I made the playoffs (FOF related)

[maximus]

I won the division and made the playoffs with a 7-9 record. It's my first time ever making the playoffs (let alone winning the division :( ) in FOF2K4. I'm happy and I hope that all of you can be happy with me.

edit: I play out my games (I set my game plan and then watch the scoreboard). It usually takes me about 2 months in real time to run a full season. This way I get to know my players as well as the others around the league. For me to win the division is something huge and two months in the making. So hence the thread.

[maximus]

I just wanted to add that I suck at gameplanning.

[Pumpy Tudors]

You know, I haven't played FOF 2004 since a week after it came out. I don't think I made the playoffs in that game either. Hell, I don't think I ever finished a season! Congrats.

[maximus]

You know, I haven't played FOF 2004 since a week after it came out. I don't think I made the playoffs in that game either. Hell, I don't think I ever finished a season! Congrats.

Damn Pumpy! You haven't played FOF2004 since a week after it came out? Why? (if you don't mind me asking)

[Pumpy Tudors]

Damn Pumpy! You haven't played FOF2004 since a week after it came out? Why? (if you don't mind me asking)
I don't remember. I think I probably wanted to get back to playing poker or something. Also, I discovered that I really hate gameplanning. I'm too impatient for that. I understand that I could have the game recommend something to me, but then it started to feel like I wasn't really doing anything in the game during the season. Why it hit me with FOF 2004, I don't know, since I enjoyed playing earlier editions of the games. I probably played FOF 2 more than most other games I've tried.

Again, I'm just guessing, since I don't completely remember what made me stop playing. The only thing I absolutely remember is that I was having a devil of a time fielding a valid roster because I had trouble figuring out how to manage some injuries that my team had. I just couldn't seem to satisfy the requirements at some point without cutting a running back (for instance) so I could sign a crappy cornerback who wasn't even going to play.

I can tell that it's a very good game, but I think that just frustrated me to the point that I decided to spend my time on something else. I never got back to it. I had thought about starting it up again this weekend, but with the EHM update out and my new purchase of Space Rangers 2 here, I don't think I'll get around to it.

[maximus]

I don't remember. I think I probably wanted to get back to playing poker or something. Also, I discovered that I really hate gameplanning. I'm too impatient for that. I understand that I could have the game recommend something to me, but then it started to feel like I wasn't really doing anything in the game during the season. Why it hit me with FOF 2004, I don't know, since I enjoyed playing earlier editions of the games. I probably played FOF 2 more than most other games I've tried.

Again, I'm just guessing, since I don't completely remember what made me stop playing. The only thing I absolutely remember is that I was having a devil of a time fielding a valid roster because I had trouble figuring out how to manage some injuries that my team had. I just couldn't seem to satisfy the requirements at some point without cutting a running back (for instance) so I could sign a crappy cornerback who wasn't even going to play.

I can tell that it's a very good game, but I think that just frustrated me to the point that I decided to spend my time on something else. I never got back to it. I had thought about starting it up again this weekend, but with the EHM update out and my new purchase of Space Rangers 2 here, I don't think I'll get around to it.


Injuries. Yes, I too have had a tuff time this past season with that. For about half the time I also set the game plan to "recommend". And, I agree that it feels as if you aren't doing anything so in mid-season I started to do them on my own - (the 7-9 record should validate that). I suck but I will get better. If not, I'm firing my coach. :p

[RendeR]

See I really like hte "recommend" button, since I would rather be a true GM than the coach or his staff.

I PAY these guys to do that stuff for me ;)

I just wish I didn't have to plod through 20 screens to set the recommended level on each setup.

[maximus]

I just wish I didn't have to plod through 20 screens to set the recommended level on each setup.


A global recommend option would be very nice. :cool:

[gottimd]

A global recommend option would be very nice. :cool:
I would agree.

http://www.proficiency2020.com/Images/easy-button.jpg

[Pumpy Tudors]

Sorry, maximus, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. It wasn't supposed to be about me not playing FOF 2004 in a long time. My apologies.

With that said, I would still like to note that I don't mind going through so many screens to hit the "recommend" button if I have to. I guess I just never really knew that it would make a gameplan that would play to my roster's strengths. Whether it tries to or not, I really don't know. I also understand that if I don't trust the gameplanning, I could do it myself. Of course, I don't want to do it myself, so I just don't play.

Here are my questions: Does the game recommend well enough that I can really believe that my particular head coach is setting a game plan? Do some head coaches gameplan better than others? As far as gameplanning goes, does it really matter which head coach I hire?

I can live with fiddling with my roster. I mean, if I have to cut a guy I like just to get my roster into balance, I'd just have to deal with it. I'm not sure I could deal with a "recommended" gameplan that wouldn't really make sense for my team, though.

[cthomer5000]

I just wish I didn't have to plod through 20 screens to set the recommended level on each setup.
If you don't plan on handling the gameplans at all, you can let the staff handle that. It's in the global options.

[Vince]

I made the playoffs today for the first time ever in multiplayer (www.fof-gefl.com).

Congratulations maximus -- I know how stoked I am about it, so I can understand how you feel :)

[lcjjdnh]

See I really like hte "recommend" button, since I would rather be a true GM than the coach or his staff.

I PAY these guys to do that stuff for me ;)

I just wish I didn't have to plod through 20 screens to set the recommended level on each setup.
Can't you just set the CPU to reset the roster/gameplan under the Global Options?

Edit: cthomer beat me to it

[jbmagic]

See I really like hte "recommend" button, since I would rather be a true GM than the coach or his staff.

I PAY these guys to do that stuff for me ;)

I just wish I didn't have to plod through 20 screens to set the recommended level on each setup.


i hate the recommend button on fof.

it doesnt seem to do a great job based on your players rating strength for offense and defense and opponents strength and weakness

its better to do the gameplan yourself.

[Pumpy Tudors]

it doesnt seem to do a great job based on your players rating strength for offense and defense and opponents strength and weakness

its better to do the gameplan yourself.
If this is the general consensus around here, I don't think I'm very likely to revisit the game. It's clearly a very good game, but I think it's just not really my style anymore.

[maximus]

Sorry, maximus, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. It wasn't supposed to be about me not playing FOF 2004 in a long time. My apologies.

Not at all Pumpy. You didn't hijack anything. Discuss at will. :)

[Ben E Lou]

The problem with FOF2K4 is that it allows success with very unrealistic game plans, but the AI gameplans all fall within the (to us) narrow realm of realism, and the denser among us therefore come to the incorrect conclusion that it doesn't do a good job of evaluating your talent. Based on the range of realistic gameplans, it actually does a pretty nice job, but then again I suppose that many around here think that "passing teams" in the NFL run on first down less then 30% of the time.

[revrew]

In my experience: hire good coaches, get good "recommended" gameplans. I've played dynasties where I went 20 years with only 1 losing season, played in 7 SuperBowls, and won 5 of them...all with "recommended" gameplans. Though I did realize that it was helpful to lock in my preferred lineups (no! that guy's a STRONG side backer, dang it!) before hitting recommend on the gameplan. FOF2K4 is a great game for simulating the GM experience. I can't speak for trying to be coach/GM, cause that's not my thing.

[sovereignstar]

I don't play SP FOF anymore (and haven't for a long while) simply because every team uses the same run percentages, on offense and defense. At least that's the conclusion that I've come to.

[Darkiller]

I just lost the Superbowl yesterday, in OT....
Went 13-3 in the regular season, best record in the NFC, destroyed both the Rams and the Eagles in the Playoffs (40+ points each time) before meeting the Raiders (best record in the NFL at 14-2) in the SuperBowl.
The game went in overtime, we had the ball on our 36-yard line, the QB gets sacked, ball is recovered by the 2048 Raiders sack machine Kevin Jones and he bring it back for a TD.
Oakland 36 - San Francisco 30.

.... didn't have a good night after that.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't play SP FOF anymore (and haven't for a long while) simply because every team uses the same run percentages, on offense and defense. At least that's the conclusion that I've come to.I seem to remember that they are pretty close....which is precisely my point. That's the way it is in real life. I haven't been able to find year-to-year stats on this, but every set of stats I've looked at points toward the same thing: in real life, high run/pass ratio variations are dictated more by very high winning or losing percentages than anything else. In other words, teams that are behind more throw more to catch up, and teams that are ahead run more. Besides those "extremes," which are MUCH less varied than FOF extremes when human players enter the mix, in real life the *huge* majority of teams run the ball between around 43 and 52 percent of the time. The most extreme numbers I've run into from the last decade or so are 35% and 56%--and those kinds of numbers look to be pretty doggone rare. I can't find the IHOF study that was done on this, but the contrasts are *much* more stark than in real life--because it works in FOF. If there were a greater penalty for being tilted too far in either direction, then we'd likely see human gameplan variations that more accurately mirror real life--and the AI-recommended ones. The bottom line is this: AI-recommended game plans are likely designed to mirror real-life, which would mean they'd have to recommend a rather narrow range of results. I have no use whatsoever for AI-recommended game plans, but I seem to recall that in my very brief glance-over of them there were small variations that I would assume are based on personnel.

(If anyone can find that IHOF study, it would be appreciated.)

[Ben E Lou]

Looking at 2004 results, the range has changed a bit, but the general point still holds:

26 teams fell between 39.5% and 51.5% rushing. Those that didn't?

Oakland, 5-11, 36.04

New England, 14-2, 51.93
SD, 12-4, 53.89
Jets, 10-6, 54.61
Atlanta, 11-5, 57.02
Pittsburgh, 15-1, 63.32

[Ben E Lou]

In 2003, the average ratio was 46.79, with a standard deviation of 4.10. 27 teams fell between 40.5% and 52%. Those that didn't were:

NYG, 38.58, 4-12
Detroit, 38.96, 5-11

Carolina, 53.05, 11-5
Denver, 53.18, 10-6
Baltimore, 57.19, 10-6

[Ben E Lou]

I set up an FOF2K4 league with a pref. draft and everything computer controlled. The results look very, very similar to the NFL.

The average run % was 46.65. (2003 NFL: 46.79)

In 2003 in the NFL, 27 teams were between 40.5% and 52%.
In 2004 in the NFL, 26 teams were between 39.5% and 51.5%.

In the FOF season, 27 teams were between 40.5% and 52.%.
In the FOF season, 27 teams were between 39.5% and 51.5%

In both NFL seasons, all of the teams that fell below the range had losing records, and all the teams that fell above had winning records.

In the FOF season, these are the five teams that fell outside the lines:

Giants, 38.02, 3-13
Steelers, 38.97, 2-14

Falcons, 52.51, 9-7
Bears, 53.70, 13-3
Eagles, 54.22. 9-6-1

I'd say that AI teams' gameplanning is pretty dadgum close to real life. I'll re-assert my contention that the flaw here isn't AI gameplanning, it is the fact that teams can run 70% of the time or throw 70% of the time and be successful in FOF.

[gottimd]

Not sure if this was answered but does the gameplanning factor in, in this instance, your QB and RB ratings/potential to determine the Pass % and Run % as well?

Lets say you have a subpar QB but an allstar RB, I would think that the gameplanner when you press recommend gives you a higher run % and vice versa. And does it factor in the team you are playings possible Defensive scheme?

[Ben E Lou]

More on this...


Just to make sure, I ran two more pref. drafts and seasons.

SEASON ONE
I did a pref. draft to run an all-passing attack: great QB, great receivers, great pass blocking, bad RB. I created a game plan to throw on every down in every situation. We went 12-4. We ran the ball 68 times all year long, and threw it 911 times. Starting QB threw for 5969 yards and 52 TD's, and was only sacked 27 times.

SEASON TWO
I did another pref. draft to run an all-running attack: bad QB, bad receivers, outstanding RB and FB, great run blocking. Game plan was to run 100% of the time on first and second down. Pass 50% of the time on 3rd and 3-7, pass on 3rd and long 95% of the time, pass on 4th and 8 or more 100% of the time. We went 11-5, running the ball 910 times and throwing it 154 times. Starting RB carried 451 times for 2012 yards and a 4.46 ypc. Backup rushed for 907, and FB rushed for 271 and 5.21 ypc. Starting QB was 83 for 139 for 849 yards with 2 TD's and 5 INT's and a 67.0 QB Rating. The entire offensive line was first-team All Pro. :p

Yeah, I'd say that FOF allows a little too much for game plan extremes to be successful. ;)

[judicial clerk]

I just lost the Superbowl yesterday, in OT....
Went 13-3 in the regular season, best record in the NFC, destroyed both the Rams and the Eagles in the Playoffs (40+ points each time) before meeting the Raiders (best record in the NFL at 14-2) in the SuperBowl.
The game went in overtime, we had the ball on our 36-yard line, the QB gets sacked, ball is recovered by the 2048 Raiders sack machine Kevin Jones and he bring it back for a TD.
Oakland 36 - San Francisco 30.

.... didn't have a good night after that.
Go Raiders! 2048 can't get here soon enough.

[Ben E Lou]

Not sure if this was answered but does the gameplanning factor in, in this instance, your QB and RB ratings/potential to determine the Pass % and Run % as well?

Lets say you have a subpar QB but an allstar RB, I would think that the gameplanner when you press recommend gives you a higher run % and vice versa. And does it factor in the team you are playings possible Defensive scheme?I don't think it does very much, but my point is that real teams don't do it very much that way, either. Look at the numbers; better than 80% of the teams fall within a pretty narrow range of results. Further, the numbers would strongly suggest that in the vast majority of cases, NFL that throw a good bit more than average do so not because of offensive philosophy or game plan, but because they're behind often and are trying to catch up. Similarly, the evidence suggests that NFL teams that run a good bit more than average do so because they're protecting a lead.

Look at Tennessee last year. Chris Brown averaged 4.8 yards per carry, and none of the QB's were particularly successful, yet they ran only 41.6% of the time. Is their coach an idiot? Why didn't they run more??? We'd have to see quarter-by-quarter reports to be certain, but looking at losses of 38-17, 20-3, 54-21, 31-21, 49-38, and 37-16 tells me pretty much all I need to know as to why they didn't run more. When you're losing by 10 points or more that often, you're gonna put it up. Same thing with the Redskins. Clinton Portis rushed for 1315 yards, and their QB's threw more INT's than TD's. Why not pound it more than 47.8% of the time??? Go back to the Lions in the 90's with Barry. How 'bout '96? Barry rushes for 1553 yards, 11 TD's, 5.1ypc, yet the Lions run it 41.8% adn let Scott Mitchell and Dan Majkowski combine to throw more INT's than TD's. How can that be??? Again, look at their losses of 37-21, 35-7, 28-18, 31-14, 31-3, and 24-14 en route to a 5-11 finish, and the answer is obvious.

[gottimd]

Good points, thanks for the research SD.

[jbmagic]

Not sure if this was answered but does the gameplanning factor in, in this instance, your QB and RB ratings/potential to determine the Pass % and Run % as well?

Lets say you have a subpar QB but an allstar RB, I would think that the gameplanner when you press recommend gives you a higher run % and vice versa. And does it factor in the team you are playings possible Defensive scheme?



i havent really seen a difference when you hit recommend on offense. it doesnt change nothing usually if you hit recommend. only thing i see change is the run directions sometimes only.

on defense, the only thing i see change slightly is run and pass agressivness and double wr or side % only when pressing recommend button.

it doesnt seem to go by the strength of your cb, ss and fs. for example they can be great for man to man but the % you get when you recommend doesnt reflect the talent of the players on your team.

[sovereignstar]

I see what you're saying SkyDog and you make a good point. I just don't think that the AI is making very good adjustments to customized human gameplans. And they don't necessarily have to be that extreme either.

If I was going to play SP again, I'd hit scout recommend on every screen just so I was on a level playing field with the AI. If, in MP, I wanted to lose every game like the Visagoths, I'd hit scout recommend on every screen.

I think TCY had much more diverse-looking gameplans because of the way primary formations were used. Offensively, if a team was running a power-I formation, then their running percentages would prove so. Defensively, if the AI was going up against my run-n-shoot offense, I'm pretty sure that they were making the correct adjustments.

[Butter]

and the denser among us therefore come to the incorrect conclusion that it doesn't do a good job of evaluating your talent.

I just thought I would quote this, because it made me laugh.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Thank you, SkyDog, for the research. Now I'm actually convinced that I should give the game another shot. When I tear myself away from Space Rangers 2, I'll fire up FOF 2004 again. Maybe I'll make the playoffs, too!

[dubb93]

My problem isn't with AI offenses, it is with the defenses, where the AI will attempt to get me to run M2M nearly 30% of the time despite not having a single DB with M2M ratings out of single digits. And also the fact that they want to blitz my SLB, who is completely average for LB's at getting to the QB, more than my WLB, who is rated above 90 in each PR strength and technique. On offense, I feel the AI is very realistic compared to the NFL, but the defenses in real life are so different, but in this game they are all the same, despite presonel.

[Ben E Lou]

My problem isn't with AI offenses, it is with the defenses, where the AI will attempt to get me to run M2M nearly 30% of the time despite not having a single DB with M2M ratings out of single digits. And also the fact that they want to blitz my SLB, who is completely average for LB's at getting to the QB, more than my WLB, who is rated above 90 in each PR strength and technique. On offense, I feel the AI is very realistic compared to the NFL, but the defenses in real life are so different, but in this game they are all the same, despite presonel.I hear ya. The problem is that it would be *extremely* difficult for you or me to try to figure out what is realistic defensively. I can tell you that the Falcons in the late 70's blitzed a lot, that they usually played Deion in M2M and everyone else zone when he was there, and that the Dawgs rarely blitz. Data gathering on how often teams switch between M2M and zone would require some serious research--the kind of research that I just have to trust that Jim did thoroughly.

[Pumpy Tudors]

You know what? I just started playing again. I said that I didn't like the idea of gameplanning, but I'm calling the plays myself in the preseason, and I'm really enjoying that. I guess what I really didn't enjoy was setting a gameplan, but I like doing it on the fly.

Gee, now I wish I hadn't waited so long to get back into the game. I'm going to enjoy this. :D

[maximus]

You know what? I just started playing again. I said that I didn't like the idea of gameplanning, but I'm calling the plays myself in the preseason, and I'm really enjoying that. I guess what I really didn't enjoy was setting a gameplan, but I like doing it on the fly.

Gee, now I wish I hadn't waited so long to get back into the game. I'm going to enjoy this. :D


There ya go. Give it a whirl. The sim engine in FOF2004 is awesome. I wish I hadn't wait so long before I bought it.