FOF4 - One thing still bugs me

[MizzouRah]

I really wish playoff games would sell out. I just played Tampa Bay, post patch (c) and they had 8,200 no shows. Why is this?



Todd

[Buccaneer]

It's the AI. What did you expect?

Here's another one (TCY but somewhat related):

I get a final end-of-season score of Team=74, Recruit=100 and TV=75. Problem was that I finished ranked #78 with a 5-6 record, had a recruiting class ranked #85 and ranked #67 in TV revenues. Did I deserve those scores or are the miscalcuated fluff like attendance figures?

[vtbub]

For TCY, wouldn't that depend on what school you were?

If you got those numbers for Vandy, it would be a lot more impressive than Ohio State.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by MizzouRah
I really wish playoff games would sell out. I just played Tampa Bay, post patch (c) and they had 8,200 no shows. Why is this?



Todd

Fan loyalty has the same effect on post season games as it has on regular season games. All your home games will sell the same amount of seats all year long. It's a bit absurd. In my "Football in Sacramento" dynasty, I've won like 7 titles and still don't sell out home playoff games.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by vtbub
For TCY, wouldn't that depend on what school you were?

If you got those numbers for Vandy, it would be a lot more impressive than Ohio State.

It shouldn't since each team is measured against all others. Is my 100 recruiting score based on those teams with the same record or what? Seems like team, recruit and TV are relative but attendance and polls are not. How about performance scores that reflect some sense of standardization? This is like the financial "score" in FOF where it becomes meaningless.

[MizzouRah]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Fan loyalty has the same effect on post season games as it has on regular season games. All your home games will sell the same amount of seats all year long. It's a bit absurd. In my "Football in Sacramento" dynasty, I've won like 7 titles and still don't sell out home playoff games.


Yes, I've noticed this as well. I love the game, but it's little things such as these which really keep me from getting immursed into FOF4.

If Jim still visits here, can't little things such as these get fixed? I know patch 'c' was the last patch per you, but is there a chance we can get a patch 'd' or are we SOL?

Since I know little about programming, maybe issues such as these would take tons of work, if that's the case, disreguard my plea.


Todd

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Is my 100 recruiting score based on those teams with the same record or what?
I believe the recruiting score is based upon the players you recruit to replace your graduating class. My guess would be that your outgoing seniors were pretty poor and that your replacements were notably better.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
It shouldn't since each team is measured against all others. Is my 100 recruiting score based on those teams with the same record or what? Seems like team, recruit and TV are relative but attendance and polls are not. How about performance scores that reflect some sense of standardization? This is like the financial "score" in FOF where it becomes meaningless. You're dead wrong there. The recruiting score is based on improvement above the graduating class. The recruiting ranking is measured against all others.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by SkyDog
You're dead wrong there. The recruiting score is based on improvement above the graduating class. The recruiting ranking is measured against all others.

Ok, here's the before and after:

Grad Sr (not all starters)

QB - 26/48
RB - 20/34
FB - 54/54
TE - none
WR - 38/38, 29/31
C - none
G - 61/61
T - none
P - none
K - 66/68
DE - 32/36
DT - 28/28
ILB - none
OLB - 31/37
CB - 22/24, 19/29
S - 33/52

Incoming Fr (those with scholarships)

QB - 12/48
RB - none
FB - none
TE - 31/72
WR - 23/77
C - none
G - 20/73
T - 6/50
P - none
K - 9/83
DE - 10/37
DT - none
ILB - 6/58
OLB - none
CB - none
S - none

Unless I am not seeing this right, I don't see a 100% improvement. I can see a couple of positions where the potential is really good but outside of that, how did I get 'perfect' improvement between the graduating class and the incoming freshmen?

[Ben E Lou]

It is not a "percentage" score. You don't have to be 100% better to score 100, just like an NFL QB doesn't have to be "perfect" to acheive 158.3. The computer looks at non-scholarship players as well when determining this ranking, I'm fairly certain. Assuming you brought in 16 players, the sheer cumulative effect of having 16 guys coming in and 13 leaving will bump up your score as well I'm sure. Also, you have five guys in your recruit class with nearly as much or more potential as anyone who graduated. That's a significant improvement.

Side question: Why'd you only give 8 scholarships?

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by SkyDog
It is not a "percentage" score. You don't have to be 100% better to score 100, just like an NFL QB doesn't have to be "perfect" to acheive 158.3. The computer looks at non-scholarship players as well when determining this ranking, I'm fairly certain. Assuming you brought in 16 players, the sheer cumulative effect of having 16 guys coming in and 13 leaving will bump up your score as well I'm sure.

Side question: Why'd you only give 8 scholarships?

I do have 16 coming in, 8 was the best I could do and the other 8 were high academics/low ratings players (on a low prestige team). Still it doesn't make sense that I would get a 100/100 and if this is masking something else, why should such a score be so obtuse and unclear?

[Ben E Lou]

It has been clear to me for quite some time. I picture it as a number line, with 50 in the middle. If I get 100, I know that my recruiting class is significantly better than my graduating class. If I get 1, I know that it is significantly worse. If I get around 50, I know it is about the same. Pretty straightforward if you ask me. I think it is good to have two completely different ways of measuring how I'm doing recruiting-wise. (ranking and score) Ranking is how I'm doing against everyone else. Score is how I'm doing against myself. Pretty clear to me.

[Buccaneer]

From the Help:

Recruiting Performance. Each season, you're graded on the perceived value of the recruits you bring to your school. Sign the blue-chippers, and your score in this category is secure.

A score of 100 means that I signed the blue-chippers (it would be hard to find more than one in the class of 16) and that I couldn't have done that much better (I sucked, imo). Do you really see that I did far more significantly better? (Btw, my Academics remained in the top 10 so not a whole lot of improvement there.)

[Ben E Lou]

Imagine you're a college coach. You sign just one guy in a season who might be the best player ever to play at your school. You, and your alums, are very, very happy about it, correct? Now, imagine that you sign FOUR guys in one season who are better than anyone your school has ever graduated. They'd be dancing in the streets.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Imagine you're a college coach. You sign just one guy in a season who might be the best player ever to play at your school. You, and your alums, are very, very happy about it, correct? Now, imagine that you sign FOUR guys in one season who are better than anyone your school has ever graduated. They'd be dancing in the streets.

And it is clear to you that this was what led to me to get a 100 score?

[Ben E Lou]

Yes.

[Buccaneer]

...and just from the ratings listed above, which player(s) are they really excited about? The K?

[nilodor]

I'd have to say that I have seen evidence that supports SkyDog. I remember one year in particular where I brought in a stellar recruiting class, many blue chippers with very good ratings but my graduating class was even better. I had 5 players go on to be first round draft picks in FOF4 and they were all deserving of that in TCY plus another couple that were 2nd rounders. All in all I wound up with a 63 for a recruiting score even though I brought in some of the best talent in the country. I have also had years with decent classes but horrible graduating classes where I have gotten recruiting scores in the high 80's.

[Buccaneer]

I don't dispute that (assuming that 50 is the median). However, something is making this recruiting class much, much better than what I have graduating and damned if I am not seeing something obvious. It is very clear to SkyDog but I think he's just guessing. I ask because 1) I want to repeat this (despite sucking by given only 8 scholarships) and 2) make sure I know which recruits they are extremely ecstatic about so I can pay more attention to them.

[General Mike]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
I don't dispute that (assuming that 50 is the median). However, something is making this recruiting class much, much better than what I have graduating and damned if I am not seeing something obvious. It is very clear to SkyDog but I think he's just guessing. I ask because 1) I want to repeat this (despite sucking by given only 8 scholarships) and 2) make sure I know which recruits they are extremely ecstatic about so I can pay more attention to them.

I'm no TCY expert, but I'll take a shot at what I see. I think you've got a good TE and a good WR coming in. They are both better then the WRs you lost. The QBs, its a push. The guy could turn out to be better then the guy you lost. The Guard you brought in is a guy whos gonna need development time, but he could help. The ILB has the upside potential to better then anybody you lost on the defensive side of the ball.

[Buzzbee]

I can also vouch for the number of recruits in your class having an impact. I once ran a career where I was feeding an FOF career with draft classes. My goal in FOF was to have as many Georgia Tech Hall of Famers as I could. As a result, I cheated my ass off (admittedly) so that Tech won the Natl. Championship every year and always had the pick of the top recruits. Due to redshirts and such I would occaisionaly only have 15 scholarships available instead of 16. In those classes where I only had 15 recruits, my recruiting score would be significantly worse. (I wouldn't have non-scholly's in my recruiting class since I was cheating and knew I would win the Natl' Championship). However, I soon realized that having a non-scholly to fill out my class resulted in a higer recruiting score.

Bucc - Since you save your games often, find a saved game where you have 15 recruits committed. Continue on and sign a non-scholarship player. This player, being non-scholly, should have minimal impact on your score. You could even go so far as to reruit the worst possible player. Then, re-sim that same saved game and DON'T recruit anyone else. See how the score differs. This might prove/disprove the "quantity" theory, or at least quantify it a bit.

I'm suspecting that the score will be noticeably better for the full class. Maybe not significantly, but noticeably.

[Buzzbee]

Dola - As I was typing my previous post, a thought occurred to me. Is the game comparing the total potential of the graduating class to the total potential of the incoming class? If so, having an extra player or two, even if marginal, might result in a higher recruiting score. I don't know if actual ability comes into play, but I don't see how it could since you are comparing incoming freshmen to outgoing seniors.

Using the players you posted above, the outgoing class had a total potential of 540. For the 8 incoming players listed I came up with 498. Add in the potential of your 8 non-scholly players and it might be a fair amount higher than the outgoing. I'd be curious to see if there is any correlation to the delta between outgoing and incoming, and the recruiting score.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
I don't dispute that (assuming that 50 is the median). However, something is making this recruiting class much, much better than what I have graduating and damned if I am not seeing something obvious.

Just glancing at it, I suspect it's more of a case of your graduating class being really bad than your recruiting class being really good.

I've also noticed what SkyDog is suggesting and have assumed that's the way it works, but I've never done any kind of detailed look.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
I've also noticed what SkyDog is suggesting and have assumed that's the way it works, but I've never done any kind of detailed look. Jim told us that is the way it works a long time ago.

[Bee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Jim told us that is the way it works a long time ago.

Right...like he'd know.


:D

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
Right...like he'd know.


:D LOL! :D

If I recall, he mentioned it on the message board that was up on his sight for a few weeks after TCY's original release.

[Buzzbee]

Another way to look at it might be as such:

Player Potential<pre>
Incoming Outgoing Diff.
83 68 +15
77 61 +16
73 54 +19
72 52 +20
58 48 +10
50 38 +12
48 37 +11
37 36 +1
</pre>
Listed from highest potential to lowest potential for the incoming freshman class compared to the outgoing senior class.

I don't know the ratings for the 8 non-scholly's, but based on the 8 scholly's, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. :D