FOF Next and the "Perfect Team" concept

[QuikSand]

Okay, let's put two and two together, and speculate here.

-We know the Solecismic developer has joined forces with the team behind OOTP Baseball. When and how that bears fruit, we don't know, or at least I don't.

-We know that the OOTP Developers have launched an add-on feature for their baseball game, Perfect Team, that involves players acquiring, collecting, and using "cards" of real baseball players from today and across history in various leagues and tournaments.

-We know that the world of micro-transactions is absolute catnip for software developers and their financial interests... so if there's an angle to get people playing a side game that triggers even a small wave of "buy more coins" and "buy more cards" transactions, that's simply wroth pursuing, whether we like it or not.

Okay, that's what I can bring to the table. In this thread, let's discuss:

-How a "Prefect Team" setup might work in football/FOF

-What strengths from the baseball offering should be preserved or expanded?

-What weaknesses from the baseball offering should be revisited or rejected?

...I make no claims that the relevant developer(s) will look to this community or this thread for any guidance, but... seems like it shouldn't hurt, right?

[QuikSand]

For background:

OOTP Baseball | Perfect Team - Competitive, Online, Card Collecting Baseball Management Simulation Game (https://www.ootpdevelopments.com/perfect-team/)

[QuikSand]

or perhaps not

[Bisbo]

I gave up on the Perfect Team concept in OOTP as soon as you could buy your way to the top. If it is implemented in the new FOF - and I hope it isn't - they'd need to create league structures that had leagues open only to teams that can't buy coins.

[RD]

just a gimmicky way to get in your pocketbook, would not get involved in it.

[Ben E Lou]

No interest at all.

[tzach]

no interest here as well -- since it seems that jim is still calling the shots re: fof, i'd be surprised if this feature appears in fof.



with that said, from the business perspective this perfect team approach has the potential to generate significant revenue

[QuikSand]

Okay, we can start with the idea that "it doesn't appeal to me." Fine.

Let's see if there's a route where it might, indeed, appeal to us.

I'll join the chorus with:

-despite having addictive tendencies in my personality, I don't see me being attracted to a "climb to the top of the mountain by gathering/buying/farming/churning more resources than other people are willing to"

-so, the main money-making avenues of OOTP Perfect Team don't seem attractive to me... got it

-they are also now offering stuff in baseball with a "salary cap" style... special tournaments where the combined value/score of your players cannot exceed a certain level

So...what if FOF Next included a feature where you could build an online team from your collection of player cards that had to fit into some similar constraints (salary cap, points cap, whatever) and then you got to submit that as a team to play in a one-off league? Over the next 21 days the league plays out, one game at a time, to determine a champion?

Anyone think that could be interesting to us? I think I do.

[QuikSand]

Side note. Anyone else recall the FOF 2001 game, launched through EA Sports, that had a little note telling us to look out for FOF Online, coming soon?

Fun times.

[Ben E Lou]

It's not just the "pay to get better" piece. It's the "deck-building" aspect of it that holds zero interest for me. I want to build my team through the draft, free agency, and the occasional trade. Period. If I have to build it by earning "points" of any kind, I'm out.

[QuikSand]

I will offer this observation, based on a few weeks of immersion into the OOTP Perfect team setup.

I hate that there are separate cards for various years of specific players. I guess it might be a good fit for the baseball psyche, where, frex, Barry Bonds was a really different player in 2000 vs. 1990. I hate that I can go and buy a player named "Dennis Eckersley" in Perfect Team pretty cheaply, but what I'm actually getting is a post-peak guy who's not work much, and is definitely not Vintage Eck.

But for my own personal preferences, as well as the general nature of football, I think one card per player. If that means each player ends up being what they call "PEAK" in Perfect Team, then so be it. I want to be able to see players by name, and have that be enough to tell me what I'm seeing there -- Anthony Munoz should bust be a monster, not a late-career washout. And so on...

[AlexB]

I agree with Ben, I have tried a couple of deck building games and they grew old and stale very quickly. As such, zero interest in anything along those lines at all.

[QuikSand]

I guess the reason I hold out hope is that I have fond remembrances of a period where I got into Magic, as my first (and only) collectible card game. I think the concept of collecting cards not just for the purpose of completion of gazing, but to accomplish something with them is just brilliant.

So... there's no serious sports-themed CCG. I know it has been tried with football, likely with other sports. Presumably the "game play" is too tedious. A football game with 130 or so plays would be miserable to play out, as 130 hands of cards, I'd think. Seems to me the solution there is, basically, to eschew the manual gameplay, and instead use the cards in some other fashion that resolves through a different mechanism.

A computer sim game seems like it could be the missing piece in that equation. Use the cards in my deck, plus my playbook/gameplan, as the game inputs... and then resolve it through a sim game. I could get behind that, in concept.


And again, in case this isn't clear, as an add-on to a stand-alone sim game that presumably scratches my itch for both multi-player and single player.

[Izulde]

MLB Showdown had some popularity for a while in the CCG category.

The problem is that in terms of deckbuilding, most CCGs have the appeal of archetypes (whether aggro, control, or combo as the three most basic types) to craft, compete with, and against. Sports CCGs don't really lend themselves to that, so they're missing a key component of what makes CCGs successful.

[QuikSand]

The problem is that in terms of deckbuilding, most CCGs have the appeal of archetypes (whether aggro, control, or combo as the three most basic types) to craft, compete with, and against. Sports CCGs don't really lend themselves to that, so they're missing a key component of what makes CCGs successful.

I'd like to think that hurdle is surmountable, but the evidence seems to say otherwise.

I really do think that a football based CCG, with cards representing or enhancing certain facets of the team, could work. Each turn effectively representing a "possession" for the team in question. Some action-type cards would represent a style of play for that possession -- smashmouth, test the safeties, dink and dunk, student body left, and so forth. Other cards, either put in play temporarily or permanently, would alter the chances of such things being effective... a permanent card called "shut down corner" (or even "Deion Sanders") would reduce the effectiveness of certain aggressive-passing plays. A one-time "instant" card called "jump the route" gives you a chance to force an interception and start your next possession immediately and with some built-in advantage effecting better field position. And so on, and so forth.

In theory, it seems like you could definitely develop synergies across approaches... try to build a ball control offense and an opportunistic defense, try to create a "roster" that build up to being really good at the end of the game, versus one that plays out quickly to get ahead early.

Dunno. Feels like there's a kernel to work around there, for American football, to me.

[Ben E Lou]

And again, in case this isn't clear, as an add-on to a stand-alone sim game that presumably scratches my itch for both multi-player and single player.Yeah, I assumed that you meant that, and for clarity on my side, my overriding presupposition here is that even if there are "no paying $$$ for points" leagues, plus traditional SP and MP, the development focus would end up being on the "pay for points" leagues if/when it becomes clear that they're the revenue machine in the whole equation. Why bother with tightening up contract algorithms or staff acquisition in MP if the real money to be made is in adding new bells and whistles to the pay-to-win game?

[Olsson]

What if..

Instead of buying packs you buy a place in a draft?

Pros:
Team building aspect and tough draft choices much like FOF
Could build a community with a draft chat
Different tiers of drafts for different values

Cons:
No immediate openings like EA Games/OOTP
Waiting time for an open draft?
Less revenue?

[KODIAKBEAR11]

I am against buying your way to to top in the draft, or any kind of cards. I would like it to relate to real football. I would think as long as they are taking to make the game, you would have the option of selcting out of the card option or buying your draft spot option; just like clicking off allowing the coaches to reset your game plan etc.

What if..

Instead of buying packs you buy a place in a draft?

Pros:
Team building aspect and tough draft choices much like FOF
Could build a community with a draft chat
Different tiers of drafts for different values

Cons:
No immediate openings like EA Games/OOTP
Waiting time for an open draft?
Less revenue?

[KODIAKBEAR11]

I am against by your way to to top in the draft, or any kind of cards. I would like it to relate to real foot ball. I would think as long as they are taking to make the game, you would have the option of selcting out of the card option or buying your draft spot option; just like clicking off allowing the coaches to reset your game plan etc.

What if..

Instead of buying packs you buy a place in a draft?

Pros:
Team building aspect and tough draft choices much like FOF
Could build a community with a draft chat
Different tiers of drafts for different values

Cons:
No immediate openings like EA Games/OOTP
Waiting time for an open draft?
Less revenue?

[KODIAKBEAR11]

Then it becomes about who has the most, or is willing to spend the most money. I would like it to as realistic, and about football planning an knowledge as possible. If you want a higher spot in the draft I feel you should have to bargain or trade your way there not put up the most money. And again If they make the game where you can turn certain features on and off I am find with it.

[Olsson]

Then it becomes about who has the most, or is willing to spend the most money. I would like it to as realistic, and about football planning an knowledge as possible. If you want a higher spot in the draft I feel you should have to bargain or trade your way there not put up the most money. And again If they make the game where you can turn certain features on and off I am find with it.

If they go this way, they'll look to earn money through the game mode

[MizzouRah]

No interest at all.


I'm ready for FOF with facegen and similar UI to OOTP. Hopefully Jim has made major strides and it's nearing completion. ;)

[Mike Lowe]

It's not just the "pay to get better" piece. It's the "deck-building" aspect of it that holds zero interest for me. I want to build my team through the draft, free agency, and the occasional trade. Period. If I have to build it by earning "points" of any kind, I'm out.

Thank you for summing up exactly how I feel with such conciseness.

[james17]

It's not just the "pay to get better" piece. It's the "deck-building" aspect of it that holds zero interest for me. I want to build my team through the draft, free agency, and the occasional trade. Period. If I have to build it by earning "points" of any kind, I'm out.

Ditto for me.