of those features are necessary to solve the problem you describe - at least in a natural manner that would presumably hold up for a variety of situations.


Q: Many people are having trouble with RB endurance. A few particular issues are:

*--RBs with high endurance, slotted as starter, with very high playing time, not getting the first carries of a series/half/game.
*--when two RBs with low endurance are used, the RB2 often gets more carries than RB1, despite RB1 having a high playing time setting
*--when a player who is doubtful with turf toe is slotted as RB1, RB2 gets a higher percentage of the carries than he "should"--usually 100%

Was this system changed any in 6.1, and can you shed some light into the best way to get our backs more carries?

A: In 6.1, I removed the ability to play a starter less than half of the time. I also tweaked how endurance is used very slightly, maybe one or two carries one way or the other, depending on the true endurance rating.

The way FOF plays non-quarterbacks is to determine, internally, a percentage for player usage based on endurance and the starter playing-time settings. That's then independently applied to the depth chart on each play. This is kind of an unnatural solution, but it's fair to each team.

If an RB has a very low true endurance as a starter, RB2 could receive more carries. If a commissioner believes a participant is using this artifact to cheat the system, I think this is one of those issues where it's appropriate to step in and assess a penalty.

Down the road, and I wouldn't try this in a patch, I can see tweaking the engine to reduce a team's running effectiveness later in the game if the sum total of its true RB endurance is below a certain level.

You can fine-tune injury settings to address the turf-toe problem. If I remember correctly, I added a tweak to the injury chart that should make this a little easier in 6.1. I may be confusing that with some other similar tweak. This is another case where the above comment about reducing overall effectiveness of a running game would apply.


Q: It seems in 6.1, quite a few passes are being described as one distance, but being completed for a significant distance different from that distance. (For example, Solevision saying that my team threw a "medium" pass, but the completion was only 4 yards down the field.) Can you give some insight into what's happening there?

Players will improvise routes in FOF. You will find this increases with a quarterback's "Timing" (or ability to take advantage of what the defense allows them). In return for your shorter (or longer, it works both ways, though YAC is not calculated using this information) completion, you're gaining a higher completion percentage.

As an aside, people have noticed that YAC does not correlate well with NFL totals. It's one of the few stats in FOF that's calculated after the play is resolved (slightly different from KRB, which is part of the play, but not counted unless the run is a "success"). That really should be on the list of things to improve in the engine.

[Subby]

So when RB2 gets the first 4 or 5 carries of a game, those are just bad dice rolls?

[johnnyshaka]

When a 4 yard "medium" pass is completed, where will it show up in the boxscore...under short passes or medium passes?

[Warhammer]

So when RB2 gets the first 4 or 5 carries of a game, those are just bad dice rolls?

I think based upon the way the engine is set up, yes. Basically, anytime something that you want to happen one way that goes a different way can be called a "bad" dice roll.

[Ben E Lou]

I think based upon the way the engine is set up, yes. Basically, anytime something that you want to happen one way that goes a different way can be called a "bad" dice roll.
If I'm reading the answer correctly, it sounds like the best way to maximize your RB1's carries is just to put him at 100% playing time.

[RedKingGold]

Really good stuff. Just knowing about Timing and its purpose in the passing game is a really big help and takes away some of the mystery from seeing medium passes going for 4 yards.

Also, it still seems that there is still room for adding to the engine, which will only make the game stronger and better as time goes on.

Again, a big thanks to Jim for taking the time to answer these questions and to SD for asking them.

I really hope this type of response becomes a more frequent happening when large unanswerable questions befall FOF players.

[Antmeister]

Thank you for this. Just recently I had a tight end have 137 YAC yards and while it seemed appropiate for my tight end, it would be nice to see that calculated during the play, if nothing else, to know who missed tackles, who was possibly covering him or who he outran. That can help when tweaking defenses in the future. At this point it just seems easier to tweak the offense.

But thanks for giving us a better understanding of what is going on.

[Icy]

Good answers, also nice from you to ask Jim those questions.

After Jim answers and some threads where we all discussed that kind of stuff, It seems that the game engine works based on dice rolls and set % to adjust the outcome, without situation awareness (is that well said?) and as Jim said, that is why sometimes we can see something weird, like RB2 running in the first play, or a 4 deep defense in a clear running play, etc, just due to the statistical probability from a dice roll.

I hope that for the next game Jim can add some situational awareness to the engine, to use some "human logic" to correct the random weird stuff due to the dice rolls.

[primelord]

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions Jim. It's always great to get this kind of feedback from you.

[wade moore]

Good feedback Jim, I'd love to see this happen on some sort of regular basis for some of the bigger questions that come up in this forum.

[Alf]

Good feedback Jim, I'd love to see this happen on some sort of regular basis for some of the bigger questions that come up in this forum.
I'm with stupid here.

[Raiders Army]

I'm with stupid here.

LOL.

I agree. This is some good stuff.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Good feedback Jim, I'd love to see this happen on some sort of regular basis for some of the bigger questions that come up in this forum.

Just follow jkat around the forum.

[larrymcg421]

If an RB has a very low true endurance as a starter, RB2 could receive more carries. If a commissioner believes a participant is using this artifact to cheat the system, I think this is one of those issues where it's appropriate to step in and assess a penalty.

I'm wondering what could be considered cheating the system? I'm having a serious problem in WOOF with my starting RB Thurman Robertson. His 47 endurance isn't great, but it isnt super low. I started the season by giving him 90% playing time and he actually got fewer carries than the backup in one game (who has 38 endurance). For the season, he's got 45 carries and my backup has 33. In the last two games where I had Robertson set at 100% playing time, he's totalled 19 carries to to 15 from the backup.

Now I was considering flipping them in the depth chart to see if Robertson could get more carries. Would this be considered cheating the system? If so, then what else can I do to get my starter more carries?

[Solecismic]

Just follow jkat around the forum.

I wouldn't lie. I have never had any contact, direct or indirect, with jkat, nor is this an alternate identity of mine or, as far as I know, any other person who regularly posts here. Just someone who really seems to know his stuff.

Larry,

That player's real endurance is probably far below 47. It does seem to be an exploit to reverse him in the depth chart. You should ask the WOOF commissioner if he's okay with your doing that.

Wade,

I'd be happy to do this on a regular basis. Ben seems to have a good sense of what's concerning people the most.

Icy,

I wish I could. There's some oversight correction of basic algorithms, but infinite potential for more. The human is still, with its hundreds of billions of brain cells, far ahead of any computer AI.

Johnny,

That's marked as a medium pass. Since FOF can actually read a quarterback's mind, it keeps those stats based on intent rather than execution. I don't think it happens a lot, but enough to notice.

Subby,

Everything is a dice roll. There are hundreds of dice rolls in every single play.

[highfiveoh]

How could trying to maximize a RB's carries ever be considered cheating? What the heck is going on with RB endurance if that is an actual exploit?

[Ben E Lou]

How could trying to maximize a RB's carries ever be considered cheating? What the heck is going on with RB endurance if that is an actual exploit?It sounds like what you're driving at here is a common thing that I've heard over the years: "I should be able to give the ball to my low-endurance RB 35 times a game if I want to, but he should get less and less effective as the game wears on." If I'm reading the answer and what I've seen in the game right, one limitation of the current system (and there will *always* be limitations in a computer simulation of football) is that there aren't really diminishing returns within a game for a player playing too much. (The "tired" tag probably just kicks in for the *next* game.) So, in real life, a player is limited by endurance in that the coach knows he's too tired and therefore doesn't leave him in to risk bad performance and injury. In a computer simulation, endurance is used similarly: it limits how much a player can be used. Any attempt to get around endurance being used that way is therefore an exploit. Think of your low-endurance back as a guy who is prone to cramps, gets winded, is "too small to take the pounding," is too "soft," however you want to think of it in real-life terms. In real life, coaches never run a back to the point of exhaustion, but in FOF, doing anything to get around endurance is essentially doing that--running your back to the point of exhaustion, but with no real penalty. That's why it's an exploit, imho.

The other limitation of the system is that FOF currently doesn't have injuries that sideline a guy for a few plays; he's either able to stay in for the rest of the game, or he's done for the day. In real life, we know that there are times when a guy goes out for a few plays or maybe a series or so due to getting the wind knocked out of him, a muscle cramp, or some other small issue, but then returns. In a sense, endurance also serves as a proxy for those types of injuries; it keeps guys who don't get a game-ending injury from playing every single snap.

The end result of the system on a macro level is that the majority of players get reasonable amounts of playing time. On a micro leve, it's not how we'd expect it to go play by play. My guess is that it was a system designed before MP and certainly before Solevision. There are MANY more people paying close attention to FOF's PBP now. This just wasn't an issue when the FOF community barely read game logs. I'm sure that as the FOF community continues to evolve, the in-game systems will continue to evolve as well, and there will be fewer and fewer exploits like this available.

[larrymcg421]

Okay, but one of the problems in my situation is that I have two low endurance backs. If I'm correct in reading the above, it sounds like the backup's endurance isn't figured in the equation. If so, that doesn't make any sense to me. If the game is only going to read the endurance of one of my RB's, I don't see why it's cheating to have it read my backup, instead of my starter. What do you think, Skydog? What are the limitations on what I can do about this in WOOF?

[sabotai]

Icy,

I wish I could. There's some oversight correction of basic algorithms, but infinite potential for more. The human is still, with its hundreds of billions of brain cells, far ahead of any computer AI.

That's what the Cylons want you to think!!

[Gallifrey]

That's what the Cylons want you to think!!

That is a great line.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I wouldn't lie. I have never had any contact, direct or indirect, with jkat, nor is this an alternate identity of mine or, as far as I know, any other person who regularly posts here. Just someone who really seems to know his stuff.


Yeah, I am still going to have fun with it. I wasn't really saying it was you, more like jkat was the equivalent to you because with some of his analysis, it is like he knows the inside of the game engine. And he's "better" (depending on your definition) than you because he can also be more forthcoming about it too.

[BradS]

Great thread. Thanks.

[Ben E Lou]

Okay, but one of the problems in my situation is that I have two low endurance backs. If I'm correct in reading the above, it sounds like the backup's endurance isn't figured in the equation. If so, that doesn't make any sense to me. If the game is only going to read the endurance of one of my RB's, I don't see why it's cheating to have it read my backup, instead of my starter. What do you think, Skydog? What are the limitations on what I can do about this in WOOF?See my comments in your thread.

[QuikSand]

I, too, appreciate the feedback. And the extended answers too. One follow-up question/observation, though...

Larry,

That player's real endurance is probably far below 47.

I wonder here is Larry did something wrong in selecting this player thinking he had a endurance at least something like what his scout (and, presumably every other scout in the league) says the player's endurance was, when in fact there is/was something else that should have been a clue-in that the guy is really a 12 or 21 endurance player.

I guess I'm still struggling with the notion of scout error in this game. I see that ratings movement is important, but if a guy is settled in with a rating that seems pretty much mid-range in the eyes of *everyone* in the game, I just have a hard time understanding how it can be something *completely different* in a magnitude enough to explain massive differentials like the playing time problems Larry detailed above.

[Hammer]

Yeah, I am still going to have fun with it. I wasn't really saying it was you, more like jkat was the equivalent to you because with some of his analysis, it is like he knows the inside of the game engine. And he's "better" (depending on your definition) than you because he can also be more forthcoming about it too.


I have sent the odd question to customer service and received answers from a chap called Ethan Potter. Jkat may not be Jim, but perhaps someone else on the inside... The answers I received were very informative, and seemed to have genuine insight.


----- Original Message -----
From: "NICHOLAS SIMS" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:01 PM
Subject: FOF2007


Dear Sir,

A couple of questions regarding the game I hope you can help me with.

The help file makes it clear that aggressive pass defense is the most
effective form of defense against the pass, so why does pressing the
recommend button result in a far higher percentage being put on normal pass
defense on obvious passing downs such as 3rd and 17+?


Continuing with the pass defense theme, its the area I just can't get to
grips with. Does the software penalise teams that play one form of pass
defense too much? My personnel are far better suited to bump and run, but I
seem to get the best results just by pressing recommend - rather than
playing more of what we are best at.

Thanks for your time

Nick





There's a lot going on with the recommend buttons. A lot of personnel
analysis, studying of charts of what teams do in real life. So the answer
isn't a simple one. That said, I'll put this in the list of issues to study
the next time the game is in maintenance.

The other team's offensive coordinator is tracking your coverage usage
during the game. If he knows you're likely to be in bump, he tells his
receivers and quarterbacks to make adjustments - there may be more reliance
on the slot, or different routes. It's the exact opposite of the dreaded
"defense is familiar with the play" comment.

--------------------------------
Ethan Potter
Customer Service
Solecismic Software

[jkat]

I'm not affliated with FOF in any way.

[Dutch]

I'm not affliated with FOF in any way.

You already said that!

[Hammer]

I'm not affliated with FOF in any way.


OK I don't doubt you, just a guess. How are you getting on in MP, is the time your spending on analysis getting good results?

[bmerryman]

.... (slightly different from KRB, which is part of the play, but not counted unless the run is a "success").




I'd like to see some discussion of this statement. It seems at odds with some people's belief, does it not? IIRC many believed that KRBs were not "part of the play" but only a statistic based on the success/failure of the run.

Jim's statement strongly suggests that there is a separate "roll" for a KRB which is part of the total running play equation. We can deduce then that a successful "KRB roll" does not necessarily mean that a KRB will be credited because the whole running play could still fail to jump the "success" hurdle. The successful "KRB roll" would still have a positive impact on the overall run but just not enough to meet the criteria used when crediting a lineman with a KRB.

This next part is more of a jump... but I speculate this also means the KRB statistic is credited to the individual lineman directly responsible for the block. The "KRB roll" could be based on the entire offense's blocking ability and then an individual lineman is credited if the play is a success. But, my guess is there's a separate "whole line run blocking effectiveness roll". If I'm correct, this would also mean that the KRB% statistic is highly correlated to a lineman's real run blocking ability. Thoughts on this?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'd like to see some discussion of this statement. It seems at odds with some people's belief, does it not? IIRC many believed that KRBs were not "part of the play" but only a statistic based on the success/failure of the run.

Jim's statement strongly suggests that there is a separate "roll" for a KRB which is part of the total running play equation. We can deduce then that a successful "KRB roll" does not necessarily mean that a KRB will be credited because the whole running play could still fail to jump the "success" hurdle. The successful "KRB roll" would still have a positive impact on the overall run but just not enough to meet the criteria used when crediting a lineman with a KRB.

This next part is more of a jump... but I speculate this also means the KRB statistic is credited to the individual lineman directly responsible for the block. The "KRB roll" could be based on the entire offense's blocking ability and then an individual lineman is credited if the play is a success. But, my guess is there's a separate "whole line run blocking effectiveness roll". If I'm correct, this would also mean that the KRB% statistic is highly correlated to a lineman's real run blocking ability. Thoughts on this?

This issue was addressed in this thread (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=57507&page=3&highlight=krb), especially the latter posts. My post at #74 sums up what essentially Jim corroborated in his Q&A. I described the phenomenon as a "potential KRB."

[OldSchool]

"The way FOF plays non-quarterbacks is to determine, internally, a percentage for player usage based on endurance and the starter playing-time settings. That's then independently applied to the depth chart on each play. This is kind of an unnatural solution, but it's fair to each team."

This is one thing that'd be high on my list of things I'd love to see changed going forward. I'd always assumed endurance ratings would correlate to effectiveness over the course of the game (players tiring), but it sounds like they're just used as a factor to determine playing time, and as long as a player is on the field he is going at 100%. I think if its made more natural you'll find a lot of games having a more realistic feel in the 4th quarter.

[Dutch]

I would really like to see the game engine model defensive exhaustion better. In real football, it's the defense that starts to lose effectiveness when a RB has carried the ball 25 times, not the RB. (My general perception anyway).

Maybe as a counter to "The Defense Looked Familiar With That Play", there could be a "The Defense Looks Gassed."

And maybe to expound on that, in the gameplan, once the gamelog notifies you that "The Defense Looked Familiar" you could have a setting to change your gameplan (and the defense would be allowed a gameplan setting to counter that).

And perhaps if "The Defense Looks Gassed" message pops up, you could implement a more aggressive substitution strategy.

[Raiders Army]

The other team's offensive coordinator is tracking your coverage usage
during the game. If he knows you're likely to be in bump, he tells his
receivers and quarterbacks to make adjustments - there may be more reliance
on the slot, or different routes. It's the exact opposite of the dreaded
"defense is familiar with the play" comment.

--------------------------------
Ethan Potter
Customer Service
Solecismic Software

That's interesting. I thought the coordinators had nothing to do with the actual games themselves. I thought they just made your players better.

[OldSchool]

Larry,

That player's real endurance is probably far below 47. It does seem to be an exploit to reverse him in the depth chart. You should ask the WOOF commissioner if he's okay with your doing that.



Its taken me a while to digest this. It sounds like anytime we see a higher rated back playing behind a low endurance back that could be considered an exploit.

That's a really fuzzy call to put out there for commishes. More than that, this system makes no sense from a "real life" standpoint even with the "cramps/fragile guy" explanation.

[Joe]

I have sent the odd question to customer service and received answers from a chap called Ethan Potter. Jkat may not be Jim, but perhaps someone else on the inside... The answers I received were very informative, and seemed to have genuine insight.


I thought that "Ethan" was Jim..

[Raiders Army]

I thought that "Ethan" was Jim..

Nope. He's dead.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4156/250pxethanromcq1.jpg

[Raiders Army]

Oh yeah, Charlie killed him.

[Ben E Lou]

Its taken me a while to digest this. It sounds like anytime we see a higher rated back playing behind a low endurance back that could be considered an exploit.

That's a really fuzzy call to put out there for commishes. More than that, this system makes no sense from a "real life" standpoint even with the "cramps/fragile guy" explanation.

While I agree that this mechanism needs to improve in the future, I'm glad that Jim cleared up the confusion on this. It has been the subject of quite a bit of debate in MP leagues, but now we at least know that until there's an FOF7 ("...and I wouldn't try this in a patch..."), it's something we need to manage. There are always exploits discovered in MP games. It's better when we know that they're true exploits.

As for your specific example, unless there's a specific reason like an injury, or greater performance by the lower-rated back, it's hard to justify putting a significantly higher-rated back as the #2. It's definitely a situation where now that we have the proper information, we can go to our league administration before we do anything with RBs that might be considered "fuzzy."

[Sgran]

Can a commissioner see the depth charts?

[Ben E Lou]

Can a commissioner see the depth charts?Yes.

[OldSchool]

While I agree that this mechanism needs to improve in the future, I'm glad that Jim cleared up the confusion on this. It has been the subject of quite a bit of debate in MP leagues, but now we at least know that until there's an FOF7 ("...and I wouldn't try this in a patch..."), it's something we need to manage. There are always exploits discovered in MP games. It's better when we know that they're true exploits.

As for your specific example, unless there's a specific reason like an injury, or greater performance by the lower-rated back, it's hard to justify putting a significantly higher-rated back as the #2. It's definitely a situation where now that we have the proper information, we can go to our league administration before we do anything with RBs that might be considered "fuzzy."

"it's hard to justify putting a significantly higher-rated back as the #2."
There are plenty of places where better ratings in certain areas would give you an argument for starting someone with marginally lower ratings. I can just review my own depth charts to find plenty of examples of this, and I doubt I'm that unique.

My issue is not so much being worried that someone might get extra carries and achieve more success in an online league, though. Its that it reveals areas where the engine is not fundamentally modeling something realistic, but instead using some abstraction to achieve realistic statistics over the long haul. This is an issue for single player (if you watch the solevision there, as I do...less so if you're quicksimming seasons) as well as multiplayer.

[Ben E Lou]

Its that it reveals areas where the engine is not fundamentally modeling something realistic, but instead using some abstraction to achieve realistic statistics over the long haul. This is an issue for single player (if you watch the solevision there, as I do...less so if you're quicksimming seasons) as well as multiplayer.

I wouldn't really argue with you there. Some have argued that FOF is better enjoyed looking at box scores and overall stats, rather than Solevision and Game Logs. The argument is that, for example, when I look at my most recent SP game from a few moments ago and see...

<table valign="TOP" border="0" cellspacing="2" width="96%"><tbody><tr> <th align="left">Atlanta</th> <th align="center">Att</th> <th align="center">Yards</th> <th align="center">Avg</th> <th align="center">LG</th> <th align="center">10+</th> <th align="center">TD</th></tr> <tr> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff">Gino Mosier</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">18</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">53</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">2.94</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">14</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">2</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">0</td></tr> <tr> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff">Heath Garner</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">9</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">56</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">6.22</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">14</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">3</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">0</td></tr> <tr> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff">Jesse Westbrook</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">3</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">16</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">5.33</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">14</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table valign="TOP" border="0" cellspacing="2" width="96%"><tbody> <tr> <th align="left">Atlanta</th> <th align="center">Rushes</th> <th align="center">Conversions</th></tr> <tr> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff">Jesse Westbrook</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">3</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">2</td></tr> <tr> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff">Heath Garner</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td></tr></tbody></table>

...and know that Mosier has 46 endurance and is RB1, that Westbrook is my 3rd and short back, and that Garner is my RB2 and passing/extreme passing down back, the distribution of carries is very reasonable. But when I look at the game in Solevision, I notice that Garner was in the game on the first play of several possessions, even though Mosier is set to play as much as possible, and I realize that the system isn't terribly realistic. I guess I'd just repeat my earlier statement:

My guess is that it was a system designed before MP and certainly before Solevision. There are MANY more people paying close attention to FOF's PBP now. This just wasn't an issue when the FOF community barely read game logs.I'm sure that as the way we play the game continues to evolve, the in-game systems will continue to evolve as well. The additions of MP and then Solevision have had the natural impact of the user community putting more emphasis on the "Coaching" aspects of "Front Office" Football than ever. It's a change that I welcome, but I guess it's reasonable to expect some growing pains as the systems catch up with the shifting focus of the user community.

[OldSchool]

My guess is that it was a system designed before MP and certainly before Solevision. There are MANY more people paying close attention to FOF's PBP now. This just wasn't an issue when the FOF community barely read game logs.

Yeah, that is an interesting dynamic. I think I'm in the minority that likes to actually watch every single play in sports sims. To be fair, FOF holds up much better than many others under that scrutiny and has improved with most versions.

[ShaneTheMaster]

The starting runningback carries issue NEEDS to be fixed. My star running back (who is WAY better than his backup) has 78 endurance, and the backup only has 50 endurance. I have the playing time set to 100, and my starter only gets 5 carries, and the backup gets 6 (and the starter did not get hurt).

This is really taking the enjoyment out of the game for me. My receivers are touching the ball more than my starting star running back.

[Hammer]

I find that wierd. I have a similar position in the vNFL, my starter had 407 carries in the 16 games, the backup 97.

The only time I get a problem is when the backup is very close in ability to my starter. Then it seems the AI starts to ignore my requests.

[ShaneTheMaster]

The problem seems to be correct itself when your team gets a lot of carries in the game (like 32). But if your team doesn't call many handoffs (like mine only ran the ball 11 times), the problem is glaring.

[dj_morton]

The problem seems to be correct itself when your team gets a lot of carries in the game (like 32). But if your team doesn't call many handoffs (like mine only ran the ball 11 times), the problem is glaring.


QFT

[flair1234]

QFT

Possbily the problem is how the carries effect endurance. The % health of the RBs probably does not decrease enough per carry. So when the game looks for a fresh back it sees that both are relatively fresh, early in the game.

Then as the carries increase the differential probably gets larger.

I would imagine that Solesmic would say that the endurance ratings that are being seen are off because of scouting error. Which again is a problem, because after a few games the coaching staff "should" realize that "Hey, this guy gets tired alot quicker than our scout predicts.". This realization "should" then get factored into the visible ratings fairly quickly.

As an aside I don't mind "Current" scouting error for rookies or for those players that have seen little playing time. I also do not mind having "Future" scouting error go across multiple years (because I think in many cases that is realistic; we can all name players in real life that our favorite teams held onto for too long waiting for them to realize their "True" potential.). However for players that have seen a good level of playing time... their "Current" ratings should move toward their true rating (or as Skydog says "Unmask") fairly quickly.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Possbily the problem is how the carries effect endurance. The % health of the RBs probably does not decrease enough per carry. So when the game looks for a fresh back it sees that both are relatively fresh, early in the game.

Then as the carries increase the differential probably gets larger.

I would imagine that Solesmic would say that the endurance ratings that are being seen are off because of scouting error. Which again is a problem, because after a few games the coaching staff "should" realize that "Hey, this guy gets tired alot quicker than our scout predicts.". This realization "should" then get factored into the visible ratings fairly quickly.

As an aside I don't mind "Current" scouting error for rookies or for those players that have seen little playing time. I also do not mind having "Future" scouting error go across multiple years (because I think in many cases that is realistic; we can all name players in real life that our favorite teams held onto for too long waiting for them to realize their "True" potential.). However for players that have seen a good level of playing time... their "Current" ratings should move toward their true rating (or as Skydog says "Unmask") fairly quickly.

Even with the scouting error, worst case is he has an endurance around 50 probably. He should get more than 5 carries if his endurance is average, and he is way more talented than his backup. Makes no sense.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't get the confusion here. This seemed to be made clear in this answer...The way FOF plays non-quarterbacks is to determine, internally, a percentage for player usage based on endurance and the starter playing-time settings. That's then independently applied to the depth chart on each play. ..and also in the follow-up to Subby. Given that each play is independent, over a small sample size (such as 11 total carries), it's very easy to envision the RB2 getting more carries than the RB1. That's a case of bad dice rolls, pure and simple.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I don't get the confusion here. This seemed to be made clear in this answer.....and also in the follow-up to Subby. Given that each play is independent, over a small sample size (such as 11 total carries), it's very easy to envision the RB2 getting more carries than the RB1. That's a case of bad dice rolls, pure and simple.

Ok, I think I see now... but why would that be implemented like that? Why use dice rolls to determine if my BEST players play? So If he has endurance of 78, and I have his playing time set to 100, he only has a 78% chance of being in a play? If I had playing time set to 50, he would only have a 39% chance, etc?

Big flaw, IMO, to not dynamically keep track of a players tiredness over a course of a game. So, basically, the game is not necessarily using the best players at a given time.

And because of this, the less carries a team has, the greater the variance is on the number of carries your starter has vs your backup. This is why this logic is flawed.

A better way to do this would be to have the endurance rating only dictate THE CHANCE THAT A PLAYER NEEDS TO COME OUT OF THE GAME AND THE CHANCE THAT HE COMES BACK INTO THE GAME. That way, your starters will be..., well, starters.

[Ben E Lou]

Ok, I think I see now... but why would that be implemented like that? Why use dice rolls to determine if my BEST players play? So If he has endurance of 78, and I have his playing time set to 100, he only has a 78% chance of being in a play? If I had playing time set to 50, he would only have a 39% chance, etc?

Big flaw, IMO, to not dynamically keep track of a players tiredness over a course of a game. So, basically, the game is not necessarily using the best players at a given time.

And because of this, the less carries a team has, the greater the variance is on the number of carries your starter has vs your backup. This is why this logic is flawed.

A better way to do this would be to have the endurance rating only dictate THE CHANCE THAT A PLAYER NEEDS TO COME OUT OF THE GAME AND THE CHANCE THAT HE COMES BACK INTO THE GAME.

Right. The developer acknowledged that it's an unnatural solution, and that the endurance implementation is on his radar for a revamp down the road.

[Yoda]

The starting runningback carries issue NEEDS to be fixed. My star running back (who is WAY better than his backup) has 78 endurance, and the backup only has 50 endurance. I have the playing time set to 100, and my starter only gets 5 carries, and the backup gets 6 (and the starter did not get hurt).

This is really taking the enjoyment out of the game for me. My receivers are touching the ball more than my starting star running back.

Was your star RB playing on special teams? I noticed that even thought I have one of my star RB's marked as do not play on ST's, he will still see action on them, and in the games that I've noticed him playing on special teams, are the games that he gets less carries.

Or that might be an anomoly.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Was your star RB playing on special teams? I noticed that even thought I have one of my star RB's marked as do not play on ST's, he will still see action on them, and in the games that I've noticed him playing on special teams, are the games that he gets less carries.

Or that might be an anomoly.

I tried that a while back, no effect. But since this information came out that a player's endurance over a course of the game is not dynamic, this wouldn't seem to matter.

[gstelmack]

How many PASSING plays was he in for? And did he also catch some balls? Remember its PER PLAY, not PER RUSHING PLAY.

[ShaneTheMaster]

How many PASSING plays was he in for? And did he also catch some balls? Remember its PER PLAY, not PER RUSHING PLAY.

The box score doesn't tell you that stat - but he was thrown to 4 times, and the backup was not thrown to at all - but that makes sense because there is only 1 assignment in the depth chart for the specialized RB positions, and the good RB is in those slots.

[marcmoustache]

I find that wierd. I have a similar position in the vNFL, my starter had 407 carries in the 16 games, the backup 97.

The only time I get a problem is when the backup is very close in ability to my starter. Then it seems the AI starts to ignore my requests.

This is particularly true in the GEFL where Pinkett and Anderson were very close in value and were getting similar carries, so is there not an ability modifier as well?

[ShaneTheMaster]

This is particularly true in the GEFL where Pinkett and Anderson were very close in value and were getting similar carries, so is there not an ability modifier as well?

Not from what I can tell.

[gstelmack]

The box score doesn't tell you that stat - but he was thrown to 4 times, and the backup was not thrown to at all - but that makes sense because there is only 1 assignment in the depth chart for the specialized RB positions, and the good RB is in those slots.

You can look at their stats in FOF and see rushing / passing plays. You can't for that one game, but it helps to see the overall balance of plays they are in for.

[ShaneTheMaster]

You can look at their stats in FOF and see rushing / passing plays. You can't for that one game, but it helps to see the overall balance of plays they are in for.


Ok, thanks. I looked - and Burroughs (the stud RB) was in for 32 Pass plays out of 40 - and the backup is not even listed (this is the first game of the year). The game may not list someone on the receiving screen unless they have at least a catch, so I am unable to determine how many pass plays (if any) the backup RB played in. (Unless you have another trick up your sleeve) ;)

[Ben E Lou]

...another trick up your sleeve...

Blocking stats.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Blocking stats.

No RBs listed on that screen.

[Ben E Lou]

No RBs listed on that screen.
On his player card.

[gstelmack]

Ok, thanks. I looked - and Burroughs (the stud RB) was in for 32 Pass plays out of 40 - and the backup is not even listed (this is the first game of the year). The game may not list someone on the receiving screen unless they have at least a catch, so I am unable to determine how many pass plays (if any) the backup RB played in. (Unless you have another trick up your sleeve) ;)

That's where I think the running game gets hung up. The starting RB is in for a whole bunch of pass plays, even if he's rarely the target. In essence, you "waste" lots of plays for the starting RB.

[ShaneTheMaster]

That's where I think the running game gets hung up. The starting RB is in for a whole bunch of pass plays, even if he's rarely the target. In essence, you "waste" lots of plays for the starting RB.

Well, I think it's the fact that the specialized RB depth chart slots are only 1 deep - so on 3rd and short, Near certain pass, and passing down situations, there is NO substitution taking place (unless the starter gets hurt). This explains why my backup RB was in on only 8 pass plays. (I got that from his player card - thanks SD)

[zbuckley]

This thread has been very helpful and given I think I've learned something with regards to the RB endurance issue I had one question. Looking at the depth charts what differentiates passing down and near certain passing down. My thinking is this, if my star RB is playing on 3 down and 15 (passing down or would this be near certain passing down) he's effectively limiting his chances to play more first downs.

[ShaneTheMaster]

This thread has been very helpful and given I think I've learned something with regards to the RB endurance issue I had one question. Looking at the depth charts what differentiates passing down and near certain passing down. My thinking is this, if my star RB is playing on 3 down and 15 (passing down or would this be near certain passing down) he's effectively limiting his chances to play more first downs.

No, I don't think so - the game doesn't track his dynamic endurance, each play is independent of the other - so how often he plays during the game has no effect on whether the CPU decides to put him in during a play.

[QuikSand]

Looking at the depth charts what differentiates passing down and near certain passing down.

From the game documentation:

Depth Chart Screen - Backfield

The Depth Chart screen for the backfield controls who starts and who backs up in the skill positions on your team.

Players must be healthy (they can be injured, but not listed as out) in order to be placed in the depth chart. Your third quarterback may be listed as out, which is the only exception to that rule.

If you set the option for the coach to handle your depth charts on the Game Options Screen, your depth charts are set for you prior to each game regardless of what you do with this screen. This option is on after you install Front Office Football.

Each position group on this screen sets the starter and backups at each position. The top player in the section is the starter. The next player down is the primary backup. Use the selection boxes in each section to select players. Remember that no starter may start at more than one position and no player may appear more than once in any section.

The Third and Short selection for running backs, fullbacks and tight ends determines which players are on the field most often on a running play on third or fourth down with two or less yards to go for the first down.

The Passing Down selection for running backs, fullbacks and tight ends determines which players are on the field when it's third or fourth down with five or more yards to go for the first down.

The Near Certain Pass selection for running backs, fullbacks and tight ends determines which players are on the field when the game plan indicates there's more than a 90 percent chance of a pass.

Use the lock buttons to lock a player in place when selecting the Scout Recommendations button.

The scouting report consists of the same scouting information you see in the Scouting Report area of the player information screen, as well as a brief statistical summary of the player's current season.

The area underneath the skill set bars indicates your player's experience level at various positions. The red bars above are set based on the player's current assigned position.

The color background for each position shows the player's rough experience level at his position. A red background indicates a player is fully developed, orange is a step down, then orange-yellow, yellow, lime green, blue-green, light blue, medium blue, blue and finally purple, indicate the player has little to no experience at the position.

Select the Scout Recommendations button to have your scouts recommend a depth chart for you.

[Icy]

What is exactly the difference between passing down and near certain passing down?

[zbuckley]

From the game documentation:

The Passing Down selection for running backs, fullbacks and tight ends determines which players are on the field when it's third or fourth down with five or more yards to go for the first down.

The Near Certain Pass selection for running backs, fullbacks and tight ends determines which players are on the field when the game plan indicates there's more than a 90 percent chance of a pass.



Thank you That's exactly what I was looking for.

[zbuckley]

No, I don't think so - the game doesn't track his dynamic endurance, each play is independent of the other - so how often he plays during the game has no effect on whether the CPU decides to put him in during a play.


Was this system changed any in 6.1, and can you shed some light into the best way to get our backs more carries?

The way FOF plays non-quarterbacks is to determine, internally, a percentage for player usage based on endurance and the starter playing-time settings. That's then independently applied to the depth chart on each play. This is kind of an unnatural solution, but it's fair to each team.



I think I get it now. I was thinking previous usage had an effect on future usage but it doesn't seem to be the case. From what Jim is saying player usage is only based on endurance and the starters playing time not how many plays he's been on the field.

[tarcone]

So previous season carries would not have an effect? You could trot out your stud 500 times a season for many seasons?

[cuervo72]

Well, that would be a longevity issue. RB generally seem to have shorter careers in this version, but I don't know if it's been shown to be tied to carries (as opposed to age/experience).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

So previous season carries would not have an effect? You could trot out your stud 500 times a season for many seasons?

Correct, previous season carries have no effect. Within a single season there is also no game by game carryover either, although the more plays a RB participates in, the more die rolls for an injury. So, that would be a real downside. In addition, there is always the chance a guy gets asterisked as tired, so that would also have an effect.

[stevew]

So, sadly after looking over this thread, the consensus I seem to be putting together is that this guy is probably never going to be the back I want him to be?

http://mysite.verizon.net/stephenwaldorf/Clipboard.jpg

I suppose I could create a helluva back tandem with him, but this guy is no more than, say, a Reggie Bush type who can't carry a full load.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

His endurance is 45 which isn't terrible by any stretch. I could seem him still getting the majority of carries (i.e. 60-70% maybe even more), which isn't bad. Judging by his ratings, he is way better than the real Reggie Bush.

[gstelmack]

Within a single season there is also no game by game carryover either, although the more plays a RB participates in, the more die rolls for an injury.

You are forgetting the dreaded "Tired" if he plays too much vs his endurance.

[Hammer]

Is "Tired" that big a deal? I just play them regardless if they are anything close to being a key player!

[cuervo72]

Increased chance of injury I believe.

[Chubby]

stevew - make sure he isn't listed as a receiver in any 4-5WR formations, take him out of 4WR formations totally (put RB2 in there), take him out of more passing formations slowly if needed.

[gstelmack]

Is "Tired" that big a deal? I just play them regardless if they are anything close to being a key player!

I play them but back off their playing time a touch.