Tweaks I'd like to see in FoF

[Yoda]

I know there have been more than a few of these threads, but I just felt like sharing my own.

1. Different running for different backs. I'd like to be able to set up where the back runs for each back. Have one speed back and one power back. I don't want the speed back (usually) running smash plays between the guards.

2. Defensive Match up. In the NFL the defense is allowed to match up based on substitutions the offense makes. If the offense sends in a 3rd WR, then the defense gets a chance to counter (this occured to me as I was watching Atlanta this past season) and match up, sending in extra DB's or whatever. If the offense goes to a 3WR set, I want to be in Nickle coverage--- always (for example).

3. I'd like the ability to blitz other LB's (and not the WLB) or not at all in the 3-4 defense.

4. The ability to set a CB on a specific WR. I always want my best corner on who I think their best WR is. I don't care where he lines up.

5. The ability to run a 3-WR offense and not have those annoying familar messages. The Colts in the NFL run a 3WR offense.

That's it for now, there is more, but that's a start.

[zullojer]

My peeve is that I wish there was a 2 minute section added to the game plan adjustments. Both offense and defense. I hate leaving it up to the AI when the game is in the grasps.

[gstelmack]

#2 is already in there, at least for nickel / dime. Watch how many times your team is in one or the other.

#4 is also there, at least for top WR / top CB. Lower-left side of the defensive coverages.

[Autumn]

#3 You could just put another player in the WLB position while in Basic Defense, right?

[Yoda]

#2 is already in there, at least for nickel / dime. Watch how many times your team is in one or the other.


Against 4WR and 5WR packages, true. The game will put you in those packages. I hate when I come out in Nickle coverage and the offense comes out in a 2TE formation or their base formation. That's what I dislike and makes no sense.


#4 is also there, at least for top WR / top CB. Lower-left side of the defensive coverages.

That's based upon what the game decides is the top WR (this is done by their route running, iirc). What I want is something that says like:
Against the Rams Champ Bailey is always covering Tory Holt. And adjust the coverage accordingly.

[Yoda]

#3 You could just put another player in the WLB position while in Basic Defense, right?

And that player will blitz all the time, yes.

Usually there are 1 or 2 LB's (occasionally more) blitzing from the 3-4 scheme. Then again, there are times that none of them blitz. If I have 4 good blitzing LB's, then I would like to be able to choose which of the 4 blitz and which ones drop into coverage.

[Yoda]

Oh, and that each league have it's own city/team file.

[beargrowlz]

No more fracken fumbles returned for touchdowns.

[Subby]

More elegant handling of multiple multiplayer leagues would be number one for me right now. Having to use multiple batch files is a pain - as is having to close the game and re-open it with a different batch file to see a different league.

[Firefly]

No more fracken fumbles returned for touchdowns.

amen!

At least not against the defense.

[Firefly]

More elegant handling of multiple multiplayer leagues would be number one for me right now. Having to use multiple batch files is a pain - as is having to close the game and re-open it with a different batch file to see a different league.

Or not use Vista, which would be like killing 2 birds with one stone. Make that, a whole lot of birds...

[bmerryman]

2. Defensive Match up. In the NFL the defense is allowed to match up based on substitutions the offense makes. If the offense sends in a 3rd WR, then the defense gets a chance to counter (this occured to me as I was watching Atlanta this past season) and match up, sending in extra DB's or whatever. If the offense goes to a 3WR set, I want to be in Nickle coverage--- always (for example).


Except against no-huddle. Great QBs that can run no-huddle really have an advantage here throughout the game and it would be great to see that replicated in FOF.

[bmerryman]

5. The ability to run a 3-WR offense and not have those annoying familar messages. The Colts in the NFL run a 3WR offense.

Colts use the Detroit personnel (2 TEs) quite a bit.

[bmerryman]

I would like to see a real difference between 3-4 front personnel requirements versus 4-3 personnel. Richard Seymour's size and role is entirely different than Robert Mathis, yet they're both identified as DEs. This, of course, leads to a real difference in defensive schemes.

[stevew]

Ability to search for Left Tackles, or Right Tackles.

Guys having knowledge of both offensive and defensive Schemes. So you have a 3/4 will backer, and a 4/3 will backer. They aren't the same player IRL, but are in the game. Same with slot WR/West coast, etc. More defined type of QBs.

Another cool thing would be schemes that generate and gain, or lose popularity throughout your solo career. Coaching trees, etc. So, I might sim one universe and the Tampa 2 is the prevailing defense. Then another it might be the 3/4 zone blitz, etc.

Much more expanded staff interactions, and staff jobs. I don't want to necessarily hire 20 different coaches, but there should be at least the following: HC/OC/DC/Special teams coach/Qb coach/WR coach/Line coach/DLine coach/Linebackers coach/Secondary coach
You can just click a button to allow HC to hire position coaches if you want, something like that. I just want to be able to trace coaches, to learn about their job history. To have them build relationships with players, etc. Not saying that the secondary coach would have an affinity with every guy, but certain ones, sure.

Scrapping the crappy predictible chemistry stuff and starting over. I hate this aspect of the game.

[stevew]

Oh-

Much more realistic renegotiation logic, and free agent demand logic.

If you start with the game 2008 file, compare what some of the guys got in the real 2009 offseason with what they demand in game. It's roughly half or less.

[Raiders Army]

I'd like the Front Office part of the game overhauled. The finances don't matter. The hiring of coaches, coordinators, and scouts is too simplistic and rudimentary.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I think it's time for a new music video.

[wthomp]

Would anyone like to know who the bonehead was that kept an opponents drive alive with his unsportsmanlike conduct penalty or an offside call?

[Yoda]

Except against no-huddle. Great QBs that can run no-huddle really have an advantage here throughout the game and it would be great to see that replicated in FOF.

Actually, that's not true. I saw it several times last season when the Falcons were playing the Saints. The Ref's would hold up the play until the defense matched up. I believe it was because Atlanta was doing substitutions while running the no huddle, but not 100% sure on it.

What I am 100% sure on is that the defense was allowed to match up, for whatever the reason.

[DirkGildun]

In the NFL, there is a rule (instituted in the last year or 2) that allows the defense time to make substitutions if the offense does.

[Ben E Lou]

Would anyone like to know who the bonehead was that kept an opponents drive alive with his unsportsmanlike conduct penalty or an offside call?
Not necessarily. I'm only interested in seeing this if the individual player's attributes actually contribute to the penalty being called. Right now there's no evidence that is the case, and there's plenty to the contrary.

[Autumn]

I'd be interested. Less so because of Ben's point above. But for purposes of writing dynasties, for instance, it would be fun to have a name.

I definitely want more data on individuals involved in a play though. It's been said many times before, but I want to know who got burned on a pass play, for instance.

[Surtt]

I would like the game planning to add a medium (9 - 18) pass distance like it is in "Directional Passing Statistics".

[Tormaz]

Not sure if this was mentioned already or not but..

I would like to see players refuse to resign and say they want to test the Free Agent market before making a decision.

[perez24]

2 things.

1. The ability to have fullbacks function as more than glorified blockers with some pass catching ability. I know that that's how the position has evolved, but if I'm playing old leagues, I'd like for Mark van Eeghen for example, to be a 1000 yard rusher.

2. The ability to set a lineup for when I'm being blown out or blowing a team out. I can set the offensive skill position lineup, but I'd like to be able to tweak the defense and the O-line too.

[Shard77]

1. Tracking of penalties by player.
2. Tracking of pre-season stats - to help when making those final cut downs. If space on the player card would become a problem, I'd be fine with the data getting cleared once the regular season starts.
3. Institution of a restricted FA system that mimics the NFL.
4. Implementation of a practice squad that mimics the NFL. I believe it is 5 players and that teams can sign players off other team's squads, but then have to keep them on their roster for so many weeks.
5. Player progression/regression tied (At least partly) into player performance. Kind of frustrating to see my 4th year guard that has consistent RB%'s in the low 40's suddenly go from 65/65 to 28/28 for no apparent reason.

[perez24]

1. Tracking of penalties by player.
2. Tracking of pre-season stats - to help when making those final cut downs. If space on the player card would become a problem, I'd be fine with the data getting cleared once the regular season starts.
3. Institution of a restricted FA system that mimics the NFL.
4. Implementation of a practice squad that mimics the NFL. I believe it is 5 players and that teams can sign players off other team's squads, but then have to keep them on their roster for so many weeks.
5. Player progression/regression tied (At least partly) into player performance. Kind of frustrating to see my 4th year guard that has consistent RB%'s in the low 40's suddenly go from 65/65 to 28/28 for no apparent reason.

The preseason stats and penalty tracking would be cool. I remember a post explaining about why there's no practice squad, but I don't remember what it said.

[headtrauma]

1. Ability to manually adjust the salary cap
2. Ability to re-align teams across divisions
3. Beer tent

[natcret]

I am very new to the FOF scene (3 months) and I am having great time with the MP league that I am a part of (AUFL/BnG). Even though I may not be as seasoned as all of you and am still learing a lot about the sim, there are about 5 items, from a noob perspective, that I think would be in line with what has been posted so far:

1. A user guide that really explains some of the key elements that new players should consider. I know most new guys who have a commitment to the game spend time scouring the boards to glean bits of information to help them comprehend some of the mechanics of the game. However, it may also turn a person off from playing if time is spent going through tons of threads to figure out basic game items. I am not suggesting that any spoliers or key secrets be given away. I just think that there can be some additions (for example a walkthru of a SP season and a MP season) so that new GM's understand key items that have to be done throughout a course of a season in a timeline format, so to speak.

2. I would also like to know who on my team is causing penalties. If I see an illegal motion call, it would be nice to know if the call came because of my O-Line, Receivers, or Backfield. Knowing that, I can pretty much figure out if I have a player that is penalty prone, or if it happened after a player substution or injury. If I can look at the log and determine that may #2 LG is causing problems, then I can determine if it is a rust issue, intelligence issue, or any other factor I feel may have contributed to the penalty.

3. Please tweak the attendance. It is disheartning to see a really great match up on the board and only have 1800, or somtimes 0 attendance.

4. The ability to define additional defensive schemes in terms of percentages. I have seen this mentioned in other threads, however, maybe there could be a way to assign a percentage of sorts to where I can shift to a 5-2 or 4-6 or even a 3-3-5 in a particular situation.

5. The ability to parse logs to make game planning analysis a little better. I am not suggesting anything that could be exploited. I just feel that there should be an easier means in which to analyze an opponent's tendencies, and then roll the dice in terms of what you decide to do.

Regards,

Nat

[Ben E Lou]

2. I would also like to know who on my team is causing penalties. If I see an illegal motion call, it would be nice to know if the call came because of my O-Line, Receivers, or Backfield. Knowing that, I can pretty much figure out if I have a player that is penalty prone, or if it happened after a player substution or injury. If I can look at the log and determine that may #2 LG is causing problems, then I can determine if it is a rust issue, intelligence issue, or any other factor I feel may have contributed to the penalty. I'm not picking on you, because you're definitely not the first person who isn't getting it, but it's amazing to see how people as a whole are overlooking the key element here:

Players in FOF do not cause penalties.

The dice are rolled against your coach's discipline rating and how long he has been on the team, and I don't think anything else. It's pretty obvious that it's just a dice roll and a penalty is picked from a list. Heck, it used to be fairly common that you'd get intentional grounding on a running play, even, because it was left on the list of possible penalties.

It makes zero sense to ask for "who caused the penalty," when the individual players aren't a part of the calculation to begin with. *shurg*

[natcret]

I'm not picking on you, because you're definitely not the first person who isn't getting it, but it's amazing to see how people as a whole are overlooking the key element here:

Players in FOF do not cause penalties.

The dice are rolled against your coach's discipline rating and how long he has been on the team, and I don't think anything else. It's pretty obvious that it's just a dice roll and a penalty is picked from a list.

Thanks Ben...learned something new. I see in the logs sometimes that there might be a heavy blitz and that there is a illegal motion call. I just assumed that maybe in the "rolls" that there may be a factor to where a players intelligence in terms of picking up a heavy blitz may play a factor in the call.

Nat

[TheMeat]

I'd like the Front Office part of the game overhauled. The finances don't matter. The hiring of coaches, coordinators, and scouts is too simplistic and rudimentary.

I second that emotion. I would love for coaching to play way more of a role in a text sim. In the NFL I truly believe that having a successful team has way more to do with having a good "system" than having more talented players. The Phins and Falcons were prime examples of this and there are plenty of examples of talented teams underperforming because their management is pulling in different directions.

I would love to see coaches have certain schemes and offensive/defensive systems that they know, like the current system of QBs and formations. The user should be playing the role of GM and if he wants to institute a spread-style offense then you need to hire coaches that know that system. Maybe you signed away some team's OC to be your coach because he's very good at spread offense so you sign his old QB coach from that team to be your OC because they both know the system and have a good cohesion together.

The cohesion of a team should be based off of the management and coaching and whether they are all on the same page, if they agree on which players they want and what kind of strategy they want to run.

I would actually love a game where it was all about finances and implementing a coaching system and very little to do with the particular players. The challenge being more to keeping your staff together and plugging in adept players through draft and free agency but say if you lose some coordinators and replace them with young coaches that don't know your schemes and don't get along with other staff then it starts to tear your team apart. Look at the real Niners, the Lions, the Phins before last year.... Poor Alex Smith has had like 12 offensive coordinators in the last 4 years, no QB could succeed in that environment. I think Singletary is about to change that for the Niners. The Chiefs are also diong a fantastic job of restructuring for success, Cassel is not a miracle worker, neither was Brady but they are smart and capable QBs that were given a chance to develop and learn to win in a cohesive system.

I know this game wouldn't be heading in that direction but if I found a game that had a good challenge in the financial and staffing area of football strategy I would play it for sure. It's one thing I miss about hattrick (which became monotonous but...), it was a very nice financial simulator much more than it was a soccer strategy sim.

[jdavidbakr]

Thanks Ben...learned something new. I see in the logs sometimes that there might be a heavy blitz and that there is a illegal motion call. I just assumed that maybe in the "rolls" that there may be a factor to where a players intelligence in terms of picking up a heavy blitz may play a factor in the call.

Nat

He might be choosing from a more appropriate list, but I agree Nat, it would be better if the penalties were generated by the players' tendencies. I would think that it would be simple to, say, calculate if a lineman is beat (which I'm sure actually is what is done on each play) and then have a propensity for that lineman to hold when he gets beat - rather than just a dice roll against a coach's discipline (although that should be part of the equation). It's just one of those counter-intuitive logic flows.

I think that goes back to Nat's #1 - Jim doesn't want to reveal the inner workings because he wants it to be intuitive. But there are compromises like the penalties issue that clearly are not what you would expect it to be. Same with defensive gameplanning. I'm not complaining that these issues exist - they always will, until they actually get little men inside the CPU to play the game - but the fact that some things work as you'd expect and others don't gives it a sense of voodoo and causes you to second-guess what you think should work. That's why we all love it so much when Jim gives a Q&A - but it would be nice, as Nat says, to have a comprehensive and yet simple document describing the basic logic behind the game engine in a way that helps us understand how it works without making it too easy to exploit.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I'm not picking on you, because you're definitely not the first person who isn't getting it, but it's amazing to see how people as a whole are overlooking the key element here:

Players in FOF do not cause penalties.

The dice are rolled against your coach's discipline rating and how long he has been on the team, and I don't think anything else. It's pretty obvious that it's just a dice roll and a penalty is picked from a list. Heck, it used to be fairly common that you'd get intentional grounding on a running play, even, because it was left on the list of possible penalties.

It makes zero sense to ask for "who caused the penalty," when the individual players aren't a part of the calculation to begin with. *shurg*

I think this is what people want changed. A more detailed engine that tracks real time movement and actions of the players.

[Shard77]

The dice are rolled against your coach's discipline rating and how long he has been on the team, and I don't think anything else. It's pretty obvious that it's just a dice roll and a penalty is picked from a list. Heck, it used to be fairly common that you'd get intentional grounding on a running play, even, because it was left on the list of possible penalties.

It makes zero sense to ask for "who caused the penalty," when the individual players aren't a part of the calculation to begin with. *shurg*


My bad....I didn't know this either.

[Icy]

I'm not picking on you, because you're definitely not the first person who isn't getting it, but it's amazing to see how people as a whole are overlooking the key element here:

Players in FOF do not cause penalties.

The dice are rolled against your coach's discipline rating and how long he has been on the team, and I don't think anything else. It's pretty obvious that it's just a dice roll and a penalty is picked from a list. Heck, it used to be fairly common that you'd get intentional grounding on a running play, even, because it was left on the list of possible penalties.

It makes zero sense to ask for "who caused the penalty," when the individual players aren't a part of the calculation to begin with. *shurg*

I think this is what people want changed. A more detailed engine that tracks real time movement and actions of the players.


Exactly and that is one of the main reasons of why i have stopped to play FOF. At first i was amazed at the great and NFL like stats it generates, so i happily believed that the match engine was realistic.

Then as more and more stuff was revealed by Skydog and other great stats analyzers, i started to realize that the game engine was not realistic at all if you look at the players or in game situations.

After that, i understood why a lot of the FOF fans play it only from a GM perspective, looking at the macro level, where the generated stats are fine, and not at the micro level where a lot of the engine limitations are shown, like the RB endurance, penalties depending from the coaches and not players etc that are not realistically simulated but follow statistical formulas to result on NFL like stats when you look at the whole league, again at macro level.

I was really spoiled and lost the interest on watching solevision as i did in the past, trying to know what failed in a given play etc as now i have totally lost the faith on the game micro engine. I have the feeling that no matter what i do as GM, the game engine will adjust the simulation to not to deviate from the stats it "must" generate.

I might be wrong but my feeling is that a good team with good players and a well thought gameplan will have more chances to have a season over .500 than a bad one, but each individual play in each individual game is just randomly generated and statistically adjusted to generate a realistic box score, but you better don't look at each play individually.

I guess that is why Jim has never liked to talk about the game engine, as it would spoil it for a lot of us that thought it was way more realistic than what it really is.

With the limited financial gameplay options, the simplistic coaches signing process, the astrological based chemistry, the RB endurance system, the penalties not depending from players, etc, i started to look at FOF not like a football GM simulation, but as a realistic stats generator where your own management skills besides managing contracts and drafting is meaningless for the final results. So i lost the interest on playing it, the same way i have zero interest on season replay games.

The macro GM part is not complex enough and the micro one is not as realistic as i would like. If the financial part is redone and expanded a lot, i could ignore the micro part and just play GM like. Hope is the direction it will go.

As disclaimer i want to say that a lot of what i have written above is just based on my feelings when playing FOF and probably exagerated by my frustrated own point of view, not that it really works as i said, but i just can't enjoy i based on those feelings i have.

[Shard77]

Exactly and that is one of the main reasons of why i have stopped to play FOF. At first i was amazed at the great and NFL like stats it generates, so i happily believed that the match engine was realistic.

Then as more and more stuff was revealed by Skydog and other great stats analyzers, i started to realize that the game engine was not realistic at all if you look at the players or in game situations.

After that, i understood why a lot of the FOF fans play it only from a GM perspective, looking at the macro level, where the generated stats are fine, and not at the micro level where a lot of the engine limitations are shown, like the RB endurance, penalties depending from the coaches and not players etc that are not realistically simulated but follow statistical formulas to result on NFL like stats when you look at the whole league, again at macro level.

I was really spoiled and lost the interest on watching solevision as i did in the past, trying to know what failed in a given play etc as now i have totally lost the faith on the game micro engine. I have the feeling that no matter what i do as GM, the game engine will adjust the simulation to not to deviate from the stats it "must" generate.

I might be wrong but my feeling is that a good team with good players and a well thought gameplan will have more chances to have a season over .500 than a bad one, but each individual play in each individual game is just randomly generated and statistically adjusted to generate a realistic box score, but you better don't look at each play individually.

I guess that is why Jim has never liked to talk about the game engine, as it would spoil it for a lot of us that thought it was way more realistic than what it really is.

With the limited financial gameplay options, the simplistic coaches signing process, the astrological based chemistry, the RB endurance system, the penalties not depending from players, etc, i started to look at FOF not like a football GM simulation, but as a realistic stats generator where your own management skills besides managing contracts and drafting is meaningless for the final results....



+1

Wow...while I haven't gotten to the point where I'm ready to quit the game, you've managed to pretty much sum up my frustration with the game over the past couple of years.

[MIJB#19]

3. Beer tentThat is already in the game.
Or at least was, it was probably patched away.

[Solecismic]

I guess that is why Jim has never liked to talk about the game engine, as it would spoil it for a lot of us that thought it was way more realistic than what it really is.


Since you are a key employee working on a competitor to FOF, I would appreciate it if you had accusations about my own motivations and actions, you emailed them to me privately rather than presenting them in public. We do not need another .400 mess.

[Icy]

Since you are a key employee working on a competitor to FOF, I would appreciate it if you had accusations about my own motivations and actions, you emailed them to me privately rather than presenting them in public. We do not need another .400 mess.

Fair point, I was talking as the FOF fan i am, not the WS employee but i underestand it could not be seen that way. Btw, i'm not working on any FOF competitor, the WS football game started before i joined them and i have nothing to do with that, i only work as designer for baseball, basketball and music wars games as i have stated in the past. Of course i'm still in a competitor company if you want to call it that way,and underestand your concerns and how bad my comment could sound.

This is the worst part of being both a text sim fan and employee, that i can't express my opinion without it being seen as an attack. I guess i'll better learn to shut up from now both my praises and critics to other text sims.

Remember the graphic mods i did for FOF and all the other games that are still available in my website and linked from different text developers forums forum, as despite being an WS employee, i'm still a text sims fan and try to help the small text sims community as much as i can, but again i must say i'm sorry if it sounded like a personal attack from a competitor, lesson learned.

[Solecismic]

Understood. I think when we're in this business, we tend to see competitors' games as reflections of the person, rather than simply pieces of work.

We face unique challenges in engine design. Especially in a complex game like football. When we allow, as designers, hundreds of game-planning variables to impact on-field play, it's inevitable that the system can be gamed.

In one day, Ben can create a spreadsheet containing the detailed play-by-play results of a hundred FOF seasons - that's far more plays than ever run in the NFL. All of it against a static target.

The complaints are certainly valid. NFL defenses would react differently to the game plans Ben (and others) have been able to create based on this work. But there is nothing in FOF that addresses this, other than a better shift to a better defense for a particular play once the defensive coordinator has seen that choice in that situation an unusual amount of times in that one game (some coordinators are better than others).

The engine itself is blind to this shift. Nothing in the engine produces different play results based on past play results (nor is there "catch-up" code or "stat normalization" code).

When you can pound that code for hundreds of seasons, you can game the system rather than play the game. I think that's the frustration people feel. Those who don't do as much work as Ben does are at a disadvantage. In multi-player leagues, that can wear you out.

I think a lot about the challenge that analysis presents. I've spent a lot of time talking with Ben personally (I consider him a good friend) about how to create a game that adapts to this kind of analysis and gives game-planners a more realistic experience. I think I have some good ideas for the future, but I can't say for certain how that will manifest.

[bmerryman]

Actually, that's not true. I saw it several times last season when the Falcons were playing the Saints. The Ref's would hold up the play until the defense matched up. I believe it was because Atlanta was doing substitutions while running the no huddle, but not 100% sure on it.

What I am 100% sure on is that the defense was allowed to match up, for whatever the reason.

I see what you mean. Yes. If the offense substitutes then the defense is basically allowed to sub, with the exception being within the last two-minutes of either half.

[bmerryman]

I too, vote for beer tents.

[Yoda]

I hope that Jim doesn't take my post as an attack on FoF. Quite the opposite. I love FoF. Otherwise wouldn't be in as many leagues as I am. I just want the game to be as good as it can be.

I've been pretty successful in my 3 years of playing FoF, and I just found out something new just yesterday, and I was like... damn, really?

I don't do the indepth studying that others do.

I just wanted to say a couple of things that would make the game more fun for me.

[Yoda]

I too, vote for beer tents.

I want twins

YouTube - Coors Light (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVqoYvlEZis)

[NYG]

1. I'd like to see all the playcalling/coverage windows combined into groups with tabs across the top of the window (similar to the line-up tabs across the bottom of the roster window). So their would be just one button to click to view coverages, & then several tabs to view each individual coverage (i dont have the game infront of me so Im forgetting the examples).

2. The above suggestion would free up more desktop space (as well as making it easier to use/find certain options) and this space could then have the schedule appear permenantly, like your own division does. Also all division tables could be shown (basically, i hate having to CONSTANTLY go in & out of all these seperate windows! :banghead:- the user interface needs to be more user friendly.

3. Id also love to see graphics of where your team succeeded through a game. Like for the passing game, showing you that between 0-10yards you passed 8 to he left (completed 6), passed 4 in the middle (completed 0), etc etc. Like John Madden may show you after half time.
Sometimes you get a little bored of reading the boxes & logs after a game and a visual graphic may help to visualise where you had success etc.:)

[chinaski]

One minor adjustment id like to see: Tone down how quickly a players attitude can go from content to disgruntled. Right now, you stand a good chance of upsetting a player just by sitting him out one week. Happened recently for me, we had a first round bye locked up in the playoffs, so I sat most starters in week 17, which resulted in 4 starters going disgruntled. We lost and the only possible way this could have happened is due to player attitude *smirk* ;)

[Jughead Spock]

Hoping that the NFL passes the bylaw in time for the next iteration of FOF - draft order will be determined by order of playoff exit rather than overall record (for the 10 non-bowl teams).

[Chubby]

I'd like to build my offense around my QB and 1 WR.

[natcret]

Players in FOF do not cause penalties.

The dice are rolled against your coach's discipline rating and how long he has been on the team, and I don't think anything else. It's pretty obvious that it's just a dice roll and a penalty is picked from a list.


I just had a game that was played and here is what the "Dice Rolls" came up with in just one series....

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 width="98%" bgColor=#ffcc00 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffffff>Chicago: Single-Back formation with trips receivers, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 with nickel personnel and 2-deep man-to-man coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
2-12-CIN48 (1Q: 04:46) PENALTY: Chicago was called for a False Start.
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffffff>Chicago: Single-Back formation with trips receivers, strength is left. The defense is in a 34 with nickel personnel and weak-side man, otherwise cover-7 zone coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
2-17-CHI47 (1Q: 04:35) PENALTY: Chicago was called for a False Start.
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffffff>Chicago: Single-Back formation with trips receivers, strength is left. The defense is in a 34 with dime personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
2-22-CHI42 (1Q: 04:31) PENALTY: Chicago was called for a False Start.
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffffff>Chicago: Single-Back formation, strength is right. The defense is in a 34 with nickel personnel and 3-deep zone coverage, expecting the pass.
2-27-CHI37 (1Q: 04:27) Marco Alexander pass completed to TE Joe Senser for -2 yards. Tackled by S Leonard Smith. PENALTY: Chicago was called for an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. The penalty was declined.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That is four penalties in 19 game seconds. I looked at my coach's ratings for discipline and my HC is Good and OC is Average. The coaches have 3 years experience with the team.

Again, I am very new to the sim and the FOF community and I have learned much. I know that many of you have been playing FOF for a long time and have uncovered many nuances with the game.

However, I just can't believe that it is just the dice rolls and coach's discipline ratings that would impact the penalties this way. There has to be something else that triggers a modifier or a query that checks against a list of variables that ultimately triggers a penalty. Even though the penalty may be picked from a list, something has to be there that triggers the specific penalty.

For this game, I had a total of five false start penalties, in which four had the defense keying aggressively against the pass. I don't know if there is any kind of test that has been before regarding discipline ratings and experience. I will continue to scour the boards to see what other items have been discussed regarding penalties.

Thanks for listening.

Nat

[Ben E Lou]

It's hard to say what has happened there. It's possible that there's a modifier for the playcall, but I haven't seen anyone postulate that up to now, so I tend to lean toward "bad dice rolls" as the explanation for it there. I guess I should clarify, though. It's possible that other things play into it; all I'm saying, though, is that there's no evidence whatsoever that anything about the individual players is a part of that calc.

I'm reacting to this partly out of an old conversation regarding OOTP where Markus made it clear as a bell that there was zero difference between one player and another as to how they performed in certain situations (don't remember which one for sure, but I think it was two-out hitting.) And what struck me as just completely senseless was that people still wanted a two-out hitting stat, and indicated that they needed it to help evaluate players. I was sensing some of the same stuff from this thread. I want stats that help me better evaluate the talent of my players, not ones that are meaningless, or that actually may cloud the issue for some people.

[bighouserulez]

Nat how were your penalties during the game total? mabee the stats were trying to make up for the "quota" stat of penalties needed with bad dice rolls.

[stevew]

I dunno if this was a hurry up situation, but that would probably dramatically increase false starts. Doesn't look like the type of situation, with it being in the first quarter.

[natcret]

Nat how were your penalties during the game total? mabee the stats were trying to make up for the "quota" stat of penalties needed with bad dice rolls.

Ten penalties total: 5 false starts and 2 Inelig Receivers...all in first half. Second half, no offensive penalties, 3 defensive.

[natcret]

I want stats that help me better evaluate the talent of my players, not ones that are meaningless, or that actually may cloud the issue for some people.

I understand and agree, and thank you for the reply. I had assumed that penalties could be an indicator of a player's weakness, as well as an indication of what area to look for in the draft...if in fact there was any type of correlation to a particular player's stats, which has been explained that it is not the case.

When I think back to real NFL games, there are times when some players just have bad days and get called for everything...maybe I hit one of those days with the rolls.

I did go and look at the NFL cumulative penalty statistics for 2006, 2007, and 2008 for the same week I am currently in. The NFL average during week 15 for those three years was 83, 81, and 80 penalties respectively. Right now I am at 84 called for week 15, so the penalty mechanics within the sim appear to be keeping pace with real life.

Regards,

Nat

[stevew]

Some functional adds

Ability to tag players in the draft class with a color coded round guide. Right click and i can denote if I think player X is a third round grade. Etc

Ability to click on a player and have a text field open so I can enter notes about him. Ratings or possibly a a few memorable moments

Ability to create a watch list of players across the league this way they are easy to pull up. I tend to lose track of guys I let go to FA. This would be a quick way to get an update.

Players receiving a tag indicating something like ” special teams ace ” or sure handed receiver. Stuff like that.

[Jughead Spock]

Hoping that the NFL passes the bylaw in time for the next iteration of FOF - draft order will be determined by order of playoff exit rather than overall record (for the 10 non-bowl teams).


Bump as this is now official. Definitely a good idea for FOF too.

[stevew]

It used to work like that in 2k4, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to recode that way.

Way back when I was the proud owner of a 7-9 division winner, and got the 23rd pick or something.

[pompey]

I'd like the formations my starting QB knows to be highlighted in the formations screens.

Also in global options i'd like "coach resets gameplan prior to each game" to be able to be applied to only offense, only defense or both.

[Epi_862]

I'd like the formations my starting QB knows to be highlighted in the formations screens.

I'd like the whole system (QB knows certain formations) to be thrown out completely, since i have yet to figure out how it correlates real too football. I might be wrong, so enlighten me if thats the case.

[Julio Riddols]

The QB formations thing is there to seperate the rookies from the vets.. Some rookies come in with just 6 or 7 formations in their repertoire, which makes playcalling that much easier to diagnose if youre on the other defense. This leads to a lot of "defense looked familiar with that play".

This is a major thing to look for in a QB, especially if you like running certain types of offense, as QBs who do not know certain formations will not be able to use them in a game.

[Jughead Spock]

I'd like to see something like rust or even maybe a ratings hit when players are traded. Think it'd add more to the realism and tone down the overpaying trades if the new player was going to have 'significant' or 'quite a bit' of rust for a few weeks (or longer). Different hits at different positions.

F'rinstance, it's not the most believable thing to have a highly-rated QB come in and be 100% the first day. Rust 'em up for a month. Running backs, maybe a week, etc. etc.

Or, instead of rust, have it give similar feedback as a position change. 'This player would be a great addition, would retain 97% of his ratings and suffer a slight experience hit'. I think a random 'bust' probability would be good here too.

Also could correlate with what stevew (I think) was saying. If the coach/staff are similar, not so much of a hit. If it's an entirely different emphasis, little more substantial.

[stevew]

I'd like to see something like rust or even maybe a ratings hit when players are traded. Think it'd add more to the realism and tone down the overpaying trades if the new player was going to have 'significant' or 'quite a bit' of rust for a few weeks (or longer). Different hits at different positions.

F'rinstance, it's not the most believable thing to have a highly-rated QB come in and be 100% the first day. Rust 'em up for a month. Running backs, maybe a week, etc. etc.

Or, instead of rust, have it give similar feedback as a position change. 'This player would be a great addition, would retain 97% of his ratings and suffer a slight experience hit'. I think a random 'bust' probability would be good here too.

Also could correlate with what stevew (I think) was saying. If the coach/staff are similar, not so much of a hit. If it's an entirely different emphasis, little more substantial.

Yeah, exactly. If your team's OC was part of a coaching tree that ran a similar system to what the QB was accustomed to, it should be a fairly easy transistion. If you bring in a stud rated play action type qb to a west coast offense, very good chance he's going to be ineffective, or at least have a longish learning curve.

Take a case like Roy Williams this year. Definitely shows the type of rust and inability to immediately adapt to a new system. Talented player, but didn't do crap.

[redfox000]

I'd like the whole system (QB knows certain formations) to be thrown out completely, since i have yet to figure out how it correlates real too football. I might be wrong, so enlighten me if thats the case.

I think it is trying to take into account how long a QB takes to learn an offense? If you trade for a QB or draft a QB, it will take him a little while to learn your offense IRL. In this game, you could trade for a QB in mid-season and he wouldn't miss a beat. Try that IRL. Wouldn't work.

[Hammer]

Cohesion should be far more important than it is right now.