Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - FOF 2007

QuikSand · 03-11-2008, 08:46 AM

Some observations…

I think I’m deep enough in with these rules to start having a fair “feel” for the game. Some thoughts on where this is relative to the FOF holy grail of the three areas I care about for a long term set of rules:

Challenging – I want to be faced with difficulties in reaching success

I’m disappointed here so far. I’m still able to draft far better than other teams, and have plenty of depth at most every position, and I’m keeping nearly all my star-caliber players. Maybe it’s getting lucky at QB that had helped, but I have to think that without Swartz developing like this, I’d just be playing some cheap free agent with similar results.

Interesting – I want to feel like my time is well spent with the stuff I do in game

Mixed results here. The slotting of FA contracts is a novel way to limit the number of things I can do in any year, but it does tend toward the silly when I am routinely making all manner of 6 and 7 year offers that are really nothing more than 3 year deals with absurd tail ends. Yes, that does require that I cut a fair number of players rather than hold on to everyone, but I pretty quickly have worked it out to only sign those deals with players whose departure will not really hurt us. So, there is a tedium factor at work there, though not huge. The theoretical “challenge” of crafting clever long term deals with my top players hasn’t really materialized – for guys I really really want to keep, I’m just extending them and never letting them see free agency at all.

Rewarding – I want to feel like my decisions really cause the team’s success or lack thereof

Pretty good results here – I do feel that if I were not doing this well in drafting that I’d have a pretty shaky team. And I do feel like my good decisions with gameplanning and so forth are indeed helping my team do well, overall. This is connected to “challenging” but different – the real worry here is that some rule sets restrain my decisions so much that I feel like it’s just the luck of the draw whether I get an opportunity to get a star QB, for example – here, I’m pretty wide open in drafting, and have a wide range of options in what to do each season, which is good for this element.

Overall… I’m interested enough to keep playing, but I’m thinking about adding in a new rule or two to try to tighten things up and add to the difficulty level. I hate seeing my team with one of the top roster ratings every season, even if I do think it’s a function of me making generally wise choices. I **like** playing a team that has real deficiencies on its starting roster.

I’m thinking about this new rule:

-There can be only one renegotiation that varies from the requested amount and duration

I think I’m getting away with a bit too much, and avoiding escalating contracts by working my renegotiations down to the inch – maybe requiring that one of my two annual renegs be on the player’s terms will add a little more hesitation to my thinking here.

I think I have just talked myself into this rule

Consider it done – it’s a new rule, effective in 2032.

03-11-2008, 08:46 AM	#73
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Some observations… I think I’m deep enough in with these rules to start having a fair “feel” for the game. Some thoughts on where this is relative to the FOF holy grail of the three areas I care about for a long term set of rules: Challenging – I want to be faced with difficulties in reaching success I’m disappointed here so far. I’m still able to draft far better than other teams, and have plenty of depth at most every position, and I’m keeping nearly all my star-caliber players. Maybe it’s getting lucky at QB that had helped, but I have to think that without Swartz developing like this, I’d just be playing some cheap free agent with similar results. Interesting – I want to feel like my time is well spent with the stuff I do in game Mixed results here. The slotting of FA contracts is a novel way to limit the number of things I can do in any year, but it does tend toward the silly when I am routinely making all manner of 6 and 7 year offers that are really nothing more than 3 year deals with absurd tail ends. Yes, that does require that I cut a fair number of players rather than hold on to everyone, but I pretty quickly have worked it out to only sign those deals with players whose departure will not really hurt us. So, there is a tedium factor at work there, though not huge. The theoretical “challenge” of crafting clever long term deals with my top players hasn’t really materialized – for guys I really really want to keep, I’m just extending them and never letting them see free agency at all. Rewarding – I want to feel like my decisions really cause the team’s success or lack thereof Pretty good results here – I do feel that if I were not doing this well in drafting that I’d have a pretty shaky team. And I do feel like my good decisions with gameplanning and so forth are indeed helping my team do well, overall. This is connected to “challenging” but different – the real worry here is that some rule sets restrain my decisions so much that I feel like it’s just the luck of the draw whether I get an opportunity to get a star QB, for example – here, I’m pretty wide open in drafting, and have a wide range of options in what to do each season, which is good for this element. Overall… I’m interested enough to keep playing, but I’m thinking about adding in a new rule or two to try to tighten things up and add to the difficulty level. I hate seeing my team with one of the top roster ratings every season, even if I do think it’s a function of me making generally wise choices. I like playing a team that has real deficiencies on its starting roster. I’m thinking about this new rule: -There can be only one renegotiation that varies from the requested amount and duration I think I’m getting away with a bit too much, and avoiding escalating contracts by working my renegotiations down to the inch – maybe requiring that one of my two annual renegs be on the player’s terms will add a little more hesitation to my thinking here. I think I have just talked myself into this rule Consider it done – it’s a new rule, effective in 2032.