New TPF Screenshots

[ScottVib]

Get them here:

http://www.400softwarestudios.com/tpf/tpf_screens.php

Bottom Three are the new ones.

[Franklinnoble]

Geez, Scott, you're such a .400 Studios whore... are they paying you or something?

[ScottVib]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Geez, Scott, you're such a .400 Studios whore... are they paying you or something?

I'm .400 Studios Chief Operating Officer.


(not sure if you were being sarcastic or not)


Edit -
http://www.400softwarestudios.com/bios.php

Third from the top.

[Franklinnoble]

I was being sarcastic, but, hey, now you've had a good excuse to brag about your title to all the chicks here on FOFC.

(see... being sarcastic again... maybe I should use a smilie) ;)

[ScottVib]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I was being sarcastic, but, hey, now you've had a good excuse to brag about your title to all the chicks here on FOFC.

(see... being sarcastic again... maybe I should use a smilie) ;)

Damn.. new I should have been funnier and more cocky in my post. ;) :p

[TLK]

Very nice looking. Looks like they borrowed some their ideas from Ultimate Soccer Manager and that's a good thing.

Quick question-

On the players card and such what are all the buttons for on the bottom (in the lower left-hand corner)?

[Bonegavel]

Looks good.

I just hope you do away with the drop down box for selecting players. I hate drop downs. A list box would be nice (albeit, at a cost in screen-estate). I would post this in your forums, but they are confusing.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by TheLionKing
Very nice looking. Looks like they borrowed some their ideas from Ultimate Soccer Manager and that's a good thing.


Exactly what I was thinking. That's not a bad thing as long as the gameplay is good.

[Celeval]

Hrm.


Ya know, I really don't like them. I love the way the game is coming out, I love the functionality, I love the features...

...but I have to say, I really don't like the screenshots. I don't like the fact that I have to look at bars to compare the ratings of players. That turned me off to TDCB, actually. I greatly prefer the FOF-type interface (which probably puts me in the minority), but ah well.

Kevin

[Ben E Lou]

One concern, on Screen #7:

Total Pro Football gives you a bird's eye view of your football empire. Click any building to access functions associated with that building. You can also earn bonus buildings and upgrades, which provide your franchise with special benefits. (my emphasis)Care to elaborate on that one? The "special benefits" part concerns me. I hope that the RPG aspects of ITP aren't sneaking into this one.

[Ksyrup]

What do the check-marks on some of the green bars represent?

[ScottVib]

Originally posted by Celeval
...but I have to say, I really don't like the screenshots. I don't like the fact that I have to look at bars to compare the ratings of players. That turned me off to TDCB, actually. I greatly prefer the FOF-type interface (which probably puts me in the minority), but ah well.

From Joe on the .400 Boards:

All players are rated in the over 50 ratings and attribute categories. On the player card, only the ones that are really pertinent to the player vis-a-vis his position are shown. However, you can print (to HTML) a player card or cards which will display all the ratings.

Joe


I would guess that with over 50 ratings if all are being displayed that they won't be bars in the reports.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Celeval
...but I have to say, I really don't like the screenshots. I don't like the fact that I have to look at bars to compare the ratings of players. That turned me off to TDCB, actually. I greatly prefer the FOF-type interface (which probably puts me in the minority), but ah well.I agree. Give me numerical or letter grade ratings any day, and the ability to view ratings for several players at once (like an easy way to view all the ratings for everyone in the same position group).

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by SkyDog
One concern, on Screen #7:

Care to elaborate on that one? The "special benefits" part concerns me. I hope that the RPG aspects of ITP aren't sneaking into this one.

I clicked on the GM's office, and there's a coat hanger for your robe and wizard's hat. And if you click on the practice field, there's a rhinoceros pen. These seem like positive attributes to me.

[Celeval]

Originally posted by ScottVib
I would guess that with over 50 ratings if all are being displayed that they won't be bars in the reports.

That's promising, I guess. :-)

Either way, I have enough trust in the company that I'll be buying; just hoping I'll enjoy it.

Kevin

[GrantDawg]

Remember that this is just a player card. There quite possibly will be pages that will allow comparisons and such. At least I hope that is true.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I clicked on the GM's office, and there's a coat hanger for your robe and wizard's hat. And if you click on the practice field, there's a rhinoceros pen. These seem like positive attributes to me. "It doesn't get any more serious than a rhinoceros about to charge your ass."

[ScottVib]

Originally posted by SkyDog
One concern, on Screen #7:

Care to elaborate on that one? The "special benefits" part concerns me. I hope that the RPG aspects of ITP aren't sneaking into this one.

This is what Joe said about that screen shot:

One thing to note on the football complex/campus screen, there are two "non-core" buildings in the screen we posted (meaning, you have to earn those buildings). One is an upgrade, the upgraded Traning Facility that is to the northwest of the stadium. The second is the Micron Wireless Superstore (props to Steve Davis), which you only get if Micron Wireless is your corporate sponsor (and they really, really like you...)

Edit - more on buildings:

Some buildings can be upgraded by spending the money to upgrade the facility. For instance, you might upgrade your practice facilties by allocating capital in your budget to the upgrade (meaning, of course, less money for other things, like signing bonuses, etc.). When the construction is complete, you will get a new visual representation of the structure and begin receiving the benefits (like, +10% practice efficiency, etc.).

Other buildings, "bonus" buildings, are awarded to you based on performance (team performance, financial performance, etc.).

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I clicked on the GM's office, and there's a coat hanger for your robe and wizard's hat. And if you click on the practice field, there's a rhinoceros pen. These seem like positive attributes to me.

Classic. First "run and go change my shorts" post of the day.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by SkyDog
"It doesn't get any more serious than a rhinoceros about to charge your ass."

Exactly.

In fact, I think that should be TPF's slogan:

"TPF - Football as serious as a rhinoceros about to charge your ass!"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by ScottVib
This is what Joe said about that screen shot:

One thing to note on the football complex/campus screen, there are two "non-core" buildings in the screen we posted (meaning, you have to earn those buildings). One is an upgrade, the upgraded Traning Facility that is to the northwest of the stadium. The second is the Micron Wireless Superstore (props to Steve Davis), which you only get if Micron Wireless is your corporate sponsor (and they really, really like you...) Scott:

How 'bout a link to a thread in which Joe participates? I don't have links yet to the two new sites (nor do I remember which game is with which company...)

[Ksyrup]

That sounds cool, actually. As long as we can't upgrade our team's cleats to "new and improved with maxi super wings" or upgrade ourrunning game by purchasing the gun the guy used in the opening segment of The Last Boy Scout, I like the idea of being able to upgrade facilities, presumably based on competitive and financial success.

[ScottVib]

http://www.400softwarestudios.com - Site

http://www.400softwarestudios.com/invboard/upload/index.php? - Forums

http://www.400softwarestudios.com/invboard/upload/index.php?showforum=54 - TPF Gen. Disc. Forum

The quotes came from a couple of posts in the General Discussions forum for TPF

Total Pro Football, Total Pro Basketball, Tournament Dreams, FaceOff Hockey, and Total Extreme Warfare are .400 Software Studios

OOTP, ITP, and Title Bout are OOTP Developments

Thanks for the Sticky Thread! :)

[Ben E Lou]

..and thanks for the links and the game companies.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

Scott, did you get my e-mail?

[ScottVib]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Dola--

Scott, did you get my e-mail?

Yep. and will respond this evening (need to double check on that).

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
That sounds cool, actually. As long as we can't upgrade our team's cleats to "new and improved with maxi super wings" or upgrade ourrunning game by purchasing the gun the guy used in the opening segment of The Last Boy Scout, I like the idea of being able to upgrade facilities, presumably based on competitive and financial success.

I dunno... those features sound kinda cool... maybe you could just toggle them on or off, sort of like the astrology feature in FOF4.

[Joe Stallings]

The Micron Wireless Superstore is a little on the frivolous side, but most of the buildings do play a role in the game. Upgrading your training facilities, your practice field, etc. give you certain bonuses. Of course, upgrades cost money, so do you spend the extra capital you earned last year on upgrading your training center, or do you spend it on Deion's signing bonus? Just trying to offer gamers more choices. The buildings are really abstracted; they are more there for ambience, and as sort of a "trophy case" for GMs (think, CivII's Throne Room).

As for letter/numeric ratings versus graphical representations, that's an age-old argument that I can see both sides of. Maybe me and Arles have been playing too much Star Wars Galaxies. ;)

But seriously, we dont' like pigeon-holing players into, "well, this guy's a '65' and the other guy is an '80.'" IMO, it makes me feel, as a gamer, that I'm just using a tool and not playing a game. Whenever there is a qualitative evaluation of something (like a player's "skill" or "athleticism"), I prefer more of a fog-of-war approach. Of course, if its a player's speed in the 40, or his yards-per-carry, then do show the number. But when you start quantifying things in the game world which aren't quantified in real life, I think you risk the whole suspension of disbelief thing.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Joe Stallings
But seriously, we dont' like pigeon-holing players into, "well, this guy's a '65' and the other guy is an '80.'" IMO, it makes me feel, as a gamer, that I'm just using a tool and not playing a game. Whenever there is a qualitative evaluation of something (like a player's "skill" or "athleticism"), I prefer more of a fog-of-war approach. Of course, if its a player's speed in the 40, or his yards-per-carry, then do show the number. But when you start quantifying things in the game world which aren't quantified in real life, I think you risk the whole suspension of disbelief thing. I've always wondered about this argument. In text sims, we see things "through the eyes of our scout," correct? Now, it seems to me quite plausible and realistic that in real life a scout would have to "rate" all the guys he looks at. Who's the best at open-field running? Well, Joe Schmo, and the scout rates him an A-. What's more plausible, that a scout would hand the GM or head coach a graphical sheet with their evalutations, or a list of grades and perhaps a written report on the player? Clearly, the latter makes more sense. I think a numerical or graded system, with significant potential for scout error, particularly in the "potential ratings" area makes perfect sense. Something to consider.

--Ben

[TroyF]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I've always wondered about this argument. In text sims, we see things "through the eyes of our scout," correct? Now, it seems to me quite plausible and realistic that in real life a scout would have to "rate" all the guys he looks at. Who's the best at open-field running? Well, Joe Schmo, and the scout rates him an A-. What's more plausible, that a scout would hand the GM or head coach a graphical sheet with their evalutations, or a list of grades and perhaps a written report on the player? Clearly, the latter makes more sense. I think a numerical or graded system, with significant potential for scout error, particularly in the "potential ratings" area makes perfect sense. Something to consider.

--Ben

Exactly. There are draft grades with specific numbers. The Sporting news has a point grade on each starter in the NFL this week. If I'm a coach judging which guys make the roser, I'm going to evaluate them on some type of exact scale. (I'd probably use the 1-10 method with tenths of a point myself) Why is it argued so much that in sports games you are looking at a spreadsheet? Why does reality get suspended because numbers are used to rate guys?

If I ask my scout which running back blocks better, what's the difference if he tells me "great, good, fair, poor, pathetic" or gives me a number? Is he going to hold out his hands like a kid and say, "RB #1 is THIS good and RB #2 (shortenting arms) is only this good"

I'm speaking in general terms here. I haven't played the game yet and will reserve judgement until I do. I just think the suspension in reality arguement is a very flawed one.

TroyF

[EagleFan]

Originally posted by Joe Stallings
But seriously, we dont' like pigeon-holing players into, "well, this guy's a '65' and the other guy is an '80.'" IMO, it makes me feel, as a gamer, that I'm just using a tool and not playing a game. Whenever there is a qualitative evaluation of something (like a player's "skill" or "athleticism"), I prefer more of a fog-of-war approach. Of course, if its a player's speed in the 40, or his yards-per-carry, then do show the number. But when you start quantifying things in the game world which aren't quantified in real life, I think you risk the whole suspension of disbelief thing.

So giving a player 9 out of 10 bars on a bar graph isn't pigeon-holing a player?

[Buccaneer]

No reason you can't have the numbers (like 6.2) next to a bar. I prefer the visual of a graphics but others like seeing numbers (or grades better). Why not both?

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by TroyF
Exactly. There are draft grades with specific numbers. The Sporting news has a point grade on each starter in the NFL this week. If I'm a coach judging which guys make the roser, I'm going to evaluate them on some type of exact scale. (I'd probably use the 1-10 method with tenths of a point myself) Why is it argued so much that in sports games you are looking at a spreadsheet? Why does reality get suspended because numbers are used to rate guys?

If I ask my scout which running back blocks better, what's the difference if he tells me "great, good, fair, poor, pathetic" or gives me a number? Is he going to hold out his hands like a kid and say, "RB #1 is THIS good and RB #2 (shortenting arms) is only this good"

I'm speaking in general terms here. I haven't played the game yet and will reserve judgement until I do. I just think the suspension in reality arguement is a very flawed one.

TroyF

Troy, I'm going to have to disagree a little. You are talking about something that is largely subjective (how well a player plays) and assigning an definitive objective score. Sometimes the numbers say 8.1 (out of 10) but you have a hunch that a 7.8 player might be better. I spend a lot of time doing empiracal analyses but even the best model has weaknesses. The only thing that you can get a real sense of is relative strengths and weaknesses. TCY does this to some degree but assigning indexed numbers to groups (Terrific, Excellent,...) - along with an estimate of ability for a recruit. I see very little difference in the way TPF shows ratings and the way TCY does it.

[Joe Stallings]

If I ask my scout which running back blocks better, what's the difference if he tells me "great, good, fair, poor, pathetic" or gives me a number? Is he going to hold out his hands like a kid and say, "RB #1 is THIS good and RB #2 (shortenting arms) is only this good"

I think there are barometers, and perhaps even 5 or 10 point scales. What I *don't* think you see is a scout saying, "Jones is a 77 at route running, Harris is a 78 and Wallace is a 85."

In any case, all of the numbers will be there, they just aren't the first thing you see when opening the player card. Since the eyes can process visual/graphical information faster than text/numbers, we went with the bars so people can get a quick take on players' strengths.

[Draft Dodger]

nice to see Tony Esposito in the game, but his number should be 35, not 48

http://www.400softwarestudios.com/tpf/screens/stats.jpg

[Bee]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
No reason you can't have the numbers (like 6.2) next to a bar. I prefer the visual of a graphics but others like seeing numbers (or grades better). Why not both?

Both seems to make the most sense to me.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Troy, I'm going to have to disagree a little. You are talking about something that is largely subjective (how well a player plays) and assigning an definitive objective score. Sometimes the numbers say 8.1 (out of 10) but you have a hunch that a 7.8 player might be better. I spend a lot of time doing empiracal analyses but even the best model has weaknesses. The only thing that you can get a real sense of is relative strengths and weaknesses. TCY does this to some degree but assigning indexed numbers to groups (Terrific, Excellent,...) - along with an estimate of ability for a recruit. I see very little difference in the way TPF shows ratings and the way TCY does it.

Again, I said I was speaking in general terms. I've seen a single screenshot of the game. I have zero idea what one which compares multiple players looks like. I also understand the "gut" feeling factor where one guy may look better but you want to play the other guy. I'm not sure a bar graph does that any better than a point scale.

All I'm saying is that there really isn't a difference in HOW you come up with your number, letter grade, bar graph, word description, etc. At the end of the day, 99.9% of the gamers will break this information down to their own personal scale and move on from there. Saying one way is suspension in reality and another way is the way things are really done isn't that accurate.

TroyF

[TroyF]

dola,

If I was being critical of the game, I'd wonder why the Eagles were finished with the fourth week of the season and only 13 players were involved in a tackle or that a DE had 8 more solo tackles than the MLB. :) :)

TroyF

[EagleFan]

Originally posted by TroyF
dola,

If I was being critical of the game, I'd wonder why the Eagles were finished with the fourth week of the season and only 13 players were involved in a tackle or that a DE had 8 more solo tackles than the MLB. :) :)

TroyF


Or why there were only 90 total tackles in 3 games. :)

[Karim]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I agree. Give me numerical or letter grade ratings any day, and the ability to view ratings for several players at once (like an easy way to view all the ratings for everyone in the same position group).

Agreed. There will be a whole lot of clicking going on otherwise. This is generally a strength of the FOF series with the scout overview screen.

[rexallllsc]

My $.02:

You can always go with the Fog of War approach but in the end, there are #'s, and I think the best way to present it is through a scout. Now, this scout can give a receiver the following rankings:

Focus/Professionalism: 8
Hands in a game: 7
Speed in pads: 9
Smarts: 6

Those numbers shouldn't be 100% accurate. They should be through a scouts eyes, and depending on the talent of the scout, the numbers could be close to spot on, or pretty off. I don't think those numbers screw with the integrity of the game one bit. Sure, coaches probably don't get that in real life, either...but in real life, coaches get to see their teams practice. In a game, we have to go on a scouts "practice eyes"....because in the end, #'s, graphs, Grades...they can all be totalled into some form of a number....I think it's best to a number model for quick and easy comparison...even if the reports are by different scouts and not even close to 100% accurate.

In short: Everyone just follow the CM model. :)

[kcchief19]

First, very impressed with the screenshots. It's a good looking start.

I have to admit that I don't understand the argument that bars are better than numbers and create a "fog of war" feel. All the bars do is make it more difficult to compare players. Troy is absolutely right. Real-life scouts would never grade a player on a bar -- it's going to be on a numerical or letter grade scale. That bars obviously equate to a numerical value (8 out of 10), but just using the bars and not the numbers makes it much too difficult to easily compare players. What am I supposed to do? Quit my job so I have time to compare all the bars?

Everything Troy and Ben said goes double for me. I would also like to note that ksyrup has been on fire lately in regards to the RPG aspects of sports sims. Gold!

[kcchief19]

Dola -

Between the discussion of ITP and some elements of TPF, I'm getting the distinct feeling that SimGolf has had a huge subconscious impact on the sports sims of .400 and OOTP. That frightens the ever-living crap out of me.

[Arles]

First, there will be a main roster form that will list "ratings" for each player in a numerical format. I haven't quite determined the exact display yet, but you will be able to see it in some form. Also, your coaching staff will impact the accuracy of your players' ratings, while your scouting staff will impact ratings seen for other teams and draft picks. It doesn't make sense to me that some scout on the GB payroll would know more about a Packer player than Mike Sherman. So, that's the way I tried to model it in the game.

As to scouting, there will be some error if you skimp on your staff. So, while you will see some numerical values for ratings, they are only as good as your scouts. Plus, younger players are tougher to evaluate (even with top scouts). So, I have provided a little more empirical data that you can use based on performance. QBs will have bad passes and great passes tracked, RBs will have missed holes and created runs tracked, WRs will have incorrect routes, LBs missed tackles, DBs will get dinged for allowing big plays and so forth. So, my hope is that between a somewhat accurate rating system (again, dep on your scout) and these internal tracking stats, you should have a good picture in your head of how each player performs (and their strengths and weaknesses).

As an aside, you only see these additional stats for your own team. The logic here is that you will know more about your team than any other team after all the film, practice and playing you undertake in a season.

I also am planning on a limited way of modifying the difficulty of the game. Now, I don't like the idea of changing the engine to make it harder, as the "engine" should be the same for all players. What I had in mind here is having the ability to toggle on and off certain things like detailed potential levels for certain skills (ie, see a numerical value, see a range or see nothing but an overall evaluation), and the ability to change the level of difficulty for the trade AI. Again, the hope here is to allow everyone to play all parts of the game and still have a decent challenge.

Feel free to post any specific questions on the TPF forum and I (or one of the team) will address it ASAP.

Thanks,

Arlie

[3ric]

Originally posted by Joe Stallings
The Micron Wireless Superstore is a little on the frivolous side, but most of the buildings do play a role in the game. Upgrading your training facilities, your practice field, etc. give you certain bonuses. Of course, upgrades cost money, so do you spend the extra capital you earned last year on upgrading your training center, or do you spend it on Deion's signing bonus? Just trying to offer gamers more choices. The buildings are really abstracted; they are more there for ambience, and as sort of a "trophy case" for GMs (think, CivII's Throne Room).

Will the value of the buildings degrade over time? If I take over a new team, I'd expect the condition of the existing training facilities/practice field/whatever reflect the previous GM's priorities. I don't want to see an empty "trophy case" when starting with a new team just because I haven't been able to achieve something yet.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see that "upgrades" sticks with the team forever. Therefore the need for attrition.

[sabotai]

"It doesn't get any more serious than a rhinoceros about to charge your ass."

Will never cease to be funny.

I think the screens look good. It wasn't the bars that turned me off to TDCB, it was the apparent lack of real difference between great players and bad players. I coaches a team that won four games all season, but the players looked like superstars based on their bars. I know I had the worst scouting servise, but even a bum on the street who eats melted ice cream off the sidewalk could be able to tell that my guys sucked.

"In short: Everyone just follow the CM model. "

One thing that I have learned to really love about CM which I have yet to see in any other game is the Compare screen, where it shows you a screen showing you the difference between the players. Saves a TON of clicking back and forth to compare.

Hopefully, Arlie can work something like that in.... (hint, hint)

[sabotai]

dola,

"On the other hand, I'd hate to see that "upgrades" sticks with the team forever. Therefore the need for attrition."

My #1 concearn over the upgrades as well. An upgrade should degrade over time.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Interesting comments on the numbers and the bars. In FOF, I look at the bars to rifle through potential free agents, draftees, etc. I can visually process the graphical information much faster. I can go through fifty players in a about a minute, and have a list at the end of it of a handful of players that I want to look more closely at.

But once I've narrowed things down to that handful of players, the numbers on the right sides are critical for me to compare the players. My ability to interpret graphical information can help me eliminate 40 players efficiently, but it will not allow me to compare the remaining 10 players, for whom there will be only moderate differences. For that I often find that my eyes deceive me. A player who is actually worse than another player, will seem "visually" better by some freak arrangement of the bars on his card.

I do think a 1-100 scale is a bit on the abstract end of things. CM uses a 20-point scale, and that seems to work well, although I would think anything from a 10-point to a 20-point scale works well.

The other thing that I think is extremely useful in player evaluation is a detailed player search function. CM's player search function is absolutely wonderful. You can search for almost any type of player you want, tweak the criteria for the search, and save hours of mindless clicking each season. I honestly think the FOF series (especially TCY) would be tremendously enhanced if there would be a way to get such a search function into the game. It would save so much time to be able to plug in, for example, "run blocking >50; experience <2; pass blocking >20; endurance >30" and have the game display a list of linemen who meet the criteria.

[andy m]

please please please make the campus / buildings part of the game optional. Ultimate Soccer Manager was a mediocre game and this part of the game was annoying at best. Champ Manager has always been the best sports sim because it concentrates on the player and *on field* aspects, not the off field minutiae. anything off the field detracts from things for me, and takes away my focus.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Arles
First, there will be a main roster form that will list "ratings" for each player in a numerical format. I haven't quite determined the exact display yet, but you will be able to see it in some form.Good to hear. Godzilla Blitz also makes an excellent point about the bars if FOF being helpful when looking through a long list of players. I use them in the exact way he does, looking at the bars to narrow down quickly, then the ratings to make a final decision.

Also, your coaching staff will impact the accuracy of your players' ratings, while your scouting staff will impact ratings seen for other teams and draft picks. It doesn't make sense to me that some scout on the GB payroll would know more about a Packer player than Mike Sherman. So, that's the way I tried to model it in the game.Makes sense to me.

As to scouting, there will be some error if you skimp on your staff. So, while you will see some numerical values for ratings, they are only as good as your scouts. Plus, younger players are tougher to evaluate (even with top scouts).I'll be to see curious how this turns out. You'll be walking a fine line between the draft becoming a crap shoot and it being too predictable. I think OOTP5 does a fairly decent job of walking that line. If done well, this will be an excellent way of doing things.

So, I have provided a little more empirical data that you can use based on performance. QBs will have bad passes and great passes tracked, RBs will have missed holes and created runs tracked, WRs will have incorrect routes, LBs missed tackles, DBs will get dinged for allowing big plays and so forth. So, my hope is that between a somewhat accurate rating system (again, dep on your scout) and these internal tracking stats, you should have a good picture in your head of how each player performs (and their strengths and weaknesses).That sounds very, very good. Looking forward to that.

As an aside, you only see these additional stats for your own team. The logic here is that you will know more about your team than any other team after all the film, practice and playing you undertake in a season.Once again, agreed.

[Bee]

I agree about the bars in FOF making it easy to scan through a wide range of players, but the advantage FOF has compared to the screen shots above is the bars for FOF are compact. It's one thing to scan through a series of players and be concentrating on a very small part of the screen that contains all the info you need (like with FOF), compared to scanning through a series of players and having to look over the entire screen at bars located over 80% of the screen.

That's not to say I think what TPF is doing is bad. By spreading it out, I think you force the gamer to slow the pace down a little and think about the ratings a little more. That's not necessarily a bad thing IMO. I find myself doing that with CM4 often as well when not using the compare player feature.

Overall, I'm very impressed with everything this game looks like it will have. My biggest concern was mentioned briefly by sabotai. There was a problem IMO with TDCB that players ratings didn't translate very well to on the court performance. Don't get me wrong, I think you need variability in the game where players don't perform up to par or some outperform their ratings, but with TDCB this seemed to dominate the game IMO. If I replace a 6' 6" C with all average skills with a 7' 2" C with almost all maxed out skills, I expect a pretty dramatic improvement from my center and I didn't see that in TDCB. The other extreme isn't good either IMO (where ratings perfectly translate to on the field performance), what is required is a fine balance that makes you feel like your improving the team is making a difference but occasionally what you thought was an improvement turns out to be a bust. CM does this very well IMO. I've brought in players that I thought would make a difference and they do. Sometimes, I bring in a player and he doesn't make a difference but when this happens I can almost always track down the reason why he's not working out with my team and my strategy.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally posted by Bee
I agree about the bars in FOF making it easy to scan through a wide range of players, but the advantage FOF has compared to the screen shots above is the bars for FOF are compact. It's one thing to scan through a series of players and be concentrating on a very small part of the screen that contains all the info you need (like with FOF), compared to scanning through a series of players and having to look over the entire screen at bars located over 80% of the screen.

I've never thought about this, but now that you mention it, this is an excellent point, and very true.

You surprise me, Bee. I didn't know you were that smart. ;)

[Bee]

Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
I've never thought about this, but now that you mention it, this is an excellent point, and very true.

You surprise me, Bee. I didn't know you were that smart. ;)

Always trust your first instinct. :D

[mckerney]

How will rookie holdouts be dealt with? It'd be nice to see something more than "Any unsigned draft picks will be cut after running training camp"

And also I'm not sure about only seeing certain stats for your team with all the scouting of opponents. I'd understand not seeing the running back missing holes and recievers running wrong routes, but something like bad passes/good passes (ex. Opposing QB overthrew WR on 20% of post routes, chance for FS to get pick if the route is read) and DBs getting beat for big plays could factor into your game plan (ex. Objective: Throw to whoevers being covered my Mike Rumph)

[sianews]

I agree with Bee - the spread out nature of those ratings are unsightly! I much prefer the FOF model where everything is lined up and mass amounts of players can be evaulated quickly.

Perhaps some sort of "condensed ratings" button on the card itself which can be toggled to line everything up better and only show the current and future bars?

[Karim]

Agree with sianews regarding the way ratings are organized and...

I agree with mckerney regarding the additional information. I'll know if a DB on the other team is notorious for getting beat deep.

[Bonegavel]

So who rates a scout? Is there a scout scout? Are their ratings imperical?

Seriously, I understand the need for scouts, but what you wind up with is having to spend more time understanding your scouts than the players (a point that I don't think is good-i want to have fun). I like the idea of having money thrown at scouting and you basically pay for a level of excellence, instead of hiring individuals (i believe you stated that).

I just hate it when I try and hire a scout with all the excellents and he turns me down. Then I say "screw it" and hire some jockamoe. I spend all the time with him not being able to trust his picks or forget about his lackwitted abilities and wonder why things suck.

First of all, i see a scout on my team that has a poor rating, his ass is fired (and the rest of him). I would only hire people I felt were excellent. There are tons of scouts out there, so it isn't like there is a shortage. Like I said, i understand the need for scouts in the game, but I don't like the way they are usually implemented in the games.

[mckerney]

So who rates a scout? Is there a scout scout? Are their ratings imperical?

Seriously, I understand the need for scouts, but what you wind up with is having to spend more time understanding your scouts than the players (a point that I don't think is good-i want to have fun). I like the idea of having money thrown at scouting and you basically pay for a level of excellence, instead of hiring individuals (i believe you stated that).

I just hate it when I try and hire a scout with all the excellents and he turns me down. Then I say "screw it" and hire some jockamoe. I spend all the time with him not being able to trust his picks or forget about his lackwitted abilities and wonder why things suck.

First of all, i see a scout on my team that has a poor rating, his ass is fired (and the rest of him). I would only hire people I felt were excellent. There are tons of scouts out there, so it isn't like there is a shortage. Like I said, i understand the need for scouts in the game, but I don't like the way they are usually implemented in the games.


I also like the FOF idea of having a 'concensus' about draftees, or maybe a 'media rating' for players there. For example, the media concenses was that Jimmy Kennedy was the #2 DT in this years draft, but teams scouts thought Sullivan and Williams were better. In such a situation do you risk it and go with your scout against the media, and also risk upsetting your fanbase in doing so?

Just a thought of something I think would be nice to see.

[Ben E Lou]

bump....and un-sticky

[Marc Vaughan]

I think it looks very promising - the quick links to other teams and players are nicely obvious and should make navigation very simple to get around.

I'll definitely be giving it a whirl when its released (as will Fran - one of our work experience chaps, who's bizarrely enough a total Football (American variety) nut).

[Balldog]

I that one picture there is a MLB who weighs 200 lbs. High School teams don't even have LBs who are that small.

Game looks sweet though!

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Balldog
I that one picture there is a MLB who weighs 200 lbs. High School teams don't even have LBs who are that small.

Game looks sweet though!

Hmm, I know this was 13 years ago, but I started OL and DL in high school and was barely 200.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah...Balldog is off on that one. Rivals.com rates Tucker the #17 team in the South, which I reckon would put us in the Top 100 in the nation. Only one of the Tigers' starting LB's is over 200 pounds, our 215-pound MLB, who is a college prospect. I'm quite sure that some average high school teams have no LB's at 200.

cuervo, our lightest offensive lineman is 210, but on the DL we have a short, lightening-quick nose tackle who goes 180 and starts. (In short yardage situations we sub in a big beef guy who is 6'4", 275 pounds.)

[Ben E Lou]

Dola---

Now, I can't imagine a PRO team with a 200-pounder at MLB though...

[cuervo72]

No, you've got to be 200 at least in the pros, that's for sure. FWIW, I believe I was the lightest starting lineman in my league that year (from looking at the game programs). And they started me both ways most of the year (had trouble on that 90 degree Saturday at Abington though - those boys were just plain big!).

Actually, I became a starter at OG halfway through my junior year, when I was probably only 185 (I was only 162 as a soph - I guess I'm a high school example of a player with good study skills but low athletic prep :) ) . I remember one game lining up against a guy named Jason Owens, who looked like Hulk Hogan (beard and all). Weighed 275. Ok, we had to double team him most plays. But there was one play where he just swiped me off the ground and to the side with his right arm....yikes! I think he ended up going to Miami.

[Ben E Lou]

Ok....at just a quick glance at my Tucker Tigers Real-Life Dynasty Thread (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13256), the Atlanta-Journal Constitution profiled the six local teams in Georgia's Region 6-AAAA, listing college prospects and "players to watch" from each team. So, these would be the best players from a very quality high school Region. Here's how many of the top guys were listed at under 200 pounds. (My experience is that you can almost always subtract at least 5, and sometimes as many as 15 pounds to get their actual weight.)

LB's--6
DL--2 (Both were nose guards, incidentally, from the best two teams in the Region. Both will use short, quick guys to try to disrupt things rather than a Gilbert Brown beef guy.)
OL-1 (This guy was from the worst team in the Region, by far. I think the paper was being kind to list anyone from that team as a "player to watch.")

[vulcan]

Originally posted by Bee
I agree about the bars in FOF making it easy to scan through a wide range of players, but the advantage FOF has compared to the screen shots above is the bars for FOF are compact. It's one thing to scan through a series of players and be concentrating on a very small part of the screen that contains all the info you need (like with FOF), compared to scanning through a series of players and having to look over the entire screen at bars located over 80% of the screen.

Very good point Bee. I agree.

[Balldog]

Ok, but still no pro teams have LB who are 200 lbs.

Went to my old HS's game last night and they indeed do not have one LB who is OVER 200 lbs. They also got run all over. Actually I think they may only have one player on the team over 200 lbs.

[Abe Sargent]

I have never purchased a .400 Studios game.

And yet, I am looking forward to this game in ways that I never looked forward to in FOF4. Not only will it be my first .400 purchase, but it will also be my first non-FOF football text sim.

-Anxiety

[korme]

Originally posted by Balldog
I that one picture there is a MLB who weighs 200 lbs. High School teams don't even have LBs who are that small.

Game looks sweet though!

you have never been to Milford

I think one of our linebackers is over 200.

[Darkiller]

I just saw the screenshots and I am VERY, VERY impressed so far.
That means by no way that the game will be a success but as of this point : it looks awfully attractive !!!

[Buccaneer]

It will be a financial success, without a doubt because of the volumn of OOTP customers and the advance buzz at .400. One of the biggest question whether it would hold hardcore simmers in solo mode (it already probably has the hordes of casual and historical/custom simmers). Conversely, just take a look at the hundred+ FOFCers in OOTP online leagues. I think many of us would rather play football than baseball so if it works as well as OOTP does in online leagues, TPF could actually outsell FOF4 just here at FOFC, saying nothing for the unwashed masses at .400/OOTPdev. I hope Arles, Joe and Scott et al are sweating now because expectations could rise and they have a demanding and vocal customer base right here at FOFC.

[ScottVib]

FWIW at 6'3" 150 lbs. I was the smallest DT in Connecticut my Senior year. (I started the year as a CB and finished as a DT)

Trust me we know the expectations are high and we're doing our damnest to give everyone the best game we can. :)

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
...

but you have to remember, this isn't OOTP football... this is TDCB football. AFAIK, Marcus has nothing to do with this.

[vulcan]

Bump so that if anyone else wants to talk about this with me :)

[FBPro]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
but you have to remember, this isn't OOTP football... this is TDCB football. AFAIK, Marcus has nothing to do with this.

True, but I'm sure that due to the prior relationship that there will be a good deal of cross-over to TPF from OOTP fans.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by FBPro
True, but I'm sure that due to the prior relationship that there will be a good deal of cross-over to TPF from OOTP fans.

Esp. for online leagues which I perceive were not that (or as) popular as OOTP.

[vulcan]

Originally posted by FBPro
True, but I'm sure that due to the prior relationship that there will be a good deal of cross-over to TPF from OOTP fans.

I am going to have to agree with this. I am sure they all passed info along to each other.

[FBPro]

Well, I know that I am pretty excited and very interested to see how it turns out. I wish them the best of luck.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Balldog
I that one picture there is a MLB who weighs 200 lbs. High School teams don't even have LBs who are that small.

Game looks sweet though!

I played nose guard and I was 180

[Schmidty]

Originally posted by mckerney
I played nose guard and I was 180

I played center and am only 3'7".

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by sianews
Perhaps some sort of "condensed ratings" button on the card itself which can be toggled to line everything up better and only show the current and future bars? Good thought.

[Alf]

Seems in many points to look like CM4. From what I've seen the economic model is an integral part of the game... Much more interesting than FOF for me.

Now, on the accuracy of the game simulation. It can be a different story.

[Chief Rum]

Are you on the beta test team, Alf?

Just curious. Trying to see if your conclusions are based just on the screenshots and your second observation (about the game simulation accuracy) is just a natural assumption about a game that's not out yet that anything could possibly be wrong with it, or if your observation actually has more to it than that.

CR