PDA

View Full Version : Transcript Of FOF2K4 Q&A With Jim Gindin (10/22)


Ben E Lou
10-22-2003, 09:42 PM
NOTE: I tried to clean it up a bit for ease of reading. Let me know if this works.

--Ben

PrimeLord:Jim is going to start off by going through the questions that were already posted on the forum
PrimeLord:after that we will go into the questions that you send me
PrimeLord:feel free to send me your questions anytime
PrimeLord:during the process
PrimeLord:I will try to get to them as they come in so if your isn't posted for awhile I haven’t forgot about you
PrimeLord:there are just a lot of questions
PrimeLord:Did I say I was going to quickly go over the format?
PrimeLord:Allright I want to thank Jim for taking the time to hold this session and the floor is yours....
JimG: Thanks, Primelord
JimG: And thanks to HFP for formatting all these questions.
JimG: Let Primelord know if I'm going too quickly.
JimG: Q: What are the system requirements for the game?
JimG: Windows 95, Patched Version or later, 128 MB RAM, Mouse, Internet Connection.
JimG: Q: On what OS was the game designed?
JimG: Windows ME. I find it best to start with the least stable system. There's a much better chance of finding any incompatibilities this way.
JimG: Q: Is the game going to be download only or is there still the possibility of a non-eLicensed CD version?
JimG: It looks like it will be download only. The situation changes daily here. If I have to switch to a CD version, you can expect a significant delay in release. It's not going to an either-or situation. It's too hard to maintain two versions, especially straight from an initial release. And the cost of CDs skyrockets when you manufacture relatively few of them, so the price difference would be well over $10 between the versions.
JimG: Q: Will TCY drafts be compatible with FOF2004?
JimG: Yes. I will have to update TCY to add the new format.
JimG: Q: Will there be league setups available aside from the 32 team league?
JimG: No. This isn't something I'm opposed to, it's just a feature that's so large that to include it would eliminate the possibility of adding other new features I think are more important.
JimG: Q: Will there be an option to not be the head of any team while simulating seasons? (Effectively just watching the league either before or after heading a team)
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Will/should 2k4 careers be compatible with future FOF releases?
JimG: I'm not sure. So far, every time I've made a new version, the number of changes I've made to the core of the game has prevented this from being a viable option (for instance, the Almanac would effectively be reduced to gibberish without a lot of the data pieces that are new to FOF 2004). I'm guessing no.
JimG: Q: If importing players from TCY, how do the combine numbers interact with the TCY players?
JimG: There are no differences between how this will work for imported players and internally-generated draftees.
JimG: Q: If you import players from TCY, do you NOT get the added draft info?
JimG: You actually get more with imported players. You'll get some key statistics from their last season in TCY. With internally-generated drafts, I decided it was better not to just make up senior-year statistics.
JimG: Q: From imported TCY draft files, will the combine scores be interpolated from other ratings, or will they be assigned at random?
JimG: There are all actually extrapolated numbers, with some random element added to cover combine-day nervousness. I didn't want the combine scores to tell you exact hidden ratings.
JimG: Q: Will TCY need an update to the college export file in order to work correctly with FOF2004?
JimG: Yes. There are some small changes. Most significantly, the player names are now exported directly and the key college statistics included.
JimG: Q: Will there be rudimentary support for logos/helmets?
JimG: Very rudimentary. You will have a 35x35 "helmet" for each team. For anyone familiar with editing bitmaps, this will be very easy to customize.
JimG: Q: Will league structure and sizes be customizable for solo and MP?
JimG: No. Just the 32-team format.
JimG: Q: Would it be possible to include a third-party schedule generator for anything other than a 32-team league?
JimG: No. I've tied everything in the AI to the 32-team format. While that easily could be made customizable if I had different league sizes (maybe two days of work), for now it isn't.
JimG: Q: Did expansion make it in?
JimG: No. For the same reason as the unchanged league size.
JimG: Q: Will we have the ability to rename the champsionp game? The conferences? The divisions?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Are there things that can be customized that hasn't been in the past (ie: backloaded contracts, the ability to lose money hand over fist, etc...)
JimG: There's more control over the drafts and the initial player files. A couple of user interface changes.
JimG: Q: Is there a format for the CSV lists to import players?
JimG: Yes. Those formats will be included with the game to make it easier to construct the spreadsheets.
JimG: Q: Will salary cap "growth rate" be adjustable? (For historic leagues, to avoid a low starting salary cap practically doubling the first few years).
JimG: That's a good idea. I'll have to try and get that in.
JimG: Q: Have new incentives been included for contract negotiations?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Will we have any input as to the length of contract for our draft picks?
JimG: Yes. You will have choices for contract offers to draft picks. Either two choices or four, depending on the round. These choices are contracts that fit the rookie cap, so you'll only have two choices for contract length for each player.
JimG: Q: Will multiplayer play be limited to setting up game plans and having one machine do the simulation, or will head to head play-calling be an option?
JimG: Head-to-head play-calling is not an option in the new game.
JimG: Q: How much information is included in the "update" files sent back and forth in multi player games? Is this something that would be practical for people with 56k modems to consider or are the files huge.
JimG: Zipped, these files are running about 500K in-season. They will grow as careers get longer, and box scores and game logs, which are optional, can add a lot to the download size.
JimG: Q: What type of multiplayer commissioner functions are available? Can head coaches be removed due to inactivity?
JimG: It's pretty basic. Most functions are related to the import and export of information. Coaches can be removed or added easily.
JimG: Q: Is the multiplayer a client/server architecture or is it limited to saving a file and sending it in?
JimG: It's limited to file imports and exports.
JimG: Q: Where will the definitive league data be stored in multi player games? Will there be a risk of players hacking into the game files to modify their teams?
JimG: The data will be stored with the commissioner's copy of the game, though that information is exported. There's no hacking risk, unless the participants have access to the commissioner's computer. However, a lot of information is viewable in the exported files.
JimG: Q: Will there be a waiver system? Or will players that are cut just go back to the FA pool? This would seem to be a fairly important thing in a multi-player game.
JimG: Hopefully, the second stage of free agency will make that less of a problem. There's no waiver system, but of course a commissioner can enforce one outside of the game.
JimG: Q: Will game plans be hidden from opposing coaches (password protected or otherwise) in multiplayer?
JimG: Interesting idea. No, people will be on the honor system when it comes to looking at the exported files. Of course, if someone is suspected, he may learn the hard way not to put too much into deciphering last week's game plan.
JimG: hold on sec
JimG: had to answer the phone - was ViaTech
PrimeLord:Bah ViaTech doesn't take precedence over us ;)
JimG: Q: In multi-player, is it easy for the commish to participate in the league as a team or could/would the integrity of the universe potentially be ruined.
JimG: Yes. Not at all.
JimG: (I told him I'd call back)
PrimeLord:Nice :)
JimG: Q: How much time do you believe a commish would have to dedicate to one season of FOF2004 as a minimum requirement?
JimG: Most of the time requirement will be nagging people to submit their stage files. The system itself is very quick once you're used to it (took me about 15 minutes).
JimG: Q: How will a multiplayer draft be handled? Real time, or will each pick need to be mailed into the 'commish'?
JimG: For the amateur draft, you can submit draft profiles and the AI will make all the selections. Or the commissioner can submit all the picks by hand to the game, and implement some sort of email or chat room draft on his own.
JimG: Q: Any restrictions on number of players?
JimG: From 1 to 32.
JimG: Q: Can players be added/removed at any point in a season/career?
JimG: Yes.
JimG: Q: Can player control be turned on/off at any point in a season/career? I.E. if you have a ten player career going, and one player takes a vacation for a week, can that team's control be automated during that week, and subsequently restored upon their return?
JimG: Yes.
JimG: Q: How will the FA 20 and 8 step process' function in multiplayer? Will leagues have the ability to run free agency "outside" of FOF and then just sign the players to the winning team at the end? (Ex. FOBL conducts free agency in our own third party program. Once the results of FA have been obtained, the league management then goes into OOTP and manually signs the players to the winning teams). Or, will each team need to submit a bid f
JimG: It will function the same way the 20-step process runs in FOF4. Commissioners are free to implement something outside of the game, then have people submit stage files reflecting those decisions.
JimG: Q: How is difficulty level affected in a multi-player environment?
JimG: It is not an option for a multi-player career.
JimG: Q: Are there coaches/scouts in the multi-player environment? If so, do the GM's bid on them as they do now in FOF4?
JimG: Yes. The system is the same as it is in FOF4, only with offensive and defensive coordinators.
JimG: Q: Should a GM wish to communicate a trade offer to another human GM, does he leave the offer via email and the other will see this offer when loading the current game file?
JimG: Trading for multi-player is outside of the game. The commissioner can enter trades through the trading screen, which will notify him if there are any cap problems with the trade.
JimG: Q: Will the commish have a flag of some sort to know when all teams current week game files have been imported?
JimG: Yes. He will have access to a control screen with that information for each team.
JimG: Q: Should a human GM leave the league for any reason, how difficult is it to replace him? Will the computer fill in should a human not take over right away?
JimG: The commissioner will have the ability to make that switch on the control screen.
JimG: Q: Will we have access to a player's college stats when they enter the draft?
JimG: Only a selected few statistics, and only for players exported from TCY (or constructed) drafts.
JimG: Q: Has the game presentation changed at all? I.e. the PbP?
JimG: No. The in-game module is almost exactly the same as it is with FOF4.
JimG: Q: Has HTML exporting made it into this version?
JimG: I'm strongly considering adding this capability for a future update. Something like this is very time-consuming to write, but my testers tell me it's something that adds a lot to the multi-player experience.
JimG: Q: Will the QB not also be the backup FB on a team's depth chart (when there are a couple of FB injuries), making him both the QB and FB on the same play sometimes (yes, I've had this happen)?
JimG: I'll look into this. I've never seen this or had this reported. That should be a backup running back.
JimG: Q: Will positions continue to be split (LCB, RDE, etc)?
JimG: Yes.
JimG: Q: Any chance of getting the same type of Personnel screens for defensive formations that we now have for offensive formations? I'd love to be able to set up specific personnel packages for nickel and dime situations. Will you get to customize the game plans a bit more with nickel and dime D? In other words, can you choose which linbacker to take out in the nickel? Can you have a blitzing percentage for the nickel back that differs fro
JimG: Not for now, but these are good ideas for future versions. I'd love to expand the defensive options some day.
JimG: Q: Is there the ability to have other players in the Depth Chart apart from the normal list (ala Warren Sapp, the Fridge in at TE, FB, TB). Or, in a more normal situation, an O- Tackle is put at TE position.
JimG: No. The relevant positions are set.
JimG: Q: Will players you have cut ever consider playing for you again?
JimG: Yes. This is toned down, and I'm thinking of eliminating it altogether in certain cases.
JimG: Q: Will there be practice squads?
JimG: No. Since NFL rules dictate that anyone may be signed off of another team's practice squad at any time, it just doesn't seem like a huge value-add.
JimG: Q: Will vested veterans signed for the minimum count less against the cap a la recent changes in the CBA?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Will restricted players, franchise players be able to be signed but at the cost of draft compensation?
JimG: I'd like to implement this some day, but for now, no. The Lavernues Coles signing really got people noticing this rule.
JimG: Q: Will there be compensatory draft picks or transition tags?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Will restricted free agents have three offers that determine their status?
JimG: If I were to implement this, it would be with two offers (no one uses the third as far as I know), but for now restricted free agency isn't in the game.
JimG: Q: Will there be more contract negotiation clauses? Incentives? Roster bonuses?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Will the compatibility continue to be based on something like astrological sign or something more realistic like Myers-Briggs Personality Types?
JimG: Astrological signs have been removed from the game, as they were distracting people and there never was a conflict chart in the game. But that's still about 80% of the underlying basis of contracts.
JimG: Q: Can players that retire be hired as coaches?
JimG: Eventually, some might make it back into the staff pool.
JimG: Q: Will waiver claims be implemented?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Can a third quarterback on the inactive roster be activated per NFL rules?
JimG: The roster is set at 46 rather than 45 to accommodate the third quarterback. The rules surrounding third quarterback participation are not implemented in the game.
JimG: Q: Will agents begin to play a bigger role in their client's lives?
JimG: Slightly. They will play a big role in rookie negotiations and veteran holdouts.
JimG: Q: Will we be able to peruse a fake draft publication that lists rookies by anticipated draft round (in order to have a jumping off point to begin sorting)?
JimG: No. But there's a new sort in the amateur draft that more closely matches the anticipated draft order.
JimG: Q: Can you be fired/ change jobs to other teams like FOF4? If so and you get fired, will there always be a team that wants your services? Some people have been fired and there are no teams that want to rehire, so in essence the game is over. I couldn't imagine having all that history and then, BOOM! you have to start over.
JimG: The only change I've made there is to allow you to "reject" the firing, thus allowing you to continue in your current role.
JimG: Q: Has the AI end-game logic been tweaked? (Right now, there are consistently unrealistic play calls late in halves and in OT.)
JimG: A little. Some of what's been reported as unrealistic isn't (a halfback screen is almost de rigeur in some desperate situations). But if people report specific cases, I'll take another look.
JimG: Q: In the current version of FOF4, it appears that teams go through the leftover players after free agency in a randomly determined order. The first team that gets to do this often signs a handful of strong players to one-year, bargain-basement contracts, and subsequently rises in the standings the next season, only to fall again the following year when all those players go back into free agency. Will this problem be addressed in the n
JimG: I hope that the second stage of free agency largely eliminates the power of this effect.
JimG: Q: Will Astrological Signs still be implemented? If so, will we get any additional feedback such as Player X and Player Y got into a fight in spring training or QB X and WR Y did not seem in synch during the game today.
JimG: I'd like to implement additional feedback through the email system. That's something the beta testers are unanimous in wanting. I'm looking into seeing if I can do this without impacting the schedule too much. Astrological signs are gone now.
JimG: Q: Will Game Experience be factored in to the scouts opinion of a player? I noticed many times when scouts would favor a FB with a rating of 40 and 8 years experience over a FB with a rating of 70 and 1 year of experience. That always confused me. (The rating being a generic average of all it's attributes).
JimG: This has been tweaked. Remember that the future ratings are not the ratings you can expect right now.
JimG: Q: Will injuries still be linked heavily to the coach?
JimG: Yes.
JimG: Q: Will training be expanded beyond Spring Training to include weekly regiments of training during the regular and post-season?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Will coach and coordinator profiles be editable like the player files in fof4. Also will coaches and scouts still be randomly created and assigned to teams like in previous versions or will be be able to give each team their starting front office tandem, as we see fit.
JimG: No and Yes.
JimG: Q: Will there be a higher difficulty level, or will the highest difficulty level be made more difficult than FOF?
JimG: No. I'm hoping the AI is better at choosing free agents. That will do wonders for the difficultly level. I've made a lot of changes there, and only time will tell if they worked.
JimG: Q: Will the intelligence test score replace the intelligence rating from previsous versions?
JimG: No. The test score will lead to the intelligence rating.
JimG: Q: Will Long Snapping, Holding, and Gunning each have their own ratings? If so, will they partially or completely replace the current Special Teams rating? Also, from imported TCY draft files, will those ratings be interpolated from other ratings or will they be assigned at random?
JimG: Long Snapping and Holding are new ratings. Gunning is related to the Special Teams rating. Those will be assigned at random.
JimG: Q: Are the overall number ratings for current and potential still available during the amateur draft?
JimG: Yes.
JimG: Q: Will the coach (not me) ever be allowed to pick his own coordinators?
JimG: No. Though if you don't make choices, the AI will of course make that choice for you.
JimG: Q: Will each player's playoff stats be saved just as the regular season stats?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Can you go back and look up past year's drafts?
JimG: No.
JimG: Q: Will the CPU be competitive in games vs. Human? Last version I played I could go undefeated with the worst team in the league if I called my own plays.
JimG: I hope so. I'd appreciate specifics if you've discovered any holes in the play-calling.
JimG: Q: Will we be able to set our special teams lineups?
JimG: Just the gunner positions. The game chooses backups, mostly, to fill the rest of the squads.
JimG: Q: Will you be able to allow the AI to run your team, but be able to flag players that you don't want them to trade/release?
JimG: No. Though that's a good idea - one that has come up in beta testing.
JimG: Q: What kind of Difficulty setting will there be?
JimG: Difficulty settings are identical to those in FOF4.
JimG: Q: Can coordinators get promoted to head coaches (possibly leaving your team to head another team)?
JimG: Yes, that can happen.
JimG: Q: In previous versions of FOF (before FOF4) when a player was drafted in the first round it would say his draft position on his player card. It would say 1(12) for the 12th pick in the draft. Will this be brought back for this version of FOF? The difference between the # 1 pick and the # 32 pick is a huge difference and it would be nice if this feature was brought back
JimG: Yes. That's been expanded to all rounds.
JimG: Okay.... that
JimG: is all I have.
PrimeLord:Allrighty lets get started with the new questions then
PrimeLord:A quick reminder for those that joined late send any questions you have to me. I will post them in the channel and Jim will answer them.
PrimeLord:Since the game will only be available through download, does that mean there is no way to get the game if your computer has no net access?
JimG: I think ViaTech has a way of allowing that access. As I'm not sure if I'll stay with ViaTech, that's a difficult question to answer.
PrimeLord:Q: can we edit the city data to give us international cities?
JimG: No. Though this is an excellent opportunity for third-party utilities.
PrimeLord:Q: In the preseason will we still have to make players active and inactive, so all players could play in the preseason games?
JimG: Yes.
PrimeLord:Q: Since TCY now directly exports player names, any chance that College name goes as well? IE, will Solecismic Eight Teams now be noticeable?
JimG: No. The college names are still limited to the library of colleges.
PrimeLord:Q: If difficulty level is not an option in multiplayer, what difficulty level do computer controlled teams act on?
JimG: They don't. Difficulty level only affects the human player.
PrimeLord:Q: Can teams relocate in a MP league?
JimG: Yes.
PrimeLord:Q: Waht is the anticipated release date?
JimG: I don't know. A lot of that has to do with these discussions with replicators, ViaTech and their competitors. I think the game is fairly close to ready, I just don't want to set a date in stone.
PrimeLord:Q: If we play TCY now and have saved draft files will they be compatible with FOF2004 or do we have to wait until after the update to TCY is done to play it and create usable draft files for import into FOF2004
JimG: Old draft files will not be compatible. The TCY update will take place very shortly after the release. Or sooner. A lot depends on the ViaTech situation. You will be able to create draft files with the new generator.
PrimeLord:q: Is the internet connection required to play or just to register the game?
JimG: Just to register the game. At least that's how ViaTech does it. That's one reason why I'm skeptical about at leasy one competitor - they require an active connection and monthly online checks.
JimG: Skeptical meaning "I won't do it that way unless it's absolutely necessary"
PrimeLord:Q: You did a great job on some of your choices. How do you select beta testers and can people apply/express an interest for future releases?
JimG: I choose testers based on past email discussions and forum participation. I keep the beta pool very small, and I'm happy with how they contribute to the game.
PrimeLord:Q: have the minimum number of players needed on the roster at each position changed at all?
JimG: No.
PrimeLord:Q: have the playing time of players in the preseason been adjusted at all?
JimG: Yes.
JimG: I've tried to focus a bit on quarterbacks there.
PrimeLord:Q: how big will the download be? multiple files or just one big one?
JimG: I'm guessing one big file. Maybe somewhere around 25M
PrimeLord:Q: Is there a hard limit on how many seasons can be played before the game shuts down?
JimG: No. At least I've never found it. In theory, 1,000 seasons isn't out of line. But I wouldn't access the career statistics screen then.
PrimeLord:Q: Ok Jim: Try to come clean: Why no Front Office Curling? ;)
JimG: Straight hair is more the trend now.
PrimeLord:Q: will this version of FOF be compatible with future version so that leasues, player stats, careers, can be imported? Thanks
JimG: I did cover this earlier. Let me find the answer... I'm not sure. So far, every time I've made a new version, the number of changes I've made to the core of the game has prevented this from being a viable option (for instance, the Almanac would effectively be reduced to gibberish without a lot of the data pieces that are new to FOF 2004). I'm guessing no.
PrimeLord:Sorry my fault
PrimeLord:Q: Are there new options made available when starting a career with the initial player file? Can you start a complete fictional career without the use of OPU?
JimG: No, there aren't.
PrimeLord:Q: Have the game viewer along with the play by play been remodeled and updated?
JimG: No.
PrimeLord:Q: Are Championship Games still hosted in cold weather cities?
JimG: They can be.
PrimeLord:Q: Will there be the ability to edit city weather data?
JimG: No, but that would be a good option to include in that third-party city editor utility.
PrimeLord:Q: Are team specific hall of fames back in the game?
JimG: No. That never came across very well.
PrimeLord:Q: What's so much better about the stats in this version?
JimG: Mostly, the inclusion of all career statistics for former players. That was a huge addition.
PrimeLord:Q: How big will the import/export files be? (not saved game files)
JimG: Zipped, export files run about 500K in-season. Import files are very small - maybe a few hundred bytes at most.
PrimeLord:Q: what is the default difficulty for mp?
JimG: There is no default difficulty.
PrimeLord:Q: Would you like to see player interaction taken to the level it is in CM?
JimG: Eventually. But remember that this sort of thing is dependent on having enormous variety in the events presented to the gamer. Marc Vaughan has a wonderful system for getting that into his game, and while I'd love to follow his lead, anything less than the amount of work he puts into this would result in a system that people really would find more annoying than enjoyable.
PrimeLord:Q: what is your favorite new feature you added to fof2004?
JimG: I really like the new career stats screen, just because of the technical difficulty. But I'm enjoying the multi-player a lot in testing, so I'd have to go with that answer.
PrimeLord:Q: When can we expect to see screen shots of the new game?
JimG: Within a few days, I hope. I really am working around the clock right now, and it's just a matter of what's most important on the to-do list. In order to do screen shots, I want to make the player names fictional. And then take a career out a few years. So it's no small task.
PrimeLord:Has the league hall of fame been tweaked to allow more defensive players and offensive linemen in or an option to induct yourself?
JimG: I've never thought about self-induction. It has been tweaked, but I don't expect huge differences.
PrimeLord:q: What made you decide to do FOF again? If the multi player feature works well, do you think it's possible that you might try TCY online one day?
JimG: It had a lot to do with wanting to get the best possible game ready for distribution. I think FOF can be a huge seller if properly presented, and multi-player might be the hook that's necessary. We'll see how that goes - if it goes well, yes, I can see putting together a similar feature for TCY. But I can't imagine a truly online system - it would most likely have to be a file transfer system like FOF.
PrimeLord:Sorry
PrimeLord:had to step away for a sec
PrimeLord:Q: if we buy 4th edition NOW, can we get a free upgrade to 2004 (believe it or not, i never bought 4th edition)
JimG: No. I've discounted FOF4 this week, essentially going that route.
PrimeLord:Q: In multiplayer is it possible to assign all teams to the same city or different cities for financial purposes?
JimG: No, team movement is only possible through the city voting mechanism. Though I'm sure those third-party utility writers might find something interesting in the initial city assignment area of the data files.
PrimeLord:Q: You covered the minimum hardware requirements, but what are the recommened system requirements?
JimG: I think you're going to want at least a Pentium 2. And 256M of RAM is always nice these days. It's really just a matter of what speed you're comfortable with in terms of game play.
PrimeLord:Q: Since we can now save/load game plans, will there be preset game plans included in the game (west coast, etc)?
JimG: I'd love to include that, it's on my list for future versions of the game just because it's rather time-consuming. I think people will have a lot more fun creating custom game plan packages.
PrimeLord:Q: Are there any team budgets, or are we still allowed to spend whatever we want on coaches/scouts/etc without any real penalty?
JimG: My feeling is that custom game plan creation is going to explode because of multi-player.
JimG: No, there are limits - each team has a built-in limit for scout/staff offers and salary offers.
PrimeLord:Q: Will the AI offer trades during the draft?
JimG: No.
PrimeLord:Q: In multiplayer leagues will owners be able to vote in game on who recieves MVP, Rookie of the Year awards, etc?
JimG: No.
PrimeLord:Q: Can you explain any more about your change of direction earlier in the year?
JimG: It has to do with an opportunity I had a while back. I did a lot of design work, but the opportunity was no longer there when I finally responded. My fault for not jumping on it when I had the chance.
PrimeLord:Q: Do you prefer FOF5 or FOF2004? :-)
JimG: Well, I found that FOF2002, EA's roster update for FOF2001, might actually have outsold FOF4 this year. So maybe my sales problem with FOF4 had something to do with confusion over the name of the game - which is more current? I thought it made sense to go with FOF 2004 instead of FOF5 to alleviate confusion.
JimG: Next is FOF 3000, by the way.
PrimeLord:Q: You haven't considered using Softwrap, have you? they are really bad.
JimG: O
JimG: I'm open to suggestions. Softwrap charges a lot, too, so they're low on my list.
PrimeLord:Q: When you say there is no default difficulty in multiplayer, does this mean that a FOF league has to be 32 human players? Or does a "Generic" AI GM take care of any computer players
JimG: I spent some time today on the phone with Element5, with sells Macrovision's SafeCast. What do people think of that? There was that Turbotax problem.
JimG: The Generic AI GM handles the remaining teams.
JimG: What I meant was that the difficulty level in the solo game applies only to the human team with regard to issues that really don't apply in multi-player.
PrimeLord:Q: How is player development handled? Apart from the preseason training do they also improve during the season. How does playing time affect their development?
JimG: Playing time helps development. Otherwise, development is handled on a curve related to how players typically develop in the NFL - mostly it's a peak year/peak end system.
PrimeLord:Q: Can rookies get burned out from playing too much too early and stunt their development? Does height or weight matter for the simulations?
JimG: No and No. Those are both good ideas for future development, though. I've always wanted height to matter, especially for quarterbacks.
PrimeLord:Q: why can't we edit conference and bowl names?
JimG: I've just felt that other new features were more important. I haven't updated TCY in a while.
PrimeLord:Q: has any adjustment been made to the player of the week logic?
JimG: Yes. I've made it much more important for that player to be on the winning team.
PrimeLord:Q: Does the player file "somewhat mirror" the beginning of the 2003 NFL season or current standings? (Hypothetically is the Rams second quarterback their starter, etc.)
JimG: Yes, it somewhat mirrors rosters as of week 5, I believe. Maybe week 4.
PrimeLord:Q: what was the technical challenge of the career stats system? Have you essentially implemented a relational database (primary keys, foreign keys, b+ trees, etc)?
JimG: I tend to stay away from formal databases, because everything is so customized. The challenge was simply in grabbing relevant information from so many different locations. What makes it interesting is that you can now call up career stats for any player for his performance on any team (or all teams).
PrimeLord:Q: Is the AI any more intuitive when setting up game plans to take advantage of its team strengths/opponent weaknesses, or is it more of a stock plan and player selection?
JimG: It tries to look at the opposing team. I haven't made any serious changes from FOF4 there, though. Teams do prefer, especially on offense, to follow their own strengths.
PrimeLord:Q: can mp commissioners change the salary cap?
PrimeLord:Q
JimG: Not once a career has started.
PrimeLord:whoops
PrimeLord:Q: Can you tell us a little about the league analysis of drafts? How is the info displayed, etc?
JimG: There's a list of teams and letter grades. Grading is based on a combination of the quality of the players drafted, and the expected improvement to each team's roster. In testing, the human teams keep getting "D-", so this needs tweaking. Or the testers need tweaking (myself included).
PrimeLord:Q: You mentioned HTML exports will not be included in the initial release. Willt here be any other way to extract the league data to a spreadsheet or to create web pages form it?
JimG: Other than printing to file, nothing new.
PrimeLord:Q: How many leagues are you going to join?
JimG: One, possibly. I'm enjoying the multi-player testing more than I thought I would.
PrimeLord:Q: Is it still possible to download the install file for FOF2 and if so where is that file located?
JimG: I don't know. That's an EA product, so I never had it. Maybe it's on FOFC somewhere. I'm certain someone from FOFC has it and can send it to you.
PrimeLord:Q: In the players file will players currently on the IR in the NFL start the year on the IR?
JimG: No. We let them start healthy.
PrimeLord:Q: What options are available to start a multiplayer game (fantasy drafts, etc.?)
JimG: You can start with existing roster, with a preference draft or the commissioner can enter each pick by hand (53 rounds, though - not much fun).
PrimeLord:Q: Can we change city data/city names?
JimG: No. I think I covered that one above somewhere.
PrimeLord:Sorry i thought so too, but I wasn’t sure
PrimeLord:Q: Marlins or Yankees?
JimG: I'm in Red Sox Nation.
PrimeLord:Q: Will the league analysis include grading of players or just overall team scores?
JimG: Not sure what's meant here.
PrimeLord:I think he meant will the league analysis give grades on the individual players taken or will there only be overall team scores for A's and B's etc
PrimeLord:Also guys if you have anymore questions send them to me
JimG: Oh, just overall grades.
PrimeLord:Anymore questions?
PrimeLord:Q: Is the demo still on track for this month?
JimG: I think so.
PrimeLord:Q: What kind of changes can we expect in future versions of FOF? What features do you still want to add that have not made it into the current version?
JimG: Well, from testing, I'd say the export to html feature is a must-have. Also near the top of the list, but nowhere near that level, would be the implementation of restricted free agency. It's just something that would be a lot of fun to have, though it's very difficult from a programming perspective. I don't have too many thoughts about future versions yet, but getting into more customized game plans would be a nice direction.
PrimeLord:Q: will we be able to go through on off season in the demo, I'd like to play with the draft
JimG: No. Don't want to give away the cow. Or the milk. Or whatever that saying is. I will include that in the screen shots, though.
PrimeLord:Q: Have finances been changed? Specifically, is it easier to get fired when you lose tons of money?
JimG: It's been tweaked a bit, but no tremendous changes have been made.
PrimeLord:Q: Can you give more detail about the "tweaking" of the finances?
JimG: Basically, adjusting the factors that the "owner" uses for making decisions about a warning. More emphasis on team performance and the bottom line financially. Also, trying to increase the penalty for too-drastic ticket-price increases.
PrimeLord:Q: Will it still be possible for the human player to offer tons of money to coaches/scouts?
PrimeLord:Whoops I already asked that earlier
PrimeLord:Q: What type of research did you do for the MP aspect of FOF2004? Did you talk to online league members, join a league, etc.?
JimG: I've received a lot of email about multi-player in the FOF series. That, the league size question and NFL Europe make up a huge percentage of the comments I've received. MP was more a matter of both seeing what fit with the design of the game and what elements of the game people mentioned when they talked about wanting MP in FOF. I've tried some online simulations, and I knew I that I had to have a game that was entertaining from a sin
PrimeLord:Q: Does FOF2004 mean yo were not entirely satisfied with FOF4? That it needed changes?
JimG: That's a tough question. I'm never entirely satisfied with anything I write. That's just my nature. I'm happy with how it turned out - particularly the play-calling interface, which was a major new addition (replacing a system from FOF2/2001 that was tedious). This decision had a lot to do with responding to what customers wanted. I felt there were new opportunities with a new version - especially with the addition of multi-player.
PrimeLord:Q: Do you see yourself joining up with a publisher again, like a 400sports or OOTPDevelopments, or do you consider a one man house the best for you with regards to flexibility?
JimG: Well, .400 is pretty well covered. I doubt they'd have any interest in me. I really don't know. One thing I've learned from talking to publishers is that they have to come to you, I can't go to them. If an established publisher came to me with an interesting offer, I might very well take it. These games are getting bigger and bigger, and there is definitely more of a barrier to entry for a one-man ship than there was six years ago.
PrimeLord:Allright guys I think that is a wrap. I want to thank Jim again for taking the time to do this. And also tot hank everyone who submitted questions and for being patient as I sorted through them all.
JimG: Thanks, Primelord. There's no one better at sorting through all of that.
PrimeLord:I have to be good at something. :)
PrimeLord:Ok you can all talk again. Thanks.

Buccaneer
10-22-2003, 10:25 PM
Overall, pretty good. Still don't like the following responses but I can hope for the future


JimG: Q: Will league structure and sizes be customizable for solo and MP?
JimG: No. Just the 32-team format.
JimG: Q: Would it be possible to include a third-party schedule generator for anything other than a 32-team league?
JimG: No. I've tied everything in the AI to the 32-team format. While that easily could be made customizable if I had different league sizes (maybe two days of work), for now it isn't.
JimG: Q: Did expansion make it in?
JimG: No. For the same reason as the unchanged league size.
JimG: Q: Will we have the ability to rename the champsionp game? The conferences? The divisions?
JimG: No.

MikeVic
10-22-2003, 10:44 PM
I don't really like this:

JimG: Q: Will game plans be hidden from opposing coaches (password protected or otherwise) in multiplayer?
JimG: Interesting idea. No, people will be on the honor system when it comes to looking at the exported files. Of course, if someone is suspected, he may learn the hard way not to put too much into deciphering last week's game plan.

I'm not good with FOF, so I keep my gameplan pretty much the same... kinda crappy that the other people can see it then. :( I'll have to see how multiplayer functions before I participate in it.

Subby
10-22-2003, 10:58 PM
I completely agree with Bucc and MikeVic's concerns.

Hopefully Jim's beta team can push him on those issues.

GrantDawg
10-22-2003, 11:02 PM
If it weren't for multi-player (and then only to play in the one league), I would have no reason to buy this game.

TargetPractice6
10-22-2003, 11:05 PM
I agree. I can't see any features aside from multiplayer that would really justify the pruchase of this new game. Maybe FOF4.5 would be a better name for it :)

MizzouRah
10-22-2003, 11:25 PM
This sold the game to me... I have to get going on TCY once the update is released! Thanks!! I knew this was money well spent (TCY).

JimG: Q: If importing players from TCY, how do the combine numbers interact with the TCY players?
JimG: There are no differences between how this will work for imported players and internally-generated draftees.
JimG: Q: If you import players from TCY, do you NOT get the added draft info?
JimG: You actually get more with imported players. You'll get some key statistics from their last season in TCY. With internally-generated drafts, I decided it was better not to just make up senior-year statistics.
JimG: Q: From imported TCY draft files, will the combine scores be interpolated from other ratings, or will they be assigned at random?
JimG: There are all actually extrapolated numbers, with some random element added to cover combine-day nervousness. I didn't want the combine scores to tell you exact hidden ratings.
JimG: Q: Will TCY need an update to the college export file in order to work correctly with FOF2004?
JimG: Yes. There are some small changes. Most significantly, the player names are now exported directly and the key college statistics included.



Todd

MizzouRah
10-22-2003, 11:26 PM
dola,

thanks primelord and Jim!! Primelord, get going on some Missouri players into FOF 2004!!


Todd

PilotMan
10-22-2003, 11:38 PM
FOF 4 just wasn't that much better than me to make me buy it and abandon FOF2k2. This addition and improvment certainly will. I will wait though and see what the initial reaction is, before I lay my money down.

RPI-Fan
10-22-2003, 11:46 PM
I will wait though and see what the initial reaction is, before I lay my money down.

Suuuureee...:)

Karim
10-23-2003, 12:17 AM
Bucc and I must play sport sims alike because those were my exact concerns as well.

NoMyths
10-23-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by MikeVic
I don't really like this:

JimG: Q: Will game plans be hidden from opposing coaches (password protected or otherwise) in multiplayer?
JimG: Interesting idea. No, people will be on the honor system when it comes to looking at the exported files. Of course, if someone is suspected, he may learn the hard way not to put too much into deciphering last week's game plan.

I'm not good with FOF, so I keep my gameplan pretty much the same... kinda crappy that the other people can see it then. :( I'll have to see how multiplayer functions before I participate in it. Glad to see my idea is interesting, but am disappointed in the implementation. Jim, feel free to add me to the beta team next time. ;)

sabotai
10-23-2003, 01:22 AM
I actually think being able to see the game plan for the other teams is a good thing. Remember, you'll be seeing the game plan from the previous week.

Every pro team has people who scout the hell out of opponents to determine exactly what they do and when they do it. This pretty much makes up for it. And those who make their defensive and offensive plans too specific with the opponents previous one will get burned when the oppoents mixes it up.

Like, you notice that your oppoentn never goes deep, and only throws short and runs. So you scale back on the zone and play more man and blitz. Suddenly, you play them, you elimiated concern over the deep pass and you get smoked several times for huge gains off long passes because the plan got changed.

I actually might become interested in MP now. :)

NoMyths
10-23-2003, 01:32 AM
One man's poison is another man's...poison, I guess, but maybe they have a higher resistance or something. ;)

pjstp20
10-23-2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by TargetPractice6
I agree. I can't see any features aside from multiplayer that would really justify the pruchase of this new game. Maybe FOF4.5 would be a better name for it :)

Gotta second this opinion. I was on the fence with this game and TPF but reading the transcript confirms I'll be going the TPF route. There's really nothing for the solo player in this release, except some minor adjustments that I can live without. I may be in the minority but I think Jim is rushing this game out so his customer base doesn't jump to 400ss, which is a good idea. It's not a coincidence that they were gonna be released at the same time.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 03:50 AM
Back in April, when I made the decision to go with FOF 2004, I aimed at October 1. I had no idea what competition, if any, would be released.

You can be unhappy about feature sets. You can call months of work minor adjustments. You are certainly free to buy whatever you choose to buy. But this game is not being rushed out, nor does my release schedule have anything to do with .400.

Alf
10-23-2003, 04:19 AM
Thanks for the Q&A session transcript.

I do anticipate the TCY/FOF2004 relation to be one of my favorite feature. Just after MultiPlayer ofcourse !

Honolulu Blue
10-23-2003, 04:21 AM
As always, thanks to Jim and primelord for taking time out of their busy schedule to answer and ask these questions for us. And thank you all for asking such interesting questions.

I'm actually mildly encouraged by the answers I see here, except of course for the big one (difficulty). I'm a little sorry to see the horoscope signs gone and it's too bad one can't play under expansion conditions, but the draft looks like fun, and if the AI can manage their rosters well (i.e. better), then Jim might have something here.

But overall it still looks like SSDD (same stuff, different day) that I am in no hurry to add to my collection.

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 05:03 AM
I gotta disagree with the consensus in this thead. The two areas of the game that to me could be improved the most to add to the single player experience were drafting and free agency. From what I saw in the chat, and from what I've read in Quik's diary about these two parts of the game, it sounds as if the draft has had a complete overhaul, and free agency has had some significant attention as well.

pjstp20
10-23-2003, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by SkyDog
I gotta disagree with the consensus in this thead. The two areas of the game that to me could be improved the most to add to the single player experience were drafting and free agency. From what I saw in the chat, and from what I've read in Quik's diary about these two parts of the game, it sounds as if the draft has had a complete overhaul, and free agency has had some significant attention as well.

What's been changed in the draft? I'm not being a smartass I genuinely would like to know. Ive seen that there are going to be some combine scores, but there maybe some other things I overlooked.

Maybe I was a little hasty in my previous post. If this game gets good reviews on here I may be tempted to buy it, but as it stands right now I would like to check out something new, and I don't have the time or the money to play two games.

P.S.: perhaps my choice to use the word rushed in my previous post wasn't the best. I didn't mean to imply at all that a sub par game was being released for the sake of timing. I didnt mean to piss anyone off

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by pjstp20
What's been changed in the draft?Sounds like about everything has changed. Several things mentioned in the Q&A, and fleshed out by Quik. Here (http://www.solecismic.com/diary4.php) is QuikSand's latest diary entry. Check it out.

Bee
10-23-2003, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by SkyDog
I gotta disagree with the consensus in this thead. The two areas of the game that to me could be improved the most to add to the single player experience were drafting and free agency. From what I saw in the chat, and from what I've read in Quik's diary about these two parts of the game, it sounds as if the draft has had a complete overhaul, and free agency has had some significant attention as well.

I completely agree SkyDog. To me, the problem with single player wasn't a lack of features, it was the features already there didn't work as well as they should. Most of my concerns centered around free agency (I actually thought Jim did a pretty nice job with the last patch for FOF4 in addressing quite a few concerns with the draft). Probably the biggest disappointment I have would be no trade offers during the draft, but hopefully that can be added in a future version. I'd rather have the current feature set working properly than adding more and nothing working right.

Subby
10-23-2003, 07:02 AM
Sabotai makes a good point about being able to see the gameplans.

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 07:17 AM
I agree that the changes to drafting and free agency are big, although I'd call them subtle in another sense, since the game probably won't look or even feel any different to someone who only plays it for a few hours. I think the changes will be subtle, and play themselves out over a career, which, I hope, will be a far more rewarding experience than FOF4 was. For that reason, I'm looking forward to the game.

However....if drafting and free agency really are the two biggest selling points to this version over FOF4, and you want people to try the game, having a demo that runs just like the previous demos ain't gonna cut it. Am I correct on this? Isn't the demo essentially limited to the beginning of a season and running a couple of weeks? How is that supposed to convince someone whether they want to buy FOF2K4, or stick with a previous version?

Bee
10-23-2003, 07:27 AM
Ksyrup have you read QS's last diary entry? Looks like the draft has a much different feel.

I agree about the demo. Jim does this every year and I think it's a mistake every year. The strength of this type of game are things in the offseason and if you don't show that in a demo, no one knows what to expect and the demo doesn't do what it is meant to do (demonstrate the game). I think it would be much better if the demo started at the end of the last season and let you run through free agency, the draft, the preseason and 1 regular season game. But it's not my choice sadly. :(

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 07:30 AM
Just read it. OK, so it will be different. Even more of a reason to get the game. From Jim's discussion during the chat, I got the feeling that many changes were subtle, but this looks completely redesigned. Nice!

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Bee
I agree about the demo. Jim does this every year and I think it's a mistake every year. The strength of this type of game are things in the offseason and if you don't show that in a demo, no one knows what to expect and the demo doesn't do what it is meant to do (demonstrate the game). I think it would be much better if the demo started at the end of the last season and let you run through free agency, the draft, the preseason and 1 regular season game. But it's not my choice sadly. :( I agree with you 100% here. The original Baseball Mogul (which I THINK was the first true career text sim) had a demo alone made me want to buy the game. It let you go through one round of everything in the game, but stopped immediately prior to the beginning of season #2. You got to see all your rookies on the roster that you wanted to see perform, AND you could save that demo league to put into the purchased final version of the game. You got into your team. You saw your new players. You wanted to continue THAT career, which you were able to do if you plunked down the cash. It gave a lot more incentive to buy imho.

Taur
10-23-2003, 07:43 AM
I would like to know more about the Coaching/scouting team budget. I wondered how this was going to work in an MP world.


I would also like to know what kind of further trouble our players can get into without the NFL License.(how low can you go?) Is there any thought of a TCY type in season "team" suspensions? EX: you star QB has missed his 3rd straight morning practice do you a)play him. b)bench him. c)suspend him.

MizzouRah
10-23-2003, 07:58 AM
The best diary entry yet!

So, I guess 40-times do matter? Meaning speed kills type thing? Will a faster WR return more punts and kickoffs? A faster RB have more long TD's?


Todd

John Galt
10-23-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by SkyDog
I agree with you 100% here. The original Baseball Mogul (which I THINK was the first true career text sim) had a demo alone made me want to buy the game. It let you go through one round of everything in the game, but stopped immediately prior to the beginning of season #2. You got to see all your rookies on the roster that you wanted to see perform, AND you could save that demo league to put into the purchased final version of the game. You got into your team. You saw your new players. You wanted to continue THAT career, which you were able to do if you plunked down the cash. It gave a lot more incentive to buy imho.

I couldn't agree more. That demo got me hooked on text sim games. Sure, I'd played a few Wizard Games and loved the sim aspects of FPS FB, but when I played that demo, I had to have the game and have been playing sports text sims ever since.

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 08:12 AM
I'm a bit confused about something:

PrimeLord:Q: Can rookies get burned out from playing too much too early and stunt their development? Does height or weight matter for the simulations?

JimG: No and No. Those are both good ideas for future development, though. I've always wanted height to matter, especially for quarterbacks.



Now, from QS' recent diary:

"I quickly notice, for instance, that the fastest man in this draft is a lightning-quick cover corner out of Kansas named Jerome Raymond - who has potential, but not great size. His 4.33 second time makes him a standout in this draft, and he looks to be a fairly early selection, despite his fairly diminutive size and correspondingly low score in the "strength" area."



Do I understand correctly that size doesn't matter (aside from being a determining factor for which positions a player is eligible for, I think), and that QS' comment is more "storyline filler" (no offense, QS) than a substantive part of the game? So, among the info that I really need to pay attention to on the draft screen, height and weight are just window dressing, but the others - 40 time, test score, bench press, etc., are real factors?

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 08:15 AM
Ksyrup:

Excellent question.

MizzouRah
10-23-2003, 08:17 AM
Good work, I was wondering that myself.


Todd

Bee
10-23-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Ksyrup
So, among the info that I really need to pay attention to on the draft screen, height and weight are just window dressing, but the others - 40 time, test score, bench press, etc., are real factors?

Jim has said the combine scores are interpolated from actual ratings with a "fudge" factor to account for combine day nerves. As you said, Jim also said that height and weight do not play a factor in the simulation, BUT that doesn't mean they also aren't interpolated from ratings in some manner (based on position). I have no idea if this is the case or not, but I would think that height is pretty random, but weight may be tied to strength in some manner (so a "strong" RB may weigh more). Edit: Weight is probably also tied to height as well.

Buccaneer
10-23-2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by pjstp20
Gotta second this opinion. I was on the fence with this game and TPF but reading the transcript confirms I'll be going the TPF route. There's really nothing for the solo player in this release, except some minor adjustments that I can live without. I may be in the minority but I think Jim is rushing this game out so his customer base doesn't jump to 400ss, which is a good idea. It's not a coincidence that they were gonna be released at the same time.

pjstp20: That was uncalled for. :(

If it weren't for multi-player (and then only to play in the one league), I would have no reason to buy this game.

I feel this way too and I wonder how much of the improvements in drafting, free agenting, trading (my favorite areas) would be applicable to MP? I can certainly appreciate the emphasis on gameplan features but in the immortal words of SkyDog, "I don't care 'bout that".

Jim did a great job with the questions and answered them honestly (unlike a company like Firaxis who generally replies 'No Comments' to many of the same type of questions). I do believe he's right when he said that MP alone would put FOF back on the map and I will support him just for that.

Here's a secret: If you want to see many of the desired features in the patches (like the ones I stated plus HTML and others) - buy the game and get others to buy it as well.

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 08:38 AM
Did anyone else shake their head sadly at this:

"JimG: Well, I found that FOF2002, EA's roster update for FOF2001, might actually have outsold FOF4 this year. So maybe my sales problem with FOF4 had something to do with confusion over the name of the game - which is more current? I thought it made sense to go with FOF 2004 instead of FOF5 to alleviate confusion."

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Ksyrup
Did anyone else shake their head sadly at this:

"JimG: Well, I found that FOF2002, EA's roster update for FOF2001, might actually have outsold FOF4 this year. So maybe my sales problem with FOF4 had something to do with confusion over the name of the game - which is more current? I thought it made sense to go with FOF 2004 instead of FOF5 to alleviate confusion." Yeah. I was wondering how people could do so little research before plunking down the cash.

QuikSand
10-23-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Ksyrup
Do I understand correctly that size doesn't matter (aside from being a determining factor for which positions a player is eligible for, I think), and that QS' comment is more "storyline filler" (no offense, QS) than a substantive part of the game? So, among the info that I really need to pay attention to on the draft screen, height and weight are just window dressing, but the others - 40 time, test score, bench press, etc., are real factors?

Okay, gang. The fact that height is essentially immaterial in the game is not news. That has always been the case, and this question has been answered before.

However, I think there is a meaningful advance in this version on this front - particularly regarding rookie players. "Small" players in this game have a generally lower ability in the strength-related areas -- so a 5-8 and 180 lb running back is not likely to not have the "strength" factors that a 6-1 225 lb running back would. And this correlation is generally pretty evident in the combine ratings, along with showing up in the scouting analysis of rookie players.

However, just like previous games, FOF 2004 uses a system of "result-oriented" ratings, rather than basic skills. So, when you eventually see that your RB has a rating of 70/100 for "power running" - THAT is what you should base your opinion on, because THAT is what really matters. You shouldn't go back to look at the fact that the RB is only 195 lbs and say "well, he's really not big enough to be a power runner." (This excaly mirrors the way the rating system has worked in all prior versions of the game, too -- In FOF 2001 of FOF 4, if you have a 5-9, 265 lb DT who is rated 90/100 in "Run Defense" then he is a run stopper, not mater what his size might tend to indicate)

I think this is what Jim means by "weight and height don't matter." When I'm scouting rookies for the draft, I am definitely looking at things like a player's combine lifting result and his size - because I have reason to believe that this will connect to his ability to be a tough run stopper, for instance. But once his ratings are fully revealed (after the player has performed and we get a real look at his scouted ratings) then these secondary factors are irrelevant, and the scouted ratings tell me what I was originally just guessing at.

Does that connection make a little more sense?

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by QuikSand
Okay, gang. The fact that height is essentially immaterial in the game is not news. That has always been the case, and this question has been answered before.

However, I think there is a meaningful advance in this version on this front - particularly regarding rookie players. "Small" players in this game have a generally lower ability in the strength-related areas -- so a 5-8 and 180 lb running back is not likely to not have the "strength" factors that a 6-1 225 lb running back would. And this correlation is generally pretty evident in the combine ratings, along with showing up in the scouting analysis of rookie players.

However, just like previous games, FOF 2004 uses a system of "result-oriented" ratings, rather than basic skills. So, when you eventually see that your RB has a rating of 70/100 for "power running" - THAT is what you should base your opinion on, because THAT is what really matters. You shouldn't go back to look at the fact that the RB is only 195 lbs and say "well, he's really not big enough to be a power runner." (This excaly mirrors the way the rating system has worked in all prior versions of the game, too -- In FOF 2001 of FOF 4, if you have a 5-9, 265 lb DT who is rated 90/100 in "Run Defense" then he is a run stopper, not mater what his size might tend to indicate)

I think this is what Jim means by "weight and height don't matter." When I'm scouting rookies for the draft, I am definitely looking at things like a player's combine lifting result and his size - because I have reason to believe that this will connect to his ability to be a tough run stopper, for instance. But once his ratings are fully revealed (after the player has performed and we get a real look at his scouted ratings) then these secondary factors are irrelevant, and the scouted ratings tell me what I was originally just guessing at.

Does that connection make a little more sense? Quik:

That makes complete sense, and is an improvement, in my opinion, IF an "averaged"-sized guy for his position might have above-average or below-average ratings in "strength." For example, if one 6'0", 200lb RB might be rated 60 in "inside running", but another guy who is the exact same size might be rated 40. Otherwise, the weight becomes redundant I think.

(I'm not sure I'm making sense.)

Dutch
10-23-2003, 10:12 AM
If that is true, QS, that is a nice addition. Next maybe we can work on getting descriptive tags to go along with some of the ratings.

Perhaps we could have scatbacks which get a bonus to ratings such as "Speed to the outside" and "Elusiveness" and a penalty modifier to "Endurance" and "Power Inside".

North South power runners would get the opposite bonus and penalty.

Just things for Jim to think about for the future.

Dutch
10-23-2003, 10:15 AM
One question that I asked but didn't get into detail was commissioner participation in multiplayer. Would there be any chance a commissioner could cheat was basically my question.

The answer was no. But I wonder if the commissioner doesn't like the results of a week of action, could he/she simply not save it and reload the game and to it again?

It sure seems like he/she could do that, unless the game autosaves after results are determined.

VPI97
10-23-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Dutch
But I wonder if the commissioner doesn't like the results of a week of action, could he/she simply not save it and reload the game and to it again?That's why it's usually a good rule of thumb that the commish of a multi player/online league shouldn't be an owner. I ran an online league using the NBA Live series for nearly six years and had a team for only the first season and a half...even though I knew that I wouldn't do anything to taint the results of the league, it removed any thought of impropriety for all the owners' minds. I also think that the fact that I only focused on running the league was a primary reason for the extreme longevity of the league...

Gallifrey
10-23-2003, 11:28 AM
Thanks PrimeLord and Jim for the Q&A.

I disagree with the way this thread started to read.

I log in taking a break from programming hell, and read where the additions and changes to the game are viewed as minor tweeks, rushed at that.
Of course Jim logged in to set the record straight, and I must say, I think Jim had a lot of work to do for these changes to be in place. And the future changes he says he wants to make are quite ambitious. I was about to jump on a programming soap box, but I have a video card to finish.

For me as long as the sim plays the games out in a realistic fasion, the other changes can come in time and all is good.

GrantDawg
10-23-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by SkyDog
I gotta disagree with the consensus in this thead. The two areas of the game that to me could be improved the most to add to the single player experience were drafting and free agency. From what I saw in the chat, and from what I've read in Quik's diary about these two parts of the game, it sounds as if the draft has had a complete overhaul, and free agency has had some significant attention as well.

Of course we've had this conversation before so Ben knows where I stand, but those were only two of many things that needed to be improved. If you want to know what else I'd like to see improved, just go back to the chat and see what Jim said "no" to. 95% are things I have always wanted and many others have been asking for from day one. Even simple things that are in every other game of this type (division names and bowl names) stay unchanged.

The demo thing is another. You must allow one post-season to get a feel for the game, or you cannot slam people for not being happy with the game after buying it by saying "well, you had a demo." No, you really don't have a demo.

I will give Jim props for two things. One, you finally brought on some Beta testers. That was wise and something most have been asking for since day one. Two, adding MP after fighting it for so long. I think that was a brilliant stroke to help sell this game.

There was one encouraging thought that came out of this chat also:

JimG: Well, .400 is pretty well covered. I doubt they'd have any interest in me. I really don't know. One thing I've learned from talking to publishers is that they have to come to you, I can't go to them. If an established publisher came to me with an interesting offer, I might very well take it. These games are getting bigger and bigger, and there is definitely more of a barrier to entry for a one-man ship than there was six years ago.

I hope this means Jim will broaden his mind in getting some help on producing his products in the future. In truth there is no chance there ever will be a football game with "CM" type depth untill there is more than a one or two man shop working on the game. .400 has two programmers and have several others helping them on different aspects of the game. That has allowed the game to have a much more ambitious feature set than has ever been seen in football text sim. I'm not saying that this means that the game will be "better" than FOF, that remains to be seen. But, imagine a game were Jim is concentrating on the engine, someone else is concentrating on the financials, some one is concentrating on the personality traits and yet another works on the interface. That is what it is going to take to make the ultimate football game.

cthomer5000
10-23-2003, 01:31 PM
Any thoughts on the death of Astrological signs? I'm a bit surprised, and maybe even disappointed.

John Galt
10-23-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by cthomer5000
Any thoughts on the death of Astrological signs? I'm a bit surprised, and maybe even disappointed.

I didn't understand his answer to that question - did he mean that chemistry was eliminated entirely or that something other than astrological signs is being used.

Bee
10-23-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by John Galt
I didn't understand his answer to that question - did he mean that chemistry was eliminated entirely or that something other than astrological signs is being used.

I think he might have meant "conflicts" instead of "contracts" in his answer. Otherwise, I have no idea what he was saying either. :D

3ric
10-23-2003, 01:58 PM
If an established publisher came to me with an interesting offer, I might very well take it.

Marc, are you reading? :)

Bee
10-23-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by 3ric
Marc, are you reading? :)

Edit: Warning - Pure Speculation Ahead -

I was actually wondering if that is what fell through. Jim said by the time he got back to them, the offer was no longer on the table. I wonder if it could have been an offer from SI or Eidos and the split was the reason the offer was no longer on the table. Just a thought...

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Bee
Edit: Warning - Pure Speculation Ahead -

I was actually wondering if that is what fell through. Jim said by the time he got back to them, the offer was no longer on the table. I wonder if it could have been an offer from SI or Eidos and the split was the reason the offer was no longer on the table. Just a thought...

My pure speculation is that Jim might have been invited to join .400, but PureSim got there first. Again, I have nothing to go by, just my own pure guess.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 02:12 PM
Chemistry is still intact. It's just that astrological signs received a fairly negative response from people, so I felt their mention was distracting people from the game.

Should I get help for these sims? Well, that means enormous risk. And it's difficult to find the right kind of help. If you have a couple of other people sharing the proceeds, you might end up banking everything on one release. I could obviously use an artist - the one who does the splash screen is a freelancer with excellent credentials who really seems to enjoy the work. She's a wonderful person and a top-notch artist who does a lot of work for Microsoft, but I could never afford her rates on a full-time basis. I could also use a marketing director to free up my time and create new opportunities. But all that adds risk, and with my current situation (new baby, wife taking care of him full time), that's just not an option right now.

I wanted to clear up one misconception that seems prevalent on the .400 board. A handful of people, including my favorite ex-customer - the only one ever banned from buying Solecismic products - seem to believe I don't care about my customers and I don't listen to input.

I know I don't do a great job about responding about new ideas on the forum. I don't have time to respond to every item, or even close to it. Part of that goes back to the discussion above - I don't want to add risk by adding employees like a community manager who can speak for the company.

But I do listen. I would never be doing multi-player if I didn't listen. In fact, all the new features in FOF 2004 are ones that people requested and discussed in various stages. Sure, I have a vision for the game. Doesn't every developer? How could you start something like this without a vision? I also have a design, which includes mostly data structure formats and a display style.

But new ideas for the game come from the people who play the game. My job is to fit them into the vision and the display style and make decisions about what I can do in the development time I have available. This rigidity and not caring accusation is utter nonsense, made up by a handful of people who have an axe to grind.

spleen1015
10-23-2003, 02:17 PM
I would like to know where you saw Farrah say that you don't care about your customers and don't listen to input.

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by spleen1015
I would like to know where you saw Farrah say that you don't care about your customers and don't listen to input.


QUOTE (Chappy @ Oct 23 2003, 05:49 PM)
...He has always been up front about his desire to do the game the way he wants to, with little or no input from the consumers. It's his right to do it that way...



response from Farrah: Well said Chappy! I completely agree.





I must say that is pretty close.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 02:23 PM
... All kidding aside, TPF will hopefully end up being a game designed by fans and executed by a developer, while FOF will always be Jim's game the way he wants it.

Farrah: Well said Chappy! I completely agree.

You're right, she didn't say both. Editing.

pjstp20
10-23-2003, 02:26 PM
The inevitable war has begun

spleen1015
10-23-2003, 02:26 PM
Well, how about we include the entire post so we can all see how well what she was saying was taken out of context.

QUOTE (Chappy @ Oct 23 2003, 05:49 PM)
I don't think it's fair to say that Jim at FOF is not passionate about the game or that the game is a joke.

He has always been up front about his desire to do the game the way he wants to, with little or no input from the consumers. It's his right to do it that way. But by the amount of research that Jim put forth before developing his football sims, I'd say he's very passionate obout the game.

That said, I think it shows how truly wonderful it is that developers at .400 value input from us. Sure, we all whine and complain and give Arlie many a headache, but we also make him step back and say "Good Idea, Chappy" or "Man, that Chappy sure does have a lot to offer. I think I'll give him a free copy of the game in exchange for some of his endless knowledge". All kidding aside, TPF will hopefully end up being a game designed by fans and executed by a developer, while FOF will always be Jim's game the way he wants it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said Chappy! I completely agree.

Just one correction - Arlie is a fan first, developer second. He's one of those lucky people who turns their passion into a career.

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 02:28 PM
spleen:

I "completely" agree means she agrees with every statement in the post, and several of the statements in that post slam Jim pretty hard, any way you look at 'em.

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by pjstp20
The inevitable war has begun I don't see any war here. I doubt Farrah truly MEANT that. She's trying to play both sides of the fence, which is impossibe in this case.

Deattribution
10-23-2003, 02:33 PM
This is all so stupid.

The whole thread should of been removed to begin with, because all it is is a flamefest in there favor.

He could of complimented TPF without insulting FOF, which would of been fine, nothing wrong with praising a game you think your gonna enjoy, but he didn't, and then everyone joined in.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 02:34 PM
I don't think there's a war here. Just a lot of enthusiasm for .400, and unfortunately, a few people (NOT including Farrah) who can't see that the success of one developer helps the entire genre.

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Deattribution
The whole thread should of been removed to begin with, because all it is is a flamefest in there favor.Yup.

spleen1015
10-23-2003, 02:36 PM
Okay, you are right in the fact that she said she completely agreed after quoting his entire thread.

I truly doubt she meant to agree with the Jim bashing.

Ugh. Maybe I will just stay out of it from now on.

ScottVib
10-23-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by SkyDog
I don't see any war here. I doubt Farrah truly MEANT that. She's trying to play both sides of the fence, which is impossibe in this case.


I know for a fact she didn't mean it like that, when she saw Jim's post she was just as surprised as anyone here that it was taken that way.


I don't think agreeing with that statement is equal to stating that Jim doesn't care about his customers and doesn't listen to their input. Farrah told me she meant it as agreeing Jim is passionate about the game, and was shocked that it could be taken as a slam.

The last thing we want is any sort of forum war. Comparison is probably inevitable, but there is no reason or need for any sort of war. In the end both Jim and .400 want the same thing you all want, the best football sim possible on the market. Ultimately the fans will benefit, as they will have two top flight games to enjoy.

John Galt
10-23-2003, 02:54 PM
I went and read the other thread and found something the epitomizes the difference between the two boards. Spleen1015 had this nugget to offer:

"Why is the feature set of FOF being talked about on the official TPF website in the first place?

IF you want to bitch about FOF, then go to an FOF board to do it."

I found it truly astounding that someone would argue that FOF should not be discussed at TPF. If someone said something similar on this board, they would be laughed at (and probably Fritzed as well). Weird. I heart FOFC.

Arles
10-23-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Solecismic
I don't think there's a war here. Just a lot of enthusiasm for .400, and unfortunately, a few people (NOT including Farrah) who can't see that the success of one developer helps the entire genre.

This is a point few seem to realize. Baseball has had three choices for sports sims for a while (OOTP, BB Mogul, PureSim). All have had a certain amount of success and each has helped improve the genre over time. I think there is more than enough room for both FOF and TPF to succeed. And, quite honestly, I hope that happens.

Now, the last thing I want to do is come out and appear to be in favor of "closing threads" :p. But, I think we (both the .400 and FOF community) need to make a concerted effort to refrain from the pot shots ("is .400 dead"/ "FOF4/TPF is going to stink") and instead put that effort into getting both Jim and .400 feedback on the games and features. I think, in the long run, that will help everyone's gaming enjoyment.

And, in the end, isn't that why we are all here?

Arlie

Bee
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Should we all hold hands now and sing kumbaya?

spleen1015
10-23-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by John Galt
I went and read the other thread and found something the epitomizes the difference between the two boards. Spleen1015 had this nugget to offer:

"Why is the feature set of FOF being talked about on the official TPF website in the first place?

IF you want to bitch about FOF, then go to an FOF board to do it."

I found it truly astounding that someone would argue that FOF should not be discussed at TPF. If someone said something similar on this board, they would be laughed at (and probably Fritzed as well). Weird. I heart FOFC.

How many threads are there on the Official FOF forum bashing TPF?

I'm not arguing about talking about the game. That kind of things happens all of the time. I'm talking about bashing the game and it's maker like wig was doing in that thread.

The funny thing is this whole sh!t storm was caused by a guy who has been banned over here and he's still make waves here.

Bee
10-23-2003, 03:00 PM
There's an official FOF forum?

Deattribution
10-23-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Arles
This is a point few seem to realize. Baseball has had three choices for sports sims for a while (OOTP, BB Mogul, PureSim). All have had a certain amount of success and each has helped improve the genre over time. I think there is more than enough room for both FOF and TPF to succeed. And, quite honestly, I hope that happens.

Now, the last thing I want to do is come out and appear to be in favor of "closing threads" :p. But, I think we (both the .400 and FOF community) need to make a concerted effort to refrain from the pot shots ("is .400 dead"/ "FOF4/TPF is going to stink") and instead put that effort into getting both Jim and .400 feedback on the games and features. I think, in the long run, that will help everyone's gaming enjoyment.

And, in the end, isn't that why we are all here?

Arlie

I agree to an extent, but there hasn't been that many issues here concerning popshots being taken. It's usually constructive critism, I can't think of any threads that talked about how glad they were they are gonna buy FOF since TPF is gonna suck so bad, or vice versa.

And if any of them do arise, certainly isn't anyone from Solecismic or the board moderators in the thread encouraging it by saying good job and great stuff.

FrogMan
10-23-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Bee
There's an official FOF forum?

If you find it, let me know...

Deattribution
10-23-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Bee
There's an official FOF forum?

I know you're saying there isn't, but does anyone really need to ask why now ?

You think anyone would wanna tie all this mess together as assosiated with there company and product?

Jim is much better off having this as an unofficial forum opposed to one he has to keep an eye on. An with the crazy amount of backlash all of a sudden, it's no wonder he stopped posting before too.

John Galt
10-23-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by spleen1015
How many threads are there on the Official FOF forum bashing TPF?

I'm not arguing about talking about the game. That kind of things happens all of the time. I'm talking about bashing the game and it's maker like wig was doing in that thread.

The funny thing is this whole sh!t storm was caused by a guy who has been banned over here and he's still make waves here.

Huh? As has been pointed out - there is no official FOF forum. Also, my point is ALL games are fair ground on this board and football games of all types (Madden, ESPN, Tecmo, FPS, TPF, FOF, etc.) have been discussed at length on this board. Hell, even the infamous WigFL was discussed (created by your friend Wignasty). My point is that this board abandoned the OT: label a while ago while .400 (as an official board) is very limited in its subject matter. Thus, I heart FOFC.

Bee
10-23-2003, 03:10 PM
spleen,

just count yourself lucky there hasn't been a comparison of the beta diaries for the two games...you're up against the King around these parts... ;) :D

HornedFrog Purple
10-23-2003, 03:15 PM
My point is that this board abandoned the OT: label a while ago ...

What a disgraceful apparition of the truth!

-Holding the flame of the OT: Renaissance.

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Arles
But, I think we (both the .400 and FOF community) need to make a concerted effort to refrain from the pot shots ("is .400 dead"/ "FOF4/TPF is going to stink") and instead put that effort into getting both Jim and .400 feedback on the games and features. I think, in the long run, that will help everyone's gaming enjoyment.

I disagree, to an extent. I think the vast majority of readers, and certainly the developers to whom the comments are directed, can reasonably ferret out the constructive criticisms from the tripe, so you are getting feedback, even if you have to wade through the insults. And in fact, when someone posts a "TPF/FOF Sux" type thread on this board, the rest of us put that fire out rather quickly, and more often than not, a decent discussion is then had about the points (if any) inarticulately brought up by the troll. So I'd rather take the bad to get the good, rather than have everyone feel like they are on pins and needles if they don't couch their feedback in niceties, as opposed to giving the "straight poop" about a particular game's shortcomings.

And to the extent this forum really has no true affiliation, I think all developers benefit from our discussions far more than those on any company's "developer's forum." But I may be biased in that opinion. ;)

Godzilla Blitz
10-23-2003, 03:24 PM
After reading through the Q & A, I'm encouraged by the new version, even though I don't think I'll be playing multiplayer. Although people are free to evaluate the new version based on the number of new features, I think the best way to improve FOF is to improve features that are already in the game, and especially by improving the AI that governs existing features.

I've found FOF4, with the latest patch, to be the most challenging version to date. However, Jim's comment that he has worked hard on free agency seems to me--after considerable time with FOF4--to be a needed move to increase the challenge in the game. The draft AI took a big jump in quality with the latest FOF4 patch, and if free agency has gotten the same kind of overhaul and if the AI roster management has had some tweaking, I think we may see one of the more robust text-sim AIs on the market. The AI will have made huge strides as compared to FOF2001.

I'm also excited about the addition of career records, and glad to see that multiplayer has been added. I'm glad that chemisty will still be included, and am interested to see how it will be set up in this version. Although the astrological signs were a bit artificial, I liked their impact on the game.

Lastly, I am excited that someone as good as Quiksand is involved in beta testing, and am sure that the game will be better because of it. I think this may be the best version of FOF4 yet.

On a slightly different tack, I am also excited that SkyDog is involved with TPF, and am encouraged to read some of his comments about the game. I get a sense that they are doing things the right way, and I'm looking forward to their release as well. There is definitely room for two good football sims.

Arles
10-23-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Ksyrup
I disagree, to an extent. I think the vast majority of readers, and certainly the developers to whom the comments are directed, can reasonably ferret out the constructive criticisms from the tripe, so you are getting feedback, even if you have to wade through the insults. And in fact, when someone posts a "TPF/FOF Sux" type thread on this board, the rest of us put that fire out rather quickly, and more often than not, a decent discussion is then had about the points (if any) inarticulately brought up by the troll. So I'd rather take the bad to get the good, rather than have everyone feel like they are on pins and needles if they don't couch their feedback in niceties, as opposed to giving the "straight poop" about a particular game's shortcomings.

And to the extent this forum really has no true affiliation, I think all developers benefit from our discussions far more than those on any company's "developer's forum." But I may be biased in that opinion. ;)

I was referring to the comments more than the thread label. And, I agree that this board has done a nice job at that. Just look at the "is .400 done" poll that was here a few days ago. That eventually morphed into a decent discussion.

I certainly understand that some venting and vague criticism will occur and have no problem with that. My point is that we should try and put more effort into getting as much feedback to the developers as possible.

Bee
10-23-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
I think this may be the best version of FOF4 yet.


:D

spleen1015
10-23-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Bee
spleen,

just count yourself lucky there hasn't been a comparison of the beta diaries for the two games...you're up against the King around these parts... ;) :D

You guys can compare them all you want. Why am I lucky you're not? Because QS does a better job than I do? So be it. I am doing my best.

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
After reading through the Q & A, I'm encouraged by the new version, even though I don't think I'll be playing multiplayer. Although people are free to evaluate the new version based on the number of new features, I think the best way to improve FOF is to improve features that are already in the game, and especially by improving the AI that governs existing features.

I've found FOF4, with the latest patch, to be the most challenging version to date. However, Jim's comment that he has worked hard on free agency seems to me--after considerable time with FOF4--to be a needed move to increase the challenge in the game. The draft AI took a big jump in quality with the latest FOF4 patch, and if free agency has gotten the same kind of overhaul and if the AI roster management has had some tweaking, I think we may see one of the more robust text-sim AIs on the market. The AI will have made huge strides as compared to FOF2001.

I'm also excited about the addition of career records, and glad to see that multiplayer has been added. I'm glad that chemisty will still be included, and am interested to see how it will be set up in this version. Although the astrological signs were a bit artificial, I liked their impact on the game.

These are important points. It seems apparent to me that Solecismic being a one-man shop, we can't expect a complete overhaul of the game every year, to include a litany of improvements and new features. Jim is limited to the addition of a few new features, and to strengthen what is already there. That's what FOF2K4 will represent. I don't have a problem with that and will gladly fund his continued development of the game.

However, if I ever feel as if the FOF series (or any game, for that matter) is not developing, for whatever reason, than I might choose not to support it. That's basically what happened, IMO, with Baseball Mogul. Three versions down the road, I didn't see enough improvement to warrant my further purchase of the game.

Look at OOTP - for its 6th version, it is undergoing a complete recoding of the basics involved in rating players. I think Jim has got that fairly knocked out, and can work on other issues as the game progresses. Personally, I'd much rather have seen Marcus tackle the ratings issues for OOTP3 or 4, than add some of the extras that everyone loves and leaving the ratings issues until now, but that's just me. And I didn't knock Marcus or the game for making those choices, although I was happy to point out the shortcomings of having batters rated for hitting triples, for instance. Similarly, Jim's efforts shouldn't be knocked simply because he's chosen to put the "under the hood" elements of the game ahead of the extras. I tend to believe that they will come, in time., And if not, then there will be other games out there to spend our money on. That's how it should work, don't you think?

Bee
10-23-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by spleen1015
You guys can compare them all you want. Why am I lucky you're not? Because QS does a better job than I do? So be it. I am doing my best.

I was joking spleen (that's why I used two smilie thingies)...there's a sort of running joke here that Quik is a computer and no one wants to go up against him in anything basically.

GrantDawg
10-23-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Bee
I was joking spleen (that's why I used two smilie thingies)...there's a sort of running joke here that Quik is a computer and no one wants to go up against him in anything basically.

It's a joke!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

ice4277
10-23-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by GrantDawg
It's a joke!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Thats what 'they' would like you to believe...

Godzilla Blitz
10-23-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Bee
:D

Bee: Whoops. Nice catch. I really didn't mean to add the "4" to "best version of FOF4 yet", but it did turn out kind of funny, given the current conversation. I do think, however, that FOF2004 will easily have enough improvements for me to buy it and be happy with my purchase.

Ksyrup: As much as it pains me to say so, I would have to agree with you about Baseball Mogul. I really like the 2001 version game I have, but really haven't felt the need to get any of the newer versions yet.

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
Ksyrup: As much as it pains me to say so, I would have to agree with you about Baseball Mogul. I really like the 2001 version game I have, but really haven't felt the need to get any of the newer versions yet. Same here. It pains me to have to say it, but Mogul just stopped progressing. Even as inexpensive as it is, I didn't buy Mogul 2K4. :(

Easy Mac
10-23-2003, 03:59 PM
can I ask why wgnasty's thread @ .400 is stickied? Its a flame fest on Jim and its stickied? I don't know if one thing has actually been mentioned about a .400 game, but the whole thread says FOF sucks.

If this is a company board, I find that kind of classless.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 04:08 PM
I wish Arlie and .400 the best with TPF. He's been around here for years, and there's no question about his contributions to the sports sim community.

I also want to thank Quik again for all his work with the diary. He's even juggling beta versions (which is a giant pain, given that they share registry keys) so that he can keep the career alive that he's using for the diary. It means a lot to me that he's willing to tell people he's testing the game and put the extra time into writing about it.

I like this forum. I especially like what SkyDog has done with it. And I think it works better without an official affiliation. I don't feel pressure to control discussion that way, or worry about sexual innuendo in items. It works so well that I don't feel the need to have my own forum. The negative is that my release won't necessarily have the full attention of the board, but the positives heavily outweigh the negatives, as people who are just sports sim fans in general feel comfortable here. I know I can ask a question here and get a straight answer.

Maple Leafs
10-23-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Easy Mac
If this is a company board, I find that kind of classless. I finally found the thread and read through it. You're right. I can't see why they'd bother to sticky that.

I'm not very familiar with the TPF/.400 folks, but as a potential customer I can't say I'm very impressed by that move. I'm going to assume it was a one-time lapse in judgement.

GrantDawg
10-23-2003, 04:26 PM
nevermind. They corrected it.

The_herd
10-23-2003, 04:29 PM
I've bought every game Jim and Arlie have made so far. I enjoy contributing in some way to the games both of you make. And although I'm somewhat disappointed that a couple of features will not be included in FOF2004, I'm incredibly excited about the Multi-Player potential for the FOF series. I will hopefully be a first day buyer for FOF2004, but for that to happen Jim needs to promise to wait until I'm finished moving to San Antonio.:)

With that being said, I will forever be cautious on purchasing .400 studio's products after the TDCB disaster. I don't know Arlie as a person, but I do know that he is a dedicated developer. However, I can't help but begin to question how things are run over there when they sticky and participate in flamefests against the competition on their forums.

I wish both Jim and Arlie the best of luck with their games and hope that both sell beyond expectations.

Senator
10-23-2003, 04:54 PM
Many disjointed thoughts, stay with me.

Are we being invaded and no one told me?

October 2003 newbies sure have alot of stout comments on FOF. I better go make sure somebody hasn't slit my tires.


And as an aside. Purchasing these games are not mutually exclusive. You can have both, and I bet most here will.

Territorial warfare has always interested me. You would think the Battle of Little Bighorn was about to be revisited.

sabotai
10-23-2003, 05:08 PM
Wow...I just read that thread. Did I really use to stick up for this guy?

*shivers* I feel so dirty now...

nilodor
10-23-2003, 05:25 PM
My big question is: if TCY needs to be updated for the draft files to work with FOF 2k4, what is going to happen to the historical project? Is there going to be a converter to convert the files from FOF4 to FOF 2k4? If not will it be possible for a 3rd party to make a converter *cough* 3ric? Are there new data fields that would have to be added to the files?

Ben E Lou
10-23-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by ScottVib
Can I ask what you are talking about. Wignasty's thread isn't stickied and unless it was stickied briefly while I was traveling from work to home, hasn't been stickied at all. Scott:

It was stickied for a good bit of time (at least a half hour). It got un-stickied shortly after the posts in this thread criticizing the sticky. It made it look like someone stickied it, then un-stickied it when the criticism came. Thought you should know.

--Ben

ScottVib
10-23-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by SkyDog
Scott:

It was stickied for a good bit of time. It got un-stickied shortly after the posts in this thread criticizing the sticky. Thought you should know.

--Ben

Ben thanks for letting me know.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by nilodor
My big question is: if TCY needs to be updated for the draft files to work with FOF 2k4, what is going to happen to the historical project? Is there going to be a converter to convert the files from FOF4 to FOF 2k4? If not will it be possible for a 3rd party to make a converter *cough* 3ric? Are there new data fields that would have to be added to the files?

Given the amount of work that has clearly gone into the draft project, I'm going to do what I can to help out there.

If those draft files originally came from spreadsheets, the good news is that it won't be hard to convert those spreadsheets into ones compatible with the draft file generator.

If not, I'll try to find some time to write a converter in the days following the release.

maximus
10-23-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by spleen1015
You guys can compare them all you want. Why am I lucky you're not? Because QS does a better job than I do? So be it. I am doing my best.

I think you are doing a good job spleen. Keep it up.

Dutch
10-23-2003, 05:53 PM
Jeez Jim, it's a good thing your married or you might have Senator and his goons chasing after you like a pack of dogs in heat.

That's pretty thoughtful that you are willing to help out with those files.

Senator
10-23-2003, 06:04 PM
Gotta have the history!!!!


Thanks Jim. Rest assured we will not chase you as dogs in heat.

Squids in heat, perhaps.

Deattribution
10-23-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Senator


October 2003 newbies sure have alot of stout comments on FOF. I better go make sure somebody hasn't slit my tires.




I assume you're referring to me... atleast my comments got referred to as stout ;)

Dutch
10-23-2003, 06:30 PM
So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

Easy Mac
10-23-2003, 06:31 PM
theoretically... but if you can't trust the guys on the FOFC, who can you trust.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Dutch
So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

I can think of two ways to stop this.

1) Autosave after every simulated game, which means they'd have to backup and go through quite a few hoops to cheat. I don't think people really would go for that option.

2) Do a low-level format to the hard drive for every simulated game, so that if the participants have any questions, the FBI could break into the commissioner's home, take the hard drive, and examine it for those formats (just a joke, I'd never do this).

Only a server-based solution really can prevent cheating. If you don't trust the commish, don't join the league.

Draft Dodger
10-23-2003, 06:46 PM
I'm just here to find the answer to this:

PrimeLord:Q: Can you explain any more about your change of direction earlier in the year?
JimG: It has to do with an opportunity I had a while back. I did a lot of design work, but the opportunity was no longer there when I finally responded. My fault for not jumping on it when I had the chance.

:)

FloridaFringe
10-23-2003, 06:47 PM
I second that above.

Solecismic
10-23-2003, 06:56 PM
I'm going to evade this question. Sorry. I won't even drop a hint, except to say that, again, none of this has anything to do with .400, as has been speculated.

I received eight or nine serious offers back before I went with EA. If you produce a game, and it's well received, opportunities arise. I missed a good opportunity, that's all. My fault.

Even saying as much as I did months ago (which prompted the question last night) was probably too much.

Draft Dodger
10-23-2003, 07:02 PM
I think people are less curious about WHO the talks were with, but WHAT type of game you were thinking about doing.

I understand if you don't want to answer - obviously, it's just something many of us have been curious about.

Easy Mac
10-23-2003, 07:03 PM
plead the 2nd jim.

cody8200
10-23-2003, 07:12 PM
you mean the 5th??

dacman
10-23-2003, 07:15 PM
Nah, the 2nd -- he'd answer but then he'd have to shoot you.

cody8200
10-23-2003, 07:18 PM
lol :)

sabotai
10-23-2003, 08:10 PM
Cheating can happen in many forms in every game (See HM), and it's basically a risk you have to take if you want to join an online league. It's part of the beast and there really is no way to stop it unless you set up a true server-client game. That would take too much time to do (no time left for anything else).

Ksyrup
10-23-2003, 08:13 PM
Who is this HM character that you speak of? :D

rexallllsc
10-23-2003, 08:26 PM
Although I think I'll buy TPF before FOF2004 (I'll prob. stick to FOF2), I think .400 could do a better job promoting the game, as they need to win their audience a bit more, whereas FOF has the built in client base. What I mean by that is more screenshots, an in-depth diary (as opposed to just explaining the features, run an actual season).

Does anyone know if the PbP has been modified in FOF 2004, a la cm3?

MizzouRah
10-23-2003, 08:50 PM
Does anyone know if the PbP has been modified in FOF 2004, a la cm3?




Nope. I believe Jim said it's the same as FOF4.



Todd

rexallllsc
10-23-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by MizzouRah
Nope. I believe Jim said it's the same as FOF4.


Darn. I seriously think that would add a lot to the game.

MizzouRah
10-23-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by rexallllsc
Darn. I seriously think that would add a lot to the game.

Yes it would, but I think we'll see it eventually.


Todd

revrew
10-24-2003, 12:25 AM
I've loved FOF2k1. I looked for a game like it for years, ever since the invention of Pong and the drafting of John Elway. When I finally downloaded it, I was in love from day one.

I didn't buy FOF4 because there was quite a bit of buzz about how many bugs it had. I wanted to wait for a better version.

But here's what I've read from QS's diary and the Jim chat:
1. 2004 has all the added features of FOF4 - player interaction, agent personalities, etc.

2. The free agency and renegotiation processes have been made more realistic

3. The draft board has gone away from artificial number ratings toward a more IRL approach

4. Sorting and player profiles have been made easier/more accessible

5. Game planning and depth charting are easier than ever before

6. I can now join a league and get my a$$ handed to me by QuickSand and do the same to, say, Kodos. Or, I can take all my ZFL commishing experience and use it to commish a FOFC league.

Given all that, I'm really confused as to why there's all this bitching.

Jim, how much can I pay for the honor of playing this game? Does your religion allow us to nominate you for sainthood?

--signed, one really happy football simmer

McSweeny
10-24-2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by revrew
I've loved FOF2k1. I looked for a game like it for years, ever since the invention of Pong and the drafting of John Elway. When I finally downloaded it, I was in love from day one.

I didn't buy FOF4 because there was quite a bit of buzz about how many bugs it had. I wanted to wait for a better version.

But here's what I've read from QS's diary and the Jim chat:
1. 2004 has all the added features of FOF4 - player interaction, agent personalities, etc.

2. The free agency and renegotiation processes have been made more realistic

3. The draft board has gone away from artificial number ratings toward a more IRL approach

4. Sorting and player profiles have been made easier/more accessible

5. Game planning and depth charting are easier than ever before

6. I can now join a league and get my a$$ handed to me by QuickSand and do the same to, say, Kodos. Or, I can take all my ZFL commishing experience and use it to commish a FOFC league.

Given all that, I'm really confused as to why there's all this bitching.

Jim, how much can I pay for the honor of playing this game? Does your religion allow us to nominate you for sainthood?

--signed, one really happy football simmer

i'm in the same boat. I loved FOF2 and 2k1 and didn't get 4. So i'm really really looking forward to this version

Easy Mac
10-24-2003, 12:44 AM
opposite boat. I only own one NFL FOF, FOF4. I'll buy it, even though I'm not a multiplayer kind of guy, but I'll try it. If I don't like multiplayer, oh well.

3ric
10-24-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Solecismic
Given the amount of work that has clearly gone into the draft project, I'm going to do what I can to help out there.

If those draft files originally came from spreadsheets, the good news is that it won't be hard to convert those spreadsheets into ones compatible with the draft file generator.

If not, I'll try to find some time to write a converter in the days following the release.

That's great, Jim. But that won't be necessary - with my editor, it's possible to copy the entire content of a draft file to Excel just like that. Just select the whole sheet, Ctrl-C, switch to Excel, Ctrl-P. See the attached file, should take me about an hour to do all 30 of them.

Draugluin
10-24-2003, 02:46 AM
I have purchased every incarnation of FOF since the first EA game but I think I may start waiting two years between releases given the lack of solo player enhancements since FOF2k1. I'll make an exception here for TCY2. :D

Why is it sooo much to ask to be able to start a career with a fictional player database that is not static upon recreation?! Every other text sim down the line has this feature. Hell, in this aspect the game has regressed from FOF2.. see the primer utility. That utility put to shame the 'one player universe' so-called feature.

Dutch
10-24-2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Solecismic
I can think of two ways to stop this.

1) Autosave after every simulated game, which means they'd have to backup and go through quite a few hoops to cheat. I don't think people really would go for that option.

2) Do a low-level format to the hard drive for every simulated game, so that if the participants have any questions, the FBI could break into the commissioner's home, take the hard drive, and examine it for those formats (just a joke, I'd never do this).

Only a server-based solution really can prevent cheating. If you don't trust the commish, don't join the league.

Okay, I was just checking. If multiplayer is successful beyond a scope that you or I see, there will inevitably be leagues where people don't know everybody else or even the commissioner and I was thinking more of that scenario.

QuikSand
10-24-2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Dutch
So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

Has any multiplayer game out there using the commissioner-style system (as opposed to an online hosted game) found a way to get around this? I honestly don't know of any reasonable way to avoid this potential problem. It's certainly a possibility in every FPS and OOTP league I know of... just seems to be the nature of the beast.

Gallifrey
10-24-2003, 11:19 AM
The talk about a commish cheating is a concern to anyone who is thinking of starting a league.

What happens when a commish puts all the pieces in place, has some good luck on injuries and makes a run deep into the playoffs? Maybe wins the whole thing?
Well, the talk will not be nice I am sure.

To me the fun is in the strugle to win, and that way winning is more fun. I can't understand why someone would cheat so their team would win sooner than later...why bother with a league of a bunch of humans? Doesn't register in my brain...but I find good things about winning only 3 or 4 games in a bad year. I love the draft even more!

This is a real head scratcher...Like Solecismic said "If you don't trust the commish don't join the league".

But what if the commish works for the FBI?

Ben E Lou
10-24-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by QuikSand
Has any multiplayer game out there using the commissioner-style system (as opposed to an online hosted game) found a way to get around this? I honestly don't know of any reasonable way to avoid this potential problem. It's certainly a possibility in every FPS and OOTP league I know of... just seems to be the nature of the beast. Yeah...and even online hosted games aren't immune from cheating. The 13-year-old-boy mentality of hackers is still alive and well. :(

Senator
10-24-2003, 11:45 AM
I think you know who you can trust. I just cannot imagine anyone joining a league with someone like HornsManiac as the commish. Talk about putting the fox in the henhouse. I am just glad he more than lived up to my expectations. I was shouted down for months by people for calling him out.

Dutch
10-24-2003, 01:24 PM
I honestly don't know of any reasonable way to avoid this potential problem.

That's all I was looking for. Thanks, QS.

VPI97
10-24-2003, 01:27 PM
Those reasons are why I suggested before in this thread that the only way to avoid insinuations and allegations of cheating is to be in a league where the commissioner only performs commish duties and doesn't have a team in the league.

Leonidas
10-24-2003, 03:19 PM
I love the FOF games, especially TCY, and I truly respect and admire what Jim has done and feel a significant amount of customer loyalty. However, as a solo player this looks more like an update to FOF4 than a new game. Same interface, same style of play, etc. Just a whole lot of enhancements and online play.

If I had the time to make a serious go of online play I wouldn't think twice about buying this game. But I can't, so I won't. If Jim were able to offer the enhancements as a cheaper upgrade and make the online version a different game (I know he probably can't afford to) then I would by the upgrade.

Different people have different needs for their gameplay. Personally, I have grown much fonder of FOF4 in recent weeks and am in the middle of a dynasty I have put a lot of work in and do not want to lose it. My one and only complaint to Jim is that he has yet to incorporate the ability to export earlier gamefiles into later games. I really think he does himself a disservice because of this.

Outside of the FOF forum I suspect there are a lot of people who would be much more willing to buy his new games if they could keep their old dynasties. I believe this is one of the key things that makes OOTP such a superior sim, and certainly one of the main reasons I will continue to buy Markus' product. Just my two cents of constructive criticism.

QuikSand
10-24-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Leonidas
Just a whole lot of enhancements and online play.

I found that particular complaint a bit amusing.

sabotai
10-24-2003, 03:41 PM
I think if a game can use old careers or not is a pretty good indication to how much has been added to it or changed.

EDIT to change the wording around. Even I had trouble reading it...

Castlerock
10-24-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Leonidas
My one and only complaint to Jim is that he has yet to incorporate the ability to export earlier gamefiles into later games.

Be careful what you wish for. In software development, this is known as backwards compatibility. If a developer needs to maintain backwards compatibility, he is severely hand-cuffed when adding features (or even changing existing ones). Sure, it can usually be done... but not without great effort/cost. As a result, some really great ideas can and will get dropped from a release to maintain backwards compatibility.

Killebrew
10-24-2003, 04:42 PM
Regarding online league cheating:
If you cannot trust others then an online league is not for you. Most successful online leagues have Commishes that have a solid track record and are well known in an online community. You can get to know people very well on the net, in some cases these might be people a majority of the league has known for many years. For my 60+ sim years of online league experience there has never been any question of a commish cheating. That being said (grr), it's still great advice choose your league and/or commish very carefully.

Killebrew
10-24-2003, 04:43 PM
Dola -
Originally posted by Castlerock
Be careful what you wish for. In software development, this is known as backwards compatibility. If a developer needs to maintain backwards compatibility, he is severely hand-cuffed when adding features (or even changing existing ones). Sure, it can usually be done... but not without great effort/cost. As a result, some really great ideas can and will get dropped from a release to maintain backwards compatibility.
yes, yes, that design decision definately handcuffs the developer. Once a product has reached a certain level of devel it is safer but there are any serious changes that have to be made then backwards compatibility often prevents those changes.

Leonidas
10-24-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Castlerock
Be careful what you wish for. In software development, this is known as backwards compatibility. If a developer needs to maintain backwards compatibility, he is severely hand-cuffed when adding features (or even changing existing ones). Sure, it can usually be done... but not without great effort/cost. As a result, some really great ideas can and will get dropped from a release to maintain backwards compatibility.

So by this logic the next version of Windows should not be compatible with any other Microsoft product ever made before it. The next versions of Excel, Word, Power Point, etc don't need to worry about work done on previous versions because it severely handcuffs the developer.

Does anyone here who has played OOTP think that game has been handcuffed by its "backwards compatibility"?

From Jim's chat the other night I really do not see enough advances made in the game, that I was hoping for, to say enough great breakthroughs have been made to justify ignoring the issue of backwards compatibility. Any questions on major changes (not enhancements) to the game were usually answered with "No, I will look at that in the future."

I understand online gaming is a HUGE addition for many players. As I said, if I had the time to give an honest effort to an online league I'd buy this game in a heartbeat. No question it would be well worth it. But for doing my solo leagues I see nothing to entice me into buying the new game. I respect the fact many of you are excited for the game and I understand why. I wish I could join you, but my personal needs for a new game are not being met by what Jim is doing with this version. Being able to export dynasties I have spent what time I can devote to the game is a very important feature to me.

All that said, if Jim elects to do a TCY2 I will give that much more consideration. While I dearly loved TCY, it was a first attempt at a great concept that has enormous room for growth. If he does another version I am certain it will have grown enough to be worth my purchase, regardless of its abilities to export dynasties. So I certainly intend to stick with Solecismic products, just not this particular one.

And for some reason that still eludes me (;), I love everyone (well, most everyone) on the FOF forum, even when we disagree on a point. Hell, I like it all the more when that happens.

maximus
10-24-2003, 09:49 PM
If there are a few things that really stand out to me about FOF2004 they are the draft and that career stats are stored for every player for as long as your universe goes on. To me, thats incredible.

Sweed
10-25-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Killebrew
Dola -

yes, yes, that design decision definately handcuffs the developer. Once a product has reached a certain level of devel it is safer but there are any serious changes that have to be made then backwards compatibility often prevents those changes.

I'm not a programer but does this neccesarily have to be true? Is there not a way to work around this even though it won't be perfect? I'm thinking that with all the stats being generated in a game like fof, ootp, or tpf that some kind of importer could be designed by the developer along the lines of Lahman if nothing else. Could this be done by exporting the stats to the "converter" where they would be changed to ratings that the new engine could use and then import the current contract and "new" ratings into the game along with the stat history? Kind of like importing a historical Lahman db season into ootp?
Or is this something that's impossible or just too hard to do to make it worth while?

maximus
10-25-2003, 12:55 AM
Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers.

sabotai
10-25-2003, 02:35 AM
"I'm not a programer but does this neccesarily have to be true?"

Yes.

For you example, something liek that might work, but...

"Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers."

TPF hasn't even come out with one version yet (so TPF hasn't DONE it yet, they're just saying they will...). By saying this, they are in effect, limiting what they will do in the next versions. Jim never planned to have backward compatibility for the first version, and so he never designed his files/data structures for this purpose.

It's a judgement call, really. TPF decided to make backwards compatibility a priority. While they'll have people who buy their game because of this, they'll be people who won't buy it because after the 2nd or 3rd version, they'll run out of things they'll be able to do with their core structures, and won't be able to expand more on the game (and basically only add fluff/gimmicky stuff like OOTP seems to be doing now, IMO)

FOF decided not to limit itself by doing that, and while Jim'll lose customers because people can't carry over dynasties, he'll gain customers because he can keep going with his core, expand on it at will, and add much more.

So it's a give and take situation.

A perfect example is the Almanac that got added to FOF2k4. There is simply no way this feature would work with imported FOF4 careers because the FOF4 files do not save the data needed for this feature. So if the files don't save it, then he obviously can't import the data. So you import an FOF4 career and now you have an almanac that can't work. So, the only options are to leave out the almanac (limiting feature list) or not make it backward compatible.

sabotai
10-25-2003, 02:39 AM
dola,

"So by this logic the next version of Windows should not be compatible with any other Microsoft product ever made before it. The next versions of Excel, Word, Power Point, etc don't need to worry about work done on previous versions because it severely handcuffs the developer. "

He didn't even come CLOSE to saying this, Leonidas. Business applications are one thing, small computer games are another. I don't see any Fortune 500 companies that require FOF to be backwards compatible so their business can keep existing. Besides, how different is the latest version of Word from the one that came out in say, 1998. Not very (I use both...). But that's the thing, business application don't NEED to keep adding a ton of features with each release in order to sell them. Games do.

"Does anyone here who has played OOTP think that game has been handcuffed by its "backwards compatibility"? "

Yes.

The_herd
10-25-2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by sabotai


"Does anyone here who has played OOTP think that game has been handcuffed by its "backwards compatibility"? "

Yes.

I for one second this, OOTP has been an excellent series in its own right, but the changes from one version to the next seem to be more like expansion packs than new games altogether.

I respect those who want each version of a game to be backwards compatible with the last, however, I would rather have large scale improvements to the overall game.

Sweed
10-25-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by sabotai
"I'm not a programer but does this neccesarily have to be true?"

Yes.

For you example, something liek that might work, but...

"Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers."

TPF hasn't even come out with one version yet (so TPF hasn't DONE it yet, they're just saying they will...). By saying this, they are in effect, limiting what they will do in the next versions. Jim never planned to have backward compatibility for the first version, and so he never designed his files/data structures for this purpose.

It's a judgement call, really. TPF decided to make backwards compatibility a priority. While they'll have people who buy their game because of this, they'll be people who won't buy it because after the 2nd or 3rd version, they'll run out of things they'll be able to do with their core structures, and won't be able to expand more on the game (and basically only add fluff/gimmicky stuff like OOTP seems to be doing now, IMO)

FOF decided not to limit itself by doing that, and while Jim'll lose customers because people can't carry over dynasties, he'll gain customers because he can keep going with his core, expand on it at will, and add much more.

So it's a give and take situation.

A perfect example is the Almanac that got added to FOF2k4. There is simply no way this feature would work with imported FOF4 careers because the FOF4 files do not save the data needed for this feature. So if the files don't save it, then he obviously can't import the data. So you import an FOF4 career and now you have an almanac that can't work. So, the only options are to leave out the almanac (limiting feature list) or not make it backward compatible.

Since you mentioned ootp, Markus is currently making version 6 with an all new engine and ratings. He has said there will be importing but some things may not work the same from version to version. You may have some players that were very good in v5 become avg and some avg players become very good because of the new engine and ratings.

Some have a huge problem with this because they want there league to come in "perfectly" with no real changes. I'm not in this crowd, I understand things will be different and that's ok. I just want to bring in the players I've had in my world for about 7 seasons of playing out every game myself (a huge time investment).

My hope in my example above was to at least be able to use the old ratings and stats to make a roster that would work in the new version. Hopefully there career stats would transfer in on their new player card and their current contract but even if they didn't starting with a roster like this where you "knew" all your players would be nice.

With regard to almanacs, ootp5 added one this year. The only drawback is it won't compile seasons played before v5 which is understandable. Wouldn't this have been possible with fof?

As a non-programer I just hoped there could be a way to do this without a lot of work, perhaps there is not.

As you said about tpf, they have only said they will do this they haven't actually done it. I am currently looking at both games but will only be buying one. I wish I had the time to do both. This won't be the deal breaker for me as I'll get the one that "feels" like real football to me but it is a factor.

Thanks for your earlier response.

sabotai
10-25-2003, 11:39 AM
"The only drawback is it won't compile seasons played before v5 which is understandable. Wouldn't this have been possible with fof?"

It could be possible...but I can't say for sure without actually seeing the code. But working on a tool to import would also take time away from working on other things. I'm sure there are a lot of things in FOF2k4 that make it incompatible with FOF4. The almanac just being one of them.

"As you said about tpf, they have only said they will do this they haven't actually done it. I am currently looking at both games but will only be buying one. I wish I had the time to do both. This won't be the deal breaker for me as I'll get the one that "feels" like real football to me but it is a factor."

Well, put it this way. The good news is I doubt either company will be coming out with a new pro game next year, so you could one this year, and the other next year. :)

Ramzavail
10-26-2003, 11:51 PM
JimG: Q: Will multiplayer play be limited to setting up game plans and having one machine do the simulation, or will head to head play-calling be an option?
JimG: Head-to-head play-calling is not an option in the new game.

This disappointed me the most, but I have come to grips that creating a simulation with head to head capabilities is very difficult, therefore I should stop expecting it.

Although my question is - if theres play calling with multiplayer leagues - is there a way to play games via Netmeeting and set the game up to call plays from both sides of the ball (although I realize it might become a problem for the opponent to see what play (run or pass) he is calling) ?

Deattribution
10-26-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Ramzavail
JimG: Q: Will multiplayer play be limited to setting up game plans and having one machine do the simulation, or will head to head play-calling be an option?
JimG: Head-to-head play-calling is not an option in the new game.

This disappointed me the most, but I have come to grips that creating a simulation with head to head capabilities is very difficult, therefore I should stop expecting it.

Although my question is - if theres play calling with multiplayer leagues - is there a way to play games via Netmeeting and set the game up to call plays from both sides of the ball (although I realize it might become a problem for the opponent to see what play (run or pass) he is calling) ?

That's a good point, I don't do playcalling, but still for those who do....

Not sure about the Netmeeting feature you're talking about, but doesn't MSN have a feature to share a program via same computer? Never used either enough to know exactly how it works.

Ramzavail
10-27-2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Deattribution
That's a good point, I don't do playcalling, but still for those who do....

Not sure about the Netmeeting feature you're talking about, but doesn't MSN have a feature to share a program via same computer? Never used either enough to know exactly how it works.

Goto Start, Run then type "conf" to start Netmeeting, you get the other persons IP address and you can connect with him.

I use this to play in an APBA Baseball league online, we load it up, load up lineups etc and play/sim the game in front of our eyes and make pitching/hitter changes as we see necessary. Ton of fun, for the detailed oriented - want to manage everything type of GM.

In FOF, playcalling is possible, but is it possible to call both plays for both teams? If so - then I think it would be possible to have a FOF league playing via Netmeeting with playcalling for the games. Just one problem would be that both players will see what they are calling as they will be clicking on the plays in front of each others eyes, not sure if there would be a way around that.

Anyway, I would still be VERY inclined to join a league that would exploit something like that.

Celeval
10-27-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Dutch
So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

Technically, yes, although there are ways to help prevent that. That's one of the reasons I typically run my CFBL sims in a live chat room, and give results as I go - to help reassure people that I'm on the straight and narrow. Of course, since I can't win in the postseason, that probably helps, too. :rolleyes:

Kevin

sabotai
10-27-2003, 03:28 PM
"In FOF, playcalling is possible, but is it possible to call both plays for both teams?"

Not in FOF4, and since Jim didn't plan to add head-to-head play calling, I wouldn't expect any change to the play calling screen. I doubt it'll be possible.

But, people find ways around everything in many creative ways. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Ramzavail
10-28-2003, 08:28 AM
I thought head to head play calling would go hand in hand with multiplayer.

For example, if you wanted to set up a multiplayer league with you and 2 friends and all the rest of the teams be controlled by the computer...All three of us would gather around one computer and play the games, offseason, etc.

If there is playcalling like there was in FOF 4, what if one of the league games is against your friend (human vs human) and not against the computer? Then playcalling is not an option? Then you must sim?

That doesn't make sense to me.

Bee
10-28-2003, 08:30 AM
Does any text sim with multiplayer have head-to-head playcalling?

Ramzavail
10-28-2003, 08:51 AM
I don't believe so.

sabotai
10-28-2003, 03:56 PM
Action PC Football does, I think.

FBPro
10-28-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by sabotai
Action PC Football does, I think.

Correct, though a very watered down and almost non-existent career mode(no computer trades or roster moves by computer).

Ramzavail
10-28-2003, 09:54 PM
There is no career mode, Action PC Football is bad.

Ben E Lou
10-31-2003, 08:04 AM
bump----unstickied, and now catalogued in the FOF Journal.

Flasch186
11-12-2003, 11:30 PM
First off let me say that im typing this on my laptop while my girlfriend sleeps next to me. 2 points to this: 1 - cant they make quieter keys. 2 - im way excited about fof2004

I am most looking forward to running my online league, the USFL (home.comcast.net/~ashmunes). we sis this back in the day w/ sierra's fbpro and now jim has given my friends and i an opportunity to revive some that old group friendship feelings, sniff sniff.

Let me state very LOUDLY my biggest fear. What have you (jim and the beta testers) done to assure us commissioners that after running a league for 1 - 80 seasons that somewhere down the line there wont be (she stirs) a huge glitch that kills everything? ruining the league and so many lives.

commish