Front Office Football 2007

[Subby]

I completely agree with Cuervo - I don't care about the zodiac stuff - it's just a proxy. I like having it in the game and I like having it matter. Down the road would I like to see it evolve? Sure. I think this is a good start point, however.

[Ben E Lou]

What Subby said about what Cuervo said about what Jim said.

[wade moore]

This is exactly where I am. The demo doesn't seem as different to me because I've always just played as the GM. Maybe the full game -- check that, the stats ensure that the full game will make me happier. I would like to gameplan and call plays, but my short forays into it have proven that I totally sucked at it. And the one thing you can't get is a primer on how it should be done, because MP folks don't want to give away secrets.

I guess I may not be smart enough for this game. :(

fwiw, I think you can find a fair amount of discussion around this board (old discussion) about a fair amount of gameplanning stuff.. general stuff, but still..

and the playcalling has nothing to do with MP ;).

[wade moore]

What Subby said about what Cuervo said about what Jim said.

Yes.

What Jim lays out as a potential way to handle it in the future sounds good, but I have no heartburn over that beinga future development and using this for now.

[wheels]

Wow, Jim.

An impressive and innovative version. Nice additions all the way around and definitely worth the upgrade.

I'm glad to see you kept the log and box graphics in this version. If you'd like more "whiz bang," I'd be happy to do a log with animated flames or a box that opens and closes. :D

But don't tell Farrah where you got them; she'd kick my a**!

Congratulations.

[wheels]

Is Wheels still around? He made some awesome graphics for FOF2004...

I think the scoreboard graphics should still work.

As for new graphics, I'd be a little afraid to do any. Arlie is a good six inches taller than I, and Farrah . . .

It might constitute a little conflict of interest. ;)

[cuervo72]

Well, I might be redoing the number/experience/position/ratings graphics. They are just not sitting right with me.

[sachmo71]

Shorty did some pretty nice backgrounds, I believe.

[gstelmack]

Well damn was I wrong. Who will be the first MP league to transistion? We are mid-season so that is not a good point to do it either. Any Leagues about to end the post season?

My office league (5 humans) is just hitting the draft. Given our sim speed, we'll be through this season in about 2 weeks, or right around the ETA for the converter. We'd have no problem being guinea pig #1 to test this thing out. I've got backups out the wazoo and can easily roll back.

[Ajaxab]

Well, I might be redoing the number/experience/position/ratings graphics. They are just not sitting right with me.

This would be much appreciated. Jim does a great job in creating a solid game under the hood, but aesthetics is not a strength of his designs.

[Dutch]

ditto.

I could personally be responsible for people like Dutch and ae not being very happy, but I can't really talk about what I mean here..

I've got a laundry list a mile long about what I hate about the military. Another one about the gov'ment. If you let me pick and chose what you are responsible for, this won't end well. :)

[wade moore]

I've got a laundry list a mile long about what I hate about the military. Another one about the gov'ment. If you let me pick and chose what you are responsible for, this won't end well. :)

I'm speaking towards the Navy, but disaster averted so no need to injure me!

[KevinNU7]

I started posting on this board because I found it through hattrick. I have never played FOF before.

I am running through the demo and had a question about salary negociations.

First, I love the setup where you can put different values in each year. If I low ball the offer I get messages telling me they aren't happy and that this isn't close to want they want. Is there a screen where I can see their expectations or a screen for counter offers. I feel like that would be a no brianer for the game.

[wade moore]

I started posting on this board because I found it through hattrick. I have never played FOF before.

I am running through the demo and had a question about salary negociations.

First, I love the setup where you can put different values in each year. If I low ball the offer I get messages telling me they aren't happy and that this isn't close to want they want. Is there a screen where I can see their expectations or a screen for counter offers. I feel like that would be a no brianer for the game.

When you bring up negotations, there should be numbers filled in already, right? That is what their expecations are.

[Ksyrup]

I started posting on this board because I found it through hattrick. I have never played FOF before.

I am running through the demo and had a question about salary negociations.

First, I love the setup where you can put different values in each year. If I low ball the offer I get messages telling me they aren't happy and that this isn't close to want they want. Is there a screen where I can see their expectations or a screen for counter offers. I feel like that would be a no brianer for the game.

It is for this game, but the lack of them in OOTP (not sure about the most recent version) drove me freaking nuts. Especially when the guy would stop negotiating on a "3 strikes and your out" basis if he didn't like the offer I came up with out of thin air.

Thankfully, this game gives you a clue based on what shows up in the box when you first start to negotiate. What you can get them to accept is another thing, depending on your creativity with the offer, other teams' offers, the player's desire to play for a winner (or not), etc.

[KevinNU7]

Ok, that can't be right.

I'm using the Pats and Asante Samuel is in his last year and is making $800,000 with $80,000 signing bonus.

He wants a 1 year deal (i.e. no extension) at $900,000 with a $3,000,000+ bonus.

Is that a bug then?

[gstelmack]

Ok, that can't be right.

I'm using the Pats and Asante Samuel is in his last year and is making $800,000 with $80,000 signing bonus.

He wants a 1 year deal (i.e. no extension) at $900,000 with a $3,000,000+ bonus.

Is that a bug then?

Depends on how tight he is with Deion Branch :D

[Dutch]

I'm speaking towards the Navy, but disaster averted so no need to injure me!

The Navy? Shit, I can only scratch off like 7 things from my list.

[wade moore]

Ok, that can't be right.

I'm using the Pats and Asante Samuel is in his last year and is making $800,000 with $80,000 signing bonus.

He wants a 1 year deal (i.e. no extension) at $900,000 with a $3,000,000+ bonus.

Is that a bug then?

Some weird things like that happen now and then. I don't know if I'd call it a bug or not... but, it's definately a deal you don't want to take.

[Dutch]

My office league (5 humans) is just hitting the draft. Given our sim speed, we'll be through this season in about 2 weeks, or right around the ETA for the converter. We'd have no problem being guinea pig #1 to test this thing out. I've got backups out the wazoo and can easily roll back.


You have an office league? That's awesome. I can't tell anybody about FOF without them looking at me like I have 3 heads.

[Dutch]

Well, I might be redoing the number/experience/position/ratings graphics. They are just not sitting right with me.


Yes, those are so completely ugly that they jump off the screen and slap you till it hurts.

But the rest of the interface seems much cleaner. And much more information can definately been viewed from 2k4.

[Dutch]

I think the scoreboard graphics should still work.

As for new graphics, I'd be a little afraid to do any. Arlie is a good six inches taller than I, and Farrah . . .

It might constitute a little conflict of interest. ;)

Remember kids, you can get Greydog's contributions to Front Office Football here.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofdownloads/nflscoreboard.zip

The instructions may be off for FOF2k7 and I have no idea if the reshacker still works correctly. We'll have to test that, I suppose. :)

[Ksyrup]

Ok, that can't be right.

I'm using the Pats and Asante Samuel is in his last year and is making $800,000 with $80,000 signing bonus.

He wants a 1 year deal (i.e. no extension) at $900,000 with a $3,000,000+ bonus.

Is that a bug then?

That's not all that unusual. That's what makes the game so much fun, is trying to deal with those types of expectations. Wait until it's a guy you drafted and have an attachment to and he's now 8 years in the league and wants a bigger contract than you can afford or he's worth. It's part of the challenge of the game.

I don't really know what goes into the contract expectations of the players - whether anything is quite as sophisticated as what we can dream up - but there are a number of ways to rationalize it: the guy thinks he's worth more than you've paid him; if he's a backup, he's decided he wants to be a starter and get paid like one; he simply no longer wants to play for your team, etc. If he's worth keeping around, you can try a multi-year deal and screw around with the level of salary for each year to see if you can come up with something he'll accept and you can afford. If not, you'll just have to look for his replacement.

Shit. Now I'm really excited for this game to come out! :D

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but I have a question. One of the things I gathered about MP (which, again, I never tried) is that anyone could be unethical and look at other teams' gameplans by entering commissioner mode or something. Is that right? If so, has this been remedied for FOF2007, or are the owners still expected to be on the honor system?

[Dutch]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but I have a question. One of the things I gathered about MP (which, again, I never tried) is that anyone could be unethical and look at other teams' gameplans by entering commissioner mode or something. Is that right? If so, has this been remedied for FOF2007, or are the owners still expected to be on the honor system?

Password protection, baby!

[Eaglesfan27]

Password protection, baby!

One of the most important additions, IMHO.

[Leonidas]

I really, really, really like having the depth chart function on the team roster page. Very nice indeed.

[RedKingGold]

I really, really, really like having the depth chart function on the team roster page. Very nice indeed.

"

[Peregrine]

I really, really, really like having the depth chart function on the team roster page. Very nice indeed.

This is huge, and having starter playing time as a separate screen also really adds a lot. I'm glad to get rid of the 1-10 rating system for that too.

[MIJB#19]

Summer League. Each season, you may send one of your young players to Europe to participate in the summer league. While those games aren't played in Front Office Football, players will gain experience and you will learn more about their abilities.:)

[Celeval]

:)

What Jim didn't mention is that the players are actually visiting MIJB for the summer. Hope you've got room.

[cuervo72]

Hmm, the new buttons and having to determine which team a player is on (rather than just showing the cards in the selected color scheme) is really adding to the player card redraw time it seems.

[Deattribution]

I agree with those that said the improved FA AI should be listed in the features list, also also assuming the draft AI is better, that should be listed as well.

If you never read this forum to get a confirmation, or you just missed the post and only played the demo, you'd have absolutely no indication that there were any changes those parts of the game and that could potentially scare people away (it was my first concern).

[molson]

Everything looks fantastic to me. I'm anxious to see the AI team improvements. Hopefully expansion/customization will be the cornerstone of the next version, but I'm very satisfied with the additions that have been made.

I've never had a problem leaving chemistry on, but ignoring the zodiac signs, so I don't know about any conflicts/affinities until guys are actually on the same team. Then, if it's a toss up for a backup position, I might go with the guy that has the better relationship with the team leader. An option to hide the zodiac signs, while keeping chemistry, might be patch-worthy down the road.

[amdaily]

Hmm, the new buttons and having to determine which team a player is on (rather than just showing the cards in the selected color scheme) is really adding to the player card redraw time it seems.

Agreed. I tried it on two machines and it was equally slow on both. Besides, I think it is a bad idea because the color schemes aren't the greatest.

[cuervo72]

Well, that's not a dealbreaker, just an observation. Oddly, as graphically inclined as I seem to be, I didn't mind the good old rectangular buttons. I do like the idea of the color changes.

[Franklinnoble]

I don't see any mention of custom league sizes or expansion features.

This is disappointing. This feature can't be that hard to implement (all the major baseball sims do it, and even one-man programming shops pull it off).

So, basically, this is a big deal for MP enthusiasts, with a little extra statistical fluff thrown in for SP guys. Sorry, but I expected more. I don't think I'll be in a big hurry to buy this one.

[jbmagic]

I agree with those that said the improved FA AI should be listed in the features list, also also assuming the draft AI is better, that should be listed as well.

If you never read this forum to get a confirmation, or you just missed the post and only played the demo, you'd have absolutely no indication that there were any changes those parts of the game and that could potentially scare people away (it was my first concern).


Hopefully Jim will comment on thsi soon. Or we will have to wait later and see what others here say about it.

[Galaxy]

Either you are crap in the sack, or get a hell of a lot more out of a computer game than I do :D

I walked right into that one.

As far as the game, if the AI is good, I will be a buying the game. Will the draft have trading?

[MizzouRah]

The draft AI and teams keeping their better players is DEFINITLY on my, "has it improved?" list. :)

[Bee]

Hopefully Jim will comment on thsi soon. Or we will have to wait later and see what others here say about it.


I know I'm looking forward to your take on the AI.

[Galaxy]

I don't see any mention of custom league sizes or expansion features.

This is disappointing. This feature can't be that hard to implement (all the major baseball sims do it, and even one-man programming shops pull it off).

So, basically, this is a big deal for MP enthusiasts, with a little extra statistical fluff thrown in for SP guys. Sorry, but I expected more. I don't think I'll be in a big hurry to buy this one.

I think the problem might be scheduling.

[sachmo71]

So, basically, this is a big deal for MP enthusiasts, with a little extra statistical fluff thrown in for SP guys. Sorry, but I expected more. I don't think I'll be in a big hurry to buy this one.

Ignoring the conversations that have gone on earlier in the thread about this very point, why do you say this is more beneficial to MP players rather than SP players?

I'm intentionally ingnoring one very obvious fact about your online persona in the hopes of learning something here, so please don't take this as an attack. I just need to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

[twothree]

Hmm, the new buttons and having to determine which team a player is on (rather than just showing the cards in the selected color scheme) is really adding to the player card redraw time it seems.

While I have already uninstalled the demo, perhaps changing every team to use the same button will improve the redraw time. Unless the program will still reload the button into memory each time. If thats the case, then a checkbox option to disable the new buttons will be a nice patch feature.

[Franklinnoble]

I think the problem might be scheduling.

Like I said, it seems like all the baseball sims manage this. PureSim lets you modify the league size, season length, and include expansion, and it schedules the seasons just fine. And Sullivan is a one-man show. So, it can be done.

[Franklinnoble]

Ignoring the conversations that have gone on earlier in the thread about this very point, why do you say this is more beneficial to MP players rather than SP players?

I'm intentionally ingnoring one very obvious fact about your online persona in the hopes of learning something here, so please don't take this as an attack. I just need to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

I think the encryption feature was practically essential for MP leagues, especially given the fact that there seems to be a new MP cheating scandal popping up every three months or so around here. And the Solevision feature seems to be targeted more towards the MP crowd who wants that sort of immersion. Maybe I'm just lumped into the "fast-sim" category, I dunno... but that feature doesn't do anything for me. I wouldn't use it.

I don't get what you're trying to say about my "online persona."

[Deattribution]

Like I said, it seems like all the baseball sims manage this. PureSim lets you modify the league size, season length, and include expansion, and it schedules the seasons just fine. And Sullivan is a one-man show. So, it can be done.

Baseball sims are obviously a different beast though, plus it's not really known whether because Jim's style is more 'static' in scheduling it's more accurate that way also.

I'd say it has something to do with that, and the actual value of effort put into custom leagues vs how much they are used. I've only used that part of the game in other games just to add teams, never to make a smaller 'custom' league.

[Solecismic]

I don't see any mention of custom league sizes or expansion features.

This is disappointing. This feature can't be that hard to implement (all the major baseball sims do it, and even one-man programming shops pull it off).

So, basically, this is a big deal for MP enthusiasts, with a little extra statistical fluff thrown in for SP guys. Sorry, but I expected more. I don't think I'll be in a big hurry to buy this one.

Every architecture has its strengths and weaknesses. The way I designed FOF, I could either do a new version of the game that had custom league sizes, or I could do a version that had 100 other new features. If I had started with that feature in mind, it wouldn't be so major. But that's just the way it is. Football works well with 32 teams.

FOF 2007 represents more hours of work than any previous new version of the game. Some of the features benefit MP, some SP. Please don't confuse my not implementing your preferred list of features with not putting a lot of new things into the game. It's rather discouraging to see people complaining that the game is "FOF 2004.5" just because a feature they wanted wasn't included.

[nilodor]

I don't see any mention of custom league sizes or expansion features.

This is disappointing. This feature can't be that hard to implement (all the major baseball sims do it, and even one-man programming shops pull it off).

So, basically, this is a big deal for MP enthusiasts, with a little extra statistical fluff thrown in for SP guys. Sorry, but I expected more. I don't think I'll be in a big hurry to buy this one.


I think this also hurts the historical replay side of this. If you look back to 1960 there were 22 teams in the league. That means that 10 teams will have 53 players that need to be generated. It also hurts the draft because you have less talent to go around so a guy that you would normally pick in the 4th round you need to take in the 3rd, a guy who you would pick in the middle of the second round goes mid to late first. It's unfortunate, but on the plus side, I don't think it kills the historical side.

[wade moore]

Hopefully Jim will comment on thsi soon. Or we will have to wait later and see what others here say about it.

I'm usually somewhat a jbmagic defender... but good god, read the frickin' thread...

post #203 in this thread..


It's better in that aspect. I have noticed a problem with the cap exception in that some teams will, if they have an injury, do a sign-release of the same player in one week, usually late in the season.

I haven't eliminated that problem completely yet, so far it's a trade off - get teams operating closer to the cap, run into cap exception issues like that. There's a note in the help file (been there since FOF1, I think), about how the cap isn't always a hard cap during the season just so teams can always field a full lineup. You get assigned minimum salary rookies.

I just have to get two very large and complicated mechanisms (getting teams to field a roster that won't crash the game, which is priority 1 and takes precedence over other algorithms, and getting teams to release players when they are over the cap in season and can release a player, which is a lower priority function) to synch up properly. The new, more flexible, position assignment rules created more difficulty in the synching up of these two functions, which actually take up more than a thousand lines of code.

[Bad-example]

I am a "no multiplayer, quick sim" type of player and can't help but feel this version was designed more with other play styles in mind. I don't see the attraction of the Solevision feature but if people like it, more power to them.

I wish the player negotiations were improved a bit. If I want to sign a player to a 6 year deal, I hate having to put the whole offer together. If the player wants a 1 or 2 year deal, we have to build a longer deal from that initial offer. I never saw the "fun" aspect of that and hope it gets some attention in the future. If the player is willing to accept a 6 year deal, you should be able to get a starting 6 year proposal from the player's agent.

I will buy the game and be grateful for many of the new features and for the fact that we got FOF and not TCY, but I fear that a lot of the things Jim added or changed will make zero difference in the game as I play it.

[Solecismic]

The buttons are all loaded when you start the game. They wouldn't contribute to load time. It's the color switching in general. I'll have to think about adding a button in (for an update later on) that prevents the color switching.

It's far worse with the textured backgrounds that are included in the full version (the default is keeping them turned off). My tests on my older machine indicate the interface for the new version is a bit slow at times.

[wade moore]

FOF 2007 represents more hours of work than any previous new version of the game. Some of the features benefit MP, some SP. Please don't confuse my not implementing your preferred list of features with not putting a lot of new things into the game. It's rather discouraging to see people complaining that the game is "FOF 2004.5" just because a feature they wanted wasn't included.

Not that you really need to hear this, but...

If you had to put the time into this feature at the expense of many of the other features then *I* would see that as FOF 2004.5 if it was essentially the same thing but with this feature.

I think you made a good decision, I think it is a feature that is a big deal to a very small minority - that fwiw I have always failed to see why it is a big deal.

Again, not that you need a pat on the back, but anyway...

[twothree]

It's far worse with the textured backgrounds that are included in the full version

So, around what time today will we get to see these textured background? ;) :D I have to leave for work in an hour. :(

[Solecismic]

So, around what time today will we get to see these textured background? ;) :D I have to leave for work in an hour. :(

It's going to be a few hours. I still have not tested the ViaTech stuff and I need to do some research on fonts (not that I'm sure there are any answers out there).

[Subby]

Any one have word about when the ammy class is revealed? I know that some folks were asking to see it sooner in game (me included).

Obviously you can't tell from the demo but I was curious if anyone had any insider knowledge there...

[wade moore]

I wish the player negotiations were improved a bit. If I want to sign a player to a 6 year deal, I hate having to put the whole offer together. If the player wants a 1 or 2 year deal, we have to build a longer deal from that initial offer. I never saw the "fun" aspect of that and hope it gets some attention in the future. If the player is willing to accept a 6 year deal, you should be able to get a starting 6 year proposal from the player's agent.

I see what you're saying here. I disagree somewhat with how you say it should be implemented...

But is what you're asking for is a counteroffer system? If so, I can see a benefit for that, in SP at least.. But I would invision it (pipe dream) as something more like... He asks for a 2 year deal.. you want a 6 year deal.. you can say "We are looking for a longer deal, what can you do for us" and they come back with a 4 y ear deal.. something like that..

I don't think what you're proposing is that much more realistic than the way it is now.

[Subby]

And for the love of god, someone tell Ethan P. to get on the stick and post some MP html :D

[Solecismic]

The MP html has changed in only one way - there's an option to include box scores and game logs.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

It's rather discouraging to see people complaining that the game is "FOF 2004.5" just because a feature they wanted wasn't included.

Trust me this is not FOF2004.5, the new gameplans alone would make it a new version. Don't pay attention to the Nay sayer, they would bitch even if you implemented every feature from their wish list. Just keep producing gold like you are and thanks for releasing such a great game.

[Franklinnoble]

Every architecture has its strengths and weaknesses. The way I designed FOF, I could either do a new version of the game that had custom league sizes, or I could do a version that had 100 other new features. If I had started with that feature in mind, it wouldn't be so major. But that's just the way it is. Football works well with 32 teams.

FOF 2007 represents more hours of work than any previous new version of the game. Some of the features benefit MP, some SP. Please don't confuse my not implementing your preferred list of features with not putting a lot of new things into the game. It's rather discouraging to see people complaining that the game is "FOF 2004.5" just because a feature they wanted wasn't included.

Thanks for the explaination. And, for the record, I don't think I was calling it "FOF 2004.5," although I was probably too harsh in over-simplifying the new features. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that you haven't put a great deal of effort into the new version.

I know I'm not the only one who wanted the expansion and league sizing feature. And maybe I'm underestimating what it takes to implement that sort of thing. I was on the beta team for PureSim, and that feature was something Shaun put in late in the beta process, then removed, revamped, and re-implemented later. It didn't seem to be so fundamentally critical to the overall architecture of the game. Having it in there definately added to my enjoyment of the product, as I was able to accurately re-create historical leagues or make custom leagues for whatever scenario I wanted to play within.

I think custom leagues would have to include talent pool logic so that there aren't too many (or too-few) talented players based on league size.

[Bee]

Not that you really need to hear this, but...

If you had to put the time into this feature at the expense of many of the other features then *I* would see that as FOF 2004.5 if it was essentially the same thing but with this feature.

I think you made a good decision, I think it is a feature that is a big deal to a very small minority - that fwiw I have always failed to see why it is a big deal.

Again, not that you need a pat on the back, but anyway...

I agree that if the choices were 100 other changes vs adding expansion/league size, Jim made the right decision. But I think that's also why there's the perception that this is more FOF2004.5 than FOF 2007. If you have 5-6 major changes, the feature list will look impressive. When you have 100 smaller changes, the game might be greatly improved but it's hard to show that with a feature list. You can't really list all the changes, so you try to highlight some and it comes out being less impressive on paper than if you had just concentrated on a few key issues. Like I said before, the feature list just doesn't excite me but I'm still looking forward to playing the game in hopes that all those changes will add up to a great new version.

[Subby]

The MP html has changed in only one way - there's an option to include box scores and game logs.
Cool! Aside from individual player pages, those were the most desired items.

Thanks.

[Bad-example]

I see what you're saying here. I disagree somewhat with how you say it should be implemented...

But is what you're asking for is a counteroffer system? If so, I can see a benefit for that, in SP at least.. But I would invision it (pipe dream) as something more like... He asks for a 2 year deal.. you want a 6 year deal.. you can say "We are looking for a longer deal, what can you do for us" and they come back with a 4 y ear deal.. something like that..

I don't think what you're proposing is that much more realistic than the way it is now.

Hmmmm. I think it would be much more realistic to give the player's agent a call and request an intial offer for the number of years you want to sign him. If the player is willing to sign a 6 year deal, his agent should be willing to give you an initial 6 year proposal for you to tweak.

[AlexB]

...If the player is willing to accept a 6 year deal, you should be able to get a starting 6 year proposal from the player's agent...

That is a very good idea! Would make life a lot easier.

[Bad-example]

Like I said before, the feature list just doesn't excite me but I'm still looking forward to playing the game in hopes that all those changes will add up to a great new version.

"

[Warhammer]

I think this also hurts the historical replay side of this. If you look back to 1960 there were 22 teams in the league. That means that 10 teams will have 53 players that need to be generated. It also hurts the draft because you have less talent to go around so a guy that you would normally pick in the 4th round you need to take in the 3rd, a guy who you would pick in the middle of the second round goes mid to late first. It's unfortunate, but on the plus side, I don't think it kills the historical side.


Yeah, but realistically, what major metro area has a niche that can be filled by an NFL team? Los Angeles, ok, I'll give you that. Where else? I don't think I'll see another NFL expansion in my lifetime, unless they take the game overseas.

[wade moore]

Hmmmm. I think it would be much more realistic to give the player's agent a call and request an intial offer for the number of years you want to sign him. If the player is willing to sign a 6 year deal, his agent should be willing to give you an initial 6 year proposal for you to tweak.

I just don't think that's how it works in real life. I think the player takes a hard line in what years they want. The team takes a hard line it what they want.

Then they haggle it out until they und up somewhere in the middle.

[jonesz]

Hmmmm. I think it would be much more realistic to give the player's agent a call and request an intial offer for the number of years you want to sign him. If the player is willing to sign a 6 year deal, his agent should be willing to give you an initial 6 year proposal for you to tweak.

I'm in agreement. I'm hoping that the rookie negotiation contract section is a little more involved in this version as well. I'm guessing it isn't, but it doesn't hurt to hope. The way it was previously was pratically useless as you got no feedback whatsoever. Offer them a 3 yr deal at lowest salary...nope...offer them a 4 year deal at highest salary...nope...training camp is about to start, better offer them a 3 yr deal at highest salary...always yes...

[Ksyrup]

In real life, the rookie negotiations are pretty close to what the game has, aren't they, because of slotting? First rounders are offered 5 or 6 year deals, and the money is largely known going in - it's just a matter of how creative they can get. I used to care about this, but now I'd rather focus on FA negotiations and just handle rookies as they are in the game.

[Toddzilla]

Yeah, but realistically, what major metro area has a niche that can be filled by an NFL team? Los Angeles, ok, I'll give you that. Where else? I don't think I'll see another NFL expansion in my lifetime, unless they take the game overseas.I think it would be cool to have a professional team in Washington DC.

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, but realistically, what major metro area has a niche that can be filled by an NFL team? Los Angeles, ok, I'll give you that. Where else? I don't think I'll see another NFL expansion in my lifetime, unless they take the game overseas.

Los Angeles could support two teams, easy. Heck, they have two NBA franchises, and there's talk of moving the Kings to Anaheim, because Orange County could easily support the team as well as the Sacramento area. So, there's potential for expansion there.

There are several markets that are larger than many current NFL markets that do not have teams. ( http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt ). Many of these could easily support NFL franchises. The US population isn't exactly on the decline. So, I don't think expansion is unrealistic, nor do I think you'll keel over before you see it again (unless, of course, you're like 90 years old or something).

[Bad-example]

I just don't think that's how it works in real life. I think the player takes a hard line in what years they want. The team takes a hard line it what they want.

Then they haggle it out until they und up somewhere in the middle.

I get your point. My main concern is getting rid of the tedium of having to construct an offer for the number of years you desire. Perhaps instead of getting the basic framework of a deal from the player's agent, it could come from an (invisible) assistant within our organization.

[Solecismic]

From reading extensively on the subject, the question of expansion is more a question of league structure and overall support for the NFL.

Financially, areas the size of Green Bay and Jacksonville can support an individual NFL franchise. That would be impossible in any other major sport, where there are up to 81 home dates.

New York could support ten franchises if people could tell them apart.

Football has done what baseball once did, but has failed to do in recent years. It is a nation-wide game. We still watch the Super Bowl in droves. Ratings are solid during the regular season for games that have nothing to do with your area (MNF, SNF).

Meanwhile, the World Series is becoming an afterthought. Once your team is eliminated, you stop watching. I'm sure FOX was devasted when the Red Sox fell apart in August and the Yankees fell apart in Detroit.

The worry about extensive expansion in the NFL is that people will become less and less familiar with teams outside their area. There's a critical mass of teams. Right now, you play everyone at least once every four years. Add just one team and that changes.

[Warhammer]

Los Angeles could support two teams, easy. Heck, they have two NBA franchises, and there's talk of moving the Kings to Anaheim, because Orange County could easily support the team as well as the Sacramento area. So, there's potential for expansion there.

There are several markets that are larger than many current NFL markets that do not have teams. ( http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt ). Many of these could easily support NFL franchises. The US population isn't exactly on the decline. So, I don't think expansion is unrealistic, nor do I think you'll keel over before you see it again (unless, of course, you're like 90 years old or something).

LA only supports a winning team. That's why the Raiders and Rams aren't there anymore. Once they started going to crap, and no stadiums were being built they left town.

If you look at the census data which areas in the top 50 really need a team? You could make a case for San Antonio and Portland, but all the other areas are within driving distance of another team (a 2 hour drive).

[Pyser]

jim, were the schedules tweaked?

in 2k4, sometimes youd be on the road for 6 of your first 7 games -- sometimes playing 3 or even 4 straight at home or away.

[wade moore]

I get your point. My main concern is getting rid of the tedium of having to construct an offer for the number of years you desire. Perhaps instead of getting the basic framework of a deal from the player's agent, it could come from an (invisible) assistant within our organization.

I think we're essentially on the same page.

A negotiation structure where you get more input from the player than just their initial wants would be nice.

We may disagree about how you get there, but I think we agree on principle.

That being said, if I were to list my wants for the game, for me it would be pretty low on the list.

[Deattribution]

I know it's a little early for it but will we be seeing a patch for TCY to make draft files compatiable or are they already ready to go?

And will the player editor for 2k4 work with 2007?

Edit - nevermind on the first question

Will the draft files from The College Years work with Front Office Football 2007?

Yes. As long as you have the most recent version of The College Years. Versions prior to 1.2a do not support exporting into Front Office Football 2007. You can download the latest College Years version from our web site. This is a free update for all existing customers.

[Franklinnoble]

From reading extensively on the subject, the question of expansion is more a question of league structure and overall support for the NFL.

Financially, areas the size of Green Bay and Jacksonville can support an individual NFL franchise. That would be impossible in any other major sport, where there are up to 81 home dates.

New York could support ten franchises if people could tell them apart.

Football has done what baseball once did, but has failed to do in recent years. It is a nation-wide game. We still watch the Super Bowl in droves. Ratings are solid during the regular season for games that have nothing to do with your area (MNF, SNF).

Meanwhile, the World Series is becoming an afterthought. Once your team is eliminated, you stop watching. I'm sure FOX was devasted when the Red Sox fell apart in August and the Yankees fell apart in Detroit.

The worry about extensive expansion in the NFL is that people will become less and less familiar with teams outside their area. There's a critical mass of teams. Right now, you play everyone at least once every four years. Add just one team and that changes.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

You talk about how smaller markets can support the NFL better than MLB, by virtue of their shorter schedule. Ok... I'm with you on that. Then you say that MLB has lost their nation-wide appeal... but you cite no reason that seems to conform to the argument here.

MLB has 30 teams. So, with fewer teams, and teams playing each other more often, they're losing national interest.

As you say, the NFL has 32 teams, and teams sometimes don't play more than every four years - yet it is immensely popular. I think the short schedule contributes to this more than any other factor. I'm not sure where you're going with the rest of your argument.

Anyhow... it's all beside the point. We're talking about a game here. Our little fantasy world. You're an IHOF player - and there are teams there that make no sense, geographically. Clearly, a solid marriage to realism isn't really the point. Custom league sizes and expansion would be a really cool feature, and I hope it is one that you give strong consideration to in the future.

[lighthousekeeper]

Unfortunately haven't had time to download the game yet, but could someone fill me in on whether there is the option to have player pictures in the game?

[CraigSca]

Just looked at the demo again...

How COOL is it that you can look at a team's passing statistics and see it broken down by short/med/long passes?! This is awesome for gameplanning!

Also, you can look at any team statistic, and specify the year. Therefore, I can see how that #1 rated passing offense fared in previous years. Again, this is great for immersion - you can actually see a particular team's rushing defense from year-to-year. Great, great stuff.

[Deattribution]

Unfortunately haven't had time to download the game yet, but could someone fill me in on whether there is the option to have player pictures in the game?

A much larger area for team logos, but no player pictures.

[dervack]

I know I'm not the only one who wanted the expansion and league sizing feature. And maybe I'm underestimating what it takes to implement that sort of thing. I was on the beta team for PureSim, and that feature was something Shaun put in late in the beta process, then removed, revamped, and re-implemented later. It didn't seem to be so fundamentally critical to the overall architecture of the game. Having it in there definately added to my enjoyment of the product, as I was able to accurately re-create historical leagues or make custom leagues for whatever scenario I wanted to play within.


I'm sure this has no business being in this thread, but something that I have to say about Puresim and the expansion model. I'm glad he got expansion in the game. I really am. I just wish it didn't suck so much. The Expansion phase happens after FA, after the amateur draft, before you set your roster for the spring? How is that something you want to boast about. I know in real life, an expansion team would have a hard time landing FA's because the team is going to suck that first year. At the same time, at least they get a shot. Not in Puresim. You have to pick what is left over that the other teams don't want. I wish FOF 2K7(see, I brought it back to current topic) had expansion, but if it was implemented half-cocked like puresim, I can guarantee people will be screaming to the high hills about what a waste of programming time it was.

This looks to be the first version of FOF I purchase since the EA ones.

[Flasch186]

but when is it going to be released today? I mean jeez, I was hoping for 1201 am, not 1159pm :( LOL man, how many work hours have been lost today in our jobs because of this.

[Ksyrup]

but when is it going to be released today? I mean jeez, I was hoping for 1201 am, not 1159pm :( LOL man, how many work hours have been lost today in our jobs because of this.

Given Jim's comments in the bugs thread, my guess is later in the evening rather than by the end of the work day.

[headtrauma]

I don't see any mention of custom league sizes ....

Seconded. This was by far the most important missing feature, IMO. My guess is that you'd see many more MP leagues out there if this feature was available.

[Warhammer]

With the number of people willing to play in multiple leagues, is it really that hard to find players?

[fantastic flying froggies]

With the number of people willing to play in multiple leagues, is it really that hard to find players?

finding players is actually fairly easy.

Finding players that are active owners and stick around for extended periods of time, even when their team is going thru a bad phase, is another story altogether...

[Capital]

I don't remember which version, but one of them had expansion. That was the team I always played.

I'm not sure which team I will play this year. Usually it's one of the worst teams in the league. I'm leaning Cleveland or Houston.

[Hurst2112]

the 'Erie Challenge' was in FOF2.

[Eaglesfan27]

Not that you really need to hear this, but...

If you had to put the time into this feature at the expense of many of the other features then *I* would see that as FOF 2004.5 if it was essentially the same thing but with this feature.

I think you made a good decision, I think it is a feature that is a big deal to a very small minority - that fwiw I have always failed to see why it is a big deal.

Again, not that you need a pat on the back, but anyway...


Not that this is needed, but I agree. I think the vast majority of players will be very happy with these improvements rather than expansion at the cost of these improvements.


I can't wait for the release tonight (only 1 more hour of work to go!)

[timmyw3]

I for one am excited about the new game. I had always been a solo-play guy but involvement in an OOTP league and less blocks of extended free time has pushed me more to the multi-player side.

I'm definitely buying and looking to get into a league.

[headtrauma]

With the number of people willing to play in multiple leagues, is it really that hard to find players?

Based on my experiences running an OOTP league for the last 4 years (http://www.snowballhidalgo.com), I'd give that answer a resounding "yes."

Custom leagues would also allow for historic replay....mmmmmmm.....

[Leonidas]

I don't remember which version, but one of them had expansion. That was the team I always played.

I'm not sure which team I will play this year. Usually it's one of the worst teams in the league. I'm leaning Cleveland or Houston.
It was the one they did with EA Sports. I always like to start expansion and usually win it all by year 4. Then start with a new expansion team and do it all over again.

[Logan]

Weather is supposed to be terrible here through tomorrow morning. I have no interest in Game 5 of the Series. This needs to come out soon.

[SunDevil]

This is in no way a slam to Jim in terms of his choices or effort put into this newest version of FOF. Mabye I am stating the obvious or the main reason why so many people come to these boards or play Jim's games for so long and so much, but I have a hard time getting over the forced choices/decisions that are made without many or zero ways to customize (almost a swear word around here :D ) not only the look and feel of the game but also the universe that FOF resides in.

It is evident that Jim has a very specific vision for his games, in terms of what they do and their presentation. But the popular and somewhat frustrating common approach that developers take in their games is the denying the paying customer and user to make the game their own. One reason that I love FM is that I can change the screen and presentation to something I like, because in the end it will be me that will be staring countless hours at the UI, so why not make it appealing to my eyes. One reason why I love Puresim and FM, is the ability to customize the universe in which my leage, team and players reside in.

I can only hope that one day Jim not only realizes the importance of allowing the users and his customers and biggest fans to make his game their own, but also keeps that idea of customizing some of the core and fundamental attributes of the game at the forefront of his is mind when his developing his games.

I will buy FOF2007, but the screenshots on a lot of the screens make me cringe. And when I will be staring at them for countless hours or always playing with 32 teams, it wills always be at the forefront of my mind, that I wish Jim allowed me to make his game my own, with my own colors and presentation and league and teams, and that I will always be reminded that this is his game and I can only play it.

It is in my humble opinion that one of the reason why FM is so popular and sells so well, is that the user can create their own world and presentation and honestly feel a connection. I have never felt that well in any of Jim's games.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

I like to play out and coach all my games, I think of myself as a Mike Martz type head coach who calls all the offensive plays. I also allow my defensive coordinator to call all the defensive plays. When setting game plans, in my case defensive, and click "recomended" is this your Defensive coordinator suggesting the game plan? Also, does he take into account the next opponent?

P.S. Thanks Jim!

[Ksyrup]

OK, I'm about to leave from work. So based on the timing of Jim's announcement yesterday, the game should be up for sale in about 10 minutes! :D

[dubb93]

The amount of work Jim has been willing to do today has been absolutely amazing. It would have been easy to note the bugs, upload the game for sale and work on fixing those bugs in the coming weeks.

[Chubby]

Sooooooooooo super discounts for people that paid for 2004 this week? :D

Not that I mind paying again (cause I don't).

Stoked for the full release sometime today/this weekend.



Will we be able to run both 2004 and 2007 on the same computer??? I thought there were license issues with running FOF4 and 2004 on the same computer...

[TroyF]

It is in my humble opinion that one of the reason why FM is so popular and sells so well, is that the user can create their own world and presentation and honestly feel a connection. I have never felt that well in any of Jim's games.


I'm one of the biggest fans of the FM series there is. I drink the FM kool-aid on a daily basis. I paid a ridiculous amount of money to have FM07 shipped to me on a Saturday the first week it was out.

But I don't understand your statement above at all. I can't create my own world in FM without doing heavy editing. I can't make every franchise in the EPL have equal finances at the click of a button or decide that I want 14 teams in the EPL as opposed to twenty. I can't turn off media interaction or pre game talks. (I can leave it to my assistent, but I can't shut them off) I have to play the game at the pace FM sets for me. If I want to sim through a season in one setting, that setting had better be 15 hours.

I'm THRILLED with the world FM has created and spend many hours in that world, but I've never had the feeling I can alter it to my tastes. I can't even click on an injury button to lessen the amount of injuries my teams get.

There are games I can do these sorts of things. In OOTP I can create any type of league I desire and have a million rules to tweak to make it work. But FM? The only advantage FM has in terms of options is the fact you can start out in a million leagues. Want to play in Serie C? You got it. Want to play as the richest team in the world? You can do that too. But actually tweaking the options of the game? Very little.

You can tweak skins, sure, but does that give you a deeper immersion into the game? I guess YMMV, but the game itself does that for me, not the skinning options.

[Solecismic]

The funny thing about this rant is that FOF has almost complete color customizability. And if you're adventurous, it's easy to change buttons and other design elements.

I've explained the league size issue many times already. I think it would be a poor business decision if I made the change and made that the only significant new feature in a new release. It has nothing to do with stubbornness or vision or alacrity or temerity or obstinateness or even solecismia. It's just with the architecture I designed, it's too much work to justify. I'd do it if it were easy, believe me. I'd probably enjoy it, too.

I guess I'm just tired of the accusation that I have any more a specific vision than any other developer. Extensive customization options are a feature, an expensive one. I've provided some. More, especially to the extent FM provides (and remember FM has a team of people at work) would come at the expense of other features.

Of course I have a vision and I have opinions. I wouldn't be doing this otherwise. But playing it as somehow unusual for someone who designs and develops software just seems like someone's upset that a new feature didn't make the cut and has decided to turn it into a personal attack that's unwarranted.

[Peregrine]

Personally Jim, on the day the game is released I think you have every right to just ignore the rants and complaints from a small minority here. The game's out (almost), most of us are totally psyched and drooling, and life is good. You can take the time to address these complaints after you've had some rest. :)

[jbmagic]

I like to play out and coach all my games, I think of myself as a Mike Martz type head coach who calls all the offensive plays. I also allow my defensive coordinator to call all the defensive plays. When setting game plans, in my case defensive, and click "recomended" is this your Defensive coordinator suggesting the game plan? Also, does he take into account the next opponent?

P.S. Thanks Jim!

Formation Use Screen(running & passing)

The recommend button does'nt seem to change from fof 2004. The same % is use again in fof 2007. It doesn't change in fof 2004 from game to game and it doesn't seem that way in fof 2007 too.

[Caratacus]

I only play SP, sometimes just as a GM, sometimes as Headcoach and set gameplans and sometimes I call the plays myself on both sides of the ball. Recently I played as a defensive co-ordinator and just play called the defense and had as little to do with the GMing as possible.

I love the look of the new gameplanning screens, depth charts and the Free Agent and Rookie interviews sound interesting. Many more stats help, I believe you can't have too much info.

Differently to some people here I find that I can make FOF into whatever I want it to be, where as with FM I have to much to do that I would rather not be bothered with, I find it a far stricter enviroment.

I am very pleased with the upgrades to this version of FOF and I haven't spent as much time playing any game (infact all the other games I own added together) than I have on the various versions FOF.

Thank you Jim

[AlexB]

The funny thing about this rant is that FOF has almost complete color customizability...

I hope I haven't burned bridges with my comments on the fly as I read the main thread (after I read the full thread I backtracked :) ), so I would really like to know - I don't mind the colours in general, and can cope with the buttons, etc, but would like to change the FA background colour...

As far as I could work out there was no way to do this in the game - if I've missed something please let me know, so I can get rid of that yellow :)

[Warhammer]

I only play SP, sometimes just as a GM, sometimes as Headcoach and set gameplans and sometimes I call the plays myself on both sides of the ball. Recently I played as a defensive co-ordinator and just play called the defense and had as little to do with the GMing as possible.

I love the look of the new gameplanning screens, depth charts and the Free Agent and Rookie interviews sound interesting. Many more stats help, I believe you can't have too much info.

Differently to some people here I find that I can make FOF into whatever I want it to be, where as with FM I have to much to do that I would rather not be bothered with, I find it a far stricter enviroment.

I am very pleased with the upgrades to this version of FOF and I haven't spent as much time playing any game (infact all the other games I own added together) than I have on the various versions FOF.

Thanks you Jim

I agree. I admire FM, I enjoy FM, but there are too many things in FM that I HAVE to do. I enjoy FOF in that I can set things up and quick sim a season, or really break things down and try to fine tune everything much more than I can with FM. Also, the sim time is much more palatable to me in FOF than it is in FM.

[RedKingGold]

Formation Use Screen(running & passing)

The recommend button does'nt seem to change from fof 2004. The same % is use again in fof 2007. It doesn't change in fof 2004 from game to game and it doesn't seem that way in fof 2007 too.


Hello, jb?

Yeah, the above post should probably go in the FOF2007 Bug Report thread or Suggested change thread.

Are you really that dense?

[Joker]

I have $39.95 to buy me another solecismic gem.
Mr. Solecismic From what I've seen-This is going to be another FANTASTIC RIDE
GIDDEE up
"PAY THE MAN"

[timmynausea]

Demo joke:

"Agent Profiles are included in the full version of Front Office Football... Oh, nevermind, go ahead."

[Pumpy Tudors]

I love FM as much as many of you, but hell, FM is so rigid about its universe that if a team has a points penalty in real life, they have a points penalty in the game. Didn't one of the first FM patches last year stick some Israeli or Turkish team with a 2 point penalty in the standings? I don't even think there was an option to turn that penalty off. "Customizable" isn't a word I'd use to describe FM.

[Eaglesfan27]

I love FM as much as many of you, but hell, FM is so rigid about its universe that if a team has a points penalty in real life, they have a points penalty in the game. Didn't one of the first FM patches last year stick some Israeli or Turkish team with a 2 point penalty in the standings? I don't even think there was an option to turn that penalty off. "Customizable" isn't a word I'd use to describe FM.


Agree with you and Troy.

[Franklinnoble]

I've explained the league size issue many times already. I think it would be a poor business decision if I made the change and made that the only significant new feature in a new release. It has nothing to do with stubbornness or vision or alacrity or temerity or obstinateness or even solecismia. It's just with the architecture I designed, it's too much work to justify. I'd do it if it were easy, believe me. I'd probably enjoy it, too.


I'm not going to argue with your logic or motivation with regards to the league size issue. It's a feature I'd like to have. It exists in other text sims produced by one-man shops. I believe it can be done. I'd pay money for it as an add-on to your new game. I don't think I'm just being the vocal minority here, either.

I'm disappointed that it's not in the 2007 release. I can't say for sure whether or not this will keep me from buying the product eventually, but I can say I'd buy it without hesitation if the feature were available.

I think you're here because you want this sort of feedback. So, please don't take it as an attack on your work ethic or your flexibility of vision. I don't think anybody in their right mind would seriously accuse you of being lazy or out-of-touch with your user base. Well, maybe the TCY fanboys... ;)

[AlexB]

I'm not going to argue with your logic or motivation with regards to the league size issue. It's a feature I'd like to have. It exists in other text sims produced by one-man shops. I believe it can be done. I'd pay money for it as an add-on to your new game. I don't think I'm just being the vocal minority here, either.

I'm disappointed that it's not in the 2007 release. I can't say for sure whether or not this will keep me from buying the product eventually, but I can say I'd buy it without hesitation if the feature were available.

I think you're here because you want this sort of feedback. So, please don't take it as an attack on your work ethic or your flexibility of vision. I don't think anybody in their right mind would seriously accuse you of being lazy or out-of-touch with your user base. Well, maybe the TCY fanboys... ;)

While I don't necessarily agree with much of what franklinnoble says, his last paragraph is spot on. FWIW I couldn;t care less about expansion in FOF, but his remarks in the final para are good (edit for clarification - i.e. about wokring hard, and the assumed bit about I'm assuming Jim wants honest feedback)

[Draft Dodger]

I think you're here because you want this sort of feedback.

he's just here for the HON threads. sorry to burst your bubble.

[larrymcg421]

I think it's one thing to provide critical feedback (which I think Jim is looking for) and another to imply he's lazy for not adding a feature.

[larrymcg421]

LA only supports a winning team. That's why the Raiders and Rams aren't there anymore. Once they started going to crap, and no stadiums were being built they left town.

If you look at the census data which areas in the top 50 really need a team? You could make a case for San Antonio and Portland, but all the other areas are within driving distance of another team (a 2 hour drive).

I think Orlando definitely could support a football team. While it is a couple hours from Tampa, I don't think many Orlando natives are making that trip to Bucs games. However, there are alot of areas nearby (the Space Coast, Daytona, etc.) that are within good driving distance of Orlando. Also, considering that it's a huge tourist city, you'd have a ton of out of town folks who would be willing to catch a game.

[Buccaneer]

I think it's in perception. 100 small changes without adding anything dramatical new would make some believe it is 2004.5, despite the many hours of work. One change, like adding MP, makes everyone take notice. Solevision is really nothing new added to the game - just a different (and better) way of looking at the same information that the game had already provided. Making more stat lines or gameplanning boxes is building on what's already there. If one is not a member of FOFC or one of the MP leagues, what would be the main selling point? Bigger, better, more improved? Some would argue that the game was already good and you just needed to do more of the same, as well as some things a little better. So the perception is what is really different about this version? What will IHOF (assuming it goes to 07) do differently than it had done before?

[RedKingGold]

What I've always found with Solecismic games is that the biggest and best changes/fixes are under the hood and not listed on any feature list. 3 years after the release of FOF 2004, there are still new things I am finding out that are interesting and bring me back to testing and playing. It is that depth which keeps me coming back for more, regardless of the lack of bells and whistles.

[jbmagic]

I think everyone concern will be how good the AI is compare to FOF 2004. All the new features are awesome. The FOF 2007 demo is very impressive so far.

We all will be happy if the AI drafting, roster movement and end of half/game logic is improved by the AI in the new version

I guess we will all find out when the full version is out how good the AI is.

I will get the game because I love FOF 2004, but going to see what others say about the AI when the full version is out before I buy it.

[Draft Dodger]

Captain Obvious has spoken

[dubb93]

Captain Obvious has spoken

Quit causing problems :cool:

[jbmagic]

Captain Obvious has spoken

Just curious why a lot of you guys don't care about good the AI is and why some of you get so defensive when someone mentions it?

Some of those end of game/half logic posted here don't bother you?

You guys don't want a challenge in single play?

If we can avoid house rules that will be great.

I guess we will find out soon when people buy the full version IF they like how the AI is now.

I am sure some are on the fence until they read positive things about the AI.

[Draft Dodger]

stop it

[dbd1963]

Was the AI in FOF2k4 no good? I kinda thought it was good.. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best I've ever seen. It doesn't have to improve any for me to still want to buy the new game, but I'm sure it did improve all the same and I'm tickled.

[Deattribution]

Was the AI in FOF2k4 no good? I kinda thought it was good.. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best I've ever seen. It doesn't have to improve any for me to still want to buy the new game, but I'm sure it did improve all the same and I'm tickled.

The actual gameplay, and through the season was great but it was just the off-season AI that tended to be hit and miss at times. Not the worse, but it was really glaring in comparison to all the other strengths of the game.

[jbmagic]

Was the AI in FOF2k4 no good? I kinda thought it was good.. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best I've ever seen. It doesn't have to improve any for me to still want to buy the new game, but I'm sure it did improve all the same and I'm tickled.

I enjoy FOF 2004. My favorite sport sim game. And I probably end up getting FOF 2k7 real soon too and not later. I love all the new things in FOF 2k7.

But still hoping the AI drafting QB is improved and how much improved the half/end of game logic is by the AI.

[Pyser]

I enjoy FOF 2004. My favorite sport sim game. And I probably end up getting FOF 2k7 real soon too and not later. I love all the new things in FOF 2k7.

But still hoping the AI drafting QB is improved and how much improved the half/end of game logic is by the AI.

fwiw, the sceenshot of draft results up on the solecismic site shows 6 qbs getting drafted in the first 17 picks of the draft.

[Buccaneer]

The actual gameplay, and through the season was great but it was just the off-season AI that tended to be hit and miss at times. Not the worse, but it was really glaring in comparison to all the other strengths of the game.

That is true, which was why FOF2004 took off with MP. "Under the hood" changes was what we had going from FOF2k1 to FOF2k3 (or whatever the versions were called). MP was revolutionary and made the relative weaknesses in the off-season AI moot.

[sabotai]

stop it

If it were only that easy....

[Deattribution]

That is true, which was why FOF2004 took off with MP. "Under the hood" changes was what we had going from FOF2k1 to FOF2k3 (or whatever the versions were called). MP was revolutionary and made the relative weaknesses in the off-season AI moot.

I agree, MP was a major addition and changed the game for alot of people, although I think the gripe that comes with that is for SP people - they've yet to receive that revolutionary feature that changes how they play SP. It's more or less played the same way it was in FOF1.

That's not to belittle the changes that have been made at all, people just enjoy the game and always want more.

[Ben E Lou]

I agree, MP was a major addition and changed the game for alot of people, although I think the gripe that comes with that is for SP people - they've yet to receive that revolutionary feature that changes how they play SP. It's more or less played the same way it was in FOF1.

That's not to belittle the changes that have been made at all, people just enjoy the game and always want more.
I have to disagree. The stats tracking in FOF2K4 was HUGE. Remember, it was the first game to track career stats for every single player in the universe's history, and virtually everywhere you saw the player, you could see his stats. That was a quantum leap forward not just for FOF, but for all text sims at the time. Even *MORE* amazing stats-tracking is present in this version, too.

[Sweed]

I think everyone concern will be how good the AI is compare to FOF 2004. All the new features are awesome. The FOF 2007 demo is very impressive so far.

We all will be happy if the AI drafting, roster movement and end of half/game logic is improved by the AI in the new version

I guess we will all find out when the full version is out how good the AI is.

I will get the game because I love FOF 2004, but going to see what others say about the AI when the full version is out before I buy it.

You say you're going to get the game so why not get it right away and post your thoughts? Be a leader on the AI issue instead of a follower.

With your fof 2004 experience you could do a nice comparison on if or how the AI has changed with v2007. It would be an interesting read.

[cuervo72]

I think Orlando definitely could support a football team. While it is a couple hours from Tampa, I don't think many Orlando natives are making that trip to Bucs games. However, there are alot of areas nearby (the Space Coast, Daytona, etc.) that are within good driving distance of Orlando. Also, considering that it's a huge tourist city, you'd have a ton of out of town folks who would be willing to catch a game.

The problem for Orlando might be TV market though. I'd say many Floridians (well, those who have been there for a while, not transplanted Jets fans or recent Cuban arrivals) already have their allegiances, don't they? My in-laws live up in Port Orange, and he's a longtime Dolphins fan (he grew up some in Tampa, so he'll root for them some too). He gets fed Jax games most of the time, which already annoys him (I really don't know how far past Jax city limits - which is about the size of Rhode Island anyway - their fan base extends). I can't imagine what the TV situation would be if you added Orlando to the mix.

[Toddzilla]

I enjoy FOF 2004. My favorite sport sim game. And I probably end up getting FOF 2k7 real soon too and not later. I love all the new things in FOF 2k7.

But still hoping the AI drafting QB is improved and how much improved the half/end of game logic is by the AI.Are you related to GWsFBAStartOct292006 by any chance?

[Raiders Army]

You say you're going to get the game so why not get it right away and post your thoughts? Be a leader on the AI issue instead of a follower.

With your fof 2004 experience you could do a nice comparison on if or how the AI has changed with v2007. It would be an interesting read.

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/5889/2003806688590795802_fs.jpg

[Deattribution]

I have to disagree. The stats tracking in FOF2K4 was HUGE. Remember, it was the first game to track career stats for every single player in the universe's history, and virtually everywhere you saw the player, you could see his stats. That was a quantum leap forward not just for FOF, but for all text sims at the time. Even *MORE* amazing stats-tracking is present in this version, too.

A huge addition, but still not something that changes the way you play the game. I love the depth of the stats and it's awesome to be able to really follow a players career (even better now) but I don't find myself gameplanning differently on my roster, through free agency, in the draft ect. because of it. MP dynamically changes how you play, SP would need something like more emphasis on personalities, financials and/or owners to change how it's played.

[Ben E Lou]

A huge addition, but still not something that changes the way you play the game. I love the depth of the stats and it's awesome to be able to really follow a players career (even better now) but I don't find myself gameplanning differently on my roster, through free agency, in the draft ect. because of it. MP dynamically changes how you play, SP would need something like more emphasis on personalities, financials and/or owners to change how it's played.I guess we'd just have to agree to disagree there. I don't want to change HOW I play SP, other than making it more difficult to obtain players.

[SlyBelle1]

Couple quick questions:

Hall of Fame - I was wondering how the game handled HOF for the players you start your first season with. Since there are no past stats, how do some of the current players get into the HOF or don't they? For example, if you start and you have a stud 8-year vet QB by their ratings, but they retire in two years, would they make the HOF based on their ratings? Or would they be left out since their stats would only reflect the last two years of their career?

Playing Time - I saw the new feature for distributing playing time, which is great. However, how do you worki it so you can get other players involved besides just the top two? For example, during preseason I want to see a lot of my 3rd and 4th RBs, but doesn't look like there is a way to do it.

Thanks in advance.

[Buccaneer]

I have to disagree. The stats tracking in FOF2K4 was HUGE. Remember, it was the first game to track career stats for every single player in the universe's history, and virtually everywhere you saw the player, you could see his stats. That was a quantum leap forward not just for FOF, but for all text sims at the time. Even *MORE* amazing stats-tracking is present in this version, too.

Did FOF2 suffer because it had far inferior stat tracking? Will the *MORE* amazing stats in this version alter your decision making or will it be more of an immersion thing? In other words, if it had half the stats and half the gameplanning boxes but the same great in-game AI and an ok off-season AI, would the game play any differently?

[Anthony]

Not that you really need to hear this, but...

If you had to put the time into this feature at the expense of many of the other features then *I* would see that as FOF 2004.5 if it was essentially the same thing but with this feature.

I think you made a good decision, I think it is a feature that is a big deal to a very small minority - that fwiw I have always failed to see why it is a big deal.

Again, not that you need a pat on the back, but anyway...

how do you smell with your nose being so brown? :confused:

[Deattribution]

I guess we'd just have to agree to disagree there. I don't want to change HOW I play SP, other than making it more difficult to obtain players.

That's understandable, and I'm sure that's something Jim has to deal with everytime he lays out a feature set and works towards it. Not everyone wants to play the same way, so he has to pick and choose things to cater to each crowd without ruining the experience for an entire play style.

[Buccaneer]

I think Deattribute may be thinking the same as what I was trying to bring across.

[Sweed]

I think everyone concern will be how good the AI is compare to FOF 2004. All the new features are awesome. The FOF 2007 demo is very impressive so far.

We all will be happy if the AI drafting, roster movement and end of half/game logic is improved by the AI in the new version

I guess we will all find out when the full version is out how good the AI is.

I will get the game because I love FOF 2004, but going to see what others say about the AI when the full version is out before I buy it.

You say you're going to get the game so why not get it right away and post your thoughts? Be a leader on the AI issue instead of a follower.

With your fof 2004 experience you could do a nice comparison on if or how the AI has changed with v2007. It would be an interesting read.

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/5889/2003806688590795802_fs.jpg



LMAO :D

[Raiders Army]

I like the league injury report and the Team History screen which tracks the team's statistical leaders for each season.

[wade moore]

I'm not going to argue with your logic or motivation with regards to the league size issue. It's a feature I'd like to have. It exists in other text sims produced by one-man shops. I believe it can be done. I'd pay money for it as an add-on to your new game. I don't think I'm just being the vocal minority here, either.

I would respectfully disagree with the bolded sentence.

[wade moore]

Did FOF2 suffer because it had far inferior stat tracking? Will the *MORE* amazing stats in this version alter your decision making or will it be more of an immersion thing? In other words, if it had half the stats and half the gameplanning boxes but the same great in-game AI and an ok off-season AI, would the game play any differently?

This may not be the best place to ask this, but...

I tend to use you as the "poster boy" for the "quick-simmers". Whether that's fair or not, I do...

My question to you, and any others that have the same style/concerns as you... what is it that you want in order to improve the game? I'm at a loss to understand what it is that you want to see out of the game to make your experience better.

[Joe]

no expansion is a deal breaker for some people? seriously?

[Raiders Army]

This may not be the best place to ask this, but...

I tend to use you as the "poster boy" for the "quick-simmers". Whether that's fair or not, I do...

My question to you, and any others that have the same style/concerns as you... what is it that you want in order to improve the game? I'm at a loss to understand what it is that you want to see out of the game to make your experience better.

As a quick simmer myself, I think that just like the Players of the Week in 2004 added a lot for the immersion factor...just as Greta's House of Football and the injury/transaction history will add a lot this version.

Just speaking for myself, the problem with being a quick simmer is that I have an attachment to my players but not necessarily the other players in the league. Over time I might remember another QB that I didn't draft but for the most part they're faceless. I track my players when they move on to other teams...most of them play on a different team every year. That being said, again, the injury/transaction history and Greta's House of Football make it more immersive to me.

I don't need girlfriends to make it immersive. ;)

[cartman]

no expansion is a deal breaker for some people? seriously?

only for the vocal minority...

:D

[Peregrine]

Like a lot of people I'm concerned about whether the off-season and FA acquisition AI is improved. I think we'll be able to track this a lot easier in some cases with the new player cards. I'm sure we've all seen the talented QB who gets signed to one year deals for low money year after year with different teams, since this will now be on the player card to easily see, after you run through 10 or 15 seasons you can check out those journeyman QBs and see if they are showing the same pattern.

[Buccaneer]

For what it's worth, I think being involved in discussing the development and release of new games here at FOFC is one of the most fun things to do - regardless if I have any interest in buying the game or not. These include the discussion ranging from TPF to SM Railroads to Caesar IV to OOTP7 to FOF. The only game I haven't been involved is FM, which I cannot begin to grasp.

[cartman]

dola,

My take on the expansion issue is that the more control the developer has over the game universe, the "tighter" the simulation can be. FM and FOF are cases in point. Since you know the arena that the AI has to deal with, the developer can program to that without having to take in extra variables for expansion. It's not as simple as some people make it seem to include expansion. At the other end of the spectrum you have the Matrix football offering (I won't sully this thread with the name), which tries to be all things to all people and fails miserably in all aspects of on field performance and statistical believability and accuracy.

[wade moore]

For what it's worth, I think being involved in discussing the development and release of new games here at FOFC is one of the most fun things to do - regardless if I have any interest in buying the game or not. These include the discussion ranging from TPF to SM Railroads to Caesar IV to OOTP7 to FOF. The only game I haven't been involved is FM, which I cannot begin to grasp.

Agreed. I discuss games that I know I won't play merely for the interest in the process - especially the ones where I know the developers is reading, even if they're not going to reply.

[rexallllsc]

Is the game still coming out today?

[Deattribution]

This may not be the best place to ask this, but...

I tend to use you as the "poster boy" for the "quick-simmers". Whether that's fair or not, I do...

My question to you, and any others that have the same style/concerns as you... what is it that you want in order to improve the game? I'm at a loss to understand what it is that you want to see out of the game to make your experience better.

A huge addition, but still not something that changes the way you play the game. I love the depth of the stats and it's awesome to be able to really follow a players career (even better now) but I don't find myself gameplanning differently on my roster, through free agency, in the draft ect. because of it. MP dynamically changes how you play, SP would need something like more emphasis on personalities, financials and/or owners to change how it's played.

And I know Jim has already touched on the subject a little earlier, but that doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

There are other examples of things that could be added, something like what OOTP added with the 'manager mode' where you created yourself as a manager in the game then got hired, fired and resigned based on your performance, including a salary as a status level.

It already plays a part in the game, but not quite as effectively as it could be (like some other features in the game), Infact I'm not really sure what you are in the game, you're kind of the GM, kind of the owner and kind of the coach. It works as is, but as I've said theres nothing wrong with pushing for progression in these areas.

[Joe]

Is the game still coming out today?

that depends on what your definition of today is

[SlyBelle1]

I'm just curious about everyone's thoughts on the price of the update....although there are a lot of cool new features, I'm personally on the fence a little bit if they are worth the $40.

Did things change enough to warrant that kind of price? I know solo developers need to charge reasonable prices to get paid for their hard work, but I was initially thinking this kind of update would have been more in the $20-$30 range. I'm sure one could argue other games (i.e. Madden) don't change drastically, but still charge a normal price.

[Deattribution]

I'm just curious about everyone's thoughts on the price of the update....although there are a lot of cool new features, I'm personally on the fence a little bit if they are worth the $40.

Did things change enough to warrant that kind of price? I know solo developers need to charge reasonable prices to get paid for their hard work, but I was initially thinking this kind of update would have been more in the $20-$30 range. I'm sure one could argue other games (i.e. Madden) don't change drastically, but still charge a normal price.

I have no issues paying $40 since I know I'll get as much, if not more playtime, out of the game as a 'professional' game.

[larrymcg421]

The problem for Orlando might be TV market though. I'd say many Floridians (well, those who have been there for a while, not transplanted Jets fans or recent Cuban arrivals) already have their allegiances, don't they? My in-laws live up in Port Orange, and he's a longtime Dolphins fan (he grew up some in Tampa, so he'll root for them some too). He gets fed Jax games most of the time, which already annoys him (I really don't know how far past Jax city limits - which is about the size of Rhode Island anyway - their fan base extends). I can't imagine what the TV situation would be if you added Orlando to the mix.

I grew up on the Space Coast (E of Orlando) and we ran into this problem when Jax started. The Jags were made our home team eventhough they were essentially the same distance away as Miami. If they were playing at the same time, you got screwed. And even when they were playing at different times, it wasn't cool. There was a game in 95 (Dolphins-Bengals, one of the Shula Bowls), where it was close in the 4th quarter but by rule the TV coverage switched to the start of the Jacksonville game. I think we would have been less irritated if it was a team that was anywhere near us. And if Marino was no longer on the team.

[Raiders Army]

I'm just curious about everyone's thoughts on the price of the update....although there are a lot of cool new features, I'm personally on the fence a little bit if they are worth the $40.

Did things change enough to warrant that kind of price? I know solo developers need to charge reasonable prices to get paid for their hard work, but I was initially thinking this kind of update would have been more in the $20-$30 range. I'm sure one could argue other games (i.e. Madden) don't change drastically, but still charge a normal price.

There are a bunch of games I don't play on a regular basis that I bought for $50-60. FOF2004 probably cost me mini-fractions of cents to play each time with the amount of time I played it. A little different from what you were asking, but my POV.

[Bad-example]

My question to you, and any others that have the same style/concerns as you... what is it that you want in order to improve the game? I'm at a loss to understand what it is that you want to see out of the game to make your experience better.

After I sim a week, I always look at the box score of my team's game to see how everyone did. Now, disregarding the demo's currently broken box score that just yields a mess of unreadable text, the feature I most desire is a better presentation of that data. There has to be a better way to present that data than giving us 18 inches of text only visible 3 inches at a time.

That, and the contract construction aid I mentioned earlier, would be high on my wish list.

[Anthony]

Did FOF2 suffer because it had far inferior stat tracking? Will the *MORE* amazing stats in this version alter your decision making or will it be more of an immersion thing? In other words, if it had half the stats and half the gameplanning boxes but the same great in-game AI and an ok off-season AI, would the game play any differently?

oh boy, i agree with the old man. :(

i will preface what i want to say with this: jim already has my money - i will buy 2k7 sometime this week, if i don't buy it first chance it comes out. i consider myself a supporter of Solecismic games and it would take a mammoth piece of garbage by way of Maximum Football for me to not buy anything of his. that having been said...

i will buy 2k7 only for its assumed AI improvement. the increased stat tracking, or i should say - overload of stat tracking - is more than i care to peruse. the gameplanning already in place in 2k4 was tedious for me, hearing now that gameplanning has been augmented doesn't sit well with me. the gameplanning in FOF falls too much on the "coach" side of the fence. i want to be a GM and put the team together and hire someone to make it all work. i don't care about percentages - how much of a different result will you get if you tweak something from 78% to 69%? i'm not interested in those things. i just care if there's realistic boom/busts (and there was in 2k4 so i expect more of the same for this version), more realistic player movement in terms of the AI's roster management. that sort of thing.

i think SkyDog made a post that listed all the stats generated from one game. i kept scrolling down further and further and actually said "oof" out loud. no way would i read all that. for scouting in MP i can see that being very helpful though.

in any event, i look forward to this game and am glad it's here.

[Buccaneer]

This may not be the best place to ask this, but...

I tend to use you as the "poster boy" for the "quick-simmers". Whether that's fair or not, I do...

My question to you, and any others that have the same style/concerns as you... what is it that you want in order to improve the game? I'm at a loss to understand what it is that you want to see out of the game to make your experience better.

I think that's a good question. What I think is the most perfect game for me and my play style is FBCB. While a college game does not have much in the way of an off-season, it flows perfectly without having to stop and adjust multiple details. I can sim a week to a month at a time, stop, take a look at trends in my roster/depth chart, make adjustments and move on. I don't care for the scores of the game or much in the way of each game's results - just enough to make decisions about depth, playtime and recruiting. In that game, I have nearly 50 years of history that I love to pour through. I remember seasons much more than I do games or players (just like in real life).

I play OOTP5 the same way - simming a month at a time, never looking at each game - just looking overall trends and making roster adjustments. In that game, I can spend most of my gametime focusing on the things I love - trading, drafting and the FA market.

I know football is a different game - where so much emphasis placed on a single game. You are forced to and would want to pay attention to every detail - both in preparing for a game and analysing the results. Sure you can go through the season letting the AI do everything but that is cheating yourself and not how the game is intended to be played. I like following along with FOF MP because there is a lot of emphasis on the off-season stuff. But in believing that a football game (college or pro) cannot be forced into a FBCB or FBB model, I will never get a football that I would have fun playing.

[SlyBelle1]

There are a bunch of games I don't play on a regular basis that I bought for $50-60. FOF2004 probably cost me mini-fractions of cents to play each time with the amount of time I played it. A little different from what you were asking, but my POV.

You raise a good point. It is probably a personal thing. If you play it a ton, probably a no brainer. If not, maybe not worth it.

I think if I didn't own the previosu versions, this would have been a no brainer for me too.

Still thinking...

[Deattribution]

Not to threadjack, but since it was mentioned there's something about FBCB that's really fun. I'm not a huge basketball fan, I follow the game, but I watch zero college BB.

I'm not sure what it is about the game, as nothing seems to stand out as so amazing to have but it's just an incrediably fun game if it 'clicks' for you.

[jeff061]

Pretty much all the criticism is just about copy and pasted from the 2004 release thread.

*yawn*

Can't wait for this.

[Buccaneer]

how much of a different result will you get if you tweak something from 78% to 69%?

You know, that's something I've always wondered about. Is this how real life football coaches gameplan? I know they call plays but what I wonder about is the preparation for an opponent?

To answer wade's question specifically about this, I would be that my team would chose a style of offense and defense (whether from my interest or from the coaches' recommendation) and with that choice, it sets everything for me.

That's one of the few things I have been consistent about since FOF2. Have it the best of both worlds.

[Sweed]

I'm just curious about everyone's thoughts on the price of the update....although there are a lot of cool new features, I'm personally on the fence a little bit if they are worth the $40.

Did things change enough to warrant that kind of price? I know solo developers need to charge reasonable prices to get paid for their hard work, but I was initially thinking this kind of update would have been more in the $20-$30 range. I'm sure one could argue other games (i.e. Madden) don't change drastically, but still charge a normal price.


I'll start by saying I don't mind spending the cash if I get quality in return. So, I won't mind spending the $40, when I get the game, as Jim's track record is one of producing a quality game.

I was a little surprised though at the price as current text titles (ootp, ehm, and the greydog games. not sure what FM is going for in the d'load market) have seemed to use $34.95 as the going rate. Add to that most offered a 10% discount taking it down to $31 and change.

I'm certainly not going to argue over $5 when it comes to a game that will give me hours of use. The only problem I see is when I normally buy a game and the wife asks I say "it was only $30" which to her ears sounds better than "it was only $40" :eek: :D

[wade moore]

First off, I'm really pursueing this question merely in the interest of my curiousity, not to spark any sort of anti-Solecismic discussion. I think all of the quotes below have treated this question in the way I intended - and I appreciate that.
A huge addition, but still not something that changes the way you play the game. I love the depth of the stats and it's awesome to be able to really follow a players career (even better now) but I don't find myself gameplanning differently on my roster, through free agency, in the draft ect. because of it. MP dynamically changes how you play, SP would need something like more emphasis on personalities, financials and/or owners to change how it's played.
And I know Jim has already touched on the subject a little earlier, but that doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

There are other examples of things that could be added, something like what OOTP added with the 'manager mode' where you created yourself as a manager in the game then got hired, fired and resigned based on your performance, including a salary as a status level.

It already plays a part in the game, but not quite as effectively as it could be (like some other features in the game), In fact I'm not really sure what you are in the game, you're kind of the GM, kind of the owner and kind of the coach. It works as is, but as I've said theres nothing wrong with pushing for progression in these areas.

Ok, so by emphasis in personalities you mean like someone discussed (may have been you, i've lost track in 9 pages) a more "hidden" chemistry system that is displayed by actions on the field.. I can buy that...

By financials - do you mean more control over the cost of running a football team? Like how Madden had where you set concession and paraphernalia costs? I'm not sure what you mean by that - what other financials would you like to be included that are not?

Those two, as I interpret them, i don't see how that dramatically changes how the game is played. I see them as somewhat minor tweaks to me... so I'm not sure how they really change the SP experience that much..

You other thought though, the "manager mode" or something similar.. That I can see as a potentially dramatic change in gameplay mode. Whether it be that, as a player, as an agent, that I can see. Interesting ideas. They don't appeal to me personally, but I can definitely see where for many it would be interesting and be a dramatically different playing experience.

After I sim a week, I always look at the box score of my team's game to see how everyone did. Now, disregarding the demo's currently broken box score that just yields a mess of unreadable text, the feature I most desire is a better presentation of that data. There has to be a better way to present that data than giving us 18 inches of text only visible 3 inches at a time.

That, and the contract construction aid I mentioned earlier, would be high on my wish list.

I don't know what you're talking about with the broken box scores. Works fine for me and I've seen nothing in the bug reports, have you posted there and I missed it?

As for the contract construction. Again, I see that as a nice little feature, but I don't see how that makes any significant change in the way the game is played.

I think that's a good question. What I think is the most perfect game for me and my play style is FBCB. While a college game does not have much in the way of an off-season, it flows perfectly without having to stop and adjust multiple details. I can sim a week to a month at a time, stop, take a look at trends in my roster/depth chart, make adjustments and move on. I don't care for the scores of the game or much in the way of each game's results - just enough to make decisions about depth, playtime and recruiting. In that game, I have nearly 50 years of history that I love to pour through. I remember seasons much more than I do games or players (just like in real life).

I play OOTP5 the same way - simming a month at a time, never looking at each game - just looking overall trends and making roster adjustments. In that game, I can spend most of my gametime focusing on the things I love - trading, drafting and the FA market.

I know football is a different game - where so much emphasis placed on a single game. You are forced to and would want to pay attention to every detail - both in preparing for a game and analysing the results. Sure you can go through the season letting the AI do everything but that is cheating yourself and not how the game is intended to be played. I like following along with FOF MP because there is a lot of emphasis on the off-season stuff. But in believing that a football game (college or pro) cannot be forced into a FBCB or FBB model, I will never get a football that I would have fun playing.

I think the bolded part is the key answer to the question for you and clears things up combined with the rest of what you said. I was reading and as I'm going I'm thinking.. "I think he just doesn't like football in a sim".. sounds like you've come to that conclusion yourself ;).

[Buccaneer]

Not to threadjack, but since it was mentioned there's something about FBCB that's really fun. I'm not a huge basketball fan, I follow the game, but I watch zero college BB.

I'm not sure what it is about the game, as nothing seems to stand out as so amazing to have but it's just an incrediably fun game if it 'clicks' for you.

I know, I am not much of a hoops fan anymore but FBCB really, really clicks for me. I think it is the flow of the gameplay - everything being about equal (except the Asst Coach phases, which Brian will fix). I put Civ4 in the same boat - your decision-making is about equally spread throughout all aspects of the game.

[Buccaneer]

wade, do you think there could be? I really think a football sim really have to be like what we've seen because of the nature of the game.

[wade moore]

You know, that's something I've always wondered about. Is this how real life football coaches gameplan? I know they call plays but what I wonder about is the preparation for an opponent?

To answer wade's question specifically about this, I would be that my team would chose a style of offense and defense (whether from my interest or from the coaches' recommendation) and with that choice, it sets everything for me.

That's one of the few things I have been consistent about since FOF2. Have it the best of both worlds.

One thing I've thought about with you and some others is it seems like what you really want is a more stripped down version...

Would that e a somewhat accurate assessment? That you would be happier if say you could go into the season and say "I want to run a West Coast offense and Cover 2 Defense" and then zip through? And what you would love to have is not necessarily FOF "dumbed down" but have options for like an "EZPlay" or "Quick Play" or something like that?

[wade moore]

wade, do you think there could be? I really think a football sim really have to be like what we've seen because of the nature of the game.

I'm pretty much in total agreement with you. I think this is the exact reason why I haven't gotten into baseball or basketball sims. I get a lot of enjoyment out of individual games, in my MP leagues I read through the gamelog, the Solevision is just a mouth-watering feature for me - for MP in particular. The emphasis on a single game and reading out every gritty detail is entertaining for me.

To do that with the sports that have 80+ games (although College BB may be a good balance, I have not tried FBCB and probably should) it would just be too tedious.

So I guess what I'm saying is the same as you. That football is really designed to have a much heavier emphasis on an individual game and the other sports with longer seasons are designed around more season and statistical accomplishments in bulk.

So the same way that a Football game probably couldn't be built that you would enjoy, I don't know that a Baseball game could be built that I could enjoy and it's something I've thought about on many occasions.

[Anthony]

You know, that's something I've always wondered about. Is this how real life football coaches gameplan? I know they call plays but what I wonder about is the preparation for an opponent?

To answer wade's question specifically about this, I would be that my team would chose a style of offense and defense (whether from my interest or from the coaches' recommendation) and with that choice, it sets everything for me.

That's one of the few things I have been consistent about since FOF2. Have it the best of both worlds.

copied and pasted from a post i made in my MP league:

one thing i wish he'd do is this:

you hire a coach. you hit recommend and the gameplanning fields populate according to how that coach wants the team to play. if he sucks, like you put together a power running team and your team is dead last in rushing and you pass a lot obviously he's not a good fit for your team so you'd fire him. next coach you hire, you hit recommend and the gameplan changes. you get the point. right now coaches are just good for developing your players. you don't really see the effect the coaches have on the end result. at least with my way it'd be more about "this is the type of team i assembled - here, coach, have at it".

[Raiders Army]

Well, if it comes out tonight great. I'm off for a little bit to play on the 360.

[Buccaneer]

wade, that has always sparked controversy and I really don't know. What I find fascinating about FOF is how good the engine is (and what a brilliant programming effort it is). People tend to think "dumbed down" would mean that the AI is easier or cheating or something. In no way would I like that in any game. Look at how the game AI is in FBCB - this allows me not to have to worry about it. FOF is the same way which allows for every single detail to be shown because it all makes sense.

But to answer your question, NO, I would not want EZPlay or Quick Play. I would want a game that puts all of the same details under the hood (just like FBCB does). Then I would follow my team game to game, make necessary adjustments to the depth chart (and in-season FA and trades) and when the season is over, I analyze the results (much like what QuikSand does in his dynasties) and figure out what I would need to do in the glorious off-season.

[Deattribution]

By financials - do you mean more control over the cost of running a football team? Like how Madden had where you set concession and paraphernalia costs? I'm not sure what you mean by that - what other financials would you like to be included that are not?


I think this would almost have to be inserted with some 'authority' over you (IE an owner) I don't want to specifically control concessions or other mostly pointless prices. What I'd like to see is an email saying 'If you value your job security, win this year, I'm tired of these slumping ticket sales' or 'Peyton Manning is an integral part of our team indenitity, his popularity strenghtens our market value resign him at any cost'. Stuff like that would set out other goals for players beyond just fielding the best team possible.

[Logan]

Well, if it comes out tonight great. I'm off for a little bit to play on the 360.

Vaporware, I tell ya...

[Buccaneer]

So the same way that a Football game probably couldn't be built that you would enjoy, I don't know that a Baseball game could be built that I could enjoy and it's something I've thought about on many occasions.

wade, the only reason I obsessively play OOTP5 for four months each year is because I love baseball history more than anything else in sports. Otherwise, I don't think I would play a baseball sim either.

[Ben E Lou]

HA--I could get behind that style, definitely. Heck, I'd probably enjoy it a little more. As it stands now, I spend a good bit of time on the front end developing my game plan, then throughout my career, acquire players who fit what I like to do. I basically never change my game plans in SP. Now, if the game gets more difficult due to better AI roster building, then I'll eventually find myself wanting the coach to do my gameplan, or I'll do it myself every week as in MP.

[wade moore]

wade, that has always sparked controversy and I really don't know. What I find fascinating about FOF is how good the engine is (and what a brilliant programming effort it is). People tend to think "dumbed down" would mean that the AI is easier or cheating or something. In no way would I like that in any game. Look at how the game AI is in FBCB - this allows me not to have to worry about it. FOF is the same way which allows for every single detail to be shown because it all makes sense.

But to answer your question, NO, I would not want EZPlay or Quick Play. I would want a game that puts all of the same details under the hood (just like FBCB does). Then I would follow my team game to game, make necessary adjustments to the depth chart (and in-season FA and trades) and when the season is over, I analyze the results (much like what QuikSand does in his dynasties) and figure out what I would need to do in the glorious off-season.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well? Part of my disadvantage in your description is I don't know FBCB.

What it sounds like to me is, essentially, you want something more in-depth than "recommend" but way less in-depth than trudging through the gameplan yourself?

Dumbed down was a poor choice of word,s but what I'm trying to say is that maybe you'd be able to pick a general "style" of play and then the AI takes the gameplanning over. So you have some control in how your team plays, but it's not tedium.

Otherwise, if that's not what you're saying, I'm not sure why relying on recommend doesn't suffice?

[wade moore]

I think this would almost have to be inserted with some 'authority' over you (IE an owner) I don't want to specifically control concessions or other mostly pointless prices. What I'd like to see is an email saying 'If you value your job security, win this year, I'm tired of these slumping ticket sales' or 'Peyton Manning is an integral part of our team indenitity, his popularity strenghtens our market value resign him at any cost'. Stuff like that would set out other goals for players beyond just fielding the best team possible.

Not to argue semantics, but that's not emphasized financials to me. To me what you're talking about there is more Owner personalities. Certain owners will actually have different expectations, you could have a meddling Dan Snyder, or a hands off regular owner...?

I think this is something that was used in Madden either this year or last - would be curious to see if you have used/read about that and if it is somewhat what you are thinking?

[Deattribution]

I'd also like to say it's great having something other than mindless OT and POL threads to participate in now.

[Ben E Lou]

I'd also like to say it's great having something other than mindless OT and POL threads to participate in now.Word. I'm excited about having a bunch more different threads soon, too.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Although I'd imagine Kodos will start a "Greta's voice, hot or not" thread at some point.

[Deattribution]

Not to argue semantics, but that's not emphasized financials to me. To me what you're talking about there is more Owner personalities. Certain owners will actually have different expectations, you could have a meddling Dan Snyder, or a hands off regular owner...?

I think this is something that was used in Madden either this year or last - would be curious to see if you have used/read about that and if it is somewhat what you are thinking?

Well when I was saying emphasis on financials - I'd like more reason to pay attention to them. This is why I suggested that some sort of owner would have to be implemented to add emphasis.. As it stands, I look at them every year but not because I have to. I can win the SB and lose 60 million dollars that season and it has little to no effect.

I know it's possible to get fired over profit (I think), but out of I'd say 500 years of playing total I've never once had it happen. So it's a non-issue in terms of how much I lose every year.

[wade moore]

Well when I was saying emphasis on financials - I'd like more reason to pay attention to them. This is why I suggested that some sort of owner would have to be implemented to add emphasis.. As it stands, I look at them every year but not because I have to. I can win the SB and lose 60 million dollars that season and it has little to no effect.

I know it's possible to get fired over profit (I think), but out of I'd say 500 years of playing total I've never once had it happen. So it's a non-issue in terms of how much I lose every year.

I think the logic around this just needs to be tied up. Maybe have someting where the league will not allow you to run at such a deficit, or where you get the team bought out from under you because you go broke or something.

But I agree, and think others would, that there is no significant deterrent to consistently running in the red.

[Buccaneer]

Maybe I didn't explain myself well? Part of my disadvantage in your description is I don't know FBCB.

What it sounds like to me is, essentially, you want something more in-depth than "recommend" but way less in-depth than trudging through the gameplan yourself?

Dumbed down was a poor choice of word,s but what I'm trying to say is that maybe you'd be able to pick a general "style" of play and then the AI takes the gameplanning over. So you have some control in how your team plays, but it's not tedium.

Otherwise, if that's not what you're saying, I'm not sure why relying on recommend doesn't suffice?

I think that is what I was saying. Sorry for my constant FBCB references - that one game has changed my thinking on a lot things and one of the few points of reference I am experienced with. Remember I used to harp about the spreadsheet UI, the lack of personalities/immersion and other stuff? I have not felt that way ever since I started playing FBCB.

You mentioned the recommend button. I will not use that because I just don't believe in it. I should be able to make the decisions of what to do without having to go through the tedium of doing (if that makes sense). In other words, I want to know what and why it recommend what it does and there is no feedback in the game telling you that.

[gstelmack]

I'm just curious about everyone's thoughts on the price of the update....although there are a lot of cool new features, I'm personally on the fence a little bit if they are worth the $40.

Did things change enough to warrant that kind of price? I know solo developers need to charge reasonable prices to get paid for their hard work, but I was initially thinking this kind of update would have been more in the $20-$30 range. I'm sure one could argue other games (i.e. Madden) don't change drastically, but still charge a normal price.

I have played FOF2k4 for 3 years solid (we started our office league soon after it came out). It got updated many times over those three years, including the 5.1 release that added some nice features to help round out the game (and that other developers charge anywhere from $5 to full price for). I've had a ton of fun on the side writing utilities to help me delve even deeper into the game. Jim deserves another $40 even if he didn't change a thing. The fact that he added so much to the interface is just gravy in my opinion. The league injury report, tweaks to the draft process, the redone game planning (base settings + adjustments for situations instead of 6 screens of the same stuff that don't have the situational adjustments you REALLY want like playing a 4-deep zone run aggressive), Solevision, height and weight now matter, wind now part of the weather effects, ability to level the economic playing field, I mean the list goes on.

Heck, he's the first text-sim developer I know of that has a built-in offline viewer for the game logs that lets me view the results in a step-by-step fashion AFTER the game has been simmed. I'm so glad someone is putting me out of that business (SimSports, FBCB, FOF, BBCF, have I forgotten any I've written?). That should be a required feature for any text sim that claims multiplayer as a feature. And he went all out, including stuff I've only seen in ESPN NFL 2k5 where you get reports on the other games happening at the same time. He not only let you view the games offline, he added a ton of stuff I've only dreamed about putting in my viewers.

[wade moore]

I think that is what I was saying. Sorry for my constant FBCB references - that one game has changed my thinking on a lot things and one of the few points of reference I am experienced with. Remember I used to harp about the spreadsheet UI, the lack of personalities/immersion and other stuff? I have not felt that way ever since I started playing FBCB.

You mentioned the recommend button. I will not use that because I just don't believe in it. I should be able to make the decisions of what to do without having to go through the tedium of doing (if that makes sense). In other words, I want to know what and why it recommend what it does and there is no feedback in the game telling you that.

Ok, I can see what you're saying and actually I can see situations where I wouldn't mind using it... What I could envision (just brainstorming) is maybe instead of a "recommend" you could have a drop down recommend where you choose offensive styles "Run Heavy, Pass Heavy, West Coast, Run and Stun, Spread Offense" or Defensive Styles "2 Deep Zone, Man to Man, 34 Blitz Heavy, 34 Conservative" and then it fills in the numbers...

Idano.. I think that might move towards something that might help your enjoyment. Still sounds like football is a weak model for what you enjoy in a sim, but this maybe would move you or some folks that have a similar goal to you towards enjoying things more - and I can definately see that.

[Anthony]

what i don't like is the condescending tone that i as a "quick-simmer" have to endure. (and by quick-simmer i mean someone who simply doesn't want to be overloaded with a stat for every conceivable action/event on the field, that's part of micro-managing that a GM doesn't bother himself with) i'm getting tired of reading things from wade who says "so, you want a dumbed down/stripped down version of the game, what, all the stats and details too much for your iddy biddy brain?". no, i just don't get any entertainment from seeing literally a hundred stats for one game. (for the record, i'm really liking the decision to expand on tracking game/career records). what do you mean "what more do you want to see in the game?"? there was already sufficient stat tracking and gameplanning in 2k7 - FOF has established itself as tops in the industry in that regard (football-wise) - just think there were other lesser-travelled roads that could have been explored now.

this is nothing that will make me not get the game, and i'm assuming the "100" improvements to the game will result in a more realistic and enjoyable end result. it's just time to step out of the box and get away from what's safe and start trailblazing.

[Ben E Lou]

Ok, I can see what you're saying and actually I can see situations where I wouldn't mind using it... What I could envision (just brainstorming) is maybe instead of a "recommend" you could have a drop down recommend where you choose offensive styles "Run Heavy, Pass Heavy, West Coast, Run and Stun, Spread Offense" or Defensive Styles "2 Deep Zone, Man to Man, 34 Blitz Heavy, 34 Conservative" and then it fills in the numbers..But that's very do-able, especially now that both offensive and defensive game plans can be saved individually. It's what I did with BBCF--just create the game plans on the front end, and pick and choose. Five or six game plans for each side of the ball will cover most SP situations, I would think. Once you have them, you're done.

[wade moore]

what i don't like is the condescending tone that i as a "quick-simmer" have to endure. (and by quick-simmer i mean someone who simply doesn't want to be overloaded with a stat for every conceivable action/event on the field, that's part of micro-managing that a GM doesn't bother himself with) i'm getting tired of reading things from wade who says "so, you want a dumbed down/stripped down version of the game, what, all the stats and details too much for your iddy biddy brain?". no, i just don't get any entertainment from seeing literally a hundred stats for one game. (for the record, i'm really liking the decision to expand on tracking game/career records). what do you mean "what more do you want to see in the game?"? there was already sufficient stat tracking and gameplanning in 2k7 - FOF has established itself as tops in the industry in that regard (football-wise) - just think there were other lesser-travelled roads that could have been explored now.

Are you in a different universe than me right now?

There's a reason I didn't quote your comments specifically. They didn't reference the discussion I was trying to have and they really didn't provide much room for discussion.

You don't get the massive amounts of stats, I get it. That has nothing to do with the quick-simming I'm talking about and when I referred to "dumbing-down" (admittedly a poor choice of words either way) it had zero to do with stats.

I was discussing the gameplanning model with Bucc when I made those references.

Despite your belief, everything doesn't revolve around you.

[TroyF]

I've said this plenty of times before, but on a $ per hour basis, I'd probably owe Jim money for the countless hours I've put into the FOF series. I wouldn't even want to know what the true time spent playing FOF has been. I'd then have to factor in the days spent and I'd realize I've lost a good portion of my life to FOF.

This new game could have had 5 new features and I'd have forked over the 40 bucks. As it is. . . it has a LOT more than that. I'm excited as all get out to d/l this thing. Patience, I know. Patience. . .

[wade moore]

But that's very do-able, especially now that both offensive and defensive game plans can be saved individually. It's what I did with BBCF--just create the game plans on the front end, and pick and choose. Five or six game plans for each side of the ball will cover most SP situations, I would think. Once you have them, you're done.

But to truely DO this you have to take the time to understand the real impact of what you are doing in those screens.

I don't think that Bucc wants to do that, at least that's my impression.

Now, as a community, theoretically we could build that for those that don't want to I would think. But I don't think Bucc being able to go in and do that really solves the problem for what he wants.

[Caratacus]

But that's very do-able, especially now that both offensive and defensive game plans can be saved individually. It's what I did with BBCF--just create the game plans on the front end, and pick and choose. Five or six game plans for each side of the ball will cover most SP situations, I would think. Once you have them, you're done.

Yep, I did the same thing.

I would have say a ball control offense and a Tampa 2 deep zone defense and then build a team to fit over several seasons.

[Anthony]

HA--I could get behind that style, definitely. Heck, I'd probably enjoy it a little more. As it stands now, I spend a good bit of time on the front end developing my game plan, then throughout my career, acquire players who fit what I like to do. I basically never change my game plans in SP. Now, if the game gets more difficult due to better AI roster building, then I'll eventually find myself wanting the coach to do my gameplan, or I'll do it myself every week as in MP.

don't get me wrong - if i were to pour over endless amounts of stats it'd be for MP purposes only. surprisingly we both play our SP/MP league very similarly (well, somewhat, i stopped playing FOF SP regularly a long time ago and only play it nowadays for MP).

my gameplanning in SP gets tweaked (and by tweaked i mean adding/subtracting 10 or so percentage points here or there) based on the team i was able to put together during the offseason. if i had a balanced offense and somehow i was able to snag 2 Very Good WRs and my QB ain't half bad, guess what? we's passing, dawg. just like in real life, you don't play the 4-3 or 3-4 cuz you want to, you play it based on the talent level of your D-Line vs your LB corps.

the only aspect of the expanded gameplanning that would really make it shine would be defensively - now w/ us being able to really specify what type of defense we want to roll out it'll make gameplanning against teams that play smashmouth much easier. there really wasn't any 4-6/8 men in the box option in 2k4, now there is and i'm gonna be more than happy to put it to use.

[Buccaneer]

Ok, I can see what you're saying and actually I can see situations where I wouldn't mind using it... What I could envision (just brainstorming) is maybe instead of a "recommend" you could have a drop down recommend where you choose offensive styles "Run Heavy, Pass Heavy, West Coast, Run and Stun, Spread Offense" or Defensive Styles "2 Deep Zone, Man to Man, 34 Blitz Heavy, 34 Conservative" and then it fills in the numbers...

Idano.. I think that might move towards something that might help your enjoyment. Still sounds like football is a weak model for what you enjoy in a sim, but this maybe would move you or some folks that have a similar goal to you towards enjoying things more - and I can definately see that.

I see both pros and cons about such an approach. What I would want in this specific instance is to focus on player acquisition to fit a style and vice-versa. That's where the fun decision making comes in. I would expect the AI to know exactly what to do with those players (in all game situations). If I am losing, then the focus is on getting different/better players or coaches.

[gstelmack]

there was already sufficient stat tracking and gameplanning in 2k7 - FOF has established itself as tops in the industry in that regard (football-wise) - just think there were other lesser-travelled roads that could have been explored now.

I actually disagree with this. The stat tracking in 2k4 was lacking in a lot of areas, especially situational. What 2k4 had is what ESPN / NFL.com show, while 2k7 is getting a lot closer (all the way?) to what Football Outsiders does. Reading the Pro Football Prospectus 2006 this year was quite the eye-opener. The key is that the stats shown didn't tell you nearly enough about how good the guy actually was: did he have high INTs because he was good, or because opposing QBs were avoiding your other stud CB like the plague? Things like 3rd-down passing for the QB are huge, along with the new O-Line efficiency bits. I still want to drill into the team-level stats to see how well they contribute to gameplanning (I had to put a feature into LogFileProcessor to spit out gameplanning stats so you could see how well you ran inside the LT to see if you needed to adjust that percentage).

As for gameplanning, 2k4 had a lot of detail, but it was misplaced. For one thing, the passing distances didn't match your QBs attributes (different range settings), so that was hit-or-miss. I set coverages in the same place I set run/pass, so you'd have insane bits like your defense in a 4-deep zone on 4th-and-1. The new scheme looks a lot better at first glance, where you put in base settings and then adjustments, plus set coverages based on what your defense chooses to focus on. It's much more of a step-by-step approach ("first, decide run/pass. then decide personnel. then decide coverage"). I think this gameplanning will be much better, with fewer screens to hit to tweak something (I can go to one place to change my run/pass percentages, instead of all six screens).

In short, I think improvements in these areas were pretty important to advancing the series.

[Deattribution]

Now, as a community, theoretically we could build that for those that don't want to I would think. But I don't think Bucc being able to go in and do that really solves the problem for what he wants.

I think I remember Jim commenting on this before, and he thought savable gameplans would take off alot more than they have.

I think some of the backlash (really just a lack of use) comes from the fact that you'd think this would already be something handled according to your head coach, OCs and DCs ratings and style. If I want to run a certain gameplan (say run and gun) I should hire that kind of coach, but that doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately.

[wade moore]

I see both pros and cons about such an approach. What I would want in this specific instance is to focus on player acquisition to fit a style and vice-versa. That's where the fun decision making comes in. I would expect the AI to know exactly what to do with those players (in all game situations). If I am losing, then the focus is on getting different/better players or coaches.

But the essense of it is you want to have a style, understand the style, without having to poor over 50 fields of %'s to build the style, am I right?

[wade moore]

I think I remember Jim commenting on this before, and he thought savable gameplans would take off alot more than they have.

I think some of the backlash (really just a lack of use) comes from the fact that you'd think this would already be something handled according to your head coach, OCs and DCs ratings and style. If I want to run a certain gameplan (say run and gun) I should hire that kind of coach, but that doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately.

I think this is something I advocated in the future FOF wishlist thread and something I would still like to see. Basically an expansion of coaches in general including what you've mentioned.

It's something I still hope comes eventually, but I can see where it would entail a pretty significant overhaul of code.

[Honolulu Blue]

Hall of Fame - I was wondering how the game handled HOF for the players you start your first season with. Since there are no past stats, how do some of the current players get into the HOF or don't they? For example, if you start and you have a stud 8-year vet QB by their ratings, but they retire in two years, would they make the HOF based on their ratings? Or would they be left out since their stats would only reflect the last two years of their career?

Playing Time - I saw the new feature for distributing playing time, which is great. However, how do you worki it so you can get other players involved besides just the top two? For example, during preseason I want to see a lot of my 3rd and 4th RBs, but doesn't look like there is a way to do it.


I'll tell you the way they worked in past versions of FOF; I don't think they've changed for the new version:

HOF - Each current player has a certain number of HOF "points", and earn more through certain on-the-field accomplishments. If they have enough "points", both previously allocated and earned, they make the Hall.

I think there's a more detailed explanation of this in the help file.

Playing time - FOF automatically adjusts for playing time during the preseason so that the 2nd and 3rd stringers who ordinarily get little PT get substantially more.

But the way I always do it is to flip flop the guys that need the playing time most vs. those who are known quantities. So, for example, instead of listing my RBs 1-2-3-4 with #4 being inactive, I'd go 4-3-2-1 with #1 being inactive.

[gstelmack]

But the essense of it is you want to have a style, understand the style, without having to poor over 50 fields of %'s to build the style, am I right?

I almost got around to writing the "GamePlanWizard" utility. With a slider for run/pass, a slider for aggressive/passive as you gain a lead, a slider for aggressive/passive as you fall behind, offense/defense versions of both, sliders for run direction, sliders for pass distance, sliders for double-coverage, blitzing, and one or two others, then generate the gameplan. Basically take the base run/pass percentages, modify by base sliders, then when you get a lead apply those sliders, adjust the run direction sliders based on situation and aggressiveness (if you go conservative with a lead, bump up the inside run directions, aggressive ups the outside run directions). When it's done, go to the game UI and enter all the fields for the user, who can then customize if needed.

'cause that's how I gameplan: push the run percentages up/down based on my opponent, tweak run directions based on success in prior games, and adjust aggressiveness based on success. With this scheme, I could nudge a couple of sliders. With the 2k4 scheme, I have to open six screens and adjust a few dozen numbers in each.

I'll be curious to see how the 2k7 UI works out and whether or not I keep thinking about writing this different front-end.

[Anthony]

What I could envision (just brainstorming) is maybe instead of a "recommend" you could have a drop down recommend where you choose offensive styles "Run Heavy, Pass Heavy, West Coast, Run and Stun, Spread Offense" or Defensive Styles "2 Deep Zone, Man to Man, 34 Blitz Heavy, 34 Conservative" and then it fills in the numbers...


i want this, please and thanks. :)

this, and using my idea (the coach determines how the gameplan gets filled out when you hit "recommend") you're not getting bogged down with how much percentage points to set for running/passing on this down, or which RB to put in which formation. you're making your staff accountable and it's there that you can determine what effect they're having on the game. i can not discern whose fault it is when my team does bad - HC, OC or DC. is it because my coach can't call plays (which is based off the gameplan i forced him to adhere to, imagine Jerry Jones telling Bill Parcels what play to call), i had a weak player in place in what was otherwise a "smart" play/gameplan decision. i don't know. at least if i can hit recommend, let the fields populate themselves based on my coaching staff i can say "the overall talent of this team is very good and we're in the bottom of many statistical categories - i place the blame for this on you".

[KWhit]

no expansion is a deal breaker for some people? seriously?

My thought exactly.

[sabotai]

I think I remember Jim commenting on this before, and he thought savable gameplans would take off alot more than they have.

I thought they would too when the feature was created. Maybe with this version, and it's much better game planning, I'll take a more pro-active role in making downloadable game plans.

[Deattribution]

An interesting idea that I'm not sure whether Jim would be willing to do it or not is to make an optional download, or 'ship' with the game 8 or 10 number of gameplans. Each being named accordingly to their offense/defense style obviously.

Seeing as he's obviously familiar with how each part of the gameplan works, people would be alot more willing to accept his take on each style of play. It also might jumpstart the trading of gameplans as people tweak what he's done, or make their own to compete.

[wade moore]

My thought exactly.

IWS, if you hadn't noticed ;).

[Buccaneer]

But the essense of it is you want to have a style, understand the style, without having to poor over 50 fields of %'s to build the style, am I right?

I believe so, for the reasons that it changes the focus of gameplay from GM to a gameday coach. Let go back to basketball. You and I know that there are countless situational strategies and tactics as the game progresses. The AI is better at handling those than I, to put it simply. When I look at my roster, I know exactly what kind of team it will be (in terms of offensive and defensive style) and I just set some global strategies and the AI does the rest (i.e., the games results are within the range of expectations).

[Buccaneer]

gstelmack: That gets back to my earlier question. When one puts in a %, it is not the percentage of times it will run but instead, the formation used based on the percentage range. Is this how real life coaches gameplan?

[KJDelaney]

Am I missing something, the game is not available yet?

Sorry if this has been mentioned, I have been traveling all day.

[Deattribution]

Am I missing something, the game is not available yet?

Sorry if this has been mentioned, I have been traveling all day.

Suppose to be released tonight sometime. I'd assume there is the potential it could slip into tomorrow but there has been no official indication of that yet.

[cartman]

Suppose to be released tonight sometime. I'd assume there is the potential it could slip into tomorrow but there has been no official indication of that yet.

At least there hasn't been an official announcement of the game going gold... :D

[Deattribution]

At least there hasn't been an official announcement of the game going gold... :D

Jim Gnidin needs no gold announcement to reach MAXIMUM release power. :)

[cartman]

gstelmack: That gets back to my earlier question. When one puts in a %, it is not the percentage of times it will run but instead, the formation used based on the percentage range. Is this how real life coaches gameplan?

I think this all goes back to the issue of micro/macro management. In real life, a coach has a general gameplan idea, but nothing like what is set up in our text sims. That is because IRL, a coach makes changes to the game plan on the fly in response to how the game is unfolding. If you aren't going to call every play, then there really isn't any other option that I can see other than setting percentages for which types of plays you want to run.

[Solecismic]

http://www.the-gold-source.com/images/gold_bar.jpg

Just waiting on ViaTech. I was told the tech guy would check in from time to time. It's been ready for the last hour.

[cartman]

woot!

[azjoe_02]

http://www.the-gold-source.com/images/gold_bar.jpg

Just waiting on ViaTech. I was told the tech guy would check in from time to time. It's been ready for the last hour.

YES!!!

[wade moore]

I believe so, for the reasons that it changes the focus of gameplay from GM to a gameday coach. Let go back to basketball. You and I know that there are countless situational strategies and tactics as the game progresses. The AI is better at handling those than I, to put it simply. When I look at my roster, I know exactly what kind of team it will be (in terms of offensive and defensive style) and I just set some global strategies and the AI does the rest (i.e., the games results are within the range of expectations).

I think I understand where you are coming from a lot more from this - thanks for working it out with me. Like you said, this is much of why I like this board.

The only thing I'd say is, it seems to me this still is not a dramatic change in the way you play the game. It is probably relatively influential, but not dramatic to me.

So... If there was a community effort built around creating these gameplan styles that you could d/l and load, do you think that's something that might help you out?

[RedKingGold]

Congrats Jim!

Can't wait to get started..

[DaddyTorgo]

time to sit here and auto-refresh the site and bomb the server ;)

[Edward64]

Ditto. Ready to buy.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think I understand where you are coming from a lot more from this - thanks for working it out with me. Like you said, this is much of why I like this board.

The only thing I'd say is, it seems to me this still is not a dramatic change in the way you play the game. It is probably relatively influential, but not dramatic to me.

So... If there was a community effort built around creating these gameplan styles that you could d/l and load, do you think that's something that might help you out?

FWIW...I blame MP leagues for gameplan's not being more readily available. I think people come up with these perceived "killer" gameplans and then get wary of sharing them.

[TroyF]

time to sit here and auto-refresh the site and bomb the server ;)

Are you implying I haven't already been doing that? :)

[DaddyTorgo]

Are you implying I haven't already been doing that? :)
nope. just checking myself that my "auto-reload" was enabled :)

[wade moore]

FWIW...I blame MP leagues for gameplan's not being more readily available. I think people come up with these perceived "killer" gameplans and then get wary of sharing them.

Agreed.

But if there was a move on creating gameplans that mirror NFL styles but aren't "killer" gameplans, I could see it happening. I think it just takes someone dedicated to driving it.

I'm not necessarily volunteering (although I might), I'm just sayin...

[Logan]

http://www.the-gold-source.com/images/gold_bar.jpg

Just waiting on ViaTech. I was told the tech guy would check in from time to time. It's been ready for the last hour.

Beautiful. If I can get this tonight, I could hammer out more hours of it than I would be able to on any other night for probably a month. Spent time with the girlfriend last night/earlier today, can sleep in tomorrow, gonna be pouring into the afternoon...bring it on.

[Eaglesfan27]

Congrats again! I'm anxiously waiting to start downloading.

[DaddyTorgo]

Agreed.

But if there was a move on creating gameplans that mirror NFL styles but aren't "killer" gameplans, I could see it happening. I think it just takes someone dedicated to driving it.

I'm not necessarily volunteering (although I might), I'm just sayin...

exactly. something more like FM where there is a perceived "status" within the community to the person who creates the most-downloaded tactic of a particular type....ie "wade moore's Smashmouth Gameplan" being differentiated from "sabotai's Smashmouth Gameplan"

[wade moore]

exactly. something more like FM where there is a perceived "status" within the community to the person who creates the most-downloaded tactic of a particular type....ie "wade moore's Smashmouth Gameplan" being differentiated from "sabotai's Smashmouth Gameplan"

I may work to drive this after we get our hands on the game for a bit if people see value.

I don't consider myself a very good game planner, so I don't know that I could contribute- but I still feel like what it really needs is a person organizing, promoting, calling for gameplans, etc...

[Logan]

I keep on reading these posts about the gameplanning ideas...so let me finally, officially say that I would love some downloadable "basic" gameplans for use. Like HA, I'm much, much more interested in being the GM than the head coach.

I was always pretty confused about why I'm setting the gameplans when I'm paying a head coach to do that :).

[gstelmack]

I think it's time for a separate thread on gameplanning...

[DaddyTorgo]

I was always pretty confused about why I'm setting the gameplans when I'm paying a head coach to do that :).


mmmhmmm. what you said

[Buccaneer]

I keep on reading these posts about the gameplanning ideas...so let me finally, officially say that I would love some downloadable "basic" gameplans for use. Like HA, I'm much, much more interested in being the GM than the head coach.

I was always pretty confused about why I'm setting the gameplans when I'm paying a head coach to do that :).

and then you wonder why you supposedly set the 900+ boxes for a run heavy gameplan and the QB ends up throwing the ball 53 times?

[Deattribution]

This is why I said earlier, it'd be nice to have some 'official' gameplans made by Jim. It'd be nice just to have starting place where to work even.

Edit to add - I also understand it could be too time consuming to bother too though.

[Joe]

FWIW...I blame MP leagues for gameplan's not being more readily available. I think people come up with these perceived "killer" gameplans and then get wary of sharing them.

I've had no problem sharing and posting gameplans in the past and will do so again once I get into the game.

[DaddyTorgo]

IT'S UP

[NoMyths]

Downloading now. :)

[DaddyTorgo]

although the DL link isn't being found from within the store for me.

off the main page is fine though

[Daimyo]

D'oh! I get a page not found error on the download link.

[wade moore]

d/ling.

[Solecismic]

If anyone runs into trouble with the download, we'll start an item tonight about it.

One problem that's possible is that your initial communication on the web site about the download may have a bad link. Use the link in the email from ViaTech, or on my order page (not ViaTech's).

I still haven't heard back from ViaTech, but I decided to open it up tonight because that link issue was the only possible problem.

[Peregrine]

I'm getting the page not found on the download linl also

[gstelmack]

and then you wonder why you supposedly set the 900+ boxes for a run heavy gameplan and the QB ends up throwing the ball 53 times?

This is probably the biggest issue with gameplanning in FOF: having your coach not do what you were told. We had a game recently in our office league where a coach set up a defense stacked against the run, and then in the real game he was in a pass aggressive defense most of the time. It doesn't always happen, but sometimes it looks like the random numbers go against you and your left scratching your head, knowing you set up the correct gameplan but it didn't get called.

[wade moore]

Go back to the FOF 2007 page on Solecismic and it has an alternate link...

http://www.solecismic.com/orders/index.php

[Doug5984]

download isn't working? :(

[Daimyo]

DOLA, link from Jim's site works though... just the elicense link after purchasing doesn't work.

[DaddyTorgo]

installing