6.1 Bugs/Issues thread

[M GO BLUE!!!]

SKYDOG EDIT:

All, let's make sure we limit "discussion" in this thread, and keep it to bug/crash/issue reporting.

MORE EDIT:

If something isn't an issue or is up for debate, then take it to another thread.


I may have noticed an issue...

My 3rd QB on the depth chart is my injured starter who is out. I got to rolling over my opponent and was up by 30 at the half. The backup came in and was playing well when I leave the computer for a second, come back and the game crashed.

I ran the game again and was crushing New Orleans again. I remembered that I had never seen a backup come in that early, so after the coach put the backup in I switched back to the starter. Every time the backup came in I went back to the starter. The game finished without issue.

I think the game went to put in the 3rd QB and crashed when he is not able to play.

[Solecismic]

There's nothing new in that area of the code with 6.1.

With crashes, I need very specific information, which is usually available from the "report" you can send to Microsoft (what they do with it is anyone's guess). From that box, you can get more information about the crash report, and the first few lines about registers and the type of error are useful.

If it's repeatable, a detailed list of the actions leading to the crash is helpful.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

If I get a repeat, I'll definetly do the microsoft report and get the info to you.

What, in theory would happen to the game if three QB's were all completely lost to injury in the same game? (I did have a game once where after my QB went down the backup went down in about three plays)

[Ben E Lou]

POTENTIAL BUG IN COMBINE COLORING FOR BROAD JUMP
In three draft classes checked, no CBs or Ss have a blue or red coloring, and the vast majority (as in all but roughly 2-6 per class) are green for broad jump. Also, please check WRs and RBs for broad jump coloring as well. Those aren't as obvious as CB or S, but there are certainly fewer blue/red players than at any other position and (it appears) any other combine performance.

[Solecismic]

In theory, the least injured quarterback would continue to play (even if his leg were amputated at the scene). There's a lot of code in there to ensure somebody gets behind center.

There are going to be vastly different breakdowns of color for each position and each test because of the way combine scores are generated. I'll look to see if there's any particular problem with how the numbers are used with the broad jump.

[Dutch]

This is weird. AI Chicago Bears just went empy-cupboard on me.

2031 season - 6.0e
2032 season - 6.1

I have no idea who was on this team (or how many). The Transaction log shows 2 players retired (including 1 QB) and they released all their 2031 draft picks (including a stud 46/63 1st round WR)?

All other teams seem okay. This in during stage 1 of the first free agency period.

Looks like they might be in a bit of cap trouble.

The QB that retired was fairly expensive.

2018 - Signed rookie contract 5 yr/$19.75m
2020 - Restructured 3 yr/$8.42m
2022 - Restructured 3 yr/$60.44
2024 - Restructured 5 yr/$177.67
2028 - Restructured 4 yr/$141.82
2031 - Restructured 2 yr/$74.39
2032 - Retired


http://www.explodinghouse.net/fof/Bears-empty-cupboard.png

Since they don't have much money this season, they decide not to sign anybody in the 1st FA period.
They are also missing the 3rd round draft pick, so this must be some sort of cap violation issue.

At the end of FA-2, they signed a bunch of roster filler and are wildly over the cap again, and can't sign their 1.2 stud QB rookie...ouch. Cap hell managed by AI = teh suck.

[MalcPow]

Two things...

In the fix list it says

Ensure that the recommend button for game plans always considers the upcoming opponent during the playoffs.

I'm noticing that the recommend button will offer changes for your team's first playoff game (whether that is the wild card or the divisional round) but in subsequent games it offers no adjustments.

And the second thing may be a new player file balance issue (or just an issue with one player), but I've run the initial season many times tweaking a gameplan and I'm noticing that Chad Johnson is putting up 2000 receiving yards consistently in year 1. I know this is going to be impacted by a number of things, including the full X factor applied when I started this career, but I've seen him break 2300 yards numerous times and he is putting up 18-24 touchdowns almost every year. (Johnson is playing on an AI controlled team as well.)

I mention it mostly because of this in the fix list:

Various tweaks to engine, especially passing game, to better fit 2006 professional football numbers.

Might be something to look at. I've run enough seasons that it should be possible to have seen a 2000 yard receiving season, maybe even a freakish 2300 yard one, but Ocho Cinco is doing it almost every year.

[MalcPow]

Dola (sort of)

I'm also seeing a lot of 5000 yard passing seasons from guys like Manning, Brady, and Palmer. Again, I think this is a player file balance issue with the 2007 file that comes with the patch. If I load up random alternate player file universes I'm not seeing the same inflated passing stats. Just something to look at, it does seem to be a player file issue and not an engine issue though for what that's worth. *shurg*

[timmynausea]

It seems that Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalties aren't registering as an automatic first down. Amazingly this happened twice in my most recent MP game.

Here they are:
3-10-NOS16 (2Q: 00:21) Branden Lin pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Damon Bates. DE Floyd Weatherly hurried the quarterback into a bad throw. PENALTY: New Orleans was called for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
4-2-NOS08 (2Q: 00:14) Steve Gorton attempted a 25 yard field goal and succeeded. New Orleans 14, Boise 3

2-5-NOS05 (3Q: 11:33) Perry Cassidy ran inside the right guard for 2 yards. Tackled by S Oliver Fish, assisted by CB Troy Maloney. PENALTY: New Orleans was called for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
3-2-NOS02 (3Q: 11:26) Branden Lin pass completed to RB Austin Philyaw for 2 yards and a TOUCHDOWN! New Orleans 14, Boise 9

Edit to add: I just remembered that the commish in this league hasn't updated yet, so these would've been run on 6.0e. I'll leave this here in case this wasn't addressed in the latest patch.

[MIJB#19]

Small cosmetic issue: While watching a game in Solevision, my RB ran for 5 yds in a 3rd and 4 situation, fumbled and the opponent recovered it. Nothing wrong with that, except the Solevision play-by-play ended with "that's a first down". I suppose it it for the opponent, but it was a little bit confusing when I saw it, given the flow of the play, maybe a "possession goes to [opponent]" would be better. (As others said elsewhere, I did like it how it was impossible to tell in advance the RB would fumble the ball.)

Suggestion: Add a number of time outs left counter in Solevision.

[Ben E Lou]

DEFENSIVE PLAYCALL ISSUE
No idea if it's possible in the current game structure, but the defense should recognize 5WR as a passing-only set, and therefore expect pass when it sees it.

Atlanta is in a Five-Receiver Spread formation, strength is left.
The defense is in a 34 look with nickel personnel with 2-deep bump-and-run coverage.
New Jersey is gambling on a run play.
Scott Reese fields the snap and drops back to pass.
Reese slings an intermediate length pass to Wide Receiver Winfred Cowsette.
The ball was caught by Cowsette.
The play travels 23 yards.
He was tackled by Cornerback Karl Blades.
The receiver ran his route right over the middle of the field.
Cowsette gained 8 yards after the catch.
That will go for a first down.

EDITED TO ADD:
While it's true that 5WR isn't a 100% passing set, it is a very extreme passing set. Perhaps have it override the run/pass expectation like the nickel/dime, but if the offense runs out of 5WR more than x times (I suggest x=3) in the same game, cancel the override and use the normal run/pass expectations for those settings.

[Ben E Lou]

GOAL-LINE OFFENSE USAGE
This may or may not be of concern in normal game plans, but with a 100% 5WR game plan I created to check on the above issue, the offense is coming out in GL on 1st and 10 several times per game. I doubt anyone would care about this in the extreme circumstance, but my concern here is that if it's used out of place several times a game in this situation, I would imagine it's possible for it to be used out of place in "normal" game plans.

[AlexB]

I know this has been an issue for a while, but I've personally never seen it to such an extreme. Idress Bashir had a busy week, being signed and released three times by each of Minnesota and Arizona, before Tampa taunted him by offering a home, before cruelly pushing him back out on the street as well!

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/187/bashirsg5.jpg

[Noop]

In my career I have noticed that some teams have QBs with high potential on the bench behind another good QB but refuse to trade the backup no matter what I offer. This has happened with a few teams and this is very frustrating, because QBs from the draft are hard to get because of a combination of me being middle of the road and there not being a lot of good QBs in the draft.

Case #1 Oakland
Pat Cowell (16 year)
- has taken a majority of the snaps in the last 7 seasons.
- 59/59

Jackie Mathews (7 year)- Backup for those 7 seasons, started 4 games when Cowell was hurt.
- 49/81

Case #2 Green Bay
Marty O'Neal (11 year)
- Starter who I tried to get a few years ago while he was a backup
- 66/66

George Scott
- Backup.
- 22/67


Case #3 Atlanta
Lionel Durham (13 year)
- I signed him when he was injured to a one-year deal for our playoff run
- Signed when they already had a stud in place with a young one in the wings.
- 85/85

Les Lagana (10 year)
- Former starter
- Is content with his playing time.
- 80/82

Chad Scott (6 year)
- Bench since he came to the league
- Content
- 33/80

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could not get anyone of these guys no matter what I offered. I understand there are flaws in the A.I. but each of the backups can garner 1st round pick(s) and it is frustrating when I get the message about the team not wanting to trade away their best player. I am surprised no one has mentioned this before.

[QuikSand]

In the "Team Summary" data, there is a teamwide calculation for "Pass Rush %" that seems to be counting sacks as only 1/10 as valuable as hurries or blocks. I have to believe this is a bug -- a function of the way the sack data is stored in the data files, somehow.

(This may well have been around throughout 2007, but hasn't been unearthed that I know of)

[stevew]

In my career I have noticed that some teams have QBs with high potential on the bench behind another good QB but refuse to trade the backup no matter what I offer. This has happened with a few teams and this is very frustrating, because QBs from the draft are hard to get because of a combination of me being middle of the road and there not being a lot of good QBs in the draft.

Case #1 Oakland
Pat Cowell (16 year)
- has taken a majority of the snaps in the last 7 seasons.
- 59/59

Jackie Mathews (7 year)- Backup for those 7 seasons, started 4 games when Cowell was hurt.
- 49/81

Case #2 Green Bay
Marty O'Neal (11 year)
- Starter who I tried to get a few years ago while he was a backup
- 66/66

George Scott
- Backup.
- 22/67


Case #3 Atlanta
Lionel Durham (13 year)
- I signed him when he was injured to a one-year deal for our playoff run
- Signed when they already had a stud in place with a young one in the wings.
- 85/85

Les Lagana (10 year)
- Former starter
- Is content with his playing time.
- 80/82

Chad Scott (6 year)
- Bench since he came to the league
- Content
- 33/80

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could not get anyone of these guys no matter what I offered. I understand there are flaws in the A.I. but each of the backups can garner 1st round pick(s) and it is frustrating when I get the message about the team not wanting to trade away their best player. I am surprised no one has mentioned this before.

Yeah, I've seen this as well. Very frustrating.

Maybe separate this out to a new thread?

[cuervo72]

In the "Team Summary" data, there is a teamwide calculation for "Pass Rush %" that seems to be counting sacks as only 1/10 as valuable as hurries or blocks. I have to believe this is a bug -- a function of the way the sack data is stored in the data files, somehow.

(This may well have been around throughout 2007, but hasn't been unearthed that I know of)

To elaborate on this, I think what may be happening is that the game stores individual player sacks as the actual total multiplied by 10 - at least this is the case in the interrogator output of the data. The PR% calculation would have to take this into account and divide accordingly. If *team* sacks are stored somewhere different (rather than using sum(playersacks)) and are NOT multiplied by 10 (they will be by definition integers, so no need), but are fed into the same function used to calculate player PR%, this could be the result.

[QuikSand]

To elaborate on this, I think what may be happening is that the game stores individual player sacks as the actual total multiplied by 10 - at least this is the case in the interrogator output of the data. The PR% calculation would have to take this into account and divide accordingly. If *team* sacks are stored somewhere different (rather than using sum(playersacks)) and are NOT multiplied by 10 (they will be by definition integers, so no need), but are fed into the same function used to calculate player PR%, this could be the result.

Thanks for the elaboration.

[DougW]

Two things...

In the fix list it says



I'm noticing that the recommend button will offer changes for your team's first playoff game (whether that is the wild card or the divisional round) but in subsequent games it offers no adjustments..

Just noticed this too.

[yabanci]

Yeah, I've seen this as well. Very frustrating.

Maybe separate this out to a new thread?

it would be an interesting discussion. In my view the AI should reject those trade offers. I certainly would.

[DougW]

it would be an interesting discussion. In my view the AI should reject those trade offers. I certainly would.

Well, the 1st 2 - I would also. But scenario #3 - Personally I think the value of what could be received in a trade would probably be greater than having such a stud backup (given that the #3 could develope with some snaps). I also couldn't see such a talented (10th year - 80/82) veteran QB being content with the backup role. Those ratings could very easily be Peyton Manning - and no way would he settle for carrying the clipboard. This guy is content with wasting away during the end of his prime.

[yabanci]

Well, the 1st 2 - I would also. But scenario #3 - Personally I think the value of what could be received in a trade would probably be greater than having such a stud backup (given that the #3 could develope with some snaps). I also couldn't see such a talented (10th year - 80/82) veteran QB being content with the backup role. Those ratings could very easily be Peyton Manning - and no way would he settle for carrying the clipboard. This guy is content with wasting away during the end of his prime.

agree 100%

[Subby]

My starting RB (RB1) is slotted everywhere except for backup. His playing time is set to 95%. His endurance is 68/74.

After two games, he has 30 carries and his backup has 29. No injuries. No formation shenanigans. RB2 is only slotted in one place - backup RB.

RB2 got five carries in our previous game before RB1 got the ball.

This is MP (IHOF).

Any suggestions?

[gstelmack]

How many receptions does he have? How many passing plays is he in for?

[highfiveoh]

Is your backup named Chester Taylor? Is Brad Childress your coach?

[Subby]

How many receptions does he have? How many passing plays is he in for?
RB1: 36 run plays, 54 pass plays
RB2: 33 run plays, 19 pass plays

Team: 67 run plays, 70 pass plays (according to team stats)

[gstelmack]

So apparently they were both in on at least 2 of the running plays and 2 of the passing plays, so the backup has to be backing up someone else as well (someone is going in for a receiver in one of the formations, or he's replacing the FB, or something).

There has been suspicion that those 54 pass plays wear him out. He's in on 90 plays vs 52 for the backup, so he's clearly playing more. The problem is, of course, that they are splitting the run plays evenly, and 90 vs 52 still doesn't seem to match your playing time settings.

[Subby]

RB1 is the fifth receiver in 5WR sets but we haven't used that formation in the first two games.

I am going to set RB1 to 100% and see if that makes a difference.

Thanks for helping me noodle through it, Greg...

[highfiveoh]

Here's what happened with my backs my last game:

RB1 - 80% playing time - 25 endurance
RB2 - 3rd and short, passing down, near certain pass - 33 endurance

RB1 - 10 carries, ? pass plays
RB2 - 28 carries, 27 pass plays

Now with these guys' endurances I'm not really looking for someone to carry a heavy load. When the stats wind up like this though, I really have no idea how to control anything in regards to my running game. I'd be content with a 50/50 split, but I don't even know how to get that kind of result.

[cuervo72]

Passing down can really skew it, especially if you run a passing offense (this finally dawned on me a couple weeks ago with my IHOF backs). I could be off, but I'd take "passing down" to be anything where you'd be slight/regular/extreme passing situations, which is anything from 45% run on down. That can be quite often.

[Icy]

I'm seeing some odd results with the RB's playing time too (and i'm not sure, but i think i'm seeing it more after the last patch):

Example:

In the WOOF i have the top RB in the league, 86/86 monster Spencer Johnson, and a rookie backup Ricardo Armenta. Obviously i want my top RB to take most of the load.

RB1 (Spencer Johnson 86/86 ) endurance = 96
RB2 (Ricardo Armenta 33/56) endurance = 32

Playing time:
RB1 = 100%

RB1 is listed in the deep chart as starter, third and short, passing down, and near certain pass (in resume, starter at everyrhing and with a 100% playing time).

Game log:

1st offensive play of the game:

1-10-OCE29 (1Q: 13:29) Kelvin Linquist pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Randal Fulcher. DE Jim Gibson hurried the quarterback into a bad throw. The quarterback threw away from the double coverage.

Second offensive play of the game:

2-10-OCE29 (1Q: 13:19) Ricardo Armenta ran around right end for 1 yard. Tackled by S A.J. Cryer.

What is doing the backup RB carrying the ball in the second play of the game? Are you telling me that my starting RB, with 96 endurance, with 100% playing time, is totally tired after a pass play??

I see stuff like that happening a lot early in the games, the backup RB's running in one of the first 3 players of the game. I could understand it if the first play was a 50 yards run by RB1, so he would need a rest, but after just one pass play where the RB1 didn't receive the ball??

With a 96% endurance RB1, and playing time set to 100%, the RB2 should only see he field after a big effort or a long series of runs by RB1.

The game ended with the following stats:

<table style="width: 547px; height: 68px;" valign="TOP" border="0" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><th align="left">Toledo</th><th align="center">Att</th><th align="center">Yards</th><th align="center">Avg</th><th align="center">LG</th><th align="center">10+</th><th align="center">TD</th></tr><tr><td align="left" bgcolor="#f1dad8">Spencer Johnson</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">14</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">69</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">4.93</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">51</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">1</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" bgcolor="#f1dad8">Ricardo Armenta</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">5</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">15</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">3.00</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">6</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">0</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1dad8">0</td></tr></tbody></table>
The total stats are not that bad, i think the 96 endurance RB should get more than 75% of the carries, but can live with it. What is really odd is that the backup starts to play as soon in the game, when the starting RB can't be tired after just one play that was not a long run (not even a run).

[Icy]

Another sample, this time from the NAFL:

I have again 2 RBs:

RB1 ( Austin Fry 55/55 ) with endurance = 52
RB2 ( Tracy Farmer 33/38) with endurance = 32

Playing time:
RB1 = 100%

RB1 is listed in the deep chart as starter, third and short, passing down, and near certain pass (in resume, starter at everyrhing and with a 100% playing time). RB1 is told to not to play in ST.

Game log:

First play of a new offensive drive:

1-10-MIA34 (1Q: 11:03) Tracy Farmer ran outside the right tackle for 0 yards. Tackled by S Ron Williams.

Second play

2-10-MIA34 (1Q: 10:28) Austin Fry ran inside the right tackle for 0 yards. Tackled by DT Mickey Keith.

Again the backup RB is the one who runs in the first play, why?? is the RB1 tired just of being sat in the bench?

End of game stats, a perfect split of the carries, why?? my starting RB has only endurance=52 but... if i have his playing time to 100%, at least he should be always the RB in the first play of every drive. Also the backup RB has an endurance = 32 ... and he can run almost as much times as my starter with endurance = 52 ?

<table valign="TOP" border="0" cellspacing="2" height="68" width="481"><tbody><tr><th align="left">Miami</th><th align="center">Att</th><th align="center">Yards</th><th align="center">Avg</th><th align="center">LG</th><th align="center">10+</th><th align="center">TD</th></tr><tr><td align="left" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">Austin Fry</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">15</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">41</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">2.73</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">10</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">1</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">Tracy Farmer</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">13</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">23</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">1.77</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">9</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">0</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#f4f4fc">0</td></tr></tbody></table>

[johnnyshaka]

Icy, do you have your backup RB only listed as RB2 or do you have him at FB or FB2? Also, double check your formation screens to make sure you haven't subbed RB2 for RB1 in some instances.

Barring any issues with the situations mentioned above, I'd be with you in saying that there is something fishy going on.

[Icy]

Icy, do you have your backup RB only listed as RB2 or do you have him at FB or FB2? Also, double check your formation screens to make sure you haven't subbed RB2 for RB1 in some instances.

Barring any issues with the situations mentioned above, I'd be with you in saying that there is something fishy going on.

Checked, RB2 is not listed as FB or FB2 and the players in the formations are default. I have been suspecting something for some time, but seing that others seem to have the same issue, i decided to post samples.

[MizzouRah]

I would REALLY like to have a popup before moving past the stage where you can send a player to the summer league.

What can I say.. I forget to do this almost every other season. :)

[Subby]

I would REALLY like to have a popup before moving past the stage where you can send a player to the summer league.
http://www.thefofl.com/subby/rif.gif

[MizzouRah]

http://www.thefofl.com/subby/rif.gif

I'm fucking 0-2 today!

I guess I don't pay attention when moving on into FA.

How about the words "summer league" flashing hot pink or something then. :o

[Subby]

<blink>SUMMER LEAGUE</blink>

[MizzouRah]

<BLINK>SUMMER LEAGUE</BLINK>

Where's the flashing? :D