Alright Boyz, Here We Go!!! (Front Office Football 8 Thoughts)

[Ben E Lou]

Hopefully FOF 8 will begin generating heavier OLBs. In FOF 7, I don't recall many elite pass rushing 34 style WLBs weighting around 260 lbs. I have not been through enough drafts to gauge that.

But I suppose moving a light DE to WLB would be an option....or heavier ILBs to OLB when the conversion of existing MP leagues happens. From what I've seen, there are plenty of players generated in the right size range to play 3-4 OLB. I suspect that in MP there will be FAR more position-switching and weight training on defense than we've ever seen, especially when it comes to decent backups who get passed around from team to team. A 255-pounder who can weight train in either direction might get switched several times betwen SOLB, WOLB, SILB, OR RDE effectively depending on the team and scheme.

[albionmoonlight]

I am not able to designate a franchise player this offseason. Is there still that rule where if I extend a previously franchised guy, I lack the tag until his contract runs out?

[Ned Doolittle]

Does anyone know where to change defense front?? I tried checking the game FAQ but I wound up spending 15 min reading up on defensive philosophies of the various fronts. Very informative but couldn't find the answer to my question.

[Nemesis]

Does anyone know where to change defense front?? I tried checking the game FAQ but I wound up spending 15 min reading up on defensive philosophies of the various fronts. Very informative but couldn't find the answer to my question.

By hiring a defensive coordinator that runs the front you want. Aside from that, you play the front that your defensive coordinator knows.

[TroyF]

Yeah exactly, higher ypc on the scrambles. So you won't be making 4.8 ypc as a primary ball carrier. If you are using a guy with "good wheels" a good proportion of those runs will be scrambles...which typically see 7 ypc or so. Doesn't sound a very healthy average for the designed runs to me.

I don't know if Jim is raising the injuries risk factor for ball carriers in this version, but it is also worth keeping an eye out for. In the real world if you are using a QB as a designed ball carrier you need to be doing very well out of it.


If you are using a QB for designed runs, you need to be doing just about as well as Sky was doing out of it. Last year, the only QB in the league who had 130+ carries was Cam Newton.

Cam ran the ball 132 times for 636 yards. (or 4.8 yards per carry) There were two other QB's who ran it just over 100 times in Tyrod Taylor and Russell Wilson. They came in at 5.5 and 5.4 yards per carry.

When you start running 9 to 12 times a game with your QB (on scrambles or designed runs) NFL defenses figure you out and make adjustments. It's unreasonable to think you will run for much higher than that when you run the QB as often as that.

[lungs]

By hiring a defensive coordinator that runs the front you want. Aside from that, you play the front that your defensive coordinator knows.

Slight annoyance, but an annoyance nonetheless. Did a fictional roster draft to start a game and draft for a 3-4 and end up with a 4-3 coordinator.

Not a big deal, I hired a 3-4 guy in the next staff draft.

[Nemesis]

Slight annoyance, but an annoyance nonetheless. Did a fictional roster draft to start a game and draft for a 3-4 and end up with a 4-3 coordinator.

Not a big deal, I hired a 3-4 guy in the next staff draft.

Same, since I usually run a 3-4 and utilize my WLB in a unique way, when I get a WLB injured, I normally don't have a backup that can do what he does, so I switch to a 4-3. Can't do that anymore. Then again, I can't do what I did with my WLB's anymore either.

[General Mike]

A lot more concussions than in previous versions?

[Hammer]

If you are using a QB for designed runs, you need to be doing just about as well as Sky was doing out of it. Last year, the only QB in the league who had 130+ carries was Cam Newton.

Cam ran the ball 132 times for 636 yards. (or 4.8 yards per carry) There were two other QB's who ran it just over 100 times in Tyrod Taylor and Russell Wilson. They came in at 5.5 and 5.4 yards per carry.

When you start running 9 to 12 times a game with your QB (on scrambles or designed runs) NFL defenses figure you out and make adjustments. It's unreasonable to think you will run for much higher than that when you run the QB as often as that.

I think the problem with the NFL is that there is only 1 NFL to look at. There really doesn't seem to be any elite QB runners right now. Wilson was slowed with injury this year and last.

The year before that he broke 7 ypc on 118 carries. RG3 also rushed 118 times at over 7 ypc.

[Sharkn20]

All the QBs do Scramble now, even Brady and Rivers.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Hammer]

I guess Michael Vick would come to mind as a 100 rated rushing QB. His high was 123 carries for 1039 yards at 8.4 ypc.

[General Mike]

I guess Michael Vick would come to mind as a 100 rated rushing QB. His high was 123 carries for 1039 yards at 8.4 ypc.

Good one. Randall Cunningham too. 118 for 942 at 8.0 ypc in 1990, plus 7 for 80 in the playoff game.

[bluewave]

Just some quick pros and cons after my experience so far with FOF8.

+Can finally have two QBs active during gameday instead of forcing three.
+Quick sim history.
+Realistic stats overall.
+More depth to coaches and coordinators.
+More options for the user to customize their experience.
+Overall I like the UI changes, and like the simplicity.
-The green field in the UI is ugly. Clashes with the nice background.
-Three TEs required to be active, hate this requirement.
-Still no practice squad. Disappointing.
-Pre-season still has the dumb active player limits. Huge disappointment.
-AI player evaluations and Rex in general is hit or miss. I don't trust my staff.
-New Jersey Jets.

I'm content with my purchase mostly for the fact that I now have updated rosters. Lukewarm feeling with FOF8, expected some of my cons to not exist.

[aston217]

Hang on, 3 TEs have to be active?

That's new. In FOF7 it's two.

[General Mike]

Hang on, 3 TEs have to be active?

That's new. In FOF7 it's two.

Yeah, it "sucks". I'm guessing this is realistic though if you went around the NFL.

[aston217]

That was an argument made for QBs at the time, too...d'oh. >_<*

Kyle Van Noy chips in as New England Patriots D searches for right mix - New England Patriots Blog- ESPN (http://www.espn.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4797690/lb-kyle-van-noy-chips-in-as-patriots-d-still-searches-for-right-mix)

Without Gronk, the Pats dressed two TEs and used 6'6, 320-lb OT Cameron Fleming as a TE in a certain number of snaps. I like the "OT-as-extra-TE" feature. And I also haven't scoped most team's active rosters on gameday but I suspect that 3 TEs is not /necessary/ and so doesn't happen all the time. If I want to employ a team that rolls with two true TEs, I think I should be able to. I'm all about roster flexibility. Wouldn't mind a FB flexing into that "H-back" position as well if need be.

3 TEs seems like the new 2 QBs, only it'll be more annoying as more TEs play and so more TEs are going to get hurt at one time. Having to deal with a 4th QB on roster was at least a somewhat uncommon issue. A 4th TE is probably something you can expect to have to do every season at some point.

http://www.espn.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4797476/in-patriots-program-where-players-earn-time-de-jabaal-sheard-falls-behind

Previous week, also two TEs.

[cankles]

Sorry but I'm giving up on this. Back to FOF7. I've got a really talented roster and can't figure out how to make it do what I want. Maybe I'll come back in a few months when other people have cracked the code or Rex has been improved.

[wustin]

Sorry but I'm giving up on this. Back to FOF7. I've got a really talented roster and can't figure out how to make it do what I want. Maybe I'll come back in a few months when other people have cracked the code or Rex has been improved.

I'm thinking of doing the same thing. I don't really like how Rex generates the playbook. Seems random.

[Millerp33]

This game seems to have a ton of potential but there are more then a few things that have changed that as a SP I don't like. I hate the fact that I have no in game control over my depth charts. My #1 WR went out with an injury and I cant control who I want to take his place. As a player who calls all of his teams plays I need control of my in game depth chart. I'm required to activate 3 TE's which is useless for me because I'm still old school and utilize a FB. I think FOF7 was perfect and this game has taken leaps and bounds in some areas and major step backs in others... I keep hoping it will all get fixed with a patch...

[SlyBelle1]

This game seems to have a ton of potential but there are more then a few things that have changed that as a SP I don't like. I hate the fact that I have no in game control over my depth charts. My #1 WR went out with an injury and I cant control who I want to take his place. As a player who calls all of his teams plays I need control of my in game depth chart. I'm required to activate 3 TE's which is useless for me because I'm still old school and utilize a FB. I think FOF7 was perfect and this game has taken leaps and bounds in some areas and major step backs in others... I keep hoping it will all get fixed with a patch...

Lack of depth chart control is my one of my disappointments, however it won't keep me from playing this version. Although, one of my fears happened in my last game. I let the computer control everything (i.e. personnel packages, etc.) and simmed the game. Looking at the box score, James Harrison (LB for the Steelers) was playing RB, he had 17 carries for (-12) yards. Two other RBs were listed (even though 4 were active) so I am not sure why the computer put him in the lineup since it seems like two other RBs were available. And since he had 17 carries, wasn't just a one time thing, seemed like he was really playing RB. Unfortunately, when I went to investigate, the game crashed without being saved so couldn't tell much.

[NawlinsFan]

[QUOTE=bluewave;3131925]Just some quick pros and cons after my experience so far with FOF8.

-New Jersey Jets.


Just set the Jets home city to Newark. Then change the name of Newark to New York with the NYJ initials. Done.

[SlyBelle1]

I'm thinking of doing the same thing. I don't really like how Rex generates the playbook. Seems random.

Don't think random according to the help file, it says the game will generate a different plan each time based on how it calculates things. I think of it like the computer is giving you options and you have to choose which ones best mirrors what you want. However, I can see how people would rather it generate the same one based on situation, which likely is how I would lean as well.

[Millerp33]

The in game depth charts are a tough pill to swallow so far for me but not a deal breaker yet. Although if my LB starts running 17x in a game I may throw in the towel. I would like to see it addressed somehow in the future. After playing a few games and calling all of my own plays I have come to relatively like the new play calling feature. It took me some time to understand all the intricate football terminology but all in all its just not as good as play calling in FOF7. For the life of me I cant figure out why I just cant run the same play to the opposite side. I feel like I could do so much more if I could swap directions of plays.

[Cole]

+More options for the user to customize their experience.

Interesting, like what?

[MalcPow]

Lack of depth chart control is my one of my disappointments, however it won't keep me from playing this version. Although, one of my fears happened in my last game. I let the computer control everything (i.e. personnel packages, etc.) and simmed the game. Looking at the box score, James Harrison (LB for the Steelers) was playing RB, he had 17 carries for (-12) yards. Two other RBs were listed (even though 4 were active) so I am not sure why the computer put him in the lineup since it seems like two other RBs were available. And since he had 17 carries, wasn't just a one time thing, seemed like he was really playing RB. Unfortunately, when I went to investigate, the game crashed without being saved so couldn't tell much.

I've never seen anything like this. Harrison playing RB, if that's what happened, is definitely a bug and I'd venture it's a rare one. You have depth chart control, it's just called the offensive/defensive personnel screen.

I guess it's worth chiming in to say I'm mostly playing a GM-level game and letting the AI handle most things. Things feel pretty right so far on that front, with the occasional small curiosity. When we have a talented squad with some continuity in place, we're pretty good. When we don't, we're more inconsistent or frustrating.

I think I can have fun at this level while I start to slowly get a better sense of the way new features ripple through things. It's been a cool staple of FOF games in the past that I'm still learning things long after release. This feels likely to be the same for me.

[vatech24]

This game is a dream come true as a Steelers fan! Just started the season and immediately Cleveland offers me a trade (draft pick) for Landry Jones! I would have traded him for a bag of donuts. Jim really got this game right where Cleveland is being Cleveland making a trade like this:)

About to buy this but do trades happen more often then version 7?

Yes i know in football there aren't that many trades but in regards to this above, did this happen during the offseason or preseason?

[SlyBelle1]

I've never seen anything like this. Harrison playing RB, if that's what happened, is definitely a bug and I'd venture it's a rare one. You have depth chart control, it's just called the offensive/defensive personnel screen.



No "if" about it, definitely happened. And you really don't have depth chart control in the traditional sense with personnel packages. The personnel packages allow you to determine what players you want on the field in certain formations/situations, it does not allow you to setup depth/backups at each position like past versions as I have previously mentioned. You don't have the ability to identify who your backup players are for each position, it appears the computer makes those decisions for you. So if my WR gets hurt in the game, I don't get to dictate which of my WRs would take over for him. Yes, I could try and not activate certain players to help the computer make the decision I want, but that could get tricky under certain circumstances. For example, if I want to dictate specifically what backup RB to use, I would need to de-activate all other RBs on my team. Then I run the risk of who would play RB if my two RBs got injured in the same game. This could lead to situations where Harrison or other low probability players would have to play the position.

As for why Harrison came into this specific game, I don't know since the game crashed before I could analyze what the CPU had for personnel packages and such. I haven't seen it since so I am guessing it is a rare thing, but certainly is possible to happen since I saw it at least once.

[SlyBelle1]

About to buy this but do trades happen more often then version 7?

Yes i know in football there aren't that many trades but in regards to this above, did this happen during the offseason or preseason?

Not sure if more than past versions since I don't expect many trades for the reason you mention, but this particular trade offer was made to me in week #1 of the season.

[yabanci]

Saw FOF8 posts. Went into shock. Purchased game. Getting ready to read the help file like a novel until first patch. So happy.

[TheBeck67]

Is it just me? I have been trying to make offers to players that should be eligible for a new contract and that button seems to be not active.

I've played every FOF game since the beginning and I think I should know how to do this.. But it isn't working for me like it used to and it doesn't seem possible to retain my players that I need to at the end of the season.

[QuikSand]

From the help file:

During the regular season, you can't renegotiate a player's contract. You can, however, still offer a Cap Out to free up a little bit of salary cap space.

This is new - in previous versions of FOF, you could renegotiate (extend) right up until the title game. Now, you need to do it before the regular season starts. Probably more realistic, even if we don't like it.

[MalcPow]

Is it just me? I have been trying to make offers to players that should be eligible for a new contract and that button seems to be not active.

I've played every FOF game since the beginning and I think I should know how to do this.. But it isn't working for me like it used to and it doesn't seem possible to retain my players that I need to at the end of the season.

Renegotiations can only take place before the regular season now. Meaningful change for most of us who were used to doing late season extensions like you mention.

[Titletown]

I've never seen anything like this. Harrison playing RB, if that's what happened, is definitely a bug and I'd venture it's a rare one. You have depth chart control, it's just called the offensive/defensive personnel screen.

I guess it's worth chiming in to say I'm mostly playing a GM-level game and letting the AI handle most things. Things feel pretty right so far on that front, with the occasional small curiosity. When we have a talented squad with some continuity in place, we're pretty good. When we don't, we're more inconsistent or frustrating.

I think I can have fun at this level while I start to slowly get a better sense of the way new features ripple through things. It's been a cool staple of FOF games in the past that I'm still learning things long after release. This feels likely to be the same for me.

I made my first FOF purchase a couple days ago. Still learning the ins and outs of it. Reading these posts makes me wonder if I made a mistake. :(

[wustin]

From the help file:



This is new - in previous versions of FOF, you could renegotiate (extend) right up until the title game. Now, you need to do it before training camp. Probably more realistic, even if we don't like it.

You can do it during preseason. I just do it at week 5.

[MizzouRah]

From the help file:



This is new - in previous versions of FOF, you could renegotiate (extend) right up until the title game. Now, you need to do it before the regular season starts. Probably more realistic, even if we don't like it.

This might jack up my first season.

Although I'm the Browns.. so maybe not. :p

[MalcPow]

I made my first FOF purchase a couple days ago. Still learning the ins and outs of it. Reading these posts makes me wonder if I made a mistake. :(

Not at all man! I think it's a great game. If anything I'm trying to post for folks coming to things with a fresher set of eyes like yourself. I personally think a lot of the initial commentary is geared toward productively identifying some tweaks that could be made and a few potential errors. The fundamental strength of the game is there, and there are unexplored new features to learn and hopefully love. I'd give it a shot.

[SlyBelle1]

I made my first FOF purchase a couple days ago. Still learning the ins and outs of it. Reading these posts makes me wonder if I made a mistake. :(

Even with some of the things that I am dispoointed with, I would never suggest not worth the purchase or playing. Simply the best American football career sim on the market, which will likely continue to improve with community feedback.

[Antmeister]

I made my first FOF purchase a couple days ago. Still learning the ins and outs of it. Reading these posts makes me wonder if I made a mistake. :(

In this instance, a mistake was not made. What you will find, is that while there are bugs, the developer has a great track record of squashing them pretty quickly. In addition to this, he also has a track record of sending out extra patches that were never anticipated that either refines the game or adds some new features/functionality. This can even be even years after its initial release instead of creating a new version and calling it FOF 9 to address issues in a previous version.

To illustrate, Front Office Football 7 (previous version) was released December 2013:
Front Office Football Seven - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=87931)

And here is a sample list of patches:
FOF 7.0a Released. - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=88264) - 7.0a (January 2014)
7.0b Released. Greenlight Campaign Underway. - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=88522) - 7.0b (March 2014)
Front Office Football Version 7.1 Released - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=89566) - 7.1 (November 2014)
7.1a is out - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=89581) - 7.1a (November 2014)
For those who missed it, a new version (7.1b) was released yesterday. - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=89867) - 7.1b (February 2015)
7.1c Released - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=90174) - 7.1c (April 2015)
Version 7.2 Released - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=91032) - 7.2 (December 2015)

This is why his products are ones I generally purchase immediately because they are very solid games and while there are bugs from time to time, they are generally taken care of and he tends to add some nice surprises as he fixes the other things.

[Ned Doolittle]

Same, since I usually run a 3-4 and utilize my WLB in a unique way, when I get a WLB injured, I normally don't have a backup that can do what he does, so I switch to a 4-3. Can't do that anymore. Then again, I can't do what I did with my WLB's anymore either.

I like this setup in FOF8 now. When you really think about it how any teams run a 3-4 or 4-3 and then someone gets hurt and they decide to play the other defensive front? Not many. It makes sense in a game like FOF8 to want to do that but in real life you pick a front in the offseason, practice it and that's what you play all season long.

I just would like it if this is the way FOF8 handles it then it's in the FAQ, easily searchable. That having been said I like that the game handles it this way, you should only be able to run the defensive scheme your DC knows. That's a great way of doing it.

One thing I'm not a fan of is the addition of "Assistant Coach" and the "Strength and Conditioning Coach". I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the game FAQ but the Asst Coach has the same attributes as all the other coaches - what's his duties? And I wish the Strength Coach had more attributes so that it doesn't become a matter of "let me get the guy with the highest ratings in 2 categories". "Injury Recovery" would've been a nice 3rd category to add, where you might have to select a guy who is good in only 2 out of 3 categories. Assistant coach should have more of the scouting type duties. I just don't know what he does. These two coaches seem just a way to introduce more of a FM-type thing where you have a whole crew of coaches. But in FM the coaches have more attributes to make them slightly all unique and you have to pick and choose which attributes mean more to you.

[Antmeister]

...One thing I'm not a fan of is the addition of "Assistant Coach" and the "Strength and Conditioning Coach". I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the game FAQ but the Asst Coach has the same attributes as all the other coaches - what's his duties? And I wish the Strength Coach had more attributes so that it doesn't become a matter of "let me get the guy with the highest ratings in 2 categories". "Injury Recovery" would've been a nice 3rd category to add, where you might have to select a guy who is good in only 2 out of 3 categories. Assistant coach should have more of the scouting type duties. I just don't know what he does. These two coaches seem just a way to introduce more of a FM-type thing where you have a whole crew of coaches. But in FM the coaches have more attributes to make them slightly all unique and you have to pick and choose which attributes mean more to you.

Both of those coaches are in FOF 7 so it is not new in this game. Both are also mentioned in the help file. For info on where it is mentioned in the previous game and also applies to this game, view the thread here:
FOF7 - Staff Draft and Staff Role Thoughts - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=87939&highlight=coaching)

And here is a chart of what responsibilities they have:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4356992/reputation_FOF7.jpg

[Ned Doolittle]

I'm not a fan of some of the in game graphics. Looks like he used Comic sans for some of the fonts and that Herb season score thing is really cheesy looking after all these years (it was cheesy when the game first launched all these yrs ago but we didn't know any better). We get it Jim, this isn't Madden. But UI is one of the easier things to redo and the fact that you had two graphics ppl helping out doesn't say a lot. I made a new "Herb" screen, used Chris Berman from ESPN to replace the the Herb image. Haven't been able to test it out yet because I just finished my first season, saw the old Herb screen and I was like "nope, not gonna look at this 1990s cheesy graphic at the end of every season" and spent about an hour or so trying to find the best image to Photoshop into the game. Can't wait to see how it looks, I'll post a screenshot of the finished product once my 2nd season is over.

But really, the "graphics", "color schemes" and UI sucks, it's like he didn't even try to make it modern. Thankfully the game is really good and it's so fun to play.

[Ned Doolittle]

Both of those coaches are in FOF 7 so it is not new in this game. Both are also mentioned in the help file. For info on where it is mentioned in the previous game and also applies to this game, view the thread here:
FOF7 - Staff Draft and Staff Role Thoughts - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=87939&highlight=coaching)

And here is a chart of what responsibilities they have:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4356992/reputation_FOF7.jpg

Holy crap! Thanks!!

[Sidhe]

Just a quick fore-note: Can anyone remind me where to find the button to take a guy off special teams is? Someone mentioned it recently and ever since I've been looking but can't find it.

To respond to the thread title, I love FOF8 already even with its little quirks. The depth chart bugs are enough to mess up a real career right now, so I'm still just messing around with it. In most respects, it feels good so far. I have always played the game as a true GM and haven't done much with the game planning aspect, but the new way of doing things looks very tempting to me and I may finally jump in.

I absolutely love that coaches have schemes. This adds a layer of interest to the Staff Draft which was otherwise pretty boring for me in the past. Now I'm always on the lookout for a guy who might be better at my preferred scheme, or considering whether making a switch would be worth it if some prodigy becomes available in a scheme I am not running. I think that Jim has added a lot of depth and interest to many areas of the game.

One issue I've noticed is that if you start a league with the lowest salary cap possible (I do this with a start date in 1950 so as to build up a long history before present day) you will still quickly get to modern salary numbers. So I've got a cap of $88M in 1960, but top QBs are already pulling in $15M. Looking at the numbers on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag) we are already at the 2013 salaries, when the NFL had a cap of $123M. I wouldn't call this a bug, but it feels weird, and strains all the teams in my league, many of whom are over the cap. Does anyone have any experience with getting more realistic cap numbers and salaries in historic leagues? I don't think it's worth bothering Jim about right now as he's busy squashing bugs, but maybe some of you have run into the problem before and know something. I don't remember it being so far off the mark before, but I also don't recall what settings I used for the cap increase range. This time I didn't adjust it, and that has to be wrong.

[Antmeister]

Just a quick fore-note: Can anyone remind me where to find the button to take a guy off special teams is? Someone mentioned it recently and ever since I've been looking but can't find it...

Click on the Roster button ---> Play Attributes/Special Teams ---> Right click on a player to add/remove from special teams. The column labeled XS lets you know whether they are on special team (Y for Yes, N for No).

[Millerp33]

When calling your own Offensive plays, is there an option to go to the "No Huddle" offense? I cant seem to find it but I may just be missing the button somewhere. I like to pick up the pace from time to time and it doesn't seem like we can do that in this version.

[Sidhe]

Click on the Roster button ---> Play Attributes/Special Teams ---> Right click on a player to add/remove from special teams. The column labeled XS lets you know whether they are on special team (Y for Yes, N for No).

Thanks!

I think that's very different from the last time I knew where it was.

[Antmeister]

When calling your own Offensive plays, is there an option to go to the "No Huddle" offense? I cant seem to find it but I may just be missing the button somewhere. I like to pick up the pace from time to time and it doesn't seem like we can do that in this version.

You can trigger it on the Game Plan Details screen. It says "Go to hurry up offense if trailing X minutes remaining per score behind". The max you can set for X is 5.

[Millerp33]

I saw that but that's only when trailing. I like going No Huddle during the game. Seems to be an odd subtraction from the game with the state of the actual NFL. Maybe again it's just something missed that will be added and addresses with a patch.

[garion333]

It's probably more about balance than anything. If hurry up was available all the time we'd use it constantly to gain an edge. Stats would be inflated.

[Sharkn20]

Is it the Intelligence of the Coaches useful now? I can't find anything and they said it was going to be a new feature of FOF8.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[garion333]

"they"?

Intelligence was marked as a potential feature in the future but I don't recall any promises it would be in FOF8.

[Ned Doolittle]

I'm not a fan of some of the in game graphics. Looks like he used Comic sans for some of the fonts and that Herb season score thing is really cheesy looking after all these years (it was cheesy when the game first launched all these yrs ago but we didn't know any better). We get it Jim, this isn't Madden. But UI is one of the easier things to redo and the fact that you had two graphics ppl helping out doesn't say a lot. I made a new "Herb" screen, used Chris Berman from ESPN to replace the the Herb image. Haven't been able to test it out yet because I just finished my first season, saw the old Herb screen and I was like "nope, not gonna look at this 1990s cheesy graphic at the end of every season" and spent about an hour or so trying to find the best image to Photoshop into the game. Can't wait to see how it looks, I'll post a screenshot of the finished product once my 2nd season is over.

But really, the "graphics", "color schemes" and UI sucks, it's like he didn't even try to make it modern. Thankfully the game is really good and it's so fun to play.

Still need to tweak this but i like it 100% more than the cheesy Herb screen.

https://s17.postimg.org/aw110ik8b/Herb.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/aw110ik8b/)

[Sharkn20]

Check Post #290 please :)

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[NawlinsFan]

Ned D. that works. May have to create a couple myself.

[Sef0r]

I absolutely love the playbook generator and game planning.

I've generated some base playbooks based on philosophy, where at least 50% of the plays are specific to that philosophy. I then remove some of the formations that make no sense, i.e. 005 in a smashmouth. Or change the 005's to 113's and ensure my Primary and Secondary READ are DEEP and SHORT routes, which are especially critical in the Smashmouth with LOTS and LOTS of playaction.

Then in the game planning screens I keep generating the gameplans until I get the preferred RUN%, and add or remove plays in specific scenarios, like running a PlayAction in 2nd or 3rd and short situations.

This is to prepare for MP when leagues convert to FOF8.

[garion333]

Check Post #290 please :)

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Gotcha.

This is what FOF7's help file said:

Intelligence is displayed, but is part of a series of attributes that will be used in future development of Front Office Football.

I'm not sure there's any indication this was guaranteed for FOF8 outside of whoever created the coaching chart (Ben?).

I searched the FOF8 Help File and saw no mention of intelligence being a feature for coaches in the game.

[Sharkn20]

A little bit of tangled information then. You were right also.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Ned Doolittle]

I absolutely love the playbook generator and game planning.

I've generated some base playbooks based on philosophy, where at least 50% of the plays are specific to that philosophy. I then remove some of the formations that make no sense, i.e. 005 in a smashmouth. Or change the 005's to 113's and ensure my Primary and Secondary READ are DEEP and SHORT routes, which are especially critical in the Smashmouth with LOTS and LOTS of playaction.

Then in the game planning screens I keep generating the gameplans until I get the preferred RUN%, and add or remove plays in specific scenarios, like running a PlayAction in 2nd or 3rd and short situations.

This is to prepare for MP when leagues convert to FOF8.

Uhhhh, 2nd and short, 3rd and short are exactly when you would do playaction pass lol. The defense is expecting you to run on downs with short yardage and you hit them with a pass. If you playaction (pass) on 2nd and long you're going to throw it when defense is expecting...a pass. 2nd/3rd and short is the best time for playaction passes. 1st and 10 is dumb because there's a 50/50 chance the defense is expecting you to pass (in that you're either going to run on first down or pass it). You always want playaction passes when defense is expecting run. The opposite is true with draw plays, which are runs when the defense was expecting a pass (because the beginning part of a draw play is faking that you're going to pass).

[Sef0r]

Uhhhh, 2nd and short, 3rd and short are exactly when you would do playaction pass lol. The defense is expecting you to run on downs with short yardage and you hit them with a pass. If you playaction (pass) on 2nd and long you're going to throw it when defense is expecting...a pass. 2nd/3rd and short is the best time for playaction passes. 1st and 10 is dumb because there's a 50/50 chance the defense is expecting you to pass (in that you're either going to run on first down or pass it). You always want playaction passes when defense is expecting run. The opposite is true with draw plays, which are runs when the defense was expecting a pass (because the beginning part of a draw play is faking that you're going to pass).

Yeah...maybe I worded it wrong but that I what I meant. I would "add" those plays in those situations if REX didn't already put them in.

[lungs]

I wish there was a way to set run percentage and generate a game plan based off of that instead of having to generate over and over to get the desired run percentage.

[dawgfan]

Seeing a lot of mentions of multiple monitors being used and mouse clicking. I'm curious if anyone is playing this on a touchscreen laptop? Is that feasible with FOF8?

[Ben E Lou]

Got a crash while simming 20 years of history.

Any place that the game would have stored the record of the crash with info to send to Jim?
As for why Harrison came into this specific game, I don't know since the game crashed before I could analyze what the CPU had for personnel packages and such. I haven't seen it since so I am guessing it is a rare thing, but certainly is possible to happen since I saw it at least once.The amount of crashes are pretty frustrating. I try to save often, but I hate to see my progress down the drain because I didnt save every couple of minutes. Oh well, going to wait for a patch.Crash info is stored in Event Viewer. Sounds like we need to make sure all crash info is sent to Solecismic Support (customersupport AT solecismic DOT com) ASAP, as per this post, lack of crash info is holding up the patch: Great game / Found bug :: Front Office Football Eight General Discussions (http://steamcommunity.com/app/547900/discussions/0/154641879460175022/#c154641879464201526)

I appreciate the help. Sorry is for the inconvenience of experiencing a crash. As long as people send in reports, I can fix them. My only worry is that we still only have three crash reports, but people have talked about a couple of other scenarios (like the post-vote one here). Without the report, I can't investigate very effectively.

Miller, yes, all bugs will be fixed and everything else reported will be investigated. I'll start as soon as I get all the crash reports (because of a side-effect with debugging through Steam, I need to leave the code alone until I'm done with the preliminary investigation, which means no working on other stuff). So please encourage others to send in full reports, as described in the FAQ on the Solecismic site.


I don't see any reports in the thread on these, so making sure that you've sent them on and that these comments without reports aren't causing the patch to be delayed.

[corbes]

Herb will only be replaced over my dead body!

[Nemesis]

Herb will only be replaced over my dead body!

And definitely NOT for Berman....

[albionmoonlight]

I'll be writing up a steam review later. This game makes me feel like I have real control over my team for the first time in a while. Great, great improvement.

It is to the point where I'm not sure where else FOF could go from here to justify a new version. I could see Jim taking the time for TCY2 and then possibly even another sport/politics before needing to come back for FOF9.

[TroyF]

Uhhhh, 2nd and short, 3rd and short are exactly when you would do playaction pass lol. The defense is expecting you to run on downs with short yardage and you hit them with a pass. If you playaction (pass) on 2nd and long you're going to throw it when defense is expecting...a pass. 2nd/3rd and short is the best time for playaction passes. 1st and 10 is dumb because there's a 50/50 chance the defense is expecting you to pass (in that you're either going to run on first down or pass it). You always want playaction passes when defense is expecting run. The opposite is true with draw plays, which are runs when the defense was expecting a pass (because the beginning part of a draw play is faking that you're going to pass).


Just a note here. . . Play action on 1st and 10 is great for a smashmouth team. You are probably running the ball on first down well over 60% of the time. If you get the running game going, you can destroy a defense expecting yet another run up the middle on first down and get caught with the LB and S peeking in the backfield to stop it.

Really good running teams run play action a lot on first down.

[Millerp33]

During the in game play calling, in the scoreboard screen, is there a way to flip the direction of the play called? I can't seem to find a way to run the same play in the opposite direction to the opposite side of the field. I wonder if we will have to create the same play twice in our playbook to have this ability to run it right and left.

[Nemesis]

During the in game play calling, in the scoreboard screen, is there a way to flip the direction of the play called? I can't seem to find a way to run the same play in the opposite direction to the opposite side of the field. I wonder if we will have to create the same play twice in our playbook to have this ability to run it right and left.

No way to flip playcalls.

From the help file: "Each offensive play is set of instructions. In Front Office Football, all quarterbacks are right-handed, so the better pass protection is on the left (the blind side) and the strength of each formation is on the right."

Even though this only discusses passes, I have to assume rushing plays are the same.

[aston217]

Left-handed QBs would be a nice new wrinkle.

[Nemesis]

Left-handed QBs would be a nice new wrinkle.

As a lefty myself, I agree. :D

[garion333]

How so? Seems like it would overly complicated the terminology that we just had clarified.

I can see where adding in players who only like to play on certain sides of the field could play into that a bit. Adrian Clayborn can only play on one side of the D-line because of a disability. There are a few CBs who prefer sides of the field. The most obvious change by having a lefty QB is the blind side. I could see that making for some mismatches, but to do so we'd need detailed play calling like what's in the game now and I'm not so sure it would add significantly to the results. More like tedium to the personnel groupings.

[aston217]

That's probably true about the tedium. I was mostly thinking teams that build around a lefty QB, they'll be trying to invest in RTs instead of LTs, and teams that can do a monster blindside rush on the right side will have better luck versus them, as opposed to the usual. It just throws a little bit of a wrench into standard bucket team-building. Maybe there are little costs in a team having to adjust to blocking for a lefty, so changing around all the time should be discouraged, etc.

But yeah, as long as it's adding flavor /without/ adding tedium.

[Dutch]

Seeing a lot of mentions of multiple monitors being used and mouse clicking. I'm curious if anyone is playing this on a touchscreen laptop? Is that feasible with FOF8?

I just loaded it onto a Surface Pro 3 and it works great with the touch screen using the pen.

[TroyF]

I've simmed through enough to give some general thoughts on the game:

Positives:

+ I love the new game logs.

+I love the choices you have to make with the coordinators now. In the career I'm currently in, the offensive coach is Air Coryall. It isn't how I want to play and my team isn't really suited for it either. (only one big play WR and a very good QB, horrible offensive line) I wanted so badly to make a change at the end of year one and. . . he was the best play caller, the best at scouting and the best at developing young talent. I had to keep him. This adds a new layer in this game.

+ I really like the new player screens a lot. (I don't delve into the mentoring thing as much as others, so it isn't as big of an issue now. I don't have a problem hovering though)

+ I like the position switching system. Moving players isn't instant death and you can either bulk up or lighten up guys to make them useful at another position. You can't go crazy with it. I think the entire system is very well done.

+ As a guy using multiple monitors, I love having all of the windows open and available anytime I want them.

Dislikes:

- I still think I'm going to have to work in the play calls a little more than I would like. It's early, but the one star WR I have on the team isn't getting targeted enough. I understand double teams and all of that, but he should be more involved in the gameplan than he is. Last season he was my second targeted WR by 35 targets. If that continues, I'm going to need to get involved in the playbooks more than I planned.


That's it so far. I really haven't found a lot I don't like about the game. I'll be playing this for a long, long time.

[dawgfan]

So, sounds like playing this on a laptop is not ideal from a screen real estate standpoint. Anyone playing this on a touchscreen? If so, how well does the interface handle that as opposed to using a mouse?

[Sidhe]

- I still think I'm going to have to work in the play calls a little more than I would like. It's early, but the one star WR I have on the team isn't getting targeted enough.

I think there is a good chance that the depth chart is bugged because you will have issues with multiple positions that aren't getting enough play time. It's most obvious with a great player, because you can easily notice when he isn't the starter or even if he is he isn't getting in the game enough.

I've seen it for sure with RDTs, CBs and WRs and have suspected it in other positions as well. I think Jim knows about this issue, and he put up a note through Steam that the first patch should go out tomorrow night. Hopefully this stuff gets fixed in this one so I can get back to playing. It's just too annoying to work through.

[dawgfan]

I just loaded it onto a Surface Pro 3 and it works great with the touch screen using the pen.
Whoops - thanks to the funky "go to next unread post" behavior I missed this. Thanks! One question though - I'm not using a Surface so I'm unfamiliar with their pen. Does it have buttons that allow it right-click functionality? Do I need right-click functionality in this interface?

[Dutch]

Whoops - thanks to the funky "go to next unread post" behavior I missed this. Thanks! One question though - I'm not using a Surface so I'm unfamiliar with their pen. Does it have buttons that allow it right-click functionality? Do I need right-click functionality in this interface?

The pen has a right-click button. :) For changing player status from active to inactive, for example.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm loving the realistic holdouts. The players I would expect to holdout are doing it, making team building much more realistic.

Can't say enough good stuff about this version.

[TroyF]

I think there is a good chance that the depth chart is bugged because you will have issues with multiple positions that aren't getting enough play time. It's most obvious with a great player, because you can easily notice when he isn't the starter or even if he is he isn't getting in the game enough.

I've seen it for sure with RDTs, CBs and WRs and have suspected it in other positions as well. I think Jim knows about this issue, and he put up a note through Steam that the first patch should go out tomorrow night. Hopefully this stuff gets fixed in this one so I can get back to playing. It's just too annoying to work through.


I'll keep screwing around with my casual career today, but I won't be starting a longer lasting one until the patch. Get the QB comebacks fixed and the depth chart issues and I'll be happy as I can be.

[vatech24]

Start the game as my beloved Broncos. Sim forward 12 years. Look over the roster, it's horrible. (which is fine, I'm good with that) A nice young QB who was drafted with the fourth pick last year. Good, that'll work.

Go to coaches screen. head coach: Josh McDaniels. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Am i missing something here but i don't see the real coaches in the game. Did you create the coaches are is there a coaches file that comes with the game?

[Nemesis]

Am i missing something here but i don't see the real coaches in the game. Did you create the coaches are is there a coaches file that comes with the game?

When starting a new career. There's an option to use the real head coach name file.

http://image.prntscr.com/image/43074b14b0f5413e8630833adf5950f6.png

[vatech24]

When starting a new career. There's an option to use the real head coach name file.

http://image.prntscr.com/image/43074b14b0f5413e8630833adf5950f6.png

Haha i totally checked that NO when starting without even reading it.

Thank you for this!

[Sweed]

Loving fof8. Multiple windows are a godsend. Being able to put 4 player cards on the screen to compare is simply awesome, making my job so much easier.
Who to start?
Who to draft?
Who to sign? etc. etc etc. Add to it depth chart package screen can be open along with player cards too, make selections all so much easier.

The game planning too is such an improvement even if I Rex it. I can read the play name and know what everyone is doing. Detailed game logs, wow! No more guessing where the problems are.

I'd like more depth chart control but it's not a game breaker. Not being able to select kick and punt returners bothers me the most.

[Abe Sargent]

I wish I could use the game plan of my HC or the Coordinator in that area. That would be some nice flexibility with staff

[Billy Beane]

I wish I could use the game plan of my HC or the Coordinator in that area. That would be some nice flexibility with staff

That's a great idea!

[MikaV84]

I was a bit on the fence about this one, but since the comments in this thread were hugely positive, i bit the bullet and bought it.

After sinking countless of hundreds of hours into the two previous versions, and while i appreciate many of the updates, im at my limit with the ux. After less than 30 minutes, i've had enough and got my first ever steam refund.

The game still has undoubtedly great merit, and is by far the finest Football sim ever made, there has to come a point where the user experience gets even a sliver of a thought in the process. While i did not expect a FM17-level experience, i truly did expect some effort.

The move to modal windows sounded great - until you realize that the actual windows are not resize-able, and windows that used to take a fraction of a HD screen now take up a huge amount of real estate while providing much less access. In essence, the game went from static to modal windows, and somehow all the info got less accessible.

Now, like a said before, i am a huge fan of what FOF is. It is an absolutely wonderful core, marred down by an atrocious ux and for some reason this was the end of the line for me. Sure - im in the vast minority here, but in the absolute interest of open disclosure, the interface has taken a major step back, and it is in such an outdated state that i just cant in good faith pay premium price for this one.

Hope i dont come off as combative, it's just an honest statement from a fan of the product.

I would just like to concur, that while my view surely isn't widely held in these parts, i would bet the general public on steam that are the moving force behind any significant sales, do stay away because of the aforementioned issue.

[CraigSca]

To each his own, and "probably" yes, people at this point want and/or expect a fancy UI.

Still, after reading the help file about how he measures each defender's impact on the running game, I can almost guarantee that no other developer goes to those lengths ensuring that the numbers of the simulation are as impactful as they are in real life. For me, the mere fact that he does this (and is completely outside the realm of something I am capable of) makes this game an insta-buy.

Is the UI partly combative? Yes, to a certain extent. Does it make the game unplayable (you'll say yes, I'll say no). The fact that such care is taken in the simulation engine underneath the covers more than makes up for it for me. There are a lot of prettier simulations out there, but for me it's lipstick on a pig.

[Millerp33]

I have been an avid player of FOF for almost 13 years now. I started with the EA version and since have moved on from FOF4 to FOF7 and now to FOF8. Prior to FOF I was a huge Madden fan. I only played the dynasty mode because I enjoyed building teams over the course of many years. Although Madden had great graphics it always lacked something. FOF has always offered absolute realistic game play statistics, an immense depth and unprecedented control your team and roster along with a collection of statistics from every imaginable area of football. FOF has always provided an insanely replayable gaming experience. I will take FOF the way it is now and the way it has always been over Bells and Whistles or Lipstick on a pig!! Just my opinion.

[Titletown]

I was a bit on the fence about this one, but since the comments in this thread were hugely positive, i bit the bullet and bought it.

After sinking countless of hundreds of hours into the two previous versions, and while i appreciate many of the updates, im at my limit with the ux. After less than 30 minutes, i've had enough and got my first ever steam refund.

The game still has undoubtedly great merit, and is by far the finest Football sim ever made, there has to come a point where the user experience gets even a sliver of a thought in the process. While i did not expect a FM17-level experience, i truly did expect some effort.

The move to modal windows sounded great - until you realize that the actual windows are not resize-able, and windows that used to take a fraction of a HD screen now take up a huge amount of real estate while providing much less access. In essence, the game went from static to modal windows, and somehow all the info got less accessible.

Now, like a said before, i am a huge fan of what FOF is. It is an absolutely wonderful core, marred down by an atrocious ux and for some reason this was the end of the line for me. Sure - im in the vast minority here, but in the absolute interest of open disclosure, the interface has taken a major step back, and it is in such an outdated state that i just cant in good faith pay premium price for this one.

Hope i dont come off as combative, it's just an honest statement from a fan of the product.

I would just like to concur, that while my view surely isn't widely held in these parts, i would bet the general public on steam that are the moving force behind any significant sales, do stay away because of the aforementioned issue.

Well, I'm new to the game. So far, I'm ambivalent about it. FOF8, obviously, has so much going for it. Unparalleled depth in some areas for one. But the biggest problem for me is the tiny text size. It's hard to sit for long stretches looking at the screen. So, I hear you, MikaV. I think I'll probably play this game less often than I would if the UI, esp. the font size, were easier on my eyes.

[Sporkimata]

Is there any way to mod in all the nfl stats? I suppose it must be impossible if it never has been done before. Something I have always wanted to see in the game to compare to the greats.

[yabanci]

fof is better than real football

[MizzouRah]

fof is better than real football

You are spot on!

[vatech24]

Forgive me for this dumb question but I am currently running with the Titans and i just started over and had the computer generate plays for me because i don't have the time to make my own plays. My offensive coordinator Terry Robiskie runs the Erhardt-Perkins offense and i noticed out of the 200 plays that are generated, only 1 of them fits his style. Is there anyway to just have them make plays directed to his style or does it really matter?

[garion333]

Got myself a weird name:

https://i.imgur.com/DGUJFdx.jpg

That's a first and last name, no middle name present.

[Ben E Lou]

Got myself a weird name:

https://i.imgur.com/DGUJFdx.jpg

That's a first and last name, no middle name present.JohnSy has been in the names list for 13+ years, dating at least back to FOF2K4, but quite possibly further back than that. From time to time Jim adds customer last names to it. That's my guess as to why it's there. It's always kinda funny to see druez's name in there, so long that it has to be truncated.

[garion333]

Huh, clearly I wasn't aware of that. Well then, six years on and I'm still being indoctrinated into the club! ;)

[Ben E Lou]

He also added a bunch of FOFC nicknames to the "rarely used first names" area. (I think this was in 2006 for FOF2K7.) I just checked, and they are still there. It's possible to get an FOFcer as a first name. Here are some of them:

STRINGTABLE
LANGUAGE LANG_ENGLISH, SUBLANG_ENGLISH_US
{
2432, "Air Hog"
2433, "Pumpy"
2434, "Taco"
2435, "Bear Cat"
2436, "Blade"
2437, "Oz"
2438, "Lemmy"
2439, "Cringer"
2440, "Primal"
2441, "Skippy"
2442, "Squid"
2443, "Subby"
2444, "Frozen Rope"
2445, "Quicksand"
2446, "Primelord"
2447, "Amaroq"
}


STRINGTABLE
LANGUAGE LANG_ENGLISH, SUBLANG_ENGLISH_US
{
2448, "Sky Dog"
2449, "Easy Mac"
2450, "Dodger"
2451, "Vegas Vic"
2452, "Scoop"
2453, "Vex"
2454, "Boss"
2455, "Miracle Max"
2456, "Kingmaker"
2457, "Fido"
2458, "Boo"
2459, "Snarky"
2460, "Gruff Daddy"
2461, "Big Daddy"
2462, "Hurt Daddy"
2463, "Snack Food"
}

STRINGTABLE
LANGUAGE LANG_ENGLISH, SUBLANG_ENGLISH_US
{
2416, "Jeebs"
2417, "Marmel"
2418, "Jonze"
2419, "Bear Claw"
2420, "Split P."
2421, "No Myth"
2422, "Sunny"
2423, "Raven Hawk"
2424, "Senator"
2425, "Gizmo"
2426, "Sachmo"
2427, "Swaggs"
2428, "Shorty"
2429, "Dolphin"
2430, "Pilot"
2431, "General"
}

STRINGTABLE
LANGUAGE LANG_ENGLISH, SUBLANG_ENGLISH_US
{
2400, "Swiss Cheese"
2401, "Busy Bee"
2402, "Cuervo"
2403, "Dutch"
2404, "Alf"
2405, "Fritz"
2406, "Anxiety"
2407, "Husker"
2408, "Moon Man"
2409, "Sticky Fingers"
2410, "Hey Brad"
2411, "Frog Man"
2412, "Noop"
2413, "Fonzie"
2414, "Wheels"
2415, "Noble Ned"

[yabanci]

question about "identifies as": correct me if i'm wrong, but my reading of the help file is the only effect it has in the game is with regard to the cost of franchising a player. although not mentioned in the help file, does anybody know if it also affects the asking price in renegotiating contracts?

for example, i have DE Khalil Mack and he identifies as an ILB. when it comes time extend his contract, will he ask for top dollar DE money or top dollar ILB money?

[Ned Doolittle]

The best feeling in the world is when you finish a season poorly and your aging starting QB is rated 34 and you look at the incoming rookie class and you see him....rookie QB who is rated the 2nd best player in the draft overall with lots of full bars. And you check and you see you have the 2 overall pick and the team with the #1 overall pick already has a good young QB.

Ohhhhh baby. Sooooo happy. Dean Houston 2.0 here we come.

[MizzouRah]

The best feeling in the world is when you finish a season poorly and your aging starting QB is rated 34 and you look at the incoming rookie class and you see him....rookie QB who is rated the 2nd best player in the draft overall with lots of full bars. And you check and you see you have the 2 overall pick and the team with the #1 overall pick already has a good young QB.

Ohhhhh baby. Sooooo happy. Dean Houston 2.0 here we come.

Then they trade away the #1 pick to another team who grabs the QB.

:D:p:devil:

[sheeds44]

help for a newbie.....I finally managed to import the 1967 player file...how to get my league to start in 1967 , not 2016...and where is the sim history button...thanks for any help...

[SlyBelle1]

help for a newbie.....I finally managed to import the 1967 player file...how to get my league to start in 1967 , not 2016...and where is the sim history button...thanks for any help...

For simming history, go to Controls->Archives->Create History

[sheeds44]

thanks , it was right in front of me......are you ale to start league in alternate year like 1967 ?

[Sidhe]

thanks , it was right in front of me......are you ale to start league in alternate year like 1967 ?

The start year is in the file that Playerfile.exe creates. It's not exactly user friendly.

The easiset way to get to Playerfile.exe is by going through Steam. Right click on FOF8 and choose properties, then select the Local Files tab, then Browse Local Files. This will open a window where you can find the .exe. To use it, you already have to have the right csv file for your players.

I only copy what Jim has in his help file as the first player and let the rest of the players get generated automatically, but this won't work for you if you were wanting a historical draft. I think it might be a simple matter of just using the draft file you want here. I've never tried it so can't confirm that the file you already have will work.

[TAFIV]

Just bought FOF for the first time a few days ago and am really enjoying it so far

There are a few things I would like, though none of them will stop me from playing.

1. Resizing windows - I only use 1 monitor so would be nice

2. Trading - AI to make counter offers in SP since dialog doesn't seem to accurately reflect what they want. I.E. my 1st round pick for their later 1st round + another pick, at first plus second says I'm close had to drop to first plus fourth to make trade

3. Assigning Backups - I like to have specific players in some situations, I.e. 3rd and short heavy run def, but the AI doesn't seem to sub who I would put in.

4. Pre-Season - would like to be able to pull starters after X quarter

5. Pre/Reg/Post Season - would like to be able to use a setting to pull starters if up/down by X towards the end of game to reduce risk of injuries.

I've found a workaround for the X # of players required at position to access depth chart/run sim. It may be a bug though, you can do both if you leave the injured player active and just don't put him in depth chart.

Another one I'm not sure if it's a bug or not, when calling my own plays if the AI subs your RB or hot route WR it's not reflected in the playcalling area. It still shows the starters instead.

As I said before this is a fun game so far, the only other one that even comes close to it that I've played is myfootballnow and that's online only without real players

[Ned Doolittle]

Then they trade away the #1 pick to another team who grabs the QB.

:D:p:devil:

He's' firmly on my team. I was pretty nervous on draft day. Now that he's on my team I see he has a future potential rating of 70. So delicious.

[kcchief19]

Just curious ... anyone seeing pretty wide variances when creating new leagues with X factor off?

I started my first league with X factor on because I like some unpredictability. But the X factor was so wide that my team's best players seemed to get X factored to hell and became quite crappy. It also completely changed to texture of the league. For instance, it X factored Tom Brady into the 3rd best QB on the Patriots.

So I loaded up a new league without an X factor about a dozen times and got a very wide range of results. For example, my theoretically No. 1 QB had an overall rating ranging from 25 to 52, and most of the time was rated in the 20s and 30s.

I could chalk that up to random scouting ratings, but there were times when the No. 1 QB was rated third best on the team. That would seem to be an X factor issue, not a scout error.

Maybe I'm expecting more of the X factor button If it's turned off, I'd expect a 52 rated QB to range no more than 10% off that rating. It seems excessive to me that ratings could have a 27-point range with X factor off.

Am I crazy here?

[TAFIV]

nope you're right here's an example i'm running sp with the cowboys forgot to save and had to start over, i'm running with x-factor off and first time seemed about right with how they play irl prescott was rated 67 and now with my new run prescott is useless (48 but misleading) here's his current card after preseason don't have the one from my first game
http://i63.tinypic.com/28cddea.jpg
completely useless in my opinion i mean a QB with 7 Accuracy?!?! i mean i know the game is random but a QB that can't even hit anything would've never made it to the draft in the first place and to have such a good QB completely destroyed by 1 stat was very disappointing

[wustin]

I'm 6 years into my SP game and the AI controlled Cam Newton with an accuracy rating of 28 (ranging from 19 to 30 throughout those 6 years) has a career completion percentage of 65.2% and very few picks. He's had a season where he threw over 70% and one other at 67%.

That accuracy rating for Dak sucks but at least he has high sole and low intelligence. No way he still wouldn't be able to complete over 60% of his passes with a competent team.

[yabanci]

Accuracy has nothing to do with completion percentage, it's his ability to hit receivers in stride for yards after catch. And even then you have to take your receivers' getting downfield rating into account. Plus some throws against certain defenses will naturally lead to yards after catch regardless of your QB's accuracy rating, and things like timing and other ratings come into account as well, not to mention the skills of the opposing defense's players, etc. Nobody knows the formulas but a ton of factors combine to determine the outcome of a play, not just one rating of one player. I honestly wouldn't care at all about his accuracy rating. A low rating doesn't mean a total inability to do something. Depending on the team around him and with lucky rolls of the dice, he might end up among the leaders in yac.

If Dak eventually becomes what the green bars now indicate (which he almost certainly won't), you'll just have a guy who can make all the throws, can avoid sacks fairly well and scramble a bit, but won't generate a lot of extra yards after the catch on his own and will tend to throw into double coverage. All in all you'd have a pretty decent quarterback. You can do a lot of damage with a 40/40 QB with some glaring weaknesses.

I used to freak out about the x-factor on or off when I generated a new game and players initially didn't look the way I thought they should. Then I realized the initial ratings will change (just like with drafted players) and in any event I really had no clue what the future held in store for most players in real life, e.g., Kap, RG3, maybe Bortles, maybe Carr will end up sucking, maybe Osweiler will turn out to be great, who really knows. Best thing to do is just play the game in whatever universe you're presented with and not worry so much about individual players. It's a team game.

[garion333]

See below


1. Resizing windows - I only use 1 monitor so would be nice. - I agree, but doubt it'll happen. There's probably a lot of coding that would go. Into that.

2. Trading - AI to make counter offers in SP since dialog doesn't seem to accurately reflect what they want. I.E. my 1st round pick for their later 1st round + another pick, at first plus second says I'm close had to drop to first plus fourth to make trade. - You went from 1st + 2nd for their 1st to 1st + 4th for their 1st? That sounds like a bug. (As an aside, you'll get better at the game if you don't trade up in the 1st with the AI.)

3. Assigning Backups - I like to have specific players in some situations, I.e. 3rd and short heavy run def, but the AI doesn't seem to sub who I would put in. - AI will sub in people based on endurance ratings. Your D-line will see more substitutions than most other positions. Your o-line will almost never see substitutions. Each group is different based on how often they're subbed in in the NFL. If you're seeing players you wouldn't really want playing, say, NT in a 3rd and short situation it's because of an endurance check/roll. Your sub is the best player the AI had for your backup NT. The thing to do is have a deeper D-line rotation. Sometimes you can't avoid having players you don't want on the field, it just happens due to endurance.

4. Pre-Season - would like to be able to pull starters after X quarter. - Used to be in the game, will have to dig.

5. Pre/Reg/Post Season - would like to be able to use a setting to pull starters if up/down by X towards the end of game to reduce risk of injuries. - Used to be in the game, will have to dig.

I've found a workaround for the X # of players required at position to access depth chart/run sim. It may be a bug though, you can do both if you leave the injured player active and just don't put him in depth chart. - If the player isn't listed as Out you can potentially keep him active and have him count. By removing him from the starters he can still be used as a backup so be wary of him being seriously injured at that time.

Another one I'm not sure if it's a bug or not, when calling my own plays if the AI subs your RB or hot route WR it's not reflected in the playcalling area. It still shows the starters instead. - Sounds like a bug.

[Noop]

I am struggling to find my groove on offense. I want to run a balanced offense that stretches the defense but man I struggle.

[henry296]

I have seen starting QBs and RBs pulled in blowouts during the regular season.

[IlliniCub]

I'm seeing I think that while on a league wide level the completion percentage numbers aren't bad, it seems the high end of QB's is too high. Most seasons I'm getting 3 or 4 teams with a greater than 70% number there. Loving this version though.

[henry296]

I'm seeing I think that while on a league wide level the completion percentage numbers aren't bad, it seems the high end of QB's is too high. Most seasons I'm getting 3 or 4 teams with a greater than 70% number there. Loving this version though.

Comes back to my earlier thread on point many short passes.

[TAFIV]

[QUOTE=garion333;3133651]

2. Trading - AI to make counter offers in SP since dialog doesn't seem to accurately reflect what they want. I.E. my 1st round pick for their later 1st round + another pick, at first plus second says I'm close had to drop to first plus fourth to make trade. - You went from 1st + 2nd for their 1st to 1st + 4th for their 1st? That sounds like a bug. (As an aside, you'll get better at the game if you don't trade up in the 1st with the AI.) you read it wrong it was my 1st for their 1st + 2nd then 1st + 4th just that it said i was close at their 1st + 2nd for my 1st and thats not remotely close in my opinion (going from getting a 2nd to getting a 4th)

I've found a workaround for the X # of players required at position to access depth chart/run sim. It may be a bug though, you can do both if you leave the injured player active and just don't put him in depth chart. - If the player isn't listed as Out you can potentially keep him active and have him count. By removing him from the starters he can still be used as a backup so be wary of him being seriously injured at that time. even if he is listed as OUT you can still leave him active and it will let you access depth chart and sim

[garion333]

See below


2. Trading - AI to make counter offers in SP since dialog doesn't seem to accurately reflect what they want. I.E. my 1st round pick for their later 1st round + another pick, at first plus second says I'm close had to drop to first plus fourth to make trade. - You went from 1st + 2nd for their 1st to 1st + 4th for their 1st? That sounds like a bug. (As an aside, you'll get better at the game if you don't trade up in the 1st with the AI.) you read it wrong it was my 1st for their 1st + 2nd then 1st + 4th just that it said i was close at their 1st + 2nd for my 1st and thats not remotely close in my opinion (going from getting a 2nd to getting a 4th) - Well, the teams get mad the more often you make offers but moving down from a NO with a 1st + 2nd to a YES at 1st and 4th isn't out of this world weird. The game is coded in a way so humans can't constantly fleece the AI with trades. There's also different levels of 'close' with some meaning 'you're on track, add more value' and others meaning 'yes, yes, yes, just a little more value'. Of course there's the 'oh hell no' reply also.

I've found a workaround for the X # of players required at position to access depth chart/run sim. It may be a bug though, you can do both if you leave the injured player active and just don't put him in depth chart. - If the player isn't listed as Out you can potentially keep him active and have him count. By removing him from the starters he can still be used as a backup so be wary of him being seriously injured at that time. even if he is listed as OUT you can still leave him active and it will let you access depth chart and sim - Ah, that's a bug then. I play sp with injuries off as I do a lot of quick simming through seasons, so I haven't encountered this situation yet.

[QuikSand]

My team, running a Rexed spread playbook with rexed gameplan, is seeing rushing numbers that I don't think I ever stopped to in FOF 7. Last 3-4 seasons, I'd say we are averaging maybe 2.75 yards per RB carry. Buoyed a bit by some QB rushes for 6-8 a clip, but overall it feels like we can't run the ball at all. Personnel is not great, but I feel like I'm eating too large a penalty, presuming the OC tendency is looming in the background and hurting most of our straight-ahead rushing plays (that Rex insists on loading our playbook and gameplan with, despite us being nominally a spread team).

Too soon to tell if it's a bug or just something we need to work around, but it's pretty frustrating.

[Noop]

My team, running a Rexed spread playbook with rexed gameplan, is seeing rushing numbers that I don't think I ever stopped to in FOF 7. Last 3-4 seasons, I'd say we are averaging maybe 2.75 yards per RB carry. Buoyed a bit by some QB rushes for 6-8 a clip, but overall it feels like we can't run the ball at all. Personnel is not great, but I feel like I'm eating too large a penalty, presuming the OC tendency is looming in the background and hurting most of our straight-ahead rushing plays (that Rex insists on loading our playbook and gameplan with, despite us being nominally a spread team).

Too soon to tell if it's a bug or just something we need to work around, but it's pretty frustrating.

I have had the similar issues. I did see an uptick in production in my most recent season though.

[Ned Doolittle]

One thing I didn't realize was you could keep clicking auto generate gameplan and it'll give you a different run expectancy each time. I thought initially you click it once and the first gameplan it generated was "I am Rex, here is the gameplan I have generated for you based on your opponent's tendencies." I do tend to see for some games even if I click auto generate like 4 or 5 times the run expectancy of the Rexed gameplans will keep being in the 30% range, which I take to mean Red feels the other team's run defense is very good or perhaps their secondary is very bad. I don't like running 30% of the time (even though we don't have good RBs) so I tend to keep clicking until we're gonna run 40ish% of the time.

It could also mean that Rexing the gameplan is just completely random. I think going forward I'm gonna stopping Rexing once I feel the team is doing what I want in a game and leave it at that. I want my starting RB to run 20 times a game, I want my QB to throw 30-32 times a game and I want my main WR to be targeted 10 times a game. So once I hit those numbers I'll leave the gameplan alone.

[Antmeister]

One thing I didn't realize was you could keep clicking auto generate gameplan and it'll give you a different run expectancy each time. I thought initially you click it once and the first gameplan it generated was "I am Rex, here is the gameplan I have generated for you based on your opponent's tendencies." I do tend to see for some games even if I click auto generate like 4 or 5 times the run expectancy of the Rexed gameplans will keep being in the 30% range, which I take to mean Red feels the other team's run defense is very good or perhaps their secondary is very bad. I don't like running 30% of the time (even though we don't have good RBs) so I tend to keep clicking until we're gonna run 40ish% of the time.

It could also mean that Rexing the gameplan is just completely random. I think going forward I'm gonna stopping Rexing once I feel the team is doing what I want in a game and leave it at that. I want my starting RB to run 20 times a game, I want my QB to throw 30-32 times a game and I want my main WR to be targeted 10 times a game. So once I hit those numbers I'll leave the gameplan alone.

This was by design. From the help file:

There is quite a lot of variety in how a game plan will be constructed. The AI sets up a chart of what percentages of different types of plays it will run in different situations against the next opponent, then samples that chart randomly. If you try to generate many different game plans, you will see many different results. If you know you want to run a certain percentage of the time against this opponent, no matter what, you'll want to construct your plan by hand.

[TroyF]

Just curious ... anyone seeing pretty wide variances when creating new leagues with X factor off?

I started my first league with X factor on because I like some unpredictability. But the X factor was so wide that my team's best players seemed to get X factored to hell and became quite crappy. It also completely changed to texture of the league. For instance, it X factored Tom Brady into the 3rd best QB on the Patriots.

So I loaded up a new league without an X factor about a dozen times and got a very wide range of results. For example, my theoretically No. 1 QB had an overall rating ranging from 25 to 52, and most of the time was rated in the 20s and 30s.

I could chalk that up to random scouting ratings, but there were times when the No. 1 QB was rated third best on the team. That would seem to be an X factor issue, not a scout error.

Maybe I'm expecting more of the X factor button If it's turned off, I'd expect a 52 rated QB to range no more than 10% off that rating. It seems excessive to me that ratings could have a 27-point range with X factor off.

Am I crazy here?

HUGE, HUGE differences. When I wanted to play a test career with the Broncos, I wanted Harris, Miller and Thomas to all be great. It took me 35 reloads before all were at a pro bowl level ratings wise. In some of those games, Harris was my third corner and Thomas my 3rd ranked WR.

[Abe Sargent]

Just bought FOF for the first time a few days ago and am really enjoying it so far

There are a few things I would like, though none of them will stop me from playing.

1. Resizing windows - I only use 1 monitor so would be nice

2. Trading - AI to make counter offers in SP since dialog doesn't seem to accurately reflect what they want. I.E. my 1st round pick for their later 1st round + another pick, at first plus second says I'm close had to drop to first plus fourth to make trade

3. Assigning Backups - I like to have specific players in some situations, I.e. 3rd and short heavy run def, but the AI doesn't seem to sub who I would put in.

4. Pre-Season - would like to be able to pull starters after X quarter

5. Pre/Reg/Post Season - would like to be able to use a setting to pull starters if up/down by X towards the end of game to reduce risk of injuries.

I've found a workaround for the X # of players required at position to access depth chart/run sim. It may be a bug though, you can do both if you leave the injured player active and just don't put him in depth chart.

Another one I'm not sure if it's a bug or not, when calling my own plays if the AI subs your RB or hot route WR it's not reflected in the playcalling area. It still shows the starters instead.

As I said before this is a fun game so far, the only other one that even comes close to it that I've played is myfootballnow and that's online only without real players

Welcome to the addiction!!!

[MrBug708]

Saw a cool feature where a player retired on his doctors orders

[TroyF]

My team, running a Rexed spread playbook with rexed gameplan, is seeing rushing numbers that I don't think I ever stopped to in FOF 7. Last 3-4 seasons, I'd say we are averaging maybe 2.75 yards per RB carry. Buoyed a bit by some QB rushes for 6-8 a clip, but overall it feels like we can't run the ball at all. Personnel is not great, but I feel like I'm eating too large a penalty, presuming the OC tendency is looming in the background and hurting most of our straight-ahead rushing plays (that Rex insists on loading our playbook and gameplan with, despite us being nominally a spread team).

Too soon to tell if it's a bug or just something we need to work around, but it's pretty frustrating.


I have REX creating my gameplans as well. I am averaging 4.11 yards per carry overall. My starting back is at 4.37. My backups are at 3.07 and 3.38 respectively.

My issue is the same as the one I was complaining about before the patch. I have a very good TE (73 rated). I have a3 WR getting targets. A 33/33, a 55/55 and a 71/71.

No matter what I do, I cannot get the 71/71 targeted enough. I have played 11 games and the targets go:

TE - 88
55 rated WR - 75
33 rated WR - 55
71 rated WR - 57

I get that he is being double teamed a lot of the time. I just don't think the 33 rated WR should be being targeted as often as the star I'm paying starters money for. (to get this part out of the way, the 71 WR has an 82 in route running, 72 in third down catching, and 55 endurance)

Having whined through all of that, I'm having one of the stranger seasons I have ever had on FOF. I'm 11-0. There is no other team in my division over .500, and the division I'm playing against in the East has only one team over .500. My opponents record against is 48-73 for a whopping .397 winning percentage. They have collectively scored 2,378 points and given up 2,811. I have played exactly 3 games against teams with positive point differentials.

I have a feeling I'm looking at a really quick exit come playoff time.

[MrBug708]

I've never understood what dictates the coaching staff hiring order. I've always assumed it was how often you made changes, but I'm on my set of coaches for about the 8th season now, no changes, and I can't get hired than 24th. Am I missing something or does every other franchise not make changes as often as I do?

[TroyF]

I've never understood what dictates the coaching staff hiring order. I've always assumed it was how often you made changes, but I'm on my set of coaches for about the 8th season now, no changes, and I can't get hired than 24th. Am I missing something or does every other franchise not make changes as often as I do?


The order is based off of the profit each franchise made the previous year.

[wustin]

I have REX creating my gameplans as well. I am averaging 4.11 yards per carry overall. My starting back is at 4.37. My backups are at 3.07 and 3.38 respectively.

My issue is the same as the one I was complaining about before the patch. I have a very good TE (73 rated). I have a3 WR getting targets. A 33/33, a 55/55 and a 71/71.

No matter what I do, I cannot get the 71/71 targeted enough. I have played 11 games and the targets go:

TE - 88
55 rated WR - 75
33 rated WR - 55
71 rated WR - 57

I get that he is being double teamed a lot of the time. I just don't think the 33 rated WR should be being targeted as often as the star I'm paying starters money for. (to get this part out of the way, the 71 WR has an 82 in route running, 72 in third down catching, and 55 endurance)

Having whined through all of that, I'm having one of the stranger seasons I have ever had on FOF. I'm 11-0. There is no other team in my division over .500, and the division I'm playing against in the East has only one team over .500. My opponents record against is 48-73 for a whopping .397 winning percentage. They have collectively scored 2,378 points and given up 2,811. I have played exactly 3 games against teams with positive point differentials.

I have a feeling I'm looking at a really quick exit come playoff time.

http://i.imgur.com/VXdqxQK.png

This is my most recent season, never had my targets been that well balanced through Rex. George is my highest rated receiver at 60 and I for the life of me cannot get my QB to throw more passes his way even if I rex it until the run percentage is in the 20s.

[gstelmack]

Route Running matters a lot for receivers getting targets.

[wustin]

Moln's route running rating is exactly 0 though and I have him as a slot receiver in most of my lineups.

edit: perhaps I should go back look at what types of plays my offense tends to do and adjust my personnel lineups accordingly. I might have to stick George in the slot for some packages.

[TroyF]

Route Running matters a lot for receivers getting targets.


My guys route running is 82.

The TE is 84. The other two receivers are 34 and 24 respectively.

There is just ZERO reason this guy shouldn't be getting more targets. Just played my 12th game of the season and he got 2 targets. My 71 superstar receiver is now tied with my below average 3rd WR in targets with 59 through 12 weeks. The star receiver has 1 drop and 8 TD's. The other guy has 8 drops and 1 TD.

Maybe a new OC will help. Maybe it's just a goofy season with a young QB. I am having an absolute blast with the game, but this is beyond confusing to me. I don't understand what is happening here. Next year, my rookie QB will be more developed, maybe that will fix this thing by itself. I just don't know.

[TAFIV]

check your plays in the playbook and see what your hot-route is predominately for each formation then assign the WRs you want getting passes to those positions it may help

[TroyF]

check your plays in the playbook and see what your hot-route is predominately for each formation then assign the WRs you want getting passes to those positions it may help


I know that's what I'll have to do. My hope was to not have to do that though.

However. . . my QB went from 47% developed to 61% developed. And over the last 4 weeks of my season, that WR I was talking about tarted to get a boatload more targets. He ended the year with 98 targets. The 3rd WR ended with 60. Maybe the development had something to do with it. I don't know. I just know the #1 WR started to actually look like a number 1 for the first time in this season.

My unbeaten run came to an end with 3 straight losses. Ended the year 13-3 with the top seed in the AFC. I get to face Jacksonville in the divisional round of the playoffs as a heavy favorite. What could possibly go wrong?

[TroyF]

That really does seem to have done it. The QB being further developed. The WR in question was the top target in the playoff game. Through 12 weeks of him being way down to being the most targeted played 5 weeks in a row. Will have to watch this closely.

[MizzouRah]

That really does seem to have done it. The QB being further developed. The WR in question was the top target in the playoff game. Through 12 weeks of him being way down to being the most targeted played 5 weeks in a row. Will have to watch this closely.

That's pretty cool if that is indeed the case. This game is insanely deep!

[TAFIV]

another thought for an improvement that wouldn't take much to do and would get rid of some annoyance for when i'm setting my depth charts

a reset button just like on the playbook area that completely clears the depth chart would be nice


edit: the reason for this is that i like to put my rookies that still need to improve in my chart for preseason then put my veterans in for regular season and its way too easy to accidentally miss swapping a player if i don't have a clean chart to start with (didn't realize till week 5 after 3 losses that i had my 3rd string DT and DE starting in my vs 3WR formation, i'm sure that contributed something to the losses)

[TAFIV]

ahhh..... wish he would get the playcalling fixed at the end of the game just got a tie in a game i should have won

3rd down on the 7 yard line 00:01 (clock stopped with Time Out) left in OT and couldn't call for a FG had to try for a touchdown and didn't get into the end zone

[AlexB]

ahhh..... wish he would get the playcalling fixed at the end of the game just got a tie in a game i should have won

3rd down on the 7 yard line 00:01 (clock stopped with Time Out) left in OT and couldn't call for a FG had to try for a touchdown and didn't get into the end zone

Have you sent this to Jim? Sounds like a definite issue that I'm sure he can fix, but only if he knows about it - he may not see every post in this thread

[wthomp]

Is there any way to keep my top cover corner from blitzing? In my last three or four games he has averaged 20 blitzes, some in key passing situations.

[TroyF]

Is there any way to keep my top cover corner from blitzing? In my last three or four games he has averaged 20 blitzes, some in key passing situations.


If you go to the game plan details screen, there is a drop down menu for the frequency of your best blitzer rushing the passer on any given play. I think it defaults to the middle setting. Set it higher and your corner won't blitz as often. (set it too high and your blitzes will become predictable and the offense will figure you out)

Another thing is when you keep clicking on a play in the game plan, the red arrow cycles through all of the available blitzers for that play.

For example, a Cover-4, Blitz 1 can be any of the interior players, but not a cornerback. So if you see a play where the corner is blizing (only 12 defensive plays to look at), you can remove it or run another game plan to get rid of it.

[jamesumd23]

Sorry, as I am probably blanking. But how do I extract the current Player file into a csv file so I can edit some ratings so SP play? I appreciate any help someone could give a guy!

[TAFIV]

Is there any way to keep my top cover corner from blitzing? In my last three or four games he has averaged 20 blitzes, some in key passing situations.

there is also a spot on lower right of gameplanning to ALWAYS have your top CB cover the top WR

[TAFIV]

Have you sent this to Jim? Sounds like a definite issue that I'm sure he can fix, but only if he knows about it - he may not see every post in this thread

i tried but i can't, i went to the Solecismic site but there is no way to actually contact them on there (no email address anywhere) and yes i went through every page of the site looking for one

[Ben E Lou]

i tried but i can't, i went to the Solecismic site but there is no way to actually contact them on there (no email address anywhere) and yes i went through every page of the site looking for oneIt's at the bottom of the FAQ. (The FAQ isn't linked from the main links, but can be accessed via the Support page.) Here's the relevant section of the FAQ (highlight added by me):

My question isn't addressed here. Are there more answers?

For questions about game play, please check the game's help file (press F1 from any screen) before sending your questions. If you are reporting a bug, please make sure you have the latest patch installed before writing, and please include details about your computer, your operating system and the version of the game you are running.

If there's a crash, please check your computer's Event Viewer and copy the corresponding event record. There's no way to begin to diagnose a crash without that record. Also, tell us, in detail, each screen that was open and the exact sequence of events that led to the crash. Crashes will be fixed, but not without all of this information.

Our email address is customersupport AT solecismic.com. Please do not send file attachments, as email with attachments will automatically be deleted before we read it.

If your question is about the installation of the ViaTech version of the game or about their electronic licensing, you'll receive a much faster and more accurate answer from ViaTech support. They also handle the license resets and financial transactions for us. They cannot answer questions about the Steam version of the product, however.

[TAFIV]

ok thanks

[AlexB]

TAVIV - Although it's clearly something that's not working properly, now I'm back at home and can play around with the new patch, while I was resetting the SP options to start a new career, I noticed something that might be a workaround for you:

Do you have 'Limit Play Choices When Calling Every Play' checked 'Yes'? If you do, might be worth trying to uncheck this, as although I have never called a play in FOF in my life, I can easily imagine the issue being with the filtering of plays rather than never being able to call it. Might be worth a try?

[jaboo]

If a DE is rated 0 for all 3 pass defenses, what does that mean? I assume the rating is for when they drop back in zone blitzes. I have several DE's whose best fit says 3-4 WLB, but they're both rated 0 for pass defenses. If I play them at will linebacker will they have no pass coverage skills? Also, if an otherwise very good power rb is rated below 10 for 3rd down running, does anyone know what that means? Is he really going to be that bad on 3rd downs when his inside power is over 80?

[EagleFan]

Minor bug but the One for the Thumb achievement isn't correct. I just won our second championship (in the 5th season of the career) and it triggered this achievement. It was the league's 5th championship game so I am assuming that it didn't check the number for the team but the overall number in the league.

[MattG]

I've noticed when simming a season that in Game Plan Details for "Substitute Starting QB During Games" that 1 (Least) subs out the starter and 9 (Most) never subs him out.

Not sure if I'm just reading it wrong or if those numbers should be switched.

[Sharkn20]

Route Running matters a lot for receivers getting targets.

I don't think that is important anymore. Now RR is for how well the WR runs the route. If he is the hot route and is not in double coverage, he should get the target. At least is what the help file says :popcorn:

RR was important in FOF7 To get targets as you said.

[wustin]

Messing around with the defensive playbook and apparently the OLBs don't rush at all if you pick defenses with No Blitz (I also have the blitz choice set to always). It'll always be the those three linemen rushing.

[wustin]

dola

yeah you have to make sure you have Blitz 1 on all of your plays which is strange

[A-Husker-4-Life]

dola

yeah you have to make sure you have Blitz 1 on all of your plays which is strange

The WLB doesn't blitz on pass down automatically now.

[QuikSand]

I don't think that is important anymore. Now RR is for how well the WR runs the route. If he is the hot route and is not in double coverage, he should get the target. At least is what the help file says :popcorn:

RR was important in FOF7 To get targets as you said.

I honestly suspect this is pretty much unchanged. Now we see more of the underpinnings of who the primary receiver is on a given play, but overall I think this works basically the same way that it used to.

There's a primary receiver. Game rolls dice involving the receiver's "route running" skill (and likely something from on or more defenders) to determine if the receiver i open enough to be targeted. If that passes, the play progresses to more dice rolls (pass is on target, pass is defensed) to determine the play outcome. But if that first check fails, the QB then moves on to a secondary target, where presumably a similar cycle happens.

Route running remains a threshold figure for how many targets your receiver is actually going to see (as an add-on function the gameplan you install), I remain pretty convinced.

[Dutch]

Route running remains a threshold figure for how many targets your receiver is actually going to see (as an add-on function the gameplan you install), I remain pretty convinced.

I would agree.

If you have a WR with high RR but also low Avoid Drops (for example)...you're going to want to bury him to an outlet receiver...but even still, I'd bet RR takes precedence in the outlet tree of the logic and if your primary and secondary receivers have low RR...welp, there he is again, grabbing a good chunk of the targets! So be careful what kind of WR with high RR you get. Same as FOF7.

[garion333]

If a DE is rated 0 for all 3 pass defenses, what does that mean? I assume the rating is for when they drop back in zone blitzes. I have several DE's whose best fit says 3-4 WLB, but they're both rated 0 for pass defenses. If I play them at will linebacker will they have no pass coverage skills?

The answer to your question is that he will likely be a liability as a coverage linebacker, however, as a WLB with a ton of pass rushing ability I'm sure the gameplan will have him blitzing all the time.

A zero doesn't mean he has no skill in that category, just that he has terrible skills in that category. We see 0-100, but the true ratings are hidden behind the scenes.

Also, if an otherwise very good power rb is rated below 10 for 3rd down running, does anyone know what that means? Is he really going to be that bad on 3rd downs when his inside power is over 80?

You would ideally want someone with both. Will he be really bad on 3rd downs? Maybe not, but he won't be as good as someone with a high 3rd down bar.

Think of it this way, FOF is a game of dice rolls. Let's setup a scenario. On 2nd and 1 you run it up the gut to get that "easy" 1st down. You get a dice roll for Power Inside + Hole Rec. Let's say you get stuffed and held to 0 yards. Bummer, but you move on.

Now, on 3rd and 1 you run it up the gut and again get dice rolls for Power Inside + (maybe) Hole Rec. Let's say those fail and you get stuffed and held to 0 yards. You will then get another dice roll for 3rd Down Running, which is what the game uses to determine how good a player is at getting extra yardage on a 3rd Down run. If you have a 0 in that you are not likely to get the extra yard or two you need, you will be entirely reliant upon your other skills.

tldr Your other skills can makeup for a deficiency, but I'd rather have 3rd Down Running on a back who is trying to pick up the short yardage 1st down.

Keep in mind in the above scenario I don't actually know how Jim has coded stuff, but it helps to think about the dice rolls as the entire game is decided by them. It's entirely possible 3rd Down Running is a percentage de/buff and not a separate dice roll, but I don't truly know.

[Sharkn20]

I honestly suspect this is pretty much unchanged. Now we see more of the underpinnings of who the primary receiver is on a given play, but overall I think this works basically the same way that it used to.

There's a primary receiver. Game rolls dice involving the receiver's "route running" skill (and likely something from on or more defenders) to determine if the receiver i open enough to be targeted. If that passes, the play progresses to more dice rolls (pass is on target, pass is defensed) to determine the play outcome. But if that first check fails, the QB then moves on to a secondary target, where presumably a similar cycle happens.

Route running remains a threshold figure for how many targets your receiver is actually going to see (as an add-on function the gameplan you install), I remain pretty convinced.

Did you have evidence by numbers?

I would say the target goes to him and then he has disadvantage when the dice rolls start in deciding if he is catching that ball or not. A good route runner will get open. A bad route runner will have less catches and more interceptions thrown his way. But as it is stated I do understand is how succesful is the player running that route.

[henry296]

If a DE is rated 0 for all 3 pass defenses, what does that mean? I assume the rating is for when they drop back in zone blitzes. I have several DE's whose best fit says 3-4 WLB, but they're both rated 0 for pass defenses. If I play them at will linebacker will they have no pass coverage skills? Also, if an otherwise very good power rb is rated below 10 for 3rd down running, does anyone know what that means? Is he really going to be that bad on 3rd downs when his inside power is over 80?

I believe from the help there are no zone blitzes. It tells me not to think about changing him to a linebacker. I think the best fit might be more based on height/weight.

[korme]

Trying to make a basically no-run, almost 100% pass offense. Very gimmicky. I just want to see what numbers I can create. Hit 5800 passing yards just recently, but a 33-23 TD/INT ratio with a 41 QB and above-average WR-WR-TE combo. Fun.

[EagleFan]

A couple oddities:

The Colts released a safety that was 2nd in the league in interceptions with 7 (3 returned for touchdowns) before the last week of the season. The Colts were in a playoff race but lost the final week and missed the playoffs.

In the same season the Bengals had their kicker punt 55 times even though their punter was healthy but only played in 7 games. Their punter averaged 46.2 yards per punt. Their kicker averaged 32.1.

[AlexB]

More I've played this game, the more I think it's become over-complicated with no added benefit tbh.

Depth charts are a chore (and I'm not sure they're not broken), game planning is a chore, getting around the game is much worse than before, I just don't find it fun.

However, I do still like FOF7, and will continue to play that on/off, and don't begrudge buying the game as the money spent on previous iterations of FOF have more than justified another £20 investment.

[EagleFan]

Another oddity:

The 2023 Legend of the Game:

QB Chase Daniels, PHI - in 7 years as a backup he played a grand total of 17 games with 1 start (0-1)

Legend must mean something different.

This is with the following retirees that year:
WR Dez Bryant - 514 receptions for 5878 yards with 47 TD
WR Travis Benjamin - 424 receptions for 5464 yards with 33 TD
WR DeAndre Hopkins - 419 receptions for 5597 yards with 35 TD
LB Von Miller - 447 tackles, 22.5 sacks
S Earl Thomas - 493 tackles, 16 INT

[Titletown]

More I've played this game, the more I think it's become over-complicated with no added benefit tbh.

Depth charts are a chore (and I'm not sure they're not broken), game planning is a chore, getting around the game is much worse than before, I just don't find it fun.

However, I do still like FOF7, and will continue to play that on/off, and don't begrudge buying the game as the money spent on previous iterations of FOF have more than justified another £20 investment.

How much user interaction is there with the developer before he adds or refines different features in the game? I'm new, that's why I'm asking.

[chinaski]

I hate having to put in the ftp info twice for MP leagues. Once on creation, and then once again on first import.

[AlexB]

Titletown - A reasonable amount, there have been a few discussions in developer's corner. No issue at all with that tbh, and the support is really second to none.

My last post was made immediately after the realisation I didn't like the new modules in the game, and so was just negative, with no constructive feedback. So I'll try to elaborate.

I didn't like gameplanning before, and to be fair FOF8 is more intuitive, even if it is very tedious, so that's net equal with FOF7 for me. I won't use it in either game.

So my two main problems are the way of accessing information and depth charts.

Getting to the screens you want is IMO much more difficult than previously: I've posted before about how I think the menu is cumbersome, and if you want to hide results, having multiple windows open all the time isn't possible as you get spoilers. It is very useful to have multiple windows open between games, and comparing players, etc, but having to go through multiple sub-menus to see PotW awards, stats, transactions, football guru, personnel, scout reports, etc is not intuitive or easy.

However, the personnel screens are what did me in the end. Got an injury to a WR who was a FL/SE in some formations, and a slot in others, pulled up the offensive personnel screen, started to work out who would be best moved into which position for the first personnel group for that one week, and thought 'I'm gonna have to do this nine more times on this screen, and then redo it all over next week... You know what, I really can't be bothered'

I've thought about it, and to me it would be easier if there was a simple list of each of the positions: FL, SE, slot, TE1, TE2, RB, LT, LG, C, etc and for each one we specified our top three players. This would apply to all formations, but you specified a 3rd down back and a short yardage back, and blocking TE needs to be a separate position too for short yardage situations.

If a player is injured and out, there would no need to reset the list if you didn't want to, the game would just move to the next player on the depth chart. If injured but active, you might want to move them up/down according to the injury/back up ability. But even this would mean one or two changes rather than multiple changes for multiple formations, and would give you just as much control as the current system.

As there's no playing time specification any more (and this is why I think the personnel usage might be broken) the game should sub in players when starters begin to feel tired, just like FOF7 did. And in pre-season this should happen a lot. Just before giving up, I had a pre-season game where Jay Ajayi ran the ball 27 times, there were two QB scrambles and two end arounds. No backup RB had a carry. This is either a bug that needs to be fixed, or we need to be able to dictate percentage usage again.

Similarly on defense, I think two lists for each position would work: run/pass, you list starter and back-up for each position against both the run and the pass. The game then puts in the relvant people for goalline, base, nickel and dime/prevent according to the situation/your teams ability.

While I dislike the offensive personnel screen and way it seems to work, I hate the defensive one, in that you can never vary the defensive formation against certain offensive personnel groups. E.g. you will never play nickel for example against a 212 formation, even if you have the best front seven in the league but absolute scrubs for DBs, the game will not (as I understand it) allow a gameplan/rex to use nickel as the base package against 212 to play an extra DB and hope that the front six as it would become can be stiff enough against the run.

These personnel screens and fixed defensive packages seem to me to be a huge backwards step from FOF7, as does the system of not subbing in players (assuming that it is currently working as intended) and the new menus.

When I fire up FOF7 again, I will miss being have to have two FA cards up at the same time to compare, and I will miss the extra sortability of the stats, but tbh that's all I will miss.

Hopefully that has clarified my previous post, and given some more constructive feedback on my reasoning. Obviously these are my opinions and mine only, and I think I am almost certainly in a very small minority.

[Titletown]

OK. Thanks. I was curious to know if the changes had popular support.

[chinaski]

I closed the allocation draft screen and have no idea how to open it again.... anyone know?

[TAFIV]

I hate having to put in the ftp info twice for MP leagues. Once on creation, and then once again on first import.

i only had to do it on creation, the import just had to put in a password that ben sent us via both pm and email, btw chinaski you're on the clock

[chinaski]

btw chinaski you're on the clock

Thanks, working on it now.

[chinaski]

I closed the allocation draft screen and have no idea how to open it again.... anyone know?

Had to close the game and reopen. Then the Allocation Draft button was available.

[TAFIV]

Had to close the game and reopen. Then the Allocation Draft button was available.

you don't draft in the game that's just for looking at players, drafting being done here CCFL Front Office Football Conscriptor version 2.6.1 (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/draft/selections.php)

[chinaski]

you don't draft in the game that's just for looking at players, drafting being done here CCFL Front Office Football Conscriptor version 2.6.1 (http://ccfl.fof-belco.com/draft/selections.php)

I know, im playing SP to figure out the new game. :D

[Ned Doolittle]

Titletown - A reasonable amount, there have been a few discussions in developer's corner. No issue at all with that tbh, and the support is really second to none.

My last post was made immediately after the realisation I didn't like the new modules in the game, and so was just negative, with no constructive feedback. So I'll try to elaborate.

I didn't like gameplanning before, and to be fair FOF8 is more intuitive, even if it is very tedious, so that's net equal with FOF7 for me. I won't use it in either game.

So my two main problems are the way of accessing information and depth charts.

Getting to the screens you want is IMO much more difficult than previously: I've posted before about how I think the menu is cumbersome, and if you want to hide results, having multiple windows open all the time isn't possible as you get spoilers. It is very useful to have multiple windows open between games, and comparing players, etc, but having to go through multiple sub-menus to see PotW awards, stats, transactions, football guru, personnel, scout reports, etc is not intuitive or easy.

However, the personnel screens are what did me in the end. Got an injury to a WR who was a FL/SE in some formations, and a slot in others, pulled up the offensive personnel screen, started to work out who would be best moved into which position for the first personnel group for that one week, and thought 'I'm gonna have to do this nine more times on this screen, and then redo it all over next week... You know what, I really can't be bothered'

I've thought about it, and to me it would be easier if there was a simple list of each of the positions: FL, SE, slot, TE1, TE2, RB, LT, LG, C, etc and for each one we specified our top three players. This would apply to all formations, but you specified a 3rd down back and a short yardage back, and blocking TE needs to be a separate position too for short yardage situations.

If a player is injured and out, there would no need to reset the list if you didn't want to, the game would just move to the next player on the depth chart. If injured but active, you might want to move them up/down according to the injury/back up ability. But even this would mean one or two changes rather than multiple changes for multiple formations, and would give you just as much control as the current system.

As there's no playing time specification any more (and this is why I think the personnel usage might be broken) the game should sub in players when starters begin to feel tired, just like FOF7 did. And in pre-season this should happen a lot. Just before giving up, I had a pre-season game where Jay Ajayi ran the ball 27 times, there were two QB scrambles and two end arounds. No backup RB had a carry. This is either a bug that needs to be fixed, or we need to be able to dictate percentage usage again.

Similarly on defense, I think two lists for each position would work: run/pass, you list starter and back-up for each position against both the run and the pass. The game then puts in the relvant people for goalline, base, nickel and dime/prevent according to the situation/your teams ability.

While I dislike the offensive personnel screen and way it seems to work, I hate the defensive one, in that you can never vary the defensive formation against certain offensive personnel groups. E.g. you will never play nickel for example against a 212 formation, even if you have the best front seven in the league but absolute scrubs for DBs, the game will not (as I understand it) allow a gameplan/rex to use nickel as the base package against 212 to play an extra DB and hope that the front six as it would become can be stiff enough against the run.

These personnel screens and fixed defensive packages seem to me to be a huge backwards step from FOF7, as does the system of not subbing in players (assuming that it is currently working as intended) and the new menus.

When I fire up FOF7 again, I will miss being have to have two FA cards up at the same time to compare, and I will miss the extra sortability of the stats, but tbh that's all I will miss.

Hopefully that has clarified my previous post, and given some more constructive feedback on my reasoning. Obviously these are my opinions and mine only, and I think I am almost certainly in a very small minority.

When I have a Player go down (i.e. out for the game) I pretty much just hit "recommend" and leave it at that. It's just too much work to fix depth charts every time a guy is out. I want the game to be fun, not tedious.

[AlexB]

When I have a Player go down (i.e. out for the game) I pretty much just hit "recommend" and leave it at that. It's just too much work to fix depth charts every time a guy is out. I want the game to be fun, not tedious.

As I don't gameplan, if I did this then it becomes me facilitating a computer program rather than playing a game - I'm basically only drafting and picking up FAs.

Another thing I've thought that might help make resetting offensive personnel less arduous if the current system must remain (although I still prefer my previous suggestion tbh) would be to have an option to 'lock all OL', 'lock all RB', etc. Hitting reccommend is simple, but if you want to give certain players playing time to develop, that will also reorder all positions, not just the changes in the position you are interested in changing.

At the minute to lock everything other than WR, to continue my earlier example, takes 100 clicks (estimated - game not open atm), and that's just not going to happen.

If you had a 'lock all positions' button, and then unchecked 'lock all WR', the same job could be done in two clicks. 'Recommend' would then allow you to focus just on the area concerned, you can cancel and exit to avoid changes if need be (an 'undo' button would be even better) and then go back in to make the changes you want based on the recommendations.

The UI is really unfriendly if you want to make this type of change atm.

[Templar]

Titletown - A reasonable amount, there have been a few discussions in developer's corner. No issue at all with that tbh, and the support is really second to none.

My last post was made immediately after the realisation I didn't like the new modules in the game, and so was just negative, with no constructive feedback. So I'll try to elaborate.

I didn't like gameplanning before, and to be fair FOF8 is more intuitive, even if it is very tedious, so that's net equal with FOF7 for me. I won't use it in either game.

So my two main problems are the way of accessing information and depth charts.

Getting to the screens you want is IMO much more difficult than previously: I've posted before about how I think the menu is cumbersome, and if you want to hide results, having multiple windows open all the time isn't possible as you get spoilers. It is very useful to have multiple windows open between games, and comparing players, etc, but having to go through multiple sub-menus to see PotW awards, stats, transactions, football guru, personnel, scout reports, etc is not intuitive or easy.

However, the personnel screens are what did me in the end. Got an injury to a WR who was a FL/SE in some formations, and a slot in others, pulled up the offensive personnel screen, started to work out who would be best moved into which position for the first personnel group for that one week, and thought 'I'm gonna have to do this nine more times on this screen, and then redo it all over next week... You know what, I really can't be bothered'

I've thought about it, and to me it would be easier if there was a simple list of each of the positions: FL, SE, slot, TE1, TE2, RB, LT, LG, C, etc and for each one we specified our top three players. This would apply to all formations, but you specified a 3rd down back and a short yardage back, and blocking TE needs to be a separate position too for short yardage situations.

If a player is injured and out, there would no need to reset the list if you didn't want to, the game would just move to the next player on the depth chart. If injured but active, you might want to move them up/down according to the injury/back up ability. But even this would mean one or two changes rather than multiple changes for multiple formations, and would give you just as much control as the current system.

As there's no playing time specification any more (and this is why I think the personnel usage might be broken) the game should sub in players when starters begin to feel tired, just like FOF7 did. And in pre-season this should happen a lot. Just before giving up, I had a pre-season game where Jay Ajayi ran the ball 27 times, there were two QB scrambles and two end arounds. No backup RB had a carry. This is either a bug that needs to be fixed, or we need to be able to dictate percentage usage again.

Similarly on defense, I think two lists for each position would work: run/pass, you list starter and back-up for each position against both the run and the pass. The game then puts in the relvant people for goalline, base, nickel and dime/prevent according to the situation/your teams ability.

While I dislike the offensive personnel screen and way it seems to work, I hate the defensive one, in that you can never vary the defensive formation against certain offensive personnel groups. E.g. you will never play nickel for example against a 212 formation, even if you have the best front seven in the league but absolute scrubs for DBs, the game will not (as I understand it) allow a gameplan/rex to use nickel as the base package against 212 to play an extra DB and hope that the front six as it would become can be stiff enough against the run.

These personnel screens and fixed defensive packages seem to me to be a huge backwards step from FOF7, as does the system of not subbing in players (assuming that it is currently working as intended) and the new menus.

When I fire up FOF7 again, I will miss being have to have two FA cards up at the same time to compare, and I will miss the extra sortability of the stats, but tbh that's all I will miss.

Hopefully that has clarified my previous post, and given some more constructive feedback on my reasoning. Obviously these are my opinions and mine only, and I think I am almost certainly in a very small minority.
Has Jim said anything, anywhere about these changes?
Maybe we understand these new modules better if Jim explained to us what his philosophy, his thinking was here?

[garion333]

Oddly enough, I'm actually finding myself feeling much like AlexB. In sp, I only ever draft and handle free agency. I use sp to keep fresh on drafting, really, since the AI is simply too easy for me to beat.

That said, I'm not finding myself settling into the UI. The "Put Yourself in the Front Office" screen isn't something I'm liking at all. Honestly I think it would be more useful on a tablet or touchscreen than using a mouse. It's certainly large enough to be used that way.

I feel like I can adjust to that screen though, even if I probably will never click on certain features anymore since they're buried (ie. Green Page, Sage, Sports Radio, etc.). Those screens held little value of me though were cool to have. Now that I have to navigate the "Put Yourself" screen to find them I pretty much forget they exist.

My absolute least favorite part is that I can't access most of the Gameday - Planning screens outside of the season. This is truly baffling to me. I want to see where I'm putting guys in at so I know where I need to target new players for. Do I have enough coverage LBs for Nickel and Dime? Do I need another Pass Rushing DT/DE? Do I have enough TE's for Goal Line? These are all questions running through my head that I used to have direct access to, visually. Now I can't visual those in the offseason except through the Roster and Position Distribution screens. Really seems like we're arbitrarily locked out of that view for no reason. Perhaps there's a technical one.

I can't help feeling like I'm whining. As I play the game I feel like I should be adjusting, but the more I play the less enthused I am. I'm seriously thinking of dropping out of mp when leagues convert. Maybe it's me, I don't know, but I can't shake the negative feelings I'm having.

[AlexB]

Been thinking about it today, and I've come to believe the game is torn between two identities, and doesn't really fit either perfectly (or it fits the one side that doesn't appeal to me perfectly, but not the one that does!)

From Football Frontier Blog:
The new game features custom offensive playbooks, new player participation charts, a more realistic game planning system modeled after how professional coaches prepare for games, enhanced multi-player support and a more efficient, cleaner user interface.

Front Office Football is designed to represent a snapshot of professional football as it exists under the current salary cap system. You play the role of the general manager of a team and try to maximize team performance and your franchise’s finances.

All of the new features in the first paragraph have nothing to do with being a general manager, which is what the second paragraph states is the aim. There's a more confused identity than before.

And this was part of an answer Jim gave to a suggestion I made on gameplanning on the Steam forum
...Something like this was considered for FOF8, but when I sketched it out I thought it got us right back to why I changed everything around in the first place - it's just not what NFL coaches do...

That last phrase, along with the new features, is what the new game is about. There has always been a bit of a crossover, but the new game is more focussed on the coaching, not the GM role. The FOF name is now more of a misnomer than it was before.

And I think that is my problem: I prefer the GM stuff, with a bit of control over player usage and depth charts than would be the case IRL, but not the gameplanning/coach role. The GM stuff has actually gotten a bit dumbed down over time - staff draft, no inseason renegotiations (although to be fair I never did that anyway for the same reasons Jim took them out - I tried to play to the same calendar as the AI so as not to get an unfair advantage), no development of contracts/salary cap management, etc.

And unfortunately the little bit of control I did enjoy on the playing side is not as effective as it was in FOF7

So it's a philosophical difference that really means the new game is not meant for me, and unfortunately I've only now realised this. However, as said above, based on the fact that some of the patches for FOF in the past felt like new games, I don't regret buying (hell, I even bought Up & Down The River :D ) I just regret not realising what I was buying.

[Hammer]

I am finding the gameplaning side of the game very odd. Not really feeling it. Incredibly complex on one side, yet in others control is taken away.

For me at this point it looks like I cut back to 1 league and play the game properly or hit Rex a lot. I will quickly become disengaged from leagues by hitting Rex. Not ideal.

[Firefly]

I haven't had a chance to play THAT much (15 hours have taken me to the end of Week 2 of season 1 - building my preseason playbook and especially a defensive gameplan took ages). It's a very ambitious version and I love the real football detail in the help file and the game.

My main complaints at this point:
You get 78 or so defensive plays... but you need at least one per situation, leaving you with one play for most situations. It's almost like, instead of setting a run/pass%, you're stuck with fixed strength/weaknesses for the duration. That's incredibly flexible and incredibly rigid at the same time.
Compounding the last point, 3rd and long includes anything from 3rd and 6, maybe less, to 3rd and forever. How do you deal with this. I guess this is where you use your ability to have two defenses, not 1st and 10.
Can't use a kickoff specialist. Even if you have him and make him active, the game won't use him. No personnel screens for kickers.
Speaking of which, the personnel screens are a turn off not of themselves, but because of endurance issues they have to be adjusted every game. If there's an issue with endurance the game should automatically use the backup more instead of having the user remove a player from some formations only to reinsert him again the following week. Too much work here. Again it seems like a case of too much flexibility along with too much rigidity.Will FOF8 be more fun in SP than in MP? I don't know, I'm having visions of GMs running the unexpected play from the unusual formation to exploit the one defense per situation thing. And in MP you'll simply have to do all the work every week.

[QuikSand]

Anyone have a clear sense how "starts" are being assigned? I just noticed that for my last SP season, a WR I used pretty sparingly (23 plays, it appears) was credited with all 16 starts, while my workhorse TE (160 targets) got zero. Before I declare/report it as a bug, posting here to see if anyone else has sorted this out.

[henry296]

Anyone have a clear sense how "starts" are being assigned? I just noticed that for my last SP season, a WR I used pretty sparingly (23 plays, it appears) was credited with all 16 starts, while my workhorse TE (160 targets) got zero. Before I declare/report it as a bug, posting here to see if anyone else has sorted this out.

The NFL counts whoever was on the field for the first play as the starter. What formation is your first take possession.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm...I'll have to look at that. I thought I had Rex re-doing my gameplan every week, but if not, maybe I just had some oddball play/formation as the first scripted play for every game.

I'm aware that's how starts are supposed to work...just hadn't thought through how this could be accurate.

[Ben E Lou]

And if you are using the same game plan each week, don't forget that the sections are scripts, not just random pulls. If the first play in every game is from 104 or 005 and you rarely/never use that package/player again, there ya go.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Yeah, that.

[QuikSand]

FYI, that's the confirmed cause. I had indeed taken control of my gameplan, and the first play listed on 1st/10 to start a drive was a 104 formation, meaning the TE is off the field and the hobo WR was (I guess).

[yabanci]

The ratings order for defensive front players is bad.

It should be changed to:

run defense
pass rush technique
pass rush strength
m2m
zone
b&r
etc

rather than:

run defense
pass rush technique
m2m
zone
b&r
pass rush strength
etc

It's illogical not to have ratings of the same type grouped together as they always had been for defensive linemen and are for every other position. Wish he would change it in a patch.

[yabanci]

Another thing that's very odd is that EVERY defensive end has zero pass defense ability, even if his ideal fit would be at OLB, but EVERY defensive tackle has at least some pass defense ability.

For example, in my game a defensive end like Khalil Mack at 250 lbs whose ideal front fit is a 3-4 WLB is zeroed out in every pass defense rating, but a 350 lb nose tackle like Dontari Poe is actually quite decent in pass coverage.

I wonder if it's a "bug" or whatever you want to call it. If anything, either all defensive linemen should be zeroed out in pass coverage or it should be the other way around (i.e., defensive ends might show some pass coverage ratings but not defensive tackles).

[QuikSand]

Whether that DE/DT coverage thing is a design decision or bug, it ought to be remedied.

[QuikSand]

Ok, next mystery. I'm (unwisely) trying to fiddle with my defensive gameplan. I see that I get a batch of 12 formations to use, up to three per situation. I do not see the pretty common 212 offensive formation anywhere on that menu, so I cannot select what defense I want to use when we face that.

Didn't see anything on this in the help file. I feel like I must be missing something obvious. Is 212 some sort of default that I don't need to enter anything for, perhaps?

[Abe Sargent]

I agree that this game continuously moves in a coach direction when I want fleshed out GM options. I have always asked for more GM options when negotiating contracts. We've actually lost an option. But I want performance bonuses, voidable years, clauses that prevent a trade unless the player agrees, and more. For example, one of the tools modern day Gms use to deal with the future cap is to move money to this year with a bonus for being on the contract at a certain point, rather than the signing bonus or salary. Have 20 mill in cap space this year but you you'll be tight in a couple fo years? You can move future salary from a star player to this year, in guaranteed roster bonus, which does not count as a signing bonus ammelortized over the course of a player;s career.

And these additional options are easy to do.


In real life, an RFA is given a certain offer that matches their status, Other team can make an offer to that RFA and then give the team the option to match or get the draft compensation. That's not how the RFA system works here at all. In real life, can sign a franchise tagged player from another team in real life for two firsts or a right to accept the negotiated offer. Where is that option here?

Where is my transition tag?

Where is my practice squad? In real life, I can have a small practice squad of talent that is not part of the cap, other teams can sign from, and can be used to groom and grow talent right alongside of the rest of my team during the year, even though they can;t play in games. Getting a few UFas in the practice squad to see what they will do over a season of practice with the real folks and how they might grow is something I'd really value.

Where are my waiver claims for players that are cut?

The GM options for this game that resemble real life are often pretty limited. And unfortunately for a GM enthusiast for me, who never touches the coach side of the house, nor do I ever want too, that has never been the direction Jim has ever wanted to take his game. Would I like to see one or two new GM features each gam release to move us closer to reality? Absolutely. But that's not what the brand is.

And the game is fine. It works. There are other games that better represent that side of things out their for their sports, and I just have to hope that someday, either Jim will move FOF towards the GM side of the house for players like me that want that, or another game will come along that does that better than FOF does and I'll be a super happy Abe!

And you all are right, we've lost a few, minor, tools in the GM toolhouse. FOF8 is not the best FOF ever. But it's still FOF and I likes it.

[Jstraub]

GMs in real life also let free agents walk because they can get compensatory draft picks; sometimes as high as a 3rd rounder.

No comp. draft picks in FOF8

[Brian Swartz]

I agree that this game continuously moves in a coach direction when I want fleshed out GM options. I have always asked for more GM options when negotiating contracts. We've actually lost an option. But I want performance bonuses, voidable years, clauses that prevent a trade unless the player agrees, and more. For example, one of the tools modern day Gms use to deal with the future cap is to move money to this year with a bonus for being on the contract at a certain point, rather than the signing bonus or salary. Have 20 mill in cap space this year but you you'll be tight in a couple fo years? You can move future salary from a star player to this year, in guaranteed roster bonus, which does not count as a signing bonus ammelortized over the course of a player;s career.

And these additional options are easy to do.

I agree that all these would be good things; I also am definitely a 'GM player'. I'm not as certain they would be easy to do. Relatively speaking, to implement? Of course. But there are already ample demonstrations of the AI not being able to compete with the current tools. More GM options would almost certainly exacerbate that. I've long-assumed(with some evidence based on conversations with developers of other games and my own middling programming knowledge) that this is one big reason why cap management, contracts, etc. tend to be dumbed-down in these kinds of games. The more things that are available which allow a human to abuse the AI, the easier the game becomes.

Given the choice, I would take the 'simplistic' FOF with better AI over a more complicated system with the AI we presently have. Of course the best of both worlds would be to have both, and I'm well aware that good AI is extremely hard. I don't mean this as a shot at the developer here.

[wustin]

Moving around my players in the personnel screens is too tedious. Also I would like for Rex to generate a conclusive gameplan week by week from the playbook instead of randomly grabbing plays where you pretty much keep rolling until you get the run percentage you want.

And perhaps kick up the passing offense like how it was in FOF7 but I don't care too much about this.

[TAFIV]

Ok, next mystery. I'm (unwisely) trying to fiddle with my defensive gameplan. I see that I get a batch of 12 formations to use, up to three per situation. I do not see the pretty common 212 offensive formation anywhere on that menu, so I cannot select what defense I want to use when we face that.

Didn't see anything on this in the help file. I feel like I must be missing something obvious. Is 212 some sort of default that I don't need to enter anything for, perhaps?

there is a scroll bar 212 is towards bottom

[TroyF]

Just finished a game. I'm leading 23 to 17 with 35 seconds left. The AI has the ball at their 3 yard line on a 4th and forever. He tried to pass and gets sacked in the end zone. I'm now up 25-17 and receiving the kick. My kick returner, a rookie nickle back with decent potential, fumbles the ball on my 14 yard line. The AI thrown in the end zone and. . . the same guy who fumbled intercepted a pass to clinch the win.

I wonder if this guy had any idea of how close his little pixiliated career came to ending.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Just finished a game. I'm leading 23 to 17 with 35 seconds left. The AI has the ball at their 3 yard line on a 4th and forever. He tried to pass and gets sacked in the end zone. I'm now up 25-17 and receiving the kick. My kick returner, a rookie nickle back with decent potential, fumbles the ball on my 14 yard line. The AI thrown in the end zone and. . . the same guy who fumbled intercepted a pass to clinch the win.

I wonder if this guy had any idea of how close his little pixiliated career came to ending.

This is why I play the game, awesome game story.

[aston217]

But I want performance bonuses, voidable years, clauses that prevent a trade unless the player agrees, and more. For example, one of the tools modern day Gms use to deal with the future cap is to move money to this year with a bonus for being on the contract at a certain point, rather than the signing bonus or salary. Have 20 mill in cap space this year but you you'll be tight in a couple fo years? You can move future salary from a star player to this year, in guaranteed roster bonus, which does not count as a signing bonus ammelortized over the course of a player;s career.

And these additional options are easy to do.

I would argue against all of these. The financial system is open-ended and complex enough that a small number of players are able to maximize or even understand it in MP. It's not a level playing field, and part of that is you can't design balance around a system that's too open-ended. It's also just silly, because it devolves to games such as who notices which FAs to update your offers by $80k bonus in each stage.

My teams are routinely signing fairly decent free agents to 3-year, $9M offers with 30k bonus and minimum year one salary; the salary often goes something like 2-3.5-3.5. That qualifies for the veteran minimum and now he costs $1.3M against the cap. If he's any good, I'm happy to keep him the following year, again at no bonus risk to me. I rarely see the veteran minsal line targeted this way.

In your example, those are all cool GMing tools, I agree. But the GMs that use them also employ deeply experienced, full-time numbers crunchers to inform their decisions. Either a few players will really figure out the ins and outs in MP and break the system, or the salary cap must give so much cushion that there's little point in it to begin with. In SP, there's almost no chance for the AI to be intelligent in this area. In effect, a skilled human player pushes the right buttons and gets an "Extra Cap" bonus and then dominates from that elevated position. This is already too mnuch the game.

I'd prefer a strictly controlled environment where balance can be dictated. Players of any skill level make decisions with fairly self-evident risks and rewards, and then deal with it. As opposed to dividing the field between those who figure out the intricacies of the cap game, and those who don't.

On the other hand, things like letting a FA go in order to get a compensatory pick, that I'd love. This isn't about being the GM who squeezes all the cap money into all the right places; it's a simple stay/go decision on a player with relatively straightforward upshots and downshots. Strategic versus mechanical (i.e, numbers crunching, detailed engine knowledge) skill.
---

Similar thoughts on the coaching aspect. I think Jim has to acknowledge both his own strengths and those of his players. He is very, very good at modeling the NFL accurately. We, on the other hand, are very, very bad at knowing what real life stats "should" look like.

The solution is straightforward to me: put almost complete control of modeling the different things NFL coaches do inside the game engine, and expose to the user only a set of very simple, non-game-breaking choices.

I realize the drawback to this is the game loses a lot of its sandbox aspects, but IMO, well-defined realism enforcing game engine limitations are fair game. I'm coming at this mostly from the perspective of balance.

[QuikSand]

Ok, next mystery. I'm (unwisely) trying to fiddle with my defensive gameplan. I see that I get a batch of 12 formations to use, up to three per situation. I do not see the pretty common 212 offensive formation anywhere on that menu, so I cannot select what defense I want to use when we face that.

Didn't see anything on this in the help file. I feel like I must be missing something obvious. Is 212 some sort of default that I don't need to enter anything for, perhaps?

there is a scroll bar 212 is towards bottom

OK, I thought maybe I was losing my mind.

The 212 formation is definitely there when I check on my desktop computer, but it's definitely not there when I search on my laptop. I have some of NawlinsFan's graphics hacks added to the latter -- that must be the problem. I'll post any follow-up in his threads.

Thanks for the feedback.

[QuikSand]

Confirmed - the problem is in the custom elements.bmp file. I've gone back to the original... and as a side note...oh, sweet, sweet red bars how I have missed you.

[sirotka33]

Is there a way to see an individual player's game logs?

[henry296]

Is there a way to see an individual player's game logs?

Yes, open their individual statistics from their player card and click on the year and it brings up the individual game stats.

[sirotka33]

Yes, open their individual statistics from their player card and click on the year and it brings up the individual game stats.

Cheers man, appreciate it.

[yabanci]

This is confusing me a bit, am I missing something?


My starting QB is listed as a running QB. When I generate my offensive playbook, all the offensive plays say Quarterback Playing Style: Long Pass QB.

My backup QB is listed as a long passing QB. When I select him as the starting QB, the exact same plays change to say Quarterback Playing Style: Running Quarterback.


http://imgur.com/a/nSMlF

http://imgur.com/a/bX3o2

[MrBug708]

So I'm in year 2098 and here are some HOF #'s
QB/RB - Plenty of guys, not really an issue.
FB - 0 - In fact, the career leader in rushing yards is at 800 and change
TE - 7 of them, but three of them are Gronk, Gates, and Witten
WR - 5 with one getting 85% of the vote needed. Pretty sad numbers all things considered
Left Tackle - 1 - Joe Thomas
Guard - 1 - A regen guy who made all league second team once
C - 7
Right Tackle - 2, on of which was Peters and the other was a solid guy, nothing more
P - 1 - Which I could buy, but the same as the amount of guards?
K - 4 - I could buy
DE/DT - Plenty of them. Possibly too many?
MLB/OLB - Plenty of them
CB - 4 - Hargraves, Revis, Sherman, and a regen
S - None

I'd assume this needs some tweaking? More Punters than Fullbacks and Safeties combined? More Centers than WR's?

[TroyF]

Amazing season for me. Had won two straight titles. (the first with a rookie QB, the second after he had developed into a beast) Going for the threepeat was tough. Tons of injuries to the OLine and secondary. The offense was still good, but the defense wasn't. I went 11-5 (which easily could have been 9-7.) Lose the division to SD and have to play three straight weeks on the road.

Win all of those games and then face the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. The Cardinals were 5 point favorites. They had the #2 offense and #2 defense in the league. My QB/WR tandem puts on a clinic. 27-33 for 356 and 4 TD's for the QB. 11 catches in 14 targets for the WR totaling 201 yards and 2 TD.

One of the best championship game performances I have ever had.

[wustin]

i lost to a 50 yard hail mary in my last super bowl

edit: and my starting QB went down with a stomach injury in the 3Q. It was frustrating watching the play by play but the back up played very well.

[yabanci]

It looks to me like on the scouting overview and scouting report for every team, the flanker is being listed as the split end and split end as the flanker (including my team, where I know my flanker and split end are in those respective positions in every spot on the depth chart).

Is this a known bug or am I just confused?

[QuikSand]

The SE/FL issue (bug, I think) was in the first set of patch-worthy issues compiled for the developer, and has been re-submitted since then.

I honestly think it's just a graphics bug in the elements.bmp file, but have no technical insight into that.

[sirotka33]

I honestly think it's just a graphics bug in the elements.bmp file, but have no technical insight into that.

Yeah, hopefully that is it. At least in the depth charts it is correct.

[yabanci]

The SE/FL issue (bug, I think) was in the first set of patch-worthy issues compiled for the developer, and has been re-submitted since then.

I honestly think it's just a graphics bug in the elements.bmp file, but have no technical insight into that.

Thanks, I thought it might just be graphics too, but if you look at any team's scouting report (game day>reports>scouting report), they list wrong there too even though it doesn't use graphics. In any event, it must be a cosmetic bug only otherwise it would have been a priority fix for the first patch (I would think).

[MizzouRah]

So I'm Cleveland and we go 6-9-1 what the heck! :( Guess that franchise QB isn't coming my way anytime soon.

[cdunlap]

When watching games, the plays should be shown even when not calling plays for all teams, instead of just a blank section to the right of the scoreboard. The play diagrams should be shown for CPU teams.

[cdunlap]

When choosing show games on the scoreboard, why does it stop on every game after it is simulated instead of automatically going to the next and finishing out the week. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. You have to click on "Exit after Week" to move to the next game.

[MizzouRah]

It's crazy how this game is so immersive.. really speaks highly of Jim's talent. I don't need graphics to visualize my players and it boggles my mind. :)

[garion333]

This is confusing me a bit, am I missing something?


My starting QB is listed as a running QB. When I generate my offensive playbook, all the offensive plays say Quarterback Playing Style: Long Pass QB.

My backup QB is listed as a long passing QB. When I select him as the starting QB, the exact same plays change to say Quarterback Playing Style: Running Quarterback.


http://imgur.com/a/nSMlF

http://imgur.com/a/bX3o2

I'd report that as a bug and let Jim figure it out.

[wustin]

Does anyone have an issue when loading your defensive playbook? The last three red zone downs are always blank and you can never add plays to them because the game thinks you have 78 defensive plays saved already even if you have way less than that.

I have to manually re-do the gameplanning every year because of this because Rex does a poor job at selecting defenses.

[SplitPersonality1]

Wow.

Haven't visited FOFC for quite some time. Imagine my surprise when I saw that FOF8 came out a few weeks ago. Thanks for the early Christmas present Jim. Can't wait to play it.

[Jukeman]

Didn't play FOF7 much or any other FOF for that matter because I felt the game was made more for multiplayer which I don't have much interest in. With that said, I am happy with FOF8. AI is so much better than the previous versions I tried out. There are a few things that bother me like not being able to determine playing time and the lack of control on defense. The concept of a staff draft is just weird to me, and a red flag was drawn when the Cowboys decided to draft another HC instead of retaining Garrett even though he coached them to a 15-3 Super Bowl victory... I am guessing his low Head coach suitability rating was the culprit for the decision. Garrett ended up as an assistant coach for the previous 5-11 Panthers :eek:

Other than that, the game is going in the right direction for me to finally buy the game.

[beauforsure]

havent purchased it yet, but reading thru the majority of this thread , it seems like a mixed bag. And seems that some of the the newer stuff in game is rather small. im not sure i can say from reading that FOF 8 is better than 7. the fact you cant assign a backup or even choose the backup during a game is a glaring omission. The AI seems to be average at best when using it to set lineups etc. even on the CPU side. i thought 7 was at least stable enough .

[beauforsure]

The concept of a staff draft is just weird to me, and a red flag was drawn when the Cowboys decided to draft another HC instead of retaining Garrett even though he coached them to a 15-3 Super Bowl victory... I am guessing his low Head coach suitability rating was the culprit for the decision. Garrett ended up as an assistant coach for the previous 5-11 Panthers :eek:


couldnt agree more. thats not good. in reality that wouldnt happen. ex. Harbaugh had 1 year after the 49ers SB run until the wheels fell off. and thats a huge exception in reality. most cases HC gets a long run after a SB win. This should prb be looked at and patched .

[Ben E Lou]

couldnt agree more. thats not good. in reality that wouldnt happen. ex. Harbaugh had 1 year after the 49ers SB run until the wheels fell off. and thats a huge exception in reality. most cases HC gets a long run after a SB win. This should prb be looked at and patched .No, no, a thousand times, NO. If I am coming off of 4 straight Super Bowl wins and my HC is 65 Suitability and there's an 70 Suitability guy that I can get, my HC is getting fired. Period.

And in the interest of the AI being as competitive as possible, I want it to do the *exact* same thing.

If Jim wants to make a big change to the way the game works and incent me to keep my HC despite a better one being available, I'm all for that, sure. However, absent that, I want the AI go all out and do the same unrealistic stuff I would do.

[BishopMVP]

No, no, a thousand times, NO. If I am coming off of 4 straight Super Bowl wins and my HC is 65 Suitability and there's an 70 Suitability guy that I can get, my HC is getting fired. Period.

And in the interest of the AI being as competitive as possible, I want it to do the *exact* same thing.

If Jim wants to make a big change to the way the game works and incent me to keep my HC despite a better one being available, I'm all for that, sure. However, absent that, I want the AI go all out and do the same unrealistic stuff I would do.Yeah, it's always weird to see Belichick fired for Josh McDaniels in almost every career, but it should be that way for the AI too. Now, I wouldn't mind some sort of cohesion bonus for keeping the same staff for awhile - it is weird that players get that bonus for staying together, but there's none for playing under the same system. Iirc TCY had a bonus for your OC running the same offensive system for several years in a row.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the amount of feedback the thread has provided. Effectively serving as "reviews" without the confines of being structured as such.

The discussions about the depth chart/playing time were critical in my (well, largely my son's) buy/no buy decision.

[TroyF]

Yeah, it's always weird to see Belichick fired for Josh McDaniels in almost every career, but it should be that way for the AI too. Now, I wouldn't mind some sort of cohesion bonus for keeping the same staff for awhile - it is weird that players get that bonus for staying together, but there's none for playing under the same system. Iirc TCY had a bonus for your OC running the same offensive system for several years in a row.


The coaches ratings change at the start of each game. They are named, but they can be WILDLY different than what we perceive them to be. Wade Phillips is the worst DCo in the league 1/2 the time I start up a new career. I now don't even use the real coach file for that reason when I start.

[TroyF]

No, no, a thousand times, NO. If I am coming off of 4 straight Super Bowl wins and my HC is 65 Suitability and there's an 70 Suitability guy that I can get, my HC is getting fired. Period.

And in the interest of the AI being as competitive as possible, I want it to do the *exact* same thing.

If Jim wants to make a big change to the way the game works and incent me to keep my HC despite a better one being available, I'm all for that, sure. However, absent that, I want the AI go all out and do the same unrealistic stuff I would do.

I would keep my coach who had won that many in a row, but I see and agree with your point 100%.

[MizzouRah]

Coaches should be done like FA though and not a draft.. that's so weird to me.

[BishopMVP]

The coaches ratings change at the start of each game. They are named, but they can be WILDLY different than what we perceive them to be. Wade Phillips is the worst DCo in the league 1/2 the time I start up a new career. I now don't even use the real coach file for that reason when I start.Of course. Same reason I used to wish for an option to start with completely random players (not just re-named 6th round pick from Michigan starting at QB for NE) until the awesome Build History option appeared and effectively lets me do that. The X-Factor is just so big that having real names seems largely pointless to me.
Coaches should be done like FA though and not a draft.. that's so weird to me.It's definitely a gimmick, but I like that it makes the financial part mean SOMEthing. Not a lot because I want salary cap management to be 99% of the financial aspect, but unless you played with house rules or really cared about Herb's score before it was basically like you were bidding with monopoly money and could easily assemble the best staff without much effort.

[TroyF]

Coaches should be done like FA though and not a draft.. that's so weird to me.

If coaches are done like FA, we get everyone we want and the AI is screwed. Why would i care about the financial ramifications of overbidding. I'm having the best coach all the time. I like the way the game handles it. If I'm blowing through money, it does have a consequence. I may not get the coaches I want. I like that and always have.

I do get the people who don't though. It is different than other management sims and it isn't realistic. To each his own.

[TroyF]

Bishop: Build history is the only way I play. I usually go about 12 years into the future. Enjoying the heck out of that feature.

[MizzouRah]

If coaches are done like FA, we get everyone we want and the AI is screwed. Why would i care about the financial ramifications of overbidding. I'm having the best coach all the time. I like the way the game handles it. If I'm blowing through money, it does have a consequence. I may not get the coaches I want. I like that and always have.

I do get the people who don't though. It is different than other management sims and it isn't realistic. To each his own.

You might have a point.. I guess I'm used to all the other text sims out there and how you negotiate with coaches just like players. I guess it does even the playing field so to speak.

[aston217]

Maybe FA should be done like the staff draft, hehe ;-)

[yabanci]

If coaches are done like FA, we get everyone we want and the AI is screwed. Why would i care about the financial ramifications of overbidding. I'm having the best coach all the time. I like the way the game handles it. If I'm blowing through money, it does have a consequence. I may not get the coaches I want. I like that and always have.

I do get the people who don't though. It is different than other management sims and it isn't realistic. To each his own.

Agreed. I scoffed when I first heard about it, but the results are great. It was a very clever idea and well implemented imo. I like that kind of out of the box thinking where appropriate as long as it's not overdone.

[NawlinsFan]

No, no, a thousand times, NO. If I am coming off of 4 straight Super Bowl wins and my HC is 65 Suitability and there's an 70 Suitability guy that I can get, my HC is getting fired. Period.

And in the interest of the AI being as competitive as possible, I want it to do the *exact* same thing.

If Jim wants to make a big change to the way the game works and incent me to keep my HC despite a better one being available, I'm all for that, sure. However, absent that, I want the AI go all out and do the same unrealistic stuff I would do.


I agree but would love one added change that being that if my coach is under contract and you poach him then I should receive some form of compensation in return. Something like this:

“Except for head coaches and high-level club employees (club presidents, general managers, and persons with equivalent responsibility and authority), clubs are not permitted to exchange draft choices or cash for the release of individuals who are under contract to another organization,” the league’s anti-tampering policy states. When coaches are traded, it doesn’t happen the same way players are traded.* Typically the coach’s contract doesn’t get shipped to a new team.* Instead, the two teams agree on compensation (draft picks and/or cash) that would be exchanged if the new team works out a contract with the coach. *If that happens, the current team releases the coach in exchange for the compensation."

[Jukeman]

And that is a reason why I stay away from online leagues (online games in general) it's almost always about the numbers rather than immersion.

If your head coach wins 4 straight SB's, then I am guessing he's more than suitable to be a head coach. The suitability number shouldn't be static if we are basing staff hirings on just that. What is the formula that comes up with the suitabilty rating? In no way should a unemployed career offensive coordinator be more suitable than a head coach who just lead a 15-3 team Tina Superbowl victory. Which is what happened in my game.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

[beauforsure]

And that is a reason why I stay away from online leagues (online games in general) it's almost always about the numbers rather than immersion.

If your head coach wins 4 straight SB's, then I am guessing he's more than suitable to be a head coach. The suitability number shouldn't be static if we are basing staff hirings on just that. What is the formula that comes up with the suitabilty rating? In no way should a unemployed career offensive coordinator be more suitable than a head coach who just lead a 15-3 team Tina Superbowl victory. Which is what happened in my game.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

yea exactly. Immersion is why i play this game mostly. Its almost as if the suitable rating was intended to be a "chemistry" rating but its almost the exact opposite of that. I think that would be more immersive to me if your staff had "chemistry" ratings also along with the scheme stuff. i think thatd be cooler anyway and would take more effort to find a coach who fits in rather than hes a good coach by rating. After 4 SB wins your wouldnt think about firing your coach since he fits in so well. :)

[Ben E Lou]

Ummmm...my comment had absolutely nothing to do with online leagues. It's for *single* player. Let's get rid of the terminology, then. This is the scenario:

COACH A won four straight Super Bowls
COACH B is available to me and is *BETTER* than COACH A.

What do I mean by "better?" I mean this:

Coach A is 70 in Motivation. Coach B is 80.
Coach A is 65 in Disciple. Coach B is 75.
Coach A is 85 in Young Player Development. Coach B is 95
Coach A is 75 in Scouting. Coach B is 85.
Coach A is 60 in Player Development. Coach B is 70.

The "Suitability" rating is simply a combination of the numbers.



I am grabbing Coach B in Single Player. And I will do it Every. Single. Time.

And because I want the AI to be as strong against me as possible, I want the AI to get rid of the "good-enough" guy they had and get the BETTER coach. Because, here's the thing: if the AI doesn't grab that better coach, *I* might be the next guy up, and therefore it makes the game easier for me because I get the better coach that the AI passed up, and now I have a better coach than the AI team that beat me last year.

And again, sure, I'd love it if the game mechanism were changed so that there's a reason for me to keep Coach A. But with the way the game works, in Single Player, the AI needs to grab Coach B in that scenario.

[TroyF]

And that is a reason why I stay away from online leagues (online games in general) it's almost always about the numbers rather than immersion.

If your head coach wins 4 straight SB's, then I am guessing he's more than suitable to be a head coach. The suitability number shouldn't be static if we are basing staff hirings on just that. What is the formula that comes up with the suitabilty rating? In no way should a unemployed career offensive coordinator be more suitable than a head coach who just lead a 15-3 team Tina Superbowl victory. Which is what happened in my game.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk


I stay away from online because I always THINK I have the time to do it and then don't. This ends up screwing whatever league I get in.

Having said that, I agree 100% about the immersion factor of SP. I am not firing a coach who just won me ONE Super Bowl the following year because a better coach comes along.

I'm going to overspend to keep a player who has played well for me on occasion. When I get in the middle of a good, long SP career, I am involved in my team to a ridiculous degree. I remember when that undrafted RB filled in for 3 games and played fantastic. I remember when the top draft pick blew his knee out. Sure, the numbers still matter, but they aren't the overriding thing. I love the immersion.

[Ben E Lou]

Its almost as if the suitable rating was intended to be a "chemistry" rating but its almost the exact opposite of that. No, it wasn't. I teased out the correlations in FOF7, and can do it again for FOF8, but to be clear, it's just like the current/future "overall" ratings that we see for players: a combination of all of the ratings, weighted differently for different coaching attributes. I have a 50+ year career and will do the correlations right now.

[Ben E Lou]

I stay away from online because I always THINK I have the time to do it and then don't. This ends up screwing whatever league I get in.

Having said that, I agree 100% about the immersion factor of SP. I am not firing a coach who just won me ONE Super Bowl the following year because a better coach comes along.

I'm going to overspend to keep a player who has played well for me on occasion. When I get in the middle of a good, long SP career, I am involved in my team to a ridiculous degree. I remember when that undrafted RB filled in for 3 games and played fantastic. I remember when the top draft pick blew his knee out. Sure, the numbers still matter, but they aren't the overriding thing. I love the immersion.To be clear, I'm perfectly fie with the human player doing that. That's great if it's more fun that way. What I strongly push back against in this and all text sims is intentionally weakening the AI in the name of immersion, which is what these guys were suggesting should happen.

[Ben E Lou]

Here's the FOF7 info on suitability. These correlations have definitely changed for FOF8--at least for HC, which is the one I've looked at so far.

Importance Of Each Staff Rating: Correlations Of Staff Attributes To Suitability - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=90271)

[garion333]

If your head coach wins 4 straight SB's, then I am guessing he's more than suitable to be a head coach. The suitability number shouldn't be static if we are basing staff hirings on just that. What is the formula that comes up with the suitabilty rating? In no way should a unemployed career offensive coordinator be more suitable than a head coach who just lead a 15-3 team Tina Superbowl victory. Which is what happened in my game.


A couple things stick out to me here.

(1) No real NFL coach wins four Super Bowls in a row, that only happens in FOF because of human advantage. I can win four Super Bowls with a terrible Head Coach.

(2) Of course there will sometimes be better coaches on offer come the next seasons even if my Head Coach won a lot of games. The suitability isn't an arbitrary number, it's a rating based off of the skill/bars present, as Ben talked about.

A game will always have a give/take for immersion factor and coaching in FOF tends on the less immersive side of things for sure. A lot of the game is abstracted, but the underlying stats engine is so damn tight I'm okay with less immersion.

If you want more immersion from coaching then I can see your grievances, but just because someone wins a Super Bowl doesn't immediately make them The Best Head Coach. If immersion is important to you then maybe make up a story that says the unemployed OC was a baseball stats guru who decided he wanted to try his hand at something new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_DePodesta) so he joined up to be a FOF coach. If immersion is super important you can find a way to make it immersive. Coach win a Super Bowl but get fired? Maybe his owner is an asshat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Johnson_(American_football_coach)#Dallas_Cowboys).

You can find a way to make the game immersive, even in spite of its flaws. :thumbsup:

[albionmoonlight]

Sure, the numbers still matter, but they aren't the overriding thing. I love the immersion.

THIS is what I am recapturing with this version. I had a RB who put up really good numbers for a couple seasons. Then he was a cap casualty. Years later, I noticed him in FA as a 32/32 vet who had bounced around putting up 3ypc for different teams. So I signed him to a 3 year deal to be my 4th RB. I imagined him serving as a half-player/half-PR guy, staying late after practice to take selfies with fans and soak it all in.

I haven't had this level of immersion with FOF in years.

[TroyF]

To be clear, I'm perfectly fie with the human player doing that. That's great if it's more fun that way. What I strongly push back against in this and all text sims is intentionally weakening the AI in the name of immersion, which is what these guys were suggesting should happen.

And to be clear for me: I am in 100% agreement with your take on the AI. I want the AI to do EVERYTHING in its power to beat me within the laws of the game. If that means firing a coach because another one is 1 point higher in so be it. If it means moving the team to Portland because it generates a crap ton of more revenue, I'm good with it.

The immersion I'm talking about only plays with me. I will not fire a coach who just won me a title, even if I've been trying to replace him for two years and just couldn't. I don't want the AI thinking like that.

[Jukeman]

Ummmm...my comment had absolutely nothing to do with online leagues. It's for *single* player. Let's get rid of the terminology, then. This is the scenario:

COACH A won four straight Super Bowls
COACH B is available to me and is *BETTER* than COACH A.

What do I mean by "better?" I mean this:

Coach A is 70 in Motivation. Coach B is 80.
Coach A is 65 in Disciple. Coach B is 75.
Coach A is 85 in Young Player Development. Coach B is 95
Coach A is 75 in Scouting. Coach B is 85.
Coach A is 60 in Player Development. Coach B is 70.

The "Suitability" rating is simply a combination of the numbers.



I am grabbing Coach B in Single Player. And I will do it Every. Single. Time.

And because I want the AI to be as strong against me as possible, I want the AI to get rid of the "good-enough" guy they had and get the BETTER coach. Because, here's the thing: if the AI doesn't grab that better coach, *I* might be the next guy up, and therefore it makes the game easier for me because I get the better coach that the AI passed up, and now I have a better coach than the AI team that beat me last year.

And again, sure, I'd love it if the game mechanism were changed so that there's a reason for me to keep Coach A. But with the way the game works, in Single Player, the AI needs to grab Coach B in that scenario.

My comment didn't really have anything to do with online leagues as well, just making a point that in a non competitive league with just myself, I wouldn't be too caught up in numbers. Thats like getting rid of a player even though his stats were great in favor of a player with good ratings who put up similar numbers but cost more. In FOF, does good ratings always equal good stats? In OOTP, a player can perform well below or beyond his ratings.

I figured the suitability rating was made up of those things. If you want staff to just be a bonus modifier than yea I get the reasoning wanting the AI to get the best "upgrade" while ignoring the coach's history. IMO those ratings are a good start but a scheme or system along with how well a coach fits his players in it should also matter. Which brings up a suggestion that the Head coach's play style should overwrite the coordinator. For example, if my head coach is offensive, then we should use his offensive playbook instead of the offensive coordinator and the defense should be based on the defensive coordinator.

[Ben E Lou]

My comment didn't really have anything to do with online leagues as well,Do WHUT???? :confused: And that is a reason why I stay away from online leagues (online games in general) it's almost always about the numbers rather than immersion.

[yabanci]

interesting tidbit buried in the Solecismic Software (aka "about us") selection of the help file:

Over the years, I've collected many design ideas for modeling professional football. Some were inspired by trips to the NFL Hall of Fame Museum in Canton, Ohio, where I was allowed to visit their research room and examine recent playbooks and other coaching material. I came up with a design for play-calling that mirrors how many NFL coaches prepare for games.

[Ben E Lou]

The MP upload/download process is a *lot* faster due to some file compression that Jim is doing now.

[Jukeman]

Do WHUT???? :confused:

Well in my first post I mentioned that I haven't purchased the game in the past because it wasn't up to par for single player and said the game was great with multi player in mind and also made a comment that I have no interest in multiplayer player hence the non purchase. You happen to come along and gave a spot on example of why I don't play online. Your example is what I have experienced playing online leagues. Maybe you would make that move in your single player save but I certainly would not.

[Sharkn20]

Do the combines change during their careers?? Or a player who came in the FOF with let´s say 4,30 seconds in the 40 Yard Dash, will retire with 4,30 seconds in the 40 Yard Dash? Can they reduce the combine numbers, or increase them??