F0F 2004 Game Obversations and Tips...

[g206029]

1) Why does the TE line up next to the LT in single TE sets? It appears that all formation orientation is reversed in the game. Is that correct?


2) Does this mean that LBs are also reversed? That is does the SLB play over the TE (which actually puts him on the weak-side of the tradition alignment?)

3) How does one get his studs the ball more often? I read the help file and came away thinking its the "Playing Time" setting but I don't see the affects of setting say my stud FL to a "9" and the others to maybe "5". What am I doing wrong?

4) How do you build a 3-4 Defense? I have 5 very good LBs and opted to go 3-4. We've been so-so on defense. I'd like to know if its the "Fair" (future "Good") rating of my NT and DEs that's causing the heataches?

5) How do you generate a pass rush form the LB position? I've played FOF for a while in single player mode and for all the studs I have had at LB have not seen the numbers the LBs in the IHOF put up. That means that I'm not very good at defensive gameplanning as I thought I was.

6) Is there a F0F 2005 coming?

[pjstp20]

Sorry g20, I can't answer your questions, I just wanted to point out the irony here. The only FOF question on a FOF discussion board would have passed into oblivion had I not responded. I think were badly in need of a FOF only discussion forum on these boards. Otherwise there really is no place where anyone new to FOF can get their questions answered.

Edit: actually there are two FOF related questions on the front page and the other one has no responses at this time.

[McSweeny]

we've been over this again and again, and it is not going to happen

[Easy Mac]

I think its people not wanting to answer, not that people can't find questions to answer.

3)Set everyone else lower and get your studs to the top of the depth chart. If its the preseason, they should play anyway because it generally plays starters less.

6)Probably not, since there probably won't be competition in the market next year. Maybe a data update, but I see Jim going back to college football or trying a different sport.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

4) How do you build a 3-4 Defense? I have 5 very good LBs and opted to go 3-4. We've been so-so on defense. I'd like to know if its the "Fair" (future "Good") rating of my NT and DEs that's causing the heataches?

5) How do you generate a pass rush form the LB position? I've played FOF for a while in single player mode and for all the studs I have had at LB have not seen the numbers the LBs in the IHOF put up. That means that I'm not very good at defensive gameplanning as I thought I was.

3) This has to do with the WR's "Route Running" rating, not much you can do about it except give them playing time and hope they get the ball.

4) Make sure all your LBs are good at the same defense (bump and run, 2 deep, 3 deep, etc) and run that most of the time. They only need be good at one of the defenses as long as it's the same one. Other than that, mix and match guys. I'm convinced that "tackles" is a hidden rating.

5) See... Joe Teeters in the IHOF :) I'd tell you how but then I'd have to kill you :D I will say, look at the ratings of the big sacking LBs in the IHOF and find what's common between them, that's 1/2 the battle.

[pjstp20]

we've been over this again and again, and it is not going to happenWhy shouldn't it happen? If FOF is going to succeed for many more versions, it needs to have a forum where people can talk about it. It generates interest, anticipation and immersion. Im sure many people have come to this "FOF" board, hoping to talk about FOF, see that no one is talking about it, and move on.

If we can have a forum on a narrowcasted multi-player league, that alrewady has it's own forum on another site, why cant we have a FOF only discussion forum? Seems really simple to me.

[cthomer5000]

tackling = run defense

[yabanci]

Yes, for some reason the TE lines up on the left side by default, but if you watch the pbp you'll see the offense is strong left sometimes and strong right at other times. I don't know why it's programmed that way. The LBs will line up strongside or weakside as they should depending on where the TE lines up. Setting playing time to 9 ensures that your WR will be on the field more, but it does not affect how many balls are thrown to him. Where the quarterback throwns the ball is determined more by the various receivers' route running ratings. You don't really have control over where the QB throws the ball. The problem with your 3-4 sounds like it might be a week DL. I try to avoid having any "fair" players as starters. To get sacks at linebacker you need a high pass rush technique and pass rush strength ratings and then gameplan to create opportunities for him. Nobody knows when the next version of FOF will come out, but it's very doubtful that it will be this year.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

Why shouldn't it happen? If FOF is going to succeed for many more versions, it needs to have a forum where people can talk about it. It generates interest, anticipation and immersion. Im sure many people have come to this "FOF" board, hoping to talk about FOF, see that no one is talking about it, and move on.

If we can have a forum on a narrowcasted multi-player league, that alrewady has it's own forum on another site, why cant we have a FOF only discussion forum? SAeems really simple to me.

I think he's just referring to people not wanting to give away MP strategies too much.

or that FOF 2005 isn't coming, which I don't think it is. I think there may be a roster update but that's it as I'm guessing that Jim is going with a different sport for his next game.

[Easy Mac]

There's plenty of anticipation, interest and immersion here involving FOF< but when a version hasn't been released for what, almost a year; and no version is in sight, there's only so much to talk about.

[sabotai]

1) Why does the TE line up next to the LT in single TE sets? It appears that all formation orientation is reversed in the game. Is that correct?

Yes, the TE lines up to the left.

2) Does this mean that LBs are also reversed? That is does the SLB play over the TE (which actually puts him on the weak-side of the tradition alignment?)

Well, the SLB always lines up to the strongside of the formation, whichever direction it should be (left vs. right). So it's not that they are reversed. Now, Since the TE lineup is reversed, if you use LOLB and ROLB, then the LOLB will mostly be your SLB while your ROLB will mostly be the WLB.

3) How does one get his studs the ball more often? I read the help file and came away thinking its the "Playing Time" setting but I don't see the affects of setting say my stud FL to a "9" and the others to maybe "5". What am I doing wrong?

Route Running is very important to receivers and how much they get thrown the ball. If you have a great WR but his Route Running is low, he won't get the ball thrown to him a lot.

4) How do you build a 3-4 Defense? I have 5 very good LBs and opted to go 3-4. We've been so-so on defense. I'd like to know if its the "Fair" (future "Good") rating of my NT and DEs that's causing the heataches?

In real life, in order to run the 3-4 well, your NT has to be a stud. He's got the C and 2 Guards to take care of so his Run Stopping ability has to be top-notch. I'd imagine it'd be the same in FOF, but I have not tried running a 3-4 yet.

5) How do you generate a pass rush form the LB position? I've played FOF for a while in single player mode and for all the studs I have had at LB have not seen the numbers the LBs in the IHOF put up. That means that I'm not very good at defensive gameplanning as I thought I was.

Not exactly sure. I try to generate it from the DL more than the LB. But I'd imagine blitzing more and having great defensive backs. If you can't cover your opponent's receivers, your LBs won't get there fast enough. That's the "common sense" thing to think anyway. Dunno if that translates to FOF.

6) Is there a F0F 2005 coming?

All indications point to "Nay".

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

tackling = run defense
I don't think so, I think run defense is exactly that, the ability to stop the run. Just as an example Jack Bryant is my 4th leading tackler on my team and he is rated 18 for run D .

I think there is a hidden "tackles" rating that influences who gets the most tackles.

[The_herd]

I can't answer the 1st 2, sorry.

3) There was a study done (by QS, I think), that showed that FBs, TEs, and RBs with high pass catching abilities will take away from stud recievers numbers. I don't know if the same study has been done for 2004, but from my own experiences, it seems to be the case.

4) To have a successful 3-4 you still need pretty good Defensive Lineman. You can't ignore the DL or opposing teams will run all over you. Having "blitz multipul players" high will also result in your Defense giving up a lot of yardage in most cases.

5) Personally, if I have stud pass rushers at LB, then I cut the blitz percentage for CBs and Safties and stack it onto those Linebackers.

6) There probably won't be a new version of FOF this season. Jim is expected to go with a new version of TCY or a new game altogether.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

In real life, in order to run the 3-4 well, your NT has to be a stud. He's got the C and 2 Guards to take care of so his Run Stopping ability has to be top-notch. I'd imagine it'd be the same in FOF, but I have not tried running a 3-4 yet.

There are ways of gameplanning that gets around this but it has drawbacks as any gameplan does. Good "Run Defense" ratings of your linemen AND LBs helps a great deal.

[cthomer5000]

I don't think so, I think run defense is exactly that, the ability to stop the run. Just as an example Jack Bryant is my 4th leading tackler on my team and he is rated 18 for run D .

I think there is a hidden "tackles" rating that influences who gets the most tackles.
Year after year, team after team, there is an amazingly high correlation between the "run defense" rating and the leading tacklers.

[Ben E Lou]

With the advent of multiplayer, people are loathe to give away much information. For evidence of this, look no further than the strategy forum. Notice how few posts are in each thread, but how often they are being viewed. This tells me that people are wanting to pick up information, but unwilling to SHARE information. Check out just a smidgen of that forum:

<table class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="alt1Active" id="t16524" title=""> Sticky: FOF 2004 Game Plans (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=16524)
SkyDog
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 16, Views: 3,620"> 04-10-2004 03:26 AM
by yabanci (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=16524) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=16524)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">16 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">3,620</td> </tr> <!-- <tr><td class="thead" colspan="6"> </td></tr>--> <tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1Active" id="t29021" title="Looking to get some opinions about what some of you have success with. Now I am sure a lot of you are going to say Man to Man is the way to go, however, usually there are a lot fewer guys that can go man to man versus the amount that you can find that can play zone. Has anyone found that if you..."> Defensive Coverages (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=29021)
mmarra82
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 1, Views: 82"> 08-13-2004 04:23 PM
by QuikSand (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=29021) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=29021)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">1 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">82</td> </tr><tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1"> View (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=28186) Test
Manage (../../%7Efof/forums/postings.php?do=editthread&t=28186) Godzilla Blitz
</td> <td class="alt2" colspan="3" align="center"> Thread deleted by Godzilla Blitz (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?u=217)
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1"> View (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=28185) Test
Manage (../../%7Efof/forums/postings.php?do=editthread&t=28185) Godzilla Blitz
</td> <td class="alt2" colspan="3" align="center"> Thread deleted by Godzilla Blitz (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?u=217)
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1"> View (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=28184) Test
Manage (../../%7Efof/forums/postings.php?do=editthread&t=28184) Godzilla Blitz
</td> <td class="alt2" colspan="3" align="center"> Thread deleted by Godzilla Blitz (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?u=217)
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1Active" id="t27958" title="Hello all, I am a new guy who has just discovered FOF 2004. I downloaded the real roster file, changed the names of teams for each city to have a real NFL simulation and now I enjoy myself managing the Vikings :) I am calling the plays myself, and I am wondering how should I use the timeouts in..."> How to Use Timeouts? (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=27958)
Tzar007
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 6, Views: 153"> 07-15-2004 06:05 PM
by albionmoonlight (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=27958) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=27958)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">6 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">153</td> </tr><tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_hot.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1Active" id="t25790" title="Hello, I see there are two different gameplanning utilities out here. Just wondering what the difference between them are and if one is better than the other? Also does anyone know if it is possible to manually move a team to a new city in a MP league? THanks,!"> Best Gameplan Editor (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=25790)
K_cin
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 2, Views: 338"> 06-10-2004 09:49 AM
by wig (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=25790) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=25790)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">2 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">338</td> </tr><tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_hot.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1Active" id="t25044" title="This concept was brought up in another thread, buried somewhere in the mass of the general forum...but hopefully someone can shed some light to the subject. Exactly what 'physical requirements' do you look for when you're drafting a player? For example...QBs at least 6'1&quot; or so? RBs with 200-225..."> Prototypical Players at various positions (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=25044)
hukarez
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 7, Views: 366"> 05-21-2004 12:43 PM
by Celeval (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=25044) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=25044)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">7 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">366</td> </tr><tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1Active" id="t25423" title="What would one consider to be a 'prototypical player'? When re-building a team, do any folks go by physical attributes? Has anyone made a range of 'minimums' at the least, when going over who's up and coming in the draft? QBs - 6'0&quot;, 215 lbs? RBs - 5'10&quot;, 220 lbs? FBs - 5'10&quot;, 235 lbs? WRs -..."> What is the 'prototypical' player? (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=25423)
hukarez
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 5, Views: 228"> 05-13-2004 06:06 PM
by Zoetus (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=25423) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=25423)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">5 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">228</td> </tr><tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1Active" id="t25383" title="I have been playing FOF2k4 for about 2-3 months. I have a dynasty that has now reached it 2021. I had an initial draft, and am playing on the most difficult settings. My team has the best record by approx. 40 games over the team with the next best record, and have gone 6 of 7 in the big game..."> What is acceptable? (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=25383)
Warhammer
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 3, Views: 196"> 05-11-2004 09:37 PM
by yabanci (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=25383) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=25383)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">3 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">196</td> </tr><tr> <td class="alt1">../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td> <td class="alt2">../../%7Efof/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif</td> <td class="alt1Active" id="t25391" title="I have based my team on the following with some interesting results: I run a 3-WR offense with about 35-40% runs, with most of the passes being medium and long. I thought that a top flight QB would make the offense go, but the key cogs in the offense are the top two receivers. However,..."> Al Davis and I agree *GASP* (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=25391)
Warhammer
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 2, Views: 161"> 05-11-2004 12:23 PM
by Franklinnoble (../../%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=25391) ../../%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (../../%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=25391)
</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">2 (../../%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=10&page=1&pp=50&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1#)</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">161</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[pjstp20]

If this is the case, then just change the strategy forum to a general FOF discussion forum. Everyone seems to think that it's useless in it's current state anyway.

You can still talk strategy if you so chose plus it will encompass more topics, and may generate more traffic.

[Ben E Lou]

Everyone seems to think that it's useless in it's current state anyway.Obviously not. It certainly appears that lots of people are reading it.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

Year after year, team after team, there is an amazingly high correlation between the "run defense" rating and the leading tacklers.
Jack Bryant, SYR ,5th
Wendell Anderson, NP, 3rd
Renato Carille, AA, 2nd
David Hildebrandt, Ana, 2nd
Horace Appleby, Ana, 3rd
Larry Kuhns, Ana, 5th
Jeffrey Hamlet, Ash, 3rd
Danny McDuffie, Ash, 3rd

all players with below 50 in Run D yet are top 5 on their teams in tackles, shall I go on further through the rest of the teams? Run D rating does not = tackles. Does zone D = ints? Nope, it's just that we can see the ints rating...

[pjstp20]

Obviously not. It certainly appears that lots of people are reading it.
Well if its more generalized then maybe more people will post too. This just shows that there is still a lot of interest in this game. I bet that forum gets the highest amount of lurker views.

[cthomer5000]

all players with below 50 in Run D yet are top 5 on their teams in tackles, shall I go on further through the rest of the teams? Run D rating does not = tackles. Does zone D = ints? Nope, it's just that we can see the ints rating...
Who cares if they are top 5 on their team? One guy can't make ALL the tackles.

A better test would be to look team by team at the leading tackles, and tell me where those players rank amongst the defensive starters in "run defense."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well if its more generalized then maybe more people will post too. This just shows that there is still a lot of interest in this game. I bet that forum gets the highest amount of lurker views.

If I'm reading you right, it doesn't quite make sense, the part about getting more strategy hints I mean.

Many of the most knowledgeable posters about game detail are also multi-players ... and it's already clear that they ain't interested in giving away much.

[cthomer5000]

IHOF leading tacklers, by team, by tackle % (qualifiers only)

NPL: SILB Vernon Sprouse, run defense 79
NPL: SS Jordan Murdoch, run defense 91

SYR: SILB Joe Teeters, run defense 82
SYR: SLB Ron Larson, run defense 92

FBK: MLB Benny Hughes, run defense 60
FBK: SLB Jeffrey Boggs, run defense 56

ANN: SILB Devin HIldago, run defense 92
ANN: WILB Renalto Carlile, run defense 43


and the league top 10 in tackles 'run defense' ratings:
82
82
69
74
82
91
58
88
83
96


And whenever you examine the guys with low run D numbers who are high in tackles, you find out they were just the best option the team had in that department.

[cthomer5000]

Many of the most knowledgeable posters about game detail are also multi-players ... and it's already clear that they ain't interested in giving away much.
This is it, perfectly wrapped up. All of those who know the most are in MP leagues. We are in no rush to give away too many secrets.

Personally I generally respond to issues when someone asks, or when it comes up elsewhere (dynasties, etc).

[JonInMiddleGA]

The only FOF question on a FOF discussion board would have passed into oblivion had I not responded.

Eh, whoopidy doo.

I was one of the first to view the post & chose not to reply because:

a) I hadn't the foggiest idea about #1 or #2.
b) #3 isn't something that I felt like explaining, I assume the answer is actually in the help file.
c) #4 seemed ... umm ... I don't know quite what to call it. There wasn't enough info in the original post to know why the 3-4 isn't working ... and I wasn't interested in trying to detail all the possibilities just to draw out an answer.
d) #5 seemed rather obvious -- "Blitz like a m'fer with LB's who are good at it".
e) #6 is something that could have been answered with a simple search of the forum.

Give or take a little bit, I suspect many of those who viewed the post would have had a fairly similar list.

Bottom line -- This board isn't FOF oriented at this point, hasn't been in a while. And isn't likely to be until there's something new to discuss.

And that really doesn't bother me much. Separating it into another forum would simply be another low-traffic forum that most people (including many of those who would be most useful) would never bother to look at. Seems kinda futile IMO.

[cthomer5000]

And lets remember this thread was posted at 1.30 on a Sunday... not exactly prime time at FOFC.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

IHOF leading tacklers, by team, by tackle % (qualifiers only)

NPL: SILB Vernon Sprouse, run defense 79
NPL: SS Jordan Murdoch, run defense 91

SYR: SILB Joe Teeters, run defense 82
SYR: SLB Ron Larson, run defense 92

FBK: MLB Benny Hughes, run defense 60
FBK: SLB Jeffrey Boggs, run defense 56

ANN: SILB Devin HIldago, run defense 92
ANN: WILB Renalto Carlile, run defense 43


and the league top 10 in tackles 'run defense' ratings:
82
82
69
74
82
91
58
88
83
96


And whenever you examine the guys with low run D numbers who are high in tackles, you find out they were just the best option the team had in that department.
and whenever you analyze players with high run D numbers and are high in tackles you will find they were just the bets option the team had as well so that's no point at all. There is nothing in the help file stating that run d = tackles. Boggs and Carille both have low run D ratings yet you choose to ignore it, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so.

[pjstp20]

Eh, whoopidy doo.

I was one of the first to view the post & chose not to reply because:

a) I hadn't the foggiest idea about #1 or #2.
b) #3 isn't something that I felt like explaining, I assume the answer is actually in the help file.
c) #4 seemed ... umm ... I don't know quite what to call it. There wasn't enough info in the original post to know why the 3-4 isn't working ... and I wasn't interested in trying to detail all the possibilities just to draw out an answer.
d) #5 seemed rather obvious -- "Blitz like a m'fer with LB's who are good at it".
e) #6 is something that could have been answered with a simple search of the forum.

Give or take a little bit, I suspect many of those who viewed the post would have had a fairly similar list.

Bottom line -- This board isn't FOF oriented at this point, hasn't been in a while. And isn't likely to be until there's something new to discuss.

And that really doesn't bother me much. Separating it into another forum would simply be another low-traffic forum that most people (including many of those who would be most useful) would never bother to look at. Seems kinda futile IMO.
This is the exact mindset of most people who view the general disscusion forum.

a.) You don't view the general discussion to talk about FOF.
b.) You don't really feel like helping out anyone new because you've been there done that.
c.) You only want to discuss FOF when theres a new version announcement.

Creating a discussion for people new to FOF, who don't know all the answers, and won't bother you with their petty questions will help generate new blood to FOF. People want to talk about advancement in the genre but don't want to help generate interest to anyone new. You think everyone who's interested in FOF has already found it? You think that somebody who didn't think they were interested in this type of game can't become interested?

If no one is talking about the game itself these things are less likely to happen. Why is there so much resistance to this? It doesn't make any sense. I know when Im interested in a PC game, I go to a forum to see what people say about it, to get information, and to see if I'll like it. Mybe a FOF general disccusion forum will fall flat on its face and won't help anything, but if you never give it a chance it definetly will.

[JonInMiddleGA]

b.) You don't really feel like helping out anyone new because you've been there done that.

Actually I've BTDT on more games than I can count. It's give & get, I've helped & been helped. It is indeed a part of the sequence for a lot of gamers.

I'm also thirty-fuckin-seven years old ... and frankly there's a limit to my patience & my interest in answering question about a game that ... well, it is what it is. I still like it, still play it from time to time, but it's not the top of my list at the moment either.

I like FOF, I like Jim ... but I'm also not always in the mood to write an essay about a question on that game or any other. I've done my "public service" time at least enough to feel like I don't have to feel beholden to jump at every question, I can participate as the mood strikes me.

While I'm only "one guy" and I'm just speaking for myself here, I suspect I'm not alone in my general feeling about it either. There's, what, a couple of thousand members here (?), and at least a couple of hundred posters, I'll be damned if I feel any guilt/remorse whatsoever about not getting into answering some questions. And especially not on what is pretty much the slowest day of the week for most boards.

c.) You only want to discuss FOF when theres a new version announcement.

I don't believe that's accurate. More like "when there's something that hasn't been covered already"

Why is there so much resistance to this? It doesn't make any sense.

You call it "resistance" -- I'd call it "acceptance of reality".

[gstelmack]

I love all these posts about why people don't want to answer strategy questions interspersed with all the answers to the strategy questions asked in the first post ;)

[pjstp20]

That may be your opinion and everyone elses on this board, so what? It's because people have been actually discouraged from posting about FOF that led general discussion to become OT. If a new forum opens up it may be visited by all new members who arent jaded in their FOF discussion yet.

It's acceptance of your reality, and a good portion of the members here, not actual reality. You think everyone who's played FOF is tired of talking about it like you are? How about people who are yet to play it?

Say Im a 18 year old kid who played Madden 2005 franchise mode for the first time. It was lots of fun but I wanted something deeper and didnt care about graphic presentation. I would stumble across FOF in some review and get real excited. I have tons of questions about the gameplay and everything else. I do a search on FOF forums and it lands me here. Now one of a few things happen:

a.) I see that no one is talking about the game and lose interest in the game
b.) I post and no one bothers to respond and lose interest in the game
c.) I post and learn that I'm bothering people with my petty FOF question and lose interest in the game

Some people will get the game anyway but it will be no thanks to the "FOF" discussion boards. This isn't an assult on the boards present structure, just add one forum, no big deal.

You see this with any underground endeavor. The people who have been around since day one aren't interested in welcoming newbies or in making anything bigger and maybe better than it was when they started. Just realize that things don't last without growth.

[pjstp20]

I love all these posts about why people don't want to answer strategy questions interspersed with all the answers to the strategy questions asked in the first post ;)
It's simple really. I'm thinking big picture. This thread was on its way off the front page with no responses in 4 hours. If i just responded to the original post it wouldn't bring any awareness to expanding the FOF community to people who want to talk about FOF.

[cthomer5000]

It's simple really. I'm thinking big picture. This thread was on its way off the front page with no responses in 4 hours. If i just responded to the original post it wouldn't bring any awareness to expanding the FOF community to people who want to talk about FOF.
You are a true american hero.

[pjstp20]

You are a true american hero.
Yeah thanks because thats what I was going for :rolleyes: . Save your cynicisim. I'm not posting to champion myself, I'm doing it to hopefully bring discussion and expand a game that I truly enjoy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Say Im a 18 year old kid ...

At this point, if I didn't know better ...

[pjstp20]

At this point, if I didn't know better ...
Alright great, we've gone back to personal insults once again. So what.....your saying I'm acting like an 18 year old kid?

[nilodor]

Not sure if this has been posted but for 3 if you have a FB, RB or TE with high route running they will effectively steal catches away from your top guy if his route running isn't has high. If your stud does have high route running, try finding other players with lower route running abilities and more passes should go his way.

[QuikSand]

I know that there are lots and lots of people who have lots of detailed "strategy" posts ready to go... but just haven't put them up because they lack a specific forum in which to do so. Great point, yup. If only there were a special "strategy" forum for this sort of thing, everything would be better. Or maybe we could put links to many of the relevant dicsussions into one convenient stickied thread? That might be nice, too...

Great new ideas, keep 'em coming!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Alright great, we've gone back to personal insults once again. So what.....your saying I'm acting like an 18 year old kid?

Yeah, I guess that's pretty much what I'm saying. Or at least, that's what you've reminded me of in this thread.

You're so worried about the questions, then answer them. Knock yourself out.

But your Pollyanna approach to this thread is, honestly, one of the sillier things I've seen on this forum or any other in quite a while. It just reeks of "I'm so young that I don't know any better", hence my reference to age.
(Although you provided the convienient set-up, I had actually checked your profile earlier out of curiosity, that's how much it reminded on other such performances I've seen over the years).

It's all mildly amusing really, so have at it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting, perhaps, to note that in the Strategy forum there appear to be a total of 6 threads that have more than 1,000 lifetime views.

In the past 2 weeks alone, there's more than 30 threads in the general forum that have more than 1,000 views.

[pjstp20]

God, I grow tired of this same song and dance all the time. So you want to lob a personal insult on my lack of maturity yet you want to say I'm acting llike an 18 year old?

God forbid someone mess with the status quo around here, I mean really. Everytime time it happens that person is met with sarcasm and ridicule. So I can either jump in line and act like everyone else or I can make a plea for what I think would be a good idea. The only problem with my approach is that you don't agree. Meanwhile the addition of a new forum probably wouldn't effect your enjoyment on this board one bit. What's the problem?

[JonInMiddleGA]

God, I grow tired of this same song and dance all the time. So you want to lob a personal insult on my lack of maturity yet you want to say I'm acting llike an 18 year old?

I can't really help it if you consider reminding someone of an 18 year old "a personal insult". Heck, some people might be quite flattered by it.

Everytime time it happens that person is met with sarcasm and ridicule.

Not every time, just when it's the same tired shit that's been rejected numerous times in the past.

Maybe you didn't see this earlier, so I'll repeat

"...in the Strategy forum there appear to be a total of 6 threads that have more than 1,000 lifetime views. In the past 2 weeks alone, there's more than 30 threads in the general forum that have more than 1,000 views."

That's not exactly an overwhelming indication that this is something worth investing any energy in at all. In fact, it seems likely to work contrary to your stated objectives, since it's pretty apparent that there aren't many people here even looking at the Strategy forum. How exactly is that gonna get questions answered? It won't, but you can't seem to grasp that.

What's the problem?

At this point bub, it's watching you bitch, whine, and moan about a subject that has pretty much been done to death here already (separate forums that is). It's tedious, mildly annoying, and I had just enough free time & just enough energy to tell you that straight-up since the tone of your post(s) was irritatingly holier-than-thou.

Let's be completely honest -- it appears there might be people here who've suffered more "lost posts" than you've completed. That doesn't exactly make me real disposed toward listening to you spout off like some sort of great hero-of-the-unSolecismic'ed-masses.

Hell, the only thing missing from your earlier stuff was a twangy "I feel your pain".

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

I love all these posts about why people don't want to answer strategy questions interspersed with all the answers to the strategy questions asked in the first post ;)
shush, stop using your head :)

[johneh]

I think were badly in need of a FOF only discussion forum on these boards. Otherwise there really is no place where anyone new to FOF can get their questions answered.



I AGREED 110% !

[pjstp20]

Maybe you didn't see this earlier, so I'll repeat

"...in the Strategy forum there appear to be a total of 6 threads that have more than 1,000 lifetime views. In the past 2 weeks alone, there's more than 30 threads in the general forum that have more than 1,000 views."

That's not exactly an overwhelming indication that this is something worth investing any energy in at all. In fact, it seems likely to work contrary to your stated objectives, since it's pretty apparent that there aren't many people here even looking at the Strategy forum. How exactly is that gonna get questions answered? It won't, but you can't seem to grasp that

If you expand the scope of discussion beyond strategy and make it anything FOF related it would get more traffic. As stated above, there seems to be a lot of viewers in that forum and not many posters. So you're simply wrong there.


At this point bub, it's watching you bitch, whine, and moan about a subject that has pretty much been done to death here already (separate forums that is). It's tedious, mildly annoying, and I had just enough free time & just enough energy to tell you that straight-up since the tone of your post(s) was irritatingly holier-than-thou

No one told you to read or much less respond to anything, but rather than ignore the subject altogether you chose to antagonize. Perhaps your being a little sensitive about something you shouldn't be. You may have took offense to me pointing out the irony which is this board. Still no reason to get aggitated or annoyed, if that's all it takes you need to relax.

Let's be completely honest -- it appears there might be people here who've suffered more "lost posts" than you've completed. That doesn't exactly make me real disposed toward listening to you spout off like some sort of great hero-of-the-unSolecismic'ed-masses.

I can't believe you even brought this up. The quantity of my posts=the content of them?
I'll just write this up to a cheap shot, and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Instead of actually coming up with credible reasons as to why there aren't any FOF discussion only forums on the FOF discussion board, people have choosen to ridicule. Perhaps if you looked past my "tone" and just answered the question you would hear a lot less from me, then everyone would be happy.

[pjstp20]

I AGREED 110% !
Thank you for speaking up.

I can't help but notice your use of the past tense. After looking at the new member list I can see a lot of people are joining but only about 1% actually get past ten posts, probably for the very reasons I've been giving. I really don't think these people are interested in discussing current events with the good old boy network here.

I know this is a lost cause and the best recourse would be to make my own website where there can be FOF discussion. If anyone is interested in something like that speak up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I know this is a lost cause and the best recourse would be to make my own website where there can be FOF discussion. If anyone is interested in something like that speak up.

I think it would be a wonderful idea.

Hell, I started to predict your saying this in the last thread, but figured it
was just too obvious. I guess I was wrong.

where there can be FOF discussion

And yet again, you seem to be missing the point that I've been trying to make -- there's nothing preventing anybody from discussing anything about FOF they care to here ... except that there's an overall lack of interest in discussing it much further. It's not a derisive "been there, done that", it's more like "that's been done as much as (most) people care to do it". And that's the cycle of most games, you should know that. THAT is the "credible reason" you claim no one is giving you. It's been given, you're just not listening.

There's still the occasional discussion of it, an angle somebody hasn't looked at before or what have you, but by & large I'd say most of the posters here have moved on to other games at this point.

Don't be mistaken, I still play it from time to time, even "binge-game" it occasionally, but it's largely somewhere in the bottom-half of my "currently interested in" top 10 at most. And honestly, if I didn't have a dynasty/campaign thread still hanging open, I doubt it would even be that high. And I don't even own a console, I can only imagine what the competition for gaming interest is like for those who do.

And for anybody who isn't sure, let me spell this out -- there's not a word I've said in this thread that's meant to be critical of FOF. I've spent more hours with it than all but a small handful of games released before or since. But all games, even the best of them, experience fading interest after a while, FOF is not immune from that phenomenon.

[g206029]

Thanks to those to offered insight---the help files didn't quite do it for me on those questions.

But I got what I needed and my defensive is better now (I can stop the run now ranking #4 in run defense and #10 in pass coverage over about 3 simmed seasons) High Blitzing didn't work for me but I found a balanced setting that yields the sacks output I need (40-46 season)

Route-Running is what is killing my stud right now---28/80 so that IS the problem.

The reversed formations can be worked around BUT they are reversed---needed to talk to a high school coach for some info on that one and he pointed me to some internet references.

My Stallions are 3-3 now BUT I learned some things so thanks guys.

[johneh]

Thank you for speaking up.

I can't help but notice your use of the past tense. After looking at the new member list I can see a lot of people are joining but only about 1% actually get past ten posts, probably for the very reasons I've been giving. I really don't think these people are interested in discussing current events with the good old boy network here.

I know this is a lost cause and the best recourse would be to make my own website where there can be FOF discussion. If anyone is interested in something like that speak up.

Actually a typo I meant to say AGREE.
Anyway, I do think that maybe they should make the strategy fourm a "All FOF discussions" forum.... There is just so much to wade through here to get actual FOF discussions.