Variety in Research (Football Frontier Blog Entry With Some Info About FOFnext)
 

I spend a considerable amount of my time on research projects. This usually consists of delving into game logs, constructing perl scripts to parse vast amounts of data, then constructing spreadsheets to analyze the output from these scripts. I have … Continue reading →

More...

Some good stuff there! I particularly like...


and of course...

Changes to formations will better help with the goal of creating mismatches. Nice.

This is great news, thanks for sharing some insight with us about the future game.

Another comment....I really like the part that I've highlighted, though I suspect that some will not. I like it for the same reason that I've grown to hate higher injury settings in MP leagues. The highest in any league that I commish is 50. It's not that I dislike realism, it's that:

1. I just don't want to fiddle around with depth charts at that level of detail, but...
2. ...I hate the thought that others who *are* willing to fiddle around with stupid tasks like that are gaining an advantage over me, so I end up doing what I dislike doing just to keep up with the Joneses. I'd much rather see the game just deal with that on its own without messing with the rest of the team I've assembled.

I like it, except for this part:

I don't want the game deciding who the best player is. In the current game, there are players with attributes I prefer playing over someone who might be more overall higher rated.

Example- my starting LDE gets injured. I would rather the 25/25 pass rushing specialist with 0/0 in run defense be the next name up, than the 40/40 rated guy with bars that I really don't want as a starter in that position.

For me, I'm perfectly fine with something like this impacting everyone equally. I'd prefer that to the idea that the guys who have the patience and time to set every one of those little boxes on four different defensive screens having a distinct advantage over those who either don't want to play at that level or detail, or simply don't have the time. I think the ideal for both "sides" would be for the AI to be smart enough to put the pass-rush guy in when it's a passing situation or against a good-passing team, and the run-stopper in against a running team. Failing that, though, I'm pretty certain that I'd enjoy FOF more if that was taken out human hands, even if the decisions aren't always perfect.

If there are no beer tents I am going to have to decline purchasing a new version.

I'd rather lose every single GP screen with inputting little numbers than lose the ability to decide which players I like best. That's one of the more interesting team management decisions for me.

That said, I'm all for taking things out of our hands. It's just that what's interesting to one guy might be a waste of time to another. I would've thought choosing between players falls into mostly the former category, though...

I'm very happy about this QB thing :) I had mentioned that in another bug report to Jim a few months ago, citing some NFL teams as an example, and his response at the time was telling me how the Patriots carry three QBs with Garrett Gilbert on the practice squad. But clearly they don't always.

I do like the idea of making the defensive depth charts less involved. I do think it would be nice to be able to specify a top reserve (in case of injury) at DE/DT/ILB/OLB/CB/S, but not necessarily for every position. Even an option that favors specific skill sets for backups would work. "In case of injury, favor pass rush" or "favor balance" or "favor run defense"

Or maybe just give us a single defensive depth chart with something like 6 DL spots, 6 LB spots, and 6 DB spots. Let us tell the game who goes in when, but the game can handle match ups, etc.

I totally agree with Yoda on this one. I miss having the playing time percentages broken down for each position (like it was in FOF2007) and this change will take even more control out of the user's hands in regards to depth charts.

Please god, DO NOT put that back in there. Keep moving forward. This is a game about building a team, not mashing a bunch of arrows (jk Hammer).

:D

Really like the sound of these ideas, Jim. Good stuff.

Insert annual plea to make TCY2 with this new paradigm. Anyone up for a Kickstarter?!

Rather than reading about offense again and again and again from Jim, it might be nice to read some things he's going to do with DEFENSE.

Defense is so under utilized in this game that it may as well be called Front Office Offensive Football.

In this game, a team that focuses on building an offense can dominate a league, but a team that focuses on building a defense is, well, a little better than the average team. But, when the offensive team and defensive team collide, who will win? Offense, of course, because defense is so under developed here.

Jim, stop looking at offense for a year and focus on defense. That would be amazing!

That simply isn't true in FOF7.

+1

Burn!

Sure would be nice to have a practice squad for developing guys. It's hard to get players the snaps they need to develop without jeopardizing wins in this version.

The 3rd QB can be a PS member :)


--Vito

Plus 1000

This was an interesting comment for me. I wasn't sure if fiddling with stuff would help me at all, so I'd sort of given up on it. But maybe I should go back to being a frustrated little fiddler til I figure out what works. For me, and maybe this is not true for others, the level of fun I have with a simulator is juxtaposed with the number of options I can fiddle with. That's why I'm still playing this game and not Football Manager- there's just more variables.


This becomes a matter of quantity over quality, in my opinion. If I want a full immersive experience, I'm only going to play in one or two leagues, max. Then I have the time to delve into my roster, consider the best trades, gameplan for what works for my roster and works against my opponent of the week, tweak my lineup, write clever write ups, contribute to my league(s) on a personal level- whatever floats my boat. But if I'm in the RNFL, FOFL, FOOL, CCFL, IHOF, GML, NAFL, CFL, etc.. then damn right I don't have any time. That's a "no duh" isn't it? But that was my choice. I gluttoned out because that's how I choose to enjoy the game. I don't think the game should have to bend to my enthusiastic nature. Such an adjustment could do more harm than good.

For example, if I'm new to this simulation and I'm trolling around the various leagues, and I see that it's coming down to "join a dozen leagues, you'll hit a winner every so often, because odds," I'm just not going to be as excited. Mainly cause I don't want to join a dozen leagues. I want my simulated fun to be immersive, not a lottery.

This is TL;DR, so in short: add more variables to a simulator to improve it, not less. If that formula is defeating you, trim down on the number of leagues you're in. Dumbing the game down will cost new participants, not gain them.

In relation to more variables, etc. I am happy with less, especially on the gameplan and miscellaneous screens.

How about just a run vs pass on 1st and 10, etc.
I think you let your QB and coach ratings decide on whether he throws a screen, short dump off, short/med slants/outs/posts vs how many times you actually would go for the deep ball.

I'm sure the coding would be difficult, but if it is a pass on 1st and 10 in my 3 WR set with RB and FB in to block vs a Nickle DEF showing 2 blitzers with single safety cover:
- my stud QB would immediately have the uncovered slot WR
- if his Oline gives him time and he has good sense rush, he might wait for the stud WR to potentially beat his single coverage and hit him deep.

A team defending that QB would choose to gameplan with 5% blitz on passing downs and always play 2 deep cover safety to stop big plays, etc.

:+1:

Bullseye! :thumbsup:

This is absolutely not true for me, and it's clear that there's simply a divide on this sort of thing that exists. There are some players who like that, and some who don't.



1. I don't see this as dumbing the game down at all. I see it as just the opposite: removing menial tasks that anyone can do well if they have the time/patience for them and allowing the higher-level decision-making skills to drive success.
2. You're dead wrong if you think more boxes will bring in new participants. One of the chief complaints of newbies (and quite a few veterans) when FOF2K7 was released with its tons and tons of boxes was that there were too many settings. I realize that you're new, so you probably don't know that FOF7 reduced the numbers of options/boxes fairly significantly. The game plan adjustments screen had 2-3 times the number of options in FOF2K7 than it does now. I strongly suspect that they were reduced because of all of the complaints. I see this as another positive step in that direction.

I think the best way to explain the "other side" of this viewpoint is to look at some specific comments you made and contrast them with how some others like to play.

That formula is not defeating me. I do a bunch of stuff that is (in my opinion) menial in every league that I'm in, because either my intuition or testing has shown that these menial tasks help with success. That doesn't mean that I don't think they're menial. For example, I micromanage my rosters in the preseason in every league to maximize rust removal to a point that is utterly annoying to me. Whether I'm in one league or twenty, I'm going to think that stuff is annoying. For SOME people, time is the issue. For me, it's an issue of "I don't like having to do all this in-season detailed crap to maximize my team's performance." You cannot change the fact that a significant number of people simply hate having all those boxes that must be optimized in order to keep up with others.

I fully acknowledge that there are micromanagers out there who love doing all that stuff. It's interesting that often micromanagers can't seem to "get" that there are lots of people who get little/nothing out of the stuff you mentioned. When I have a year 8 stud QB, I'm interested in getting him up to year 13 or so, so I can figure out who's going to be the next QB to lead the franchise. I'm interested in drafting players in seeing how they do year to year, not week to week. I'm interested in career records more than single-game or single-season. I'm interested in the last 30 years of my franchise's history, and what the next 30 will look like, not the next game. If I wanted game-to-game management, I'd play Strat or 2nd and 10. They're far better at that sort of stuff than FOF ever has been, and probably ever will be.

My TL;DR version: I play FOF for the offseason, not the season. To me, season results are viewed as by-products of "good" or "bad" offseasons. I'd love to see the AI progress to the point where there is no advantage to be gained by micromanaging game plans, depth charts, formations, etc. This appears to be a step in that direction, so it has my preliminary support.

Just wonder what we are talking.

Do not trim FOF down - in no feature!
For all who want a less immersive experience, or/and are short on time - ask Rex!?

At this point, it certainly appears that this is merely a philosophical discussion of "is this a good decision or a bad decision." In other words, there's absolutely no indication in the blog post that this is an area where he's trying to decide what to do; he has already decided...There are no "I'm thinking about doing this" types of phrases there. FOFC has a long history of debating the merits of developers' design decisions, both before and after games are released, and this is really no different.

.... shouldn't TL;DR be used at the beginning of a long post... not at the end.

just sayin.

Maynard just totes called Ben a glutton. :lol: :popcorn:


I'm all on the Ben train here.

Acquiring players (and deciding how good they are) is the offseason, though. Personnel packages is a good move and I like it. However, what's the point of acquiring a specialist player -- valuable as next man up in certain packages but perhaps not the primary backup -- if you have to wrangle around and guess if the AI will ever use them, and when?

For example, maybe you have a pass catch only backup RB and you don't want your "big back" #2 to go in on those packages.

Or you have some "slot only" WR types or "blocking only" TEs. Maybe you have some defensive backs or linebackers that are either run or coverage focused and you have different packages for each scenario.

If you have a package screen, why not add designated backup slots to the positions?

Otherwise, why not remove different bar profiles entirely and just have every player be solely determined by OVR.

Not getting the train of thought here. No gameplans Ben? You seem to be all in for letting a utility hold your hand through the draft also.

At what point do we actually lock horns. That is what gameplans are about. The draft used to be about evaluation, now this program does most of that for you. At what point do we actually compete against each other?

Sounds like the game will barely require any input. No input = no emotional investment.

You know going back to my arrowing days which Subby so kindly brought up again lol. I spent time, and had emotional investment. Free agency was more fun than it is now in a twisted sort of way.

People just play in too many leagues these days. I firmly believe going all in on one or two makes the game more fun. Every result, every sim matters.

Yes I see your point to some degree. Setting guys to encouraged or not encouraged is pretty silly. There are a few similar tasks. But gameplans? That is where we prove we are better than the other guy. It isn't luck that the same guys in the CFL get the most wins over AI. Surely that is the essence of the competition now the draft is all about utilities.

The draft has already had the life choked out of it with utilities telling you the answers. For me gameplans are the last avenue where we really get to match wits. If that goes I am struggling to see the point of playing.

Not sure what you're talking about there. I barely use draft analyzer. I have my own ways of assessing the talent. And I didn't say that I wanted game plans to go away. I just want the AI to rex extremely well, to the point that there's no significant advantage gained by doing it manually for every game.


This speaks to precisely what I referred to above:I get that you like every sim. But for some reason, it seems that you cannot fathom that others of us find the sim-by-sim stuff completely tedious, and you don't seem to want to make any room for those who simply enjoy text sims for entirely different reasons. I'm largely bored by the details of the regular season. I play in multiple leagues so that I'm always in the offseason somewhere. I am happy for others to play their way, but for some reason you seem to not want to allow others to have fun a different way than you do.

*shurg* I disagree completely with that idea. Perhaps that is true for you, but it isn't for everyone. I'd argue that for many, tools like Analyzer make it more enjoyable. But again, for whatever reason, you either are incapable or refuse to see that. I really don't get that.

Serious question: What about contracts: Decisions on when to renegotiate, how to restructure offers, etc. etc. etc. Free agents to sign. Those are pretty important as well...

I know this is a tangent, but I'd argue that analyzer has restored the art of drafting by automating the tedious parts of the process.

Sure. I think what Hammer is saying is that he enjoys the parts of drafting that you and I find mind-numbingly tedious, and wants us to engage in those tedious parts like he does.

I am saying live and let live. Pushing for fundamental changes will lose people as Maynard suggested. Yes we can improve certain areas by cutting down on boring stuff, but gameplans are probably the most skilled part of the game.

You mention contracts, fa, renegs. Well it is hardly rocket science. Most experienced players will be on a pretty level playing field here. We have all had years of practise now.

I think the game is great as it is. There is room to play it in different ways. Why limit players options. Not sure why your trying to make out I am telling people what to do, or how to play. To me your extensive wish list of change is doing exactly that.

Where am I pushing for fundamental changes? You set up a false charge of "you're trying to get rid of game plans!" Nowhere did I indicate anything like that.

Eh, I disagree. I've looked around a lot, and there's a fairly big discrepancy there. It takes 6-8 seasons to build, but some players have figured out ways to keep large amounts of talent around under the cap. I think renegs in particular are some of the most unexplored areas of FOF.

1. Again, where have I suggested limiting options? I'd have to re-read the thread, but I *think* the only thing I've "asked for" is better AI, which, I would think, everyone would be in favor of. Am I missing something??? :confused:
2. Even if I did ask for a bunch of new features that limit options, that's my right as a customer, just as it is yours as a customer to advocate for whatever change that you might want.
3. If I actually did want a specific feature added or removed, I'd never post it here anyway. I DO follow my own advice, y'know ;)

At the bottom of post 24 you said you wanted to see the end of players gaining advantage from "micro managing gameplans". Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at.

But to me that is how guys like Timmy consistently get +5 and +6 over the AI predictions. Attention to detail. That floats my boat. That is the game to me, taking a 6 win team to 12 wins. That is what it is all about.

Taking Cheyenne to the bowl 2 years in a row when the AI says we are a 7 and 8 win team, for me that is satisfaction. Sure I would also like to build a 12 wins projected team and dominate with that team if I could. As I say I think it would be great if we could keep all options open as we all clearly value different parts of the game more than others.

Evidently, yeah. I want to see the AI improved. That's the framework for this (Emphasis added):

"I'd love to see the AI progress to the point where there is no advantage to be gained by micromanaging game plans, depth charts, formations, etc."

I'm just talking about improving the AI's game plans, depth charting, etc. These are things that would *greatly* improve SP for everyone, and the more "big-picture" guys would enjoy MP more.

Dola...but let's be fair, Hammer. You weren't just "live and let live." You (and others) are advocating that people who enjoy playing in more leagues should play in fewer leagues. Y'all need to own that. ;)

seems like jim could simplify depth charts and still let you identify players for spot use. maybe slots to name 3rd down backs, short yardage backs, pass rushing specialists, etc (i'm sure there are more, but honestly i can't think of many more specialty positions i'd like to identify)

i think most people would like to identify players like that, but would happily give up backups wilb's and fb's.

From personal experience it seems to me guys who really dedicate to a league enjoy it more. Just my observations.

I guess I believe when a commish puts in his heart and soul to a league it deserves respect in terms of player participation and commitment.

If your playing in 10 leagues and still participate, answer pms, submit exports and don't miss draft picks then fair play. Not a problem. If your guilty of these faults as a player your a liability and not giving your league the respect it deserves IMO.

Just to be sure I don't end up looking like the total hypocrite here, if the game does become less busy during the season and we have less to fiddle with, I'm sure I will join half a dozen more leagues and just play the lotto too.

I want to get in the CFL, and I'm on the wait list, but I'm hesitant cause I feel like I would need to drop a league to give it the attention I want to give. With an update that Ben says will no longer give the fiddlers an advantage, my perspective is going to change. No idea if that includes enjoying all those new leagues I'm in, or if I wake up one morning and say "I heard I can be Boba Fett in that new Star Wars game..."

I know the decisions have already been made, so I was not responding to the original posts in an effort to change or reverse anything. Nothing that's been said here has changed my mind either. Sounds like it's been known for awhile that there are the "immersive fiddlers" on one end and the "team builders" on the other (I'm simplifying here). What's kind of a bummer is that since this was known, maybe the game could have kept all the options, but the leagues could have been varied. Look at the GML. Seems like the perfect league for what you're describing, Ben. And you are at the top every season. There could have been more leagues like that, and then some leagues for the fiddlers! What would have been wrong with that? A GM could just choose what leagues he wants to be in based on settings, rather than join them all and begrudgingly fiddle with the busy ones.

Anyway, hindsight is 20/20. 5 bucks says I love all the new changes and I see you in all my new leagues, and I STILL lose in all of them as I do now! :p

Oh, I've been saying this for years. The issue is that many of us don't fully understand our own personal preferences well enough at the time we start in MP leagues; It's something that each individual learns over time. As a result, early on we join leagues based on prestige, an owner we "know", a web site, etc. etc. etc, and not on the "personality" of the league. And once we've joined and invested time, we're not likely to leave simply because others in the league like to play differently. (Well, and we're also competitive. I do micromanaging stuff even in GML and FOOL that I don't enjoy at all, but that I know to be necessary to help maximize team performance.) There are leagues like IHOF, formed in 2003. Some of the original members are still there, and frankly, some of us enjoy FOF very differently. I'm not leaving a league that I've been invested in for 12 years over stylistic differences, and neither are those who play differently from me.

Yup. If I knew then what I know now, the original IHOF invitation that I sent out minutes after FOF2K4 was announced in Fall '03 would have read very differently. And as I've learned my own enjoyment/pain points, it has changed how I create new leagues and select ones to join. For example, when I started the CCFL and the FOOL, I created the vast majority of the rules/scheduling *before* I invited anyone to join, thus establishing a bit of a "culture" that people were signing on to. At the time it was created (2010), the CCFL was by far the fastest-moving league around at 6 gamedays per calendar week and six calendar weeks per season, and it used a "salary cap crunch" that forced hard decisions on GMs in terms of contracts, keeping players, renegs, etc. It was clearly designed to be a league for people more interested in (by the way, I like your terms) "team building" and that whose regular seasons would move too fast for the great majority of "immersive fiddlers" to do a lot of fiddling. In 5 calendar years and 43+ seasons, I don't recall a single significant squabble over how the schedule should look, changing the injury setting, etc. Contrast that to IHOF, where there have been more than a few of each "type" you mentioned, and there have been tons of such squabbles.

And then of course there's the FOOL. The Front Office Offseason League was commissioned to run with a one-day preseason, one-day regular season, and one-day postseason. We've churned through 24 seasons in less than one calendar year. It's the perfect league for people who want to see teams evolve, move from one QB to the next, etc., and it has maintained a waiting list of a good length for quite some time now, but it's not the sort of thing that people who want to get into a lot of details would have any interest in joining.

But most FOF MP leagues have existed for a long time and don't really have a truly distinct "personality" of one vs. the other. Or if they do, at some point they've had to accept anyone who was willing to join, thus creating a situation where there are a competing interests.

My preferences have changed over time. I played this game a different way years ago when I started out. I'm a lot more "whatever" about things, especially when it's stuff that I've done too many times.

For example, to me managing all 53, 60, 70 spots on the roster, including injuries, including through the preseason, is at the heart of this game. I wish we had practice squads just so we can be working with more players. However, I won't be sorry to never have to worry about GPing again, though I used to love the challenge. I used to love changetracker and some people still use PlayerTracker as a guide; now I just use in-game info and leave it be. I'm fine with not having fine-tuned controls for the staff draft process; just sim it and see what you get back. (I can hear the protests about the last one already...)

In general, I'm getting more "hands off" as time goes by. I think this tends to describe game veterans more, while newer players often want all the choices and granularity. Which is fine; I've been there.

Everyone's got a style. And every decision choice Jim makes is bound to be received differently.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses!

If these changes go through I see an awful lot of people, and perhaps even leagues, sticking with the old game. For me it sounds like being a passenger in a car versus driving it yourself.

As Maynard pointed out the option currently exists if you want to be a passenger. Don't see the logic in taking away the option for those who want to be more hands on.

The focal point of the game will become the draft. Which may turn into a competition to see who can write the best draft cheat program as there will be so much emphasis on the draft. I just see the game going further and further away from football and turning into a IT skills procession. Football is why we are all here isn't it? :confused:

Less is more.

In this case, you'll have infinitely more control over your game plan. But you won't have to waste time entering numbers that are essentially meaningless for coaches.

I think the new depth charts also offer more. The one area you'll have less is with replacing injured players in-game. The game will select the next best player for a role. But there are actually more depth chart slots in the new model (127) than the old (106) without silly things like needing to specify your punter or your third quarterback.

It's an entirely different experience. I think it's much more realistic, and you'll feel you're crafting a plan that a pro coach would execute. It's all personnel-based. No more simply guessing run or pass. It's so different and so much more expansive that I am finding I may need to add another film room screen.

This is what I wanted to do eight years ago but never found the time. It's a massive undertaking, but I think it's worth it.

Okay, thanks for the further explanation. More control over gameplans sounds fantastic. Sounds like you were misunderstood.

Every version has got better. The only thing that miffed me about this version was losing the ability to gameplan according to field position. Having read this post I see my concerns are out the window. Looking forward to it!!!

I still have no idea where you got the "concerns" you had. As long as Rex is such that those who don't want to tinker a whole bunch don't have to tinker in order to keep up, then whatever. I still think you're really missing the big picture here: if this new area has a strong Rex option, then the game will *absolutely* be mostly about roster building (drafting, contract renegs, and free agent acquisition.) And, frankly, it is now. Most of the stuff that you think you're seeing now is more about AI sub-optimal decisions regarding what players should be on a roster and starting than about the specifics of a game plan.

We will agree to differ then. I see you around .500 for 4 or 5 years in the CFL, and right around your AI win predictions because your not putting in plans that can match the best players. Attention to detail and the micro managing of gameplans is what is costing you in my opinion. It isn't about rosters.

Other players have .500 projections and consistently beat them year after year. Shout me down all you want but the figures speak for themselves. It seems you have no tolerance or time for people who have different opinions to you, so I will leave it there.

It's rather humorous that you keep going down these "how the game works" paths with me. As with your long-term incorrect views of cohesion, fairly simple testing should let you know what's going on here. ;) And by the way, I've already mentioned this: MalcPow's joining is going to hurt me a bit, because he knows more of the secrets that I know regarding drafting than anyone else in that league, but I've had a head start on him, so I'd imagine I'll be alright.

Because the AI cuts and/or doesn't start some guys that should be starting, often for--and yes, I *love* the irony here--cohesion reasons. :D (And by the way, I beat mine by several games this past season. You'd think someone who claims to pay attention to the details would know that before spouting off. :devil:)

I've repeatedly expressed tolerance for those who want to play differently, and will continue to do so. I have no problem with differing opinions. What I don't have tolerance for is information being disseminated that is just plain wrong. Like you were 100% wrong about the impact of cohesion in FOF, you are simply 100% wrong about the impact of game plans in FOF. Like cohesion, this isn't a matter of opinion.