Out, Out, Brief Candle! (SkyDog Edit: 6.1a Patch Released)

[Solecismic]

...Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. - Macbeth, Act V, Scene V.

Please visit http://www.frontofficefootball.com for more information.

[Dutch]

Son of a...gun.

[Ben E Lou]

The following changes are included in the 6.1a update, along with everything changed through 6.1:


Properly use coach's discipline ratings to affect team penalty frequency.
Teams will not expect the run when the opponent comes out in a five-receiver formation.
Tweak Hall of Fame criteria to generate more realistic position distribution.
The Recommend button in the playoffs should create a game plan for opponents beyond the first round.
Unsportsmanlike conduct against the defense is now an automatic first down.
Tweak to Solevision to avoid generating a first-down comment after a lost fumble.
Correct team pass rush percentage calculation on summary screen and in HTML.
Further tweak running back choice algorithm. Study real-life limits, remove part of the exploit for putting low-endurance backup on chart.
Remove potential exploit of coach ratings from using software designed to read MFC displays.
Change text on player salary screen to properly reflect how veteran minimum works.
Tweak to avoid timing problem when exiting Solevision before games are over, crash might be possible.
Correct resolution of standings tiebreakers when three or more teams tied, and common games are used inter-divisionally.
Correct resolution of draft order when in-conference teams have same record and same strength of schedule.
Fix corruption of data files causing defensive players, increasing from defensive line exponentially to secondary, to experience a higher injury proneness after year one of a league. Note, this resets injury proneness for all players, but this is the only fair way to fix the problem.
For a greater challenge, increase overall maximum injury setting from 200 to 400..

[Dutch]

For a greater challenge, increase overall maximum injury setting from 200 to 400.


:)

[Ben E Lou]

Properly use coach's discipline ratings to affect team penalty frequency.
Teams will not expect the run when the opponent comes out in a five-receiver formation.
Unsportsmanlike conduct against the defense is now an automatic first down.
Further tweak running back choice algorithm. Study real-life limits, remove part of the exploit for putting low-endurance backup on chart.
Fix corruption of data files causing defensive players, increasing from defensive line exponentially to secondary, to experience a higher injury proneness after year one of a league. Note, this resets injury proneness for all players, but this is the only fair way to fix the problem.Very, very, very cool fixes, these. Thanks, Jim!



Any issues with patching a MP league during free agency?

[Solecismic]

No issues. I would recommend patching at any time. As usual, the commish can be on a different version than the participants. No urgency (or compatibility issues) for participants to upgrade.

The injury bug actually occurred during training camp and gradually increases as a league gets older, which is why it evaded detection for so long.

I was messing with some code for the Frontier last week, and caught the issue with playoff tiebreakers. So I took the opportunity to look into all the reported bugs again.

[Ben E Lou]

Thanks for the clarification, and for the continued great support, Jim!

[Antmeister]

Uh wow! Thanks again Jimbo!

[Ben E Lou]

As usual, the commish can be on a different version than the participants. No urgency (or compatibility issues) for participants to upgrade.
This is really one of the under-appreciated aspects of your patches, Jim. It *really* is helpful to people in multiple leagues.

[Northwood_DK]

I just updated and got the OK but when I start the game it still say im in version 6.0e

I hate Vista

[Ben E Lou]

Further tweak running back choice algorithm. Study real-life limits, remove part of the exploit for putting low-endurance backup on chart.Will you shed a little more light on this? I know this has been a big issue for many.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Nice going Jim. Again, customer service is great. Just when we thought your gaze was turning elsewhere -- Bam, there's a new patch.

Jim, I urge you steadfast forward in a quest to make FOF continually great in the face of Maddenesque competition.

"Love looks not with the eyes but with the mind."

[Ben E Lou]

One other question:

Fix corruption of data files causing defensive players, increasing from defensive line exponentially to secondary, to experience a higher injury proneness after year one of a league. Note, this resets injury proneness for all players, but this is the only fair way to fix the problem.Does this mean that the first time we open a league with the patch it changes the data files, or is it doing it in the installation process?

[Icy]

Nice!! I love the fixes, specially the tweaked algorithms for RB's endurance.

"Fix corruption of data files causing defensive players, increasing from defensive line exponentially to secondary, to experience a higher injury proneness after year one of a league"

So this explains the suspected bigger amount of injuries by Safeties i guess, good catch!

[PilotMan]

This has some great updates, thank you thank you!

Being a high injury proponent the new ability to go to 400 is outstanding. Hopefully the new coach's discipline affecting penalties will help to keep my Bills from leading the league in penalties for another year.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Thanks for the update, Jim. Of course, my most anticipated fix is the RB endurance tweak. :)

[sovereignstar]

Fix corruption of data files causing defensive players, increasing from defensive line exponentially to secondary, to experience a higher injury proneness after year one of a league. Note, this resets injury proneness for all players, but this is the only fair way to fix the problem.

Not sure if I like this solution. I was about to hand out a monstrous extension to my stud QB in the IFL and wasn't that concerned about it because he hadn't missed a game in six seasons. Now I'm not going to have any data to make an educated guess? Am I understanding this correctly?

To clarify, injury settings of 0-200 will not be affected by this at all? 201-400 is just an extension? Meaning if we want the same frequency we don't have to make adjustments?

[Raiders Army]

Not sure if I like this solution. I was about to hand out a monstrous extension to my stud QB in the IFL and wasn't that concerned about it because he hadn't missed a game in six seasons. Now I'm not going to have any data to make an educated guess? Am I understanding this correctly?

To clarify, injury settings of 0-200 will not be affected by this at all? 201-400 is just an extension? Meaning if we want the same frequency we don't have to make adjustments?

Hey it's sov!

[Ben E Lou]

Not sure if I like this solution. I was about to hand out a monstrous extension to my stud QB in the IFL and wasn't that concerned about it because he hadn't missed a game in six seasons. Now I'm not going to have any data to make an educated guess? Am I understanding this correctly?I *think* we're ok here. It appears that a player's likelihood for injury increases based on age and former injuries, so then "resetting" it would be restarting those counters so that every player gets a clean slate in terms of past injuries.

[azjoe_02]

Thanks, Jim!

[MizzouRah]

Nice present for an icy Sunday!

[MizzouRah]

Ok, so a cap range of 60 to 80 and injuries set at 200 are standard NFL type settings?

I've been using injuries at 100, but since Jim is now allowing 400, I'm guessing 200 should now be the default?

[gottimd]

Is it just my version or something but the names on the player cards are in real small font.
http://www.naflsim.com/image001.jpg

[timmynausea]

My names look normal, Gotti.

Thanks for the patch, Jim. Several subtle but important fixes.

[Solecismic]

Will you shed a little more light on this? I know this has been a big issue for many.

First I went through and altered the mechanism that determines the maximum percentage of the "die-roll" for choosing the primary runner. This was based on a curve created of NFL performance. Not much of a change here.

Then I similarly capped the choice of the backup running back, leading into a function that chooses what the game thinks of as "any healthy running back, trying not to peg a starter." Again, very little change here, as it will often choose the same backup anyway. This is a tweak more than anything.

Keep in mind that there is in-game fatigue applied to performance. You see it when you call plays yourself. A tired running back is less effective during a run. This is separate from the fatigue mechanism that affects next-game performance.

I don't think people will notice much of a difference with the tweak. Ideally, some day I'll be able to implement a system more like the quarterback choice algorithm, where all the die-rolls aren't made before each play. But that's not something I'd try with a patch.


Does this mean that the first time we open a league with the patch it changes the data files, or is it doing it in the installation process?

This will occur automatically the first time you open a league after the patch.


Not sure if I like this solution. I was about to hand out a monstrous extension to my stud QB in the IFL and wasn't that concerned about it because he hadn't missed a game in six seasons. Now I'm not going to have any data to make an educated guess? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm not happy about it either. The only fair solution, I felt, was to eliminate injury proneness for all players. So you shouldn't have that concern for any player, regardless of how much time he has missed in the past. This was a real data corruption, occurring in a function that had nothing to do with injuries. It's the kind of thing that usually crashes a game badly and never even lasts until beta. It just happened to be putting nonsense in one spot where it could be handled.


To clarify, injury settings of 0-200 will not be affected by this at all? 201-400 is just an extension? Meaning if we want the same frequency we don't have to make adjustments?

Yes. It's just an extension. 100 is still the default, based on a better gaming experience. I'd have to test to determine what the most realistic setting would be. Just looking at all the quarterbacks dropping like flies this season, I'd have to imagine it's higher than 200, even.

Is it just my version or something but the names on the player cards are in real small font.

Your font table is full, or thinks it's full. Rebooting should help (or possibly closing another application that's taking up space in the table).

[A-Husker-4-Life]

What a excellent Xmas present, thanks Jim...

[twothree]

Thanks for the patch. Great timing, I was just about to start a new league. Woot!

[Ben E Lou]

This will occur automatically the first time you open a league after the patch.

I'm not happy about it either. The only fair solution, I felt, was to eliminate injury proneness for all players. So you shouldn't have that concern for any player, regardless of how much time he has missed in the past. This was a real data corruption, occurring in a function that had nothing to do with injuries.

OK. That makes complete sense. I was having a hard time getting my little pea brain wrapped around how this was happening, since I wasn't seeing an immediate timestamp change for the savegame upon loading. That led me to think you were eliminating it, but I wasn't sure. I agree that it's not a great solution, but it's the best one at this point. This was serious enough that by the early 2020s in my SP league, roughly half of the injured players in the entire league were members of the secondary.

[Gallifrey]

Thanks Jim...this is great!

[sovereignstar]

OK. That makes complete sense. I was having a hard time getting my little pea brain wrapped around how this was happening, since I wasn't seeing an immediate timestamp change for the savegame upon loading. That led me to think you were eliminating it, but I wasn't sure. I agree that it's not a great solution, but it's the best one at this point. This was serious enough that by the early 2020s in my SP league, roughly half of the injured players in the entire league were members of the secondary.

So injury proneness is just being randomized and not eliminated, correct?

[QuikSand]

The only fair solution, I felt, was to eliminate injury proneness for all players.

So injury proneness is just being randomized and not eliminated, correct?

Hmmm... okay, I'm trying to see if there's still some unanswered question there.



hmmm...



I think what Jim is saying is that there is no longer a meaningful hidden variable for every player that influences his likelihood of getting hurt down the road.

Yes, players will still get hurt (if that's perhaps what you were asking), but that will essentially be random (or a function of other factors, I suppose). It will no longer be governed in part by this hidden "injury proneness" variable that we didn't see, but made a difference.

If that helps to answer your question, great. If it has the added benefit of being accurate, all the better.

[MIJB#19]

Thanks Jim!
So injury proneness is just being randomized and not eliminated, correct?Jim (Solecismic) said "eliminated", so I'd think he means eliminated.
Ah, QS beat me to it. ;)

[sovereignstar]

Okay, okay. Looking back now I'm not sure why I needed that confirmed.

[Celeval]

Thanks Jim!
Jim (Solecismic) said "eliminated", so I'd think he means eliminated.
Ah, QS beat me to it. ;)

Hm... I read it as them being reset. Not that injury proneness will go away in the future, but a guy who may have been injured a half-dozen times in the last six years gets reset to an injury proneness of 0 (same as an incoming rookie... or whatever), but ten years from now, there should be a realistic distribution.

[gstelmack]

Hm... I read it as them being reset. Not that injury proneness will go away in the future, but a guy who may have been injured a half-dozen times in the last six years gets reset to an injury proneness of 0 (same as an incoming rookie... or whatever), but ten years from now, there should be a realistic distribution.

That's how I read it as well. It sounds like he reset the corrupted data to zero and fixed the routine that was corrupting it, so the algorithms will work correctly from here on out. But there was no way to fix the corruption itself, which forced him to set everyone to zero as the closest thing to fair he could do.

[Ben E Lou]

Now I'm confused again. The timestamps don't change when loading an old league for the first time, so how is the data being reset, when it's clearly not being re-saved. This would lead one to think that the "reset" was accomplished by removing the reference to the injury prone rating altogether, wouldn't it?

[MalcPow]

Was anything tweaked with scouting Jim? I'm seeing a lot of very high future potential undrafted rookies when starting a new career. I know this was a problem in the past, and that it's likely these guys are very overrated, but was anything done that might've impacted that earlier tweak to tone this down? I mention it only because if you start a career with the "scout signs players" option on you end up with a handful of UDRs with potential in the high 50s and low 60s that are suddenly in starter slots on your suggested depth charts. It's particularly a problem with QBs, as the AI loves that 20/60 nobody more than the 35/35 Brett Favre on your roster. Something to take a look at, it's just a bit strange to see teams starting guys like this in year one.

[Celeval]

Now I'm confused again. The timestamps don't change when loading an old league for the first time, so how is the data being reset, when it's clearly not being re-saved. This would lead one to think that the "reset" was accomplished by removing the reference to the injury prone rating altogether, wouldn't it?

Er... resetting it doesn't mean it's immediately saving it. Why wouldn't it just reset in the game memory, and then save it when you normally save the game?

[Ben E Lou]

And then it puts a flag there saying that it has been reset, so it knows not to do it again?

[gstelmack]

And then it puts a flag there saying that it has been reset, so it knows not to do it again?

Jim has always said he has versioning. That would be one way to take care of it.

[Ben E Lou]

'K. Got it.

[Eaglesfan27]

Malcpow, that has been a problem in every single career I've started with FOF2007. Nothing new to the latest patch there.

[MalcPow]

Malcpow, that has been a problem in every single career I've started with FOF2007. Nothing new to the latest patch there.

Hmm, thought it had been toned down some. I'll remove the picture post to keep the thread in better order but leave the issue posted in case there's something here.

[stevew]

Fix corruption of data files causing defensive players, increasing from defensive line exponentially to secondary, to experience a higher injury proneness after year one of a league. Note, this resets injury proneness for all players, but this is the only fair way to fix the problem.

That's awesome. thanks for the fix.

[JetsIn06]

I just updated and got the OK but when I start the game it still say im in version 6.0e

I hate Vista

did you figure this out? i have 6.1 but i'm having the same problem. it still says 6.1, even though I uninstalled. weird.

[JetsIn06]

dola

i figured out what was goin on. in my FOF directory, my FOF application has a .exe at the end. the file in 6.1a doesn't have .exe after it, so there was two applications in my directory. my shortcut was going to the old one.

[Ben E Lou]

No real tests here on penalties yet, but just based on observation so far, penalty distribution looks a lot better, and even may give a meaningful tradeoff in the decision of hiring a new coach.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Does the injury setting have anything to do with seeing some reduction in the injury lengths? I just don't know how realistic a 2-3 year injury is.

[MizzouRah]

Am I losing my mind here? I'm Baltimore, shouldn't I be the one in RED? It's always the team I'm playing now. Thought it was always my team before 6.1a.??? and every verison before that.. or am I going loco?

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3281/schedulekl8.jpg

[MizzouRah]

Looks like it's starting to work itself out:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6375/fdnf7.jpg

[Fonzie]

I believe your game is always highlighted in red, but the favored team is always listed in yellow.

[MIJB#19]

That's how I read it as well. It sounds like he reset the corrupted data to zero and fixed the routine that was corrupting it, so the algorithms will work correctly from here on out. But there was no way to fix the corruption itself, which forced him to set everyone to zero as the closest thing to fair he could do.That's how I read it too, actually.

Jim, care to explain which one it is?

[Subby]

Gahh so the running back thing is more of a tease than a fix.

I appreciate the patch, of course. I just have a number of owners in my MP league who don't understand why they can't prevent their starting and backup running backs from getting equal numbners of carries - even if they set playing time to 100%. I don't recall this being as much of a problem in 6.0 - what changed in the code?

[Ben E Lou]

I don't recall this being as much of a problem in 6.0 - what changed in the code?It wasn't a problem in 6.0. But 6.0 was before all that yabanci-led whining about MAYBE 1 or 2 backs a year getting 450 carries in a season.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

I'm still of the opinion that we ought to be able to run a guy 35 times a game, but if his endurance isn't up for that, his performance should suffer and his change of injury should greatly increase. And if that means an AI team or two has their 100-endurance back getting 460 carries, so be it.

[Rizon]

Awesome, I have a stud FS who gets hurt nearly every week, now he can actually be on the field!

[WSR]

I just d/l and installed what I thought is the patch, but my game says it's version 6.0d. Is that the correct version? I'm using XP.

EDIT:
I'm obviously looking in the wrong place for the link. Would anyone help me out? Thanks.

[RedKingGold]

What I usually do is delete the old FOF2007.exe (or move it out of the FOF2007 Folder) and then unzip the download.

That usually takes care of it for me

[Narcizo]

Dola:

I'm still of the opinion that we ought to be able to run a guy 35 times a game, but if his endurance isn't up for that, his performance should suffer and his change of injury should greatly increase. And if that means an AI team or two has their 100-endurance back getting 460 carries, so be it.

If this is going to be the case then I'd also like to be able to use three running backs (without major fiddling around with formations that doesn't really seem to work anyway) as mine have 20 endurance or less. If my first two running backs are knackered then it seems to make sense to play the third running back rather than continue to run the first two even more into the ground.

Or for me to get running backs with better endurance. But I'd be happier playing my three backs, even if it's not done much in real football.

[Sgran]

I'm floored every time Jim releases a new patch. Customer service from a video game maker? You mean, it's not illegal to actually keep fixing a game until it works correctly? As far as I'm concerned, none of these issues were even close to being gamebreakers. there are years in madden when you can't run with your QB because he can't slide and therefore fumbles on every tackle, and then their patch fixes the color of Favre's shoes. Thanks a million, Jim.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Dola:

I'm still of the opinion that we ought to be able to run a guy 35 times a game, but if his endurance isn't up for that, his performance should suffer and his change of injury should greatly increase. And if that means an AI team or two has their 100-endurance back getting 460 carries, so be it.

I disagree.. if he has low endurance, he should take himself out of the game for a play or two or three - then come back in when he is rested (which depends on endurance, too). But as you posted before, every play is random, and "tiredness" is not kept track of during the course of a game, which I was surprised to see.

[QuikSand]

I think that the real problem with endurance is not so much how it is implemented from 0 to 100... but how it's distributed. I suppose it's possible that there are a fair number of pro-level football players who don't stay in good enough shape to remain effective for full-game duty. But it's not 2/3 of the player universe. And it's not strongly correlated to overall player skill, like it clearly is in FOF. That, to me, is the big problem.

The occasional RB (or other position player) who is very good but has limited endurance should serve as an occasional situation... a special challenge... something that you'd take note of with a few guys in the first round of any given draft. I don't think it's reasonable that nearly every team has to deal with this problem at its RB position and perhaps elsewhere.

If the current system were kept in place, but nearly all players had at least a rating of, say, 60 or better... and the guy with the 5 rating was a total aberration... then I think this whole thing would be pretty reasonable, and the occasional challenge to get the most out of your limited-duty payers would actually be a positive in this game.