Gameplanning and coaching in FOF/sims

[kcchief19]

This post sprouted over in a post in general discussion:
An easier way to edit your team's playcalling would be nice, and the whole coaching staff part could use some work.
Right now, the object is to exploit the gameplan, opponent be damned. It should be a matchup between two football teams where each owner tries to exploit one anothers weaknesses.
I'd like a little of an rpg twist in it. Give the players some personality. Have a GM email you testing the waters for a draft day trade..then have him refrence a previous deal and how well you made out in it. Give the agent personality some personality.
I'm tying these altogether because they all connect to what I would like to see in a football sim and at the same time would also add to multiplayer outcomes as well.

FOF by definition is supposed to be a "front office" simulator, yet it's really a front office-coaching simulator. You are the GM, head coach and coordinators. The segment of FOF that is most prone to manipulation and exploitation is game planning, and to a certain degree you can't do anything about that from a development standpoint. There is no commonsense way to develop and AI that can adapt to any strategy.

So why not remove game planning entirely? Ideally to me, coaches and coordinators would have ratings for their gameplans and part of your job in the "front office" should be putting together a team and a coaching staff that complements your team. That element is completely missing in FOF.

Granted, it's a personal preference. When I play FOF solo, I don't use game planning. It's not any fun just tweaking numbers to exploit the AI. I've hired coaches to do that for me, so I let them do it. I just wish the coaches had a "personality" and fit particularly schemes and concepts.

I think the general viewpoint is that most FOF users want complete control of gameplans. The idea you could export and import gameplans was in theory going to create a whole new world of gameplanning yet no one shares their gameplans. I know the argument is that people don't want to expose their MP gameplans but I'm not buying that.

Even if it's merely an option to the user to utilizes either user-gameplans or AI-gameplans, I think it would add so much more challenge for the solo game to match teams and coaches.

[Ben E Lou]

FOF by definition is supposed to be a "front office" simulator, yet it's really a front office-coaching simulator. You are the GM, head coach and coordinators. The segment of FOF that is most prone to manipulation and exploitation is game planning, and to a certain degree you can't do anything about that from a development standpoint. There is no commonsense way to develop and AI that can adapt to any strategy.I agree and disagree with you at the same time here. :D I agree that it's prone to exploitation. The problem I see is the alternative. It's definitely a place where SP and MP just conflict. I'm with you. I don't do much with game plans in SP: I just set one and acquire players to fit the system, or just let the AI handle it entirely. The key difference is this, though: if the AI coach in SP does sometihng I wouldn't have done, I usually don't even know about it. In MP, where games only happen two to three times per calendar week in most situations, the game logs get examined, and many people watch every single game in Solevision, which means that every single playcall gets critiqued. And in an environment where the AI called every play, the statement you make about the AI not being robust enough would come into play, too: if humans were going through 130ish fully-AI play calls for every game, the AI will *always* be found lacking.

So why not remove game planning entirely? Ideally to me, coaches and coordinators would have ratings for their gameplans and part of your job in the "front office" should be putting together a team and a coaching staff that complements your team. That element is completely missing in FOF. See above, plus let's not forget that play calling and game planning are features that the community has asked for over the years. Sure, back in 1998, the game was Front Office Football. But since then, many features have been added at customer request. I think a lot of people would see such a move as a step backwards.

Granted, it's a personal preference. When I play FOF solo, I don't use game planning. It's not any fun just tweaking numbers to exploit the AI. I've hired coaches to do that for me, so I let them do it. I just wish the coaches had a "personality" and fit particularly schemes and concepts.See above again. Like I said, that's definitely the way I play SP, and I would imagine that most do. (Granted, there's a subset--I assume a relatively small one--that calls every single play in SP.) But I'm not remotely convinced that it would work for MP. People can get very frustrated in MP now if the AI does something that they didn't want, even with the level of control that already exists. If the AI starts doing things that they can do nothing about on a micro basis, I can't imagine the rants.

I think the general viewpoint is that most FOF users want complete control of gameplans. The idea you could export and import gameplans was in theory going to create a whole new world of gameplanning yet no one shares their gameplans. I know the argument is that people don't want to expose their MP gameplans but I'm not buying that.If I'm correct, you're not in any MP leagues, and that's why you can hold that view. ;) Trust me. Buy it. I will say it straight up from my own point of view. There is no way under the sun that I would share my better game plans. No change. None. MP is *exactly* why the only game plans I've shared (in the game plan library (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=62660)) are very generic and admittedly sub-optimal. And I am in no way alone. People are very, very competitive in MP, and don't want to give out whatever things they've figured out or gotten from others. And you've said it yourself, and I think you're representative: people who play SP generally don't spend a whole bunch of time working on game plans, so they don't really have anything to share.

Even if it's merely an option to the user to utilizes either user-gameplans or AI-gameplans, I think it would add so much more challenge for the solo game to match teams and coaches.I'm not fully following you there. That option is already there. You can set the AI to handle all game plans in both SP and MP. (Although I know of no MP league that uses that option--further evidence for the idea that the MP crowd wants as much control as is possible.) Are you thinking something more here?

Overall, after 5 1/2 years of playing MP FOF and 11ish years of playing SP in FOF and other football games, I've come to the conclusion that MP and SP football have significantly different "hot buttons," to the point that they're almost entirely different games. The trick is how to handle both using the same engine and the same general environment.

[Firefly]

Calling the plays in SP is a near mystical experience. I had to quit doing it because it was twisting my perception of gameplanning "reality" to such an extreme I feared it would affect my MP teams.

Anyway, Ben is right, I can't imagine an MP player sharing his gameplans any more than I can imagine a guy taking his wife to party naked. Some things you just don't show others.

[Hammer]

Anyway, Ben is right, I can't imagine an MP player sharing his gameplans any more than I can imagine a guy taking his wife to party naked. Some things you just don't show others.

+1.

[Julio Riddols]

Likewise. I have some really different strategies compared to other owners from what I have seen, and that idea that I need to tweak my stuff to keep up with others who are constantly finding more efficient ways to run their offense and defense is a good thing.. But I probably make changes about as often as anyone else.

I have 3 different styles of offense that I believe I have gameplanned to near perfection, and the talent used on them is pretty much interchangeable. I basically change only to support a strength or weakness on the team, so the only thing I really change is some of the base percentages that we run or pass.

Defensively, I have a 3-4 gameplan and a 4-3 gameplan that have been tweaked from season to season for about 10 MP seasons. As they have evolved, my teams have taken on an identity. We're almost always among the top 3 in run defense. A killer offense will still put some points on us early, but the gameplan also seems to adapt really well and shuts down most offenses by the second half, allowing us to catch up / widen any lead we have.

Other teams also have distinct personalities. Ben E. Lou's teams always seem to hit a lot of big plays and score a lot of points, then rely on the defense to make a few stops, which is typically all it takes with the offenses I have seen from him. Once he has a lead, you are one dimensional and any D can make stops in that situation if planned properly.

I like that every owner in MP seems to have an identity to their team. Some like to pound the rock with a stud RB, some like to chuck the ball all over the field like the FOF greatest show on turf, some rely on short passes to move the ball and control the clock.

Defenses are similar. Some teams rely on a majority of Nickle formations, some play aggressive blitzing schemes, some play conservative, some focus on stuffing the run and forcing long 3rd downs.

All in all, I can't say I have a complaint about the gameplanning aspect of FOF in MP, other than wishing we had a little more control over who does what and when. I like that everyone has a strategy, and I constantly see new teams rising to the top in a lot of my leagues. It is clear people are getting better as more is discovered.

[kcchief19]

See above, plus let's not forget that play calling and game planning are features that the community has asked for over the years. Sure, back in 1998, the game was Front Office Football. But since then, many features have been added at customer request. I think a lot of people would see such a move as a step backwards.
I don't forget -- I was one of them. ;) I didn't say it explicitly enough in my original post but I think from a business standpoint Jim mostly certainly should have gameplanning as an option.

The irony is that the head coaches and coordinators in FOF don't really impact the most critical decisions these coaches make in real life, which are the decisions made on gameday. Instead, their biggest impact is on things that in reality are impacted most by positions coaches and whatnot -- development, injuries, etc. The offensive coordinator and certainly the head coach play almost no real-life role in determining wheter or not a TE learns his position better but his TE coach does.

See above again. Like I said, that's definitely the way I play SP, and I would imagine that most do. (Granted, there's a subset--I assume a relatively small one--that calls every single play in SP.) But I'm not remotely convinced that it would work for MP. People can get very frustrated in MP now if the AI does something that they didn't want, even with the level of control that already exists. If the AI starts doing things that they can do nothing about on a micro basis, I can't imagine the rants.
I would agree that something like this would certainly more enhance SP play than MP. You're right in that I haven't gotten into FOF MP. There are multiple reasons for that but a key reason is that I just don't have the time or interest to create a statistical spreadsheet gameplan and change it game-to-game to account for my opponents. The most enjoyable elements of the game to me is the team-building. I realize that does put me in a special niche. I "understand" why people get upset that the AI calls a play in a situation they don't agree with but that's my point -- every Monday morning, 75 percent of NFL fans are calling for their coach's head; everybody who lost and half the people whose team won. ;)

What bothers me in FOF is that it happens -- but I have nothing to blame it on aside from the AI. If the playcalling derives from a spreadsheet I set, I blame it on the AI for a bad dice roll on calling that play. But if I have a coach who has settings for a game plan I can't control, then I have a sense of "realism" in that my coach is responsible, not the AI.
If I'm correct, you're not in any MP leagues, and that's why you can hold that view. ;) Trust me. Buy it. I will say it straight up from my own point of view. There is no way under the sun that I would share my better game plans. No change. None. MP is *exactly* why the only game plans I've shared (in the game plan library (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=62660)) are very generic and admittedly sub-optimal. And I am in no way alone. People are very, very competitive in MP, and don't want to give out whatever things they've figured out or gotten from others. And you've said it yourself, and I think you're representative: people who play SP generally don't spend a whole bunch of time working on game plans, so they don't really have anything to share.
My fault for a poorly explained comment. I do understand that people don't want to share gameplans from their MP but as it has worked, no one really share their game plans period. Ben is the only one who has really contributed to the game plan "library" -- which I'd describe more as a kiosk or a pamphlet than a library. Even before the MP option went active no one was sharing plans. It's just something the community hasn't embraced. But MP isn't the reason why people don't share their SP gameplans. I conclude that a lot of people operate in a SP environment like I do -- they don't care about the gameplan and just let the AI handle it or they cater their gameplan to their specific personnel. Although I don think you MP types take your gameplans WAY too seriously. It's FOF, not the war on terror. :D
I'm not fully following you there. That option is already there. You can set the AI to handle all game plans in both SP and MP. (Although I know of no MP league that uses that option--further evidence for the idea that the MP crowd wants as much control as is possible.) Are you thinking something more here?
It's there but it's almost useless. My experience has been that the AI has a pretty narrow window when it comes to creating game plans and they don't really have any specific tie to the coach you hire. I can see the addition of coaching "personalities" adding a whole new dimension to team building, chemistry and cohesion. For instance, right now if I want to play a 3/4 defense I just click a button. In reality, I shoud need to hire coaches experienced in the 3/4. Same thing with offensive schemes. If the philosophy of my coaches doesn't match my personnel, maybe my QB doesn't develop as quickly. Ultimately, I would like my coaches to have a real and demonstrable affect on gameplanning and have more features and ratings than currently exist.
Overall, after 5 1/2 years of playing MP FOF and 11ish years of playing SP in FOF and other football games, I've come to the conclusion that MP and SP football have significantly different "hot buttons," to the point that they're almost entirely different games. The trick is how to handle both using the same engine and the same general environment.
Completely agree there. It's two completely different animals -- personally, I think it may even be more than that. I will say this -- I have almost zero interest in playing FOF MP in a league where gameplanning is among the most critical functions. Even in MP, I would prefer to play a game where my coaches truly matter when it comes to playcalling. I realize that puts me in a certain minority.

However, whereas gameplanning is among the most critical features among MP users, I think there is a majority of SP users for which gameplans are low priorities. I haven't tinkered with SP gameplan in years.

Ben, as usual your comments have made me think more critical of my own idea. I do think that user game plans have a critical role in FOF. I think a huge upgrade would be to allow for an option to create gameplans based on coach ratings/personality, especially for SP.

[Fritz]

i feel like this is part of a very old discussion.

When coaching was split up I was hoping it would be fun addition to the game, but it hasn't seemed to have an impact.

When bowl bound came out one of the things I was most hopeful for was the impact of a staff on play style. I never felt it was a big deal.

If it made a difference, I would love to see the role of staff selection expanded.

I get the feeling developers, and perhaps gamers at large, are reluctant to build a more interesting coaching module.