Unpacking the plus/minus in FOF game logs

[QuikSand]

So, I have occasion to look closely at some game logs (rare for me these days) and came across this play:


3-4-LAC34 (4Q: 06:47) Rico Sharp pass was intended for TE Shaquille Irwin and was intercepted by CB Lorenzo McWilliams at the LAC31. Tackled by Shaquille Irwin.
OFFENSE 122 Personnel, Strong formation, Shotgun DEFENSE 43 Under, Regular Personnel, Press-2
QB R.Sharp
*** LDE J.Woods Rush Passer +++
X(SE) C.Howe Outlet, 3 Comeback (9-12) --- 1tcDT T.Morrison Rush Passer +++
TE S.Irwin Primary, 3 Comeback (9-12) --- 3tcDT A.Cole Rush Passer +++
Z(FL) R.Mason Secondary, 5 Deep Out (13-18) --- RDE W.Poles Rush Passer +++
RB J.Dole Outlet, 3 Comeback (9-12) --- SLB C.Tatum Short Zone +++
TE B.Beltran Outlet, 5 Deep Out (13-18) +++ MLB B.Gaylor Short Zone +++
LT C.Blair
--- WLB D.Benton Short Zone +++
LG N.Duncan
+++ LCB D.Vinnick Bump and Run +++
C B.Davidson
--- RCB L.McWilliams Bump and Run +++
RG A.Sherman
--- SS C.Norton Deep Zone +++
RT J.Cortez
+++ FS R.Horn Deep Zone +++3-4-LAC34 (4Q: 06:47) Rico Sharp pass was intended for TE Shaquille Irwin and was intercepted by CB Lorenzo McWilliams at the LAC31. Tackled by Shaquille Irwin.

So, my basic understanding is that each player gets some kind of dice roll to see whether he fulfills his duty for the play, yielding either a +++ or a --- in these detailed logs. Those outcomes presumably guide whether the play is successful, in some hidden ways. So far, so good.

To me, this feels a lot like the PFF player-based grading system, I get it. Fine. If the right tackle fails his dice roll and gets a --- for the play, then there's a higher chance that the ball carrier it stuffed behind the LOS for a bad play.

I see lots of plays where my team's offense yielded all ten non-QB players a +++ grade, and then a variety where there were one or two --- grades mixed in. Then there's a play like the one above...


What the heck happened there? 7 of 10 guys messed up. That seems like more than an unlucky series of unconnected events.

Trying to think of this from a programming point of view (as opposed to a football one)... maybe this was the coach failing a "discipline" dice roll? Seems like it had to be something material, right?


Anyway...for those who have dug more deeply into this stuff than I have, any insights? Does this happen a lot? Do we have any knowledge whether these +++/--- things happen forward or reverse? (cf. key run blocks) Anything from the "documentation" that gives us any insight whatsoever here?

[user name]

I opened up my most recent game log and was able to find a play where we had 7 players get negative grades on a play where we took a sack. So on that smallest of sample sizes I would guess it happens often enough

[QuikSand]

So, maybe I'm not phrasing my question clearly enough.

I get that it can happen, and I don't doubt that it happens with more frequency than merely the random alignment of a lot of independent bad dice rolls. My guess is that this happens because of something.

My best theory, backed by nothing at all, is that this is part of the in-game implementation of the coach's "discipline" rating -- and that the game has some sort of routine that says "a low-discipline coach will have a team more prone to being confused or unprepared... so, if the coach fails a discipline test on a given play, the players will behave in a way like they didn't practice correctly...and the way FOF does that is to trigger the negative execution switch, so we will do that for multiple players on that play and let it collapse into a bad result."

[Ben E Lou]

Why discipline and not playcalling? We know that discipline is heavily linked to penalties.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola

Here is what has always bugged me....

Coaches are rated for their ability to develop players as well as their ability to develop young players. They are rated for their ability to motivate players, which is valuable only for head coaches during a game. They are rated for discipline, which is valuable only for head coaches and affects a team's propensity to commit penalties. They are rated for play calling, which is valuable only for offensive and defensive coordinators. They are rated for interviewing ability, which affects the accuracy of information gleaned from scouting combine interviews. They are rated for scouting, which affects the accuracy of scouting players.


Development & Young Player Development--Explained
Motivation--Explained, though somewhat muddy.

Discipline--Explained
Play Calling--???
Interviewing--Explained
Scouting---Explained


There was an attempt to explain every other coach rating, but play calling...nothing. It would seem odd if every other rating had a specific use and this one is just a plain ol' .985<--->1.015 success modifier. I've speculated that it allows a few more of the odd formations on offense to be run without familiars. (There's a small amount of anecdotal evidence to back that up.) A saving throw against play calling wouldn't be surprising.

[QuikSand]

Why discipline and not playcalling? We know that discipline is heavily linked to penalties.

I'm open to anything. Playcalling and a coordinator flaw... sure, that could be as well. Just trying to get into the mind of the developer here, assuming an absence of documentation that really settles this clearly.

Your selected text would seem to support playcalling, more than discipline. Got it. Same theory, different dice roll. I'm open to it.

[user name]

I just combed half a season of logs and I can't find any instances of defense having more than 5 negative players on one play. Maybe the parameters are different for defense?

[Ben E Lou]

I just combed half a season of logs and I can't find any instances of defense having more than 5 negative players on one play. Maybe the parameters are different for defense?
Check the playcalling of your offensive and defensive coordinators.

[QuikSand]

playcalling?

...just opened the league with the game log excerpted above, with the offense running that Keystone Kops situation...

The OC's playcalling? About 22.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[user name]

Check the playcalling of your offensive and defensive coordinators.

it is ~52 for both, which makes me think maybe the "bad play" roll looks different on offense than it does on defense.

[QuikSand]

it is ~52 for both, which makes me think maybe the "bad play" roll looks different on offense than it does on defense.

perhaps

or perhaps a half season for one team is too small a sample size


it's an interesting twist...and for those of us who have just taken on faith that playcalling is important because we're told that's so... maybe the frequency of this messy situation is so low it's just flown under tyhe radar this whole time, as we dwell on outcomes for mainly high-playcalling coordinators' teams...

[garion333]

I've long had low Play Calling coordinators in FOF8 MP in order to get better scouting bars. I did this because I took over two historically bad teams, which put me in low position in the staff draft, so I prioritized the scouting bars.

How much of an effect this has on my teams, I don't know ATM as I will have to go through a lot of logs, BUT I've long thought that the Playcalling bar in FOF8 is stupid since playcalling was handed to the user. What is the point of a playcalling bar when we setup all the plays? A general success check? If so, ugh. Why put all this work into gameplanning if an OC's shitty bar keeps it from working?

We don't even know if the coach's bars are a one-time dice roll at the beginning of the game which applies to all dice rolls during the game or if they happen on every play. For simplicity's sake, my guess is Motivation and Discipline are rolled before the game and applied to dice rolls throughout the game. Or even possibly done at the beginning of the season. Then the result of that dice roll is a season-long buff or debuff (depending on result) that influences everything through the season or game. All pure speculation, of course.

Also, as far as defense getting more positives then negatives (assuming this is an actual thing that occurs) it makes sense from a design standpoint. Offense needs to be kept in check statistically and one way Jim can do this is by putting the onus on the offense to hit more of their dice rolls. So, the offense gets more negatives because he made it harder for them to succeed.