Front Office Football 2007

[Cap Ologist]

So, is there a beer tent?

[Ryche]

This is setting up to be a great weekend. One of my favorite local breweries just put their beer in cans I can take home and now I can drink them while playing a new version of my favorite game.

[Solecismic]

It's better in that aspect. I have noticed a problem with the cap exception in that some teams will, if they have an injury, do a sign-release of the same player in one week, usually late in the season.

I haven't eliminated that problem completely yet, so far it's a trade off - get teams operating closer to the cap, run into cap exception issues like that. There's a note in the help file (been there since FOF1, I think), about how the cap isn't always a hard cap during the season just so teams can always field a full lineup. You get assigned minimum salary rookies.

I just have to get two very large and complicated mechanisms (getting teams to field a roster that won't crash the game, which is priority 1 and takes precedence over other algorithms, and getting teams to release players when they are over the cap in season and can release a player, which is a lower priority function) to synch up properly. The new, more flexible, position assignment rules created more difficulty in the synching up of these two functions, which actually take up more than a thousand lines of code.

[Deattribution]

Glad to hear it's better, the patches for 2004 helped tighten it up but there were still quite a few head scratchers at times. Players being mvp calibre talent and never even receiving an offer only to sign for the minimum at the beginning of the season.

Originally Posted by amdaily

I think the "blah" is attributed to the fact that the game just seems static. The immersion factor hasn't changed since FOF1.

While stat tracking and accuracy remain unmatched, even games like Baseball Mogul are surpassing it in terms of having player personalities that actually mean something, the TPB series in terms of interaction with the owners, and of course FM.

Won't stop me my buying, but was sort of expecting more.

I can agree with this (as stated in the other thread). I'll be purchasing and I'm sure I'll enjoy it - because I still enjoy FOF2004. It's one of the games where you spend so much time playing it that you want more even if it's almost just an 'expansion' of the existing game.

But, it's a formula where let's say there is another version next year, unless there is something that is really blow away I'll pass like I did on FOF4.

[Subby]

Jim - can you give us any kind of MP HTML screenies? Please?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Subby

Jim - can you give us any kind of MP HTML screenies? Please?

I'm With Extremely Stupid.

[Dekanth]

I've bought every Solecismic game since FOF2, and will probably end up buying this one at some point, but I am a bit disappointed in the feature list. MP and game planning seem to be a big emphasis, neither of which interest me in the least. I wasn't expecting, but still hoping for more customization instead, like variable league sizes, or expansion/contraction. I just can't seem to get excited about this, which saddens me.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Dekanth

I've bought every Solecismic game since FOF2, and will probably end up buying this one at some point, but I am a bit disappointed in the feature list. MP and game planning seem to be a big emphasis, neither of which interest me in the least. I wasn't expecting, but still hoping for more customization instead, like variable league sizes, or expansion/contraction. I just can't seem to get excited about this, which saddens me.

Something like this just goes to show you can't please everyone. I fall in line with the "quick simmer" crowd. I can sim 5 or 6 seasons in an evening at times. This feature list is actually going to slow me down a lot and that isn't a bad thing. The increased stats are going to be amazing for me. The game plannning screens look so much better than before and the PBP is more detailed and far more interesting to watch. I'll watch far more games with this version than I ever have before.

I like the bigger logos as well. There were at least 15 things in that new feature list that had me drooling over the keyboard. And playing through a little of the demo tonight has increased, not decreased my anticipation.

I have zero doubt I'll get my 40 dollars worth out of this one.

[Hurst2112]

Hey,

Remember that guy who made some really cool backgrounds for FOF2K1? He made me a Steelers one that looked really awesome.

Who was it? Also, would you be able to get that detailed with the bigger logo size now?

Jim has put out several games around the time of my birthday. What a great present to myself!

[Peregrine]

I'm with you TroyF, I'm mostly a quick simmer also, I have no interest in doing gameplanning and have basically never messed with it through several versions of FoF, but there are some great additions for me and I can't wait to buy it. The Solevision is a great addition for watching games and will really show off the improved PBP.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

Hey,

Remember that guy who made some really cool backgrounds for FOF2K1? He made me a Steelers one that looked really awesome.

Who was it? Also, would you be able to get that detailed with the bigger logo size now?

Jim has put out several games around the time of my birthday. What a great present to myself!

I made this one for FOF2k4, I could probably put together a Steelers background sometime.

[Karim]

Is Wheels still around? He made some awesome graphics for FOF2004...

[Solecismic]

In terms of hours of work, this is probably the largest new version I've ever done. I didn't think I was catering only to the MP set. The Solevision/play-by-play isn't MP only, but it does favor the slow-simmer. The quick-simmer should get more out of the statistical expansion.

With the exception of the whiz-bang graphics set, who is never going to like FOF, I think there's a good representation of different features for different people. And sure, there are a couple of quick, cute throwaway things, like Gridiron Greta (I am going to get teased to no end for that one), but that's just to give the game a touch more color, something I think people will like after the initial "what the heck was he thinking" reaction because there is some substance behind it.

I don't think it's a good idea to judge every game by the same feature set evolution. I'm not going the personality interaction with owner/press route until I'm sure I can do it without it getting to be quickly boring or repetitive. That's something Marc does so well with FM, but he makes that a big focus in terms of staff man hours.

I'd like to do it, but not at the expense of other new development. In the meantime, there are a ton of things I can do - I could start a completely new version that would represent a major leap forward, but have nothing to do with media/owner interaction, with what I'd like to do, but ended up leaving out. Potential is limitless, and do any of us really want every single game to be a clone of every other game?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Karim

Is Wheels still around? He made some awesome graphics for FOF2004...

didn't he get drunk and kill a kid??

(degrassi reference)

[yabanci]

I sure hope chemistry is based on something other than zodiac signs.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Potential is limitless, and do any of us really want every single game to be a clone of every other game?

Definately not. This feels like a Solecismic product and like the next logical step forward in that line. I totally agree that I don't want to just see you mimicing what everyone else has done.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by yabanci

I sure hope chemistry is based on something other than zodiac signs.

I know you're not going to like this, because you're probably the harshest critic we have here at FOFC, but they are. Some slight changes were made, but the base computation is still the same.

I don't happen to believe in astrology. I think it's cute that some people think everyone born in the same 30-day period has the same personality and future, but the cuteness is as far as I go with it.

So why didn't I make the change? I did, actually. We started the beta with a new system in place. And people hated it. They found they were making dozens of offers to players just to see the box pop up saying "Player X likes this guy." So I went back to what I had.

Maybe I need to rethink chemistry entirely. As it stands now, people understand it, and adjust their thinking to build for it. When they fill their rosters with late-round chance players or minsalary free agents, they think astrology. And that's a substitute for consciously building good chemistry in the locker room. I enjoy it myself that way. I've made a little adjustment to the Recommend screen to make it even easier.

In the real world, maybe affinities and conflicts pop up over time, and it should be less frequent and more random. Maybe I'll try it that way next time, do away with the pop-up boxes and see how that works out in testing. I don't know. But I can guarantee you that the same type of system based on something less easily calculated than astrology will be far less enjoyable.

At any rate, I understand the complaint. I've understood it from day one, and that's why chemisty is one of the few features in the game that you can make disappear if you don't want to use it. When that feature is off, the game doesn't use chemistry at all, period.

[Deattribution]

I know I don't really understand what all goes into calculating and programming the game, but couldn't it just be based on personality?

You know, low personality gets along with anything 60 and below, but hates 80-90+ and vice versa. 50's don't mind high or low.

Of course, maybe I'm misunderstanding the chemistry in terms of football aspects, but it just sounds like a more simplistic system that would be easier to play with. You know, do I want to sign player X with 90 personality when most of my team is low key 50 and below.

Hell, maybe it already working something similiar to this with personality, I don't know.

[Solecismic]

It could be based on anything. How many vowels are in your last name. Where you went to college. Your draft position plus 1/2 of your weight. Anything. Computers make those calculations a snap.

I view the personality trait as more strength of personality. Players with 30 or below are likely to get along with anyone, they don't care who is in the locker room. Players with 80 or above are likely to have closer bonds and stronger enemies.

[Northwood_DK]

Will a player’s height and weight actually make a difference in this version?

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It could be based on anything. How many vowels are in your last name. Where you went to college. Your draft position plus 1/2 of your weight. Anything. Computers make those calculations a snap.

I view the personality trait as more strength of personality. Players with 30 or below are likely to get along with anyone, they don't care who is in the locker room. Players with 80 or above are likely to have closer bonds and stronger enemies.

If that's the case, then couldn't the system be used for both?

Strong personalities have major conflicts with those who have weak personalities , but also have the strongest affinities with the ones they click with. Weaker personalities do neither, never bonding or conflicting with anyone so they make easy teammates but lousy leaders on teams with alot of personality and character, since they overbear weaker personalities.

Basically just a suggestion as it gives a reason why one guy isn't getting along with the other beyond the sun and the moon alignment.

As far as the window popping up maybe it could be something made to be optional? I personally wouldn't have a problem taking a look at my linemen's personalities before I sign a player and see if they could coexist, as it's what any real gm would do.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Northwood_DK

Will a player’s height and weight actually make a difference in this version?

Sure will, from what I've seen, there's an option to have a player gain or lose weight, it seems especially important when trying to move a player to a new position, you'll get messages like "He doesn't really have the height for that position" or "He needs to put on some weight to make this move."

[Icy]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Sure will, from what I've seen, there's an option to have a player gain or lose weight, it seems especially important when trying to move a player to a new position, you'll get messages like "He doesn't really have the height for that position" or "He needs to put on some weight to make this move."

But I see it only used to determine if you can switch a player position and not having anything to do to the on the filed perfomance and plays calculations. Jim can correct me I I'm wrong.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I know you're not going to like this, because you're probably the harshest critic we have here at FOFC, but they are. Some slight changes were made, but the base computation is still the same.

I don't happen to believe in astrology. I think it's cute that some people think everyone born in the same 30-day period has the same personality and future, but the cuteness is as far as I go with it.

So why didn't I make the change? I did, actually. We started the beta with a new system in place. And people hated it. They found they were making dozens of offers to players just to see the box pop up saying "Player X likes this guy." So I went back to what I had.

Maybe I need to rethink chemistry entirely. As it stands now, people understand it, and adjust their thinking to build for it. When they fill their rosters with late-round chance players or minsalary free agents, they think astrology. And that's a substitute for consciously building good chemistry in the locker room. I enjoy it myself that way. I've made a little adjustment to the Recommend screen to make it even easier.

In the real world, maybe affinities and conflicts pop up over time, and it should be less frequent and more random. Maybe I'll try it that way next time, do away with the pop-up boxes and see how that works out in testing. I don't know. But I can guarantee you that the same type of system based on something less easily calculated than astrology will be far less enjoyable.

At any rate, I understand the complaint. I've understood it from day one, and that's why chemisty is one of the few features in the game that you can make disappear if you don't want to use it. When that feature is off, the game doesn't use chemistry at all, period.

yeah, my problem with it is I don't think team chemistry is so predictable and immediately apparent. I don't believe that real life GMs have some way to accurately predict who is going to get along with whom, and then make roster decisions based on that foreknowledge. I think it would be more realistic to not have the pop up box and perhaps not even know about the conflict immediately upon signing. Maybe you fork over a big bonus and then after training camp learn the player has a conflict, or maybe the conflict doesn't develop until you're late in the season fighting for a playoff spot (on the other side of the coin, maybe the strong affinity deveops late in the season and gives you that boost you really needed). It is the unexpected that makes things interesting. That's why we love booms and busts.

In my view, chemistry should be used to make game more difficult and unpredictable, forcing you to make hard decisions or screwing you after making what you believed to be a good decision (or giving you an unexpected bonus). To me, being able to look at a player's birthday and then consult an astrological chart to guarantee that you gain bonuses (affinities) and avoid penalties (conflicts) makes the game easier, more simplistic, and less realistic.

I'd rather see the personality rating be more like the volatility rating -- i.e., you look at a guy's volatility rating and know that if it's high, it might be great for you or might be terrible. There is a risk and you don't know how it's going to affect you before you make the decision. The same could be true with personality. If a player has a very strong personality, you know you might end up with a guy who is great for the team or a total disruption. It's a risk, but you don't know how it's going to play out until the deed is done. Meanwhile, you always have the red flag players who you know might be a problem. I don't see any risk with the astrological chart system, which is why I said I hope chemistry is not still based on the zodiac signs, but apparently some people like it.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

...you're probably the harshest critic we have here at FOFC...

thanks for the compliment. I do my best

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yeah, the help file explains more, including defensive pass coverages (although there is a typo I think in discussing double coverage when it talks about covering the tight end, but I'm sure Jim means the split end).

Hip Hip Hooray!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

And the gameplan changes are way better. Using the basic gameplan and then having a percentage shift based on current game situation was definitely the way to go. And only one run directional gameplan screen -- also excellent.

[EagleFan]

Dam you Jim! You wait until I am out of the country to announce this...

Can I download a version to my work laptop and then transfer that license to home when I get back home?

Looking forward to this next version. I've more than played out the last version.

[Icy]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Dam you Jim! You wait until I am out of the country to announce this...

Can I download a version to my work laptop and then transfer that license to home when I get back home?

Looking forward to this next version. I've more than played out the last version.

Yes you can with elicense, also you probably will be given two licenses or it has always been that way in the past.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I'm with you TroyF, I'm mostly a quick simmer also, I have no interest in doing gameplanning and have basically never messed with it through several versions of FoF, but there are some great additions for me and I can't wait to buy it. The Solevision is a great addition for watching games and will really show off the improved PBP.

I still play both SP and MP and good bit, and I play the two with very, very different styles. In SP, I let the AI handle my depth charts from week to week usually. I glance at each box score for about 10 seconds to see how my skill players did, but that's it. I set up offensive and defensive gameplans in the first season, and never change them one iota; I just draft and sign players to fit my system. I never scout the opposition. I never look at game logs unless it is the Solecismic Bowl. For draftees, I ignore chemistry concerns, and let the AI sign my picks. I don't notice who I'm playing, or even the names of anyone on my team besides maybe my QB, top RB, and top WR. I try to get through several sittings in one setting. For this style, the stats tracking will make a *HUGE* difference. (One thing that always slowed me down was the need to print out team reports at the end of each season, because they weren't saved, for example.) If the draft AI and free agent AI show significant improvement, it sounds like I will be thrilled with the SP experience. The two things I would have liked to have seen to add to the experience for SP that don't appear to be in this version (and I know that these are large additions) would have been expansion, and the ability to sim multiple seasons with one click. However, the lack of these is by no means a deal-breaker for me.

With the slow pace of MP, I pay much more attention to the details, read my team's game logs AND the game logs of the teams in my division (mainly for scouting purposes), adjust the game plan nearly every single week, etc. etc. etc. For this style, Solevision will be huge.

Things I still wonder about...

• Draft AI (far too easy to get good QB's in FOF2K4)
• Roster building AI (Jim has acknowledge already that it got a good bit of attention, so that's definitely a good sign.)
• Improved HTML output. (With all those new stats, I have to assume that it has been at least somewhat expanded).
• Rust other than for the preseason (Will sitting your starters for a couple of weeks late in the season potentially hurt them in the playoffs, and will guys injured for more than a couple of weeks come back "rusty?")

I'm sure there are other things, but those jump out at the moment as things that could have additional significant impact on the SP experience for me.

[Honolulu Blue]

Sorry guys, but there just isn't much here for me. The features I can test now don't impress, and the features that I need or want to try out I can't test unless I buy.

[marcmoustache]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

[*]Improved HTML output. (With all those new stats, I have to assume that it has been at least somewhat expanded).

I'd like to take this question further, is there any chance that FOF2007 can do what OOTP2006 does and allow an csv/text stats dump out so that we don't have to go with the game html or write utils to process the boxscores/gamelogs?

I don't want to see the game mechanics but a suite of text files that link player records, salaries, transactions, injuries, etc - i.e. everything you can see in the game, would make the MP experience much better.

Cheers

Marc.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

This is almost as good as getting laid.

Either you are crap in the sack, or get a hell of a lot more out of a computer game than I do

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think even for SP it's impressive too, but I see for a certain style of player (like my interpretation of Bucc's style) that it may not have a ton more for them. What I mean by that is the quick-simmers.

That being said, not sure what you add for them.

I am in the quick simmer SP category, and I'd go with the FOF2004.5 description at first glance.

It looks easier to use, has a few nice wrinkles, Solevision is a nice touch but will I actually use it in my style of play? I will likely buy it, but the roster building side seems to be basically the same game, with some of the more annoying elelments removed, with a few knobs and whistles... Can't say I'm not slightly disappointed there's not a waiver system and harsher cap included, but I can see why this might not make everybody enjoy the game.

The big thing for my style will be how at the end of the season the AI teams make release/resign decisions, and general trade & FA decisions throughout the game. If these are much improved I take most of the above back

On the other hand I might just have to work to overcome the fact that I seem to be looking at a table of numbers on gameplanning screens to get maximum benefit from the new changes. A tthe moment I look at these screens and

[marcmoustache]

Another question - will we be able to structure the league how we like, or is it set 32 teams, 8 divisions, etc.?

[AlexB]

Ok having read the rest of the thread, and seeing Jim & SD's posts, sounds like most of the areas I was hoping for improvement may well be better, so fingers crossed...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Ok having read the rest of the thread, and seeing Jim & SD's posts, sounds like most of the areas I was hoping for improvement may well be better, so fingers crossed...

I was going to mention..

I would actually throw this out to Jim for whenever he wakes up and reads it - I think that the improvement to the FA AI potentially should be mentioned in the new features. I think many FOFers have had concerns about pieces of the FA AI (as far as CPU controlled teams) and that is a pretty big thing to them if significant overhauling has been done to improve that.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think that the improvement to the FA AI potentially should be mentioned in the new features.

That's an excellent point. I'd agree, and say that if draft AI got a significant change, it should be mentioned in the list, too.

[Bee]

I quick-sim and play SP so at first glance at the feature list I'm not very excited. I'll buy the game and I'm sure I'll get plenty of enjoyment out of it but I also get the FOF2004.5 feeling from my play style. Hopefully my impressions will change once I get the full experience of the game.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bee

I quick-sim and play SP so at first glance at the feature list I'm not very excited. I'll buy the game and I'm sure I'll get plenty of enjoyment out of it but I also get the FOF2004.5 feeling from my play style. Hopefully my impressions will change once I get the full experience of the game.

I figure even for folks that play this way, the sheer $$'s to play time of 2004 + 2007 makes it so most will not have any problem making the purchase anyways .

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Gridiron Greta (I am going to get teased to no end for that one)

If she's a Leo, I'll let it pass.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I figure even for folks that play this way, the sheer $$'s to play time of 2004 + 2007 makes it so most will not have any problem making the purchase anyways .

Yep, I agree. From my point of view, FOF is the best football game available and I'm sure this version will be worth the price of admission. I may not be nearly as excited as some others about the feature list, but I'll definitely be buying the game.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm still on the fence as to whether I'll buy this today or wait for a patch. Given the feature list, it might just be enough to get me into MP (which I didn't even attempt with FOF2004). As far as SP, I quick-sim sometimes and actually call plays the other times. I'm not much for structured gameplanning. I like to do it on the fly during a game, so that's why I call plays. I think this game will have a lot for me in it, so now it's just a matter of deciding when I'm going to buy it.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Bee

Yep, I agree. From my point of view, FOF is the best football game available and I'm sure this version will be worth the price of admission. I may not be nearly as excited as some others about the feature list, but I'll definitely be buying the game.

This sums up my reaction as well.

[gottimd]

Is the "Grey List" a list of all Free Agents to be at the end of the season that is updated as each week is simmed? If not, how is the grey list any different from the Free Agency weeks, other than the fact that it is filtered/sorted by the 75 top rated Free Agents?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by gottimd

Is the "Grey List" a list of all Free Agents to be at the end of the season that is updated as each week is simmed? If not, how is the grey list any different from the Free Agency weeks, other than the fact that it is filtered/sorted by the 75 top rated Free Agents?

My interpretation fo the screenshot is basically that last part.

It's sorted by the top 75 rated FA's using a "draft grade" like system to weight positions.

[Ksyrup]

I'm a quick-simmer who likes to concentrate on the off-season functions, and I'll still be buying this when it comes out.

I'm hoping this game will kick-start my interest in text sims in general again, since I haven't been too enthusiastic about the hockey and baseball games that came out this year and last (this is the first year I haven't bought at least one baseball game), and didn't even feel interested enough in Arlie's games to give them a try, so I haven't been playing text sims much for the past couple of years. We'll see if that's more a function of my lack of interest in the particular games on the market, or whether I'm starting to get beyond the text sim genre as a whole. No pressure, Jim, really!

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by wade moore

My interpretation fo the screenshot is basically that last part.

It's sorted by the top 75 rated FA's using a "draft grade" like system to weight positions.

Ah, that seems useless. I was hoping that it would be the top free agents to be, that way as the season goes along, you can see who may be on the market when the time comes for Free Agency. I do something like this in excel, where I take the contract end year for all rosters. Problem is, is that I don't have a rating system so I just use Contract Value to come up with the "Top Free Agents to Be" list.

Still curious about playoff scenarios too. I like that the Honors box now has career team rankings, according to the screenshot. It showed a guys as being 5th for Pittsburgh Pass Defense Pct.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Maybe I need to rethink chemistry entirely. As it stands now, people understand it, and adjust their thinking to build for it. When they fill their rosters with late-round chance players or minsalary free agents, they think astrology. And that's a substitute for consciously building good chemistry in the locker room. I enjoy it myself that way. I've made a little adjustment to the Recommend screen to make it even easier.

I like chemistry. Sure it's not the most realistic implemenation, but heck, I don't know how you can really model it. So it suits me just fine.

If there is something like "exclude conflicts with leader" or "list only possible affinities" in the recommend screen (I'm assuming there isn't "list potential new leaders" or anything of that sort) - then WOOHOO! Now if we could have it figure that out for the draftees....

[Cheesehead Craig]

Man, I feel sorry for the people with 4+ teams. How the hell can you immerse yourself in that many leagues and still be able to sleep?

[dbd1963]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I am in the quick simmer SP category, ...

On the other hand I might just have to work to overcome the fact that I seem to be looking at a table of numbers on gameplanning screens to get maximum benefit from the new changes. A tthe moment I look at these screens and

This is exactly where I am. The demo doesn't seem as different to me because I've always just played as the GM. Maybe the full game -- check that, the stats ensure that the full game will make me happier. I would like to gameplan and call plays, but my short forays into it have proven that I totally sucked at it. And the one thing you can't get is a primer on how it should be done, because MP folks don't want to give away secrets.

I guess I may not be smart enough for this game.

(poor poor me where's my pity party?)

But I'm going to buy it. FOF has been by far my favorite game ever. I play it all the time (well, I used to until I got this Intel Mac laptop, have just been waiting for the new version to see if it'll run on Parallels, and if it doesn't, I kept an old P4 laptop for just this purpose..)