FOF7 July 30th Developer Chat Log [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Ben E Lou

07-30-2013, 07:53 PM

[19:30] BEN: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to FOFC's live Q&A session with Front Office Football developer Jim Gindin. Thanks for joining us.

[19:31] BEN: We've got a great turnout, definitely more people than I expected, and I would imagine that more will join us.

[19:31] BEN: First off, BIG thanks to Jim for taking time out of what I'm sure is a very busy development schedule to do this. I think you all should know that this wasn't something that I pushed him to do; he approached me about it.

[19:32] BEN: Our format is going to be a moderated chat this evening. That means that for the bulk of the evening, Jim and I will be the only people able to type anything that gets posted publicly.

[19:32] BEN: Our general schedule is as follows:
[19:32] BEN: 1. Jim will tell us a little about FOF7.
[19:32] BEN: 2. Jim will answer the pre-submitted questions.
[19:32] BEN: 3. As time permits, we'll take additional questions.

[19:33] BEN: When we get to the "additional questions" portion of the Q&A, you'll IM your questions to me (or send them via PM at FOFC) and I'll select as many of the best ones that I can to send to Jim.

[19:34] BEN: Just as an FYI ahead of time, please note that I will be largely ignoring feature requests disguised as questions. (i.e. "Will {insert your favorite feature request} be in the game?)

[19:34] BEN: OK. Enough from me. I'll turn it over to Jim. (I *think* I've given him speaking rights correctly. We'll find out in a moment, I guess.)
06[19:34] * @Ben_E_Lou steps away from podium

[19:35] SOLECISMIC: First, I'd like to thank Ben for compiling the list of questions and agreeing to moderate this chat. It's a lot of work. If I've missed anything, it's my fault, not Ben's.
[19:35] SOLECISMIC: And second, I'd like to thank all of you for taking the time to listen. It's nice to know there's still some interest out there in my work. It helps knowing I don't necessarily work in a vacuum.
[19:35] SOLECISMIC: I didn't answer all of the pre-submitted questions. I did this not to be evasive, but because I didn't want to be too repetitive.
[19:35] SOLECISMIC: I'll start with a brief overview of what will be new in FOF7 (Or Front Office Football Seven, or Front Office Football: The Seventh Edition, or maybe Front Office Football: Generations). This is not a very detailed overview, and since I'm not yet in alpha, details can change so I won't go too far into each feature.

[19:36] SOLECISMIC: 1. Convert WinHelp to HtmlHelp. Amazing that people started doing this in the late '90s.
[19:36] SOLECISMIC: (I guess SnowMan really liked WinHelp)

[19:37] SOLECISMIC: 2. Add data file for importing coach and coordinator names to new game. So far, it's either the file or random names for starting a new game.

[19:37] SOLECISMIC: 3. Combine coaching and scouting attributes into one staff type and implement this throughout the game. This is actually a massive piece of work. Scouts will disappear. Coaches will do all the work. Each team will have a head coach, two coordinators, an assistant coach (can be either defense or offense) and a strength coordinator. I'm still working on the responsibilities for each staff...
[19:37] SOLECISMIC: ...position, but most scouting will be from a combination of staff members.

[19:38] SOLECISMIC: 4. Replace bidding on coaches with a staff draft. Each year, you'll have a draft much like the amateur draft (only, thankfully, much quicker, as most teams will pass in most rounds). The first round will be for head coaches, the second round for offensive coordinators, etc. Before the draft, you will be able to extend staff members in their last contract season. During the draft, you may be...
[19:38] SOLECISMIC: ...able to "promote" staff members from other teams (i.e., you may be able to offer someone else's defensive coordinator, under contract, a role as your head coach). Draft order will be based on financial performance.

[19:38] SOLECISMIC: 5. Add/change attributes for staff members. The system will be less number-heavy - staff members who are good at development will be good at development for all positions. Same with scouting. Each staff member will have a "primary" position group. Maybe a little bonus there. So if your head coach was once a quarterback specialist, maybe your quarterbacks get a bonus during development or...
[19:38] SOLECISMIC: ...develop more quickly. I will note that there are attributes that won't be displayed or used during the game. This is for future development, if there is future development. These attributes are focused on play style. I just wanted to get my whole notebook in there while I was busy changing thousands of lines of code.

[19:39] SOLECISMIC: 6. Scouting algorithm changes. While the basic philosophy of scouting error remains the same, the details are changing, as multiple staff members will be involved.

[19:39] SOLECISMIC: 7. Positional experience changes. To better reflect the current state of the game, positional experience will be determined differently.

[19:40] SOLECISMIC: 8. Expansions to Red Flag players. More feedback is necessary. They will not forgive you if you cut them.

[19:40] SOLECISMIC: 9. New Game screen. Better implementation of eight-character rule for universe names. Better implementation of single-player/multi-player toggle. Remove difficulty levels. Add option to use real staff file.

[19:40] SOLECISMIC: 10. Change salary structures. Remove incentives and add roster bonuses. Limit contracts to five years. Rookies sign automatic contracts. Salary rules reflect new collective bargaining agreement.

[19:41] SOLECISMIC: 11. Game Film. Change stored data to include run and pass tendencies by down and distance, as well as personnel use, if possible. Add screen to "scout" opponents using this information.

[19:41] SOLECISMIC: 12. Draft History. Add screen to show historic drafts from any year. This means all drafted players fall into the yearly stat dump, even if they never played a down.

[19:42] SOLECISMIC: 13. 2013 Player File. These player files are huge endeavors, by the way. Changes include replacing starts and games played last year with percentage of snaps played, as well as the new contract structure.

[19:42] SOLECISMIC: 14. Modifications for Player File Generator. Make it a Windows 8 app, HtmlHelp, FOF7 data format.

[19:42] SOLECISMIC: 15. Multi-Player Management. Add dumping of most game data into csv file (Ben is helping quite a bit with deciding what to dump). Add in-game ftp for uploading stage files. Add in-game ftp to download game files from commissioner. Add ability to view what's in a stage file, save it, load it, and delete entries (but not modify or reorder them).

[19:43] SOLECISMIC: 16. Remove playing time choices from game plans. This will all be endurance-based.

[19:43] SOLECISMIC: 17. Eliminate the summer league. NFL Europe is long gone.

[19:43] SOLECISMIC: 18. Streamline the screens controlling adjustments to the game plans. Too many choices, too little time.

[19:43] SOLECISMIC: 19. Ratings Tracking. Add fields to the yearly data dump showing your team's scouting impression of each player. Add a screen displaying this information.

[19:44] SOLECISMIC: 20. Quarterback Performance. Add screen showing yearly performance of all league quarterbacks, sortable on number of years experience.

[19:44] SOLECISMIC: 21. Fine tuning of automatic withdrawal of free agent offers. Automatic withdrawal checkboxes both if any other player signs or if any player at his position signs.

[19:44] SOLECISMIC: 22. Free Agency AI. A complete overhaul. I'd like a competitive AI.

[19:44] SOLECISMIC: 23. End of Game Time Management. Some fine-tuning, if possible. It got a lot better in the last patch, but it's still limited by a lack of knowing what happened on the last play.

[19:45] SOLECISMIC: 24. Limit Position Switching. Still based on weight, but you can't become a quarterback (not even if your last name isn't Tebow).

[19:45] SOLECISMIC: 25. Add Long-Snapper as dedicated special teams player. It's no longer done by players who do much of anything else, so keep them out of the game otherwise. I also wanted to make my Free Agency AI that much more difficult. This is one of those changes that seems small, but is guaranteed to produce lots of bugs.

[19:45] SOLECISMIC: 26. Add Timeline/Calendar to User Interface. Instead of just buttons at the top of the screen during specific stages, there's a window that's always on the screen that displays the stage along with a brief description of the stage. This will help a lot with new players, and will help experienced players remember what needs to be done.

[19:46] SOLECISMIC: 27. Other User Interface Improvements. It will look a little better, but still not like a real graphics artist got a hold of it or anything. It will remember screen position of menu windows.

[19:46] SOLECISMIC: 28. Major Internal Structural Changes. Unfortunately, these don't change the game's function. But the code was streamlined to make future development much easier. New development was becoming far too tedious.

[19:47] SOLECISMIC: There are a few other potential features, but they may not make the cut. At some point, I will just call out "alpha" and start making sure everything works so I can get to "beta" and embarrass myself when 100 new bugs are caught within 24 hours.

[19:49] BEN: Wow, Jim. Some great stuff in there!
[19:49] BEN: I say we go ahead and get to the questions.

Ben E Lou

07-30-2013, 07:54 PM

[19:49] SOLECISMIC: REQUIREMENTS/DISTRIBUTION/RELEASE/ETC
[19:49] SOLECISMIC: Q: What are the system requirements for FOF7?
[19:50] SOLECISMIC: Windows XP or later. A screen with a resolution of 1024x768 or above.

[19:50] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will the new version be available for MAC?
[19:50] SOLECISMIC: Steve Jobs was a great innovator, but he made it very difficult for college kids who loved programming to get into Apple programming. That's why it's so hard to find native MAC software. FOF is a Windows product for now. If you can get it working using Wine or another emulator, that's great.

[19:50] SOLECISMIC: Q: A number of users have reported significant problems with getting Viatech licenses restored in a timely fashion. Are you planning to use a different type of licensing?
[19:51] SOLECISMIC: I am frustrated by these reports. I am also frustrated by the continual installation problems caused by ViaTech's incompatibility with many anti-virus products. It makes up easily 90% of my customer service issues. I was told that the delays in customer service were temporary and a new version of eLicense was coming out to address the compatibility issues. Neither seems to be the case.
[19:51] SOLECISMIC: I really like ViaTech, but I can't in good faith to my customers release another product using their software unless both of these issues are addressed. If I can get FOF7 onto Steam, I will. I don't think that will happen. If I can't, and ViaTech isn't making these changes, I'm open to suggestions.

[19:52] SOLECISMIC: Q: If there are upgrades or add-ons to the game in the future, will these be in the form of download/extract patches?
[19:52] SOLECISMIC: I think that's likely.

[19:52] SOLECISMIC: Q: Is there anything we as a community can do to help you get the game on Steam?
[19:52] SOLECISMIC: I'm not sure. If there's someone who knows anyone at Steam who can help, that would be wonderful. Looking at what's out there, I really doubt if I throw it onto Greenlight myself that it will avoid the negative attention (as in, why are these graphics from the Stone Age?) that will kill the campaign.

[19:52] SOLECISMIC: Q: Can I pre-order this game?
[19:53] SOLECISMIC: I've never done this before, and I'd like to avoid it. Since I don't know how it will be published, I can't consider that at this time.

[19:53] SOLECISMIC: GENERAL JIM QUESTIONS
[19:53] SOLECISMIC: Q: You've resisted giving even projected/hoped release dates in the past. Why the change this year?
[19:53] SOLECISMIC: General Jim is in a constant state of evolution. Right now, I think I need a good kick in the ass more than anything. I'm just not the machine I was for the first several years of Solecismic activity.
{Ben Edit. Cute, General Jim....}

[19:54] SOLECISMIC: Q: Do you consider FOF7 more of a "one-off" type of development project, or do you feel that this may be part of a new cycle of FOF/TCY development?
[19:54] SOLECISMIC: There's a lot more I'd like to do if FOF7 is a success and I can indulge myself by continuing to develop games.

[19:54] SOLECISMIC: Q: As a developer, what change or enhancement are you most excited about in the latest iteration of your game?
[19:54] SOLECISMIC: If I can pull it off, a genuinely competitive AI for managing a team roster would get me very excited about the game.

[19:54] SOLECISMIC: Q: What feature that you couldnt get into fof2k7 are you most excited about including in fof7?
[19:54] SOLECISMIC: I've never liked staff hiring. Turning it into a draft, while not realistic, is something I've wanted to do for a long time. I think it solves the problem of bidding without a real budget and adds structure to the game.

[19:55] SOLECISMIC: Q: It's been 6 years since a new release, and at times there were doubts you'd ever make another FOF game. what brought you back?
[19:55] SOLECISMIC: I've written a couple of posts about what stopped me in my tracks five years ago (when FOF 2009 development was underway). It took a while to reinvent myself. Then I wanted to see if I could move into board game development (seems that I can't). I think this was the next logical progression. I've never stopped studying professional football, and there's just so much I want to do. FOF is...
[19:55] SOLECISMIC: ...simply the best way to present that.

[19:55] SOLECISMIC: GENERAL/MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS
[19:56] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will there be any new options for game startups, such as the option popular in many text sims to simulate multiple seasons with one click to pre-sim for "history" before taking over a team?
[19:56] SOLECISMIC: That's on the possible list. I try to avoid discussion that involves competitors because I think the market works best if we all develop independently. Which means there might well be common functions I don't include, and functions I do include that no one else considers.
[19:56] SOLECISMIC: I use a "hidden" function in the game to generate multiple seasons in order to stress-test the game. Putting a UI in front of it and exposing that is a possibility, but I do tend to avoid functions that aren't intuitive to a game.

[19:56] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will TCY imports still be supported, and if so, will there be any changes to those algorithms?
[19:56] SOLECISMIC: Yes, they'll still be supported, but TCY is quite old, so there's no sense spending development time on it unless I make a new TCY.

[19:57] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will the current CSV files be used to create rosters, or has a new system been put in place? Will the current historical rosters and draft classes be usable for FOF7?
[19:57] SOLECISMIC: There are slight changes to the csv structure. It will be quite easy to make those changes and rebuild the player files (the player file generator has been revised to support the new format).

[19:57] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will there be any customization options with regard to league structure, such as conference/division setup, number of teams, season length, playoff format, expansion?
[19:57] SOLECISMIC: There won't be (ducking and hiding for the next several minutes....)
[19:57] SOLECISMIC: To do this right, it would take up an entire development cycle on its own. I don't think that would be a good business decision.

[19:58] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will AI changes are planned that might make the single player experience more challenging?
[19:58] SOLECISMIC: If it's not more challenging when I'm done, I need to rethink whether I belong in this profession. This is a major development focus for FOF7.

[19:58] SOLECISMIC: Q: The NFL has changed a lot since the last FoF release. Amongst others, passing has become more important relative to rushing. Tight Ends are more important in the passing game than before. Scrambling/rushing ability is now far more important for QBs. The distinction between Defensive Ends and Outside Linebackers has been somewhat blurred. Do you intend to capture any or all of these modern...
[19:58] SOLECISMIC: ...developments in the new version?
[19:58] SOLECISMIC: I'm always looking at this data. And these changes are very real and important. You saw some changes in 6.4. I don't think I can get everything right, mostly because of how personnel matchups work, but the last thing I do before I release a product is run dozens of seasons and fine-tune the statistical output. Changes to tight ends constituted one of the biggest adjustments in the 6.3-6.4 period.

[19:58] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will you work on AI's drafting logic and will we see a improved draft day?
[19:59] SOLECISMIC: I'm not sure. It's on the list to check, but it's not a serious concern at present other than not enough checks in place to prevent drafting a player who may really stand out, but you should be happy with the guy you drafted last year.

[19:59] SOLECISMIC: Q: Are you making design decisions in this version to give the user more information, less information, or about the same amount, perhaps in a different way? As an example, will the interview process be tweaked to give more specific information on a player, eliminated entirely, or maintained at the general "underrated/overrated/hard to tell" level of detail?
[19:59] SOLECISMIC: I am considering eliminating the rookie interview process, because no one has yet to ask me to give teams more interviews. At the very least, I hope to reduce interviews.

[19:59] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will the league playing style evolve with time or is it more set to mimic the current state of the NFL? (For more clarity, will we see things like teams or the league as a whole moving from being heavy rushing, deep pass oriented to short, quick passes instead of runs, to option based attacks, etc.)
[19:59] SOLECISMIC: This is something I've wanted to do for a long time. I don't know, though. If it can be done without seeming hokey, it will get in there.
[20:00] SOLECISMIC: (I have eliminated quite a few "will this be included" questions because I don't like saying "no" too many times. I apologize if your question wasn't answered.)

[20:00] SOLECISMIC: Q: You mentioned that the football board game you designed will have an impact on game-planning in FOF. Can you elaborate on what this means, and how game-planning will change (even if the changes aren't related to the board game?)
[20:00] SOLECISMIC: Early in the FOF 2009 development cycle, I visited the Pro Football Hall of Fame and had the opportunity to spend some time in the archives. I focused on game-planning documents and playbooks. After that trip, I spent a lot of time coming up with a design that reflected how NFL coaches approach game planning.
[20:00] SOLECISMIC: This was the basis of the board game, though what I'd like to do is far more complex. If there is an FOF8, this is pretty much the only development item on the list. The first piece - the changes to how staff is implemented - is finished.

[20:01] SOLECISMIC: Q: Any thought about aligning the pass distances screen for gameplanning with the ratings/ranges for QBs? Are they different intentionally?
[20:01] SOLECISMIC: Yes, this is intentionally different to ensure a smoother implementation of throwing ratings.

[20:01] SOLECISMIC: Q: How will conversions of MP leagues work, and will SP leagues have a conversion option?
[20:01] SOLECISMIC: A month or so after release, I will ask MP commissioners interested in conversion to send me their league files at the year-end stage. I will convert those files and send them back. Once per established league. There will not be a conversion utility for single-player universe files.

[20:01] SOLECISMIC: Q: You've mentioned here at FOFC that you agree with the assessment of many that WRs are too overvalued in the current version of FOF. For FOF7, is it safe to assume that this will be addressed?
[20:02] SOLECISMIC: Yes, it's on the priority one list.

[20:02] SOLECISMIC: Q: You've done a lot of writing at Football Frontier about research you've done on Quarterback performance. How has that data influenced your design of the new game?
[20:02] SOLECISMIC: Primarily, it has helped me understand that the development curve varies considerably between positions. Quarterbacks don't develop like we intuitively expect them to develop. If there's anything I've done that I think would help an NFL front office, it's the data mining I've done using quarterback performance.

[20:02] SOLECISMIC: Q: now that the new cba has basically standardized signing draft picks, will contracts be automatically assigned to rookies based on when they were drafted? or will all rookie deals still need to be negotiated? (and will the new 4 year deal, 5th year team option for 1st round picks be in the game?)
[20:02] SOLECISMIC: Yes, that change has been made. I won't be implementing the team-option or top-performance clauses, as they make roster management more complex than I'd like to expose at this time. Year five is an interesting case, as players rarely receive a true restricted free agent contract requiring compensation, but the restricted free agency rules often drive second contracts.

[20:03] SOLECISMIC: ... and now back to Ben...
[20:04] BEN: Jim, thanks so much for taking time to do that
[20:04] BEN: Now to the crowd; go ahead and submit your questions. I have a few already...

[20:05] SOLECISMIC: Q: You said the new staff draft order is based on financial performance. Since winning teams tend to perform better financially, are you concerned that giving successful teams a better crack at good coaches hurts competitive balance?
[20:07] SOLECISMIC: It's said that in the NFL, teams run in cycles. It's remarkable how often teams reach the playoffs, and the playoffs are only open to 12 of 32 teams. What Buffalo and Oakland have accomplished is truly rare. So I see the amateur draft as more of an equalizer.

[20:08] SOLECISMIC: Q: You mention that balancing the impact of WR is a major priority. As a mostly MP player, I see the limits stretched often. It ends up with a "one system wins" setup. Will the balancing include an attempt to make it so that, for instance, you can win in MP with a run-first team on a consistent basis if built properly?
[20:09] SOLECISMIC: There's plenty of discussion about other systems. I don't think there's one magic bullet - though the disparity between the value of WRs with big-play ability and how they value themselves creates a problem.

[20:10] SOLECISMIC: Q: Since finances are being used for staff draft order, may we assume they will be of increased importance in other parts of the game? Will the fiancial system be revamped in any meaningful way?
[20:10] SOLECISMIC: Meaningful is a difficult word to define, but, yes, finances will be examined again.

[20:12] SOLECISMIC: Q: Are you able to elaborate on positional experience changes?
[20:13] SOLECISMIC: One piece that I felt was essential to the game all the way back in version 1 was developing a realistic career arc for players. When do they reach their peaks? This needs to be re-examined.

[20:13] SOLECISMIC: Q: What in the way the current game works is outdated with regard to the current state of the game?
[20:14] SOLECISMIC: Definitely contracts. Everything has changed, really. This is no small piece of work. I also think the passing game has been emphasized so much these days that I need to do more to tune defensive expectations.

[20:14] SOLECISMIC: Q: Do you think you will join a MP league after you've released the game?
[20:15] SOLECISMIC: No. That was the worst decision I've made in 15 years, joining an MP league. I did learn from the experience, but if I ever do it again, it will be anonymously.

[20:16] SOLECISMIC: Q: If interviews are removed, would there be any other tools that we could gain to get a window into rookies?
[20:17] SOLECISMIC: Probably not. Right now, the complaint is that once you've played a lot of FOF, you know too much about rookies as it is. This might help with balance as well.

[20:17] SOLECISMIC: Q: With the increased focus on staff, will there be any indicator to make it more clear what impact the staff has? I'm not sure I have a concrete example - but for instance maybe that the coach called a good play, or a bad play?
[20:18] SOLECISMIC: There will be better documentation of staff responsibilities. I'm not a big fan of text in the play descriptions, as it gets very, very repetitive.

[20:18] SOLECISMIC: Q: New types of statistical evaluation have become popular in baseball and basketball, but football lags a bit behind. Of the advanced metrics currently being used in football, which ones do you think have the most value, and have you incorporated it (or others) into FOF7?
[20:21] SOLECISMIC: The big difference between football and basketball/baseball is the dependence on the other ten players on your team. Basketball analysts swear that points scored per touch is constant, no matter who your teammates are. Baseball is nine people essentially in nine vacuums. So evaluation is quite subjective. I like to look at participation logs. After that, it's really hard to guess what to do...
[20:21] SOLECISMIC: ...next. My quarterback work is meaningful only in a macro sense.

[20:22] SOLECISMIC: (just a reminder to submit questions to Ben - I'm typing too fast to have IM windows open)

[20:23] SOLECISMIC: Q: Would you ever give consideration to doing team chemistry differently for a future version? Perhaps something more temperament/personality-based that would be a bit more random and less tedious for those that don't want to build zodiac spreadsheets?
[20:25] SOLECISMIC: Zodiacs are an attempt to keep it as simple as possible. The idea being that this is a way to encapsulate personality (notice there is definitely not an even personal attribute distribution amongst the different signs) in a way people can grasp. The problem is that astrology is silly and really has nothing to do with football. I think it's better to keep the spreadsheets for now, or simply...
[20:25] SOLECISMIC: ...start a new universe without chemistry.

[20:26] SOLECISMIC: Q: On limiting position switching, you mention that you can't become a QB. Are any other new limitations going to be added to position switching?
[20:26] SOLECISMIC: I haven't made that decision yet. It's possible I'll eliminate OL/DL switches.

[20:27] SOLECISMIC: Q: For those of us who let the AI pick our game plans, do different staff members choose different game plans currently, and if not, will they in FOF7 (or beyond)?
[20:27] SOLECISMIC: No, they don't, and won't in FOF7. Beyond... it's probable.

[20:29] BEN: We are out of questions. Last call.

[20:30] SOLECISMIC: Q: "With the additional file output (csv, whatever the format is) - will there be any work on the html portion, or will the output files attempt to support existing sites designed by leagues?"
[20:32] SOLECISMIC: I'm not a web designer. So I think it's best to leave html alone for now. It does a fair basic job, and was never intended to be more than that. Since I'm exporting what Ben (and a couple of other commissioners) have recommended, I think it will be very useful for leagues.

[20:33] SOLECISMIC: Q: If you have a feature or tweak and see that it will benefit MP a lot but hurt SP, do you implement it? Which takes precedence?
[20:34] SOLECISMIC: I've yet to see anything that would fall into that category. For me, it's all about the simulation itself. A better simulation serves both MP and SP. New features, of course, can benefit one and not the other (AI for roster management, for example). I don't really give one side precedence, though. It's more what I think the game needs than anything.

[20:35] SOLECISMIC: Q: How does it feel having a quite large internet forum devoted to something you created over 14 years ago? Does it make you feel good, or is it just a lot of pressure and headache?
[20:36] SOLECISMIC: I think it's great. If no one was interested, then it would be more than indulgent to keep working on this game.

[20:37] BEN: I believe that's all for the evening. Jim, thanks again so much for your willingness to do this, and thanks again to all of you for being here and submitting questions.
[20:38] SOLECISMIC: Thanks, Ben, for running the show. And thanks to everyone for showing up. It's a lot of fun to do these. I hope to do another once the game is out there.

Julio Riddols

07-30-2013, 07:57 PM

Progress, man. Love it.

Suicane75

07-30-2013, 07:59 PM

Lack of customization pretty much kills it for me. Not blown away by anything else either if I'm being honest.

wade moore

07-30-2013, 08:01 PM

There are a number of items in the feature list that I think will be great additions/tweaks to the game.

The chat was great. Nice to get this much info this early. I suspect there will be a lot of discussion and nitpicking on the specifics, but I think Jim is moving in the right direction for improving the game overall.

aston217

07-30-2013, 08:07 PM

Lack of customization pretty much kills it for me. Not blown away by anything else either if I'm being honest.

Really don't see allowing for different numbers of teams in the league as being interesting to enough people to merit the structural costs. I mean, it'd be nice...but there are a lot of considerations that would go into a game that can support any number of different conference/division/team count arrangements.

The change in staffing, embracing of utilities, and contracts...it sounds like a very well designed game will be getting some good dedication and fine-tuning from the very best :)

Hm, I may have missed it, but I don't think this was asked -- anyone know how long Jim has been actively developing FOF7? If it's recent, it seems like it's going to end up coming out very fast. Probably can expect some delays.

Pyser

07-30-2013, 08:11 PM

i dont have a lot of faith in profitable teams having first crack at drafting a coaching staff. i dont love a draft idea in general.

id also have liked a more definitive "bpr was broken and will be fixed", but we'll see in game play how that works out.

that said, still excited overall

Ben E Lou

07-30-2013, 08:11 PM

Hm, I may have missed it, but I don't think this was asked -- anyone know how long Jim has been actively developing FOF7? If it's recent, it seems like it's going to end up coming out very fast. Probably can expect some delays.
He mentioned twice in the chat (and has referenced previously here at FOFC) that he was working on FOF2009. I think it's safe to assume that some of that work is applicable to this version.

Pyser

07-30-2013, 08:11 PM

dola: big thanks to ben and jim for making that happen!

Danny

07-30-2013, 08:14 PM

Was hoping for something to get excited about, but nothing there for me. I am sure this will appeal to FOF die hards though.

jaygr

07-30-2013, 08:14 PM

The change in staffing, embracing of utilities, and contracts...it sounds like a very well designed game will be getting some good dedication and fine-tuning from the very best :)

That's what was a bit of a downer for me, though. It feels a bit more like a patch to me. Don't get me wrong, I love the FOF games, have played them a long time and will buy this one on day one and support Jim. I'll probably enjoy the game just fine too. I guess I was just hoping for more?

edit: when I say patch I don't mean to belittle the work involved with it and it certainly would be a significant patch to be sure.

Dutch

07-30-2013, 08:15 PM

I personally think the coach draft will be a great way to add some gamesmanship. Right now, I *think* people don't even target certain people's coaches out of being too nice/respectful. If you are on the clock...the best coach is the best coach.

To be clear, I understand it's "gamey" but I gave up on this being an NFL simulation a long time ago and am generally okay with gaming up certain aspects. I mean, if we are gonna have the extra stages, might as well make them entertaining.

Dutch

07-30-2013, 08:20 PM

Question about the data for FOF MP leagues.

I currently use gstelmack's extractor (to create) and dbupdate (to do weekly updates)...will we have the basic functionality with FOF7 or will we need to go back to the gstelmack well for additional support?

Izulde

07-30-2013, 08:22 PM

Lack of customization pretty much kills it for me. Not blown away by anything else either if I'm being honest.

Frankly, this. I'll still get it if the AI is genuinely smarter about team-building than it was in FOF2K7 (the back-to-back drafting of elite QBs in particular drove me insane), but overall there just isn't much here for me personally.

Now a TCY 2, on the other hand...

CraigSca

07-30-2013, 08:25 PM

Must buy for me, as with all of Jim's sports games. However, I was selfishly hoping my question about development would have led to a "yes" on an eventual TCY 2. Either way, I'm in.

sovereignstar v2

07-30-2013, 08:31 PM

Frankly, this. I'll still get it if the AI is genuinely smarter about team-building than it was in FOF2K7 (the back-to-back drafting of elite QBs in particular drove me insane), but overall there just isn't much here for me personally.

Now a TCY 2, on the other hand...

"Give me TCY2, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

It's true.

SirFozzie

07-30-2013, 08:31 PM

Unfortunately, I have to join the crowd who gives this a big meh. Lack of customization in league sizes and financial setup makes it a good (make that a very good) NFL simulator, but due to FM and other such text sims out there, I want more than just a NFL simulator.

Coffee Warlord

07-30-2013, 08:38 PM

Makes me wish Jim would strike up a deal with SI - Jim provides the engine and his general expertise, and let the SI crew build a world around it.

Julio Riddols

07-30-2013, 08:40 PM

To be fair, he did say this is at a very early stage in development. Some of those features we want to see may or may not make it into the final game, and I'm sure Jim has plans for future releases to add some of the stuff we have been requesting in the "What needs to change" threads. The coach draft is not going to be that big of a deal with the ability to poach other teams coordinators and the ability to extend your own coaches before their contracts expire.

TLK

07-30-2013, 08:40 PM

Slightly underwhelmed, but based off the value I got out of the last version and the ones before that. Must buy.

DaddyTorgo

07-30-2013, 08:41 PM

I personally think the coach draft will be a great way to add some gamesmanship. Right now, I *think* people don't even target certain people's coaches out of being too nice/respectful. If you are on the clock...the best coach is the best coach.

To be clear, I understand it's "gamey" but I gave up on this being an NFL simulation a long time ago and am generally okay with gaming up certain aspects. I mean, if we are gonna have the extra stages, might as well make them entertaining.

Maye for a MP environment yes, but in a SP environment it just seems...weird.

Galaxy

07-30-2013, 08:49 PM

I'm with DaddyTargo, the "draft" seems to take the financial element away from the game. If he was going to do anything with in realm of something to do with a draft, I would have said to include AI trading during the draft.

Honestly, I'm I agree with the others, it's a rather big meh.

Dutch

07-30-2013, 08:49 PM

Maye for a MP environment yes, but in a SP environment it just seems...weird.

True.

headtrauma

07-30-2013, 08:56 PM

I'd like to add more whining about not offering customized league structures. The toughest part of running an MP is keeping 32 knuckleheads on board. I'd love to have the option to run, say, a 16-team league.

Logan

07-30-2013, 09:03 PM

As a SP guy, this version doesn't look like it's for me...but I'm sure many will get a lot of enjoyment out of this and I wish Jim the best.

Senator

07-30-2013, 09:06 PM

Sounds like a sound evolution of a game from a sole game designer. Count me in.

Julio Riddols

07-30-2013, 09:13 PM

As a SP guy, this version doesn't look like it's for me...but I'm sure many will get a lot of enjoyment out of this and I wish Jim the best.

If the A.I. is as improved as he wants it to be, you'd be doing yourself a disservice. To me, the biggest change in the game will be that. It would totally revitalize SP play IMO.

It would also benefit MP, because then you wouldn't have to keep 32 owners on board at all times because the A.I. will be able to competently build and manage a team.

bigmike75

07-30-2013, 09:24 PM

Very underwhelming. Sounds like he has to spend a ton of time making the roster and changing contracts which makes absolutely no sense that it can't be outsourced.

Guess he is "hopeful" the AI will be better. If it is (things like not every team being in salary cap hell five years after you start the game) it will be worth a look. Best of luck to him.

kingnebwsu

07-30-2013, 09:35 PM

First post here in years. Good luck to Jim on his new game. I don't play text games anymore so we'll see if this will be enough to get me back into the genre.

I totally laughed when I saw "dola" in an earlier post. Ah, memories...

Izulde

07-30-2013, 09:38 PM

Makes me wish Jim would strike up a deal with SI - Jim provides the engine and his general expertise, and let the SI crew build a world around it.

I feel like SI games still require too much wading to get to information though. I think OOTP got worse after the initial merger and never recovered from it. I think the same thing would happen to FOF.

DaddyTorgo

07-30-2013, 09:53 PM

I feel like SI games still require too much wading to get to information though. I think OOTP got worse after the initial merger and never recovered from it. I think the same thing would happen to FOF.

different strokes for different folks. i find most non-SI games lack the depth that I've come to crave at this point (although some are making strides towards incorporating it).

Abe Sargent

07-30-2013, 10:04 PM

Two major comments from me:

1). Very excited for a new edition of FOF and I hope, like many here, that it turns into something more. I will be purchasing the latest FOF immediately upon release! Thanks Jim!

2). There are a few things that I would really, really covet. One is a changeable league (with expansion option, changing playoff structure, etc). Two is a real overhaul of contracts and introduce clauses and other aspects that reflect the reality of dealing with mega million dollar deals that happen all of the time. I want escalator clauses, no trade clauses, roster bonuses, and more. I want to be able to move future money into this year to eat up that 2 mill I have under the cap by converting someone;s future salary into a bonus payment now. (happens a lot in the NFL). I want both unlikely incentives and likely ones. This is a GM sim first and foremost, and yet I feel that that contract aspect is very light on that. So I miss options for shifting the league structure and a real fleshing out of the contract system.

Abe Sargent

07-30-2013, 10:06 PM

i dont have a lot of faith in profitable teams having first crack at drafting a coaching staff. i dont love a draft idea in general.

id also have liked a more definitive "bpr was broken and will be fixed", but we'll see in game play how that works out.

that said, still excited overall

Aat first, I thought the ide aof a coach draft was hinky. Then he explained it, and I dug it as I thought about it. The team with the most money (often teh winners) gets first dibs, which is virtually identical to real life. Teams like the Patriots can get their pick of the litter for Offensive Coordinator or Strength and Training coach, you know?

Bad-example

07-30-2013, 10:12 PM

The draft for coaches sounds like a necessary evil for the multiplayer mode and a very silly idea for the single player.

Marmel

07-30-2013, 10:14 PM

I also am very disappointed in the lack of customization. Like I said before, I will probably end up buying it but I am underwhelmed. Things like position switches, long snappers, red flags, chemistry and MP are all almost completely off my radar when I play. I like the changes to the coaches and their new function and will have to see how the coach draft plays out. Obviously AI improvements are nice and a fix to the WR problem is great.

This is just my personal opinion, but this quote from Jim was disappointing:

"That's on the possible list. I try to avoid discussion that involves competitors because I think the market works best if we all develop independently. Which means there might well be common functions I don't include, and functions I do include that no one else considers."

There is not a whole lot of competition he needs to worry about when it comes to pro football text sims, but there are plenty of other text sims where the developers have come up with great functions that could and should be borrowed/built upon. There is nothing wrong with both coming up with your own unique functions and also keeping up with the strides the industry has made.

JG took a lot of time off and the genre has moved on without him. Now he is jumping back in and it feels like he is way behind the curve.

Perhaps I am asking for too much, too soon....I wish him the best and a successful release of course!

MizzouRah

07-30-2013, 10:26 PM

I'm IN, better AI for SP sold me.

Finally, windows that remember where you place them!!! ;)

TheFoosballWizard

07-30-2013, 10:54 PM

Seems like a lot of people feel negatively about the direction Gindin is taking with the game, but I like what he's doing. Seems like he's cleaning up the game a lot (love the proposed changes to staff!), and I'm sure a lot of people will LOVE to have those gameplanning screens neater and more streamlined. That was a big one for me, personally.

Customizable leagues and what not would be NICE, but I really care more about all the stuff he's working on more. If he makes the AI better and playing SP is actually fun again, that would be amazing. I haven't played SP for years.

kcchief19

07-30-2013, 10:57 PM

I feel like SI games still require too much wading to get to information though. I think OOTP got worse after the initial merger and never recovered from it. I think the same thing would happen to FOF.
I'm generally in this camp as well. I've tried to get into FM but my dislike of soccer and the complexity of the game just makes it to daunting to play as a casual gamer. I think OOTP has generally made good strides after initially becoming too complex of coming back to the pack. I know some will say that that FM and OOTP are just like being a GM -- but most of being a GM is mind-numbingly boring.

I've always enjoyed Jim's approach better. Could there be a bit more flash and immersion? Sure. But I'd a nice engine over a rear spoiler and racing stripes any day.

If there is one thing I don't get it's the customization factor. To me, football doesn't have the historical factor that a sport like baseball does to justify what OOTP does. At one point I could have named all 25 members of the '27 Yankees, but I doubt anyone could name two members of the '29 Packers. The current NFL format of 32 teams is absolutely perfect right now, which is a big reason why the NFL doesn't want to change it.

I get that people would like to play historic seasons and take over expansion teams. That was admittedly a favorite feature of mine of early FOF versions. But I don't feel like it's omission means I'm missing anything.

aston217

07-30-2013, 11:07 PM

I would've assumed a significant plurality of players, both in SP and in MP, play this game for the real NFL teams. And different league numbers would make sense for MP leagues unable to support a sensible number of teams (which is something I hope the AI makes easier, anyway)....so it's kind of a super niche demographic, no? Maybe the vocal-ness outweighs the actual %, or maybe I'm wrong...

Gallifrey

07-30-2013, 11:11 PM

I like the concept of a better AI for SP as far as team management, and it would never factor for me to be able to customize the league since I want an experience as close to the real thing as I can get on my PC.

I am there on day one getting the new version.

Mizzou B-ball fan

07-30-2013, 11:28 PM

Thanks for doing the chat, Jim. Very excited and will buy it as soon as you put it up for sale.

Solecismic

07-31-2013, 12:41 AM

I'm generally in this camp as well. I've tried to get into FM but my dislike of soccer and the complexity of the game just makes it to daunting to play as a casual gamer. I think OOTP has generally made good strides after initially becoming too complex of coming back to the pack. I know some will say that that FM and OOTP are just like being a GM -- but most of being a GM is mind-numbingly boring.

I've always enjoyed Jim's approach better. Could there be a bit more flash and immersion? Sure. But I'd a nice engine over a rear spoiler and racing stripes any day.

If there is one thing I don't get it's the customization factor. To me, football doesn't have the historical factor that a sport like baseball does to justify what OOTP does. At one point I could have named all 25 members of the '27 Yankees, but I doubt anyone could name two members of the '29 Packers. The current NFL format of 32 teams is absolutely perfect right now, which is a big reason why the NFL doesn't want to change it.

I get that people would like to play historic seasons and take over expansion teams. That was admittedly a favorite feature of mine of early FOF versions. But I don't feel like it's omission means I'm missing anything.

What Markus and Marc have done is amazing. Sometimes I wish I had tried to grow the company early when I had momentum. Get an artist on staff, get a little programming support. But their leadership and energy is unusual, and their talent obvious. Plus, they're both good people, and I'm happy for their success.

I don't know if I have an advantage in being the only person at Solecismic, but I think it gives me the opportunity to spend time researching when I should be programming. I can throw different ideas out there. On the downside, I'm 15 years out and still not where I want to be.

Custom league sizes just don't fit where I envision the product. If it were an easy add, I'd probably do it. It is not a highly-requested feature, but those who request it are passionate about it and I think that affects perception of the product. Of course, so does the lack of custom graphics. I'm fairly stubborn about not wanting to sacrifice any screen space that could be filled with numbers, but the game could be much better looking anyway. Art is very expensive.

I worry that the NFL will expand and I'll have to look at this again. Though not as much as I worry about the 18-game expansion.

PiemasterUK

07-31-2013, 12:42 AM

I guess its inevitable that when you wait this long for something, unless it is absolutely mind-blowing some people will be disappointed.

What is OOTP by the way?

MrBug708

07-31-2013, 01:18 AM

I'm in to support Jim, but I'm not super excited about another NFL game. I would rather see TCY2 built and hopefully my financial support here goes towards that and not another card game.

MrBug708

07-31-2013, 01:18 AM

I guess its inevitable that when you wait this long for something, unless it is absolutely mind-blowing some people will be disappointed.

What is OOTP by the way?

Out of the Park Development: Home (http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/index.php)

Super Ugly

07-31-2013, 01:53 AM

Day one purchase. Really excited about a new FOF.

MikaV84

07-31-2013, 02:22 AM

Im in the same boat with a lot of guys in the sentiment that this is an evolution, not a revolution. Sadly, from what i gather, Jim will look at the sales of this product when thinking about continuing.

The thing is, and i mean no offense whatsoever, is that the user interface is bad beyond acceptable. That will be the absolute biggest problem with a Steam Greenlight campaign, when you have to sell your product based on a description and screenshots.

For us, who've played it for years, we become blind to the UI. It's absolutely the same for Jim. When you've used it and looked at it for long enough, you become sanitized to it. The reality is, Jim has probably lost at least a third of FOF sales in the last few versions becouse of the horrendeus UI. It has, and will, turn gamers away.

If a steam greenlight campaign is to be done, there's no point in doing it until significant work has been done on the UI. I'd argue that outside of the core fans on this forum, all these listed changes are fine and dandy, but the market will not respond in large to a game which - in all honestly - looks and works like its from the 90's.

Just all in all, the UI and UX are by far the most important aspects in making this product popular outside of us core fans.

Edit: forgot to mention - if you tell the current generation of gamers that they'll need to use FTP to play multiplayer, thats not going to cut it.

PiemasterUK

07-31-2013, 02:34 AM

Out of the Park Development: Home (http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/index.php)

Urgh, baseball. Guess I'll have to wait until they make a football game.

Prinzar

07-31-2013, 02:56 AM

How does the NFL licence work with the game? I think I read that EA renewed their exclusive rights to use NFL player names.
Its obviously something that can be customised, but is there a workaround out of the box?

The draft process is my concern. I think we will have better AI management of the teams for drafting, but how does this translate to a MP utility? Do we draft online built into the game?
Requiring an external draft utility risks losing the improved draft logic for AI teams doesn't it?

isaccoubaldi

07-31-2013, 03:32 AM

Great news. I like the direction of the new project. Thanks Jim. And thanks Ben for the organization.

Sef0r

07-31-2013, 03:53 AM

Biggest thing for me was still allowing TCY importation which means player attributes remain the same. As a new game, and for something different, was kind of hoping for new attributes...

...having said that I am looking forward to more of the game. Especially if this goes Alpha and you allow people to register to help out development.

Ben E Lou

07-31-2013, 04:00 AM

Biggest thing for me was still allowing TCY importation which means player attributes remain the same.That doesn't mean that at all. TCY imports were there for FOF4, FOF2K4, and FOF2K7 even as more ratings were added. The new ratings aren't in TCY imports.

corbes

07-31-2013, 05:04 AM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the plans for a total overhaul of the way players are scouted and revealed in the game. That strikes me as a MAJOR change to the core gameplay, especially for MP purposes. I mean, (other than gameplanning, which also sounds like it is on the road to overhaul) identifying the players you want on your team is pretty much the heart of the game, right?

Antmeister

07-31-2013, 06:00 AM

I am excited about this. For both multiplayer and single player there are a number of things I am excited about. For 1, you already know he didn't give the details about everything. I am sure there is a major overhaul of things that were not asked. And the new ways that the offseason is going to work makes me excited above some of the most boring stages. On top of that, people are not realizing how big the .csv dumps are going to helps. Because if this includes game day data and other data we priviously didnt' have access to, then this can potentially allow people to customize the data for their own needs when developing sites and there is going to be some new information that helps with the immersion of these leagues. And on top of that, I no longer need 3rd party tools for a majority of these things which is actually quite huge. It is nice to know that a lot of this stuff will now be in-game and knowing he is also streamlining this makes me feel good about not having to drudge through a bad season in MP fudging with things.

NorvTurnerOverdrive

07-31-2013, 06:52 AM

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxN15EVyjeQB6UWjvaZVVLYorB-wj3MfKKZ28XWnvj5a3VzUqU

Dutch

07-31-2013, 06:53 AM

The MP data dumps is what I want to know about most of all. Can't wait!

Logan

07-31-2013, 06:58 AM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the plans for a total overhaul of the way players are scouted and revealed in the game. That strikes me as a MAJOR change to the core gameplay, especially for MP purposes. I mean, (other than gameplanning, which also sounds like it is on the road to overhaul) identifying the players you want on your team is pretty much the heart of the game, right?

And this is something that I don't really like for SP either, which led to my post about passing, unless I'm failing to understand how it works (highly possible, I'm a moron these days). I want scouting to be much more in depth than it used to be. I don't just want the people who are doing it to change. I want updates on draft-eligible players weekly, a more detailed scouting combine, ability to deploy scouts to other teams, etc. It seems like instead he is taking away one of the only areas that actually gives more information (the rookie interviews).

digamma

07-31-2013, 08:02 AM

Thanks for doing the chat Jim and to Ben for organizing, running it and posting the log.

We are a Mac family now. I play my mp leagues on a beat up laptop that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. I guess it is time for me to figure out a parallels work around.

PackerFanatic

07-31-2013, 08:05 AM

Great read here. I am excited for the changes!

mckerney

07-31-2013, 08:25 AM

How does the NFL licence work with the game? I think I read that EA renewed their exclusive rights to use NFL player names.
Its obviously something that can be customised, but is there a workaround out of the box?

Based on C.B.C. Distribution vs. Major League Baseball there's probably no license needed to use NFL player names in a video game. It was a lawsuit over a fantasy sports game using real player names that found that players have no rights of publicity to their names or player records and even if they did it is within a fantasy sports games First Amendment free speech rights to use them. If it applies to fantasy sports is like applies to sports video games too. Using a players likeness and photo would be a different issue.

mckerney

07-31-2013, 08:27 AM

Was hoping for something to get excited about, but nothing there for me. I am sure this will appeal to FOF die hards though.

Same for me. I grew bored with the older FOF games and it doesn't look like this new version changes enough with the formula to excite me.

tald

07-31-2013, 08:53 AM

I have no idea what people were expecting. Jim designed a game that all of us have played many times of the years. He is a one person company unlike EA Sports or others. I for one will be buying the new game as soon as I can. Yes there are things I would like to see change, but for one person to take on the many changes we could suggest would be too much. In the end if we like the game we buy it, if not find a better one and buy it. I like many of you have tried others and none match what Jim has designed, even with all our so called faults.

Young Drachma

07-31-2013, 08:59 AM

Kudos to Jim on a new game. I'm glad he's still in the saddle and even though I barely play much FOF (And surely hope he makes uploading MP exports easier..it's what keeps me away from that side of the game.) these days I'm looking forward to the refresh. It's been a long time overdue and I'll be getting it first thing.

nilodor

07-31-2013, 09:02 AM

Put me in the would have liked to see custom size league camp as well. It would add a lot of value to historic play, especially early on when there are twice the number of actual teams and the draft becomes very dilute.

I certainly like that it sounds like you can build a team in many different ways to win and if the AI roster building logic is much improved it seems like a FOF 2k4 to 2k7 jump to me.

mckerney

07-31-2013, 09:05 AM

I have no idea what people were expecting. Jim designed a game that all of us have played many times of the years. He is a one person company unlike EA Sports or others. I for one will be buying the new game as soon as I can. Yes there are things I would like to see change, but for one person to take on the many changes we could suggest would be too much. In the end if we like the game we buy it, if not find a better one and buy it. I like many of you have tried others and none match what Jim has designed, even with all our so called faults.

Wasn't really expecting to see anything different, I just don't think it's something I'm really gonna be interested in.

Logan

07-31-2013, 09:12 AM

I have no idea what people were expecting. Jim designed a game that all of us have played many times of the years. He is a one person company unlike EA Sports or others. I for one will be buying the new game as soon as I can. Yes there are things I would like to see change, but for one person to take on the many changes we could suggest would be too much. In the end if we like the game we buy it, if not find a better one and buy it. I like many of you have tried others and none match what Jim has designed, even with all our so called faults.


I play games very differently today than I did when I was playing the hell out of FOF a decade ago. I think that's why, for me, I need a good amount more from it to be interested than a bunch of under-the-hood improvements. Again, just IMO.

(btw there is some crazy code embedded in your quote)

Autumn

07-31-2013, 09:16 AM

[19:59] SOLECISMIC: Q: Will the league playing style evolve with time or is it more set to mimic the current state of the NFL? (For more clarity, will we see things like teams or the league as a whole moving from being heavy rushing, deep pass oriented to short, quick passes instead of runs, to option based attacks, etc.)
[19:59] SOLECISMIC: This is something I've wanted to do for a long time. I don't know, though. If it can be done without seeming hokey, it will get in there.

It seems to me that by implementing a system in which coaches have different styles (a pass heavy offensive coach, a 3-4 Defensive coach, etc), you would automatically generate this. As coaches were generated and retire you would get a changing landscape of preferences in the league. I think that would be great.

Autumn

07-31-2013, 09:17 AM

Kudos to Jim on a new game. I'm glad he's still in the saddle and even though I barely play much FOF (And surely hope he makes uploading MP exports easier..it's what keeps me away from that side of the game.) these days I'm looking forward to the refresh. It's been a long time overdue and I'll be getting it first thing.

Yes, just being able to handle MP leagues from within the program would be a huge step up. Being able to track player ratings within the program will be a huge time saver too and encourage me to keep playing .

Ben E Lou

07-31-2013, 09:38 AM

Im in the same boat with a lot of guys in the sentiment that this is an evolution, not a revolution. Sadly, from what i gather, Jim will look at the sales of this product when thinking about continuing.

The thing is, and i mean no offense whatsoever, is that the user interface is bad beyond acceptable. That will be the absolute biggest problem with a Steam Greenlight campaign, when you have to sell your product based on a description and screenshots.

For us, who've played it for years, we become blind to the UI. It's absolutely the same for Jim. When you've used it and looked at it for long enough, you become sanitized to it. The reality is, Jim has probably lost at least a third of FOF sales in the last few versions becouse of the horrendeus UI. It has, and will, turn gamers away.

If a steam greenlight campaign is to be done, there's no point in doing it until significant work has been done on the UI. I'd argue that outside of the core fans on this forum, all these listed changes are fine and dandy, but the market will not respond in large to a game which - in all honestly - looks and works like its from the 90's.

Just all in all, the UI and UX are by far the most important aspects in making this product popular outside of us core fans.

Edit: forgot to mention - if you tell the current generation of gamers that they'll need to use FTP to play multiplayer, thats not going to cut it.I'm not sure where to begin with this beauty of a post. :lol: Really I guess just two points...

1. Jim has said on here that FOF2K7 outsold any of his other products. If he's lost 1/3 of his customers over the last few versions, I guess that means he's gained a new 34% or more, eh? ;)

2. OOTP uses in-game FTP. PFS uses in-game FTP. How else would you propose he handle MP? Make the files magically appear on your computer? :D With in-game FTP, you just enter the credentials one time in your copy of the league, and from then on, just press a button that says "import latest league files" or something like that when you want to get the latest league update. And when you want to send your export, you hit another button that says "send files to commish" or something along those lines.

Subby

07-31-2013, 09:47 AM

I am glad this is an evolution and not a revolution. Kudos to Jim for working to get it right rather than releasing a whole new feature set every version.

YOU HAD ME AT IN GAME FTP.

Ben E Lou

07-31-2013, 09:50 AM

Some of the responses in here remind me of a comment that Markus makes pretty much every year regarding OOTP. Inevitably, someone posts at OOTPDev: "Markus, for this year, how about just fix/tweak the stuff that doesn't work optimally and don't bother with new features!"

And Markus responds essentially: "I have to have major new features or people will get upset and not buy the latest version. I'll do what I can to tweak the stuff I added five years ago and still doesn't really work quite right, but new features come first!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but that's very clearly his message.)

Jim appears to be doing the opposite here: rather than adding a ton of attention-grabbing "new features," it looks like there are some crucial and much-needed tweaks/fixes (SP roster-building AI, free agency offers, scouting algorithm changes, salary structures, end-game time management, WR tweaking, etc.), some very nice new reporting elements (draft history, QB performance, ratings tracking, etc.), and several strategic new features that some would consider small, but that could be game-changing (game film, FTP for MP, staff changes, etc.)

Overall, I'm excited.

Ben E Lou

07-31-2013, 09:54 AM

Dola:

And frankly, I'm particularly encouraged that Jim is listening to the community. Roughly three months ago, he posted in this forum and essentially said that tracking ratings over time was cheating, but after the community's response to that, he's adding it as a much-needed report in the game itself.

molson

07-31-2013, 10:11 AM

I would've assumed a significant plurality of players, both in SP and in MP, play this game for the real NFL teams. And different league numbers would make sense for MP leagues unable to support a sensible number of teams (which is something I hope the AI makes easier, anyway)....so it's kind of a super niche demographic, no? Maybe the vocal-ness outweighs the actual %, or maybe I'm wrong...

I'm a pretty casual SP-only player who uses real teams and players, and while it's not a deal breaker for me, some modest league structure options increase immersion. I'm not looking to sim the CFL, just to play a long dynasty where things change over time, as they do in real life. Like expansion, re-alignment, playoff structure tweaks, etc. So I'm disappointed that won't be there, but I'll certainly still purchase. I mean really, if it's the same game as the last one but with significantly improved game mechanics as far as AI and whatnot, I'll be more than satisfied. Really, the under-the-hood improvements are MORE important to me than anything else, because all I want is a nuts-and-bolts text sim that works really well, I think 90% of modern text sim features are completely lost on me because I'm just not going to get that deep into this stuff anymore.

Gallifrey

07-31-2013, 10:19 AM

Some of the responses in here remind me of a comment that Markus makes pretty much every year regarding OOTP. Inevitably, someone posts at OOTPDev: "Markus, for this year, how about just fix/tweak the stuff that doesn't work optimally and don't bother with new features!"

And Markus responds essentially: "I have to have major new features or people will get upset and not buy the latest version. I'll do what I can to tweak the stuff I added five years ago and still doesn't really work quite right, but new features come first!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but that's very clearly his message.)

Jim appears to be doing the opposite here: rather than adding a ton of attention-grabbing "new features," it looks like there are some crucial and much-needed tweaks/fixes (SP roster-building AI, free agency offers, scouting algorithm changes, salary structures, end-game time management, WR tweaking, etc.), some very nice new reporting elements (draft history, QB performance, ratings tracking, etc.), and several strategic new features that some would consider small, but that could be game-changing (game film, FTP for MP, staff changes, etc.)

Overall, I'm excited.

Thank you Ben.

Draft Dodger

07-31-2013, 10:29 AM

I am glad this is an evolution and not a revolution. Kudos to Jim for working to get it right rather than releasing a whole new feature set every version.

YOU HAD ME AT IN GAME FTP.

that's a huge thing. I wonder if there's any chance to support multiple universes (so we can run a SP with real teams and MP with fake teams without the use of batch files)

molson

07-31-2013, 10:33 AM

It seems to me that by implementing a system in which coaches have different styles (a pass heavy offensive coach, a 3-4 Defensive coach, etc), you would automatically generate this. As coaches were generated and retire you would get a changing landscape of preferences in the league. I think that would be great.

I'd much rather be able to hire coaches with their own game plans than have to design my own. This game has evolved from "front office" football to "sideline" football, which I'm sure is necessary from a business perspective, but that's a great example of one of the downsides to constantly adding new "features" - depending on how you play, those features could be completely wasted on you, or could even hinder your enjoyment of the game. Improved game mechanics create a better experience for everyone.

kcchief19

07-31-2013, 10:36 AM

Thanks for doing the chat Jim and to Ben for organizing, running it and posting the log.

We are a Mac family now. I play my mp leagues on a beat up laptop that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. I guess it is time for me to figure out a parallels work around.
I failed to mention in my earlier post, but I also echo thanks to Jim for the chat and Ben for organizing it.

I run FOF on Parallels and it works like a charm. Parallels can be a bit quirky at times, but I'm generally happy with the results. I've been able to run high-end applications like Photoshop with no problems. Memory is essential though. You can run it with 4GB but 8GB obviously will work better.

kcchief19

07-31-2013, 10:59 AM

On the Steam points and questions ... First, I'm amused that people think Jim's dated UI wouldn't fly on Steam. There are tons of games on Steam with dated UI or graphics that look like they are from "BC's Quest for Tires."

Second, I'm not sure why Jim would ever need to go through the Greenlight process. He's modest and selling himself short thinking he needs to. Greenlight is for first-time indie publishers and completely unknown games. FOF is easily one of the three most revered sports text sims in the market, had a distribution deal with EA and has been reviewed time and again by the big reviewers and sites. I'd be surprised if Steam doesn't hunt him down wanting to publish the game for him.

QuikSand

07-31-2013, 11:21 AM

I am pleased beyond words that there's going to be a new version of this game, and Jim has proven to me that he understands what I want out of a game like this far better than any other develop ever has. I'm not going to dwell on too many specifics, I'm just really happy to see this coming together.

I will say that the space it takes to talk about better AI decision making and so forth -- that really undervalues that sort of effort. No, it's not an eye-catching "new feature" but that is the bread and butter of these games, and Jim's ongoing attention to this sort of thing is why FOF, even six years old, remains the absolute titan in its niche.

I have every reason to believe and expect that a great game is going to get better. I'm in.

tej2101

07-31-2013, 11:22 AM

Super psyched for the new game, but I'm not really sold on the staff draft.

Drake

07-31-2013, 11:32 AM

I'm still holding out for a player editor.

I mean, I'll line up with my $40 or whatever on release day, but under my breath I'll be grumbling about not having a player editor.

(I fully admit that I only want a player editor because sometimes I like to cheat. Sometimes I like to make a player, give him my name, and have the virtual me make Dan Marino's career look like Gino Torretta's. You can bad mouth the virtual me with his millions of dollars and dozen Super Bowl rings all you like. Haters gonna hate.)

Really, I'm just psyched about a new version of FOF and thrilled that Jim's back at it again. :)

Drake

07-31-2013, 11:36 AM

I will say that the space it takes to talk about better AI decision making and so forth -- that really undervalues that sort of effort. No, it's not an eye-catching "new feature" but that is the bread and butter of these games, and Jim's ongoing attention to this sort of thing is why FOF, even six years old, remains the absolute titan in its niche.

The fact that you didn't use the phrase "improved algorithyms" even once hurts me. Hurts me deeply.

Julio Riddols

07-31-2013, 11:44 AM

I'm totally down to do art for the game for free. If I had an idea of what is needed, I'd start now. I'm no pro, but I'd bust my ass to make things look as good as possible. I literally only have one other responsibility in my daily life, and that is making sure my son doesn't die in my care. He's a smart little guy, so that doesn't take a ton of work.

Edit: If I were to be taken up on this offer, and payment was absolutely necessary, a copy of the game would suffice.

muns

07-31-2013, 11:48 AM

I am pleased beyond words that there's going to be a new version of this game, and Jim has proven to me that he understands what I want out of a game like this far better than any other develop ever has. I'm not going to dwell on too many specifics, I'm just really happy to see this coming together.

I will say that the space it takes to talk about better AI decision making and so forth -- that really undervalues that sort of effort. No, it's not an eye-catching "new feature" but that is the bread and butter of these games, and Jim's ongoing attention to this sort of thing is why FOF, even six years old, remains the absolute titan in its niche.

I have every reason to believe and expect that a great game is going to get better. I'm in.

+1 although I'm partial to HR with FBB

I for one am looking forward to the game a lot. It has been my experience in working with HR that when you leave the market for a bit (like both Jim and Brian have) the expectations the community has and then place on the developer on their return are just crazy. Looking forward to seeing all of the AI improvements and all the under the hood things that don’t make the game sexy. It will just make FOF a hell of a lot more fun to play. Welcome back Jim and thanks to you and Ben for doing the chat!

Dutch

07-31-2013, 11:56 AM

On the Steam points and questions ... First, I'm amused that people think Jim's dated UI wouldn't fly on Steam. There are tons of games on Steam with dated UI or graphics that look like they are from "BC's Quest for Tires."

Holy crap....I just had a massive flashback. Great reference!

Second, I'm not sure why Jim would ever need to go through the Greenlight process. He's modest and selling himself short thinking he needs to. Greenlight is for first-time indie publishers and completely unknown games. FOF is easily one of the three most revered sports text sims in the market, had a distribution deal with EA and has been reviewed time and again by the big reviewers and sites. I'd be surprised if Steam doesn't hunt him down wanting to publish the game for him.

Agreed 100%, Steam isn't big on graphics as long as you are an Indie. Steam would be fucking high to by-pass this. Just throw it on the site and let sales speak for themselves.

mckerney

07-31-2013, 12:15 PM

Second, I'm not sure why Jim would ever need to go through the Greenlight process. He's modest and selling himself short thinking he needs to. Greenlight is for first-time indie publishers and completely unknown games. FOF is easily one of the three most revered sports text sims in the market, had a distribution deal with EA and has been reviewed time and again by the big reviewers and sites. I'd be surprised if Steam doesn't hunt him down wanting to publish the game for him.

I'd be really surprised if Jim didn't have to go through Greenlight

Dutch

07-31-2013, 12:43 PM

I'd be really surprised if Jim didn't have to go through Greenlight

Don't sales speak for themselves?

mckerney

07-31-2013, 01:35 PM

Don't sales speak for themselves?

Has anyone at Valve seen sales numbers? If not, how else besides Greenlight are they going to? All indications are that unless a developer has other games on Steam or an existed relationship with someone at Valve they don't really look at pitches for games unless it's on Greenlight. So short of someone who works on Steam being a fan of and familiar with the sports management sim niche (an with OOTP failing to get through Greenlight that doesn't look like the case) and reaching out to Jim there probably isn't much of a chance they see anything about FOF any other way.

MikaV84

07-31-2013, 01:53 PM

I'm not sure where to begin with this beauty of a post. :lol: Really I guess just two points...

1. Jim has said on here that FOF2K7 outsold any of his other products. If he's lost 1/3 of his customers over the last few versions, I guess that means he's gained a new 34% or more, eh? ;)

2. OOTP uses in-game FTP. PFS uses in-game FTP. How else would you propose he handle MP? Make the files magically appear on your computer? :D With in-game FTP, you just enter the credentials one time in your copy of the league, and from then on, just press a button that says "import latest league files" or something like that when you want to get the latest league update. And when you want to send your export, you hit another button that says "send files to commish" or something along those lines.

That was me wording the point poorly (losing cumulative sales since the UI has become more dated, not losing sales COMPARED to the last version). And OOTP didnt get on steam either, and it's sales and UI are at a greater level.

My general point stands, and theres no need to get so defensive, since you really didnt even contend the main point. For the record, i've already told Jim - like someone else in this thread did - that i'd help out with the UX and graphics if needed. So im not attacking the game itself, or Jim for that matter, but the point is very clear: if you want a game like this to go big - or even greenlight, the UX needs a complete overhaul.

EDIT: no reason to get into the FTP stuff until we see the implementation - it might be seamless. I deleted a snarky comment on it.

Goldschmidt

07-31-2013, 02:07 PM

A little underwhelming at this point, but it's early, so there's hope.

I am disappointed at the developer's casual dismissal of feature requests like league/player customization. These are immensely fun in OOTP.

Ben E Lou

07-31-2013, 02:28 PM

That was me wording the point poorly (losing cumulative sales since the UI has become more dated, not losing sales COMPARED to the last version). And OOTP didnt get on steam either, and it's sales and UI are at a greater level.

My general point stands, and theres no need to get so defensive, since you really didnt even contend the main point. For the record, i've already told Jim - like someone else in this thread did - that i'd help out with the UX and graphics if needed. So im not attacking the game itself, or Jim for that matter, but the point is very clear: if you want a game like this to go big - or even greenlight, the UX needs a complete overhaul.

EDIT: no reason to get into the FTP stuff until we see the implementation - it might be seamless. I deleted a snarky comment on it.Eh, I wasn't defensive. No reason for me to be defensive. If it wasn't clear, I was laughing at your post because I found it funny. ;)

Yes, I generally find it humorous when people talk about FOF "going big." FOF's a great niche game, and clearly sells enough to make a living for its developer. Forget the UI and graphics, though: the things that make FOF great and that Jim focuses on just don't play to the masses. If OOTP with all its bells and whistles hasn't "gone big," then what on earth makes anyone think FOF is going to??? It just seems silly to think that way. FOF with a pretty interface and cool graphics is a game with a pretty interface and cool graphics that's all about roster management, numbers, details, and spreadsheets. Sure, he might sell more games to the "oooh..this looks kewl" impulse purchase crowd; but I suspect that they wouldn't actually play the game more than a hot minute, or ever buy another version.

I think the primary issue is that after all this time there's still not another football sim that holds a candle to FOF, so people end up looking to FOF to be all things for all types of players like OOTP, when it's just not, and there's really no reason that reasonable people should think that it's going to be. Jim's made it clear (over and over again) that he's not interested in sacrificing screen space where numbers can go in order to fit in more graphical content. Yet people keep hoping and pining for him to sacrifice screen space where numbers can go. That is just plain funny to me.

Dutch

07-31-2013, 02:39 PM

You've been here many times before, Ben. Not everybody gets it. However, all that about pretty graphics aside (yeah, I'd like them too, but it's wishful dreaming) there are some UI improvements that could be made to ensure that we don't have to click the mouse button 10,000 per session.

Ben E Lou

07-31-2013, 02:45 PM

...there are some UI improvements that could be made to ensure that we don't have to click the mouse button 10,000 per session...Oh, I absolutely agree with that and would engage seriously on that topic, but that post wasn't about that. It was about all the things that FOF needs to do to go big, get on Steam, reach a bunch more people, etc. etc. etc., and it was also sprinkled with some obviously-horrid made-up numbers. When I see all of that sort of talk, I don't engage seriously; I just chuckle. Usually I just point and laugh without posting, but that one was just so over-the-top that I couldn't resist.

TroyF

07-31-2013, 03:09 PM

Just to add to the QS post, To all of the people saying it's an evolution or not enough features or it can't be a spreadsheet. . . I don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, you are all entitled to your opinion. I just don't understand. I fell in love with the game originally because of how it combined deep strategy with the ease of playing just one more season before I go to bed.

The thought of an FOF that is more challenging with better AI is beyond salivating to me. I am not interested in card or board games, so Jim didn't see any of my money the last while. I'll be buying this the second it comes out.

gstelmack

07-31-2013, 03:16 PM

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the main issue I have with the UI is the modal nature of the windows. I want a roster window AND the depth chart window open at once. Otherwise the actual presentation is fine for me for what the game does.

Aside from that, there are usability improvements as alluded to. Weight training was a chore, for example, and could be very streamlined if you had a single screen report of everyone's weight status along with buttons to train up / down for each player. Interviews are similar.

AlexB

07-31-2013, 03:18 PM

I only play single player (or to be fair 'played' given how long it's been since fired up FOF seriously). I didn't like the gameplanning screens and like most found it way too easy to win, even without massively exploiting the AI.

So really pleased to hear the AI is going to be much tougher, gameplanning made simpler. Also huge that ratings will be tracked: will at least the current year's combines be listed too do we know?

I would like the financial side to be much improved, so that seems to be addressed too, although maybe not quite as much as i'd hope but difficult to tell exactly what's in store, which is I think what Jim intended.

The coach draft seems a bit bizarre tbh, but it's not going to stop me buying on the first weekend, the rest of the improvements merit it. Let's be frank, the last FOF is still the best football managment game even after all this time, and if FOF7 is an improved development of that it's a no-brainer!

Mike7273

07-31-2013, 03:21 PM

Unfortunately, I have to join the crowd who gives this a big meh. Lack of customization in league sizes and financial setup makes it a good (make that a very good) NFL simulator, but due to FM and other such text sims out there, I want more than just a NFL simulator.

FM?

Goldschmidt

07-31-2013, 03:23 PM

Just to add to the QS post, To all of the people saying it's an evolution or not enough features or it can't be a spreadsheet. . . I don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, you are all entitled to your opinion. I just don't understand. I fell in love with the game originally because of how it combined deep strategy with the ease of playing just one more season before I go to bed.

The thought of an FOF that is more challenging with better AI is beyond salivating to me. I am not interested in card or board games, so Jim didn't see any of my money the last while. I'll be buying this the second it comes out.

My only gripe is the lack of customization. The game used to support expansion. I don't care if the graphics change at all - I would think custom league sizes and in-game player editing would be a reasonable feature request for a text-based sim.

DaddyTorgo

07-31-2013, 03:27 PM

FOF's a great niche game, and clearly sells enough to make a living for its developer.

I don't believe this is true - Jim's had a "real world" job for a while now IIRC. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall that being the case.

Ben E Lou

07-31-2013, 03:45 PM

I don't believe this is true - Jim's had a "real world" job for a while now IIRC. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall that being the case.http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=86369

NorvTurnerOverdrive

07-31-2013, 03:46 PM

i've said it a million times but it's such a glaring void in the marketplace. there's a zillion nfl fans and probably half of them armchair gm's. the fact that there isn't a yearly AAA football text sim is confounding.

this is why i find jim's ambivalence confusing. it seems like with the proper thrust and the right supporting cast this thing could be hugely popular/profitable a la fm.

as it is i'll take what i can get because even with just a few tweaks 2k7 is still the best sim on the marketplace.

Goldschmidt

07-31-2013, 04:08 PM

Solecismic/FOF "State Of The Union" - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=86369)

Wow. That post was almost a little too honest. I picture him with a beard and an old laptop running Windows 98, hammering out code in a cabin off the grid someplace...

Gallifrey

07-31-2013, 04:23 PM

If it were a Win98 laptop it would be crashing too often to get any coding done.

Hands down the top improvement for me is the AI team management improvement.

If the best engine on the market gets a tuneup and runs an NFL simulation for me better than it did before when it was already hands down the best NFL simulation engine... I'm ready to play.

I would rather have realistic simulation with no glitz than the other way around.

scorp

07-31-2013, 04:31 PM

Excited about the upgrades/fixes that FOF7 will bring, AND that some of the foundation for future upgrades improvements are a part of this too.

BlackJack

07-31-2013, 04:40 PM

I feel like SI games still require too much wading to get to information though. I think OOTP got worse after the initial merger and never recovered from it. I think the same thing would happen to FOF.

The current version of OOTP is the best in the history of the series. FOF should aspire to be where Markus has his game.

Mike7273

07-31-2013, 04:48 PM

What is FM?

molson

07-31-2013, 04:49 PM

What is FM?

Football (as in soccer) manager.

SirFozzie

07-31-2013, 04:49 PM

Football Manager, from Sports Interactive.

(it's what a lot of the world calls soccer)

Mike7273

07-31-2013, 04:57 PM

Oh. Yuck.

Dutch

07-31-2013, 05:16 PM

I agree but FM is pretty friggin' awesome.

MrBug708

07-31-2013, 06:32 PM

Oh. Yuck.

It's the standard for sports sims. Many a posters have been converted to soccer fans based on the game

FBPro

07-31-2013, 06:39 PM

Day one purchase!

DaddyTorgo

07-31-2013, 06:44 PM

Solecismic/FOF "State Of The Union" - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=86369)

Ah ha - I stand corrected.

zullojer

07-31-2013, 07:24 PM

Thanks to Jim and Ben for taking the the time. Can't wait for a freshened up version of fof, very excited for a coming soon release date post.

As for the talk about graphics and art, pshhhhh. If I want graphics I'll play my playstation, I want numbers baby, and numbers that make sense.

Galaxy

07-31-2013, 07:50 PM

Some of the responses in here remind me of a comment that Markus makes pretty much every year regarding OOTP. Inevitably, someone posts at OOTPDev: "Markus, for this year, how about just fix/tweak the stuff that doesn't work optimally and don't bother with new features!"

And Markus responds essentially: "I have to have major new features or people will get upset and not buy the latest version. I'll do what I can to tweak the stuff I added five years ago and still doesn't really work quite right, but new features come first!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but that's very clearly his message.)

Jim appears to be doing the opposite here: rather than adding a ton of attention-grabbing "new features," it looks like there are some crucial and much-needed tweaks/fixes (SP roster-building AI, free agency offers, scouting algorithm changes, salary structures, end-game time management, WR tweaking, etc.), some very nice new reporting elements (draft history, QB performance, ratings tracking, etc.), and several strategic new features that some would consider small, but that could be game-changing (game film, FTP for MP, staff changes, etc.)

Overall, I'm excited.

I never understood this argument. The tweaks/fixes should be included in the original version, or a patch...not the next game to be purchased.

azjoe_02

07-31-2013, 08:44 PM

Where I am right now in life doesn't allow me any time to really dedicate to controlling a MP team, though it was a lot of fun - much more so than SP.

With that being said, this news of an improved AI, is a boon for me.

Thank you Jim!

Izulde

07-31-2013, 09:15 PM

The current version of OOTP is the best in the history of the series. FOF should aspire to be where Markus has his game.

Maybe. Haven't bothered with it, but 6.5 is still the best in the series IMO.

sjshaw

07-31-2013, 09:17 PM

(And surely hope he makes uploading MP exports easier..it's what keeps me away from that side of the game.)

I thought it was eLicense refusing to answer your emails requesting a license reset. :)

MizzouRah

08-01-2013, 01:43 AM

Maybe. Haven't bothered with it, but 6.5 is still the best in the series IMO.

It's been great since v12.

Solecismic

08-01-2013, 02:37 AM

I just wanted to mention a couple of things.

First, I really appreciate those who share this desire to have a football simulation that captures what coaches do during games. And I'd like to keep adding GM function as well.

I never dismiss a popular feature request without thought. If I could provide custom league sizes/divisions in a short amount of time, I'd do it. I just don't think it would be a good business decision to spend most of an entire development cycle on it. It's surprising how much those little divisions impact.

There will come a time when one person can no longer create a viable product solo. That time may have already come. If so, it's time to get a real job. No hard feelings.

A-Husker-4-Life

08-01-2013, 07:36 AM

I honestly don't care about league customization sizes, all your updates sound f**king great. Don't let acouple people bring you down, this announcement is EPIC.. I can't wait to see fof7, keep up all the hard work..

Mota

08-01-2013, 08:54 AM

While I tend more towards the GM side vs. coaching side, I'm definitely in for this one, as I will be for any sports sim that Jim makes. It's been so long since a new version, I am really looking forward to all of the improvements!

Gallifrey

08-01-2013, 09:16 AM

I honestly don't care about league customization sizes, all your updates sound f**king great. Don't let acouple people bring you down, this announcement is EPIC.. I can't wait to see fof7, keep up all the hard work..

I agree.

Firefly

08-01-2013, 12:46 PM

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the main issue I have with the UI is the modal nature of the windows. I want a roster window AND the depth chart window open at once. Otherwise the actual presentation is fine for me for what the game does.

Aside from that, there are usability improvements as alluded to. Weight training was a chore, for example, and could be very streamlined if you had a single screen report of everyone's weight status along with buttons to train up / down for each player. Interviews are similar.

That would be awesome.

As far as the people who think this game could be a big commercial hit, I don't get it. Sure, there are a bunch of football fans out there, but how many are as nerdy as to want a simulation rather than a pretty button punching game? Other than the people here, I mean?

It's great that the AI algorithms (wink wink) are going to improve, very good news. That staff draft thing sounds weird, let's see how it works out in practice. Will we need another draft utility to run that?

PhinsFan

08-01-2013, 01:35 PM

I just wanted to mention a couple of things.

First, I really appreciate those who share this desire to have a football simulation that captures what coaches do during games. And I'd like to keep adding GM function as well.

I never dismiss a popular feature request without thought. If I could provide custom league sizes/divisions in a short amount of time, I'd do it. I just don't think it would be a good business decision to spend most of an entire development cycle on it. It's surprising how much those little divisions impact.

There will come a time when one person can no longer create a viable product solo. That time may have already come. If so, it's time to get a real job. No hard feelings.

1st off Thanks Jim for doing the chat and thanks to Ben for setting it up.

2nd I hope the customization thing doesn't discourage you from moving forward with the game. I can see why people want it, but I think most of the follower of this game may not care about. For me the custom league feature isn't a big deal.

I'm sure you've already thought about this but figured I'd mention it anyway, Get the game where you want it to be for this fall, then work on the custom league sizes/divisions during the following year and release a new game next fall with those custom features in place. Possibly give a discount to those of us that buy the game this fall.

I am not into the single player much, I like multi player. So my hope is the new game will transition easily to the MP leagues I'm already a part of. I am commissioner of one of the leagues and I am wondering how difficult it will be to transition the league over to the new game, it is my main concern for now.

The game sounds very promising as a whole. I'll admit that I would like to see a sexy/flashy game but it's not what this game is about really. The most important parts are the game engine remaining solid and the new features being user friendly. It was mentioned before that it would be nice to have more than 1 window open at a time as well as streamlining the game plan screens. I believe you touched on these topics in your chat.

I'm looking forward to the new game, keep up the good work Jim.

Sef0r

08-01-2013, 04:08 PM

That doesn't mean that at all. TCY imports were there for FOF4, FOF2K4, and FOF2K7 even as more ratings were added. The new ratings aren't in TCY imports.

didn't know that. Thanks...looking forward to seeing how he implements some of these new features, especially scouting, coaches and gameplanning

Dutch

08-01-2013, 04:18 PM

I'm not one to throw a lot of pro-Jim stuff out there, usually because I've got my constructive criticism glasses on, but I'm not a fan of seeing Jim focus on the negatives of this thread.

So with that being said, the idea of FOF being a one-man show (essentially) is inspiring in this day and age. So I think we could all use a little bit of expectation management. Not to say the criticism aren't warranted, but most of us, I suspect (myself included), simply have no idea how long it takes to become this proficient at programing and then realize the dream into an actual product.

Once we put it into perspective, Jim has conquered some pretty serious programming ground with regard to pro football (and college football). He's still THE ONLY programmer to deliver a career management simulation of football that somewhat realistically mimics real real football. At least the player develop curves and most stats are pretty spot on. And the GP'ing stuff and logic was getting better with each version...

There is no art team, there is no PR team (sans Ben E Lou), there is no Philharmonic Orchestra doing the opening musical score nor NFL Films doing the opening dialogue (except on RNFL's front page that is), there aren't any PC to MAC conversion teams, there isn't a distribution team, there isn't a game engine design and test team, there isn't a UI design and test team, there isn't boom operator, or an exclusive catering service. It's just.....Jim.

And for Jim to take a life-pause, go through so much real-life drama and then re-appear ready to get back on this beast of a program he's built, is inspiring, to say the least.

I think most of the discussions here are fair, but I wanted to make sure that after all that, we should still say...Jim, your efforts are very much appreciated. Quite simply, your game rocks.

Now, you mentioned that doing annual updates seems like something you don't want to do, but I would be okay with that. I spend my money on all kinds of stupid bullshit, if I could come away with an low-expectations/updated version of FOF each year for my troubles, I'd be better off right now. Even if the updates just fix game engines issues you find, adds rosters, and whatever else comes along that you dream up that you think YOUR game needs...it would be just fine by me.

MalcPow

08-01-2013, 04:23 PM

I am pleased beyond words that there's going to be a new version of this game, and Jim has proven to me that he understands what I want out of a game like this far better than any other develop ever has. I'm not going to dwell on too many specifics, I'm just really happy to see this coming together.

I will say that the space it takes to talk about better AI decision making and so forth -- that really undervalues that sort of effort. No, it's not an eye-catching "new feature" but that is the bread and butter of these games, and Jim's ongoing attention to this sort of thing is why FOF, even six years old, remains the absolute titan in its niche.

I have every reason to believe and expect that a great game is going to get better. I'm in.

This basically captures all my feelings. I'm really looking forward to this game.

aston217

08-01-2013, 04:51 PM

Dola:

And frankly, I'm particularly encouraged that Jim is listening to the community. Roughly three months ago, he posted in this forum and essentially said that tracking ratings over time was cheating, but after the community's response to that, he's adding it as a much-needed report in the game itself.

Yep. Very encouraging.

Can we get some more publicity for this game? Where else is it eing announced?

Abe Sargent

08-01-2013, 04:58 PM

I'm not one to throw a lot of pro-Jim stuff out there, usually because I've got my constructive criticism glasses on, but I'm not a fan of seeing Jim focus on the negatives of this thread.

So with that being said, the idea of FOF being a one-man show (essentially) is inspiring in this day and age. So I think we could all use a little bit of expectation management. Not to say the criticism aren't warranted, but most of us, I suspect (myself included), simply have no idea how long it takes to become this proficient at programing and then realize the dream into an actual product.

Once we put it into perspective, Jim has conquered some pretty serious programming ground with regard to pro football (and college football). He's still THE ONLY programmer to deliver a career management simulation of football that somewhat realistically mimics real real football. At least the player develop curves and most stats are pretty spot on. And the GP'ing stuff and logic was getting better with each version...

There is no art team, there is no PR team (sans Ben E Lou), there is no Philharmonic Orchestra doing the opening musical score nor NFL Films doing the opening dialogue (except on RNFL's front page that is), there aren't any PC to MAC conversion teams, there isn't a distribution team, there isn't a game engine design and test team, there isn't a UI design and test team, there isn't boom operator, or an exclusive catering service. It's just.....Jim.

And for Jim to take a life-pause, go through so much real-life drama and then re-appear ready to get back on this beast of a program he's built, is inspiring, to say the least.

I think most of the discussions here are fair, but I wanted to make sure that after all that, we should still say...Jim, your efforts are very much appreciated. Quite simply, your game rocks.

Now, you mentioned that doing annual updates seems like something you don't want to do, but I would be okay with that. I spend my money on all kinds of stupid bullshit, if I could come away with an low-expectations/updated version of FOF each year for my troubles, I'd be better off right now. Even if the updates just fix game engines issues you find, adds rosters, and whatever else comes along that you dream up that you think YOUR game needs...it would be just fine by me.

Best post in this thread by far. By far.

I agree, i would throw money at Jim annually for a minor update or two, some tweaks and fixes. Just keep your shirt on, and we'll be okay ;)

A-Husker-4-Life

08-01-2013, 05:24 PM

I'm not one to throw a lot of pro-Jim stuff out there, usually because I've got my constructive criticism glasses on, but I'm not a fan of seeing Jim focus on the negatives of this thread.

So with that being said, the idea of FOF being a one-man show (essentially) is inspiring in this day and age. So I think we could all use a little bit of expectation management. Not to say the criticism aren't warranted, but most of us, I suspect (myself included), simply have no idea how long it takes to become this proficient at programing and then realize the dream into an actual product.

Once we put it into perspective, Jim has conquered some pretty serious programming ground with regard to pro football (and college football). He's still THE ONLY programmer to deliver a career management simulation of football that somewhat realistically mimics real real football. At least the player develop curves and most stats are pretty spot on. And the GP'ing stuff and logic was getting better with each version...

There is no art team, there is no PR team (sans Ben E Lou), there is no Philharmonic Orchestra doing the opening musical score nor NFL Films doing the opening dialogue (except on RNFL's front page that is), there aren't any PC to MAC conversion teams, there isn't a distribution team, there isn't a game engine design and test team, there isn't a UI design and test team, there isn't boom operator, or an exclusive catering service. It's just.....Jim.

And for Jim to take a life-pause, go through so much real-life drama and then re-appear ready to get back on this beast of a program he's built, is inspiring, to say the least.

I think most of the discussions here are fair, but I wanted to make sure that after all that, we should still say...Jim, your efforts are very much appreciated. Quite simply, your game rocks.

Now, you mentioned that doing annual updates seems like something you don't want to do, but I would be okay with that. I spend my money on all kinds of stupid bullshit, if I could come away with an low-expectations/updated version of FOF each year for my troubles, I'd be better off right now. Even if the updates just fix game engines issues you find, adds rosters, and whatever else comes along that you dream up that you think YOUR game needs...it would be just fine by me.

1000% THIS

BeerCloud

08-01-2013, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mike D View Post
I'm not one to throw a lot of pro-Jim stuff out there, usually because I've got my constructive criticism glasses on, but I'm not a fan of seeing Jim focus on the negatives of this thread.

So with that being said, the idea of FOF being a one-man show (essentially) is inspiring in this day and age. So I think we could all use a little bit of expectation management. Not to say the criticism aren't warranted, but most of us, I suspect (myself included), simply have no idea how long it takes to become this proficient at programing and then realize the dream into an actual product.

Once we put it into perspective, Jim has conquered some pretty serious programming ground with regard to pro football (and college football). He's still THE ONLY programmer to deliver a career management simulation of football that somewhat realistically mimics real real football. At least the player develop curves and most stats are pretty spot on. And the GP'ing stuff and logic was getting better with each version...

There is no art team, there is no PR team (sans Ben E Lou), there is no Philharmonic Orchestra doing the opening musical score nor NFL Films doing the opening dialogue (except on RNFL's front page that is), there aren't any PC to MAC conversion teams, there isn't a distribution team, there isn't a game engine design and test team, there isn't a UI design and test team, there isn't boom operator, or an exclusive catering service. It's just.....Jim.

And for Jim to take a life-pause, go through so much real-life drama and then re-appear ready to get back on this beast of a program he's built, is inspiring, to say the least.

I think most of the discussions here are fair, but I wanted to make sure that after all that, we should still say...Jim, your efforts are very much appreciated. Quite simply, your game rocks.

Now, you mentioned that doing annual updates seems like something you don't want to do, but I would be okay with that. I spend my money on all kinds of stupid bullshit, if I could come away with an low-expectations/updated version of FOF each year for my troubles, I'd be better off right now. Even if the updates just fix game engines issues you find, adds rosters, and whatever else comes along that you dream up that you think YOUR game needs...it would be just fine by me.

+++
Jim,
This is a pretty kool community you gave birth to years ago.

If you really enjoy what your doing, it feels like play.
Its only work if you dont enjoy what your doing.
Play on Jim, Play on.....

azjoe_02

08-01-2013, 08:08 PM

I'm not one to throw a lot of pro-Jim stuff out there, usually because I've got my constructive criticism glasses on, but I'm not a fan of seeing Jim focus on the negatives of this thread.

So with that being said, the idea of FOF being a one-man show (essentially) is inspiring in this day and age. So I think we could all use a little bit of expectation management. Not to say the criticism aren't warranted, but most of us, I suspect (myself included), simply have no idea how long it takes to become this proficient at programing and then realize the dream into an actual product.

Once we put it into perspective, Jim has conquered some pretty serious programming ground with regard to pro football (and college football). He's still THE ONLY programmer to deliver a career management simulation of football that somewhat realistically mimics real real football. At least the player develop curves and most stats are pretty spot on. And the GP'ing stuff and logic was getting better with each version...

There is no art team, there is no PR team (sans Ben E Lou), there is no Philharmonic Orchestra doing the opening musical score nor NFL Films doing the opening dialogue (except on RNFL's front page that is), there aren't any PC to MAC conversion teams, there isn't a distribution team, there isn't a game engine design and test team, there isn't a UI design and test team, there isn't boom operator, or an exclusive catering service. It's just.....Jim.

And for Jim to take a life-pause, go through so much real-life drama and then re-appear ready to get back on this beast of a program he's built, is inspiring, to say the least.

I think most of the discussions here are fair, but I wanted to make sure that after all that, we should still say...Jim, your efforts are very much appreciated. Quite simply, your game rocks.

Now, you mentioned that doing annual updates seems like something you don't want to do, but I would be okay with that. I spend my money on all kinds of stupid bullshit, if I could come away with an low-expectations/updated version of FOF each year for my troubles, I'd be better off right now. Even if the updates just fix game engines issues you find, adds rosters, and whatever else comes along that you dream up that you think YOUR game needs...it would be just fine by me.

:thumbsup:

Danny

08-01-2013, 08:31 PM

Just to add to my original post. I was disappointed with the list initially and I still would love a sim that has a better graphical representation, expansion, historical replay and a few other things. That said, I will still probably purchase the new FOF if initial feedback is good and the AI improvements are there. It is really too bad though that there is no game that does what something like OOTP does with historical replay for football. That would be so awesome.

BucDawg40

08-01-2013, 08:32 PM

I'm not one to throw a lot of pro-Jim stuff out there, usually because I've got my constructive criticism glasses on, but I'm not a fan of seeing Jim focus on the negatives of this thread.

So with that being said, the idea of FOF being a one-man show (essentially) is inspiring in this day and age. So I think we could all use a little bit of expectation management. Not to say the criticism aren't warranted, but most of us, I suspect (myself included), simply have no idea how long it takes to become this proficient at programing and then realize the dream into an actual product.

Once we put it into perspective, Jim has conquered some pretty serious programming ground with regard to pro football (and college football). He's still THE ONLY programmer to deliver a career management simulation of football that somewhat realistically mimics real real football. At least the player develop curves and most stats are pretty spot on. And the GP'ing stuff and logic was getting better with each version...

There is no art team, there is no PR team (sans Ben E Lou), there is no Philharmonic Orchestra doing the opening musical score nor NFL Films doing the opening dialogue (except on RNFL's front page that is), there aren't any PC to MAC conversion teams, there isn't a distribution team, there isn't a game engine design and test team, there isn't a UI design and test team, there isn't boom operator, or an exclusive catering service. It's just.....Jim.

And for Jim to take a life-pause, go through so much real-life drama and then re-appear ready to get back on this beast of a program he's built, is inspiring, to say the least.

I think most of the discussions here are fair, but I wanted to make sure that after all that, we should still say...Jim, your efforts are very much appreciated. Quite simply, your game rocks.

Now, you mentioned that doing annual updates seems like something you don't want to do, but I would be okay with that. I spend my money on all kinds of stupid bullshit, if I could come away with an low-expectations/updated version of FOF each year for my troubles, I'd be better off right now. Even if the updates just fix game engines issues you find, adds rosters, and whatever else comes along that you dream up that you think YOUR game needs...it would be just fine by me.

Very well said.

MrOpinion

08-01-2013, 11:02 PM

Given that I have owned every version of OOTP since OOTP 4 (that's 12 editions), the lack of customization and quality HTML reports completely kills it for me.

Every league that I play is completely fictional, because I don't find the draw in playing a 'real world replay'. And the fact the the MP isn't as fleshed out as I'd like it to be means I'll probably end up sticking with FOF2K7. It does enough for what I need out of it it.

Zee

08-02-2013, 09:07 AM

I'm happy to see that an improved the AI is a high priority. I stopped playing single player because it was just too easy. I hope the Coaching changes make it possible to improve your coaching staff, even if your franchise isn't one of the top money makers. It is currently hard to improve team finances and game attendance, if your team isn't winning... (and hard to win without a top coach).

What I was hoping to see, however, was an expansion on game planning that included selecting specific plays, rather than just formations. I was also hopeful that something would be said about reducing the random variability of game outcomes, and bring the results back closer to the player abilities. I'm not a great game planner, and need to rely on my GM skills to select better players.

Gallifrey

08-02-2013, 09:19 AM

I'm not one to throw a lot of pro-Jim stuff out there, usually because I've got my constructive criticism glasses on, but I'm not a fan of seeing Jim focus on the negatives of this thread.

So with that being said, the idea of FOF being a one-man show (essentially) is inspiring in this day and age. So I think we could all use a little bit of expectation management. Not to say the criticism aren't warranted, but most of us, I suspect (myself included), simply have no idea how long it takes to become this proficient at programing and then realize the dream into an actual product.

Once we put it into perspective, Jim has conquered some pretty serious programming ground with regard to pro football (and college football). He's still THE ONLY programmer to deliver a career management simulation of football that somewhat realistically mimics real real football. At least the player develop curves and most stats are pretty spot on. And the GP'ing stuff and logic was getting better with each version...

There is no art team, there is no PR team (sans Ben E Lou), there is no Philharmonic Orchestra doing the opening musical score nor NFL Films doing the opening dialogue (except on RNFL's front page that is), there aren't any PC to MAC conversion teams, there isn't a distribution team, there isn't a game engine design and test team, there isn't a UI design and test team, there isn't boom operator, or an exclusive catering service. It's just.....Jim.

And for Jim to take a life-pause, go through so much real-life drama and then re-appear ready to get back on this beast of a program he's built, is inspiring, to say the least.

I think most of the discussions here are fair, but I wanted to make sure that after all that, we should still say...Jim, your efforts are very much appreciated. Quite simply, your game rocks.

Now, you mentioned that doing annual updates seems like something you don't want to do, but I would be okay with that. I spend my money on all kinds of stupid bullshit, if I could come away with an low-expectations/updated version of FOF each year for my troubles, I'd be better off right now. Even if the updates just fix game engines issues you find, adds rosters, and whatever else comes along that you dream up that you think YOUR game needs...it would be just fine by me.

Says it all, well done.

fortheglory

08-02-2013, 09:42 AM

It's the standard for sports sims. Many a posters have been converted to soccer fans based on the game

I have always thought this, but upon further examination, I feel the AI roster building in FM is so weak, that the game really doesn't hold a candle to OOTP or FOF in many regards. There are so many good young free agents that AI teams never sign, that it really leaves a lot to be desired. I think eventually FM becomes a very simple game as far as roster building is concerned.

Ben E Lou

08-02-2013, 10:10 AM

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

Icy

08-02-2013, 11:26 AM

Mixed feelings, in one hand i'm very happy about Jim getting back at it, excited about the new AI but besides that... a bit disappointed.

The customization part, i won't really miss it, maybe i'm too used to FM lack of customization, but i want to play the real NFL in a football game and the real MLB or NBA in baseball or basketball sims. I have tried to create fictional universes in OOTP, expended tons of time on custom unis, the perfect team names and alignment, etc and end losing interest an not able to feel immersed.

The UI part, it's already discussed every year for a while, and nobody changes it's opinion including Jim. As for it being expensive... well it depends... when i was heavily into modding games for fun, i did the designs for Wolverine studios games like Draft Day Sports Basketball, Draft Day Sports College Basketball, Music Wars and a Puresim version that never saw the light, as well as some screens mockups/ideas for OOTP like the deep chart/lineups one that was finally adopted, i don't think they were that bad for a non professional designer, and my "cost" per game was like a weekend at a hotel with my family, as i did it for fun and to learn more about design tricks, etc when i was into that.

If you are looking at professional UI designers with a big name, then yes, it's expensive, but if you recruit the right student, or specially game modder or fans, you will get it for almost nothing. There are plenty of game mods with same or even better graphics than professionally designed games, heck even some of the FM skins made by fans are way better than the shipped one, and they do it just for fun or personal ego of having their name printed in the game or other fans saying "thanks, you rock!"

I think Jim is too close minded about hiring others or just having anybody else putting it's hand over his projects in general (maybe i'm wrong and just a feeling I have based in his comments after years here or maybe it was because his bad experience at EA some years ago) and not aware of what is going on right now in the games industry, see iphone/android games/apps by indie developers with zero money taking over big companies like EA that is into big problems now in the mobile games biz because they are too big and too rigid in that fast changing world. The one man show approach is no longer an excuse but an advantage in some cases if you play it well.

Besides the AI improvements, one of the things i would have really liked is personalities in coaches/gm's, so every coach would have their preferred system, and every team would feel different, both on and off the field, instead of all them analyzing stats and acting exactly the same "perfect" and robotized way.

The scouts disappearing the coaches draft looks more of a way to make things simpler for MP at the sacrifice of realism and SP experience.

Overall i see this as a base and code cleaning to be able to release better games in the future, and maybe too influenced by some old hardcore players like Ben and others (no offense for name calling i hope, not saying anything bad) that share same vision about FOF and text sims in general than Jim, and that are more into studding how the game engine works at the cost of immersion, that want total stats accuracy without any "distraction" around it, and also about the competitive MP environment than about roleplaying being a coach/gm in SP that other text sim fans prefer (like me, that is why i always come back to FM). That is why i never buy text sims that are supper accurate match replaying machines but that have no career mode. I don't see those as "games".

I love stats accuracy as much as every sports nut, but once that side is covered, I want to feel i'm a coach/gm, and realism in a text sim for me includes also feeling and dealing with part of the stuff that a real coach/gm does, not only the stats part.

Imho the developer that found a nice mix for his resources as he is also an one man show (besides GDS publishing) is HeavyReign with his FBCB and FBB games.

Anyway i was focusing too much on the negatives, and we have not seen anything yet, as i said, i'm happy to see a top game developer back at doing what he does great, hope this will work well for him and we will have new versions every year and even other games like tcy 2 or even a game that integrates both in one for a full football universe.

Logan

08-02-2013, 12:13 PM

Well said Icy.

fortheglory

08-02-2013, 12:41 PM

Mixed feelings, in one hand i'm very happy about Jim getting back at it, excited about the new AI but besides that... a bit disappointed.

The customization part, i won't really miss it, maybe i'm too used to FM lack of customization, but i want to play the real NFL in a football game and the real MLB or NBA in baseball or basketball sims. I have tried to create fictional universes in OOTP, expended tons of time on custom unis, the perfect team names and alignment, etc and end losing interest an not able to feel immersed.

The UI part, it's already discussed every year for a while, and nobody changes it's opinion including Jim. As for it being expensive... well it depends... when i was heavily into modding games for fun, i did the designs for Wolverine studios games like Draft Day Sports Basketball, Draft Day Sports College Basketball, Music Wars and a Puresim version that never saw the light, as well as some screens mockups/ideas for OOTP like the deep chart/lineups one that was finally adopted, i don't think they were that bad for a non professional designer, and my "cost" per game was like a weekend at a hotel with my family, as i did it for fun and to learn more about design tricks, etc when i was into that.

If you are looking at professional UI designers with a big name, then yes, it's expensive, but if you recruit the right student, or specially game modder or fans, you will get it for almost nothing. There are plenty of game mods with same or even better graphics than professionally designed games, heck even some of the FM skins made by fans are way better than the shipped one, and they do it just for fun or personal ego of having their name printed in the game or other fans saying "thanks, you rock!"

I think Jim is too close minded about hiring others or just having anybody else putting it's hand over his projects in general (maybe i'm wrong and just a feeling I have based in his comments after years here or maybe it was because his bad experience at EA some years ago) and not aware of what is going on right now in the games industry, see iphone/android games/apps by indie developers with zero money taking over big companies like EA that is into big problems now in the mobile games biz because they are too big and too rigid in that fast changing world. The one man show approach is no longer an excuse but an advantage in some cases if you play it well.

Besides the AI improvements, one of the things i would have really liked is personalities in coaches/gm's, so every coach would have their preferred system, and every team would feel different, both on and off the field, instead of all them analyzing stats and acting exactly the same "perfect" and robotized way.

The scouts disappearing the coaches draft looks more of a way to make things simpler for MP at the sacrifice of realism and SP experience.

Overall i see this as a base and code cleaning to be able to release better games in the future, and maybe too influenced by some old hardcore players like Ben and others (no offense for name calling i hope, not saying anything bad) that share same vision about FOF and text sims in general than Jim, and that are more into studding how the game engine works at the cost of immersion, that want total stats accuracy without any "distraction" around it, and also about the competitive MP environment than about roleplaying being a coach/gm in SP that other text sim fans prefer (like me, that is why i always come back to FM). That is why i never buy text sims that are supper accurate match replaying machines but that have no career mode. I don't see those as "games".

I love stats accuracy as much as every sports nut, but once that side is covered, I want to feel i'm a coach/gm, and realism in a text sim for me includes also feeling and dealing with part of the stuff that a real coach/gm does, not only the stats part.

Imho the developer that found a nice mix for his resources as he is also an one man show (besides GDS publishing) is HeavyReign with his FBCB and FBB games.

Anyway i was focusing too much on the negatives, and we have not seen anything yet, as i said, i'm happy to see a top game developer back at doing what he does great, hope this will work well for him and we will have new versions every year and even other games like tcy 2 or even a game that integrates both in one for a full football universe.

This is exactly how I feel.

Ben E Lou

08-02-2013, 01:42 PM

Overall i see this as a base and code cleaning to be able to release better games in the future, and maybe too influenced by some old hardcore players like Ben and others (no offense for name calling i hope, not saying anything bad) that share same vision about FOF and text sims in general than Jim, and that are more into studding how the game engine works at the cost of immersion, that want total stats accuracy without any "distraction" around it, and also about the competitive MP environment than about roleplaying being a coach/gm in SP that other text sim fans prefer (like me, that is why i always comeback to FM).I don't see anything on the changes list that talks about stats accuracy, and fwiw, I'm more into SP than MP if the AI is good enough. And I'm (obviously) very big into the reporting side and want coach/GM features in SP as well. I know it wasn't intended to be malicious or anything, but it's worth saying that your comments are quite inaccurate. To be clear, I don't necessarily *want* to play FOF the way I play it when I go all-out in a MP league. However, I'm far more interested in winning than in being true to a particular style of play. It's what works. It's the way FOF is designed. I play entirely differently in SP.

The truth of the matter is that I (along with several other "hardcore FOF veteran" types, I suspect) would *greatly* prefer that Jim go more the HeavyReign route. I enjoy FOF, so I *want* him to have a prettier interface that's still functional like FBCB2. Clearly if he does, it'll attract some dummies who wouldn't enjoy FOF but will throw $35 at Jim on an impulse purchase, play the game for two weeks or less, then never play it again. ;) I'm all for him getting some money from those types to help make sure that FOF sticks around. :D

That said, I think the difference is that I--and quite a few others--have accepted the reality of what sort of game Jim is going to create, and aren't expecting anything else. I mean, we're talking 15 years now and running and JG hasn't really changed his stance on most of the issues about which people are still banging their heads against walls. Definition of insanity and all that... ;)

There's far less disappointment when you accept Jim and FOF for what they are. I believe I said it earlier in this thread, but if you take a step back and look at the history, it's frankly some combination of comical/sad/shocking that people had any level of hope/expectation--enough to be disappointed when it didn't happen--of some of the stuff people seem to be very disappointed about.

Ben E Lou

08-02-2013, 01:52 PM

Oh, and let's think about it, fellas. I'm fairly certain that if JG ever gets a partnership with SI or even one of the smaller houses like a GreyDog or Wolverine, it'll be a major announcement with press releases and all that. The #1 tipoff for me that this was still solo Jim was that he was doing a Q&A with some dolt like me in IRC to publicize the new game. ;)

LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

08-02-2013, 01:55 PM

He did a kickstarter for the board game (which I bought by the way, shame on the rest of you ;) )

He should do a kickstarter for the computer game to help with money and resources. I think he would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of money he would get that would go towards improving the game.

I know he doesn't necessarily need the extra money to complete the game. But it couldn't hurt and maybe he can put in a condition if we reach a certain amount of money on the campaign he will hire graphic designer.

However, I realize that this is his baby and he may not want to hire anyone even with the extra money and I certainly respect and admire him for that.

Either way Jim, I am buying the game and am looking forward to it greatly.

Ben E Lou

08-02-2013, 02:03 PM

He should do a kickstarter for the computer game to help with money and resources. I think he would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of money he would get that would go towards improving the game.

I know he doesn't necessarily need the extra money to complete the game. But it couldn't hurt and maybe he can put in a condition if we reach a certain amount of money on the campaign he will hire graphic designer.Makes sense.

Abe Sargent

08-02-2013, 02:08 PM

Right, and an important point there. This is JIM's game. It's not our game, or my game. It's his. He has a vision, and no matter what is added or pulled, we all know it's going to be better than 2k7. I'll be sad to see interviews go, I liked them, but it's Jim's game, and it will be better to have the changes he's made than to see them leave. He will always leave the game better than the previous iteration.

It's Jim's game. Am Im going to play the hell out of it.

PhinsFan

08-02-2013, 02:42 PM

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

That is an interesting thought for sure. I may be missing some of the new features/reports or can't vision them but I am wondering how we (as MP players) will be evaluating players and the game for that matter.

Extensive use of 3rd party tools makes me wonder?
1. will those tools be useless in the new game?
2. if those tools are useless will there be enough tools in-game.
example scout another teams play calling
evaluate your own play calling
evaluate drafts and existing players.

If those tools can't be used any longer that will sort of set the balance in leagues for awhile I would think, just cause everyone will be learning a new game.

aston217

08-02-2013, 03:00 PM

Uh, the tools are freely available to everyone, extremely helpful, and do no part in unbalancing leagues.

PhinsFan

08-02-2013, 03:03 PM

I was also hopeful that something would be said about reducing the random variability of game outcomes, and bring the results back closer to the player abilities.

I think your saying something here that I have not liked about the game and wonder myself. If your referring to random variability of play outcomes that seem to happen too often when based on the Off and Def plays selections.

an example of what I'm saying would be
1. Def expecting the run, Off pass is incomplete 2 to 3 times in a row with High rated Off skilled players on the field

2. Def aggressively expecting the pass but gives up a huge pass play.

and the reverse of those as well. Seems those "big plays/stops" happen too much against a Def that is chosen to "stop that play/not stop that play" in my opinion.

Now granted
1. must be very difficult...very very to code the outcomes to begin with
2. many variables going into the algorithm to calculate the outcome
3. I think we need some variation cause it does happen in real life games
4 I would just like to see it toned down a bit if that is possible.
5. I have no idea how much to tone it down...lol. cause the game could become boring if it were tone too much.
6 I realize it may not change much and I could accept it but not like it...especially when I lose because of it...;)

PhinsFan

08-02-2013, 03:21 PM

Uh, the tools are freely available to everyone, extremely helpful, and do no part in unbalancing leagues.

I realize that my statement leads to this thought so I should try to change the meaning a bit.

1. freely available...I totally agreee
2. extremely helpful...yes they are, I use them myself
3. do no part in unbalancing leagues...I agree the tools themselves do no part. Unfortunately some don't use them (i have no idea why), maybe because no time, don't know how, use them but don't understand them?

I am not against the tools, I like all the tools. I wonder if there will be similar tools already in the game. Maybe if there are tools already in the game some players that don't use them may start using them.

My statement should have been more a long the lines of I wonder how that will affect the leagues if the tools we use now are not available.

Dutch

08-02-2013, 03:51 PM

There is no way that all those tools will be recreated for FOF7. The key is to get as much data extracted from the game so that those tools can be created without hacking files (or however gstelmack, Celeval and Co. did it back in the day). Instead, just give us the data for our universe.

During the "Draft Reveal" stage, I would like to see an "Export Draft File" option.

For each stage, I would like to see an "Export League/Team/Player/Stats File" option.

For each season I would like to see a "Export past seasons" option.

In a format that would allow us to just throw that data into our web-sites for crunching however we see fit.

isaccoubaldi

08-02-2013, 04:41 PM

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

Ben, do you think that with all this financial changes in the new game, the "cap crunch" league have no future?

Ben E Lou

08-02-2013, 06:25 PM

Ben, do you think that with all this financial changes in the new game, the "cap crunch" league have no future?I would hope that there's no need for it and we can just get rid of it and keep going without it. I'm sure Jim hopes the same. But there's no way to know that until humans have tried to work the reneg system in the new game.

Normie32r

08-02-2013, 06:36 PM

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

I was going to trade my future away for a WR in the HFL, but after this chat was posted, I think Jim is going to balance things out considerably.

Danny

08-02-2013, 06:44 PM

He did a kickstarter for the board game (which I bought by the way, shame on the rest of you ;) )

He should do a kickstarter for the computer game to help with money and resources. I think he would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of money he would get that would go towards improving the game.

I know he doesn't necessarily need the extra money to complete the game. But it couldn't hurt and maybe he can put in a condition if we reach a certain amount of money on the campaign he will hire graphic designer.

However, I realize that this is his baby and he may not want to hire anyone even with the extra money and I certainly respect and admire him for that.

Either way Jim, I am buying the game and am looking forward to it greatly.

This is a good idea.

Danny

08-02-2013, 06:47 PM

Mixed feelings, in one hand i'm very happy about Jim getting back at it, excited about the new AI but besides that... a bit disappointed.

The customization part, i won't really miss it, maybe i'm too used to FM lack of customization, but i want to play the real NFL in a football game and the real MLB or NBA in baseball or basketball sims. I have tried to create fictional universes in OOTP, expended tons of time on custom unis, the perfect team names and alignment, etc and end losing interest an not able to feel immersed.

The UI part, it's already discussed every year for a while, and nobody changes it's opinion including Jim. As for it being expensive... well it depends... when i was heavily into modding games for fun, i did the designs for Wolverine studios games like Draft Day Sports Basketball, Draft Day Sports College Basketball, Music Wars and a Puresim version that never saw the light, as well as some screens mockups/ideas for OOTP like the deep chart/lineups one that was finally adopted, i don't think they were that bad for a non professional designer, and my "cost" per game was like a weekend at a hotel with my family, as i did it for fun and to learn more about design tricks, etc when i was into that.

If you are looking at professional UI designers with a big name, then yes, it's expensive, but if you recruit the right student, or specially game modder or fans, you will get it for almost nothing. There are plenty of game mods with same or even better graphics than professionally designed games, heck even some of the FM skins made by fans are way better than the shipped one, and they do it just for fun or personal ego of having their name printed in the game or other fans saying "thanks, you rock!"

I think Jim is too close minded about hiring others or just having anybody else putting it's hand over his projects in general (maybe i'm wrong and just a feeling I have based in his comments after years here or maybe it was because his bad experience at EA some years ago) and not aware of what is going on right now in the games industry, see iphone/android games/apps by indie developers with zero money taking over big companies like EA that is into big problems now in the mobile games biz because they are too big and too rigid in that fast changing world. The one man show approach is no longer an excuse but an advantage in some cases if you play it well.

Besides the AI improvements, one of the things i would have really liked is personalities in coaches/gm's, so every coach would have their preferred system, and every team would feel different, both on and off the field, instead of all them analyzing stats and acting exactly the same "perfect" and robotized way.

The scouts disappearing the coaches draft looks more of a way to make things simpler for MP at the sacrifice of realism and SP experience.

Overall i see this as a base and code cleaning to be able to release better games in the future, and maybe too influenced by some old hardcore players like Ben and others (no offense for name calling i hope, not saying anything bad) that share same vision about FOF and text sims in general than Jim, and that are more into studding how the game engine works at the cost of immersion, that want total stats accuracy without any "distraction" around it, and also about the competitive MP environment than about roleplaying being a coach/gm in SP that other text sim fans prefer (like me, that is why i always come back to FM). That is why i never buy text sims that are supper accurate match replaying machines but that have no career mode. I don't see those as "games".

I love stats accuracy as much as every sports nut, but once that side is covered, I want to feel i'm a coach/gm, and realism in a text sim for me includes also feeling and dealing with part of the stuff that a real coach/gm does, not only the stats part.

Imho the developer that found a nice mix for his resources as he is also an one man show (besides GDS publishing) is HeavyReign with his FBCB and FBB games.

Anyway i was focusing too much on the negatives, and we have not seen anything yet, as i said, i'm happy to see a top game developer back at doing what he does great, hope this will work well for him and we will have new versions every year and even other games like tcy 2 or even a game that integrates both in one for a full football universe.

Well said

sjshaw

08-02-2013, 08:44 PM

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

Feel free to PayPal me royalties for creating a derivative work of my question to Jim. :p

On the topic, yes, me and my five 1st rounders in IHOF's next draft will be less likely to take a WR over a QB, perhaps even a RB.

QuikSand

08-02-2013, 09:03 PM

Ben, do you think that with all this financial changes in the new game, the "cap crunch" league have no future?

I would hope that there's no need for it and we can just get rid of it and keep going without it. I'm sure Jim hopes the same. But there's no way to know that until humans have tried to work the reneg system in the new game.

I wish it could work, but I'm skeptical. Not a slight on Jim, just trying to be straightforward about it.

The AI system is going to, by whatever measure, have a "standard" for what reneg offer it will accept for a player. If Jim is persuaded that renegs are too easy in the current AI, he may make that standard a lower one than it is currently (which would move toward obviating the cap crunch league adjustment that has, to many of us, basically saved MP FOF).

The problem is that if the AI gets a good deal tougher so the savviest GMs have trouble doing the extensions they want, then you'll lose out on the other end. No matter what element of the game/puzzle you're talking about, there's going to be a range of skill levels. Some people will be very sharp with contracts and renegs, others won't. That's now it is now, and that's how it will be -- it's just human nature.

So, make renegs a lot tougher, and the poor guy playing his first season of all-out single player FOF7 is going to get really frustrated by either driving his team into cap hell, or losing lots of his favorite players due to the inability to reneg... or a combination of the two. This could spell a pretty bad experience for the less savvy player, and that could mean fewer of them stick around to become more savvy veteran players who love the game.

That's why I think this (among a number of other things) really deserves appropriate attention for the single player game (and hats off to Jim that this is on his list), but it needs to be customizable in some way to suit the needs of a less-AI driven multiplayer environment. Whether it's a slider, an on/off toggle, or whatever -- when we're playing human versus human, please please please let *us* decide whether we want renegotiations to be easy, hard, or illegal.

Do the best you can with improving the single player environment - yes.
Let us do what we want with the multiplayer environment - pretty please.

SFL Cat

08-02-2013, 10:01 PM

Lack of customization pretty much kills it for me. Not blown away by anything else either if I'm being honest.

Same here.

PhinsFan

08-02-2013, 11:22 PM

I wish it could work, but I'm skeptical. Not a slight on Jim, just trying to be straightforward about it.

The AI system is going to, by whatever measure, have a "standard" for what reneg offer it will accept for a player. If Jim is persuaded that renegs are too easy in the current AI, he may make that standard a lower one than it is currently (which would move toward obviating the cap crunch league adjustment that has, to many of us, basically saved MP FOF).

The problem is that if the AI gets a good deal tougher so the savviest GMs have trouble doing the extensions they want, then you'll lose out on the other end. No matter what element of the game/puzzle you're talking about, there's going to be a range of skill levels. Some people will be very sharp with contracts and renegs, others won't. That's now it is now, and that's how it will be -- it's just human nature.

So, make renegs a lot tougher, and the poor guy playing his first season of all-out single player FOF7 is going to get really frustrated by either driving his team into cap hell, or losing lots of his favorite players due to the inability to reneg... or a combination of the two. This could spell a pretty bad experience for the less savvy player, and that could mean fewer of them stick around to become more savvy veteran players who love the game.

That's why I think this (among a number of other things) really deserves appropriate attention for the single player game (and hats off to Jim that this is on his list), but it needs to be customizable in some way to suit the needs of a less-AI driven multiplayer environment. Whether it's a slider, an on/off toggle, or whatever -- when we're playing human versus human, please please please let *us* decide whether we want renegotiations to be easy, hard, or illegal.

Do the best you can with improving the single player environment - yes.
Let us do what we want with the multiplayer environment - pretty please.

That's an interesting thought, toggle or whatever to alter how the game looks at the finance part of the game depending on MP or SP.. I like that idea

Dutch

08-03-2013, 06:33 AM

Do the best you can with improving the single player environment - yes.
Let us do what we want with the multiplayer environment - pretty please.

Perfectly summed up.

conception

08-03-2013, 03:14 PM

I am excited about the possibility of another FOF coming out. I don't know if it will be the complete UI interface overhaul that would best sell the product that, under the hood, is a really good game, but it's still great to see that the best text sim for the best American sport is getting a new version.

aston217

08-03-2013, 04:18 PM

The AI system is going to, by whatever measure, have a "standard" for what reneg offer it will accept for a player. If Jim is persuaded that renegs are too easy in the current AI, he may make that standard a lower one than it is currently (which would move toward obviating the cap crunch league adjustment that has, to many of us, basically saved MP FOF).

The problem is that if the AI gets a good deal tougher so the savviest GMs have trouble doing the extensions they want, then you'll lose out on the other end. No matter what element of the game/puzzle you're talking about, there's going to be a range of skill levels. Some people will be very sharp with contracts and renegs, others won't. That's now it is now, and that's how it will be -- it's just human nature.

I don't think this is has to be the case. The problem as I see it is that renegs are entirely too open-ended. When you can input, within financial constraints, any set of numbers you want, there is a virtually limitless amount of room to finagle and go 'full tilt' on the cap savvy. If you can squeeze an extra bit here or there, and the good players do and will, it definitely adds up, and pays off.

If, on the other hand, all deals -- from rookie free agents, to renegotiations, to FA offers -- were cookie cutter, fixed, non-open ended, that would cut the finagling out of the game, without necessarily removing context.

It'd have to be set up so that all teams do find it difficult to an extent, but you're provided with reasons why: well, this player did well, so he wants to test the open market, no capouts or any other alternatives. Or, this player outdid his contract, he's got 3 years left, but he is going to require a new deal now, and this is what it'll cost you.

GMs will have to make decisions, but sensible, meaningful ones: "how much" effort, on a simple scale ranging from 'minimal' to 'major contract', to extend on a guy, instead of the completely open-ended range of $10k demarcations from minsal to 40 million.

When you get into a bad situation, you'd know why: because you decided to go 'big' on re-signing that one guy, and there was no possibility for playing around with the numbers to scrimp 10% here or there.

bhlloy

08-03-2013, 05:31 PM

16. Remove playing time choices from game plans. This will all be endurance-based.

Am I reading this wrong, or does this mean you pick a starter and you don't get to pick how much the backup plays? That's a pretty big step back at certain positions if that's the case (RB being the obvious one), although it didn't ever make much sense at others.

Karim

08-03-2013, 10:26 PM

Potentially the lack of a GUI update is due to the current design not allowing it. Unless the simulation engine and various modelling components are extracted in their own layer, it could be next to impossible to slap on a modern GUI, especially with a technology like MFC. I've seen this in other projects and know first-hand the temptation to code in absence of design considerations when deadlines approach.

That being said, I've purchased every version of FOF and will buy this day one without exception. I only play as a GM in SP, and the improved AI will be the thing I'm most interested in. The coaches' draft kind of took me by surprise but we'll see how this plays out. All the work in game planning unfortunately has no impact for me. I much prefer if the coaches have a significant impact on game planning such that my choice as GM on who to hire becomes that much more important.

The Almanac and record keeping that Jim provides is still the best of any simulation on the market, FM included. I'm hoping that hasn't changed.

Frankh

08-03-2013, 11:19 PM

I am for tougher contract negotiations. More player testing the free agent market. I would like a more capitalist approach.

Free agents would be more patient. No rush for signing. I would also know the details of the best offer made to a player (if I have an history of good business with his agent (no release of a client)). Because there is no rush and because of the open info structure, I think it would be easier to implement an algorithm for cpu-controlled teams.

Salary structure would adjust automatically if the free agency process is slow (including for the cpu-controlled teams).

On another subject (but not totally), I don't understand why some MP leagues do not allow to make offers to the head coach of another team at stage 1. Why ?

Managing is making decisions. When you can re-sign all the players you want to re-sign, you are not really managing.

Thanks to Ben and Jim for doing this chat.

A-Husker-4-Life

08-04-2013, 08:26 AM

16. Remove playing time choices from game plans. This will all be endurance-based.

Am I reading this wrong, or does this mean you pick a starter and you don't get to pick how much the backup plays? That's a pretty big step back at certain positions if that's the case (RB being the obvious one), although it didn't ever make much sense at others.

I'm wondering the same thing, we can't pick the PT for our players?? I like the freedom to choose PT, I hope you reconsider it Jim. I love rotating my guys in and out, even if they have high endurance.

aston217

08-04-2013, 07:59 PM

Frankh I don't know, but I think it's probably for the convenience of the owners. Scouting the coach pool is extremely tedious for everyone, and nobody is given a chance to extend their own coaches.

Also, as stands, the entire coach hiring season is basically "Let's reward the guys who have max luxury boxes and know how to play the silly financial numbers game."

That's frustrating and has no real value. We're here for the football immersion factor, not tweaking numbers. Game actions should revolve around real, sensible 'football' actions, not the knowledge of where to arbitrarily set your ticket prices so as to maximize the profits the game engine allows.

Other leagues combine Staff Hiring 2-3 and I forget the reason why.

I'm curious about the logic behind the PT thing as well.

Solecismic

08-06-2013, 05:21 AM

The logic behind PT is that it's time to discard this notion that professional athletes tire like they're wobbly pixellated boxers inside Mike Tyson's Punchout.

If you can't do your best, coaches won't play you. If you're Albert Haynesworth and you have talent but refuse to do your conditioning work, you don't stay in the league.

So endurance is a limit, essentially how many plays you can give your best. There's no sense duplicating that function by adding PT numbers. Your best guy for the situation should be playing as much as he can. I don't know if it will get into FOF7, but endurance should also factor in the percentage of packages a player will be involved in. The next-generation FOF design includes far better package coordination and usage. If it doesn't look like it's going to work out, I'll keep the PT settings. Just a matter of development time.

I like PT in theory, but I think the best overall design, given what I've studied, is to remove it. Again, the question is whether I'll get enough in for FOF7 to justify that removal.

QuikSand

08-06-2013, 06:11 AM

The next-generation FOF design includes far better package coordination and usage.

This is the piece that makes this come together for me, Jim.

Currently, I like fiddling with playing time, but in essence it really is just a proxy for "get this running back onto the field a bit here and there."

If you make it easier for me to instead say "get this catch-and-run back onto the field during more of my 3rd down situations when a swing pass is a pretty viable option" then I think I could comfortably join you in waving goodbye to the rote playing time assignments.

alrith72

08-06-2013, 07:45 AM

will it be likely that players still become disgruntled etc about their playing time if we don't have the facility to set it?

Solecismic

08-06-2013, 12:24 PM

will it be likely that players still become disgruntled etc about their playing time if we don't have the facility to set it?

This is more a starter/reserve issue.

gstelmack

08-06-2013, 12:34 PM

This is more a starter/reserve issue.

Related: will disgruntled be based on depth chart, or something different? The classic example right now (and please excuse me if I missed this fix from a patch) is the WLB getting upset because you came out in nickel on the first play of the game and so he didn't "start".

Solecismic

08-06-2013, 12:47 PM

Related: will disgruntled be based on depth chart, or something different? The classic example right now (and please excuse me if I missed this fix from a patch) is the WLB getting upset because you came out in nickel on the first play of the game and so he didn't "start".

Sounds like a bug to me. There is a lot of code that's more than a decade old. I wasn't anticipating even looking at disgruntled/etc. I don't want to excuse bugs, but that's never been reported to support. It would have been a patch candidate from the start.

aston217

08-06-2013, 04:00 PM

Hm, that's interesting. So I agree playing time and endurance are sort of redundant mechanisms, but does this mean we'll see less unusual things like the star receiver or safety who, despite being an elite athlete in peak physical condition, has no endurance?

There are big ol' nose tackles that aren't considered 3-down linemen (although I don't know if this is an endurance issue so much as a skills one? Vince Wilfork was once not a 3-down lineman in New England, but with a reshuffling of scheme he was perfectly able to handle a much bigger load of snaps)...there are RBs (I guess) that wear down with too many carries...but for the most part, a player getting more or less playing time seems to be a measure of their overall skill and value on the field, which is a coaching decision. Right?

I don't know too much about the disgruntled thing, but it seems like players need starts, not just PT, to get undisgruntled :P I'm not too sure on that, though.

Sef0r

08-06-2013, 06:54 PM

As long as you ensure Offensive Lineman have 90+ END we should be okay, they should never come off unless they get injured or play really, really badly.

RedKingGold

08-06-2013, 09:00 PM

Very excited for the new version. Fixing the WR balance issue was most important to me, just eliminate the superstrat and give me multiple ways to succeed. Everything else is gravy.

For MP, one of the more compelling angles in a new game coming out just 1-2 seasons from now for most leagues is the draft and valuing players. Do we see the more savvy players adjusting draft values now in anticipation of likely engine changes, or do folks just plow ahead with their current ways of thinking for a while?

I think you should withhold from playing the new version for about 3-4 months to give us all a head-start. Can we program that in somewhere? :D

T-Storm

08-06-2013, 09:08 PM

As a fast sim single player, my biggest wish for a new FOF would be the ability to give the AI orders on how to handle certain things.

In essence I want to play the way I perceive Jerry Jones and Al Davis are/were running their teams. I want to draft and sign some star players. I don't want to have to sign players to fill out the roster. I don't really care all that much about the backup linebacker. I might not even care about the starter all that much. As such I don't want to have to spend time and clicks signing minimum salary guys year after year. I want that to be automated.

So far it was possible with some trickery to sign minimum salary guys for 7 years apiece. Still more clicks than I would like to use, but at least possible. With the shortening of contract lengths to 5 years I'm a bit cautious about that.

The same goes for my depth chart and playing style of my team. I want to tell my coaches "play this young QB right now and make sure that this old DE gets the sack record by playing in pass rushing situations" but again, I don't care all that much for my offensive line. Not enough to click through the screens whenever an injury hits.

I pretty much would like to set up my roster, depth charts and general philosophy (perhaps some details like "go for it on 4th time: always") once and then more or less forget about it until I want to make a change to them. Not because I have to change something due to retirements/injury or hold outs.

About evolving leagues: I assume it would be too hard to code to basically have the game look at what playoff teams of the recent past played like and have that become more or less the default playing style most teams strive for.

Sef0r

08-06-2013, 11:30 PM

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

redfox000

08-07-2013, 07:48 AM

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

I guess I tend to agree with this post as well. Of course I am strictly a SP, since MP gets too involved in areas that aren't as fun for me as well as people who know in detail the way the engine works and so can exploit it.

alrith72

08-07-2013, 08:48 AM

This is more a starter/reserve issue.

Agreed, but it was able to alleviate this by adjusting the playing time.

Nemesis

08-07-2013, 09:06 AM

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

Agreed

TRO

08-07-2013, 09:52 AM

Sounds like a bug to me. There is a lot of code that's more than a decade old. I wasn't anticipating even looking at disgruntled/etc. I don't want to excuse bugs, but that's never been reported to support. It would have been a patch candidate from the start.

I do believe this is a bug.

aston217

08-07-2013, 11:17 AM

Is there really a WR issue? Why can't a great QB/WR/WR combo be just that...great. Look at the NFL, difficult to cover great WRs if you don't have a good/great pass rush and at least 1 good corner.

Maybe an improvement on the defensive side of the ball should be high priority to balance things out. If I have an great QB/WR/WR combo and face a team who hasn't put any effort into their pass rush or DBs...why should I be punished?

Classic example of great QB/WR/WR combos going against each other with average defenses. Packers vs Cardinals wild card shootout in 2009 (year?)

There is a BPR issue.

At least in my MP leagues, you look at the top passing teams in the league, and you don't see them throwing for obscene amounts of yards. I mean, every time people complain about this game being too passing dominated, I think of the real NFL and well, just look at the passing leaders in recent years. How many 5000-yard passers have we had?!

However, to get there, real NFL teams throw the ball all the time, which in FOF is going to kill efficiency.

In past versions of FOF2k7, I am guessing from previous comments that the short passing game was too dominant, so that trying to stretch the field wasn't important enough. Now, stretching the field is too good. When NFL teams pass for 5000 yards, they don't average 10 yards per attempt. In FOF, if you're getting under 8, your passing game could use some work.

I don't believe there is a problem with the dominant WR (or any other similar, non-QB position), as it gives the gameplay keys to success to the worst teams in the league, accomplishing the point of the worst-first draft order. The only problem is throwing long with this much efficacy doesn't match up well with real world conceptions of what the numbers should look like.

It's tricky, you have to keep it so that it is important to be able to take the top off a defense, but not so important that concentrating on this destroys every other strategy. What seems like a potential solution to me is making it harder to run the ball (at present, it appears to be completely easy to run the ball). If you don't focus on run blocking and runners enough, your run game will be such a disaster that you'll have to rely on a 5-6ypa, 60% short pass game, or whatever it is.

Ben E Lou

08-07-2013, 12:05 PM

The developer has tested it himself and agrees with the assessment of a number of long-term very successful MP veterans. Now, my underlying argument is that the power of the WR-WR-QB position group is, in the game's current incarnation, just too heavily weighted. Many people, including quite a number of very successful FOF veterans, seem to agree with this assessment (if not necessarily any particular proposed solution). Without making a statement about my future plans, I have spent a lot of time in the last few months testing and straining the game engine (with the source code, I have the ability to create a test environment that even Ben would envy).

I'm almost embarrassed to admit the level of truth of the statement above. I'm deciding whether I should put out a patch this fall (not in the immediate future) just to address it. Because it would take a month or so of significant work just in itself. Please don't take anything in this response as a promise or even an indicator of anything.

perez24

08-07-2013, 03:57 PM

Looking forward to the new game.

I have a question about preseason games. IRL teams limit projected starters to a certain number of plays based on the game. Is there any thought about including a feature where you can set the numbers of plays for starters, particularly in the preseason, in the new version?

Nemesis

08-07-2013, 05:21 PM

The developer has tested it himself and agrees with the assessment of a number of long-term very successful MP veterans.

So is it the BPR, or is it just the WR position in general?

QuikSand

08-07-2013, 05:55 PM

So is it the BPR, or is it just the WR position in general?

Personally, I'd say 1 and 1a, in that order. But if Jim has a view to share, I'd be interested, of course.

QuikSand

08-07-2013, 06:02 PM

Here's an observation that seems ripe since Jim is engaging here at least somewhat.

Many serious MP leagues have witnessed an inversion of the value differential between current and future draft picks. In real life, the rule of thumb is that a future pick is downgraded (by one round?) to equate it to a current pick. In MP FOF, serious leagues are now routinely flooded by owners (especially savvy ones) who are willing to pay a premium to get out of the current draft and into a future one, even at no perceived gain in the potential slot (e.g. my 3rd and 4th this year for your 3rd next year).

I suspect there are multiple things at work... but since you (Jim) strive for realism and comparability to the NFL, I'd think this as a symptom would be troublesome to you.

I will also confess that I suspect your system of draft picks auto-signing beyond our control will actually exacerbate this problem. Without a number of sizable offsetting changes, I could definitely see me as an owner making sacrifices to deal away later round draft picks -- when my roster is already full and that 6th round pick isn't likely to make the team anyway, the last thing I want to do is be compelled to offer him a multi year contract with a bonus that I just have to eat when I inevitably cut him. Then, I start offering "my future 4th rounder free if you take my 5th-6th-7th off my hands" or other such nonsense - further deviating from any semblance of reality.

There's a context observation for you, that I think it worth keeping in mind as you tinker with the draft system, and so forth.

Ben E Lou

08-07-2013, 06:03 PM

So is it the BPR, or is it just the WR position in general?It's impossible for someone without access to the source code to tease that out with 100% certainty. What we do know on this side of the curtain is that BPR is the most important attribute for WRs by a meaningful margin, and WR is the most important position on the field by a meaningful margin. I *suspect* that the issue is in the play resolution code more than in the position itself, but that's impossible for us to know.

QuikSand

08-07-2013, 06:08 PM

Some quick unsolicited thoughts to make the draft, especially the later rounds, more worthwhile:

-DEFINITELY drop the salary differential between late round draft picks and undrafted free agents... right now that's a killer in cap-crunched leagues where the money is a real factor

-magnify the volatility effect... more random booms (and busts) across rookie players

-more narrow changes to player skills in rookie training camp (instead of just an overall boom or bust, have a report that "WR Schmoe has really honed his special teams skills in camp, and is angling to make the roster this way" or the like

-maybe make a diminishing returns occur in the free agent market...a marginal minsal free agent TE should be less interested in joining my roster if I already have 4 TE signed... making it a bit tougher for me to just load up everywhere with trivial downside

-perhaps rookies who are drafted are able to lose a lot more of their rust than even after-draft rookie free agents... an any event, find some way to encourage me to draft these roster fillers rather than just splash around with what's left over

Ben E Lou

08-07-2013, 06:09 PM

Here's an observation that seems ripe since Jim is engaging here at least somewhat.

Many serious MP leagues have witnessed an inversion of the value differential between current and future draft picks. In real life, the rule of thumb is that a future pick is downgraded (by one round?) to equate it to a current pick. In MP FOF, serious leagues are now routinely flooded by owners (especially savvy ones) who are willing to pay a premium to get out of the current draft and into a future one, even at no perceived gain in the potential slot (e.g. my 3rd and 4th this year for your 3rd next year).

I suspect there are multiple things at work... but since you (Jim) strive for realism and comparability to the NFL, I'd think this as a symptom would be troublesome to you.

I will also confess that I suspect your system of draft picks auto-signing beyond our control will actually exacerbate this problem. Without a number of sizable offsetting changes, I could definitely see me as an owner making sacrifices to deal away later round draft picks -- when my roster is already full and that 6th round pick isn't likely to make the team anyway, the last thing I want to do is be compelled to offer him a multi year contract with a bonus that I just have to eat when I inevitably cut him. Then, I start offering "my future 4th rounder free if you take my 5th-6th-7th off my hands" or other such nonsense - further deviating from any semblance of reality.

There's a context observation for you, that I think it worth keeping in mind as you tinker with the draft system, and so forth.I think there's another layer at work here as well: 3-year minsal contracts. No player should ever, ever, ever sign one of these. You and I frequently have teams with 20 to 30 guys on 3-year minsal deals, though. A big reason that we have no room to sign a 5th round pick is that we've got decent vets making less money all over the place. (In case people don't realize it, 5th and 6th round picks cost more than veteran minsal; 7th round picks usually cost about the same.) If we had a tougher financial system and draft picks that cost less than vets, we'd be much happier to sign them.

QuikSand

08-07-2013, 06:23 PM

I think there's another layer at work here as well: 3-year minsal contracts. No player should ever, ever, ever sign one of these. You and I frequently have teams with 20 to 30 guys on 3-year minsal deals, though. A big reason that we have no room to sign a 5th round pick is that we've got decent vets making less money all over the place. (In case people don't realize it, 5th and 6th round picks cost more than veteran minsal; 7th round picks usually cost about the same.) If we had a tougher financial system and draft picks that cost less than vets, we'd be much happier to sign them.

Preach.

scorp

08-07-2013, 10:34 PM

IMO the WR position issue is somehow in how a play resolves a WR has an significant advanantge over a CB or S covering him. A good ( 50s WR with appropriate bars ) will as a general rule will abuse a CB significantly better than WR even with double team help.
There isn't really such a thing as a shut down CB.

The best shutdown of a WR is a high read defense QB and doubling that WR all the time so the QB decides not tho throw the ball to him. that's a factor of the offense(QB) not really the talent on the defense.

aston217

08-07-2013, 10:55 PM

I think that's speculative (about the read defense bar). I don't really buy into the idea that read defense can actually be a two-faced bar; the more, the better.

There are always so many factors involved that I find it hard to read into the numbers I see, but, my hypothesis is that the RD bar is fundamentally good. The more, the better. The more RD a QB has, the more he is able to deal with (or indeed take advantage of) double coverages.

I think the edge should belong to the receiver, even the worse one -- the general rule of football is that offense has the advantage over defense. It is easier to find openings that to shut down all possibilities consistently. Again, I think it's simply that real NFL teams do not throw long or deep with anywhere near the frequency and efficiency that you can get out of a good FOF setup. That's what pushes the YPA numbers way up in FOF compared to even the best NFL pass attacks.

(Heh, this is also quite speculative :P)

scorp

08-07-2013, 11:09 PM

I think the read defense bar is fine, I'm just saying doubling a stud WR vs a team with a high RD QB is better than the actually defenders ability in stopping the WR from eating them up, which he will do when the ball is thrown to him, regardless of how good the CB covering him is.

aston217

08-07-2013, 11:25 PM

Right, I guess what I'm saying is I THINK that if you're facing a team with one stud WR, you better hope that QB, all other things being equal, has a low RD bar. In that scenario, I'd say you're better off doubling if the QB has low RD than if he has high RD.

That's how I think it should work, but it's also how I think it does.

Somewhat going on a tangent, but I do think overall, double coverage considerations don't begin to compare with talent. Not just on the DB end, but often overlooked, talent in your pass rush. If you can't get hurries (automatic incompletions) on the QB, you are opening yourself up to high volume damage.

redfox000

08-08-2013, 07:32 AM

I think there's another layer at work here as well: 3-year minsal contracts. No player should ever, ever, ever sign one of these. You and I frequently have teams with 20 to 30 guys on 3-year minsal deals, though. A big reason that we have no room to sign a 5th round pick is that we've got decent vets making less money all over the place. (In case people don't realize it, 5th and 6th round picks cost more than veteran minsal; 7th round picks usually cost about the same.) If we had a tougher financial system and draft picks that cost less than vets, we'd be much happier to sign them.

Speaking of salary systems, I hope that the next version has a smarter AI when managing the salary cap. That kills a lot of the fun for me. Every season at least 1 or 2 teams dump their entire roster.

Pyser

08-08-2013, 07:10 PM

i think quik nailed the draft discussion. the only way late round picks will be interesting is if:

1) every pick from the 3rd or 4th round on is minsal (realism be damned), and
2) a SIGNIFICANTLY bigger chance of late round picks booming

the automatic signing of rookies is a double edged sword. it takes away a seriously tedious part of the game, but as quik smartly points out, if the rookies arent the cheapest option to fill out your roster, no one will bother

also, ben's completely right that no player should sign a 3 year minsal contract. eliminating that option would be a gigantic game changer in mp.

aston217

08-08-2013, 07:14 PM

The problem as I see it is that free agency is far too reliable. The draft is the lifeblood of a NFL team, but in FOF there is always an available pool of quality players you can draw from in free agency. ALWAYS. In SP, even more so.

What's the point of relying on your draft when you can sign all these moderately older players in FA and do just fine?

Rather than increase the chance for late round picks booming (how big can that get before it gets to be a problem?), I think there needs to be a much greater washout rate. Sure, there might be a number of guys that all teams know about and pursue in FA, but by the time the regular season rolls around, what's left is fodder, not stacks and stacks of capable leftovers.

If you get hit with a midseason injury, you're probably calling up an undrafted rookie, not signing some high 30s rated 5th year player who just happens to be sitting around along with two dozen of his like-rated buddies.

(None of this is to say that teams that sign FAs win; they don't. But teams can sign FAs to replace the bottom half of their draft, and fill the bottom half of their roster. Skimp on picks and you should land in serious, serious, trouble -- so nobody would be sane enough to do it.)

sjshaw

08-08-2013, 09:10 PM

I like PT in theory, but I think the best overall design, given what I've studied, is to remove it. Again, the question is whether I'll get enough in for FOF7 to justify that removal.

I agree, I just hope you give us a way to have starters pulled from blowouts (and not return). I've had numerous players injured in situations where IRL they would be out of shoulder pads and helmets.

QuikSand

08-10-2013, 08:27 PM

As we talk about free agency providing too many players, and limiting the value of rookies... There's a departure from realism at work in FOF here, maybe part of a solution.

Lots of marginal players (or worse) sit out a whole season unrostered, but then show up in the FA pool basically none the worse for wear. Way too many of these guys, compared to the NFL, I'm sure.

Having a ton of cheap 24/24 guys who played a few games a couple of seasons ago, have pretty good positional exp, and can shake off all their rust in a couple weeks of practice is part of the reason I don't really mess around with too many of these 19/42 fools gold rookies in the draft.

aston217

08-10-2013, 09:14 PM

Great point, Quik. The attrition rate of these guys, I think, should be far greater. Perhaps Jim, being the numbers guy that he is, knows the answer to this question: what % of players who have entered the league but don't spent time in an NFL training camp in a certain year, are still 'around' in any capacity the next camp cycle?

MartinD

08-11-2013, 01:36 AM

Lots of marginal players (or worse) sit out a whole season unrostered, but then show up in the FA pool basically none the worse for wear. Way too many of these guys, compared to the NFL, I'm sure.

This sparked a thought that's effectively the opposite of this point - in RL, you get the occasional star player who retires relatively early, then decides to try to come back a year or two later (Deion Sanders, for example - came back after a couple of years out of the game to play for the Ravens in 2004 and 2005)...

I agree with the point that Quik is making, though - it does seem like there are a lot of veterans on the free agent list who aren't good enough to make a roster but still have a bit of ability. (It's pretty common for me to see at least a couple of guys who were on my team a season or two before but were cut due to dropping off in TC or being beaten out by younger/better players.)

QuikSand

08-11-2013, 06:36 AM

It's possible that the best way to insert something in-game along these lines would be for the training camp routines to involve a meaningful deterioration in skills for any player who isn't taken in to camp by any team.

Even if that marginal 4th year 24/24 guy is going to stick around, he at least ought to suffer the equivalent of gaining 20 pounds by being out of the game. Whether that turns him into 18/18 or 14/24 would be a developer decision, but I think that might be a good direction.

Raiders Army

08-12-2013, 05:42 PM

While the timeline of this new product is still uncertain, especially since we don't know the method of publication, enough has been done to say it's possible this product will be released in November.

FWIW, I'd be glad if it's released next year. I'm happy for any news whatsoever. I have the utmost of confidence and trust that you will make a great product. Thanks for doing the chat and working on FOF.

aston217

08-13-2013, 12:48 AM

I like the idea of a smaller free agent pool overall. There's a lot of opening for clever GMs to sift through a very large and hard to sort through pool of FA players for the diamonds in the rough that are nonetheless 24-rated, while less experienced GMs are, in comparison, completely fumbling in the dark. This divide is too significant in MP, and of course as long as it exists would render the player too powerful in SP.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2013, 08:40 AM

I'm not sure we even need "smaller." Create a new game and look at the FA pool. It's much, much, MUCH less talented than what we see in SP and MP after 5-10 seasons. In a "mature" league, there are FAR more guys rated in the 25/25 to 40/40 range than there are at the beginning of a career. I'm starting to wonder if it's more an issue of player creation and/or development than anything else.

aston217

08-13-2013, 10:43 AM

That's an interesting thought. Maybe the game does have it all worked out to begin with!...

But I don't think it's a creation/development issue, because the reasons for this should be simpler. In SP, it only takes 2 years or so and it's an AI cap handling issue. In MP, owners don't pay enough attention and sign to fill up their teams for the offseason/preseason.

I think AI/GM not valuing players correctly is a big part of it. Hanging on to 19/40 rookies who just went -5 in camp, or 35/35 players who went -5 in their rookie camps and are headed even further down. This mis-valuation also results in useful players being left in the FA pool.

I think the FA pool being so large is also a problem for this reason: there exist non-obvious useful players because that's how the game works, but they're inordinately difficult to see. The FA pool is littered with 40/40 veterans who are massive droppers. Completely hidden is the 15/32 guy who actually went +2 in camp, and who is creeping. The GMs who pay enough attention to sign guys like this usually do so completely without competition. And of course, the "24/24 guy with all the right bars who isn't dropping", hiding behind six or seven worthless turds.

I don't know if even the reduction of veteran FA pool size will help, though, because even among just rookies you run into this issue. And it's really a consequence of a player's entire career track being knowable as the result of one camp (or if in doubt, after a cut test, in most cases). If all we had were an extremely limited pool of veterans, and a large pool of rookies who might (somewhat randomly, somewhat meaningfully) trend in either direction, I think that would be better.

Might also help substantially and be a simpler implementation if, regardless of veteran rating, there existed a random chance of "working out" with a team or not, and if the guy doesn't, he will be play at a huge ratings penalty - but you won't know it except by looking at his stats - and he'll almost never 'work out' with the same team again, even if they resign him later.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2013, 11:13 AM

But I don't think it's a creation/development issue, because the reasons for this should be simpler. In SP, it only takes 2 years or so and it's an AI cap handling issue. In MP, owners don't pay enough attention and sign to fill up their teams for the offseason/preseason.If you think this, then you need to actually take a look at the player pools that I'm talking about, 'cause you're dead wrong here. It happens that I have a year 1 league stored on my local MySQL database.

select * from playerratings where cur>29

Result??? The league has 860 players rated 30 or higher. 26.9 per team.

Run that same query on a few mature leagues, all using game-generated draft classes, and what does it look like?

IHOF: 1378
USFL: 1408
CCFL: 1381
SP League that is 8 years old: 1325
GML (only 5 years old): 1227

The lower numbers in the GML and my SP league raise even stronger suspicion that this is something that ramps up over time. It's not an issue of the AI not handling rosters or people not signing players--though both things happen. It's quite simple:

Leagues in FOF2K7 start out with ~27 players per team rated 30 or higher. Over time, there are ~44 players per team rated 30 or higher.

That's a significant enough increase in marginal players to create exactly the environment that Quik and I have noted and used to our great advantage.

I'll create another new league or two and run the numbers there to get something concrete before sending this one on to Jim, but with 860 vs. ~1400, it's pretty obvious that something is going on here.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2013, 11:35 AM

Newly-created default NFL league with X-Factor turned off: 882.

So yeah, I suspect that this is a huge part of it.

aston217

08-13-2013, 11:36 AM

Oh, my bad. I thought you were talking only about the FA pools, for which there seemed to exist a simple explanation. Overall league talent, I see, and you certainly have the numbers to back that up. And that is a huge difference, I agree.

Given the timespan, it's almost as if the talent of a typical draft class doesn't match up (i.e, it's superior) to starting conditions, which is the creation issue you say. I'm curious as to what the BFL numbers show -- and if you do more testing, perhaps use your draft class generator to turn down the talent even further, and see if over enough time matches the IHOF numbers. To see if there's a development issue here as well.

These numbers are truly surprising Ben, thanks for sharing. It makes me wonder about something else: cohesion. I remember my first introduction to cohesion was the argument that leagues do not tend to start out with powerful passing attacks, but over time, as cohesion takes effect, the power of the strong pass attack starts to show itself. Given that WRs tend to outmatch CBs of a similar ability -- and correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption -- what if this tremendous increase in talent explains it, and cohesion isn't as meaningful as thought?

Ben E Lou

08-13-2013, 11:39 AM

Well, I haven't checked the high end of the talent pool lately, but I have in the past, and it does tend to match up rather well with the way leagues are created originally. I suspect that this is just isolated to talent that's mediocre or worse.

The "cohesion" answer, fwiw, originally came from a Q&A with Jim, not from me, so I'd tend to believe it's true. ;)

scorp

08-14-2013, 05:06 PM

One question I have or thought is if we don't have interviews in the new version. a possibility is the scouting going to be a little more realistic vs hole rec on a RB or route running on a WR?
If a WR can run a route no scout will have them as a very good route runner, he may feel the play could develop but he won't say he good at it.

Same for a RB and hole rec, it's pretty obvious if he has that ability or not, you shouldn't need to know the player intelligence to know the scouting was way off in those 2 cases.

There should be scouting error, and we should get fooled at times, but some things scouts know how good the rookies are at present, just how good they might become is the grey area in several areas.

maybe show the Route running as low but has a high ceiling, that ceiling could be way off but the rookies current route running should be close to starting skill level it just may not grow.

Sef0r

08-14-2013, 11:39 PM

Same for a RB and hole rec, it's pretty obvious if he has that ability or not, you shouldn't need to know the player intelligence to know the scouting was way off in those 2 cases.

There has to be some type of association, I agree that I would prefer not having SOL meaning they will have a high HolRec bar. He either associates it with a combine result or makes it random.

A-Husker-4-Life

08-15-2013, 08:31 AM

Serious injuries to qb's when they hand the ball off, I've had it happen numerous times and it could be something to look at.

Ben E Lou

08-15-2013, 07:16 PM

Serious injuries to qb's when they hand the ball off, I've had it happen numerous times and it could be something it look at.I strongly suspect that this is a "bigger-picture" thing in that injuries are just random events that don't have anything to do with the specific play that's occurring. As best as I can tell, there's an x% chance that an injury will occur to player y on any given play. It's the sort of implementation that causes the big picture (overall injury frequency and duration) to work out correctly, but creates some situation-specific anomalies.

Passacaglia

08-16-2013, 10:09 AM

Whenever that happens, I just pretend the QB really got hurt by banging his helmet against the wall of the stadium.

corbes

08-17-2013, 10:43 AM

How would a football sim respond to the new packaged-play concepts? I've been trying to imagine how a game designer would respond to that and incorporate it within a play-calling scheme.

conception

08-19-2013, 09:54 PM

I don't see how having talent in the FA pool doesn't mimic reality. Truth be told every year there are lots of potentially effective guys watching at home on sunday because teams take chances on draft picks more often than bringing in one year rentals.

Are Willis McGahee and Michael Turner incapable of helping a team this year? Half the guys who make NFL rosters will perform worse in game action than these two guys could, but NFL teams would rather take a chance on future potential behind their rather than an average veteran. Why have a guy on the roster for a year when another guy may perform as well this year but continue performing the next 3-4 years or even longer.

redfox000

08-20-2013, 07:30 AM

I don't see how having talent in the FA pool doesn't mimic reality. Truth be told every year there are lots of potentially effective guys watching at home on sunday because teams take chances on draft picks more often than bringing in one year rentals.

Are Willis McGahee and Michael Turner incapable of helping a team this year? Half the guys who make NFL rosters will perform worse in game action than these two guys could, but NFL teams would rather take a chance on future potential behind their rather than an average veteran. Why have a guy on the roster for a year when another guy may perform as well this year but continue performing the next 3-4 years or even longer.

It probably also has to do with salary as well as any extra attention/drama the veterans may add?

Ben E Lou

08-20-2013, 07:57 AM

I don't see how having talent in the FA pool doesn't mimic reality. Truth be told every year there are lots of potentially effective guys watching at home on sunday because teams take chances on draft picks more often than bringing in one year rentals.

Are Willis McGahee and Michael Turner incapable of helping a team this year? Half the guys who make NFL rosters will perform worse in game action than these two guys could, but NFL teams would rather take a chance on future potential behind their rather than an average veteran. Why have a guy on the roster for a year when another guy may perform as well this year but continue performing the next 3-4 years or even longer.That's all fine, but I suspect that this is where you run into an issue of "what makes a good computer game" conflicting with perfect realism. And the truth of the matter is that based on how the initial talent pools are created--both with the default (NFL) player file and a game-generated fictional file--FOF is designed to work best when there are 850-900 (I checked a few more newly-created leagues just to be sure) players rated around 30 or better in the league file. Some of them may be Free Agents. That's fine. But it should be obvious that if a game file has 850-900 players rated in that range to start with, but in every single league checked, that number jumps to close to 1400 after 10ish seasons, it's going to significantly devalue later-round draft choices. (Why bother with a fifth round pick who *might* make it to 30 or 35 in three seasons when there are already plenty of guys rated 30 to 35 to fill your roster?)

QuikSand

08-20-2013, 08:48 AM

Are Willis McGahee and Michael Turner incapable of helping a team this year?

I don't think anyone objects to the notion that a successful NFL player remaining in the free agent pool in the year following a starting gig is a stretch. That's not where I or others find fault with the FA system.

Let's play it forward, though. If Turner can't get a contract this year or next, should he still be sitting as a seemingly productive option in September of 2015? In FOF terms, maybe he used to be a 65/65 guy in 2010. In 2012 he slipped to 45/45. Now maybe he's 36/36. In two years, should be still be 32/32 and looking like a semi-viable option as a fill-in?

Flip it around. A couple of seasons ago, guys like Derrick Ward and Steve Slaton were marginal NFL running backs. They couldn't get work in 2012, and now (after missing a full season and two full camps) they simply don't exist in the relevant NFL universe - they are high school assistant coaches or A&P stock clerks or bank vice presidents or whatever. In FOF, these guys would still be puttering around free agency, rated 22/22, and only a week or two on the roster away from being productive. That's a stretch.

BowTieSports

08-23-2013, 10:32 PM

A couple of seasons ago, guys like Derrick Ward and Steve Slaton were marginal NFL running backs. They couldn't get work in 2012, and now (after missing a full season and two full camps) they simply don't exist in the relevant NFL universe - they are high school assistant coaches or A&P stock clerks or bank vice presidents or whatever. In FOF, these guys would still be puttering around free agency, rated 22/22, and only a week or two on the roster away from being productive. That's a stretch.

Forgot my old log-in info, so first time posting after a long layoff. Anyway.... I agree with Quick.

Just a thought, but to some degree can this be solved by adding a "second" retirement period into the game. As is, players only officially retire on the switch-over between seasons. Add in a second period of retirements after Week 2 or Week 3 of the preseason -- make it an "automatic rule" based on player age ... any player over 28 (or 30 or 32) who was not on a roster the season before and was not on a training camp roster for the current season is automatically retired.

It wouldn't totally address the increase in players rated 30+, but it would cut down the pool to some extent and it would reduce the veteran free agents available for in-season injury replacements.

Caratacus

08-26-2013, 07:53 AM

GOG might be a good alternative to Steam and might be worth a look. GOG.com (http://www.gog.com/indie)

A-Husker-4-Life

08-26-2013, 11:48 AM

Serious injuries to qb's when they hand the ball off, I've had it happen numerous times and it could be something to look at.

Just had this happen again in my MP League, that's twice this season.. Kinda crazy, hope Jim will look at it.

Dutch

08-26-2013, 06:06 PM

GOG might be a good alternative to Steam and might be worth a look. GOG.com (http://www.gog.com/indie)

Good call.

redfox000

09-06-2013, 05:36 PM

Just had this happen again in my MP League, that's twice this season.. Kinda crazy, hope Jim will look at it.

It's probably similar to other card-football games. On each play there is a percent chance of injury and if it occurs then a percent chance for each position. Then when a player comes up it probably is a dice roll based on hidden player ratings as to whether or not the player actually gets injured or not. So, the point is, all of this is irrelevant of pass/run.

aston217

10-04-2013, 02:28 PM

Here's a question related to both the MP & SP experience of the game.

Contracts in FOF2k7 are open-ended, an environment that naturally calls for either 'house' or 'league' rules, depending on the league. Will FOF SP players and commissioners be equipped with better tools to enforce artificial, custom contract rules as they like?

This would be an extremely sensible customization thing to put in the game (along with things like adjusting salary cap automatically) -- and it would greatly lower the design burden of trying to create a catch-all financial system that is balanced and unbreakable. The community will figure out the best rules eventually; they should be have the tools to enforce it.

Kozure

10-04-2013, 07:12 PM

I'll add to this. There needs to be more than one stage for the franchise designation. Too many GMs forget about "tagging" players.

I'm not sure how Jim is going to handle the offseason stage order. But assuming that each offseason begins with staff hiring, allowing us to franchise the player all through staff hiring would go a long way to ensuring that players get tagged.

Passacaglia

10-14-2013, 10:54 PM

[19:49] SOLECISMIC: REQUIREMENTS/DISTRIBUTION/RELEASE/ETC
[19:49] SOLECISMIC: Q: What are the system requirements for FOF7?
[19:50] SOLECISMIC: Windows XP or later. A screen with a resolution of 1024x768 or above.

So this is probably a dumb question, but -- that includes Windows 8, right? Is there any reason it wouldn't?

Dutch

10-20-2013, 10:17 AM

If you are still concerned about getting FOF7 on Steam because of lack of graphics...

Save 15% on Super Amazing Wagon Adventure on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/250500/)

I think you should still pursue this. :)

NawlinsFan

10-20-2013, 04:21 PM

If you are still concerned about getting FOF7 on Steam because of lack of graphics...

Save 15% on Super Amazing Wagon Adventure on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/250500/)

I think you should still pursue this. :)

Agreed Mike. There are a number of products on Steam that are so not graphically appealing. At the end of the day I think it will be the content and playability that will make the difference.

aston217

10-23-2013, 03:10 PM

Passc, yeah, that would include Windows 8. It'd be very silly to release something that supports Win7 but not Win8 at this point.

I had a thought yesterday, that while this game isn't online, what if we made it possible to submit exports entirely from online?

Jim wouldn't need to write the tools for this, only to make it possible. If it is, you could have people doing contract offers or changing gameplans and then uploading right from their phones, or without opening up the game.

MIJB#19

11-15-2013, 07:23 AM

[19:44] SOLECISMIC: 23. End of Game Time Management. Some fine-tuning, if possible. It got a lot better in the last patch, but it's still limited by a lack of knowing what happened on the last play.I noticed this element in the chat log, but it doesn't specify whether this also applies to the end of the first half. I think I see a lot of time mismanagement and horrible time out calling in the final minutes of the first half (nearly concluding that the teams are reading the scoreboard in reverse). In my experience it's a lot worse at the end of the first half, than at the end of the game.

BowTieSports

12-24-2013, 05:09 PM

I know FOF7 is still new, but has anyone run tests on player ratings for more mature leagues in the new game? Wondering if the player development/player retirement tweaks have limited the explosion of 30+ rated players in FOF7.

If you think this, then you need to actually take a look at the player pools that I'm talking about, 'cause you're dead wrong here. It happens that I have a year 1 league stored on my local MySQL database.

select * from playerratings where cur>29

Result??? The league has 860 players rated 30 or higher. 26.9 per team.

Run that same query on a few mature leagues, all using game-generated draft classes, and what does it look like?

IHOF: 1378
USFL: 1408
CCFL: 1381
SP League that is 8 years old: 1325
GML (only 5 years old): 1227

The lower numbers in the GML and my SP league raise even stronger suspicion that this is something that ramps up over time. It's not an issue of the AI not handling rosters or people not signing players--though both things happen. It's quite simple:

Leagues in FOF2K7 start out with ~27 players per team rated 30 or higher. Over time, there are ~44 players per team rated 30 or higher.

That's a significant enough increase in marginal players to create exactly the environment that Quik and I have noted and used to our great advantage.

I'll create another new league or two and run the numbers there to get something concrete before sending this one on to Jim, but with 860 vs. ~1400, it's pretty obvious that something is going on here.