Football sims dead? [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

MarBaSxx

08-14-2011, 05:54 PM

Hasnt been anything new in years...i really liked Bowl Bound from Greydog but its been like 5 years since that came out and no updates in a few years...really a major void in the market imho

Pumpy Tudors

08-14-2011, 05:54 PM

yea thats what i been sayin man

MJ4H

08-14-2011, 06:00 PM

2D overheard live view needed. Everyone knows that's the next step, no one with the guts to try it.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-14-2011, 06:02 PM

2D overheard live view needed. Everyone knows that's the next step, no one with the guts to try it.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Absolute truth. We need a FM interface for a football game. Would be fantastic. It'll happen at some point.

sovereignstar v2

08-14-2011, 06:09 PM

how about a game where the ai good?

EagleFan

08-14-2011, 07:26 PM

nonsense, there is a great football sim out there... FM 2011

:)

Mota

08-14-2011, 07:43 PM

Console games are encroaching on text sim territory. If text sims don't do the same and add some sort of presentation to the spreadsheet, they're (and by that I mean already have been) crushed.

QuikSand

08-14-2011, 07:44 PM

Well, since we're going to have this conversation again, it seems...

If we could take the FB Pro 98 (yes, nineteen-ninety-eight) engine for on-screen game play...

(possibly with some of the manual ratings changes like those from the VPNFL group)

...and add in even an intermediate stage of skill development and salary/finances from the FOF game...

You would have one heck of a game right there. It is really amazing that people continue to think of this as being so far out of reach. It obviously isn't. There might not be the market to support it (or to pay the salaries of the tech people necessary, more specifically) -- but this could be done. Seriously, if Jim Gindin had just walked in the door of Sierra studies at the right time and offered the front office management side of things to that game, we could have had an awful lot of the game we still want 10-12 years ago.

EagleFan

08-14-2011, 07:47 PM

Someone had to mention FB Pro, that brings up bad memories. 99 was sounding like the holy grail of football games; only to be one steaming pile of **** (how depressing that was).

MJ4H

08-14-2011, 07:57 PM

I don't think it is in any way out of reach. I don't even think it would be that hard to do for people with the skill and time.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-14-2011, 08:04 PM

I had no idea you could still download and play the old FB Pro games, but evidently you can.

FBPRO-Online (http://www.fbpro-online.com/downloads.htm)

AgustusM

08-14-2011, 10:11 PM

Head Coach 2009 was a game with a ton of potential (and some brutally embarrassing flaws)

I will never understand when a company like EA will dedicate the resources but then market a game so poorly AND abandon it so quickly.

I do have some hope for Madden this year because the franchise was redone by the Head Coach guy. However my long memory is mitigating my excitement because EA has so consistently gotten thing 75% right.

I would love an American Football game with the depth and quality of FM, but man would I miss my wife and kids when they left me.

Young Drachma

08-15-2011, 09:46 AM

Once there's enough money in it to make it worthwhile, I'm sure there will be a better one. It's all about timing and opportunity.

larrymcg421

08-15-2011, 11:21 AM

Head to head playcalling for multiplayer leagues. That is the feature I have been craving the most.

ShaneTheMaster

08-15-2011, 11:30 AM

dawgfan

08-15-2011, 02:46 PM

I know i could make one, but have no easy way of getting either decent 3d models w/ canned animations, or prerendered animated images for 2d.

I suspect this is the roadblock for other developers, as well.
Even just using X's and O's (a la the old XOR game) to visually display each play would be a big step forward for the text sims.

MJ4H

08-15-2011, 02:54 PM

Yes, colored circles or squares is all that's necessary. The FM 2D engine is pretty much ideal.

flounder

08-15-2011, 05:44 PM

I'd love to contribute to an open source project for this, but I don't have enough time to start one up on my own. I already have two other side projects plus work.

Groundhog

08-15-2011, 06:24 PM

And yet again it is worth mentioning that out of all the major sports except maybe baseball, American Football would have to be the easiest to model in live 2D.

MJ4H

08-15-2011, 06:29 PM

i know rite
http://videogamecritic.net/images/2600/boxing.png

Mota

08-15-2011, 08:13 PM

Yes, colored circles or squares is all that's necessary. The FM 2D engine is pretty much ideal.

Agree 100%. FM 2D engine started as circles on a pitch. Then over several years it became what it is now, which is pretty darn nice looking.

You gotta start somewhere though. Draft Day Sports is doing it, Eastside Hockey Manager did it. You start simple, hopefully capture a new market that was previously unsatisfied, and then build from there.

JimboJ

08-16-2011, 07:34 PM

Yes, colored circles or squares is all that's necessary. The FM 2D engine is pretty much ideal.

You mean like this?

Professional Football Simulator - Sample Play Viewer (http://www.barcodegames.com/2d-play-viewer/)

MJ4H

08-16-2011, 07:52 PM

Yeah I think last time I tried that one it had a long ways to go.

JimboJ

08-17-2011, 06:50 AM

Yeah I think last time I tried that one it had a long ways to go.

I haven't tried it myself yet, but I intend to check it out. Looks like the developer is committed to improving the game, since he releases regular updates.

MizzouRah

08-17-2011, 08:02 AM

You mean like this?

Professional Football Simulator - Sample Play Viewer (http://www.barcodegames.com/2d-play-viewer/)

I'm interested in this one for sure, has anyone tried it yet?

If I get some time this weekend, I think I'll try the demo out.

JPhillips

08-17-2011, 08:20 AM

I wish the guy luck, but the PbP isn't there yet.

SteveMax58

08-17-2011, 08:47 AM

I tried PFS a while back so I'm sure it is much improved since then...but it did have a long ways to go at that time. Promising start...but had a little ways to go.

I was also concerned that his focus was more on multi-player leagues. MP is great and all but my concern is that the single player version ends up with such drastic AI exploits that it isnt fun unless you play MP & I enjoy ripping thru multiple seasons in a sitting sometimes (or at least the choice to go at my own pace).

But I think its probably the most promising game out there & the guy seems to be a pretty solid developer so far in terms of making progress quickly. I think I'll try it out again soon.

Ben E Lou

08-17-2011, 08:51 AM

I tried PFS a while back. Just tried it agian a few minutes ago. Ran a full draft.

1. My team only has 3 DTs. Game says I need 4. No problem, right? I'll just sign a scrub from the FA pool.

WRONG!!!! No DTs are in the FA pool. Awesome.

2. I don't like the FB I got. There's another crappy one in the FA pool. Drafted by no one. I'll just sign him, right?

WRONG!!!! His asking price is over 6M per year.

3. Surely he'll accept less than that because no one's gonna pay it, right? So I offer him minsal. That'll work, right?

WRONG!!!! An AI-run team gave him $7.2M per year.

PFS, I'll check you out again in a few months.

SteveMax58

08-17-2011, 09:16 AM

Yep...those are the types of things I found as well Ben.

I ran a draft to start as well. I had teams taking QBs in the first 2 rounds or HBs in the first 2 rounds type of stuff. Those might have been glaring enough to correct by now but that just tells you there are so many more logic issues to find & correct that it would be too frustrating to play & enjoy for me. I'd fell like I was bug-hunting the whole time.

And I'm of the opinion that a game like this, that doesn't annoy me with regularity, might cost $50+ due to the limited market. Hell, $80+ would be well worth it if it had the right features & was solid.

Ben E Lou

08-17-2011, 09:24 AM

The reports look wonderful. It has potential, but some serious issues need to be worked out before I can take it too seriously.

Ben E Lou

08-17-2011, 09:30 AM

Heh. Major problems with the stats exports. GS/22 comes out to 581.2. And Total Wins and Total Losses aren't equal. Obviously some stuff is missing and/or incorrect.

Ben E Lou

08-17-2011, 09:33 AM

All flat contracts, no bonuses, and no renegs? Really? Ouch.

digamma

08-17-2011, 09:53 AM

All flat contracts, no bonuses, and no renegs? Really? Ouch.

So, the FOBL probably isn't for you?

wade moore

08-17-2011, 10:25 AM

I'm with Ben. There seems to be a lot of promise with the reports, options, etc. And, thankfully, the sim stats actually seem pretty solid for a young game.

So, I'll keep my eye on it for sure, especially since he seems to be updating it constantly.

Toddzilla

08-17-2011, 10:47 AM

Rizon

08-17-2011, 11:00 AM

I don't know why, after watching that demo and seeing all 3 WRs book-it downfield with no one covering them, that you'd download it with any hope of a decent game.

Seriously, what's David Winter up to?

Yeah, that's a bizarre choice for a video to post to promote a game.

Ksyrup

08-17-2011, 11:06 AM

I
2. I don't like the FB I got. There's another crappy one in the FA pool. Drafted by no one. I'll just sign him, right?

WRONG!!!! His asking price is over 6M per year.

3. Surely he'll accept less than that because no one's gonna pay it, right? So I offer him minsal. That'll work, right?

WRONG!!!! An AI-run team gave him $7.2M per year.

PFS, I'll check you out again in a few months.

C'mon, it's simple supply and demand, Ben!

wade moore

08-17-2011, 11:07 AM

I don't know why, after watching that demo and seeing all 3 WRs book-it downfield with no one covering them, that you'd download it with any hope of a decent game.

Seriously, what's David Winter up to?

In-game seems solid from what I was using. The sim engine could be the strongest element of this game right now.

MJ4H

08-17-2011, 11:10 AM

Looks like the circles could be smaller. This screenshot shows that we aren't going to see much of the action on the lines like this:

http://www.barcodegames.com//ScreenShots/gameaction.png

wade moore

08-17-2011, 11:16 AM

Yeah.. the OL and DL definitely just meld in together on this.

TBH, the 2d view isn't a major selling point for me, so I'm not going to over analyze that too much.

MizzouRah

08-17-2011, 11:25 AM

:D I tried PFS a while back. Just tried it agian a few minutes ago. Ran a full draft.

1. My team only has 3 DTs. Game says I need 4. No problem, right? I'll just sign a scrub from the FA pool.

WRONG!!!! No DTs are in the FA pool. Awesome.

2. I don't like the FB I got. There's another crappy one in the FA pool. Drafted by no one. I'll just sign him, right?

WRONG!!!! His asking price is over 6M per year.

3. Surely he'll accept less than that because no one's gonna pay it, right? So I offer him minsal. That'll work, right?

WRONG!!!! An AI-run team gave him $7.2M per year.

PFS, I'll check you out again in a few months.

Ok then... :D

Damn I hope a FOF 2k12 is just around the corner.

dawgfan

08-17-2011, 12:41 PM

YTBH, the 2d view isn't a major selling point for me, so I'm not going to over analyze that too much.
Yeah, at the risk of going against the grain here, I don't really care if my football strategy sim has graphical representation of the plays. I played FOF and TCY because of the sim aspects of being the coach/GM/AD; I wouldn't want the excellent game sim Jim has written to be compromised in order to communicate effectively with a 2D playback scheme.

SteveMax58

08-17-2011, 01:03 PM

I can go either way on the 2d side. I think a modern football sim should strive for it at some point, but I don't have to have it (or have it perfectly) on day 1.

But I do have to have (somewhat) believable CPU roster management, no blackhole gamekillers (like the DT issue Ben noted above), and stats that fall within the realm of reality.

JonInMiddleGA

08-17-2011, 01:04 PM

Yeah, at the risk of going against the grain here, I don't really care if my football strategy sim has graphical representation of the plays.

+1 (and then some)

GrantDawg

08-17-2011, 01:11 PM

Ben E Lou

08-17-2011, 01:22 PM

Heh. I never even saw the video. Just watched it. Yeah, I agree with Rizon: really bad choice of 2D plays to "showcase" the feature. Honestly, that choice really makes me wonder if this game will ever be close to what it could be. If the people in charge make decisions like that, then, well... That said, in the time I spent with the game this morning, I never opened a 2D screen. 2D is a feature that's pretty much on par with calling every play: completely dead to me. Solevision at "Faster" speed is as slow as I can handle it. And that's only in MP. I don't need any sort of in-game representation for SP. I rarely look at game logs when I play SP.

FPS appears to have many of the reports I want. (Heck, in some places it looks like someone was looking at the StelmackSoft and BELCO reports and giving this dude ideas. ;)) As Wade says, it appears to have potential. I'm thinking that if there's no new FOF by Christmas, I'll pick this up and give the developer a lot of feedback when I have a good chunk of free time to play over the break.

Rizon

08-17-2011, 01:23 PM

Yeah, at the risk of going against the grain here, I don't really care if my football strategy sim has graphical representation of the plays. I played FOF and TCY because of the sim aspects of being the coach/GM/AD; I wouldn't want the excellent game sim Jim has written to be compromised in order to communicate effectively with a 2D playback scheme.

So, so, so disagree. It doesn't have to be a great 2d, but 2d would add so much immersion in the game, it isn't funny. Football is very much a visual sport. Without graphics, every game I've played has been "eh."

I've always thought it would be cool to have 2d graphics. But I never thought about how that would display on the O/D line, which comes out awful.

I wonder if there is a way to make it display better. Maybe start the play with a wide view of the field so you can see player alignment, then switch to a zoom for the O/D lines. Or make the icons smaller. I dunno. Just the lines alone kills 2d for me totally.

Ben E Lou

08-17-2011, 01:29 PM

So, so, so disagree. It doesn't have to be a great 2d, but 2d would add so much immersion in the game, it isn't funny. Football is very much a visual sport. Without graphics, every game I've played has been "eh."
It really depends on what you're looking for and how you play the game. I know we've discussed this in person before, so I understand where you're coming from in wanting to get to know your players. But for me, I'm looking for a career/GM sim, not a coaching sim, so I don't want any development time spent on a feature that I know I'll never use. I'm interested in figuring out how to transition the franchise from one QB to the next and getting the players around him to match his skills, not in whether a particular linebacker gets fooled on the play-action fake more often than I think he should. And with limited gaming time, I'd rather get through two or three seasons in an hour or two session at my computer, not two or three games like I would if I watched every play in 2D.

GrantDawg

08-17-2011, 01:38 PM

I've always thought it would be cool to have 2d graphics. But I never thought about how that would display on the O/D line, which comes out awful.

I wonder if there is a way to make it display better. Maybe start the play with a wide view of the field so you can see player alignment, then switch to a zoom for the O/D lines. Or make the icons smaller. I dunno. Just the lines alone kills 2d for me totally.

Not to me. If you really convert what you see from 3-d to 2-d, that is basically what you get. Lines locked unless someone breaks out or goes wide. But it does tell you whether linemen are breaking tackles or getting free even if they don't directly affect the play. I would love that.

GrantDawg

08-17-2011, 01:40 PM

It really depends on what you're looking for and how you play the game. I know we've discussed this in person before, so I understand where you're coming from in wanting to get to know your players. But for me, I'm looking for a career/GM sim, not a coaching sim, so I don't want any development time spent on a feature that I know I'll never use. I'm interested in figuring out how to transition the franchise from one QB to the next and getting the players around him to match his skills, not in whether a particular linebacker gets fooled on the play-action fake more often than I think he should. And with limited gaming time, I'd rather get through two or three seasons in an hour or two session at my computer, not two or three games like I would if I watched every play in 2D.

Agree that it is personal style. Games to me are what it is all about. Just going from year to year bores me. I'd rather take a week or two to get through a season than rush through.

Ben E Lou

08-17-2011, 01:41 PM

I just opened up the game to check, and this player pool thing appears to be completely silly. There are a ton of FBs in free agency in-season, and many are requesting stupid money, north of $6M per year. And this is a league with the default cap of only $100M. But there are ZERO free agents at RB, WR, DT, or LB. I'm guessing that if you get too many injuries at one of those positions you'd have to position-switch some guys just to keep playing.

dawgfan

08-17-2011, 01:42 PM

It really depends on what you're looking for and how you play the game. I know we've discussed this in person before, so I understand where you're coming from in wanting to get to know your players. But for me, I'm looking for a career/GM sim, not a coaching sim, so I don't want any development time spent on a feature that I know I'll never use. I'm interested in figuring out how to transition the franchise from one QB to the next and getting the players around him to match his skills, not in whether a particular linebacker gets fooled on the play-action fake more often than I think he should. And with limited gaming time, I'd rather get through two or three seasons in an hour or two session at my computer, not two or three games like I would if I watched every play in 2D.
I'm with Ben on this one - the things that appeal to me about FOF & TCY are not things that would be enhanced by a graphical representation. The experience I'm looking for is not really focused on watching the game play out in real time - like you, I just watch Solevision on fast speeds to quickly get through games while still getting a small semblance of an idea of what the game was like in terms of big plays, momentum shifts, etc.

Passacaglia

08-17-2011, 02:29 PM

Heh. I never even saw the video. Just watched it.

Well no wonder a 2D interface wouldn't do anything for you. For the rest of us, when we watch something, we are able to see it.

flounder

08-17-2011, 04:37 PM

MJ4H

08-17-2011, 05:14 PM

dawgfan

08-17-2011, 07:14 PM

To me, the point of a graphical representation isn't so much that I need to watch the game. I just want to be able to know what happened on a particular play.

In FM, when I give up a goal I know exactly what happened. My fullback was too far up and was too slow to catch up when the attacker ran behind him. My defensive line was too deep and their midfielder with Long Shots 20 rifled one in from 30 yards. I may not be able to do anything to fix those problems, but at least I have something to go on.

In FOF, when I give up a touchdown I often have no clue what happened. Their tailback took it 60 yards. Why? Were my LBs out of position? Did their TE get a good block on my safety? Did he just get out juked by the RB? Was he too fast for my CBs to catch up? There's no way of knowing for sure exactly what went wrong. If we're lucky, an OL gets assigned a key run block, but we're not sure what that even means. All of this breaks immersion and leads to frustration when you're trying to design an offense or defense.

I'm not trying to denigrate FOF. It's a great game. I'm just trying to express my reasoning behind wanting a graphical view. If the information I'm looking for can be presented without graphics, then that's fine. I just want some more feedback into how exactly my team is performing.
Those are very good points. One counter to that is that broken plays or screw-ups by players (which you see all the time in football) would be subject to gamers screaming "WTF?!?" when they see it happen in a game - just like what happens in games like Madden ("I can't believe my LCB left that crossing route go right through his zone without picking it up").

While I don't know the ins and outs of Jim's sim code, I'd bet that he could provide detail in his game logs about why plays turned out the way they did. In fact, I believe they already do to a certain extent - key blocks, blown blocks, dropped passes, etc.

JonInMiddleGA

08-17-2011, 07:34 PM

The reason I like sports is it is real life, unscripted drama. A 2D display would allow me to hold my breath while the pass is in the air on the way to the single covered receiver. To hold my breath as the running back breaks it outside and has a little bit of daylight in a key spot in the game.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. I want the drama of the games to be enhanced.

Interesting ... because I was thinking a few posts earlier about how much more dramatic text presentation of, say, FOF is to me versus Madden or even 2d's.

What brought that to mind is how much more tension there is to me when following a game on something like Gametracker versus simply watching it. Granted, some of that is the delay between events popping into to the pbp log but I don't believe that's all of it for me.

CU Tiger

08-17-2011, 09:11 PM

Yeah I have to admit, as much as I have wished for a 2d model it was more driven by what was lacking in solevision that left me baffled. I really dont care what fake players look like.
In my ideal game, as GM I wold hire HC and steer towards coords that implemented my preferred style direction. Then I would get detailed feedback from them, "We are not able to score because teams are stacing the box with our fleet of tall, slow posesion receivers. Can you go get me a Speed WR?" then I am on it.
I'd like to provide input like, "Run that young stud RB more, I'm paying him a ton."
If i had good text feedback or even detaild post game grade outs for each position/player I would never want 2d/3d representation. In the absence of those items, I would love it to develop them myself.

MizzouRah

08-17-2011, 09:34 PM

Not to me. If you really convert what you see from 3-d to 2-d, that is basically what you get. Lines locked unless someone breaks out or goes wide. But it does tell you whether linemen are breaking tackles or getting free even if they don't directly affect the play. I would love that.

Me too.

Autumn

08-18-2011, 09:19 AM

The reason I like sports is it is real life, unscripted drama. A 2D display would allow me to hold my breath while the pass is in the air on the way to the single covered receiver. To hold my breath as the running back breaks it outside and has a little bit of daylight in a key spot in the game.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. I want the drama of the games to be enhanced.

My friends and I, back in highschool, ran Pro League Football (I think it was) leagues for years. It had little Xs and Os that moved around in a 2-d rep of the play. I always thought it was amazing how much there drama was in watching a three pixel ball moving square by square towards an X on the screen, and then the short little pause as it got there and you couldn't tell yet if it was going to stay or bounce off. Simple 2-D can really add drama, for sure.

Passacaglia

08-18-2011, 09:57 AM

I had no idea you could still download and play the old FB Pro games, but evidently you can.

FBPRO-Online (http://www.fbpro-online.com/downloads.htm)

Pretty cool. Which one is the good one?

MizzouRah

08-18-2011, 11:32 AM

Football Pro 97 was the best in the series, IMHO.

molson

08-18-2011, 01:05 PM

In FOF, when I give up a touchdown I often have no clue what happened. Their tailback took it 60 yards. Why? Were my LBs out of position? Did their TE get a good block on my safety? Did he just get out juked by the RB? Was he too fast for my CBs to catch up? There's no way of knowing for sure exactly what went wrong. If we're lucky, an OL gets assigned a key run block, but we're not sure what that even means. All of this breaks immersion and leads to frustration when you're trying to design an offense or defense.

I think just including some of that info in the text would be helpful, and a lot of that stuff couldn't be illustrated in just an X and O depiction. I've never played FM (and I don't know much about soccer), so I'm not sure how it works there, but football coaches break down game film to evaluate players and see what happened - maybe a player took his eyes off the ball or the defender, or an offensive lineman didn't have good techique on a play - Xs and Os can demostrate where players are on a field, but I don't know if that's as critical to success/failure of a football player as soccer positioning might be. As in, I think players moving around on a soccer field can create the feeling that a game is going on, but with a football text sim, it's still going to be a result cacluated for a play, and then it's depicted visually, I just wonder if that would flow as well. I also think we may be way too far away to depict things as subtle as players being out of position causing big plays, etc. - I don't think any of that stuff was decided/computed for any FOF play (outside of the specific stats that needed to be generated).

GrantDawg

08-18-2011, 01:13 PM

Sorry, wrong thread.

Ben E Lou

08-18-2011, 01:22 PM

...but with a football text sim, it's still going to be a result cacluated for a play, and then it's depicted visually....Ding ding ding. We have a winnah!

This is the specific concern I have about this for FOF: taking a computerized dice and charts game and trying to render it in 2D sounds awfully like a square peg/round hole situation, and one that would very likely be more misleading than illuminating. It's something else if the actual game engine is using a grid and moving guys around on it. In that regard it would be useful. But a grid-based engine would have a *much* harder time with statistical accuracy and fine-tuning than would a calculation-based engine.

Julio Riddols

08-18-2011, 01:28 PM

Even if FOF just continued to use text to explain the outcome of plays, the "dice rolls" could provide us a better range of textual results. If the dice roll ends up being 100 to 2, that should provide an explanation that describes the sheer dominance exerted by the player who rolled 100. Or if the QB threw a bad throw by dice rolls, and the receivers receiving skills were more responsible for the pass being completed, the text could reflect that by saying something like "Jones grabs the off target throw" or "Nice catch on that play by Jones" or "Jones bailed Smith out on that play with a nice grab". If there was more variety and more emphasis on who was most responsible for the event that occurred, I think text would be just fine. I think the current engine just needs more variety in the way of text output.

MacroGuru

08-18-2011, 01:29 PM

There is this...

Front Page Sports Football (http://www.frontpage-football.com)

It has a free division and the 2 P2P divsions...

I don't know how close it is...I didn't have the patience for the slowness on the work network...but it might be something for some people...

Passacaglia

08-18-2011, 01:54 PM

Ding ding ding. We have a winnah!

This is the specific concern I have about this for FOF: taking a computerized dice and charts game and trying to render it in 2D sounds awfully like a square peg/round hole situation, and one that would very likely be more misleading than illuminating. It's something else if the actual game engine is using a grid and moving guys around on it. In that regard it would be useful. But a grid-based engine would have a *much* harder time with statistical accuracy and fine-tuning than would a calculation-based engine.

Oh you've played Micro League Football too, huh?

dawgfan

08-18-2011, 03:13 PM

SteveMax58

08-18-2011, 03:37 PM

Yep. I think people saying it would be easy to tack on this kind of visual display are not thinking through how the sim engine works - I have my doubts that the way Jim's sim calculates results will result in info to drive even a 2D representation that looks like what people want.

Yeah, I dont think slapping on a graphical playout to a FOF-engine would really make as much sense...though it could be a feature add which acts more like a bridge to the next version which actually does grid based calculations and uses more vitals & skills to define a player & simulate football behaviors rather than football stats.

I agree though, eventually that would get predictable & filled with logic fallacies that wouldnt fit with what you are seeing in 2d.

flounder

08-18-2011, 03:40 PM

Well Football Manager's graphics aren't a real representation in the sense that Madden's graphics engine is.

For example, when the ball is loose you'll often see one player for each team running for it. Sometimes, if one player is closer than the other one, the closer player will slow down to a jog to make sure that both players arrive at the ball at the same time. What's going on? The game engine decided to have a dice roll for possession of the ball between those two players. The graphics engine then has to make those two players arrive at the ball at the same time.

So really all that's going on is an animated view of the dice rolls going on behind the scenes. It's a testament to the skill of the FM team that it provides such a good illusion of being a real 3d simulation. So I think that you can have graphics and still have a strong sim engine. You just have to be able to accept some "gameyness" in the graphics.

MJ4H

08-18-2011, 05:15 PM

Yep. I think people saying it would be easy to tack on this kind of visual display are not thinking through how the sim engine works - I have my doubts that the way Jim's sim calculates results will result in info to drive even a 2D representation that looks like what people want.

I might have missed them but I didn't see anyone suggesting tacking on something to an already existing engine that works in an entirely different way. At the least, I'm not proposing that. I want one built from the ground up to do it that way.

GrantDawg

08-18-2011, 05:55 PM

I might have missed them but I didn't see anyone suggesting tacking on something to an already existing engine that works in an entirely different way. At the least, I'm not proposing that. I want one built from the ground up to do it that way.

I have yet to see that suggested, or that anyone said anything about it being "easy." Strawman much?

dawgfan

08-18-2011, 06:43 PM

You're right, I'm conflating things. I was thinking of these comments:

http://operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2512976&postcount=8

In re-reading this one, Quik is talking about a different approach than what I was describing.

http://operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=2512982&postcount=10

Not sure of MJ4H was referencing Quik's suggestion or not - he probably was.

MJ4H

08-18-2011, 06:45 PM

I was talking about creating a 2D engine from the ground up.

Icy

08-19-2011, 09:59 AM

Goal Line blitz 2D is good enough for me:

highlights sample:

<object width="420" height="345"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LjZq0BqRTjg?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LjZq0BqRTjg?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="345" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

SteveMax58

08-19-2011, 11:23 AM

Goal Line blitz 2D is good enough for me:

<object height="345" width="420">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LjZq0BqRTjg?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="345" width="420"></object>

+1

Simple, but fluid. And with some minor words thrown in above the players like "Pump Faked" and "Spin" to tell you what they failed to do or why the tackle was broken is helpful.

That game is fundamentally flawed from a NFL-style sim but of course, that isnt their target base really.

Ben E Lou

08-19-2011, 12:57 PM

I was talking about creating a 2D engine from the ground up.
Got it. My issue is that, given what we've seen the last 13 years, I have very little reason to believe that there will be a long-term playable career professional football text sim in my lifetime apart from FOF, so I just naturally assume "2D presentation" = "FOF with a 2D presentation." I've see too many broken (or long-term deferred) promises from other developers of new games and too many fatally flawed games to get my hopes up regarding anything else. I'd love to be more optimistic, but I have little reason for it. PFS seems like the closest thing I've seen in 13 years, and I found massive, game-killing flaws in less than an hour of fooling with the latest version. That doesn't do much to help my lack of optimism.

MJ4H

08-19-2011, 01:42 PM

Yeah I haven't really seen anything that indicates PFS was a serious contender, so I just kind of ignored it.

I'm not hopeful, either.

sabotai

08-19-2011, 02:10 PM

That game is fundamentally flawed from a NFL-style sim but of course, that isnt their target base really.

That's what I was thinking. I played GLB enough to know that for a serious sim, the game balance, physics and AI are just not even close to good enough.

SteveMax58

08-19-2011, 02:43 PM

That's what I was thinking. I played GLB enough to know that for a serious sim, the game balance, physics and AI are just not even close to good enough.

Yep, I would guess that the engine would be fine to actually be a sim, the problem is that it is an MMORPG. Meaning...if the crowd there makes a HB with 2 billion speed (really, more like 160+), they expect that HB to be fast enough to where nobody could possibly ever catch him. So, GLB doesnt try to put caps onto attributes because it (theoretically) defeats the purpose of building your character better than somebody else does.

There are definitely diminishing returns beyond a point, but the player-building aspect of it (which is where the most money is spent on the game) is what completely invalidates the ability to simulate NFL-style football. So the engine is tweaked to account for the nonsensical player building rather than using a baseline of attributes expected.

But I think GLB proves that a 2d sim can be done, and done well for sim enthusiasts, but it certainly wasn't built for that.

ShaneTheMaster

08-19-2011, 03:15 PM

dawgfan

08-19-2011, 04:20 PM

The best thing that FBPro did that noone has been able to do since (including Madden) is that they simualte games using their graphics engine.

When games were simmed, the graphic engine was used (but wasn't rendered on the screen). This way there we no differences between simmed games and games played out. It is mind boggling why Madden doesn't do this.

While more difficult to achieve, this would be the ideal way of 'simming' football games. If it could be done 15 years ago, it can be done now.
But how good was that sim engine in comparison to Jim's? I would guess that most of us would characterize Jim's sim engine as the most accurate football sim out there. Can someone write a graphical sim that produces results as believable as Jim's?

That's where I'm skeptical...

Ben E Lou

08-19-2011, 05:00 PM

When games were simmed, the graphic engine was used (but wasn't rendered on the screen). This way there we no differences between simmed games and games played out.They *said* that this was the case, but I never bought it. I'd routinely win games by scores upward of 100-0 when playing them out, but using the same playbooks, my team's games always had "normal" scores. Clearly something was being done differently in the sim engine.

MJ4H

08-19-2011, 05:00 PM

I probably have a wider range of acceptability than a lot of you on that one, honestly.

ShaneTheMaster

08-19-2011, 06:17 PM

They *said* that this was the case, but I never bought it. I'd routinely win games by scores upward of 100-0 when playing them out, but using the same playbooks, my team's games always had "normal" scores. Clearly something was being done differently in the sim engine.

For me, the main reason for this was because they were a few "money" plays that I knew they could take advantage of, and could call 10 times a game, and in crucial situations. The CPU obviously didnt do that when calling the plays when games were simmed. I am 99% positive the graphics engine was used for simming.

Ben E Lou

08-19-2011, 06:38 PM

For me, the main reason for this was because they were a few "money" plays that I knew they could take advantage of, and could call 10 times a game, and in crucial situations. The CPU obviously didnt do that when calling the plays when games were simmed. I am 99% positive the graphics engine was used for simming.But that's the thing. I even set up playbooks with nothing but my "money" plays. (Well, pretty much all of my custom plays were "money" plays in that game. ;)) Even when I did that, the sim results never came anywhere close to the played-out results. It was really weird.

sabotai

08-19-2011, 09:25 PM

Did you control the players or did you play in coach mode? I always did far better when controlling the players, not only because of money plays (which the AI usually didn't know how to take advantage of), but also on normal plays. The AI in FBPro clearly wasn't designed to improvise. If you told the RB to run to a certain spot in the play design, like on a sweep, he (when AI controlled) ran there whether there as a defender directly in his path or not.

JimboJ

08-19-2011, 10:37 PM

wade moore

08-20-2011, 08:37 AM

To those of you who have tried the PFS demo and concluded the game is not worthwhile, have you reported any of the bugs to the developer? I'm asking because if you read the forum he does release frequent updates, and he does seem genuinely interested ib getting feedback and improving the game. I haven't had the chance to try it myself, but it seems like people are taking the attitude that because the game has some obvious flaws, its not worth taking the time to help improve it.

Here's the problem.

It's hard to go into a forum, with a good active developer, and start naming all of the problems.

You come off as overly-negative and trying to bash the game, even if you're trying to help.

I'd love to start naming the issues, but it would really come off looking like bashing the game because there are just so many glaring problems.

That's why I'm taking a "wait and see" approach. I'd rather check it again in 6 months and see what progress he has made.

SteveMax58

08-20-2011, 11:56 AM

JimboJ

08-21-2011, 08:46 AM

Exactly what Wade said.

I actually did post a few things I had seen very early on and he was responsive for a while. But it became clear to me that I was becoming an annoyance because I was a little more critical of things than others might be.

So rather than become a detriment to the forum I figured its better to just check back every few months as its really not helpful to take my full set of bothersome issues (to me anyway) and post them if they are not really welcome/wanted.

I see your guys point, but I guess its all in how you word your feedback. If you present it in a positive way as a list of issues that you found, then he can log the issues and work as them as he has time. Its how software support works. Also it probably helps if they are posted in the support forum and not in general discussions.

Dutch

08-21-2011, 09:39 AM

Right, for instance, here at FOFC certain people have (or used to have) a good relationship with Jim and criticism wasn't viewed as being pessimistic. It was seen as assistance. But there was a certain level of trust that was built first (or at the same time) as the critiques that were pushed.

If you just (t)rolled into FOFC and started blasting FOF (when it mattered) you would get run out of town. This isn't a new phenomena. I suspect that for the old school FOF'ers, this is a path that they have seen trampled to death and starting from scratch witn a new company probably isn't high on the priority list.

I'm sure there are some extremely intelligent up and coming 20 somethings that would love nothing more than to jump into GLB, PFS or whatever and get involved in the community and make those games better. I just don't think you're going to get it from the tired old dogs of the FOF world.

Ben E Lou

08-21-2011, 11:01 AM

For me, it's not any concern about how it's received. It's just a matter of wanting to have the time to do it properly. As mentioned, I saw several issues in the first few minutes. I'm just typically not one to want to log stuff without providing specifics about what screen it's on, detailed steps to reproduce etc. As an example, I'd never log the DT issue the way I put it on here. I'd re-start the league, write down every setting that I used, etc. etc. And right now, there are so many glaring things that I simply don't have the time to do it properly.

SteveMax58

08-21-2011, 04:55 PM

I see your guys point, but I guess its all in how you word your feedback. If you present it in a positive way as a list of issues that you found, then he can log the issues and work as them as he has time. Its how software support works. Also it probably helps if they are posted in the support forum and not in general discussions.

I don't mean to make it out that my feedback was argued or in any way scorned. It's just that you eventually take a hint when you provide data points about how many team sacks, team INTs, team FFs, comp%, etc, etc, etc, in a given NFL season the top, median, and lowest teams actually get. Then you provide the % that each of those appear to be off, and when there is no further response, you kinda (should) get the hint that it isn't the type of game you were trying to provide feedback for.

I guess my point is that these weren't even bugs, but were simply the "on the surface" issues that were obvious to anybody that is a stats-head. So, you have to just assume that the developer isn't building something intended for such audiences' satisfaction. Not a big deal, GLB isn't that type of game either.

MizzouRah

08-21-2011, 09:57 PM

Anyone play, "Second and Ten"?

Philliesfan980

08-22-2011, 06:20 AM

Anyone play, "Second and Ten"?

I have - It's a great single season football simulation. I believe all modern NFL seasons are available, and a ton of college teams/seasons as well.

While it's great game in its own right, one of the best things about the game is all you have to do is buy the game: the seasons are free.

MizzouRah

08-22-2011, 09:11 AM

I have - It's a great single season football simulation. I believe all modern NFL seasons are available, and a ton of college teams/seasons as well.

While it's great game in its own right, one of the best things about the game is all you have to do is buy the game: the seasons are free.

So it's more like a Diamond Mind baseball type game for football? (just single seasons)???

Philliesfan980

08-22-2011, 10:26 AM

So it's more like a Diamond Mind baseball type game for football? (just single seasons)???

Yeah, no career mode. Great single season game though.

JonInMiddleGA

08-22-2011, 10:55 AM

Yeah, no career mode. Great single season game though.

+1

SAT is darned good & the original developer (for the dice & chart version) is a heck of a good guy. The p.c. version is an exceptionally faithful reproduction of the original, just in computer form, done in conjunction with a programmer.

SlyBelle1

08-22-2011, 01:25 PM

+1

SAT is darned good & the original developer (for the dice & chart version) is a heck of a good guy. The p.c. version is an exceptionally faithful reproduction of the original, just in computer form, done in conjunction with a programmer.

I have been evaluating this one and not sure yet. Love the fact you get all the seasons, just some of the abstractions have me scratching my head a bit, but might be just because I haven't figured it out yet. One strange thing I did see was the handling of the new playoff rules. In one game, my team kicked a FG in overtime. The CPU got the ball back and drove down to make it something like 1st and goal. CPU immediately kicks the FG. No way the CPU should do that on 1st down with plenty of time left. Should have taken a few shots to win the game with a TD.

Again, does have some interesting qualities that continues to keep my interest. Once I see what the latest version has improved upon at the end of August, might give it a go.

SlyBelle1

08-22-2011, 01:27 PM

By the way, what I would love to see from somebody is a pros/cons list for the three major football replay games of ActionPC, Second and 10, and SOM. We already know what the pricing differences are, but would love to hear from someone who has detailed experience with them all.

MizzouRah

08-22-2011, 01:35 PM

brookspiggott

09-03-2011, 08:57 AM

Heya guys,

Just wanted to chime in here since I'm the developer of PFS.

I enjoy reading these types of discussions because they give me focus on what parts of the game are deficient.

I just went through a huge 3 month code session where I re-balanced the game engine to give statistical accuracy thanks to some in-depth analysis from the community.

The only way I can identify all of the flaws of the game is to have people report them. Some of the issues you've noted I could fix in a single release, but if I don't know about them I'm focused on issues or upgrades that other members of the community are reporting.

My ask from you guys here is to help me fix the glaring flaws in the game from your side. You are all extremely knowledgeable in how a sim should work and I need more opinions of power users if I want the game to continue to grow.

I'll revisit a lot of the issues that have been brought up here, but I urge you to email me at [email protected], PM me here, or join our forum at barcodegames.com to help grow this product.

I'd be more than happy to provide free copies of the game to help you guys evaluate it and identify areas of improvement.

SunDevil

09-03-2011, 09:44 AM

brookspiggott,

Downloading now. I will take a look. Welcome to the community.

MJ4H

09-03-2011, 09:50 AM

Well this is a good sign.

Shaun Sullivan

09-03-2011, 09:51 AM

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 10:20 AM

I actually purchased it yesterday due to the update release and Labor Day discount and started an issues list this morning. Be careful what you wish for, Brooks. ;)

MJ4H

09-03-2011, 10:28 AM

lol

Apathetic Lurker

09-03-2011, 01:54 PM

I actually purchased it yesterday due to the update release and Labor Day discount and started an issues list this morning. Be careful what you wish for, Brooks. ;)

Theres a discount? Color me intrigued and credit card ready....

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 01:56 PM

Theres a discount? Color me intrigued and credit card ready....

The following is an e-mail sent to you by an administrator of "Barcode
Games". If this message is spam, contains abusive or other comments you
find offensive please contact the webmaster of the board at the following
address:

[email protected]

Include this full e-mail (particularly the headers).

Message sent to you follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello all!

Thanks again for being a member of the BarcodeGames.com (http://barcodegames.com/) forum.

We'd like to announce the release of the September version of Pro Football
Simulator. This new version patches a couple of issues and continues to
improve the statistical accuracy of the engine.

We've also added a couple of league formats to accommodate a 1950's version
of the NFL as well as continued expansion options.

Due to the start of football season, and Labor Day, we've put the game on
sale for 30% off. Use the code LABORDAY to get this discount. Feel free to
share with your friends. With the football season starting I'd love to see
new faces join some of our online leagues. Hopefully the discount will help
those of you on the fence hop on board and get involved.

Thanks again for your support of the game and the community, and I'm
looking forward to seeing you all around the boards.

Also, feel free to check out our Facebook page at
Incompatible Browser | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ProFootballSimulator) or follow me on Twitter
@BarcodeGames

Regards,

Brooks Piggott

Developer, Pro Football Simulator
http://www.barcodegames.com (http://www.barcodegames.com/)

--
Thanks, The ManagementWith the discount, the cost was $17.50, I think.

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 02:08 PM

Brooks, good gracious. Buy VBulletin. I can't post my issues list over there with proper formatting due to the inferior message board software, and I have no way of knowing if your email accepts HTML formatting. Just need to upload a couple of screenies, and I'll post it here.

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 02:18 PM

Bah, I can do it with one screenie. The other isn't necessary. This is not remotely comprehensive, just my initial observations after about 45 minutes. I likely won't have time to fool with it again until tomorrow. PMing Brooks so he knows it's here.


[B][U]BUGS/ISSUES[/U][/B]
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]When a player averages x.0 yards per carry (and probably other stats), it's being rounded and looks funny. For example I have a RB with 4.0 ypc one season, and it's just showing as 4. (And really, ypc should be two significant digits anyway...)
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]TD and INT should be next to one another on a QB's player card.
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Help file is out of date. The initial game screens have many features that the Help File doesn’t mention.
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]With default financial settings, two FBs in free agency are asking for absurd amounts: a 30-year-old in the 5.4M-6.9M range, and a 28-year-old in the 5.4-6.7M range.
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Scaling of absolute ratings needs serious work. I’m in 2015 and for example, there are *13* Tight Ends with 100 overall ratings.

[B][U]NEW FEATURES/ENHANCEMENTS[/U][/B]
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Ability to hit one button and "Sim X Seasons." (Many fictional league players like to have some "history" before we jump in and control a team.)

[B][U]ADDITIONS TO NEWSPAPER[/U][/B]
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Significant injuries to top-tier players.
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Record-breaking performances.
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Division-clinching win.
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Key retirements
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Big free agent signings
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Add position to headlines. (In other words, rather than "John Smith wins Offensive Player Of The Week," let's have "RB John Smith wins Offensive Player Of The Week.")

[B][U]INTERFACE ANNOYANCES[/U][/B]
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]It shouldn’t be required that we have to do like 5 button clicks to get past the Pro Bowl. Give me a “sim pro bowl in background” option. I don’t care to see it.
[FONT=Symbol]· [/FONT]Can only offer Free Agents contracts from the “My Team” screen. Should be able to do it from the Free Agents screen.

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 02:18 PM

Screen shot of tight end issue. This applies to pretty much every position.

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/tightends.png

Grim.Reaper

09-03-2011, 02:32 PM

I also took the plunge during the sale. Haven't got in deep yet, but coulple things are a question mark to me. During preseason games, can't seem to get a realistic rotation of subs in the game. Also, looking at the steelers roster and the speed ratings. These seem odd, Mike Wallace is blown away by many other players I wouldn't have thought is realistic.

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 02:43 PM

Ummmm...is there no trade AI? Just before closing the game for the day, I offered my 2nd and 3rd round pick in 2017 for Cleveland's 1st and 2016.

And they accepted it.

*shurg*

I appreciate the developer coming over here and asking for feedback. But really, who's been playing the game up to now? Semi-trained monkeys? I find it impossible to believe that no one has noticed some of the massive glaring issues before now. This feels like a late alpha or early beta right now.

MizzouRah

09-03-2011, 02:55 PM

This is great.. with the FOFC community providing feedback, this game might shape up in a few months to warranty a purchase.

Pro football text simming lives!

sabotai

09-03-2011, 03:05 PM

I appreciate the developer coming over here and asking for feedback. But really, who's been playing the game up to now? Semi-trained monkeys? I find it impossible to believe that no one has noticed some of the massive glaring issues before now. This feels like a late alpha or early beta right now.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've seen him state in the past that he's primarily focused on MP and not single player, so I'm sure all of the various AI issues (or the non-existence of AI) is due to him creating what is basically a game meant for MP leagues.

frnk55

09-03-2011, 03:46 PM

Grim.Reaper

09-03-2011, 03:50 PM

The developer does appear willing to accept feedback so all we can do is provide it and hope the game ultimately turns into a good football sim. Like others, some of the things seem odd and out of whack to me, but just have to hope they get fixed along the way.

Otherwise, looks like FOF will remain the only football sim to play.

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 04:00 PM

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've seen him state in the past that he's primarily focused on MP and not single player, so I'm sure all of the various AI issues (or the non-existence of AI) is due to him creating what is basically a game meant for MP leagues.1. The problem with that approach is that MP leagues by nature move slowly, but can be hugely affected by long-term balance issues that could be found easily by some focus on SP. For example, it's quite possible that the issue with too much top-tier talent, posted above, does not exist in year 1, but is the result of over-talented draft classes. If the game is only being looked at in MP leagues, several seasons from now, people will realize that the talent distribution in the leagues that they've invested time in for months/years is horribly out of whack. This can be easily prevented by opening up SP to multi-season simming so that guys like me can take a look at what happens to a league down the road.

2. There's a difference between "primarily focused on MP" and "not even bothering to fool with SP." If the ability to trade a 2nd and 3rd two years out for a 1st hasn't been addressed up to now, it's as if SP doesn't matter at all.

3. For a PC-based game, that's just a bad idea overall. If the delivery system were different, then you could make a case that the market for MP is larger than the market for SP. But for a client-based delivery, SP purchases still rule the roost.

JonInMiddleGA

09-03-2011, 04:07 PM

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've seen him state in the past that he's primarily focused on MP and not single player, so I'm sure all of the various AI issues (or the non-existence of AI) is due to him creating what is basically a game meant for MP leagues.

Then just eliminate the SP option & be done with it. That trade AI issue described there would probably be enough to keep me from d'loading the game even if it was free.

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 04:10 PM

Dola...

I hate to sound negative. It's worth reiterating again that there are quite a few things in this game that I like and that right now look vastly superior to the current FOF. But if I have to use massive house rules from day 1 like "no trading," then it's unplayable in SP.

Ben E Lou

09-03-2011, 04:10 PM

A pox on you, Jon, for breaking up my dola.

SackAttack

09-03-2011, 04:11 PM

Did you just dola to pox somebody else for breaking up your dola, Ben?

How wonderfully meta of you. ;)

JonInMiddleGA

09-03-2011, 04:42 PM

Did you just dola to pox somebody else for breaking up your dola, Ben?

How wonderfully meta of you. ;)

Now I post which creates a non-Ben dola of its own ;)

cougarfreak

09-03-2011, 04:46 PM

In this game, do you call the actual plays, or just set up game plans?

Grim.Reaper

09-03-2011, 04:57 PM

In this game, do you call the actual plays, or just set up game plans?

All you can do is setup strategy for a number of high-level game situations. You can watch a 2d representation of the plays unfolding, but you don't participate.

sabotai

09-03-2011, 05:48 PM

I searched over at his forum and found the comment I remember. Scratch what I said earlier, all he said was that he prefers to play MP, not that he was primarily making an MP game. However, I would say the development of the game, from what I've seen, suggests that that's what he's doing.

SteveMax58

09-03-2011, 10:09 PM

Ok...so I went ahead & downloaded the game to give it another shot. I wanted to just run thru a couple of seasons real quick since I wanted to just get a feel for the flow of the game & see how the stats pan out over a season as it doesn't need to be perfect...but I know it will bother me if they go too far in the "not even possible in the NFL" side. So, I used the historical DB that is built in (with enormous inaccuracies, but more in a bit on that) and took over my team, the Giants. I let free agency go since it seemed like a lot of roster filler out there, and again, I'm not really all that worried about being very good.

So I'm basically already stuck at this point. The below screenshot says I don't have enough QBs on my roster. 2 isn't enough??

I then go to my team roster page and notice I have 60 players on the team. It states very clearly that 53 is the max, so I comply and put 7 players on the practice squad. It (rightfully) no longer has a warning of the max roster size, but does say "Minimum position requirements are not met!". It doesn't tell me what is not met...but at least I am aware of something & can look further.

Upon investigating the roster more thoroughly, I discover that I have no Cs on my roster. Thats crazy, Shaun O'Hara is a C, and he's on my roster, so wtf? Well, he's incorrectly listed as a G. Ok, fair enough, let me ignore that I probably should have another scrub C, and I'll just sign a C or 2 in free agency and go from there. Guess what...there are no Cs in free agency for me to sign (not that the schedule screen is telling me that...it thinks I need more QBs!!). A brief scan of the rest of the roster shows a lot of other inaccuracise with the player positions (and of course, the ratings are off on a lot of players as well as a side note).

[I tried to post the screenshots showing my roster with 2 QBs & the schedule screen with the popup stating "Giants do not have enough QBs" but it might be too large for a single post I'm assuming as my post won't go through with it)

So...I'll just leave it like this. I like the potential here. I really do. But this game needs basic alpha testing to get through all of these types of scenarios before I would even want to dig any further...and I just don't have the time to spend comprehensive amounts of time writing up basic useability problems. They should be obvious to anybody that has spent an hour looking for problems.

I will definitely keep an eye on the progress with this, but I'm guessing this is at least 2 years of really hard work needed to get this into a very playable state for a SP. And with topics like whether to release a college version on the forums...I'm not overly optimistic about that happening. Its one thing to say you want feedback...its another to actually take it & do something with it. It seems marketing & PR are more important at this point, imho. Apologies if that sounds harsh, but just calling it like I see it.

FBPro

09-03-2011, 11:08 PM

Ok took the plunge myself and gonna give it a whirl, dying like most of us for a football sim. Thanks for coming here for feedback, looking forward to the progress we hope to see.

PurdueBrad

09-03-2011, 11:41 PM

I went ahead and got the demo (and waiting for the license) for Second and Ten. I will say, right off the bat, it is a bit unwieldy to use. I'm slowly but surely getting used to it although I wish there was some better help documentation.

I do really enjoy the way it plays however and, once I figured out how to set up a league, I've enjoyed it. I'm playing the college version with a 1999 season running the Boilermakers. The first game I played was a back and forth battle with University of Central Florida that ended 35-28.

I was impressed with the stats, although I've seen some big numbers in some other games, so I'll have to watch that. Brees threw for 280 and 2 tds and ran for 36 and 2 tds but my offense struggled as well. It keeps solid stats and gives you a nice spot to do a game write up.

I will say this as well, it is nice not having to buy the seasons. In the future, they are going to charge $10 for this current season but I can live with that, pretty cheap.

Give the demo a shot, once you start to figure out how things work, it is a decent gameplay engine.

Ben E Lou

09-04-2011, 06:23 AM

I opened up PFS shortly before heading to bed last night and took a look at "Sandbox Mode." The multi-season sim option is there, so that's good. I ran a 100-year sim overnight, and here are some observations:

I'm guessing that RB endurance is a little too low. No RB toted the rock as many as 350 times in a season in 100 years. The max was 349. 330 was only done 9 times. By comparison, in the last 10 NFL seasons, the leader has had 350 or more carries 8 times.
Too many 99-yard runs. Per pro-football-reference, TD is the only player in NFL history to have done it, dating back to 1934. It was done more than 10 times in my 100-year sim.
There may be an issue with game plan variety. The max pass attempts for any player was 604. Manning and Brees easily surpassed that number last year, with 679 and 658 respectively. In 100 years, someone oughta approach or surpass 700.
Fumbles are wayyyyy too high. Culpepper holds the NFL record with 23. 40 or more happened 10 times in the sim. Record was 49.
I'm guessing there's an issue with players never returning punts from the 10 or deeper. There were 8 instances in the sim of 89-yard punt returns, but none higher than that. The NFL has seen 54 punts returned 90 yards or more. Bryan McCann took one 97 yards last year.
Similar, kickoffs are never getting returned from the end zone, I suspect, or there's a reporting error. Tons of 100-yard kickoff returns, way too many to check up on (9 just in the first season), but never one that's more than 100. The NFL has seen 79 KO returns of 100 yards or more. There's been at least one KO Return for more than 100 yards in each of the last five seasons.
FG Max of 57? Tons of 57-yards, never one longer than that. Maybe a game plan issue? (Teams never try one outside the 40?)
Punt average needs to be reported with a decimal.
Punt long appears capped at 70 yards. There have been 228 NFL punts longer than that. There's been a punt longer than 70 yards in each of the last 10 seasons irl.
P-F-R doesn't have TFL as a stat, but intuitively, that number seems too low in PFS. The single-season record in 100 years is only 10.
Similarly, pancakes appear wayyyy too high. The record is 131, and tons of guys have gotten more than 100. 7-8 per game?
The frequency of unbelievably long RB careers is too high, resulting in too many career leaders passing Emmitt. Only Emmitt and Sweetness have had more than 3,518 carries. 21 guys have more than that in this sim, and in every case, it's because he had a career of 15-17 years. (Recall that max single-season carries for RBs are a bit too low.)
In general, it appears that there's not enough spread to the ratings to create outliers. There are no instances of one or two guys having wayyyyy more than anyone else in any stat, such as Emmitt and Walter, or Rice.

Dutch

09-04-2011, 08:32 AM

brookspiggott

09-04-2011, 10:26 AM

Obviously to achieve critical mass I have a lot of work to do. I don't mind the challenge and I appreciate the feedback. I will definitely work on some of the issues reported here.

However, I do need to point out that at no time have I ever positioned this game as a FOF replacement. Also, while Single Player has been added in, the game was built initially to be run as an online league game. There are dozens of features in the game built specifically to help commissioners maintain and execute their leagues. I knew that FOF and Action football were the best NFL simulators out there, so I positioned my game to be different and target the gap in easy to use games for online leagues. Single player mode came later, which is why it's so far behind.

There are massive differences in the way the engines work. I built mine using vector math, physics and pursuit algorithm. This is why I can provide a 2D view. I chose to be different. The stats are extremely accurate, but they're not perfect. That's something I continue to tweak each update.

There are also massive differences in the target market. I'm looking for the casual player who wants to join leagues and rapidly sim out games. My target player cares more about an easy to use game that doesn't require a lot of effort to maintain a team or participate in an online league. They care more about ease of use rather than technical accuracy.

I understand there are flaws in the game... and am actively working on improving things. But I will not apologize for the state of the game. I also am not interested in making this the "Next FOF" or the next "Action PC Football". I shape the game based on what the community suggests, but ultimately I'm building a game that I prefer to play.

If that means that this is not a good fit for your community, I completely understand that. I wish you guys the best on whatever platform you're on and I look forward to changing a few of your minds in the future.

Until then I suggest that for those of you interested in helping in improving the game please join us on the BarcodeGames forum or email your feedback to [email protected]

Thanks.

Subby

09-14-2011, 12:20 PM

YOU HAD ME AT VECTOR MATH!

Ben E Lou

11-09-2011, 04:57 AM

I am suddenly very interested to see how the developer responds to this outstanding critique of his game. I think I've seen enough where I can't support this product in it's current state...but if the developer can roll up his sleeves and take his product to the next level, I'll keep reading. I certainly wish him the best. "FOF competitor" and "impossible" are not synonomous. But Jim put a lot of effort into FOF before he ever even dropped a line of code into a computer. The bar is raised high, indie developers, I wish you all the best.This is probably worth an update. Wade started a test MP league and we've gotten some good participation and given a lot more feedback. Brooks has been interacting quite a bit on the league forums and has addressed a good number of the things mentioned here plus a lot more. Details of the test league are here: PFS Test League (http://108.59.255.76/~benelou/ccfl/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=17)

Here's an update on my big list posted here.

I opened up PFS shortly before heading to bed last night and took a look at "Sandbox Mode." The multi-season sim option is there, so that's good. I ran a 100-year sim overnight, and here are some observations:
I'm guessing that RB endurance is a little too low. No RB toted the rock as many as 350 times in a season in 100 years. The max was 349. 330 was only done 9 times. By comparison, in the last 10 NFL seasons, the leader has had 350 or more carries 8 times.fixed
Too many 99-yard runs. Per pro-football-reference, TD is the only player in NFL history to have done it, dating back to 1934. It was done more than 10 times in my 100-year sim.fixed
There may be an issue with game plan variety. The max pass attempts for any player was 604. Manning and Brees easily surpassed that number last year, with 679 and 658 respectively. In 100 years, someone oughta approach or surpass 700.explained...AI uses fairly vanilla game plans. I can live with that, but would prefer a more dynamic AI. If an AI team has a great QB and a so-so ability to run the ball, they should put it up more.

Fumbles are wayyyyy too high. Culpepper holds the NFL record with 23. 40 or more happened 10 times in the sim. Record was 49. fixed

I'm guessing there's an issue with players never returning punts from the 10 or deeper. There were 8 instances in the sim of 89-yard punt returns, but none higher than that. The NFL has seen 54 punts returned 90 yards or more. Bryan McCann took one 97 yards last year.fixed
Similar, kickoffs are never getting returned from the end zone, I suspect, or there's a reporting error. Tons of 100-yard kickoff returns, way too many to check up on (9 just in the first season), but never one that's more than 100. The NFL has seen 79 KO returns of 100 yards or more. There's been at least one KO Return for more than 100 yards in each of the last five seasons.fixed
FG Max of 57? Tons of 57-yards, never one longer than that. Maybe a game plan issue? (Teams never try one outside the 40?)fixed (although it appears they're a little too long now)

Punt average needs to be reported with a decimal.fixed
Punt long appears capped at 70 yards. There have been 228 NFL punts longer than that. There's been a punt longer than 70 yards in each of the last 10 seasons irl.fixed
P-F-R doesn't have TFL as a stat, but intuitively, that number seems too low in PFS. The single-season record in 100 years is only 10. under review

Similarly, pancakes appear wayyyy too high. The record is 131, and tons of guys have gotten more than 100. 7-8 per game? addressed, but there isn't great research easily available on what this "should" be

The frequency of unbelievably long RB careers is too high, resulting in too many career leaders passing Emmitt. Only Emmitt and Sweetness have had more than 3,518 carries. 21 guys have more than that in this sim, and in every case, it's because he had a career of 15-17 years. (Recall that max single-season carries for RBs are a bit too low.) fixed
In general, it appears that there's not enough spread to the ratings to create outliers. There are no instances of one or two guys having wayyyyy more than anyone else in any stat, such as Emmitt and Walter, or Rice.sounds like he's working on this

sachmo71

11-09-2011, 02:11 PM

Once there's enough money in it to make it worthwhile, I'm sure there will be a better one. It's all about timing and opportunity.

if the game is fun, the chance to make money is always there. exposure is the key. kickstarter might be a good route to go.

dl5175

12-04-2011, 08:37 PM

Any suggestions on which game gives the best X's and O's feel. I just want to coach against a good ai and have a good amount of plays to choose from. I have not played a football game since fbpro 98. I have given up on graphics I just want to call plays.

GoldenEagle

12-07-2011, 07:40 PM

I wonder if a football text sim would be more successful if it was a web-based game where you played against other human managers ala the Hattrick model. There is still interest in FOF multiplayer leagues but I don't know of many who are still playing single player FOF consistently. Is this because the AI is too easy to crack on most games or do users just get bored with it.

I guess FM has the whole AI thing down, but they have a full development team and an established code base to work with. Even then, it is pretty easy to take a team through the lower leagues pretty quickly.

Mike Lowe

12-08-2011, 09:50 PM

Annnnnd.....shamless league plug here: PFS Network | The football simulation fix you've be waiting for (www.pfsnetwork.net) :)

Philliesfan980

12-09-2011, 06:19 AM

So, being too lazy to do any research of my own Mike - how is the game in it's current state?

MizzouRah

12-09-2011, 07:51 AM

So, being too lazy to do any research of my own Mike - how is the game in it's current state?

It's getting there.. Brooks is working on an update that will bring player personalities, which should add quite a bit to the game.

It's definitely been tough to have a better than 0.500 record for me so far in solo play. :)

Mike Lowe

12-09-2011, 09:21 AM

Like Mizzourah said, it's always something that Brooks is tweaking. It's a game designed for MP, and any sort of enhancements on the way (and trust me...they are on the way), can be added into an already established league.

Is it OOTP 12? No. However, is it on its way? Absolutely. The key here is that we have a developer who's consistently involved and progressive in his product.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 12:23 AM

Update 1.1.86 has been released!

Release Date: 12/12/2011

Release Features:

1) Player Personalities are in! They affect free agency, morale, and performance on the field.
2) Retirement tweaks
3) PBP screen tweaks
4) Better team matching when importing historical teams
5) New 1970-1975 league format
6) New Themes for Grids (Added default and High Contrast)
7) Changes to the HTML output to reduce file sizes by up to 40%
8) New HTML Player Page

I continue to play the heck out of this game as I give some suggestions on what I would like to see improved in the solo career side of the game. As a casual football sim player, I'm quite satisfied at where the game is at this point in development - it's definitely been a worthwhile purchase for me ($25). Stat output seems reasonable and the challenge so far starting with the 2011 Rams has been there... I've won a total of 6 games in two seasons thus far. I can't wait to see what the new personalties add to the game. I see nothing but good things in the future for PFS.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 12:30 AM

Oh, and you Lions fans.. they win the Super Bowl next season. :) Pittsburgh wins it this year. ;)

Carman Bulldog

12-13-2011, 10:16 AM

How's the rookie draft? That's usually my favorite part of sim games. Can someone give some detail as far as any in-season scouting, combines, etc. What all goes into evaluating for the draft?

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 11:07 AM

How's the rookie draft? That's usually my favorite part of sim games. Can someone give some detail as far as any in-season scouting, combines, etc. What all goes into evaluating for the draft?

It's just a plain jane draft at this point, nothing like FOF. You basically draft and hope they do well in training camp. The new personality module seems to be masked when looking at potential draftees.

If FOF was a 10, Football Mogul would be a 3 and PFS would be a 6.. but again, Brooks has been steady with his improvements/updates.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 11:24 AM

Here is the "view next draft class screen" which is viewable at any time during the season. Ratings do flutuate throughout your season and after the draft, some players will boom, some will bust and some will pretty much stay the same.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5053/draftob.jpg

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 11:26 AM

It's easy to rattle off games and make small tweaks here and there to the strategy you want your team to employ.

Stats are deep and the interface/screens are very well laid out - you spend little time finding the information you need, I really like that.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 11:30 AM

2012 Champions - Detroit Lions

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1992/draftgt.jpg

Philliesfan980

12-13-2011, 11:31 AM

Can you play the games, or do you just literally sim them?

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 11:34 AM

Oh.. and Tebow is a BEAST!

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/4414/draftc.jpg

MJ4H

12-13-2011, 11:54 AM

Is there video of some of the 2D game interface somewhere I can look at?

edit: preferably some from one of the more current versions?

Philliesfan980

12-13-2011, 11:55 AM

Rushing stats seem low for any QB, even the most immobile guys out there would run more than that. Not a deal breaker, just wanted to point it out.

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 12:01 PM

Is there video of some of the 2D game interface somewhere I can look at?

edit: preferably some from one of the more current versions?Just download the demo and look for yourself.

Rizon

12-13-2011, 12:04 PM

Rushing stats seem low for any QB, even the most immobile guys out there would run more than that. Not a deal breaker, just wanted to point it out.

Yeah, even Marino "ran" an average of 1.25 per game.

Philliesfan980

12-13-2011, 12:09 PM

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 12:10 PM

There's a very wide variety on rushing for QBs. I'm guessing it's a player creation issue on Tebow. I ran 25 years with the latest patch this morning, and there's this guy in the sim...

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/runningqb.png

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 12:12 PM

Dola...

Reason #2482845 why I don't use "real" roster files. ;)

Philliesfan980

12-13-2011, 12:16 PM

Now that guy sound like Tebow! 6"4, 240 and a lot of rushes! I imagine him bowling over guys Ben R style.

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 12:29 PM

Now that guy sound like Tebow! 6"4, 240 and a lot of rushes! I imagine him bowling over guys Ben R style.
What's pretty fun over a fair short league history is that he is by *far* the best rushing QB. #2 guy has 402 carries for 1,774 yards. I like having outliers. Brooks mentioned that he didn't do a good job of documenting the changes in this patch, and I know that I've been pushing on him to include some real outliers. Maybe it's in there now. From a coding perspective, it *can't* be that hard to do. I mean, just roll 1d10000 (or whatever the number that ends up working) every time you create a player, and if it comes up max, make him a crazy-good once-in-a-generation player. The engine can already handle that kind of player (at least in one of the more recent versions, haven't tested it for this one.) When I tested by putting very high ratings for players, "appropriate" outlier stats showed up IIRC, a maxed-out running QB could get in the 1000-1200 yard range. I'll max a guy out now and see what happens...

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 01:03 PM

Maybe a little less now, but still serious outlier. I bumped up a "solid starter, nothing special" QB to 100 speed, 100 agility, and left his strength where it was (50), and ran five seasons. His best rushing year in that span was 144 carries for 895 yards. Interestingly enough, he became a much better passer, too. I don't know if the engine takes into account him being a rushing threat, if maybe all that speed and agility is buying him extra time, or if maybe the team just happened to draft/sign some weapons for him at the time I made the edit (didn't look that carefully,) but the bottom line is that in addition to the great rushing numbers, he went from a guy usually in the 80-85 QB rating range to breaking 95 three of the next five seasons, including 107.0 and 119.2 ratings in two of them.

Julio Riddols

12-13-2011, 01:19 PM

If this PFS keeps getting better and gets on par with FOF from a realism and stability standpoint, I might have to take the plunge. I like that tab I see that says "ratings progression".

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 01:24 PM

If this PFS keeps getting better and gets on par with FOF from a realism and stability standpoint, I might have to take the plunge. I like that tab I see that says "ratings progression".It's a little weird, but nice to have. The biggest issue with ratings in general for a seasoned FOFer is getting used to the scales. If you use "relative," the best player in the league at his position is always a 100. If you use "absolute," the scale is much more like Madden than FOF, which is disappointing. The very worst player in the league is rated 57 overall. Why claim to use a 1-100 scale if you're only going to use a small fraction of the scale?

Rizon

12-13-2011, 01:24 PM

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 03:12 PM

MJ4H

12-13-2011, 03:23 PM

Just download the demo and look for yourself.

I did. It was terrible Is that demo representative of the updated product?

And I would prefer a video over installing it and wading through all that I have to wade through to simply take a look at what the on the field action looks like at present. If a video exists. So is there one?

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 03:25 PM

I did. It was terrible Is that demo representative of the updated product?I have no idea. I have zero interest in sitting through a 2D presentation, so I've never looked at it. Is the version you have 1.1.86? That's the latest version.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 04:16 PM

Can you play the games, or do you just literally sim them?

Just sim/watch them.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 04:27 PM

I hate to keep on asking questions without buying first, but Mizzou, would you be able to tell us Tebow's attributes in the game?

If it's simply a matter of Tebow being rated as an immobile, highly accurate passer, then that's perfectly fine. I would question the draft class, and the rosters in general, but I can understand it.

Now if Tebow is rated as a run first type guy, then the game has issues. At a bare minimum, I would want my player to play as advertised.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9919/tebow.jpg

Seeing these ratings, looks more like a pocket passer to me. Check out that accuracy! :)

I like using real players to start off and I don't mind variance.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 04:30 PM

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 04:43 PM

Methinks RB careers may be too long still. Just did a 100-year sim, and came up with one guy wtih 30,000 rushing yards, because he started 13 games or more at RB for *20* straight seasons. I'm all for outliers, but that's, um, a bit much. ;)

Let Brooks know, I was seeing way too many good players retiring, so he changed some things in this last update, I don't think there is a differential on player positions when determining retirements, although I hope/could be wrong here.

Most of these guys could start on most teams and they are retired - a 100 rated WR (Reggie Wayne) who caught 88 passes for 943 yards and 2 TD's decides to hang them up at 33 years old and no ratings decline?

Hopefully, you are seeing an improvement with your tests?

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 04:52 PM

It's a little weird, but nice to have. The biggest issue with ratings in general for a seasoned FOFer is getting used to the scales. If you use "relative," the best player in the league at his position is always a 100. If you use "absolute," the scale is much more like Madden than FOF, which is disappointing. The very worst player in the league is rated 57 overall. Why claim to use a 1-100 scale if you're only going to use a small fraction of the scale?

I love the "realative" scale, that way I know a player at 50 is "average" and can go from there.

I also really like having a practice squad and being able to change the league to use "sudden death" in OT so there are no ties. :)

Blackadar

12-13-2011, 04:58 PM

If this PFS keeps getting better and gets on par with FOF from a realism and stability standpoint, I might have to take the plunge. I like that tab I see that says "ratings progression".

I'm with ya. But every time I start seriously considering it, I read/hear about some absurd stat or bug that holds me back. I'm only going to play it in single player, so it needs to hold up there too.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 05:08 PM

I'm with ya. But every time I start seriously considering it, I read/hear about some absurd stat or bug that holds me back. I'm only going to play it in single player, so it needs to hold up there too.

I'm in season 3 of solo play and there is a dynasty thread you can check out from Dolemite73.

If are a really huge number cruncher - I would ask Ben any questions you might have.

For me, so far.. the game has been very believeable in terms of statistical output goes and definitely playable for solo play.

MJ4H

12-13-2011, 05:11 PM

I have no idea. I have zero interest in sitting through a 2D presentation, so I've never looked at it. Is the version you have 1.1.86? That's the latest version.

The question is basically is the demo being updated with the full version you guys are using? 2D presentation is precisely the only reason I'd ever consider this game. Otherwise I'd just play FOF.

Ben E Lou

12-13-2011, 06:50 PM

Does the demo not have a version number if you look at Help-->About? (Again, no idea since it's been so long since I had the demo version.)

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 07:02 PM

Is there video of some of the 2D game interface somewhere I can look at?

edit: preferably some from one of the more current versions?

Nothing has changed with the 2d representation except the pbp has some new lines.

I've posted some things I would like to see added to 2d, but I don't believe it's a priority at this time. :(

In other words, continue to play FOF. I only use the 2d display to look at the big plays for the current weeks games and it still needs some major work imho.

MJ4H

12-13-2011, 07:12 PM

Nothing has changed with the 2d representation except the pbp has some new lines.

I've posted some things I would like to see added to 2d, but I don't believe it's a priority at this time. :(

In other words, continue to play FOF. I only use the 2d display to look at the big plays for the current weeks games and it still needs some major work imho.

OK, thanks. I'll check back in a couple of months to see if there's been any progress. And to Ben, I don't currently have it installed.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 08:32 PM

OK, thanks. I'll check back in a couple of months to see if there's been any progress. And to Ben, I don't currently have it installed.

Here was a quote from Brooks awhile back:

The 2d viewer doesn't cover all plays because some plays in PFS do not have the detailed x/y point data needed to render on the screen. I've looked at replacing those plays with some stock animations so it's not so jarring, but I'm not a graphics guy, so until I find someone with those skills to help I think 2d will have to remain as-is.

MizzouRah

12-13-2011, 09:08 PM

Jinxed myself...

Buffalo has all 3 of their QB's hurt and they are starting CJ Spiller as the QB, he's started 6 games now and Buffalo is getting murdered. Must be a bug somewhere that doesn't have the AI sign a stop gap QB.

First time I've seen this as having all 3 of your QB's hurt is pretty rare.

MJ4H

12-13-2011, 09:26 PM

Here was a quote from Brooks awhile back:

Thanks :(

That pretty much ends my interest in the game.

MizzouRah

12-16-2011, 10:47 AM

Love the new personality system:

Leadership – Allows player to improve the team’s morale. Motivates players to play better.
Work Ethic – How hard the player works in the offseason to improve.
Competitiveness – How hard the player plays during the game. Affects morale when winning or losing.
Team Player – Plays to win and less for accolades.
Sportsmanship – Players attitude towards the other team. Affects penalties.
Disposition – Temperament of the player, good locker room influencer, also affects penalties.
Values Money – How much the player values money in contract negotiations.
Values Security – How much the player values long term contracts and security in negotiations.
Values Loyalty – How much the team values their current team in negotiations.
Values Winning – How much the player values a winning atmosphere.
Values Playing Time – How much the player values more playing time.
Values Close to Home – How much the player values being close to their home town. (Not currently implemented.)
Values Market Size – How much the player values larger market sizes. (Not currently implemented.)
Morale – Affects player temperament and performance. Signing contracts, winning games, winning awards all improve morale. Losing or getting injured can detract from morale. If morale gets low enough the player is more likely to retire.

gstelmack

12-16-2011, 10:52 AM

Thanks :(

That pretty much ends my interest in the game.

That actually is disappointing if he does not have x/y data for incomplete passes, one of the big play types I complained about missing and which makes the 2D display useless as it just skips those plays.

johnnyshaka

01-05-2012, 05:20 PM

Curious as to why this thread went silent along with the test league. Anybody know why?