No Playing Time Settings? If So, I'll Love And Hate That In MP.

[Ben E Lou]

I absolutely abhorred all that foolishness that you had to do in FOF7 and previous versions to optimize preseason playing time, especially in leagues with injuries on. In that regard, I'm going to love not doing all that junk. but at the same time, the first time I'm in a league that has injuries on in preseason and I get an O-2 in Pre5 to a starter who has "Some" rust going into that week, I'd imagine I'll want to curse Jim's name.

[General Mike]

I think there is still foolishness you have to take care of, but I'm not sure where it is. In the single player I started in the preseason, I started Eli Manning in the first 3 preseason games, and he still had rust, because he only had 11, 13 and 15 plays respectively in those games. That was using a REX gameplan.

[aston217]

How does playing time / rust shake out in the preseason now?

[SlyBelle1]

Not a fan of not being able to influence preseason time at all....already had top RB lost for the season when injured playing late into the game which would never happen in real life.

[henry296]

I'm not sure I like not controlling the playing time. In my sim, I've got Leveon Bell who has an endurance of 66. I don't like putting the backups in based on package, because he might miss a critical play. Therefore, he is the starter in every package, but almost always gets every carry. I wish we could put a percentage use backup, but let it override for late/close games.

[AlexB]

I'm not sure I like not controlling the playing time. In my sim, I've got Leveon Bell who has an endurance of 66. I don't like putting the backups in based on package, because he might miss a critical play. Therefore, he is the starter in every package, but almost always gets every carry. I wish we could put a percentage use backup, but let it override for late/close games.

Agreed. On D in my SP career Suh is my best DT. But if he plays in all packages with 55 endurance there is an extreme concern about his durability.

So I've taken him out of 212 and 005 packages, the former which makes a huge difference, and no endurance concerns. But it also means that if the opponent runs exclusively 212 and 005 packages, Suh will not see a single play.

In MP it means you can in theory with a bit of detective work competely eliminate your opponents best defensive players if you run packages where you know that they are not on the field. That can't be right.

[Brian Swartz]

Does the game not just sub out a player for a down or two if they are tired? Sounds like I really don't understand how this works.

[AlexB]

It could be me misunderstanding, but if that is the case, what reason is there for the analyze depth charts button and detailed concerns over durability?

I'd much prefer to stick my best players in their positions for every formation and let the game sub them out for a couple of plays if tired, but that analyze button suggests to me that that's not how it works.

I'd love to be wrong tbh, as it's a major flaw for me as I currently understand it.

[henry296]

Does the game not just sub out a player for a down or two if they are tired? Sounds like I really don't understand how this works.

I think it is supposed to, but in my case with Bell, he is not getting subbed out at all even with Endurance at 66. In my last game, he had 33 carries and 8 targets and my other running back had 0 carries. I'll check the plays when I get home.

[Hobart]

Isn't this Jim's attempt to mimic the way the NFL works though? In week 1, Suh actually played on 82% of MIA's defensive snaps, meaning he was probably in on all but a couple of packages. Could a really detail oriented opponent figure out a way to keep that player off the field on most plays? Probably, but it would require twisting a game plan into so many knots that there's a good chance it would lead to a terrible offensive performance and a lot of familiar plays for the defense. After all, even with a 200 play playbook, there are only so many plays that are going to be designed for each personnel grouping.

[henry296]

I think it is supposed to, but in my case with Bell, he is not getting subbed out at all even with Endurance at 66. In my last game, he had 33 carries and 8 targets and my other running back had 0 carries. I'll check the plays when I get home.

Here are some ore details on Bell. In 2017 he was in 402 rushing plays with 381 carries and invoked in 556 pass plays. His primary backup had 38 carries and they came in 3 games where he had 25 of those carries in big blowouts. My team had a total of 611 pass plays.

My last game we won 43-21 and bell had 33 carries and none for the backup. Ben ended up with 3 carries which was one scramble and two kneel downs. In this game, he only had 3 targets. He was in 68 plays and the backup was in none. He only missed two plays which probably were empty backfields formation.

On defensive he palyes in all formations were never subbed.

[MattG]

Does the game not just sub out a player for a down or two if they are tired? Sounds like I really don't understand how this works.

When I SIM entire entire seasons if they are in every formation they get every play...at least for RB's. Which sucks because what formation do you not include your stud RB in? I know the 3rd down back subs in on 3rd and 4th with more than 3 to go...but what about 3rd and 2 when I really need a 1st down and the formation with my backup is called? I understand there are different personnel for different packages but at certain times when the chips are on the line you bring in the play makers.

[Brian Swartz]

For my current game I simmed history ahead and it just so happens that I have the best RB in the league. It appears that you're right; looking at the personnel screen they have him not in a few of the packages. I'm leaving that stuff up to Rex but it does seem to be curious design choice to require a different formation for this kind of issue.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Simple solution, add back the Global Playing time setting and a Top backup per position group.

[Firefly]

It could be me misunderstanding, but if that is the case, what reason is there for the analyze depth charts button and detailed concerns over durability?

I'd much prefer to stick my best players in their positions for every formation and let the game sub them out for a couple of plays if tired, but that analyze button suggests to me that that's not how it works.

I'd love to be wrong tbh, as it's a major flaw for me as I currently understand it.

Agreed, I just commented about this on the other thread

[Sweed]

I am enjoying fof8 but this is a real bummer for me too. I play as the Rams and if I want Donaldson in packages against passing formations 5 wide, 4 wide, I have to sacrifice his run stopping ability in goal line package? He'll just get too tired?

I've been fighting too to get Gurley even 20 carries per game because if I let the Coordinator set the depth chart my second HB gets the 1-1-3 formation and Gurley sits. Guess which formation we run out of the most with AI setting the game plan? Yeah, 1-1-3. I took over the depth chart and was able to get Gurley touches by keeping him out of the 2-1-2 package. This however still leaves a "slight concern" warning.

I think we should be able to put the best players into any or all formations. Let us set the player's global playing time by position group. If I have Donaldson in all packages and set d-line to 80% I get the "tired warning" I can try changing it to 75% to make him safe. Or I can take him out of one formation, if I choose, and see if 80% play time in the remaining formations makes him safe.

Same for Gurley. Put him in all formations and then find the max percentage he can play and stay safe while being available for all offensive plays. Sure I may have a critical situation come up and he's not on the field with this system and that's ok. Player's do take themselves out on occasion for whatever reason, exhaustion, stinger, etc so that's realistic enough.

What a team doesn't do is totally eliminate "every down" players, especially stars like Donaldson or Gurley from playing in a particular formation. They put them on the field for as many plays as they can and rest them when they need to.

Simple solution, add back the Global Playing time setting and a Top backup per position group.

Yes for the most part. Others may not agree(and I understand why) but I'd be happy wit the current "one selection" depth chart and let the AI pick the subs. I always hated filling in the subs for O-line, d- line for each situation etc. ;)

[henry296]

I have yet to notice a big downside to playing your best players in all packages even with some concerns. In the one year, I played Bell to death he played all 16 games (some with a probable injury) and was Offensive Player of the Year.

[henry296]

I just found an good example of a relatively low endurance player. My first round pick last year had an endurance rating of 31. I put him in all formations and got the extreme concern when I did analyze on the formation screen.

At the end of the year, he played in 590 of 613 pass plays and 376 of 397 running plays. He ended the year with 14 sacks as and 3-4 defensive end.

Maybe I got lucky he didn't get hurt or maybe he was ineffective in the 4th quarter, but his low endurance didn't seem to hurt him or prevent him from playing all of the time.

[Hammer]

Just going through my first MP pre season. It seems it is just as time consuming pulling guys in and out of the depth chart. Maybe more so depth chart(ssss).

I set my QB playing time to 9. I want the young guy to take every snap for the game. Yanked at half time. What is with that?

It seems this game can't decide whether it wants to give us massive control or none at all. Is this another example or is there another setting I should be aware of?

[henry296]

Just going through my first MP pre season. It seems it is just as time consuming pulling guys in and out of the depth chart. Maybe more so depth chart(ssss).

I set my QB playing time to 9. I want the young guy to take every snap for the game. Yanked at half time. What is with that?

It seems this game can't decide whether it wants to give us massive control or none at all. Is this another example or is there another setting I should be aware of?

Preseason is different and it will automatically sub out starters.

[Ben E Lou]

I set my QB playing time to 9.No, you did not.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aral0balftdz397/Screenshot%202017-01-04%2010.01.18.png?dl=1

[Hammer]

I don't think it would hurt for 9 to be an overriding number, play all game. A fella in the VFL is reporting setting 9 and his QB throwing 2 passes then getting yanked.

I feel like I am moaning about this version constantly. I guess I am. So much good work but currently looks like an unfinished project.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't think it would hurt for 9 to be an overriding number, play all game. A fella in the VFL is reporting setting 9 and his QB throwing 2 passes then getting yanked.

I feel like I am moaning about this version constantly. I guess I am. So much good work but currently looks like an unfinished project.You and the unnamed dude in the VFL need to read what I highlighted above.

[Hammer]

No, you did not.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aral0balftdz397/Screenshot%202017-01-04%2010.01.18.png?dl=1

Confused. Yes I did. Not sure what you are trying to get across here?

You are saying 1 is the new 9?

[sirotka33]

He is saying the setting '9' will yank your QB the quickest.

[Ben E Lou]

Confused. Yes I did. Not sure what you are trying to get across here?

You are saying 1 is the new 9?Can you not read the setting there????? 1 yanks your QB the least. 9 yanks it the most. It's right there in black and white. That old setting is gone. This is an entirely new setting.

[Hammer]

I can read it perfectly Ben. In FOF7 9 (most) was the correct setting if you wanted your QB to play the whole game. 1 (least) got your QB yanked quickest.

I tried 1 last night, and my QB was yanked in 8 or 10 plays.

So therefore I presumed it must be 9 I required. I got a whole half game at 9.

On further inspection just now, whether I put in 1 or 9, when the QB is yanked seems pretty random in pre season.

[Ben E Lou]

I can read it perfectly Ben. In FOF7 9 (most) was the correct setting if you wanted your QB to play the whole game. 1 (least) got your QB yanked quickestIt was a completely different setting in FOF7, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. It was "Starters' Playing Time." 1 was the lowest for QB's, 9 was the highest. That setting no longer exists, so I'm not sure why anyone would try to pretend that it does.

There is an entirely new setting called "Substitute Starting Quarterback During Games." 1 is least. 9 is greatest. Put in a 1, and he'll get substituted the least. Put in a 9, and he'll get substituted more.

As far as it being preseason, the Help File is your friend...The Substitute Starting Quarterback During Games setting determines how frequently you remove your starting quarterback for performing badly. This choice is modified by where you are in the season. During exhibition games, starting quarterbacks are usually substituted regardless. In the playoffs, they are almost never substituted.

(FWIW, I tend to suspect that the playing time for different Preseason weeks is different, though I haven't yet found documentation to support that theory.)

[AlexB]

Preseason is different and it will automatically sub out starters.

Not the case with my brief use of the game - my starting RB played every down in preseason when listed in every formation.

[Ben E Lou]

Not the case with my brief use of the game - my starting RB played every down in preseason when listed in every formation.
I think he was referring to QBs. as per the help file entry I posted, preseason is most definitely different.

[AlexB]

I think he was referring to QBs. as per the help file entry I posted, preseason is most definitely different.

I know you've always been keen to maximise rookie usage in preseason, and have probably played the game more than anyone else.

Do you consider control over playing time in preseason, and in the regular season for that matter, to work fully and properly, and if so (it's a genuine question) how have you been able to control it to your satisfaction?

[henry296]

Not the case with my brief use of the game - my starting RB played every down in preseason when listed in every formation.

I haven't paid attention to RBs, but I have seen my OLine substituted during preseason and defensive players.

[digamma]

(FWIW, I tend to suspect that the playing time for different Preseason weeks is different, though I haven't yet found documentation to support that theory.)

Don't have any in front of me, but I believe the box scores from Preseason week 4 (game 3 for most teams) bear this out.

[Ned Doolittle]

The way I manage it is I play my important players in preseason games 1 and 2, and then bench them for preseason games 3 and 4. I do it so that they don't start the season with any rust, and if they get injured they'll have 2 weeks to recover. If they're going to get injured I want it to happen early in preseason when there's time to recover during meaningless games. It's annoying to have to manage depth charts like this but I want to minimize getting screwed by injuries.

[ezlee2]

I try to sit any stars on my team that any league that I play in that does not turn injuries off in the preseason. I personally don't think that the rust really matters. Even if it does, I refuse to risk a major injury in a game that is meaningless. Plus, the rust is always gone after that first game.

[Ben E Lou]

I know you've always been keen to maximise rookie usage in preseason, and have probably played the game more than anyone else.

Do you consider control over playing time in preseason, and in the regular season for that matter, to work fully and properly, and if so (it's a genuine question) how have you been able to control it to your satisfaction?I've done some crazy stuff in preseason, like throwing a bomb on every single play back in FOF2K4 when development was tied to the total number of plays in which your guys participated. (More incomplete passes = stopped clocks = more total plays.) But to be 100% clear, I don't do that stuff because I enjoy doing it; I do it because I'm a hyper-competitive S.O.B. who can't stand the thought that one of my opponents is out there maximizing something and I'm not. As a result, this is the foolishness I had to engage in with FOF2K7/FOF7 Preseason if injuries were on:

Game 1: QB at 9 for playing time, all starters at 100%.
Game 2: QB at 3 for playing time, starters at 35%. (In FOF2K7, where they could be set individually, I'd adjust that number upward for low-endurance players and positions like WILB and FB that aren't on the field as much.) Make young players who are going to start but aren't fully developed into backups for this week, because they'll get more playing time than the starters.
Game 3: Check to see any of my starters were in less than 85 plays in games 1 and 2. If so, put them in places where they get a few more snaps (WR3, dime CB, backup TE...whatever...this often meant playing people out of position in really silly ways, but it worked). Otherwise, make my best 14 players inactive for rest of preseason and reset playing time to 100%. Move young players who will start BACK into the starting lineup to get benefit of 100% setting.
Game 4: Move starters that I had to leave in for week 3 to inactive.

And then of course for regular season game 1, I'd have to switch the starters back in, since all scrubs started game 4. That's why I *GREATLY* prefer playing with injuries off: you can just play your scrubs the first two games, play your starters the next two games...and they're already in there as starters when the regular season starts, so you don't have to make all those moves for week 1.

That was mind-numbingly annoying, but necessary to maximize effectiveness. I like this system mostly as it is *precisely* because it gives less control. This means that the grognards who *enjoy* this kind of button-mashing have less opportunity to gain an advantage so I don't feel like I need to do it. The only thing I'd change would be to go back to guys sitting out when they're tired, rather than having to micromanage for endurance through personnel package manipulation. Not only is it the sort of micromanagement I don't care for, but it feels very artificial.

And to be clear, in this version, like in the past, I mostly just let the AI handle my depth charts in SP anyway to move things along more quickly, so that's no change for me. I only pay attention to all those details when I'm competing with other humans, and would prefer not to have to even then.

[aston217]

:D

[cleancoder42]

Something I've noticed in CCFL through first three games. In game 1 I had Sub QB = 1. My starting QB was subbed out in Q3 @ 10:48. I was leading 26-0. Also this was a first down, but it was an earned first down, so middle of the drive.

Second game, Sub QB = 5, Starter played whole game, neither team is ever up by more than 10 points.

Third game, Sub QB = 1, Starter pulled in 3Q @ 11:49. Again on earned first down, middle of drive. I was losing 24 - 7.

Until I saw this thread I was starting to wonder if maybe this setting was mislabeled, and 1 meant quick sub, with 9 meaning no sub, but that's not what Ben is seeing.

I'm wondering why my QB was pulled so quick. The first one, maybe you could say blowout, but 26-0 is not really that big a lead in 3Q. In game 3, 24 -7 is surely not game over yet.

Additional note, while I value my starter significantly over the backup, the game only values my starter a bit above the backup (34 overall - 27)

[Sharkn20]

Something I've noticed in CCFL through first three games. In game 1 I had Sub QB = 1. My starting QB was subbed out in Q3 @ 10:48. I was leading 26-0. Also this was a first down, but it was an earned first down, so middle of the drive.

Second game, Sub QB = 5, Starter played whole game, neither team is ever up by more than 10 points.

Third game, Sub QB = 1, Starter pulled in 3Q @ 11:49. Again on earned first down, middle of drive. I was losing 24 - 7.

Until I saw this thread I was starting to wonder if maybe this setting was mislabeled, and 1 meant quick sub, with 9 meaning no sub, but that's not what Ben is seeing.

I'm wondering why my QB was pulled so quick. The first one, maybe you could say blowout, but 26-0 is not really that big a lead in 3Q. In game 3, 24 -7 is surely not game over yet.

Additional note, while I value my starter significantly over the backup, the game only values my starter a bit above the backup (34 overall - 27)
How was the yardage in that 24 - 7? It is a big difference between you outgaining the rival but turnovers causing mayhem. And rival destroying you already...

[AlexB]

I've done some crazy stuff in preseason, like throwing a bomb on every single play back in FOF2K4 when development was tied to the total number of plays in which your guys participated. (More incomplete passes = stopped clocks = more total plays.) But to be 100% clear, I don't do that stuff because I enjoy doing it; I do it because I'm a hyper-competitive S.O.B. who can't stand the thought that one of my opponents is out there maximizing something and I'm not. As a result, this is the foolishness I had to engage in with FOF2K7/FOF7 Preseason if injuries were on:

Game 1: QB at 9 for playing time, all starters at 100%.
Game 2: QB at 3 for playing time, starters at 35%. (In FOF2K7, where they could be set individually, I'd adjust that number upward for low-endurance players and positions like WILB and FB that aren't on the field as much.) Make young players who are going to start but aren't fully developed into backups for this week, because they'll get more playing time than the starters.
Game 3: Check to see any of my starters were in less than 85 plays in games 1 and 2. If so, put them in places where they get a few more snaps (WR3, dime CB, backup TE...whatever...this often meant playing people out of position in really silly ways, but it worked). Otherwise, make my best 14 players inactive for rest of preseason and reset playing time to 100%. Move young players who will start BACK into the starting lineup to get benefit of 100% setting.
Game 4: Move starters that I had to leave in for week 3 to inactive.

And then of course for regular season game 1, I'd have to switch the starters back in, since all scrubs started game 4. That's why I *GREATLY* prefer playing with injuries off: you can just play your scrubs the first two games, play your starters the next two games...and they're already in there as starters when the regular season starts, so you don't have to make all those moves for week 1.

That was mind-numbingly annoying, but necessary to maximize effectiveness. I like this system mostly as it is *precisely* because it gives less control. This means that the grognards who *enjoy* this kind of button-mashing have less opportunity to gain an advantage so I don't feel like I need to do it. The only thing I'd change would be to go back to guys sitting out when they're tired, rather than having to micromanage for endurance through personnel package manipulation. Not only is it the sort of micromanagement I don't care for, but it feels very artificial.

And to be clear, in this version, like in the past, I mostly just let the AI handle my depth charts in SP anyway to move things along more quickly, so that's no change for me. I only pay attention to all those details when I'm competing with other humans, and would prefer not to have to even then.

Cheers for the reply - agree with the part I've bolded completely, and hopefully that will change. Want to like the game, trying to make it work for me..

[cleancoder42]

How was the yardage in that 24 - 7? It is a big difference between you outgaining the rival but turnovers causing mayhem. And rival destroying you already...

He wasn't playing that bad, if it was up to me, I surely would have kept him in.

Here's his #'s: 12/21 for 196 yds; 1 TD 1 INT, 84.6 rating.

I suspect that the AI likes my other QB better and is looking for an excuse to play him, but I guess I don't really know that.

[yabanci]

I think preseason playing time is very flawed in FOF8, except for the QB position where there is a setting. Just focusing on AI teams, their starters play nearly every snap. Not saying it should go back to previous versions, but there must be a way for the game to handle playing time in a more realistic fashion without making it too cumbersome or annoying. I don't know what that is.

The pattern for preseason playing time in real life is pretty well set. I would be happy with something as simple as starters play first quarter in first game, to second quarter in second game, to third quarter in third game, none or hardly at all in fourth game. All 60 players should be active for preseason games. The rust factor should be relaxed and only show up when a guy really sits out the preseason because of injury or coach's choice. I'm sure people can come up with much better ways to do it. Anything that would make it more realistic would be welcome to me.

[Hammer]

I think preseason playing time is very flawed in FOF8, except for the QB position where there is a setting. Just focusing on AI teams, their starters play nearly every snap.


I actually think the QB position is the worst of all. You have a setting which isn't doing what it says it does.

[TAFIV]

I actually think the QB position is the worst of all. You have a setting which isn't doing what it says it does.

it does do what it says you just need to read the full description in the help files

The Substitute Starting Quarterback During Games setting determines how frequently you remove your starting quarterback for performing badly. This choice is modified by where you are in the season. During exhibition games, starting quarterbacks are usually substituted regardless. In the playoffs, they are almost never substituted

1 is least likely to substitute while 9 is most likely, but it doesn't say anywhere that 1 will never sub or 9 will always sub, it simply affects the chances of your coach subbing the QB. It is not an option set in stone.

[Hammer]

I suggest you run a few pre seasons at 1 and 9 and have a look over the results. You will find you can do what do what you want with the slider....you will have no control.

I set it to 1 and he was out in 8 or 10 plays. Set it to 9 and he played half a game. Its random.

I don't want to get into a debate as to whether its as intended or not. I am just saying it is crap and has taken the game backwards.

If I want to give a rookie a full run out in PS1, I can't. It's impossible. If anyone thinks that is okay they must have shares in the game or be family.

[Ben E Lou]

If anyone thinks that is okay they must have shares in the game or be family.:lol:

Nope. Someone might think it's ok because...I like this system mostly as it is *precisely* because it gives less control. This means that the grognards who *enjoy* this kind of button-mashing have less opportunity to gain an advantage so I don't feel like I need to do it.


I don't want to get into a debate as to whether its as intended or not. Then why'd you say this???You have a setting which isn't doing what it says it does...when you know that "what it says it does" is...During exhibition games, starting quarterbacks are usually substituted regardless.It is doing what it says it does. The use of "usually" there indicates that it's either random or scripted week by week. You've mentioned about running the preseason at various settings. Have you checked it game-by-game, or are you setting it to a setting for the first game, then changing the setting the next, etc.? Is a particular week getting the QB more snaps every time? (I don't know for sure. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. As I've mentioned, I suspect that there's a difference in usage depending on what week.)

[Hammer]

Okay i know you are intelligent guy Ben so your consistent bias and blinkered thinking is raising a flag with me. I am questioning why you seem so adament in pushing an obviously flawed game. Asking us to lie and write positive reviews when so many of us have mixed feelings. A financial motive perhaps? An unbiased discussion once again seems beyond the realms of possibility.

Last time we were at odds you told me I couldn't gameplan in FOF7. I didn't know what I was talking about, blah, blah. Now you have watched me win 4 bowls with my average team first hand. You just seem to want to shoot people down who disagree with you, I am not even convinced you believe what you are saying sometimes.

[digamma]

Oh good grief.

[Ben E Lou]

Okay i know you are intelligent guy Ben so your consistent bias and blinkered thinking is raising a flag with me. I am questioning why you seem so adament in pushing an obviously flawed game. Asking us to lie and write positive reviews when so many of us have mixed feelings. A financial motive perhaps? An unbiased discussion once again seems beyond the realms of possibility.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's awesome. Having read this, I might *now* have an entirely different financial motive from the one you're suggesting, 'cause it sounds like aluminum futures across the pond might be a wise investment. That sort of thinking requires a MASSIVE tinfoil hat. :devil:

(And in case it isn't obvious, of course not. I have no stake in FOF other than my own personal enjoyment of this hobby.)

But seriously, I have stated specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically what I like and don't like about this game. I completely get that you don't like having as much control. You seem to be unable to acknowledge or understand that others think differently from you. I'll say some of the things that I like that you don't like again, so that perhaps it will be clear to you:

1. I greatly prefer not to deal with crap that I consider to be mundane mindless micromanagement such as listing my backup at every single position (including a freaking #2 punt returner??? Really???? Ugh.) , preseason playing time, how much more to throw when I have a 9-point lead, etc.
2. I am quite competitive, though, so in versions of the game where this stuff is allowed, I have done all of it and more in attempts to maximize my team's effectiveness. (In other words, if others can do it and there's a significant advantage to be gained, I need to do it, too.)
3. Therefore, the more of the stuff that I consider to be mundane mindless micromanagement that is removed from the user, the more I am going to enjoy multi-player. (In other words, if everyone is subject to the AI's whims in preseason, that's one more task that I find tedious and can ignore.)

There may be some details of how it's handled that aren't ideal. But hear it again: if an area of the game I don't care about in the first place has issues but those issues over time will affect everyone equally, I'd like to see it improved, sure, but it also doesn't really negatively impact my enjoyment of a game.

With regard to reviews, I stated precisely why I want the game to get positive reviews: it'll bring more fresh meat for MP, and help ensure that there are future versions of one of my favorite computer games. I'm not sure how I can be more straightforward than that, or why those motivations don't make sense to you. Who *doesn't* want those things to happen for their favorite games??? :confused:

Last time we were at odds you told me I couldn't gameplan in FOF7.That is 100% false. Either you severely misinterpreted something I said, or your long-time enmity towards me is causing you to remember discussions very differently from the way they actually went down. Go back and re-read any of those dialogues. I've *never* claimed that you couldn't game plan. Not once. Ever. I said repeatedly that game planning does not make the level of difference that you think it does. And I absolutely and unequivocally stand by that statement. I'm not sure how that has gotten interpreted as me saying you couldn't game plan.

Now you have watched me win 4 bowls with my average team first hand. ...with a 73/73 QB. In my opinion, that makes a much bigger difference in FOF7 than your game plan, my game plan, or anyone else's game plan. My code consistently has your team in the top third of the league, mainly because you have the 5th highest-rated QB. I know you think otherwise, but I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. What's the big deal about that, and why do you continue to insist that me thinking you're wrong is "shooting you down."???We disagree. It's ok to disagree. No two people are going to agree on everything. Why does it seem to be so important to you that I agree with you? It doesn't bother me that you disagree with me.

Finally, I was dead serious about those questions. I have no idea the answer to them. Do you know? I say again....You've mentioned about running the preseason at various settings. Have you checked it game-by-game, or are you setting it to a setting for the first game, then changing the setting the next, etc.? Is a particular week getting the QB more snaps every time? (I don't know for sure. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. As I've mentioned, I suspect that there's a difference in usage depending on what week.)If you've done a 10ish-or-more run test and compared total plays and the time in the game the QB was removed (not just passes thrown,) in the same week with the same game plan, rosters, etc., and that data indicates that it's truly random, I'd love to see that and would encourage you to report it to Customer Support. If there's truly a bug there, then let's get it fixed.

[Hammer]

Just doesn't make sense Ben. I go over the AI wins every year, consistently. Your QB has been better than mine. Firefly has been causing me the most bother yet his QB isn't even 50 lol.

[Ben E Lou]

Just doesn't make sense Ben. I go over the AI wins every year, consistently. Your QB has been better than mine. Firefly has been causing me the most bother yet his QB isn't even 50 lol.What doesn't make sense?

Also, why does how much game planning matters in a game that is outdated matter so *deeply* to you that seem to have moved completely off of the matter at hand--determining if there's a bug that needs to be fixed--to rehashing how things worked in the old version and throwing out wild accusations about me having some financial stake in FOF??? :confused:

[A-Husker-4-Life]

The no playing time was a problem in the beginning but now I've understood what Jim was going for so now I like it better.

It's about getting depth at every position and specialized players defense but endurance trumps all, dont skimp on that.

This version is nothing like 7, it's almost like he started this engine before making 7. Forget what you knew in 7, it won't really work in 8.

[TAFIV]

I suggest you run a few pre seasons at 1 and 9 and have a look over the results. You will find you can do what do what you want with the slider....you will have no control.


you really need to pay attention to what someone says before you respond Hammer

in the help file it specifically states:
During exhibition games, starting quarterbacks are usually substituted regardless

Ben and I have both said this and you keep ignoring it just so you can try to find something wrong, now if it's ignoring your settings during season play then yes it's a bug but preseason it even says it will usually substitue no matter what your setting is.

In case you don't know all preseason games are exhibition games. Before you say anything about it not saying that anywhere, they probably didn't bother mentioning it because that is a common reference to preseason games in the NFL not just in this game.

and in any sport an exhibition game by definition is any game that doesn't effect the standings of the respective teams

[Hammer]

No accusations Ben, and certainly not wild ones. I just wondered if perhaps you had visions of increased footfall leading to some advertising revenue from the forum, or something.

TAFIV. I guess you are only reading half my posts. In short form I said, I don't care whether it is working as intended or not and I am not looking to get into a debate on it. Just that I think it has gone backwards from FOF 7. I see you only joined recently so perhaps you are not familiar with how things used to work.

[TAFIV]

TAFIV. I guess you are only reading half my posts. In short form I said, I don't care whether it is working as intended or not and I am not looking to get into a debate on it.

this is not what you said earlier, here's the quote

I actually think the QB position is the worst of all. You have a setting which isn't doing what it says it does.



Just that I think it has gone backwards from FOF 7. I see you only joined recently so perhaps you are not familiar with how things used to work.

as for this i never played 7 so wouldn't know

[Hammer]

Oh okay. But yeah, it doesn't do what it says it should do does it. In the regular season it becomes something different, it makes sense. Maybe the slider should be blanked out in pre season to avoid further confusion.

[aston217]

I hesitate a little to jump into such a heated discussion, but from a quick reading I can see how it's very puzzling to jump from a "9 is most" QB PT input to a "9 is least" kind of input. It'd be like if the key to the ignition in the car suddenly turned the opposite way.

On the preseason, I really, really liked Ben's post about being a S.O.B because I relate wholeheartedly to that. If micro is the game, then it's the game, but please don't make it the game.

To that end, again, I feel Jim could solve a lot of problems -- and make the MP season go by faster -- by removing the preseason entirely. It's surely possible to add in development and injury effects into TC, and placing that under the control of the simulation engine removes all traces of a micromanagement challenge.

[TAFIV]

To that end, again, I feel Jim could solve a lot of problems -- and make the MP season go by faster -- by removing the preseason entirely.

the only problem i would have with that is, the preseason is nice to see where you have problems on the team(or with the gameplan) and gives you a chance to experiment without it affecting your season

[AlexB]

And put back playing time preferences or substitutions without implied penalty so you can have one player starting in every formation if you want, and the game then subs players in.

Still think a depth chart is a better way of doing it though (to use Jim's own argument, that's what NFL coaches do, at least for the public)

:)

[Hammer]

the only problem i would have with that is, the preseason is nice to see where you have problems on the team(or with the gameplan) and gives you a chance to experiment without it affecting your season

Exactly! Which is why we need control. Perhaps you are getting where I am coming from now? You can't experiment effectively without player control.

How the hell are we supposed to do that when we have no idea if we are going to get 6 plays or 40 plays out of a player. You can get either 6 or 40 on either 1 or 9. Random.

[yabanci]

I think focusing on the quarterback is looking at a tree and missing the forest. There are much bigger problems with preseason playing time.

The problem is the 46 active player limit, contrary to NFL preseason rules and despite every team having a 60-man preseason roster. Humans can deal with it to some extent by selectively activating players and adjusting depth charts, but the AI teams always activate and play their best.

To exemplify what is happening, here are some numbers of a random Patriots AI vs AI game from preseason week 2.

As you can see, apparently the QB's playing time setting also controls the playing time of the other offensive starters (it's particularly obvious with the o-line since they have no situational depth charts and play every snap). When the starting QB goes out, the other O-line starters go out as well. Everything seems fine. The problem is when there isn't an active backup at a particular position.

QB Tom Brady, 15-12
-- QB Jimmy Garoppolo, 21-38

LT Nate Solder, 36-50

LG Joe Thuney, 36-50

C Tucker Calibry, 15-12
--- C David Andrews, 21-38

RG Ted Karras III, 15-12
--- RG Shaquille Mason, 21-38

RT Sebastian Volmer, 15-12
--- RT Marcus Cannon, 21-38
--- RT Cameron Flemming, 0-0

RDE Rob Ninkovich, 22-42

CB Eric Rowe, 22-46

FS Devin McCourty, 22-50



So Tom Brady comes out after 15/12 run/pass plays. The O-line starters who have active backups do the same. Garoppolo and the active backups come in for the final 12/38 run/pass plays.

But due to the limited game rosters, LT Nate Solder and LG Joe Thuney have no active backups. Consequently, they play every offensive snap, a total of 86 plays (plus 12 special teams plays each for a grand total of 98 plays in a preseason game). This is despite Nate Solder having an *endurance rating of 15*. Since the AI doesn't bother with third stringers, RT Cameron Flemming just sat on the bench watching the entire game.

I'm not sure what governs the switch from starters to backups on defense, but the same thing happens there. FS Devin McCourty had no active backup and played all 72 defensive snaps. Eric Rowe was the only active RCB and played every snap except maybe one situation where he wasn't on the depth chart. Rob Ninkovich was the only active RDE and did the same, despite having an *endurance rating of 12*. It doesn't matter how tired Ninkovich gets; if he doesn't have an active backup and is on the depth charts, he plays every snap.

This is why if you look at any preseason game box score you'll see a handful of players who play every snap -- with only 46 active, there are not enough bodies to backup every position.

I'm not sure how best to resolve this problem. If the QB playing time rating is actually what controls the playing time of other starters, maybe just activating the entire 60-man preseason roster for games and having the AI sub out tired players and use third stringers wound fix things. Jim knows what he's doing, I'm sure he can come up with a solution.

Unless this gets reworked, I'm just turning injuries off during preseason. It's not fair in single-player.



.

[TAFIV]

my guess would be that it takes a lot more programming than you think to make the AI recognise and effectively use a 60 man instead of a 46 man roster for those 5 games and Jim is using that time to improve other areas instead

[yabanci]

Something to keep in mind if you are playing competitive multiplayer or single player. The substitution problems don't happen only in preseason.

The AI is broken when it comes to substitutions. In past versions, we had depth charts where we could, for example, list our two starters at DE and put backup DE behind them at both positions. Now we no longer have the depth charts and have to rely on the AI to make reasonable substitutions. The AI can't do this.

For example, you might have three DEs active for a game, a LDE and two RDEs. If the LDE gets injured during the game, the AI will not replace him with the backup RDE -- he will get ignored completely because his position is not *exaxtly* the same. Instead, the AI will go searching for some random backup linebacker to play at LDE -- usually a WLB, even if the WLB is 6-1 225 lbs with zero endurance and has no business playing DE, or even a MLB. The offense will run all over you and you'll have no pass rush. I've seen DBs replacing injured LBs, MLBs replacing LDEs etc.

I have reported this in detail and hopefully it will be fixed in the patch. In the meantime, make position switches if necessary to ensure you have direct backups for as many positions as possible.

[henry296]

Something to keep in mind if you are playing competitive multiplayer or single player. The substitution problems don't happen only in preseason.

The AI is broken when it comes to substitutions. In past versions, we had depth charts where we could, for example, list our two starters at DE and put backup DE behind them at both positions. Now we no longer have the depth charts and have to rely on the AI to make reasonable substitutions. The AI can't do this.

For example, you might have three DEs active for a game, a LDE and two RDEs. If the LDE gets injured during the game, the AI will not replace him with the backup RDE -- he will get ignored completely because his position is not *exaxtly* the same. Instead, the AI will go searching for some random backup linebacker to play at LDE -- usually a WLB, even if the WLB is 6-1 225 lbs with zero endurance and has no business playing DE, or even a MLB. The offense will run all over you and you'll have no pass rush. I've seen DBs replacing injured LBs, MLBs replacing LDEs etc.

I have reported this in detail and hopefully it will be fixed in the patch. In the meantime, make position switches if necessary to ensure you have direct backups for as many positions as possible.

I'm wondering if the option about matching positions in the game plan details influences this.

[Mobarak]

I agree with Ben the game needs to grow and that happens with the free flow of information. This is an entirely new experience for me the way this game plays and it very confusing.

Trying to find help and advice through old posts is tedious and not effective. Most of it is really old, some players have been awesome about giving advice.. others not as much. I tried to show a few people this game IRL,. they were turned off by the lack of direction.

I'm way to competitive to really spend to much time in SP.. just not as enjoyable.

[yabanci]

I'm wondering if the option about matching positions in the game plan details influences this.

I don't think so, I think that only applies to pregame depth chart generation. I think it's just a bug where there's a disconnect between what the AI is clearly already clearly capable of doing and what it is actually doing during games. In this version and prior, when you Rex a depth chart before the game, the AI does an acceptable job of filling it out. But during the game now, it's like the AI logic that so decides who to play where prior to the game is completely bypassed during the game.

I'm no programmer so I don't pretend to know, but I think this will be fairly easy to fix. It's not that the AI *can't* do it, it just isn't doing it. But it's not cosmetic. When you have a solid backup DE who gets left on the bench in favor of a 21/38 backup MLB linebacker, you're kinda screwed. Making sure you have direct backups is at least a work around until it gets fixed.

[thrym]

my guess would be that it takes a lot more programming than you think to make the AI recognise and effectively use a 60 man instead of a 46 man roster for those 5 games and Jim is using that time to improve other areas instead

I haven't been around here since FOF2k4 so I don't know how Jim handles stuff in the recent history BUT, this just seems like something that can't be fixed with the b, c, d, or e patch. This feels like a design decision that we are just gonna have to deal with.

I HOPE I am wrong. I wish there were an option to use depth chart(tedious as that may be) or let the AI do it. That just seems like something for FOF9 or 10 even...like I said, I hope I'm wrong.

[rush_27]

In the VFL, my starting QB was substituted mid way through a drive with around five minutes left in the fourth quarter. We were down 20 points but had just had a completion for 43 yards which took us down the the opponent 3 yard line (then he was pulled for a much more inferior QB).

The starting QB was 20/27 with a TD and no picks (114.1 passer rating) at the time he was subbed out. My setting was 1 (least likely to substitute). This was a regular season game. I would suggest that this setting doesn't work as it should.

[QuikSand]

So, on a team I care about, I have a good OL slotted as a starter, but he has low endurance. When I click "analyze" on the personnel (depth chart) screen, he shows up as a minor concern.

What am I supposed to do about that? Just hope/trust that he gets rest as needed? (I haven't checked box scores, but I don't think this is happening) Just demerit all low-endurance OL in the game from now on, as apparently getting dinged for fitness without any recourse?

[Hammer]

I guess.

Support has confirmed the QB 1-9 slider will be investigated for the new patch, not working as intended.

[rush_27]

I guess.

Support has confirmed the QB 1-9 slider will be investigated for the new patch, not working as intended.

Yes. Just to confirm, this has been recognised as an issue and will be addressed in the next patch

[yabanci]

So, on a team I care about, I have a good OL slotted as a starter, but he has low endurance. When I click "analyze" on the personnel (depth chart) screen, he shows up as a minor concern.

What am I supposed to do about that? Just hope/trust that he gets rest as needed? (I haven't checked box scores, but I don't think this is happening) Just demerit all low-endurance OL in the game from now on, as apparently getting dinged for fitness without any recourse?

I think he'll be playing every offensive snap plus special teams (punts and field goal att, even if you mark him no special teams) and will be penalized for it. I have an LT rated 12 endurance (minor concern) and have never seen him substituted.

Although the help file talks about substitutions for tired players, I don't think it's working for the OL or maybe it's not supposed to apply to the OL because "offensive linemen are expected to play the entire game":

If it appears that a player will be used beyond his endurance, you’ll see a warning when you analyze the depth chart. That player may be less effective in a game as a result, and he will be more likely to become tired and limited in future games. ...
Tired players may be substituted in addition to what you’ve set up in the depth chart. In this case, the game will make an intelligent choice as to who will substitute, and this will be done on a play-by-play basis. If you use the personnel charts to try and force a player to remain on the field too long, he will start “economizing” his performance and you will get a generally reduced level of play.

I think (hope) it's a bug and have reported it. Time will tell.