What needs to change in FOF MP???

[Dutch]

Since it's possible that a new version of FOF MP might come out in the next year or two...and it's possible that we are still in a point where we can affect change. What improvements should Jim be focusing on that will help FOF blossom with a new release?

[Dutch]

My biggest concern is the amount of time it takes to get through a season. Most leagues take 3 to 4 months for one season. When a new owner takes over, it could take up to a year to get their own signature on a team, where, imo, FOF MP makes it's money. Once you get your team, you start wanting more. My personal opinion is that the sweet spot is a one-month regular season and a one-month off-season.

[bulletsponge]

3-4 months? most leagues in in a season takes 2 months, some even faster

[cuervo72]

FOFL simmed 2042 Week 4 on 03/04/13, 2043 Week 4 on 05/17/13, so just about 2.5 months. It could be faster with more sims per week or condensing more stages (coach hiring) or eliminating other off days (days following the bowl, holidays) or simming on Saturdays. Thing is, as the simmer - I don't really feel like simming any more often than I do.

[Dutch]

I've always assumed that FOFL was faster than most. I think 4 sims per week is the most manageable expectation for this game.

That gets 1 month for regular season.
1 week for playoffs.
3-4 weeks for the off-season. This is probably where the most money is made in slimming things down a bit.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not seeing where the sim speed is something that Jim should be focusing on. The BFL and CCFL get through the entire season (offseason and regular season) in exactly 6 weeks. The GML takes 7 weeks. The FOFL and IHOF take roughly 2 1/2 months. IHOF. The IFL takes roughly 4 months. Jim could save some leagues a couple of days here or there by consolidating staff hiring or folding ticket prices into Free Agency or other things like that, but ultimately, two factors completely outside of Jim's control are *much* more important in this regard:

1. How often is the simmer willing to sim?
2. Are there enough people that find the answer to #1 reasonable enough to form a league?

[Dutch]

Well shit, my bad, I thought most leagues were still churning out a season every 3-4 months. Nothing to see here.

[Jughead Spock]

Roster moves via web/app would be nice.

[MRL17]

Roster moves via web/app would be nice.

This.

Actually, for MP at least, the ideal would be the ability to do everything in a web browser. I'm sure this is unrealistic, but I feel like it's the direction that MP wants to move.

[Ben E Lou]

Well shit, my bad, I thought most leagues were still churning out a season every 3-4 months. Nothing to see here.Even if they were, I'm still missing how this would be an issue for Jim to address. Leagues are running basically the same number of sims (upper 30s to mid 40s) and varying in length by a factor of three or more (6 weeks vs. 18+ weeks). Jim trimming down the number of sims required isn't going to change the time much at all.

[Abe Sargent]

Contract stuff is wobbly. Last year, i offered a K a contract after both free agencies, and he turned it down, and then he was auto-signed to my team for half that money at vet min. This year, i offered a back-up quality emergency starter RB about 1 mill to sign for a year, he turns it down, but then signs vet min sal for another team and sits behind two players with more quality (plus he has high play for winner and I was just in the Super Bowl). These sorts of wonky things aren't very realistic, especially when they happen in the same sim. I'd hate to intentionally go into this with a light roster just so I can get players at vet min salary that I couldn;t have signed elsewhere.

[Julio Riddols]

I'd like the option to be available to have a GM-only league with coaches (who each come with their own unique game plans) able to be re-signed or fired in mid-season, with coordinators and position coaches able to be poached in the off season (if they are being offered a promotion). and I would like to see those coaches come with their own player preferences and styles. I want more to go into picking a coach (and subsequently players) than just trying to find big bars. I'd also like to see coaches for each position group. I'd like player ratings to be seen through the combined eyes of the head coach, position coach and scout, and vary wildly in some cases from one team to another. It would be fine if certain offenses/defenses are able to achieve more potential success, but harder to find players for and vice versa.

With rookies, I would like to see them start with a wide range of potential ratings at each attribute which gets narrower as time goes by, never becoming completely clear, but maybe down to a 10 point range or so, and those ratings to be tied to the ability of the position coach and head coach to develop them as well as the players work ethic. I'd also really like to see more types of red flags for players, as well as some who come into the draft injured. Players could be flagged for "takes plays off" or "locker room cancer" or "diva" or "injury prone" etc. These red flags should have some unseen negative effect appropriate to the type of red flag. I would also like to see green flags, like "gym rat", "high motor", "student of the game", and "natural leader" - I would like both the red and the green flags subject to the possibility of being changed for the positive or negative and for players to have multiple flags, both red and green. I think some of these should be revealed at the releasing of the draft class, but the rest should only be determined by interviewing the players, and not all coaches and scouts will see a flag where others will when possible. (For instance, "high motor" would be a trait that all scouts see, while stuff like natural leader or student of the game traits will be more widely varied based on the impression your scout and coaches get if you interview the guy.)

Basically, I want it to be harder for us to know what we have specifically, player development to be tied more to coaches, etc. A rookie should start with wide ranging ratings in most teachable things, with a range of something like 50 points above their initial "floor" ratings. Stuff like speed and strength can be pretty well defined, but stuff like zone coverage skill, hole recognition, etc should be revealed mostly by playing time, and coaches should also be able to narrow down what they have in their backups at maybe half the rate without any playing time required. Then, you narrow the player ratings over time. Some positions would take longer than others to narrow their ranges, like QB and WR would take the longest while RB would take less time. Not only will you not know your players true ranges, but those ranges can also be based on the system you are running.

I'd also like to see the prominent head coaches of the league turn down jobs if they don't like the personnel they will be inheriting, etc. Same for players as FAs. I'd like to see their preferences and style weigh more heavily on their choices. Reggie Bush didn't sign in Cinci because he was only offered the 3rd down back job. The same thing should happen in FOF. Players that are good players should not just sign with the highest bidder unless that high bidder is also planning on using them how they want to be used. In that same vein, I'd like to see something like "planned use" offerable in contracts, where you can tell a potential signee how you intend to use him and whether or not you follow through on that will help or hurt you in the future with other FA's.

And a few final wants: Full size preseason rosters with cutdown days, Practice squads with eligibility requirements like in real life, and the addition of the waiver wire.

Sorry for the wall of text, I am almost always full of ideas and wish I had the know how to design and implement them myself.

[BallHawk21]

I'd like to see an option where free agent offers could be prioritized and withdrawn all in the same stage. Example: If WR x accepts my offer then our offer to WR y is either withdrawn or reduced to a vet minimum offer during the current stage of free agency.

[Julio Riddols]

I like BallHawk's idea as well. Something as simple as free agent prioritization would be a great start. Adding on to that, it would be cool to be able to search players by current top bid in the player search during free agency. Either that or make the bids secret and just show which teams are interested in a guy.

[PackerFanatic]

Either that or make the bids secret and just show which teams are interested in a guy.

That makes the most sense to me.

[NawlinsFan]

Julio has hit on something I would like to see, much more involvement, influence and results based upon the capabilities of your staff.

There's another aspect of the game that I think should have some additional influence but I don't know what to do to change it - maybe one of the FoF legends here can expand on it....... the financials. I think they can be an important aspect of the game yet in most leagues you see teams bleeding to death losing money at an outrageous rate without seeing much of an impact.

How about the ability to "see" the potential draft pool showing their college results prior to the combine in early FA, a chance to select players of interest to "observe" during the combine much like interviews during the draft, followed by the pre-draft interviews and draft itself.

[Gallifrey]

I like Julio's comments on coaches and relation to player styles.

This is the one huge element to me that would make a difference. And I would like to be able to make a change mid season.

[Dutch]

Thoughts for making the off-season shorter.

Eliminate Staff Hiring (3 days) and allow owners to bid on coaches/staff throughout the off-season.

Eliminate Ticket/Franchise Tag (1 day) and allow owners to set tickets and set franchise tags before a certain stage is run.

Eliminate the Reneg FA stage (1 day)

Reduce FA to 6 stages (6 days)

Run Draft beginning in stage FA1:4

Reduce FA2 to two stages and add some interest to them. (3days)

FA2:1 would allow owners to bid on a finite number of UDFA (10 or so) that would choose which team it would go to based on the players characteristics (hometown, college, play4win, etc., dice rolls) and would simply receive a 1-yr min wage contract. You then have to decide whether to go after that guy further away that's better or just sign the local kid.

FA2:2 would allow owners one last shot to sign whomever else they want "for real", and as incentive, offer them a multi-year contract. (one-year FA deals would then be reserved for the pre-season/regular season stages)

Pre-Season would probably still have to be 4 days (get rid of that annoying 5th day that nobody cares about).

That's 15 stages (run every other day?) that could be eliminated in game and make the off-season shorter.

[DukeRulesMAB]

I'd like to see a mechanism for handling mid-week transactions that doesn't involve your entire depth chart getting auto-shuffled. This, of course, is for leagues without a "midweek" import; it often makes handling mid-season injuries a huge pain in the ass to accomplish while keeping your depth chart otherwise in place.

[Pyser]

if i had my way, game planning would be a thing of the past.

to me it's a GM game. it's pretty much in the title, too. as others have said, hiring your coaching staff should be much more important in just about every way. your coaching staff should really handle all your game planning, and determine the type of schemes you run. it's the GM's job to get players to fit the schemes.

[strickzilla]

I'd like to see an option where free agent offers could be prioritized and withdrawn all in the same stage. Example: If WR x accepts my offer then our offer to WR y is either withdrawn or reduced to a vet minimum offer during the current stage of free agency.


seconded

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

if i had my way, game planning would be a thing of the past.

to me it's a GM game. it's pretty much in the title, too. as others have said, hiring your coaching staff should be much more important in just about every way. your coaching staff should really handle all your game planning, and determine the type of schemes you run. it's the GM's job to get players to fit the schemes.
+1. i have to thank you and Ben for setting up the GML as it's more or less how i've always wanted to play. i want my sim to simulate professional football. game planning always felt like game breaking to me. or at least taking it outside realm of believability. i understand the total control people and there's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way but it's never interested me.

[QuikSand]

Taking game planning completely out of the game would be an obviously unwise move. Many of us like it, some like it a lot, and in this genre, depth and variety of interest is important.

I personally think the weakness with pinning lots of game interest onto the staff is that it's hard to see staff recruiting, retention, and bidding being a particularly interesting part of the game experience. We might criticize the specific of his staff hiring works in FOF now, but honestly -- what system would actually be interesting and still "realistic" to those who care about that? An open free market system? Using what scarce resources? Cash? Earned by what... Ticket sales and peanut vendors? Is any of that stuff actually interesting to manage?

To me, that's where all that breaks down. Great coach is available, you could improve your team by signing him, and... then what?

I think the system of staff and their effects could use buffing up, but I think the notion that the grass is greener over there in the land of no game planning is mostly specious.

[QuikSand]

Old thread on staff in FOF:

Thoughts on a more robust FOF coach/staff system - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=57336)

[cuervo72]

I wonder if staff could interact with a revamped fan support/attendance system. In the NFL, there comes a time where a coach has to go. Either the guy has been there too long, or he just stinks to the point where the fans are in a state of revolt. Maybe this erodes ticket sales to the point where you would be best to make a move. Or maybe motivation and discipline for a coach starts to erode, not intrinsically for the coach but just with that team.

And for new hires, maybe there could be something that says, ok - this guy is a "name" coach, either because he is coming from college or has had past successes, maybe hiring such a guy brings a boost to ticket sales. Maybe it's as simple as a new line under 'Reputation.'

I also wouldn't mind more coaches occasionally taking themselves out of the pool - moving to the booth for instance. Or to fictional GM positions. I don't know. If there were just some wrinkles besides "make the most money, keep resigning the top guy forever" things might be more interesting (not the top guy, but my FOFL team has had the same HC for 25 seasons, DC for 26. And I still can hardly remember their names.)

And on attendance (yeah, not a MP matter), I'd like to see numbers move from game to game. Have it fluctuate based on the strength of the team, the strength of the opponent, rivalries, playoff hunt. Maybe if a team drafts a big-name player they see a sales boost. Or sign a big-name FA. That might be there now with popularity - but we have no feedback telling us this. An e-mail might be nice.

This might be stupid and frivolous to some, but I wouldn't mind a little bit involving merchandising. I suppose that is wrapped into...concessions maybe? But similar to the fastest/strongest man, maybe we could have a list of the top jersey sales by team/player. I dunno, immersion.

[Ben E Lou]

With all the cries over the years about "let the user customize," it's puzzling at best, disturbing at worst, to see several posts in this thread essentially asking Jim to force people to play MP a certain way. If a league wants to run FA in 12 stages as it is now, then they have that option. And if they want to speed it up, it's no problem whatsoever to combine stages. 10 of Dutch's 15 stages "saved" are stages that some leagues are already combining anyway, but not *all* leagues are. I don't see any reason to force a league that wants to use 3 or 4 of the FA2 stages to only use 2, when it's absolutely no skin whatsoever off of the back of the league that wants it faster to just...do it faster. If people want to play without game planning, there's a league for that that has openings. The last thing I'd want Jim to do would be to spend valuable development time to *remove* ways to play the game that are currently in the game.

[RedKingGold]

The most important thing, from my perspective, is to fix the QB-WR-WR mega-strat. Granted, if a team can get Aaron Rodgers, Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones on the same team, then they should have sizable advantage in the game engine which can be chalked up to SP AI not valuing WR's high enough or human error in MP.

Nevertheless, I should be able to figure out SOMEWAY to stop it, even if that means acquiring Darrell Revis, Champ Bailey (circa 2000) and other stud secondary players to do it. Even when attempting to acquire those big barz, however, stud WR's just beat everything like "rock beats scissors". Just give me some way to level the playing field and let other matchup strengths and luck dictate the outcome of a sim. If I face a team with QB-WR-WR in my division, I should be able to at least neutralize that twice per season by loading up on CB's.

Fix that, and anything else in FOFNext is gravy to me.

[Ben E Lou]

On Staff Hiring and all that, I'm firmly in this camp: fooling around with staff and the junk that goes with it pretty much sucks in every single text sim I've played, so PLEASE give us the option to just turn staff/coaching/scouts completely off. I agree that not having any interplay with a coaching staff would reduce realism, but having played these kinds of games for nearly 20 years now and seen...every...single...staff...setup...suck, I have little reason to believe that Jim or anyone else can create a system that doesn't create boredom and incongruity in MP.

[Ben E Lou]

The most important thing, from my perspective, is to fix the QB-WR-WR mega-strat. Granted, if a team can get Aaron Rodgers, Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones on the same team, then they should have sizable advantage in the game engine which can be chalked up to SP AI not valuing WR's high enough or human error in MP.

Nevertheless, I should be able to figure out SOMEWAY to stop it, even if that means acquiring Darrell Revis, Champ Bailey (circa 2000) and other stud secondary players to do it. Even when attempting to acquire those big barz, however, stud WR's just beat everything like "rock beats scissors". Just give me some way to level the playing field and let other matchup strengths and luck dictate the outcome of a sim. If I face a team with QB-WR-WR in my division, I should be able to at least neutralize that twice per season by loading up on CB's.

Fix that, and anything else in FOFNext is gravy to me.Yup. Given that Jim has publicly acknowledged that his own testing has revealed that this is a problem, I think it goes without saying that he's going to attempt to re-balance that area of the game. My main hope here is that whatever testing mechanism he used to make that determination can be used to root out any similar serious imbalances prior to something being released.

[isaccoubaldi]

On Staff Hiring and all that, I'm firmly in this camp: fooling around with staff and the junk that goes with it pretty much sucks in every single text sim I've played, so PLEASE give us the option to just turn staff/coaching/scouts completely off. I agree that not having any interplay with a coaching staff would reduce realism, but having played these kinds of games for nearly 20 years now and seen...every...single...staff...setup...suck, I have little reason to believe that Jim or anyone else can create a system that doesn't create boredom and incongruity in MP.

I like a game where you are a scout-coach-GM.

For this reason I prefer to eliminate staff, scout and coach from the game and to improve the "gameplan part" of the sim with more depth and flexibility (for example I want to be able to assign coverage, play some hybrid 3-4, etc).

I think draft is the best part of this game (after the match). I like to have more infos about the rookies (stats from college, etc).

[Dutch]

With all the cries over the years about "let the user customize," it's puzzling at best, disturbing at worst, to see several posts in this thread essentially asking Jim to force people to play MP a certain way. If a league wants to run FA in 12 stages as it is now, then they have that option. And if they want to speed it up, it's no problem whatsoever to combine stages. 10 of Dutch's 15 stages "saved" are stages that some leagues are already combining anyway, but not *all* leagues are. I don't see any reason to force a league that wants to use 3 or 4 of the FA2 stages to only use 2, when it's absolutely no skin whatsoever off of the back of the league that wants it faster to just...do it faster. If people want to play without game planning, there's a league for that that has openings. The last thing I'd want Jim to do would be to spend valuable development time to *remove* ways to play the game that are currently in the game.

Sorry to have disturbed/frustrated you, Ben, not my intent, honest. So, to be clear, I'm not talking about "forcing" anybody to do anything. I'm talking about revamping the game mechanics so that we don't have a bunch of irrelevant stages built in for no reason. Nobody wants any of the stages I'm talking about removing anyway...and if they do, at what cost? Which gets back to my OP. Is FOF really keeping a bunch of irrelvant stages around at the risk of frustrating new owners in these leagues of ever-evolving ownership?

New Owner: "I gotta wait 8-12 months before I even start to realize this is my team and not the last guy's team...and now I have to wait until next Tuesday to see what happens in Stage 2 of staff hiring?" I just don't see that as a win for FOF MP.

To me, the benefit of having 15 additional and mostly irrelevant stages is so miniscule that it only makes sense to stream-line this aspect of the game. If anything, Solecismic should checkbox additional stage requirements. "Allow additional FA1 stages?" or "Allow additional FA2 stages" or "Would you like to add Staff Hiring and Ticket Pricing as additional stages" as your customization. The "Out-Of-The-Box" solution should always be geared towards the best layout.

[Ben E Lou]

So, to be clear, I'm not talking about "forcing" anybody to do anything. Sure, you are. Maybe in your zeal to create what you consider the best setup, you're overlooking that. Here's a specific example:Reduce FA2 to two stagesThere are *tons* of leagues out there that run three stages of FA2. If you reduce it to two stages, you have forced them to run fewer stages and gained nothing for the leagues that are already doing it more rapidly than that.

Nobody wants any of the stages I'm talking about removing anyway...and if they do, at what cost?Well, clearly some people do, otherwise there would be no leagues that use any of those stages. As far as "cost," that's exactly my point: there's zero cost whatsoever to having them in the game if some leagues want to use them, and multiple costs (development time, alienating leagues that want to run those stages one-by-one) to removing them.Is FOF really keeping a bunch of mundane stages around at the risk of frustrating new owners in these leagues of ever-evolving ownership?Again, that's not FOF. It's so absurdly easy to combine FA stages that it should be a league decision, not a mandate.

To me, the benefit of having 15 additional and mostly irrelevant stages is so miniscule that it only makes sense to stream-line this aspect of the game.But again, there are many leagues and many ways that people play. To *you* these are additional, mundane, and mostly irrelevant. Most of them are that way to me as well. But I don't gain a thing by having Jim force leagues that I'm not in to reduce FA1 from 8 stages to 6, for example. And if I'm in a league that uses too many FA stages for my taste, I have the option to petition the league to reduce them, and if, as you claim, "nobody" wants the extra stages, they'll go away. Combining FA stages is something that is already very easily done at the league level and therefore doesn't need to be done at the game level.

[Dutch]

Ben, I think you are over-reacting. I'm not in a "zeal" to do anything, I'm not "forcing" anybody to do anything. The point of this post was to open discussion and dialogue, not stifle it. So I don't get what your angle is. I did nothing other than provide my personal opinion (clearly stated) and a possible way to fix what I saw as a negative for the product.

[Ben E Lou]

Ben, I think you are over-reacting. I'm not in a "zeal" to do anything, I'm not "forcing" anybody to do anything. The point of this post was to open discussion and dialogue, not stifle it. So I don't get what your angle is. I did nothing other than provide my personal opinion (clearly stated) and a possible way to fix what I saw as a negative for the product.You're not "forcing" anyone to do anything, but if those ideas get implemented, they absolutely "force" some leagues to move more quickly through those stages than they'd like. That's all I'm saying. And I have no angle other than I think eliminating current features like game planning or forcing leagues to change a comfortable schedule are ideas that would end up hurting more people's enjoyment of the game than the number it would enhance, and therefore I wouldn't want Jim spending development time on them.

[Dutch]

I gotcha. But they are largely irrelevant stages, so I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that it's hurtful to streamline things.

People can add in days of doing nothing if they think they are going too fast.

Seriously though, the reason I think this is for Jim is because the "Out-of-the-box" solution should be the sweet spot, not the unnecessarily long drawn out version. It's a business decision in the end but I believe those extra stages should be relegated to the options/customization realm, not the other way around.

[Ben E Lou]

I gotcha. But they are largely irrelevant stages, so I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that it's hurtful to streamline things.

People can add in days of doing nothing if they think they are going too fast.I've had discussions with people about this. It's not that they want to add in days of doing nothing. It's that they like having more opportunities to adjust offers. It came up fairly recently when the GML started and ended up voting to do three days of FA2 instead of just two. For many of those who voted that way (I voted two days), it wasn't a "slow down the league" vote. It was "I want two shots to adjust my offers, offer new guys, etc. Only one chance to make adjustments to my initial offers isn't enough." That's just one example, but ultimately, my thinking is that if you're going to err on something like this, err on the side of providing too many stages.

And let's be realistic, based on FOF's history, there's very little reason to believe that there would be a checkbox to add additional stages or any other sorts of meaningful custom options like that. I'd love to see it, but I'm certainly not expecting it.

[Pyser]

Taking game planning completely out of the game would be an obviously unwise move. Many of us like it, some like it a lot, and in this genre, depth and variety of interest is important.

yeah, i know its a long shot. but game-planning is the easiest way to game the system and/or get unrealistic results. there's just no way jim can predict every way players will push his system

i'd be just as happy with a COMPLETE game planning overhaul. jim's card game seems to hint at this, so hopefully he's got something up his sleeve



as for ben's "all staff hiring is tedious", i see his point, but right now the system makes very little sense. at least being forced to choose a system for the season makes it a very important decision. i mean, at the very least, we can have 3-4 or 4-3 defensive coordinators, and once you pick that's all your defense can run for the season. then it's less tedious, and more important to your entire offseason.

[isaccoubaldi]

Instead of using coach you can use a point system to give more depth to the training camp. Now you can use points to increase the team knowledge of run/defense/pass/ets. I like to see an expansion of this system (with tactics, etc.). Nothing really revolutionary but that give more responsabilities to the GM instead to give more power to coach.

[BeerCloud]

i agree the the wr deal needs to be more balanced.

id also like to see an option to be able to play call against a live or ai'd opponent online in mp leagues. if a player cant show up that day the game plan and coach would come call the game.

id also like college to be a little more tied in to the game somehow. be able to scout players during the season and being able to hire college coaches etc.. and be able to fire the coach or members of the staff at anytime.

practices during the season. not a separate sim for it but tied in with the regular midweek or game sim. maybe similar to camp but be able to hold players out that are nursing injuries or maybe work on another players skills etc.

note: all these (except balancing wr issue) to be options that could be turned on or off. even the college be sold separately and be able to be coached as well. as i think there used to be a mod for it. i dont know how it worked so forgive me.

[isaccoubaldi]

id also like to see an option to be able to play call against a live or ai'd opponent online in mp leagues. if a player cant show up that day the game plan and coach would come call the game.

Not good for european players but this is a great idea! :popcorn:

[Dutch]

I've had discussions with people about this. It's not that they want to add in days of doing nothing. It's that they like having more opportunities to adjust offers. It came up fairly recently when the GML started and ended up voting to do three days of FA2 instead of just two. For many of those who voted that way (I voted two days), it wasn't a "slow down the league" vote. It was "I want two shots to adjust my offers, offer new guys, etc. Only one chance to make adjustments to my initial offers isn't enough." That's just one example, but ultimately, my thinking is that if you're going to err on something like this, err on the side of providing too many stages.

I think part of this is hoping for some game redesigns as well.

For instance, redoing the way FA2 is done. That's not about reducing 5 stages to 2...in and of itself. It could be done faster and better (at least in my mind).

So now I'm definitely going into detail here and I don't know if it's worth trying to articulate my thoughts here or not, but here goes.

FA2 - Stage 1: A bid on UDFA's. Let the games internal player characteristics shine for one brief moment. Give owners a certain number of contracts to offer (all being one-year/minsal contracts) and let the football player...based on hometown, college, play4win, etc....guide the decision of where to sign. That could generate some decision points about which guys you want to invest your limited number of offers too (instead of the current strategy of bidding on every single guy in the pool during this initial post-draft stage).

FA 2 - Stage 2: A last chance offer to use the rest of your cap money anyway you see fit on the remaining free agents by allowing multi-year deals. My thought here was to clearly define that stage as the last chance to eat up your dead cap space. Because once pre-season starts, all players in the FA pool, even good ones, would sign only a one-year/minsal deal (using the same logic above in FA2 Stage 1 if there are contentions). This could have the added benefit of making owners re-think that strategy of not caring that a 55/55 OG or DT is just sitting there. You have cap space and if you don't use it, that guy that goes 14-2 every season is going to snatch him up "for free" in the next stage. Might make people care...and with the reduced stages, might help keep people awake and paying attention longer.

(Although I get that might be construed as "too gamey".)

So I'm not only thinking we should simply reduce FA stages. I think there are better ways to run them to make the experience more strategic/interesting/relevant.


And let's be realistic, based on FOF's history, there's very little reason to believe that there would be a checkbox to add additional stages or any other sorts of meaningful custom options like that. I'd love to see it, but I'm certainly not expecting it.

You are probably right, but at the same time, he's always stated that there are certain components of the game he would like to do better, so maybe throwing out some ideas won't hurt.

[Dutch]

Instead of using coach you can use a point system to give more depth to the training camp. Now you can use points to increase the team knowledge of run/defense/pass/ets. I like to see an expansion of this system (with tactics, etc.). Nothing really revolutionary but that give more responsabilities to the GM instead to give more power to coach.

I think a point system would be a tremendous improvement to the confusing system that is in place right now. And to avoid other confusion (such as which piece is weighted more valuable than others), I think there should be separate TC sections. One for Run D, Pass D, Run O, Pass O, ST to allocate points to and a separate one for Weight Training, Film Review, Chemistry. The first set of TC dictates what kind of philosophy you will have and benefits you in your GP design and the second set dictates what you think you can do to improve the team (spend it on developing your young QB? Spend it on strengthening your vets cohesion?).

[Bako]

I think Staff Hiring could be more fun and meaningful.

I'd like to see a description of the coaches style. Think about Defensive Coordinators of today. When I think of Rex or Rob Ryan I think of a blitz heavy/man coverage scheme. Monte Kiffin is known for the Tampa 2 and zone blitzing.

Offense is no different. Think of Mike Martz, what style of Offense does he specialize in? A GM would have to or try to tailor the Offensive personel to the style the coach specializes in.

When signing a coordinator or coach, we should have to take into account the styles of football they know well.

If a GM tries to force a coordinator who thrives in airing it out to run smashmouth, it should be less effective than him running the style he is accustomed to running.

[Dutch]

Just give me some way to level the playing field and let other matchup strengths and luck dictate the outcome of a sim. If I face a team with QB-WR-WR in my division, I should be able to at least neutralize that twice per season by loading up on CB's.

+1

[aston217]

On Staff Hiring and all that, I'm firmly in this camp: fooling around with staff and the junk that goes with it pretty much sucks in every single text sim I've played, so PLEASE give us the option to just turn staff/coaching/scouts completely off. I agree that not having any interplay with a coaching staff would reduce realism, but having played these kinds of games for nearly 20 years now and seen...every...single...staff...setup...suck, I have little reason to believe that Jim or anyone else can create a system that doesn't create boredom and incongruity in MP.

Ooooh, +1 here.

FWIW I do like the idea of a one-shot Late FA. With 5 stages, relatively few guys sign in FA2-1, and GMs have the opportunity to just look at who other GMs have offered and poach them, instead of taking the time to identify their own UDFA prospects.

But this isn't a game design/update issue so much as something up to the leagues on their own, as said.

---

One thing I'd like to see is more doubt in the draft. As much as I love the draft and how solvable it is, there is a degree of definite-ness, especially in late round 1, throughout round 2, and even in the later rounds, where you more or less know what you're getting. Besides, how much more valuable are later round draft picks when the athlete you're drafting has an outside-of-VSOL chance of blossoming, but is otherwise a project?

There could probably be a better balance here, and it would level the playing ground too. It's not that easy to get a good handle on the draft and owners who aren't extremely experienced are at a huge disadvantage.

--
An idea about formations. Strategically it's fun to design personnel groupings to use, and far more sensible than setting formation %s for specific formations.

Besides, does anyone really think about "I need this much I and this much Pro", as opposed to "I need the TE on the field in these situations, and I need 3WRs here."

[RedKingGold]

One thing I'd like to see is more doubt in the draft. As much as I love the draft and how solvable it is, there is a degree of definite-ness, especially in late round 1, throughout round 2, and even in the later rounds, where you more or less know what you're getting. Besides, how much more valuable are later round draft picks when the athlete you're drafting has an outside-of-VSOL chance of blossoming, but is otherwise a "

Interestingly, the early build of FOF2k7 was like this, but was changed because there were complaints about the draft learning curve being too steep. This is one of those situations where realism takes a backseat to fun. Your top 5 pick dying in TC is not too fun in an FOF MP league.

[UK Rookie]

For me the players Starting Time/Endurance to me isn`t clear or defined enough.

I`ve had Starting CB`s set at 100% Playing time, 1 has endurance 5, the other 84, and both play the same amount of plays(roughly) through-out the season.This cannot be realistic/correct.

Also the QB pre-season playing time is a complete mystery.

You set him to 1,he plays 3 series and is out.Next game he`s still set at 1,he plays half way through the 4th Quarter?

[Yoda]

Each league has their own city/image/picture/ext file (that is- no need to use batch files).

The ability to have a corner lock down a particular WR on the offense. That is- I don't care where Calvin Johnson lines up (FL, SE, slot)- I want Revis on him.

The ability to set up different offenses for different QBs (when your back up QB comes in who doesn't have all the formations in your offense).

The ability to set different run directions for different RBs.

To be able to download and upload exports though the game itself.

Commissioner mode to be able to do everything a normal owner can.

Better integration with 3rd party utilities especially where the draft is concerned.

[Julio Riddols]

Each league has their own city/image/picture/ext file (that is- no need to use batch files).

The ability to have a corner lock down a particular WR on the offense. That is- I don't care where Calvin Johnson lines up (FL, SE, slot)- I want Revis on him.

The ability to set up different offenses for different QBs (when your back up QB comes in who doesn't have all the formations in your offense).

The ability to set different run directions for different RBs.

To be able to download and upload exports though the game itself.

Commissioner mode to be able to do everything a normal owner can.

Better integration with 3rd party utilities especially where the draft is concerned.

Yes on all of these as well.

[claystone]

1. The QB's game planning formation setting is always set the same way on the same formation when you hit "Rex". Now if i have a rookie QB with only say 9 formation learned, the way the system is now half of his formation he might know might not come up. So instead of going into the game with all 9 formation, the game might have only set up 4 in total. Now this hurts when playing in our GM league. The game should take into account the formation learned by the QB when setting up game plans for the team. I like to see this fixed.

2. This is a lng shot but i like to hear a broadcast play by play of the games being played. I don't know if there is a computer program that can read off the play by play to us so we can hear the game instead with crowd noise, etc.

3. I like to know who penalties are on.

4. I like to know what ties fumbles to players.

5. I like to know which player is covering which WR when thrown upon.

6. I like to see rookies college stats when they enter the draft.

[Julio Riddols]

I wouldn't mind a little more detail in the play by play at least, stuff like "That was a coverage sack, there was just nobody open" or "an impressive catch by the receiver" or "great throw by the QB" for the situations that call for it. Something that gives us more insight on exactly what happened on a play. If my QB rolls a perfect score for his throw but the defensive back still manages to pass the skill check to defend the pass, I want to know that the DB made an incredible play to defend the perfectly thrown pass.

[alrith72]

I would like to have the ability to make changes to a gameplan/roster after i have hit export without having to reload and start all over again.

[Julio Riddols]

I would like to have the ability to make changes to a gameplan/roster after i have hit export without having to reload and start all over again.

This would also be nice. There have been countless times where I meticulously reworked a gameplan and changed some things, and right after uploading I will realize I overlooked a thing or two and then I want to punch myself in the face.

[DukeRulesMAB]

I'm sure this has been brought up, but the ability to enforce league rules via commissioner settings would make running a MP league all the easier. Want to have no contract renegotiations? Turn it off. Want to artifically lower the cap by a % or set amount? Click of a button. There are a zillion options that could be put in, but even 4-5 basic options like the above would make running leagues (and being in leagues) a fair amount easier.

[Julio Riddols]

I'm sure this has been brought up, but the ability to enforce league rules via commissioner settings would make running a MP league all the easier. Want to have no contract renegotiations? Turn it off. Want to artifically lower the cap by a % or set amount? Click of a button. There are a zillion options that could be put in, but even 4-5 basic options like the above would make running leagues (and being in leagues) a fair amount easier.

This and the ability to import and export files from within the game would be a godsend to Commissioners.

[Solecismic]

Now is actually a very good time for this kind of discussion, so please feel encouraged to flesh out these ideas.

[sqvirrel]

I would like to see all formations available even if a quarterback doesn't know them. It drives me nuts that I can only run from formations that the quarterback knows.

Along that line, allow a quarterback to accumulate experience and expertise with different formations. Let him be terrible passing out of formations he doesn't know but allow him to improve with practice. Furthermore, allow us to pick which formations are taught in training camp. All quarterbacks on the roster should learn the same formations during TC. Maybe give each QB a bar dependent on their solecismic and then allow that bar to improve with practice. If needed, that same formation could be trained again the next season.

Add in a Tom Brady mechanism. Brady, Warner, James Harrison, Arian Foster and others are examples of players who ultimately barred out at 90+ even while misidentified at draft time. Add in a tiny percentage chance at an explosive creep depending on volatility, intelligence, and desire to win.

[Julio Riddols]

I can't speak for everyone, but a chance to put some ideas in your head is too tempting for me to pass up. You've created a game that so closely resembles the perfect football sim I dreamed of ever since Tecmo Bowl first came out when I was 7, and now I feel like all it really needs is polish and some added options for more depth. It really doesn't do justice to how much this game means to me to say I appreciate your work, but it is certainly some fine work you have done so far.

This is going to be stupidly exhaustive and long, but I will try to keep it organized somewhat.

THE IDEAS

A: Coach Hiring :

I think the coach hiring phase should just be eliminated and coaches should be available to be signed or released at any time as long as the contract they have signed allows it. Maybe when trying to recruit a coach you can use things like guaranteed years as a bargaining chip, or give them control over the depth chart or some/all of the personnel decisions or allow them to choose their own staff as part of their contract offer?

I think it would be cool to see Positional coaches for all the major groups: QB, RB, WR/TE, OL, DL, LB, CB/SS, along with a ST coach, OC, and DC. One scout is still sufficient, I think. No need to add extra scouts.

B: What coaches can do:

I'd LOVE to see the option to turn on/off a Pure GM Mode where game planning is put entirely in the hands of the coaches. In this world, each coach comes with a

Coaching Style (Some ideas: Players Coach / Disciplinarian / Guru / Strategist / Motivator), Each of these could have an effect on what the coach does best, like avoiding penalties for the Disciplinarian, increasing cohesion for the Player Coach, increasing player work ethic for the Motivator, increasing on field production for the Strategist, increasing player development speed for the Guru)

Coach Prestige Earned directly through a coaches exploits on the field. Coaches with low prestige will not be picky about jobs while high prestige coaches may come with added demands aside from their higher salary. This is not to penalize the GM, but to make it sufficiently hard to keep a highly skilled coach, because a highly skilled coach can make a huge difference as we saw with the 49ers recently.

Decision Making (Bold, Conservative, Unpredictable, Average etc. - This would affect things like their clock management, their desire to gamble with sneak onside kicks, fake punts and kicks, etc. and their general play calling style to different degrees.)

Specific Demands (For the older or more prestigious coaches mostly - Things like: Guaranteed years / Personnel input / Hire own staff / Set Depth Chart)

Scheme (Ideas: Could use approximate ranges to differentiate between the different styles, like Smash Mouth coaches will run between 60-80% of the time on 1st and ten, while West Coast coaches are more likely to be in the 45-55% range, etc.)

Personnel Preferences (Ideas: The coach has a general idea of the type of player he wants and works best with for each position he is in charge of, and the better you are as GM giving him the right pieces, the better he will be able to do his job. Some coaches will want big play receivers and a play action QB, others will want possession receivers and a smart QB, etc.). I would like it to be a hierarchy of influence as well. HC has something like 35-40% influence, OC/DC/ST have about 12-15% each, and the rest is divided amongst the positional coaches, all of whom will have their job be affected in some smallish way if they are not working with the types of players they are best at coaching. It should be important to try and put together a staff that works hand in hand, but also possible to do the complete opposite without losing too much of that benefit. Perhaps something similar to the cohesion effect can be in play for the staff as well, where more time spent together tends to lead to better results.

C: Free Agency : The Players

I feel like the players should dictate how this plays out more than the GMs do. They should have lists of teams they literally will not consider signing for because of either the situation (talent level), the coach, the prestige of the franchise, the location, or any combination of the above. In a similar way, players should relax these demands if they find themselves attracting no offers. This way any player can still sign with any team, but they are in control of their options until they run out of options, as it is in the real world. Sometimes, all a player will care about is a paycheck or a roster spot, sometimes they might just wanna finish their career near home or play in a warm place or on a team that has a chance at a ring.

D: Free Agency : The Stage

I think offers from other teams should be hidden. GM's should be able to get some idea of how much they might need to pay to sign a guy based on who the player is most interested in and who is making offers to them, which should still be visible.

E: Free Agency: The Mechanics

At the start of the free agency period, the players could all present different demands to different teams based on their desire to sign with those teams, then it is up to the GM to decide whether to bring the player in for a visit or not. The players would then visit interested teams in order until they either accept a deal or run out of interested teams. At this point they can choose to try to sign a deal with any team still interested in them, or they can open their availability further to teams they weren't previously considering. I think the period could be done in 15 stages since Staff Hiring will be a thing of the past, with GM's indicating interest in players they wish to have in for visits during stage 1 (as well as signing RFAs) then the visits beginning in stage 2, with GM's having the option to remove or add players to their visit list each stage. I am also thinking teams should be allowed to bring in no more than maybe 5 FA's at a time for visits, because otherwise the more attractive teams will have dibs on too many players. I think this will also add to the intrigue as teams try and find players who they have the best chance of getting at the best price to add to their list of 5 targets each week, and how long to hold out an offer to a player that does not sign with them on their initial visit. The team should be allowed to increase their offer as long as there is still mutual interest. After week 11, the remaining unsigned players should be willing to sign with any team, and in most cases, willing to accept a discount. Offering contracts should include the basic contract offer along with 2 other things: The Pitch (Playing time, guaranteed roster spot, chance at a ring, location, style of play) and The Role (projected starter, compete for starter, rotational player, specialist, return man, mentor, stopgap, camp body, practice squad) which will help determine whether a player signs when he visits your team.

F: The Draft :

The draft, in my opinion, is one of the areas of the game needing the least amount of work. The only thing I would like to see added is college stats and injury history. I'll get into the ratings later, but I think there would be a good benefit in them being mostly hidden. I think the combine information should be just like it already is, maybe with a few added drills thrown in for added color. Interviews are perfect, because they reflect the actual NFL allotment of interviews - But I think they should reveal more about a player than a better idea of their bars. To further explain that, I'll get to the ratings system which I think would help make it hard to "figure out" the game.

G: The Players :

Players should be more than predictable numbers with easy to diagnose career patterns. They should also be less. I think the only things that should be shown on a player are : a list of their combine history up to the most recent for the player, which update during training camp each season, (but only if they are on a team during the training camp stage). This would be one way to note that a player may be on the rise, in decline, or that they have "lost a step" without telling the whole story in bars. I think players should also be rated in other things like leadership, motivation, work ethic, football intelligence, durability and playing style. This could be fleshed out with 3 unique Scout Opinions about different aspects of the player. One could be about their fit with the scheme/coaches (maybe a simple "fit percentage"), one about their 3 most positive traits, one about their 3 most negative traits (as seen by the scout). Just broad generalizations like "exceptional quickness" or "makes people miss" or "excellent hands" etc. Ideally there would be several different non exclusive phrases for describing different levels of players skills so as not to be a dead giveaway to their exact skill levels. I think this would lead to a lot more realism, as teams would have to judge players on more than pretty bars and combine correlations. GMs would have to look at past production and scheme, fit in the new scheme, injury history, the little tidbits gleaned from the scouts, and the history of the players yearly combines shown on the player cards. I think this would make the game way more dynamic and deep without making it feel like a total crapshoot. It would also allow the current ratings system to stay in place for the most part behind the scenes, just kind of putting a blurry mask over the top of it.

H: The effects of schemes and styles on a players career:

Based partially on their football intelligence, work ethic and the coaching staff's ability to teach, players will learn schemes at different rates. This could have a similar effect to chemistry and cohesion, maybe slightly more noticeable. As a players career progresses, they accumulate knowledge in whatever scheme they are in, and lose knowledge of other schemes (maybe at half the rate they learn them?) Some players will come out of college with a lot of knowledge of a scheme or two depending on what type of scheme they played in. (It should be reflected in the player generation that players who played for the same in college team played in the same scheme) This will just be another thing for GMs to consider when going after a free agent or drafting/ re-signing a player. Playing in the right scheme or a scheme they can adapt to easily should make a big difference in how good a player gets and how quick he gets there, along with the influence of the coaches.

I: MP Ideas:

Eliminate "past injustices" for all but the best players. Its a business, most players know it and accept it. Players are released and re-signed to cheaper deals by the same team all the time.

Importing/exporting to FTP from within the game.

Practice Squads/Waivers for eligible players

A News section with generated text recaps of the previous weeks games and key injuries/top performers.

An in game trade block

Coaches/players coming out of retirement (covered in the news section)

The ability to elect players to the individual team's hall of fame

The ability to switch between leagues without needing a batch file to change the team logos/names, etc. Something similar to the way FBCB handles this would be perfect.

In-game export tracking for commissioners so they know when to replace GMs for inactivity

Ability to enforce league rules for a variety of things: minimum contract length, amount of players allowed in camp, elimination of cap space, no trading a player until that player has been on a team for a set number of years, injury setting, the option to auction rookies instead of drafting them, renegotiation eligibility, etc.


These are just my ideas, I certainly can't speak for everyone. I'm just happy to have the opportunity to lay them out and be encouraged to do so.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Coaches/Scouts for MP;

I'd love to see an option for balancing out the coaches/scouts ratings at the start of a league, IE making them all avg or all excellent rating.

This would level the playing field in the MP environment and then you could eliminate the coaching hiring stage for the league's, which everyone would love.

[isaccoubaldi]

I eliminate totally the coach and the scout from the game. If you (Jim) will be able to add more options to the gameplan side and to the players data (college, interview, etc.) I think this game will evolve in the right direction. Without a random element (like coach or scout) you improve GM's responsabilities and give more depth to the sim.

[cuervo72]

Requests:

1. Give simmers the ability to enter/edit contract info.

2. Give owners the ability to "release" players who are FA so they don't clog the roster and chemistry screens. Not sure how to do this without severing "on team since" though*.


* Working from this and what someone said upstream, I wonder if players could have loyalty/affinity to each team rather than just his current one. Say a player has been with a team for six years; he may have built up a healthy dislike for the other three teams in his division. Or a player who had been with a team for a number of years, spent a short time away, now is a FA again. He may still have some goodwill for his original team. Or even some cohesion. Of course as with most of these new ideas, the option to completely turn it off would also be a positive.

[timmynausea]

What I'd like to see is roster building become a little more nuanced to better resemble real life. There are many possible ways to achieve this, but here are 2:

1. The Complicated Way: As a GM, I choose styles for various units on the team, and that effects which bars become the most important bars for my offensive and defensive systems. If I choose a West Coast offense, for example, it minimizes the importance of the QB's sense rush some and ups the importance of accuracy and short passing. For WRs, big play matters a little less and getting downfield and route running become more important. On the offensive line, I can choose zone blocking which emphasizes quickness and agility or power blocking that relies more on strength and size. I think this would make the value of particular players different for different teams, which is more like real life.

2. The Simple Way: I still choose an offensive and defensive system, but instead of flipping which bars matter, it merely comes with a small bonus and penalty. So the West Coast is 5% better at short passing and 5% weaker at long passing or etc. This still adds nuance in terms of building a team that best fits the strength of your system, and it'd add a little more control over the identity of our teams and what areas we emphasize. It would sort of simulate the idea that you get good at what you practice and suffer some at the things you don't practice.

[Pyser]

i dont think financials works well in the game, and would just prefer to remove most of it.

i dont feel a great need to set ticket prices. basically a new stadium should sell more tickets for more money, and winning keeps butts in the seats. the rest is very tedious.

also wouldnt mind not having to bother with stadium renovations or construction. im fine with it being dice rolls. at the new year: "congrats, the taxpayers are funding a new stadium! it will be completed in 4 years".

[NawlinsFan]

Lots of great suggestions here. I must admit thought that Julio seems to hit the mark with my thoughts. I second his input!

[Dutch]

Please provide an option to level all cities economic conditions and stadium situations. Great for FOF MP.

Provide a fully normalized database schema with ability to export for easy web-site interaction.

[sjshaw]

This would also be nice. There have been countless times where I meticulously reworked a gameplan and changed some things, and right after uploading I will realize I overlooked a thing or two and then I want to punch myself in the face.

Same thing with contract offers. The "door-slamming" contract offer, as well as the export function is brutal.

Also, a "Set All Gameplanning/Depth Chart Screens" so I can ask the AI to set all the gameplanning and/or depth charts screens at once for MP.

[aston217]

What I'd like to see is roster building become a little more nuanced to better resemble real life. There are many possible ways to achieve this, but here are 2:

1. The Complicated Way: As a GM, I choose styles for various units on the team, and that effects which bars become the most important bars for my offensive and defensive systems. If I choose a West Coast offense, for example, it minimizes the importance of the QB's sense rush some and ups the importance of accuracy and short passing. For WRs, big play matters a little less and getting downfield and route running become more important. On the offensive line, I can choose zone blocking which emphasizes quickness and agility or power blocking that relies more on strength and size. I think this would make the value of particular players different for different teams, which is more like real life.

2. The Simple Way: I still choose an offensive and defensive system, but instead of flipping which bars matter, it merely comes with a small bonus and penalty. So the West Coast is 5% better at short passing and 5% weaker at long passing or etc. This still adds nuance in terms of building a team that best fits the strength of your system, and it'd add a little more control over the identity of our teams and what areas we emphasize. It would sort of simulate the idea that you get good at what you practice and suffer some at the things you don't practice.

BAM! you nailed it, timmy!

[sjshaw]

I would like a complete revamp of how offensive linemen are evaluated and presented in-game. It's easy to differentiate a 95/95 WR from a 40/40 WR using stats, but all the OL seem to just blend together, given the (admittedly) coarse statistics available to measure their performance.

A 95/95 OT should obviously be worlds better than a 40/40 guy, but I can't determine that in-game when all I see is that the 95/95 guy had 2% higher RB% and gave up 2 less sacks. Why pay $10M/year more for the highly-rated guy when he just doesn't seem to impact the game that much?

Also, I would like the ability to somehow define the following: "When I need 1 yard for a first down, run behind THIS guy xx% of the time."

[aston217]

On that point, I personally just assume OL are what you see is what you get. I don't bother looking at their stats largely, just their bars. I think with OL it's a fairly straightforward evaluation.

[sjshaw]

On that point, I personally just assume OL are what you see is what you get. I don't bother looking at their stats largely, just their bars. I think with OL it's a fairly straightforward evaluation.

But "what you get" is only visible through statistics. And there is rarely that big a difference between OL in that regard, in relation to "what you see."

[cuervo72]

What I'd like to see is roster building become a little more nuanced to better resemble real life. There are many possible ways to achieve this, but here are 2:

1. The Complicated Way: As a GM, I choose styles for various units on the team, and that effects which bars become the most important bars for my offensive and defensive systems. If I choose a West Coast offense, for example, it minimizes the importance of the QB's sense rush some and ups the importance of accuracy and short passing. For WRs, big play matters a little less and getting downfield and route running become more important. On the offensive line, I can choose zone blocking which emphasizes quickness and agility or power blocking that relies more on strength and size. I think this would make the value of particular players different for different teams, which is more like real life.

2. The Simple Way: I still choose an offensive and defensive system, but instead of flipping which bars matter, it merely comes with a small bonus and penalty. So the West Coast is 5% better at short passing and 5% weaker at long passing or etc. This still adds nuance in terms of building a team that best fits the strength of your system, and it'd add a little more control over the identity of our teams and what areas we emphasize. It would sort of simulate the idea that you get good at what you practice and suffer some at the things you don't practice.

Perhaps even simpler: forget modifying bars or whatever. Have the game come with game plan templates which you select and then the game auto-fills. Essentially, put things like Ben's pre-made GP in the game. You can tweak from there, but if you choose "West Coast", most of the work is already done for you.

I don't think this would even be that much of an ordeal from a coding standpoint. The game already has import/export functionality for game plans. All we'd need is some that are already packaged, and a nice interface for selecting them.


(I'd like to think that for certain plays and styles, some bars may already matter more than others. i.e. it's harder to get to the QB if you are running short passing, so Sense Rush comes into play less.)

[Gallifrey]

Julio made really good points.

I would just like to see things that exist in real life stay in the game, like coaches and scouts. Take them out and it gets closer to Madden and all the other farther from reality games.

I guess in a nutshell that is what makes this game so much better than all the others, the sim engine and it is steps closer to a computer version of the real thing.

[sjshaw]

I'd like the ability to maximize and/or target specific receivers, perhaps for different types of routes or route distances. Currently, it's hard to maximize a pass-catching FB or TE that poses a matchup threat for LBs with any granularity. Making a fast TE more likely to run a long route (e.g., go route up the seam), like the kind of thing that NE utilizes to perfection in their offense. Some way to better utilize the Gronk/Hernandez/Jimmy Graham type of TE.

Also being able to emphasize specific players as "key" passing targets for particular formations/situations (like the FB/TE around the goal line) would be nice.

Perhaps get rid of the FL/SE distinction and just set #1/#2/#3/etc. options.

[NawlinsFan]

Julio made really good points.

I would just like to see things that exist in real life stay in the game, like coaches and scouts. Take them out and it gets closer to Madden and all the other farther from reality games.


Bingo!

[Abe Sargent]

I think adding a bunch of contract clauses that exist in football would really help distinguish between offers in FA and shake these up.

[Ben E Lou]

Quite a few leagues have functionality in their forums that uses the names of players to create links to player pages. A HUGE help for this would be:

1. Create an in-game function to de-dupe names.
2. Remove the "Jr." names entirely, or at least make them a part of the de-dupe process in #1.

Duplicate names create a big headache for me as a commish.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

To be clear, I mean this: when a new draft class is generated, have an option available to make sure that:

1. No two players in that draft class have the same name.
2. No player in the draft class has the same name as any player in the league's history.

A league that's only 15ish seasons in can easily have 20-30 duplicate names in a draft class, creating a situation where I have to manually de-dupe them.

[Ben E Lou]

One thing that's always worth noting, and I believe to be especially true regarding staff, is the tension between "realism" and "what makes a better computer game experience in the multiplayer environment." (Remember, this thread is about MP, not SP.) Yes, it's not realistic to remove the "staff" bit from the equation entirely, but I've played FOF MP for 9 1/2 years now, and my experience tells me that it's not a good mechanism to have in the MP environment. This is another place where I'd strongly recommend some customization options be included. In other words, give leagues the option to turn off the usage of staff entirely. For the most part, I'm seeing the most savvy guys with the most MP experience in here saying "no staff" or "make it optional." That's pretty telling.

To be fair, *part* of the reason that I'm sour on staff is that I've played so much FOF that I and a few others apparently have a better feel for what does and doesn't work in ticket pricing than almost anyone else, so we eventually end up getting the best staff in every league I'm in. There's nothing fun or interesting about the same small handful of guys having the best staff in every league.

[Ben E Lou]

One more line of thought on this--one that applies not just to coaches/staff, but could be applied elsewhere:

It's just not a good mechanism to help maintain a competitive environment when some coaches/scouts are "better" than others. A small handful of people--who are already quite good at FOF MP anyway--end up with the best coaches and scouts in every league because we understand the game better than others. That's really bad for competitive balance. One option if Jim really thinks it's important for all leagues to have coaches/scouts in some form would be to make them all essentially "equal" overall in terms of how much they can help a team win, but give them different strengths and weaknesses so a team owner can tailor the team to what they'd prefer. I think about a point system like assigning old D&D characters. When the game creates a staff member, it has x number of coach attributes (the attributes could be different for different roles), and 100 "points" to assign to the various attributes. Every coach has 100 points split up in different ways (with a max in any one area) and perhaps allow them to earn a few more over time based on experience. Or rather than having names of coaches and staff, just have a "Staff focus" stage where you have time blocks in a 12-hour workday that the staff can spend on scouting rookies, scouting veterans, teaching skills/techniques to players (player development, lower penalties), watching opposition film (improves in-game decision-making), implementing their offensive/defensive system (improves in-game performance), and maybe other things.

I think the primary key to this is that it needs to become a way to manage resources that are basically equal, rather than just another place where owners who have more time to put into FOF can acquire another weapon in their arsenal. If it's resource management and everyone has the same amount of time or points to allocate, someone does "better" because they did the best job of allocating the same amount of resources to fit the needs of his team (kinda like the salary cap,) as opposed to someone doing better simply because they have played the game more and have a better feel for how much to raise/lower ticket prices to make the most money.

[Gallifrey]

One more line of thought on this--one that applies not just to coaches/staff, but could be applied elsewhere:

It's just not a good mechanism to help maintain a competitive environment when some coaches/scouts are "better" than others. A small handful of people--who are already quite good at FOF MP anyway--end up with the best coaches and scouts in every league because we understand the game better than others. That's really bad for competitive balance. One option if Jim really thinks it's important for all leagues to have coaches/scouts in some form would be to make them all essentially "equal" overall in terms of how much they can help a team win, but give them different strengths and weaknesses so a team owner can tailor the team to what they'd prefer.

Good points in this post and the prior one.

With the point in bold above is what I had been thinking of for MP. To be one of the 32 coaches in the league the coach would have to be really good at something, and the GM would have to build around it.

[QuikSand]

I like a number of things already posted here. I have a few thoughts on how elements of previous Solecismic releases could be re-purposed in a new pro game. I don't think you need a new idea, just buff up some old ones.

REVIVE THE IDEA OF TRAINING FOR EXPERTISE (from FOF 2001)

Back in FOF 2001, during training camp we set sliders to dedicate a fixed amount of time toward various functions -- if we put a lot of time into playing a 3-4 front, our team might get highly rated or maxed out in its expertise with that usage. Great core concept, bring it back. Maybe the list of functions, formations, and so forth could get more innovative -- but this core concept could really become a centerpiece to a new look in shaping your team.

COACHES/STAFF AS A RESOURCE FOR OUR USE (from TCY)

In TCY, I think the quality of the staff (maybe the compliance guy in specific) translated to more stuff we got to use ourselves (blocks of time/attention for problem players, or something like that). Park that idea a bit, but let's re-shape it.

I think as we have bandied about here the potential role for coaches - here's a great way to use them. Maybe a coach has an "identity" that effectively translates to certain skills. Put a coach on your team who is identified (however you do that in the game) as having certain skills compatible with, say, the west-coast offense, and when it comes time for me to develop my team's expertise ratings through training camp focus -- my team should have either a head start toward, or a shallower learning curve for, things attached to that specialty. My team might start out at 40/100 in understanding a "use running back as weapon in passing game" or in "use FB and TE as outlet receivers" or "design short passing to maximize yards after catch," or whatever the specifics are. Another team with a more smash-mouth inclined coach (or coaching staff) might see comparable bonuses elsewhere.

Then, I get to decide what I want to do with my team -- that's still up to me (or allow me to toggle that off if I prefer) -- but the point is that the coach helps to define the things that my team can do best. With a WCO coach, I focus my time developing the WCO routines, and during the season that expertise should result in a team that's more effective at that stuff.

This, to me, might be the single biggest way to help get us out of a rut that there's really only one way to max out the game. It has taken a long time for that stuff to get teased out of FOF 2007 (and hats off to you for that) but that is rightfully a concern for whatever you develop next. You're going to create a game that deserves and gets deep, deep attention, we all are on board for that.

MAKE LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT (FOF 2007 and before)

The game already has a lot of ratings that seem to be tertiary when compared to the direct physical skills. That's fine - but there's an opportunity there.

Maybe some various styles of play require familiarity of their own. OL might have separate ratings for drive-blocking, zone-blocking, or pull-blocking schemes -- maybe those look more like the position development ratings in FOF 2007 than they do like another group of colored bars with numeric ratings (more subtle and less calculable might be good here). Same thing for defenders -- read/react, know-your-role, funnel-to-the-tacklers, aggressive-pursuit, etc.

Now - let's make these ancillary ratings connect to this stuff. Make an intelligent player more able to learn a new system in training camp, or gain more comfort with it when on a team that focuses on that style. Make a player with a high discipline rating naturally better at certain styles of play. Maybe a new non-physical rating or two needs to show up here and be measurable and predictable -- but this could add an entirely new level to the game.

MORE FLAVORS (FOF 4)

I think it was FOF 4 when we started seeing broader diversity of players. Previous games had far to many guys who were just 65/65 in every rating, or 45/45 in everything, or so forth. It's much cooler to see receivers with widely varying skills, even if in the overall they round off to the same aggregate rating. I really like the idea that my team might really go for the highly disciplined finesse blocking right tackle (who fits my style), while my division rival wants no part of that guys but instead eyes the 345-lb behemoth road grader (who fits his). I don't think FOF needs tons of new raw data - but a couple new elements that help us do a bit more differentiation would be good -- and I think tying it to expertise, system, and non-physical tools is a way to get there.


A lot of what I'm getting at could have the potential to make gameplanning or training camp more tedious for those who don't love that stuff -- so I think an earlier idea of including a library of options (or at least allowing share-able files) makes a ton of sense there.

[timmynausea]

(I'd like to think that for certain plays and styles, some bars may already matter more than others. i.e. it's harder to get to the QB if you are running short passing, so Sense Rush comes into play less.)

There is definitely some truth to that, and I considered it while I was posting. Ultimately, I think what I'm suggesting is that there should be multiple paths to winning that are more or less equally viable. It feels like we've mostly sorted out exactly what bars are the most important for each position and, more or less, the best strategies for winning in general. So I'm suggesting some kind of overhaul that will (re)insert complex choices into the roster building process. I threw out a couple of possibilities, but like I said, there is more than one way to achieve that.

I like a lot of the suggestions in Quik's post, btw.

[isaccoubaldi]

Probably you are not interested in what happens in MP league but I like if you will be able to find a system to eliminate MP "tanking strategy" like "I sell all my good players when I take the team and the next season I have 7 1st round pick plus the 1.1 because I'll lose all the games" that are impossible in reality. I don't know the right solution for this but you can give:
1. more depth to the draft in general. Probably the difference between players is too much compared to the reality between a 1st round and the other rounds;
2. more power to the OL and DL that in reality are at the top of every draft (in general) and in FOF are gun-fodder;
3. you can give more power to player's agent because it's too easy to maintain a player in a team for all his career;
4. instead of ticket price you can introduce a "team prestige point" who is based on the importance of the players that are on the team. If you take a team and sell all the good players (who carry people to the stadium) you lost points and this will have bad consequences, etc.

In general I like a game that reward more the organizer than the trader. I know it's a dream but ...

I like the list of suggestions in Ben's post. A point system where you decide how to train your team, what offensive and defensive strategy to adopt, how many resource to put in scouting, etc. without staff and coach member obtain the same result and is more equal.

Btw the game is great and even a simple update is welcome for me. :)

[isaccoubaldi]

Some little changes:
1. the possibility of using the "depth charts windows" before the start of the season to help the GM work;
2. more in game help to understand the chemistry and cohesion (if I use this player my cohesion go up or down? etc.);
3. weight training on one window instead of "open-close" all the players' windows.

[Jughead Spock]

Probably you are not interested in what happens in MP league but I like if you will be able to find a system to eliminate MP "tanking strategy" like "I sell all my good players when I take the team and the next season I have 7 1st round pick plus the 1.1 because I'll lose all the games" that are impossible in reality. I don't know the right solution for this

I think you need to take away the 'dictator for life' role. Was it this game or TPF where you'd hit 'next season' and all the sudden you're with another team (due to poor performance)? The 'owners' should have expectations, and that should play a huge variable in whether you stay on as coach or not. So, yeah, go ahead and sell the team and pile up the picks - you may well not be here to use them if you go 2-14.

For MP, could be the same concept. The 'owner' (in the game) says the 'GM' (you) has to go. Then the commish of the league has to put them into another franchise; either lowest-ranked, first available, whatever.

I dunno, it'd probably turn off some owners, but I've always liked this idea. Puts some pressure on in the right way. Win, and now, or move along.

[unbbmas]

I think that FOF is one of the better games I have ever played, the idea and the simulation is great, for instances please don’t modify the basic systems of the game.
Some suggestion that I really like:
1-Make the bids secret and just show which teams are interested in a guy maybe with a grade (little interest, low interest, very interest…)
2-An option to be able to play call against a live or opponent online in mp leagues ,this would be great, for me the better improvement.
3-Graph interface to see the plays (can be something really simple with 00 and XXX with names moving in a square) but would be great.
4-I like the idea to improve the psychologist part of the roster with personality an motivations for the players and staff (that means substitute the simple system of chemistry with one more complex) this will give the management of the roster another dimension. This system has to be linked with the interviews of the draft (I love the draft system).
Something similar of the Crusaders kings 2 game.
5-Improve the economic management, need to have more impact.. This is complicated because there is the risk of unbalanced the teams, some Ideas:
-Price Tickets for seasons and for day.
-Contracts with sponsors that depend of the results (then your team can have a different objectives for a season and an extra motivation for win every game) these contracts have to be related with your fan support and power. If your team lost a lot ,then they will offer you bad contracts.
If you don’t do your objectives required they will offer worst contract next seasons…
6-Improvement of the special team plays (fakes and possibility to select the type of play you want) I would like to know that the kicker is kicking sort for the wind ¿maybe would better go for 4?
And things like that..
7-More detail in the description of the plays.
I’m not an expert but I thing that for development the grade of difficulty for these developments would be:
Easy 1,
Medium with a good design 6,5,4 but need balance study
Difficult , 7 (depending of the detail)
Very difficult 3, 2
And my order of preferences: 2,4,5,6,3,7,1

[timmynausea]

Two more suggestions:

1. Offensive linemen should be graded. It's common for coaching staffs to go through the film after a game and grade each linemen for each play. This site explains their system which is similar to most I've heard of: Grading | ProFootballFocus.com (https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/) It would be great to have more of a sense of whether the linemen are performing well on a down by down basis as the info we have now is a little cryptic.

2. More booms in the late rounds of the draft. The MP community really gets the draft now to the point that it is often a pretty predictable affair. I'd like to see the initial draft class seem to have a little less talent so an extra 10 or so players could boom ever year.

I love that the draft requires skill, and I don't want it to be a total crapshoot or anything. I just think that the best games find the right balance between skill and luck, and the draft needs a little more luck and randomness at this point. I think it'd be better to do this with booms as those are fun and too many busts would be more frustrating than fun.

[Yoda]

There's nothing fun or interesting about the same small handful of guys having the best staff in every league.

I think that's more because people don't want to put the effort into tickets or know how.

Is it really good to reward laziness by just removing the mechanic?

[Yoda]

If you want more late round booms- we need earlier bust and I think there was something like that in FoF before I started and it wasn't met with a good reception.

[Ben E Lou]

I think that's more because people don't want to put the effort into tickets or know how.

Is it really good to reward laziness by just removing the mechanic?I'm not sure I'd call it "laziness." There are people who have been playing FOF for a long time and are good at it who haven't figured out how to solve this. I'm in 6 leagues, and I believe you're in around 7-10. (Four of the six I'm in plus PFL, GEFL, GEFL2, and maybe some others?) That gives us a significant trial-and-error advantage over the guy who is in one or two leagues. There should be a learning curve for everything, sure, but when a significant number of smart people who are good at virtually everything else in FOF have been playing for 9 years and are still pretty lost on an aspect of the game that makes a difference in wins and losses, to me that's getting into the territory of being problematic for competitive balance. I suppose the good news on this particular mechanism is that most people don't believe that it matters very much, so it's not a major source of frustration. But I'm pretty well convinced that it does add to the success of the "haves" a bit too much.

[Yoda]

I'm not sure I'd call it "laziness." There are people who have been playing FOF for a long time and are good at it who haven't figured out how to solve this. I'm in 6 leagues, and I believe you're in around 7-10. (Four of the six I'm in plus PFL, GEFL, GEFL2, and maybe some others?) That gives us a significant trial-and-error advantage over the guy who is in one or two leagues. There should be a learning curve for everything, sure, but when a significant number of smart people who are good at virtually everything else in FOF have been playing for 9 years and are still pretty lost on an aspect of the game that makes a difference in wins and losses, to me that's getting into the territory of being problematic for competitive balance. I suppose the good news on this particular mechanism is that most people don't believe that it matters very much, so it's not a major source of frustration. But I'm pretty well convinced that it does add to the success of the "haves" a bit too much.


Fair enough, can't disagree with that (but I still think there is a fair amount of laziness in it :D ).

and I believe you're in around 7-10. (Four of the six I'm in plus PFL, GEFL, GEFL2, and maybe some others?)

Let's see-
BFL, CCFL, CyFL, GEFL, HFL, PFL, TFL, vNFL, GMFL, WOOF.. I think that's it... so, yeah 10.

Which I may end up having to drop more than a few soon, just a lot going on personally (including my mother-in-law who has stage 4 lung cancer moved in with us ~2 weeks ago) and I am missing all kinds of drafts/stages in all my leagues (of the like 4 or 5 drafts recently in the leagues I am in, I've made one pick).

[cuervo72]

Fair enough, can't disagree with that (but I still think there is a fair amount of laziness in it :D ).

It's some laziness, but it's also some resignation. Even if I did figure it out, I'm not going to be able to get past the level where Quik and Ben operate*. If I can do a decent job as-is, why bother putting in the extra effort?

Besides, how would I learn this? By upping from two leagues to eight just to churn more seasons? No thank you.


* at this point in my FOF career, I'm content with playing for say, fifth (or even eighth) rather than first and hoping for some lucky dice rolls.

[Yoda]

Ticketing? Nah, I learned it back when I was in like 3 or 4 leagues. Mostly from watching, checking what others were offering and implementing my own strat.

[Firefly]

*Close some of the loopholes GMs can use in MP, for example, signing several FAs to large one-year deals with no bonus and then cutting some of them later, cutting a player and resigning him in the same stage, tanking (if at all possible), I'm sure there's more, but I don't know them.

*Also, this thing about a player never resigning again with a team if that team as much as dares not give him a new deal after TC if the player holds out is absurd. If this is going to be a thing, it needs to happen at a specified time (Week 1, maybe) and regardless of whether the player reports or gets a new deal after that. Or it could at least be more random.

*I'd like to see some sort of penalty inserted for trading star players. Maybe an attendance penalty, maybe a team performance penalty. This is a key component of legal tanking.

*I'd like to see eliminated the restriciton on releasing players with minor injuries if they have a multi-year contract. Doesn't make any sense to me.

*Maybe most important, make the draft easier for GMs and commishes. Interviews in particular are a pain. Ideally, be able to import a finished draft from the Draft Utility so all the picks don't have to be done by hand.

*Improve the shortcut key system. Some don't seem to work or have limitations. For example, when doing interviews you double click on a player (eliminate the double-click there, too, please) and if you click the shortcut key for "Interview" it won't work. And if you click on interview and then press the shortcut key for "next player" it won't work, either. You have to click on "next player" first and only then the shortcut works -but by then it's too late.

[Firefly]

Two more suggestions:


2. More booms in the late rounds of the draft. The MP community really gets the draft now to the point that it is often a pretty predictable affair. I'd like to see the initial draft class seem to have a little less talent so an extra 10 or so players could boom ever year.



And more busts! Not like RL, but maybe a tad more. Take some of the edge off tanking.

[sjshaw]

3. weight training on one window instead of "open-close" all the players' windows.

Oh yes, please.

Another idea:

Player loyalty could be variable and applicable to his current team. It could start off at some baseline (player's propensity to be loyal), and then increase or decrease along with his time on his current team. If he expects to be a starter, but is instead riding the pine, then his loyalty towards his team should decline. Same if they drag out contract negotiations as a rookie or RFA. If he has success with his current team and is a good fit for their system (assuming you implement that in some way), then it makes sense his loyalty to the team would increase. If he signs with a new team in FA, his new loyalty to them could be determined by various things, such as how much "over-market" they paid for him, etc.

[scorp]

A few changes that be more like real football:

Have a practice squad ( and yes i can be poached like in the NFL ) You do get the option to promote the player to the active roster to prevent the PS poach though.

Be able to (re)sign Coaches/Scouts in season at least when in the last year of their deal.

Be able to replace the FB with an HB and have offensive options that can take this into account. ( ie set ideal target % for each receiver/TE/RB/FB(HB) for example, or a target skew to a player you would like to focus the passing attack to go to. or preferrered target progression, WR1, HB,WR2,RB for example.

QB's should learn formations by what you practice in TC, and preseason.

Maybe replace the individual lengths of yards passing bars with armstrength, touch, and anticipation. some 10 yard passes are actually much longer than others if the are an out to the far side of the field. not sure if the game engine can handle that though.

[Firefly]

Ah, yes, what scorp said about extending coaches

[isaccoubaldi]

I notice that if I put an offer for a coach and in the game it is "highlighted in red" like best offer there is the same the possibility he not sign for my team. Why? Boh. The only thing sure is that I lose my offer and the game sign a xxx coach with bad ratings that I don't like. And I lost one season of work. On this thread I read all want the coachs in the game because they add realism to the game but I don't think a team in the NFL lose a coach without a reason and need to take a coach that they don't know ...

[weboes]

Somethings I would like to see are:

-Real restricted free agency. If the it cant be done like the NFL guys who refuse to sign in FA1 should be resigned for post draft FA to a minimum deal. The player can then hold out if he is still angry.

-The ability to edit league size. It always silly for historical leagues to have the new teams.

-Expansion drafts so those teams can be added in the proper year.

-Ability to turn off cap/modern day FA. A historic league could then add it in the proper year.

- The pro bowl might be a fun thing. Wasnt that in the old version?

-Things like the game plan analyzer and change tracker to be in the game so us non computer people can use them

-Things like roster bonus ect.. added to contracts.

-Ability to vote for hall of fame in game. Not a big deal but might be fun for leagues.

- Ability to have coach/scout ratings edited. I like how it is but some people may like for everyone in the league to have the same rating for all the coaches and scouts.


- Options options options. I love the game but I have always thought a weak point was that you couldnt edit things in the game like you can in ootp. Maybe you want more rounds in the draft like there use to be or you want UFA sooner or later in a players career.

[Dutch]

I'd like to see stadium ticket pricing and ticket sales redone so that it is based on in-game performance indicators (and subsequently allow us to be somewhat in control of it). I'd go so far as to use sliders for determining pricing for each section. 300-level corner seats can be Cheap, Average, Expensive. Luxury Boxes can be Cheap, Average, Expensive.

For the 300-level seats, base city interest purely on the W-L record and playoffs.

For more expensive seats, base it on W-L record, playoffs...and % of cap-space used....and roster strength. People are less likely to spend a lot of money if they can see the owner is skimping on talent.

Also, if teams are habitual winners, they eventually get "season ticket" waiting list credit that allows them to have a few off-years and still sell out.

[Dutch]

For coaches, coordinators, and staff...add some options so that MP can combat tanking.

OPTION 1: Place a % chance for coach firing for the worst 5 teams in the league.

If you are the worst team (winning %) at the end of the regular season...you have a 50% of having your coach fired.

If you are the 2nd worst team, it's 40%. 3rd worst is 30%. 4th worst is 20%. 5th worst is 10%.

Add coach cohesion to the player cohesion. Losing that cohesion might kill some desire to tank.

OPTION 2: Increase hold-outs/disgruntledness to players that are on teams that ended up last.

[QuikSand]

While all those [ticket pricing] ideas are realistic (and that's one goal) -- I worry that they all contribute to the good teams having added advantages over the weak teams. Not sure this game (or any) needs that reinforcement.

That's a tough cycle to break. Basically, the front-loaded draft is the only tool we've got.

[Pyser]

i'd really like players to dictate more in MP. old players should want to win a championship on their last contract, or as a free agent. or they should want off a losing team (all this to say want winner is not nearly strong enough). or some should say it's all about the money right now. or some should want to go "home" to their first team, maybe.

also, it'd be cool if teams earn reputations in the game. maybe it can be based on their average record the past 5 seasons. or if a team trades away a lot of players or cuts them after signing them, free agents should be more wary about that team.

[Dutch]

While all those [ticket pricing] ideas are realistic (and that's one goal) -- I worry that they all contribute to the good teams having added advantages over the weak teams. Not sure this game (or any) needs that reinforcement.

That's a tough cycle to break. Basically, the front-loaded draft is the only tool we've got.

I have to wonder if there is a way to make more people competitive with Ben and QS? I doubt it, but if there is a way, I believe it's by making things more controllable and more defined rather than vice-versa.

As it stands right now, I think most people have given up on ever reversing the financial tables on you or Ben in established leagues...and probably many have given up even focusing on all the little steps required (bumping ticket prices just right, renovation strategies, need for luxury boxes, need for fans(!)) because so many of those steps require some (frustratingly) abstract vote that may take many attempts and seasons (RL years) of work to accomplish.

I'm not saying this sort of re-work will make more Ben's and QS's, but it might make things in leagues where the skill-level is more...close together...much more fun and logical.

[Yoda]

I have to admit, there are times I find it hard not to get a little slighted when my name isn't tossed around.....anywho....

Ticketing really isn't that hard. It takes time and it takes a willingness to drop your prices pretty damn low and start from there. You do increases to keep your attendance at about 60-75% in each area, raising/lowing ticket prices as necessary. You can charge significantly more for Luxury seating.

And I'll admit, I disagree with Ben (and the standard thought process) that you do upgrades instead of building a new stadium. I always build new stadiums and do pretty damn well (in the top, if not the top, in cash flow).

[flounder]

1. Offensive linemen should be graded. It's common for coaching staffs to go through the film after a game and grade each linemen for each play. This site explains their system which is similar to most I've heard of: Grading | ProFootballFocus.com (https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/) It would be great to have more of a sense of whether the linemen are performing well on a down by down basis as the info we have now is a little cryptic.

This +1000000. It's needed most on linemen, but I'd like it on every player.

[isaccoubaldi]

I think a great game to use like touchstone is Football Manager. Every year they add something to the simulation but in reality all the game is: scouting - buy players - training - tactics - play match - sell players. All of this without great financial decision about ticket, etc. The financial area is only used for the contracts of the players.
If we use Football Manager like example it's impossible for a new coach to sell all the players because the hooligans kill him after one week. And you have resolved the problem of "legal tanking"! :)
I think this is the natural evolution of FOF: give more depth to the players characters, to the training area, to the scouting area and to the gameplan area. If I understand well this is a one man project so I think it's important for Jim to concentrate only on some areas. For me there is no need to spend your time in the financial aspect of the game (except player's contract).
Good work.

[MIJB#19]

I see too many teams that screw up with stadium constructions or ticket prices unintentionally, which hurts so bad because after 2 decades they are still unable to fix their problems. No matter how slow or fast a league moves, this means years in real time to be able to do something about it.

This aspect of the game (tickets, stadium) could go to a 'let the AI handle area'. As suggested earlier: have the attendance figures be more about winning and having all-universe star players that attract fans. Or get rid of the effect entirely by give the league (or SP player) an opportunity to make it a 'football technical only', or even 'roster building only' (removing coaches and scouts, game planning) game.



Considering financials, the contract aspect to me feels too much micro management as well. I'm finding myself turning over every single 10K to manage my cap, but it doesn't really add to my enjoyment of the game. I wouldn't mind if the details of contracts are determined under the hood and are would be more like how we offer contracts to rookies. Alternatively, I wouldn't even mind if it gets more simplified towards a set of options one can give (like minsal, starter salary, flat contract, back-loaded). Looking around, I see a lot of owners simply dropping contract offers in chunks of 1M or 500K already anyway to save time, only diverting from that once they get into a bidding war or need to renegotiate to create cap space.

[cuervo72]

Considering financials, the contract aspect to me feels too much micro management as well. I'm finding myself turning over every single 10K to manage my cap, but it doesn't really add to my enjoyment of the game.

Could I perhaps interest you in a league with no imposed dead cap space? :D

(seriously though - I still find it funny that on one hand Quik comments that "the front-loaded draft is the only tool we've got" in combating the power players, yet as a community it seems like we've moved more and more towards rules that serve to minimize the importance of the draft)

re: tickets. I'm still of the mind that I don't want to piss off my fans, which I admit, isn't the best way to run a team (for whatever reason I don't wish to play Hot Dog Stand where we have to find the absolute right price points). I don't really feel like experimenting for just how much I can push the taxpayers, etc. (oh, can we also turn off urban blight and regional depressions? Don't care that the poor fishermen in Bar Harbor, ME only make $18k/year, at least not enough to make me want to move my fake football franchise to I dunno, Houston.)

re: throwing names around. I'm in two leagues, so I pick out who dominates those two leagues because that's my direct competition. Dominate other leagues? Sorry, ain't care.

[QuikSand]

(seriously though - I still find it funny that on one hand Quik comments that "the front-loaded draft is the only tool we've got" in combating the power players, yet as a community it seems like we've moved more and more towards rules that serve to minimize the importance of the draft)

Hmm... depleting the draft? I think as much as anything the frustration has been with tanking as a major element of a rebuild strategy. A capable owner guts a team completely, "suffers" through a couple of terrible seasons, and comes out with a reloaded roster with two studs who would have been nigh impossible to acquire otherwise. A few leagues have gone to a lottery or whatnot to diminish this incentive.

Other stuff like "no regenerations or extensions" are just sandbox shit. No reason to wrap those up in with conventional leagues, I don't think.

[aston217]

I agree with Quik, the definiteness of a Top 5 done right (although not year in, year out) is the best tool afforded to struggling teams. However there really isn't that much of a dropoff throughout round 1 or even 2, apart from the 80-rated WRs being (mostly) out of reach.

I guess I'd say the draft is not front-loaded enough.

I wouldn't mind if tickets were cosmetics only. They're cool to look at, but another way to separate experienced players from the pack is something not needed. As mentioned, tickets are the ticket (heh, heh) to dominating the coaching market.

Speaking of coaching market, it's a complete bitch to sort through the available coaches list.

[QuikSand]

Not specific to MP/SP. but this seems to be the lively thread...

When "volatility" was introduced into FOF, we spent a bunch of time trying to figure out what it connected to. Various theories emerged...

-a high volaitlity guy has a higher chance of becoming a future suspension?
-a high volatility guy has a higher chance of becoming a random draft bust?
-a high volatility guy has a higher chance of creating team chemistry problems?
-a high volatility guy has a high chance of bitching about his contract later on?

Anyway - it took a while for most people to get it. Some people obviously still haven't.

But... all those things above could be added into the game (maybe just by way of interviews?) to add some more fabric into the drafting and player development stuff. Whether that means adding another bar/rating or two, or another one or two of those left-side numeric values... it could be one more thing for me to factor in.

While we're there, maybe "wants winner" and the agent effect could be either scrapped or beefed up, too.

[Yoda]

Another thing to add- players who insist on testing the FA market.

[isaccoubaldi]

Probably Jim can put more emphasis on the concept of cohesion to avoid the rebuild strategy. If the veterans (based on years on team) can give some sort of bonus to the team the new GM will be more unwilling to sell this type of players. The same for player "face of the franchise" that sell tickets. I think the rating here play a great effect because all of us know that veteran player start to lose ratings after a certain period. Jim says stats are more important than ratings but I think the concept is not easy to understand.

I don't like coach. I remember many games where I want to run and the coach pass or the opposite. If I say I want to run 60% of the time why my team pass 90% in the first half (without adjustments)? This happens because my coach is mesmerized by the opponent coach? Come on ... I want to lose but with my strategy/gameplan. Or the problem of "familiarity"? If I'm the coach I know to not use the same play two times in a row. IMO the coach are really a mess. Not to mention the scout.

[Firefly]

Another thing to add- players who insist on testing the FA market.

Yes... possibly red flags? Who knows what those guys do in the present version, but nothing too evident.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

the impact of hc's could be pulled back to prevent the rich getting richer cycle . as it is hc's affect player performance, play calling, game management, injuries, etc. irl hc's make the big decisions on gameday but delegate pretty much everything else. moreover the difference between a good coach and a bad coach in the nfl is usually a matter of who plays qb

maybe you could just call them stereotypes and peg that to overall performance ie: players coach, qb guru, defense first, playcalling wizard, etc

then re-work oc's and dc's to offensive staff and defensive staff (that's the simplest way to do it without having a bunch of positional coaches) and have that affect player performance, development and play calling. and make the staffs dynamic (at least more dynamic than it is now) in theory simulating coaches being hired away

[QuikSand]

Another thing to add- players who insist on testing the FA market.

...or if not an absolute demand on testing the market, then some guys should ask for clearly unrealistic reneg demands, and it should be tied to something. We get an email message like "My client, Rod Tidwell, is very optimistic that the free market will better reflect his value to a team," and when we open him up, he's asking for $10m/yr rather than the $4m/yr that the in-game formula basically generates.

[MIJB#19]

This isn't quite the thread for a simply quote and nod, but:
...or if not an absolute demand on testing the market, then some guys should ask for clearly unrealistic reneg demands, and it should be tied to something. We get an email message like "My client, Rod Tidwell, is very optimistic that the free market will better reflect his value to a team," and when we open him up, he's asking for $10m/yr rather than the $4m/yr that the in-game formula basically generates.:withstupid:

[cuervo72]

With no consequences for a GM or coach (i.e. they are the human player and can't be fired), I'm not sure how you dissuade tanking. Possible thoughts, some of which have already been brought up:

* Forcibly removing staff or having them quit?
* Making coaches and players significantly less likely to sign with your team?
* Direct correlation to ticket sales?

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

I tend to think that the teams that do well in the NFL are the ones that are able to get talent out of the draft. Yes, some FA have helped teams, but my guess would be that these are typically support players. I've heard opinions that most NFL teams are beginning to catch onto this (though the NFLPA is likely to see it as collusion...)

As much as I hate being burned by random dev, I think for MP we probably need to spice up the draft to make things less predictable and/or to expand/make that part of the game deeper. I wonder what the overhead cost would be in making draft classes available well in advance - a season or more ahead of the draft. Have in-game mock drafts, include underclassmen (who may or may not enter the draft), have players rise or slide based on college performance. Actually give some emphasis to a player's school. Then add the combines and interviews. Maybe even random news stories/player notes based on character/red flag*. Perhaps some injury history. Things that could be tipoffs that a player might be trouble...or could be red herrings.

* Regarding red flags, I'd like to see some actual indication that a red flag player is indeed causing trouble. Like TO. When things went bad with TO, dammit we sure as hell knew it, didn't we?

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

Oh, another random thought here. I know some think the current chemistry setup is rather odd, but others realize its power and have embraced it as a mechanic (I personally think it's rather charming, even if I don't leverage it to the extent that Quik does.) Well...why don't coaches play by these same rules? I mean, think about it - don't some coaches and some players (and some coaches and other coaches - hi Buddy Ryan and Kevin Gilbride!) just not get along? Maybe it would make for a more interesting coach mini-game if you had to line up which coaches would get along with other coaches, which coaches would get along with star players, etc. Maybe a HC interacts with all players (including kickers!), maybe just with leaders, I don't know. Maybe coordinators factor in with players on their side of the ball.

[Pyser]

while we are on coaches, it'd be nice to be able to fire coaches mid-season

[scorp]

Also for coaches offer assistants from another team a HC position but the current team needs to give permission to the poacher, in the NFL. That part would need to be addressed somehow. maybe offer a pick or something to the current team.

[Firefly]

Also for coaches offer assistants from another team a HC position but the current team needs to give permission to the poacher, in the NFL. That part would need to be addressed somehow. maybe offer a pick or something to the current team.

Sounds reasonable that you can sign a coach away if you're giving him a promotion. Maybe staff hiring can work like this: a team can make an offer to his own coaches that will always be accepted as long as it meets the coaches minimum cash requirement -or perhaps simply give current team a sizable advantage-, but if another team offers a promotion, then it's on! Highest bidder with a little advantage to the team offering the promotion.

[kosar19]

My number one wishlist is an ability to mod the game through configuration settings. For instance, the BFL could have lowered the impact of QBs and WRs instead of nerfing them through draft files. I envision a setting of 60% for BPR, so the game makes every BPR rating at 60%. Or max it at 60, or whatever. Essentially, configuration settings that give the ability to make tweaks. XML works great in this area (allowing max/min/percentage settings).

Many of the suggestions I've seen would benefit from moddable configuration settings. One idea I liked was Coach Identify providing bonuses/negatives for certain attributes. Again, have the ability to modify these settings would allow for tweaking. After all, they are just settings. Again, an XML configuration file could provide great flexibility by offering various modifications, such as specific player attributes bonuses, game playing bonus, team bonus, etc.

One pet peeve of mine is how combines map directly to bars. I'd love to see Bench Press (for WR) contribute by 30% Courage, 20% Endurance, 10% Route Running, and so on. Again, make it mod'able. League to league can determine these settings.

Pre-set game plans, aspects of game plans, or whatever engine is used is modifiable. XML configuration files would also provide the ability to explain. Let's say a new version of FOF had a limited number of game plans that an owner had to choose from, such as West Coast, Greatest Show on Turf, Chicago-46 Defense, etc. XML configuration would give the ability to extend the choices and define the attributes for these choices. I decide to add New England's two-TE pass happy offense. I'm not saying individual teams defining their own, but a league providing a set of choices for owners to choose. My point is, even where there is limited choices, having a moddable game provides for an extension. My best example of moddable for extending choices is a war game that new units can be added and/or altered to the starting game definition.

Everything, from salary to yards per play to player ratings is moddable in some form or fashion. Every constant could be available. Wise or not, leave it up to the community to decide.

This ability would give the community the ability to tweak the game. Reality is, the game will have exploits. This functionality provides a way to adjust over time. And each individual league is the best place to make these adjustments.

[Vaevictis_386]

How about this:

If you win only 3 or fewer games, there is a 5% chance that your highest rated player in each position group demands to be traded. The player goes into a non-negotiable hold out until traded.

[aston217]

Wow, maybe not in such precise terms, but I LOVE it. Losing breeding losing attitudes and manifesting itself in player discontent, team chemistry issues, and so on. Making tanking not so attractive an option while also not imposing talent punishments on teams that struggle.

[Disturbed]

How about this:

If you win only 3 or fewer games, there is a 5% chance that your highest rated player in each position group demands to be traded. The player goes into a non-negotiable hold out until traded.

I'd love to see players that based on Loyalty, Wants Winner will determine if they refuse to resign with your team.

Like.. If your 85/85 6th year QB sees that your team has been 3-13, 4-12, 2-14, 2-14, 5-11 in his 5 years, he decides he doesn't want to play for you anymore and refuses to sign any kind of long term deal. You could franchise him but then you run the risk of him refusing to sign the tender and holding out.

I'm not sure if all of that is to much work but would make it lots of fun!

[SegRat]

I admitt that it would be kinda of neat to see a Carson Palmer situation. That should be very rare, but it would be cool to see..

[Bako]

Do away with the astrology/affinity stuff.

I'm pretty sure GMs in the NFL don't base personnel decisions based on whether a player is a aries or virgo.

[sjshaw]

Do away with the astrology/affinity stuff.

I'm pretty sure GMs in the NFL don't base personnel decisions based on whether a player is a aries or virgo.

At least make it a bit more transparent. A way to search for affinity matches would be nice.

[Pyser]

At least make it a bit more transparent. A way to search for affinity matches would be nice.

um, that code was cracked on day one. do a search.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

are you on the hook for the full contract if you fire a coach early in the current game? i don't think you are (even if so it doesn't matter to a team flush with $$$) having guaranteed coaching contracts and a staff budget seem like an easy fix to the rich getting richer cycle in staff hiring

[QuikSand]

um, that code was cracked on day one. do a search.

surely what he means is that in-game, there could be more filters or conditions on player searches -- including things like "only affinities" or "omit conflicts" or the like

it would be nice


the age-old question with the chemistry system remains whether something that is superficially unrealistic is still worth keeping in the game as a proxy for "paying attention to other factors like good character" which is a reasonable part of roster building

not all will agree, nor see it as such

[Dutch]

I like the added depth as a reward for those who pay attention.

[Bako]

At least make it a bit more transparent. A way to search for affinity matches would be nice.

The way this aspect of the game is being exploited is just totally unrealistic.

Affinities and conflicts should have some randomness to it. There is no way a GM would know who is going to get along and who would have conflict.

I can just see it now, Bill Parcells is in the war room and the Giants are about to draft Mark Bavaro. Just as their getting ready to report the pick he stops everything. "Guys I don't feel right about this. This kids a Taurus and our WR leader is Libra. Their gonna have conflict. Lets go in another direction."

C'MON MAN!!!

[aston217]

The affinities idea is a nice touch and I have no issue with the implementation being "unrealistic" in a real world sense. What I do not like is how brutally inefficient looking up birthdays is. So there are a few guys who will devote enough attention to the whole system to land 30 affinities, and more power to them for doing so, but the amount and degree of planning necessary for that is just too much for most players.

The system, from a gameplay standpoint, is totally unwieldy.

[Pyser]

surely what he means is that in-game, there could be more filters or conditions on player searches -- including things like "only affinities" or "omit conflicts" or the like

it would be nice


the age-old question with the chemistry system remains whether something that is superficially unrealistic is still worth keeping in the game as a proxy for "paying attention to other factors like good character" which is a reasonable part of roster building

not all will agree, nor see it as such

oh yeah, i totally read it wrong. my fault.

i think if players had more "dynamic personalities" the entire chemistry system could be scrapped.

[sjshaw]

oh yeah, i totally read it wrong. my fault.

i think if players had more "dynamic personalities" the entire chemistry system could be scrapped.

Apology accepted.

[scorp]

QB fumbles on plays the QB runs, if you have a running QB or your QB scrambles for positive yards the fumble % should be really low since 99% of the time the QB slides at that point.
He is not taking a big hit like sacks many times are so the fumble calculation should be different.

[NawlinsFan]

It may have already been mentioned earlier. An option menu to select/deselect the application of various game rules to create a league from a certain era with the ability to changes selections at the end/beginning of each season. Having the ability to vary the number of teams would be a huge plus.

Granted this would be tremendously complex but hey, we are dreaming here aren't we!

[Firefly]

In relation to affinities, keep the chemistry system, but place a cap on the benefits of having good affinities, so that it's not overly beneficial to give it priority over special teams and depth.

[Prinzar]

I don't want other teams being able to see my contract offers. Bidding wars happen too often, and you don't know if one guy is being a jackass and back loading so you put up too much money.
Real teams don't know who has offered what, so I would like to keep to that.

For the draft, when you interview a guy maybe he could give you a clue as to which other teams have also interviewed. This can be used to add a mind game aspect, and help build intrigue before the draft.
Also, when a team drafts a replacement really high, the level of the current starter should affect a holdout/demand for a trade. Favre knew he was safe from Rodgers, but Alex Smith should have been very worried by Kaep, and I would like a bit of drama in game to reflect this. Increased performance? Bad feelings in the dressing room?

My last request is to punish losing teams in MP. It needs to be done by studs not signing for bad teams. It's too easy for a bad GM to keep losing and stocking up on mega talent, then losing even more. Make it so these studs want to be traded. Stars create drama. It's rare a great player doesn't create a fuss if his team stinks.
Making the stars want to be traded after a few bad seasons would stop ridiculously talented rosters being built, much like real life

[Pyser]

Real teams don't know who has offered what, so I would like to keep to that.


yeah, agents never use other teams offers to try and get more money.

[QuikSand]

I don't want other teams being able to see my contract offers. Bidding wars happen too often, and you don't know if one guy is being a jackass and back loading so you put up too much money.
Real teams don't know who has offered what, so I would like to keep to that.

I don't think just dropping this from the game would make the most sense.

However, just showing the top dollar amounts can be misleading, I'd agree with that. Currently the game shows us the top total dollar amount in the "Continue Free Agency" list -- maybe instead of seeing that, we could see the terms of the offer that's "in the lead" either there or on the offers screen, some indication of where the player is leaning and perhaps an indication of how strongly.

[alrith72]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already (too lazy to check). I would like active players who are not on the depth chart to not see the field except for special teams or if there is an injury. E.G if i activate a 3rd running back with no running skills purely for kick/punt returns and he isn't on the depth chart i don't want to see him carrying the ball!

[Dutch]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already (too lazy to check). I would like active players who are not on the depth chart to not see the field except for special teams or if there is an injury. E.G if i activate a 3rd running back with no running skills purely for kick/punt returns and he isn't on the depth chart i don't want to see him carrying the ball!
Agreed.

[Dutch]

I don't want other teams being able to see my contract offers. Bidding wars happen too often, and you don't know if one guy is being a jackass and back loading so you put up too much money.
Real teams don't know who has offered what, so I would like to keep to that.



I use that technique of faking contracts in order to make people overpay with some success. Interesting choice of words for that strategy. Am I being a jackass by trying to get people to pay more? I would love to know that the MP environment helped get people into cap hell. As of right now, the only way to get into cap hell is to be a cap mgmt baboon...or stock pile a ton of great players at the expense of roster mgmt baboons...in short, in MP, but in this case FA, I want to impact other people's game challenge/experience.

[aston217]

Everything's considered cheap by somebody.

[Ben E Lou]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already (too lazy to check). I would like active players who are not on the depth chart to not see the field except for special teams or if there is an injury. E.G if i activate a 3rd running back with no running skills purely for kick/punt returns and he isn't on the depth chart i don't want to see him carrying the ball!Your general comment is a good one, but the specific example is a terrible one for two reasons:

1. If there is little/no endurance penalty, it opens up an exploit of using two RBs with terrible endurance all the time.
2. If there *is* an endurance penalty, then you're going to want RB3 to get in the game rather than FOF continually using two exhausted RBs.

But for *other* positions, this makes sense.

[Firefly]

I don't think just dropping this from the game would make the most sense.

However, just showing the top dollar amounts can be misleading, I'd agree with that. Currently the game shows us the top total dollar amount in the "Continue Free Agency" list -- maybe instead of seeing that, we could see the terms of the offer that's "in the lead" either there or on the offers screen, some indication of where the player is leaning and perhaps an indication of how strongly.

I like that

[Firefly]

Your general comment is a good one, but the specific example is a terrible one for two reasons:

1. If there is little/no endurance penalty, it opens up an exploit of using two RBs with terrible endurance all the time.
2. If there *is* an endurance penalty, then you're going to want RB3 to get in the game rather than FOF continually using two exhausted RBs.

But for *other* positions, this makes sense.

But... you can still do No. 1 now by keeping only two RBs active (I think the FB may get a few carries, but he could be low endurance, too). Maybe make extremely tired RBs -or other players- more injury prone?

[scorp]

For the contract stuff I am not sure a teams offer should be completely revealed, I don't think NFL teams know that stuff.
Maybe a hint at the players wishes like you get in SP, such as more bonus, more/less years would sufficient.
What areas does your offer lack is what you really want to know.
An Agent would at least give and NFL club an idea of what they need to do but doubt exact real #s are told to the competing teams.

[aston217]

I can't really think of a scenario in an NFL game where TWO RBs both got "too tired" to be effective.

On offers, I think it might help if you couldn't make arbitrary offers. Introduce some hard-coded "sanity" into the process and leave the rest up to the fates, as it were. The ability to offer at the extremes, combined with the ability to accrue huge amounts of cap space, makes for some head scratchers that some people can't get over.

That said this is more of a style issue than a gameplay one; in free agency I think it's reasonable to expect you might have to overpay if you really want a guy, to the point of stretching your resources to the limit if that's how bad you want them. The wise GM is one who sets a value for a guy and doesn't deviate much from it, regardless of what the market says, so that he doesn't saddle himself with too many long-term, crippling contracts. If you expect to compete for a top player, you'll still probably be befuddled in a bidding war or two, but surely you can't expect to land such a player by paying EXACTLY what you needed to and only just, right? It's free agency!

[Nemesis]

G: The Players :

Players should be more than predictable numbers with easy to diagnose career patterns. They should also be less. I think the only things that should be shown on a player are : a list of their combine history up to the most recent for the player, which update during training camp each season, (but only if they are on a team during the training camp stage). This would be one way to note that a player may be on the rise, in decline, or that they have "lost a step" without telling the whole story in bars. I think players should also be rated in other things like leadership, motivation, work ethic, football intelligence, durability and playing style. This could be fleshed out with 3 unique Scout Opinions about different aspects of the player. One could be about their fit with the scheme/coaches (maybe a simple "fit percentage"), one about their 3 most positive traits, one about their 3 most negative traits (as seen by the scout). Just broad generalizations like "exceptional quickness" or "makes people miss" or "excellent hands" etc. Ideally there would be several different non exclusive phrases for describing different levels of players skills so as not to be a dead giveaway to their exact skill levels. I think this would lead to a lot more realism, as teams would have to judge players on more than pretty bars and combine correlations. GMs would have to look at past production and scheme, fit in the new scheme, injury history, the little tidbits gleaned from the scouts, and the history of the players yearly combines shown on the player cards. I think this would make the game way more dynamic and deep without making it feel like a total crapshoot. It would also allow the current ratings system to stay in place for the most part behind the scenes, just kind of putting a blurry mask over the top of it.


For me, this bold italic highlight is big for me. I find it to be a pain in the ass to go look up old combines in Draft Analyzer. I'd also like to have the initial combines stored as well as a reference to go along with the updated combines each season.

[Prinzar]

That said this is more of a style issue than a gameplay one; in free agency I think it's reasonable to expect you might have to overpay if you really want a guy, to the point of stretching your resources to the limit if that's how bad you want them. The wise GM is one who sets a value for a guy and doesn't deviate much from it, regardless of what the market says, so that he doesn't saddle himself with too many long-term, crippling contracts. If you expect to compete for a top player, you'll still probably be befuddled in a bidding war or two, but surely you can't expect to land such a player by paying EXACTLY what you needed to and only just, right? It's free agency!

I agree with the points here. My criticism of the current system is the deliberate abuse when you have no interest in signing a player and soley want to push other GMs to waste their money.
A real life offer of $1m, $1m, $20m would get laughed at, but that contract of $22m over 3 years could sound reasonable to other GMs on the screen we currently see.

Ideally we would get a better notification of who the player prefers, not just who is offering most overall

[alrith72]

Your general comment is a good one, but the specific example is a terrible one for two reasons:

1. If there is little/no endurance penalty, it opens up an exploit of using two RBs with terrible endurance all the time.
2. If there *is* an endurance penalty, then you're going to want RB3 to get in the game rather than FOF continually using two exhausted RBs.

But for *other* positions, this makes sense.

Point taken but i don't think about it that deeply or look specifically for exploits. I just don't want my crappy RB 3 who is only on the roster for return duties carrying the ball.

[Firefly]

I can't really think of a scenario in an NFL game where TWO RBs both got "too tired" to be effective.



Good point. Even Reggie Bush can carry the load, as it turns out.

[MRL17]

Maybe make extremely tired RBs -or other players- more injury prone?

YMMV, but I'm fairly sure from just experience with the game that when you keep playing time lower, guys get hurt less often

[isaccoubaldi]

Position changes a "little" more difficult. And I like to see the player who is not happy when you move to a new spot. Thanks.

[NawlinsFan]

I don't want other teams being able to see my contract offers. Bidding wars happen too often, and you don't know if one guy is being a jackass and back loading so you put up too much money.
Real teams don't know who has offered what, so I would like to keep to that.

Maybe something showing the teams interested and which team the agent/player favors. The agent/player interest could be based off of contract length, bonus, chance to start or opportunity to play with a winning franchise....... but we would have no clue until after they signed as to what inspired their decision.

[scorp]

Just a few thoughts on stuff:

OL men seem very undervalued an OL of all studs (at run and/or pass) blocking should be able to control the line of scrimmage at what they are good at, unless the front 7 they are facing is comparably talented.

You should be able to win playing defense as well as offense if you can get the talent needed on that side of the ball.

Be able to choose to kick away from a teams best return guy.

Have set packages or gameplan rules for certain players, such as a run direction for the backup vs starting RB. Maybe even alter the pass run ratio based on the RB on the field.

Have an H back position and ways to use that spot, maybe such as FB/HB check down on the flat type plays, HB trails WR2, etc.

Have offensive game plans ( TC focus both on offense and defense ) check list of some set # formations ( that can increase with QB intel and/or cohesion ) that you learn in TC, this way when your backup QB comes in he knows at least fair amount of the offense since in real life they are learning the same system not some other set of formations.

The defense should come out with personnel that matches what the offense did, despite the game plan. If a team comes out in 5wr no defense would be in goalline they would at least go to nickle.

Options in defense so that a OLB can play a DE spot in Nickle or Dime, have a S play a LB spot in Dime etc. If you want to do something like the Rams old eagle defense that use 5 LB's as the base why not. You risk you run D suffering, but these days there are so many DE/OLB tweeners that you should be able to play a hybrid D.

Have ways to control double coverage such as double THIS WR on 3rd down and long, or set priority of coverage help to each WR on the other team that changes when you top CB is out for a breather.

[aston217]

Stud (or even just good) pass-blocking linemen are immensely good at doing what they do, and if you don't believe me, just look at any Firefly team.

I would say that in terms of OVR ratings, linemen aren't punished enough for lacking in pass blocking skills. There's no way a guy who's all run blocking should be rated as high as he is when he is the pressure-yielding turd of a turnstile he is.

On the one hand, a disconnect between OVR ratings and what is 'good' is great. It keeps the game engaging, because you do have to work a little to a) uncover the hidden talent, and b) identify the kind of talent that is useful, and maybe sometimes that's specific to your team's setup.

On the other, some of that disconnect can't be by design, and it's simply a disparity between what Jim assumes to be a reasonable approximation, and the real value of different bars in the game engine. Not only that, but it's clear that this is causing a lot of people to draft, sign, start, and keep some pretty bad players.

The run-blocking/stopping-only linemen are maybe the biggest offenders in this regard (apart from the 60 BPR, 50 GD receivers who are 30 rated).

Re: defense, I think there are teams that do play pretty winning defense with the right talent, but in the NFL, offense dominates, too. Actually, in the NFL, almost any team does this thing where they always throw the ball and put up lots of stats, while FOF teams would be punished for attempting the same thing.

One thing that's different that I've noticed though, is what counts as "good YPA" in FOF and in real life. So maybe that can be adjusted, while at the same time making the pass-happy schemes that exist in the league more of a viable option, and not one that hits you over the head with familiars.

I'd actually suggest familiars being taken totally out of the game, along with the formation %s. I may have said this already, but the agonizing formation screens should be replaced by personnel groupings (which are all people use them for, anyway) and how versatile a QB is at using different formations can be simply based on his intrinsic formation count.

That's to say, throwing QBs with different types of formations out there shouldn't involve massive reconsiderations of the gameplan. It should just be understood that a QB with lesser formations isn't going to do as well in general because the playbook is more limited; the more formations he has under his belt, the better he'll play. It shouldn't even affect what formations you have available to you. I mean, when have you ever heard anyone say, "Yeah, we have the personnel to run with 4 wide, but unfortunately, our QB doesn't know how to."

[scorp]

Ashton if you have a lower sense rush QB, you can have bookend stud tackles and they guy will get pressured on he outside rush fairly often.
The sense rush trumps the pass blocking ability.

QB throwing a short pass getting hurried ( maybe a breakdown on if it the OL or the QB would help ) ie the QB held the ball to long.

I know good OL men perform well, but studs don't perform really any better than the solid guys do many times.


if you take a QB with just average sense rush, it's not really worth building a great OL to help him, a good one will perform nearly as well.

The win with defense is more an anti QB WR WR thing. That combo will eat up equally rated CB's with a solid pass rushing front 7.

[Pyser]

the playing time screen is really tedious.

i wish we could "set all at 100" or set all at whatever number, then just adjust the 1 or 2 guys we want to change from there...instead of needing 22 clicks to do the screen.

[Prinzar]

the playing time screen is really tedious.

i wish we could "set all at 100" or set all at whatever number, then just adjust the 1 or 2 guys we want to change from there...instead of needing 22 clicks to do the screen.

Click the RB, press 1 for 100%, tab, 1 and so on. Takes 5 seconds to set the whole team

[aston217]

I tend to click and scroll wheel; also very fast!

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Here's some more idea's:

- a list of who is in the depth chart on every play.

- Which player committed the penalty.

- More fluff, like College stats without TCY draft file, maybe bench press and 40 times for all your players.

- Maybe bring back the Team Experience Formation screen and the old training camp from 2001 version, where you choose what formation you'd work on. Get rid of the qb's formations, always hated that.

- A depth chart screen for special teams, like kick off, punt return and so on..

- In the Playing time screen, have the ability to pull up the player card so we can look at their endurance.

[sjshaw]

One thing I just thought of, not sure if this is already implemented.

"Red Flags" could be variable. Right now, I believe players come into the league under the "red flag" moniker and keep it forever, which depresses their draft value in MP leagues with cohesion-savvy owners.

A better model, IMHO, would be players that gain or lose the red flag during their careers. Some locker room cancers mature and become leaders, while some players' egos explode after a few years (and then some guys get their sh*t together again after being ostracized).

This would be a fun change. Will you draft that red flag rookie, hoping he matures? You just signed that QB to a long contract, now he's a diva... do you trade him?

[Ben E Lou]

One thing I just thought of, not sure if this is already implemented.

"Red Flags" could be variable. Right now, I believe players come into the league under the "red flag" moniker and keep it forever, which depresses their draft value in MP leagues with cohesion-savvy owners.

A better model, IMHO, would be players that gain or lose the red flag during their careers. Some locker room cancers mature and become leaders, while some players' egos explode after a few years (and then some guys get their sh*t together again after being ostracized).

This would be a fun change. Will you draft that red flag rookie, hoping he matures? You just signed that QB to a long contract, now he's a diva... do you trade him?I really, really, really like this.

[scorp]

I think you should be able to do things such as:

Run a quick passing game short passes to avoid pass rush/help low sense rush QBs.

Have an option to let he TE and/or backs chip on a pass pass rusher, or at least say on LT or RT side to help in pass protection.

[QuikSand]

Following up on scorp - a small thing, but could be a big change.

Right now I get the sense that the "screen pass" in FOF is pretty much just a high percentage, short yardage play (and not really worth much time, other than as a change of pace to offset the truly effective passing game). Ideally, a screen pass should be some combination of a heavily setup outlet to a guy with blocking, and/or a counter to over-aggressive pass rushing (getting just behind the line of rushing defenders). It seems like making screen passes situationally effective on these fronts could be a nice tactical improvement.

[sjshaw]

I really, really, really like this.

You could put all kinds of variables into the algorithm... agent characteristics, contract terms, popularity, presence of mentors on the team and their personality ratings, age at which his popularity peaked, team performance (to throw all the anti-tankers a bone)....

[MIJB#19]

Position changes a "little" more difficult. And I like to see the player who is not happy when you move to a new spot. Thanks.Something like this. It would be nice if the player simply refused to switch or that players become disgruntled because management doesn't want him to play at his favorite position.

[Kodos]

Repost from a discussion over at IHOF:

As far as game mechanics, it'd be nice to see Jim implement something where a player will refuse to position switch if he's going to lose more than 10 points off of his current overall rating. Also, I'd like to see them continue to demand at least the same salary that they signed for before the position switch.

[Pyser]

Repost from a discussion over at IHOF:

As far as game mechanics, it'd be nice to see Jim implement something where a player will refuse to position switch if he's going to lose more than 10 points off of his current overall rating. Also, I'd like to see them continue to demand at least the same salary that they signed for before the position switch.

along the same lines, they should be able to switch back to their old position. its not as if a player forgets how to play once he is moved to a new spot.

[QuikSand]

Repost from a discussion over at IHOF:

As far as game mechanics, it'd be nice to see Jim implement something where a player will refuse to position switch if he's going to lose more than 10 points off of his current overall rating. Also, I'd like to see them continue to demand at least the same salary that they signed for before the position switch.

Totally hate crap like this, what kind of asswhite would even think of this stuff?

[scorp]

along the position switch lines, it would be really cool if you could have players work at another position at training camp or off season workouts to get experience there.

Such as have a G play C, or a big OLB play DE, a S get CB work etc. Teams can try and get depth were needed in TC or off season.

[cuervo72]

I think players just need intrinsic values that remain the same no matter what the position. Put them through some aptitude filters - weight/height, positional experience (which we already have) - to arrive at bars for a given position. Switch doesn't work? Fine, switch back.

The "intrinsic" idea would hold for things like speed and strength, too. No switching a DE -> LB to see him magically get faster if he reenters the draft just because he's now at a new position and those combines have a different scale.

[Firefly]

Stud (or even just good) pass-blocking linemen are immensely good at doing what they do, and if you don't believe me, just look at any Firefly team.

I would say that in terms of OVR ratings, linemen aren't punished enough for lacking in pass blocking skills. There's no way a guy who's all run blocking should be rated as high as he is when he is the pressure-yielding turd of a turnstile he is.

On the one hand, a disconnect between OVR ratings and what is 'good' is great. It keeps the game engaging, because you do have to work a little to a) uncover the hidden talent, and b) identify the kind of talent that is useful, and maybe sometimes that's specific to your team's setup.

On the other, some of that disconnect can't be by design, and it's simply a disparity between what Jim assumes to be a reasonable approximation, and the real value of different bars in the game engine. Not only that, but it's clear that this is causing a lot of people to draft, sign, start, and keep some pretty bad players.



This last paragraph also applies to the opposite case of pass blockers with no run blocking. I even wrote to support because I thought I'd found an exploit as far as run-blocking not having an impact at all, but they said the game was working as intended. I now believe it does have a little impact and if you were to set up one of my awful O-lines against a stud run-stopping front 7, it would go badly. But otherwise there's very little penalty for ignoring run-blocking bars and very little incentive for getting good run-blocking bars. Meanwhile, there's also very little incentive for building a stud run-stopping front 7, since it takes such an investment and there are other needs.

Bottom line is, run-blocking doesn't have enough weight, either positive or negative.

[scorp]

An undo button, that way you don't have to open and close the game when checking position switch testing etc. or open an 2nd instance, another issue when you do that.

Having the same league open twice to do stuff without ruining your export!


Being able to do stuff after you create the export and then re-exporting, we all forget one or 2 things every so after right after hitting export.

[MIJB#19]

Free agents that turn down decent contract offers shouldn't be able to sign for minsal at another team in the AI's 'get that roster legal' moves.

[Ben E Lou]

Free agents that turn down decent contract offers shouldn't be able to sign for minsal at another team in the AI's 'get that roster legal' moves.I'm not sure I agree with this. It's the root cause that's more annoying to me: the fact that those guys are almost always sitting there with multiple teams that could really use them completely ignoring them because they're trying to reduce the chances that they might squeeze out an extra win or two, so instead of the 48/48 FA, they go with has-beens or never-will-bes. I think the AI signings *should* be the best players available. As for the prices, I don't really care. Just get people legal and move on.

[Pyser]

this was probably mentioned before, but i cant remember

all of those "busy" early stages (everything pre-fa stage 1) can be folded into later stages.

ie, hiring coaches can just be part of free agency, run at the same time you are signing free agents.

ticket prices should be available to be changed every stage until the draft, when it "locks in". so you can submit at any point until then. same with stadium changes.

franchise players can be tagged during the first fa stage, when you renegotiate everyone else. summer league can happen in this stage, too, if it still exists in game.

so even if the system stays relatively the same, we can streamline the entire process so more happens concurrently.

if i stole that idea from earlier in this thread, i apologize.

[aston217]

I like coaches separate from FA, but I love the ticket/summer idea. I'd also love it if tagging could be done at any point in the offseason prior to the start of FA1-2. It makes no sense to restrict when you can, and the only consequence of it is it makes it more easy for people to miss.

Good suggestions :)

[Vaevictis_386]

My biggest hope would be for a lot more attention to defense in the new version.

[corbes]

Can there be something that streamlines the cycle of exporting each week's MP files, uploading them to my online MP leagues, downloading the zip files the next day from my MP leagues, and then navigating to the nether regions of my computer to unzip the files into my league folder?

Or do other people currently have a better way of doing this?

[aston217]

I do have a good system for doing this and it involves, in Windows, making a environment variables path definition for the FOF data directory (for instructions -- Create your own environment variables for quick folder navigation (http://lifehacker.com/259018/create-your-own-environment-variables-for-quick-folder-navigation), only you'd use the FOF data directory instead).

Of course you have to download the zip file, but it streamlines the whole thing to the extent that all I have to do to bring up the folder where I import/export is hit windows+R (to bring up the Run prompt), type 'fof', and hit enter.

This way you don't have to clutter your desktop with a shortcut to the folder, and for people who don't do that either, I can't imagine the trouble they go through to navigate through the AppData, Local, Roaming, etc to actually get to the leagues directory.

And yes, this all needs to change in the next version of FOF.

[MIJB#19]

I'm not sure I agree with this. It's the root cause that's more annoying to me: the fact that those guys are almost always sitting there with multiple teams that could really use them completely ignoring them because they're trying to reduce the chances that they might squeeze out an extra win or two, so instead of the 48/48 FA, they go with has-beens or never-will-bes. I think the AI signings *should* be the best players available. As for the prices, I don't really care. Just get people legal and move on.My point was that some team actually did try to sign the same player to a reasonable contract, but instead the player signs for minsal with the illegal roster team. It punishes both the active FOF player and rewards the inactive FOF player.

[aston217]

The fact that there exist teams - either through AI cap incompetence or MP GM negligence - that have fewer than 46 players on the roster heading into TC is the problem. This causes them to have to be 'saved' by the game, signing whatever players are available.

The FA pool should never, ever be this good. Through most of the well, post round 2 part of the draft I look at players thinking, OK, maybe he's a 40-rated guy, but why invest a draft pick when I can sign a similar veteran at possibly minsal any day of the week?

Owner negligence damages MP leagues in a big way by adding such levels of depth to the FA pool, at the expense of a couple teams in the league who are hanging around with 20 players on roster in the offseason. Of course you can assemble an entire back end of the roster this way, because there are whole teams missing their own.

There needs to be something that saves MP teams from themselves. If an owner doesn't actively choose to let free agents or RFAs walk, for example, some game logic needs to kick in to keep the best ones around.

To stay or get competitive, every team needs to absolutely rely on the draft, through all rounds, to fill out their roster.

[SegRat]

I hope to see players get a score rating after each game. That would make it nice and easy to see who is struggling each week or who is performing well.

[HomerSimpson98]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before:

But one thing I would like to see is for the game to "punish" (may be too harsh a word) mid-season trade acquisitions on players that are just thrown into the starting lineup and then put up 300 yards passing/100+ receiving the next game. Or even guys picked up late in free agency or during the season. For QBs, there is no way one guy can pick up an entirely new offense in a week. Hell, it sometimes takes a couple of years to become comfortable IRL. Perhaps reduce the number of "formations" known by a % and as the QB gets more time his comfort level with the formations increases? Similarly, a WR isn't going to know all the nuances of an offense right off the bat. Reduce the experience level until he gets up to speed?

Basically, I'd like to see the fantasy football aspect of FOF taken out of the game. I understand the cohesion impact but I dont think its taken far enough, especially if I pick up a QB on Monday and the dude throws for 350 yards and knows 18 formations and can plug and play on Sunday.

[Dutch]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before:

But one thing I would like to see is for the game to "punish" (may be too harsh a word) mid-season trade acquisitions on players that are just thrown into the starting lineup and then put up 300 yards passing/100+ receiving the next game. Or even guys picked up late in free agency or during the season. For QBs, there is no way one guy can pick up an entirely new offense in a week. Hell, it sometimes takes a couple of years to become comfortable IRL. Perhaps reduce the number of "formations" known by a % and as the QB gets more time his comfort level with the formations increases? Similarly, a WR isn't going to know all the nuances of an offense right off the bat. Reduce the experience level until he gets up to speed?

Basically, I'd like to see the fantasy football aspect of FOF taken out of the game. I understand the cohesion impact but I dont think its taken far enough, especially if I pick up a QB on Monday and the dude throws for 350 yards and knows 18 formations and can plug and play on Sunday.

FWIW, the lack of cohesion is a hit on player trades. It *seems* to take a season to "normalize" the cohesion and then 2 or more seasons to get cohesion benefits.

[Pyser]

i dont know if this would be more for SP or MP, but the addition of agents really added nothing. i do think there's potential though, since its already in the game...

[Dutch]

To assist in avoiding mid-week stage files, I'd like to see some additions to free agent signings.

First, I'd like to have the ability to sign one of multiple offers. So if I want to sign QB1 and somebody else signs him, I'll gladly settle for QB2.

Second, I'd like to set the status of the player if he does sign. Active/Inactive...Encourage ST's/Discourage ST's...and the ability to keep the player out of the starting lineup after the AI roster shuffle.

And lastly, if there is an AI roster shuffle where players get cut, I'd like to set a cut list priority or have a setting that "Avoids release" to have the AI target other players than for instance...my position leaders.

[Firefly]

I searched this thread and it appears this actually has not been mentioned before, but I think it's extremely important to curb the special teams domination thing. It's possible for a team to focus so much on special teams that they can get away with shitty defense and often win games where they've been outgained by 100-200 yards because they can produce 30 more yards per kickoff than the opponent on a consistent basis (the issue doesn't seem as pronounced with punt returns).

I know it's late in the process, but I think this really needs to be addressed.

[Ben E Lou]

I searched this thread and it appears this actually has not been mentioned before, but I think it's extremely important to curb the special teams domination thing. It's possible for a team to focus so much on special teams that they can get away with shitty defense and often win games where they've been outgained by 100-200 yards because they can produce 30 more yards per kickoff than the opponent on a consistent basis (the issue doesn't seem as pronounced with punt returns).

I know it's late in the process, but I think this really needs to be addressed.I'd be concerned about what this would do to SP. The issue is in MP that some people go 100% all-out to gather great ST guys and are willing to do the Encouraged/Not Encouraged clickfest, and others aren't. My specific concern is that if in MP a team with average ST rating on the field of 85ish goes against average ST rating of 30ish (or less), and there's only a marginal difference in performance, then in SP, where every AI team would have roughly the same ST ratings, you'd get no differential between performances--everyone would average pretty much the same on PRs and KRs, in other words. There needs to be a significant performance increase when there's such a huge gap in ST talent as what we see in MP. I think the better fix here is to make it easier to get your best ST guys on the field without the current clickfest. That wouldn't completely curb it, because soem owners would insist on keeping their better players off of ST and some owners would continue to sign guys rated 20/20 overall with 90 ST just for ST, but it would at least eliminate the "laziness gap" that exists in the current ST setup.

[Kodos]

Seems like you could have a list of players sorted by their ST skills with radio buttons next to each name. Add in an uncheck-all button, and it is quick and easy. Uncheck everyone, then recheck the guys who you want on special teams.

[Ben E Lou]

Seems like you could have a list of players sorted by their ST skills with radio buttons next to each name. Add in an uncheck-all button, and it is quick and easy. Uncheck everyone, then recheck the guys who you want on special teams.Yeah, I'd envision something like that.

[Firefly]

I'd be concerned about what this would do to SP. The issue is in MP that some people go 100% all-out to gather great ST guys and are willing to do the Encouraged/Not Encouraged clickfest, and others aren't. My specific concern is that if in MP a team with average ST rating on the field of 85ish goes against average ST rating of 30ish (or less), and there's only a marginal difference in performance, then in SP, where every AI team would have roughly the same ST ratings, you'd get no differential between performances--everyone would average pretty much the same on PRs and KRs, in other words. There needs to be a significant performance increase when there's such a huge gap in ST talent as what we see in MP. I think the better fix here is to make it easier to get your best ST guys on the field without the current clickfest. That wouldn't completely curb it, because soem owners would insist on keeping their better players off of ST and some owners would continue to sign guys rated 20/20 overall with 90 ST just for ST, but it would at least eliminate the "laziness gap" that exists in the current ST setup.

That much I agree with. I think the trick I have in mind is getting ST way up in TC. I'm not really sure. But the fact is some guys can kick the crap out of the guys who kick the crap out of most people in ST ...at a cost, but still, it doesn't seem right.

[gstelmack]

are willing to do the Encouraged/Not Encouraged clickfest, and others aren't.

I believe it's been mentioned, but I'll emphasize - this is the kind of thing that would help FOF greatly: reduce the clickfests. Special Teams, Interviews, Weight Training, Affinities, Player Development Tracking, Gameplanning - streamline these so players can focus on WHAT they want to do and less on HOW they go about doing it. I don't care about pretty UI, I do care about functional, and that's been where my real FOF UI gripe has been.

[aston217]

I think the better fix here is to make it easier to get your best ST guys on the field without the current clickfest.

Yes.

Clearly the ST active roster is impactful and you need around 10 guys for it, not just the two gunner spots listed on the depth chart. If that's part of the interface you'll get people responding to that need. Currently, a lot of people don't pay attention to ST players at all.

Also, there are so many stud players with massive ST bars. It's weird. There are almost too many options for good ST bar players lying around.

[BowTieSports]

Sorry, side question on Special Team --- how many ST players does the game use for you? Or does it vary based on play?

Punt Coverage -- I know LS and P, but I'm guessing 4 other OL play, so does that mean 5 ST related players are "added" to the formation? Or does it negate OL and use 9 ST related players?

Punt Return -- I know PRet, but do you also use 4 DLs and then 6 ST related players or are DLs taken out of the equation and 10 ST related players

Kick Coverage -- is it Kicker and 10 ST related players? And is there a limit to the number of "outside guys" (WRs/DBs) and "inside guys" (LBs/TEs/FBs) or is it just the 10 best ST ratings?

Kick Return -- is it 2 Returners and 9 ST related players? (and same question about the "outside"/"inside" split)

Just wondering if you need a "representative sample" of different positions for special teams aces (top 4 ST rated outside guys, top 4 ST rated inside guys, best remaining to fill from there)

[Yoda]

I am divided on this issue... if people are too lazy to take 5 minutes once a season to set their special teams... I have no pitty for them. Field position is a huge part of the game.... I am against helping someone just because they are lazy.

Then again, I think that all players should be set to no encouraged by default and it should be easier (along with things like weight training).

[Subby]

I am divided on this issue... if people are too lazy to take 5 minutes once a season to set their special teams... I have no pitty for them. Field position is a huge part of the game.... I am against helping someone just because they are lazy.

Then again, I think that all players should be set to no encouraged by default and it should be easier (along with things like weight training).

It's about the user experience. At the very least there should be a recommend button for special teams that "activates" your top 11 ST rated guys and keeps everyone else off of the various special teams units. If you want more granular control you can click through to each player.

[Kodos]

I am divided on this issue... if people are too lazy to take 5 minutes once a season to set their special teams... I have no pitty for them. Field position is a huge part of the game.... I am against helping someone just because they are lazy.

Then again, I think that all players should be set to no encouraged by default and it should be easier (along with things like weight training).

If you are in multiple leagues, it quickly turns into a clickfest or two each week.

[Julio Riddols]

This could all be solved with a special teams depth chart.

[Bundy13]

This could all be solved with a special teams depth chart.

I definetely agree,this is a easy solution(by the way it works like that in BBCF)

[QuikSand]

With the ST thing...wouldn't the easiest change from a programming perspective just be to have the default setting be "use the top 10 guys available, sorted by ST rating" and then we click certain guys to "no special teams" to create exceptions to that rule? That seems to accomplish an awful lot of what we seem to want, actually makes more sense to ma than whatever the default setting is now, and might be easier to implement.

[BowTieSports]

With the ST thing...wouldn't the easiest change from a programming perspective just be to have the default setting be "use the top 10 guys available, sorted by ST rating" and then we click certain guys to "no special teams" to create exceptions to that rule? That seems to accomplish an awful lot of what we seem to want, actually makes more sense to ma than whatever the default setting is now, and might be easier to implement.

I thought that's how the game was set up now? With the exception of the specialists listed on the depth chart (K, P, KO specialist, LS, KR, PR, Gunners), the game fills out the remaining special teams slots with the best available sorted by ST rating, minus guys designated "no special teams" ... am I wrong on that?

[Taco]

One thing that I like about ST is that you can have a guy suffer a compound leg fracture in the 1st quarter and still manage to play on special teams for the remainder of the game! Reference (http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7069&p=54042&#p54042) Log (http://www.thecfl.us/cfl/log2033051619.html) Box (http://www.thecfl.us/cfl/box2033051619.html)

[3ric]

One thing that I like about ST is that you can have a guy suffer a compound leg fracture in the 1st quarter and still manage to play on special teams for the remainder of the game! Reference (http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7069&p=54042&#p54042) Log (http://www.thecfl.us/cfl/log2033051619.html) Box (http://www.thecfl.us/cfl/box2033051619.html)

That's one tough S-O-B. :D

[MIJB#19]

I thought that's how the game was set up now? With the exception of the specialists listed on the depth chart (K, P, KO specialist, LS, KR, PR, Gunners), the game fills out the remaining special teams slots with the best available sorted by ST rating, minus guys designated "no special teams" ... am I wrong on that?As far as I can see, the game randomly selects players that are 'encouraged', giving preference to the gunners. The kickers, holder, snapper and returners don't have to be 'encouraged' to actually play. The game doesn't just look at the players with ST bars, it also selects several linemen on every single ST play, which means the whole top10 guys idea means that only 5 or 6 of those guys (FB, RB, TE, WR, ILB, OLB, CD, S) are used on a single ST play.

[Firefly]

I still think there's something very wrong with ST beyond the clicks on who plays and who doesn't. I'll give a single example, but trust me, this is not uncommon:

My vnfl Saints are a very good ST team. I do the clicks and sign players solely for their ST bars. I also make sure I have ST players from each position group. I even spend a bit more time in TC on ST than the recommended value. The result is we're usually very good at it. This year we were 5th in KR allowed and 3rd in KR returns.

So, we played the team that is #1 in both categories twice this year. The results are below. As you can see, it's a major advantage their way.

Believe me when I tell you this is not an isolated incident: the best ST teams in the league (Bear and Rip, mostly) will regularly kick my (and everyone's) butt despite the fact my team is always near the top in ST. I'm convinced something isn't right deep down in FOF's bowels regarding KR, probably to do with TC -Bear has always been very open about his practices and the only thing he does different is ramp ST all the way up like offense and defense in TC (note: this is only about KR, for some reason PR is easier to equalize.)



http://s14.postimg.org/4v4ymu259/Capture1.png (http://postimg.org/image/4v4ymu259/)

http://s14.postimg.org/839fzvof1/Capture2.png (http://postimg.org/image/839fzvof1/)