Frustrated by FOF2007

[markusg77]

Hi Everybody,

At the moment I am totally frustrated by FOF2007

I think parts of its logic is flawed in ways which seriously impact the fun of playing.

The latest example for whacky player development:
My stud DE in his 4th year comes off an all-pro season and 16.5 sacks was a solid 68/68 before camp, is 38/38 now after camp. A drop of freaking 30 points! I wouldn't moan and scream if there was an injury or something. And I really don't want to reload because cheating doesn't make it more fun.

I know, bad roll of dice. But hey, I play the easiest difficulty setting, just because I want to avoid that sort of s#!%.

One thing I really don't understand is, why can't I see my scout's estimate of overall rating of draftees before or during the draft (however useless it may be)? Some guys, especially late round, I would certainly not draft, if I know that after the "select player" mouse click, the overall future rating is e.g. 38. Can I please "talk" to my scout during a draft?

Sorry for the rant, but I am close to stop playing FOF2007, little stuff like that really takes a lot of fun out of the game.
What's your take on that? Are these things also annoying you?

PS: It's not that my team totally sucks, we won the Bowl a few seasons back and are in the hunt most of the years...

[Nogram]

Ok I'll bite.

Your DE may have all along been a 38/38 player. How is his new run D rating, there are many players that could put up 16.5 sacks as a 38/38, they just need to be weighted towards pass rush with little run D. Another concept is, did you change scouts? If you did and your new scout is poor on the D Line this could create some scouting error. Another thought is how is your D Coordinator with D Line and Young Talent? A 38/38 can be a very good player in FoF provided you use him properly. Also, your teams overall skill on D can have a DRAMATIC impact on indivdual stats, i.e. if you have 10 studs, even your 2 duds will likely put up very good numbers. Also, your teams D cohesion will play a large role.

On the scout not seeing everything during the draft.... When do you really know how good a player is?
a) after college,
b) after pre-draft workouts,
c) after post-draft minicamps,
d) after training camp,
e) after his first full season,
f) after they have started a number of big games,
g) after they have played 4-6 full seasons
h) after they have retired.

I would say that you don't really know what you have until after a few seasons. Your scout is really giving you his impression after b.

Nogram

[markusg77]

First of all, Thank you for your answer, I was a little more provocative than I maybe should have been.

To your comments,

Originally Posted by Nogram

I would say that you don't really know what you have until after a few seasons. Your scout is really giving you his impression after b.

I fully agree with that, what I am saying is that, even if that impression is very flawed, I would like a number to help my decision.


Your explanation why the guy could have dropped has some very good points (makes the head cool down slightly )
Still, the easisiest difficulty setting would do without so much masking, but that's my opinion.
Hopefully he has another 16 sack season in from of him, I'll need it - we chase our second bowl win.

Thanks very much!

[Nogram]

On the easiest difficulty setting I completely agree that the 'masking' should be a lot less. The other thing that should be impacted is how dynamic your gameplanning has to be, i.e. on the easiest setting there should be far few of the "the defense is familiar" messages.

Alas, the only thing tha the difficulty seems to impact is the finances side.

Nogram.

[Draft Dodger]

masking is fun, so just enjoy

[SegRat]

I had the same thing happen in GEFL with Sterling Sharpe. By his second year I believe he was rated in the 90's. He put up 1900 receiving yards. Only injury in his second year was a sprained thumb. His third year he comes out of training camp rated 54-54. He only put up 795 yards. Also played in all 16 games. My offense is pass happy. He dropped for no reason. I am still shaking my head.

[bulletsponge]

happens in real life. studs 1 year, mediocre the rest of thier careers

[markusg77]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

masking is fun, so just enjoy

It's not much fun when the supposed anchor of your D-line just came up as maybe a situational pass rusher (I look forward to see if Nogram was right and he can do good stuff at 38).

BUT, when I started looking deeper at my roster, I saw an undrafted guy at 66/66 after 3yrs, a 3rd round pick at 62/62 after 5 years (started at like 42 a rookie) and my creeper 4th round pick at 41/44 in year 3 (from 21/27 - I thought I blew the pick), so agreed, that is fun.

Concerning the 30 point drop after one mouse click...

Originally Posted by SegRat

I am still shaking my head.

...that about says it all.

Thanks for your feedback!

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

happens in real life. studs 1 year, mediocre the rest of thier careers

I think this is the truth here. We want to be able to play by numbers and understand it all. But drops like this are there to simulate the real world, where scouts and coaches think they know a player then turn out to be wrong.

Consider a player like Larry Johnson who was high on everybody's charts then turned in a really horrible season (the year I had him on my fantasy football team). The fact is we don't know if he A) wasn't as good as we thought, B) was good, but then got worse for some reason, C) his production dropped because of some system/coaching change or the players around him. In real life even the experts just make their best guesses at these things.

In the game we have numbers on these guys which we don't in real life. Imagine what Larry Johnson's numbers would have looked like over those years and how much the GM would have bitched about that.

I agree it's frustrating, I had a first round draft choice do that a couple seasons in. But I think the trick is realizing that the numbers aren't hard data, they're just a version of the consensus your staff has about a player, and often the staff is wrong or things change.

[redfox000]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

happens in real life. studs 1 year, mediocre the rest of thier careers

I second that. My only qualm is have you ever seen a guy get 16 sacks one year and cut the next year, salary issues not withstanding? A guy who goes from 60/60 down to 30/30 in FOF2007 may just have that happen to him.

[Autumn]

That's a good point. It would make sense if there was a lingering thing where the management continued to treat the player at their higher rating for a while. It happens with human GMs, for me at least, because i often don't trust the ratings and have had guys drop yet still perform well. I imagine the AI doesn't do the same but I guess I don't know.

[ddrrbb]

I had a 50s rated DE who developed into an awesome pass rusher by the end of his 2nd season (95 pass rush with good strength, 12% pass rush in the playoffs). The next season, he went down into the 20s with almost no skills in any category, and I had to cut him. I realize that it's just a volatility number (which was high) combined with a dice roll or something like that, but it was a painful hit nonetheless.

I think the lack of game feedback (or any interaction) is part of the problem. Instead of relying on Game Tracker, if my scouts/coaches gave some reasoning as to why certain players went up or down in current or potential, it would not be as upsetting when it happens negatively. If my scout says, "His old injuries have taken their toll in the offseason. He may never be the same player he once was." Or, "That rookie is much better than we thought", or "He had a great training camp", or for a creeper "That guy is looking better every time I see him, maybe you should give him some more playing time," etc.

I guess I could just pretend they are saying that....ahhh, much better.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

happens in real life. studs 1 year, mediocre the rest of thier careers

The situation described in the first post doesn't happen in real life. It's NEVER happened. When has someone rated highly come off a good season without injury and been dropped significantly in the scouts' eyes?

Edit--to be more clear, their masked rating should remain the same so the player should never know there was a drop in their true ratings.

[jdavidbakr]

We just had a DT go from from 27/67 to 7/17 in his first training camp in the AUFL. Don't think I've ever seen a drop like that -

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jdavidbakr

We just had a DT go from from 27/67 to 7/17 in his first training camp in the AUFL. Don't think I've ever seen a drop like that -

That's not masking. That's a random volatility-based hit, I'm fairly sure. Those happen at most once or twice per draft class, and (as best as I can tell) are meant to mirror the guys who play well in college, look great at the combines, but just completely suck from day one. Aundray Bruce, Ryan Leaf, etc.

[markusg77]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The situation described in the first post doesn't happen in real life. It's NEVER happened. When has someone rated highly come off a good season without injury and been dropped significantly in the scouts' eyes?

That's the guy, he went:
2015 (rookie): 34/55 pre-camp to 38/59 post-camp
2016: 44/61 pre-camp to 48/61 post-camp
2017: 59/63 pre-camp to 63/63 post-camp
2018: 68/68 pre-camp to 38/38 post-camp
2019: 39/39 pre-camp

I moved him to LDE after the drop.
I thought he developed perfectly, both from a rating point of view and in terms of on-field performance.