Multiplayer: Front Office Football, or football?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I think that philosophically they like to think they're not, but practically, they are "playing against the game" more than they realize. They may not run multiple tests to try to determine exactly how switching from 3-deep to 4-deep impacts things, but they do little things. I'll have to think longer to say exactly what those things are.

If you knew how much I rely on the "recommend" button you would be frightened .

Either way, I'm looking forward to your response as I really do enjoy this discussion as-is where people are actually listening to each other .

[cuervo72]

Oh, I'll certainly agree to the "playing against the game" aspect. Which is why I really know little about what goes on outside of my team (I couldn't care less about the 80,000 trades the wacky Euros are making). The only thing to pay attention to is how well you're playing against the game as opposed to others, which is measured in the standings. Yes, I guess there is direct opposition if you play gameplanning mind games. But outside of that, the main competition is in FA (which I still think has been relatively minor) and the draft (which is why I think Jim has been giving us drafting tips, to give him more of a challenge).

[cuervo72]

FWIW, I'll contrast what I said above to OOTP/FOBL. I feel like at least in the version we're in (v5), we pretty much know what players will do, and many of our settings are off (individual pitcher hooks, individual steal settings, etc). So there's not really much to do to try to beat the game. The focus becomes more of a player acquisition issue, where the bulk of the strategy is in FA (again, our own brand of it), and trading players/cash/picks. Many owners have opined that it's not really about baseball, but more about playing our financial system with some fake baseball going on in the background.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I think that philosophically they like to think they're not, but practically, they are "playing against the game" more than they realize. They may not run multiple tests to try to determine exactly how switching from 3-deep to 4-deep impacts things, but they do little things. I'll have to think longer to say exactly what those things are.

I think that is what a lot of people that take your viewpoint would say. To you, the game is I run X play, he runs Y defense, we look at the chart and if the random roll is between Z(1) and Z(2), it benefits me. If it is between Z(3) and Z(4) it is a bad play. So I should run more of these type of plays, etc.

Where I have the issue with this is that the information is not public knowledge. If we knew that blitzing the SLB in a 3-4 on a likely passing down would result in a sack 75% of the time if his PR Tech was 80+ and his PR Str was 80+, the offense would know to try for shorter passes, or use a formation that was more of a conservative formation. In a RL situation, we'd see you doing this and would combat that. The problem with the system here, is that we don't know how to combat that.

There are some things we know about the game. Better coaches, better players, and better cohesion will translate to better results over the long haul. We know that a game plan that is well suited to your players will result in better results over the long haul (I.E. that 75 rated CB that is only rated a 35 in BnR coverage shouldn't be used in a BnR scheme).

What we don't know for sure is what type of passing attack is well suited to attack a BnR, Zone, M2M style coverage. We don't know whether a DB rated a 45 in BnR is better in coverage than the WLB rated 85 in BnR. Which combination gives the better result for the defense?

The players that try to crack the system (minsal bug, the Teeters bug, etc.) are doing things that wouldn't fly in the NFL because of the way the system is set up. People would be able to react accordingly and stop these things from happening. In that respect, yes, we are playing against the computer more than people would care to admit. However, we are both playing against the same set of rules against the same tables so we are still playing against a human opponent. All that the computer is doing is calculating the variables and applying those to the result tables. It is no different than playing an old fashioned board game like Third Reich, Empires in Arms, Civilization, etc.

The problem is, once a game, contract, etc. is initiated, the other players have a relatively slow reaction time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Where I have the issue with this is that the information is not public knowledge.

But everyone has the same opportunity to figure those things out (as best they can). If somebody figures out one of those variables, it could also have been figured out by any other player (subject to their cognitive abilities).
It's not as though a strategic exploit, such as the blitzing SLB example you gave, would be uncovered through some process available only to one person in a league, presumably they haven't broken into Jim's house & stolen his programming notes or anything.

The problem with the system here, is that we don't know how to combat that.

That sounds more akin to a coach not being smart enough to figure out how to stop Play X (which does happen IRL).

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, I'll certainly agree to the "playing against the game" aspect. Which is why I really know little about what goes on outside of my team (I couldn't care less about the 80,000 trades the wacky Euros are making). The only thing to pay attention to is how well you're playing against the game as opposed to others, which is measured in the standings. Yes, I guess there is direct opposition if you play gameplanning mind games. But outside of that, the main competition is in FA (which I still think has been relatively minor) and the draft (which is why I think Jim has been giving us drafting tips, to give him more of a challenge).

I think the problem with the draft is just how random it is. I have found that a player that has a low stat, but good combine scores in the area that falls will probably boom (Frohbieter for example). Tied to this, a guy that has great bars backed up by great combine scores is less likely to bust. But, you can still have those guys that defy logic like Duane Gibbons who was a random bust. You also have those random booms that defy logic. Then, you have guys whose ratings are exactly what they were supposed to be, or declines slightly.

My drafts tend to have a player who has a moderate boom every few years, but most players decline a point or two in potential the first year and then remain stable, or even have a 4-5 year boom. The Grizzlies in the Imperial FL have had a very good draft record, with all our QBs but one that we have drafted have boomed, or steadily increased their ratings, and two LBs that have boomed after a few years in the league. We have had the most problems at safety where most players I have drafted there have busted. But this year I have two that have shown significant increases. Oddly enough, I have a number of solid CBs drafted there. I have been scratching my head about why I can draft CBs, but can't draft a S to save my life.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, I'll certainly agree to the "playing against the game" aspect. Which is why I really know little about what goes on outside of my team (I couldn't care less about the 80,000 trades the wacky Euros are making). The only thing to pay attention to is how well you're playing against the game as opposed to others, which is measured in the standings. Yes, I guess there is direct opposition if you play gameplanning mind games. But outside of that, the main competition is in FA (which I still think has been relatively minor) and the draft (which is why I think Jim has been giving us drafting tips, to give him more of a challenge).

You may see trading as wacky, to others, including me, trading is a key element in beating the rest of the league. I'm a control freak, want to avoid the randomness in FOF as much as I can. Trading is the one thing that gives me as much control as I can get, the game won't do anything random to stop me. From time to time I end up making 'unrealistic trades', still all in an attempt to get where I want to be: the league champion.

Sadly in the IHOF it got me no closer than a conference final. Interestingly enough my GEFL championship team was for 80% based on my inaugural draft strategy. In fact only my quarterback and top receiver were acquired through trades.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But everyone has the same opportunity to figure those things out (as best they can). If somebody figures out one of those variables, it could also have been figured out by any other player (subject to their cognitive abilities).
It's not as though a strategic exploit, such as the blitzing SLB example you gave, would be uncovered through some process available only to one person in a league, presumably they haven't broken into Jim's house & stolen his programming notes or anything.



That sounds more akin to a coach not being smart enough to figure out how to stop Play X (which does happen IRL).

I disagree. Some of us have a life to attend to. This isn't a game like Quake where by playing you can really hone your skills and you can consistently dominate lesser players head to head. If someone can beat me there, more power to them. Here, we should have more documentation than what we have.

How mentors work should be public knowledge. I should know ahead of time that a mentor isn't going to work while on the inactive list vs. being an active player with a spot on the depth chart. There was initial debate about this subject, but now we know how it works due to some people's research. We shouldn't have to research this.

That is part of where my beef is. We should have more documentation about what the settings actually do. If we did, much of this discussion would go away. As it is, I can have anecdotal evidence about something, but how the heck am I going to get conclusive evidence about what is happening, whether what I am seeing is a short term trend, or outlier in the data, etc., etc.

Some of us don't know how to set up the tests either. How do you hack the files to get a proper set up for your test? I can understand why someone who takes the time to do this feels that the information is proprietary, but should they have a leg up on us because they know how to do all this stuff? Should they be able to put together a better game plan because they know that getting downfield means the ability to generate YAC vs. actually running deep routes?

[Chubby]

"you play to win the game" - Herm Edwards.


I don't really see #2 as a viable option. Either your going to try to simulate the NFL or yor aren't. It's a copout IMO to say you are but then do the opposite in "certain situations".

When FOF is an exact replication of the NFL then sure, I'll play to mirror the NFL. Until then, I'm playing FOF against other people as those are the rules that govern the outcomes.

[Chubby]

and as far as Teeters go Warhammer, I simply tried to copy what albion was doing with Boggs. I even told DK when I traded for Teeters that I had big plans for him...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I disagree. Some of us have a life to attend to.

Then, from the standpoint of relating it to real life, they're putting in more hours than you and increase their chances of success because of it.

Here, we should have more documentation than what we have.

I wouldn't argue that point for a second.

... but should they have a leg up on us because they know how to do all this stuff?

Yes, absolutely. They've acquired more skill.

Again, I draw that line on the fact that, AFAIK, this isn't a case where Gindin has handed out insider info to a select few or anything (which has happened in some MMORPG's), this is information that can be gleaned by anyone willing to put forth the effort to do so, restricted largely by their ability to comprehend the info & formulate how to use it to their advantage.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Sky Dog - What if you found an "I Win" strategy, a strategy that allowed you to automatically win every game. Would you use it?
After going undefeated and winning the super bowl in every mp you play for 3 or 4 years in a row, how would you feel?

I'd report it to the developer immediately. That being said, I seriously doubt such a strategy exists for FOF.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How mentors work should be public knowledge. I should know ahead of time that a mentor isn't going to work while on the inactive list vs. being an active player with a spot on the depth chart. There was initial debate about this subject, but now we know how it works due to some people's research. We shouldn't have to research this.

That is part of where my beef is. We should have more documentation about what the settings actually do. If we did, much of this discussion would go away. As it is, I can have anecdotal evidence about something, but how the heck am I going to get conclusive evidence about what is happening, whether what I am seeing is a short term trend, or outlier in the data, etc., etc.

I absolutely agree that this is a big part of the problem with FOF and powergaming. The complexity of the game combined with the paucity of documentation of how the moving parts work seems almost intentionally designed to reward power gamers over realism gamers....

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Sky Dog - What if you found an "I Win" strategy, a strategy that allowed you to automatically win every game. Would you use it?
After going undefeated and winning the super bowl in every mp you play for 3 or 4 years in a row, how would you feel?

Heh, like bsak and the RWBL, apparently.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'd report it to the developer immediately. That being said, I seriously doubt such a strategy exists for FOF.

I know there is a line somewhere.
I am just wondering what you would consider "playing fof4" and what you would consider an exploite.

[Ben E Lou]

I thought of four more at lunch. These are all accepted practices in FOF multiplayer.

1. We now know that high-endurance backs are limited in the number of carries they can get, so we value guys with medium endurance above guys with high endurance, if all else is equal.
2. We offer FA contracts based on a guy's ratings, not on his on-field performance (guys that boom in FA-2 in particular).
3. We don't offer contracts to guys who bust right after the draft.
4. We place extra value on guys who have gained a small number of ratings points per year, even if they haven't played very much or very well, because we know that's a very strong indicator that he'll boom later on.

I agree with the guy who commented about FOF and "power" gaming. That's a good point. I understand not documenting the ins and outs of some things, but I think there needs to be basic documentation about, say, the strengths and weaknesses of each coverage scheme. Just a basic chart like this:

COVERAGE	DESCRIPTION	STRENGTHS	WEAKNESSES
M2M (Loose)
BnR
2-deep
3-deep
4-deep

would make a difference. As it stands now, it takes setting up a pretty time-consuming system of tests to figure out this information.

[Senator]

I just checked in from work, and have enjoyed this thread. I have found that Skydog and I agree on most things, but this is just one area that we have different views. He is correct, it is how you approach the game. I recall he did not have any interest in historical rosters. The names were not important to him, but for me, the names of the players is what made me feel connected to the game, and sparked all kinds of what if scenarios for my imagination.

In the multiplayer league, I want to play GM football against other guys who enjoy this game. I really don't want to know some of the the things that some guys uncover. The mystery of the game mechanics is something I personally want to keep secret from myself. I only do what I would try to do as a real life GM of an NFL team. This includes my trades, negotiations, and game play. An exploit has no appeal to me, because it does not improve my skills as a GM. I want to test myself, in as close a football atmosphere as possible, against guys who want to do the same thing. Breaking down the game code metrics to win has no appeal to me, either. Drafting a 3rd round RB out of SMU who goes on to rush for 15,000 yards, knowing my QB has a nickname called The Sheriff, or watching the excitement in Darkiller before a big game is why I play in the multi-player league.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If you knew how much I rely on the "recommend" button you would be excited .

Fixed. The more I know about your gameplan before we play, the better.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

1. We now know that high-endurance backs are limited in the number of carries they can get, so we value guys with medium endurance above guys with high endurance, if all else is equal.

That's news to me. And probably a crystal clear example of what we're talking about here.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yes, absolutely. They've acquired more skill.

Again, I draw that line on the fact that, AFAIK, this isn't a case where Gindin has handed out insider info to a select few or anything (which has happened in some MMORPG's), this is information that can be gleaned by anyone willing to put forth the effort to do so, restricted largely by their ability to comprehend the info & formulate how to use it to their advantage.

Game requirements: Windows XP or greater, 1.2 Mhz Pentium chip, inticate programming knowledge to extract pertinent data from program so you can figure it out.

I jest, but your access, excel, cracking skills should not determine how good you are at a game.

The game is supposed to be about how much you know about football. It is supposed to be about taking your roster's skill set, and setting up a quality game plan from that. If people do not understand what each of the settings do, is it really that big of a challenge to beat them?

I understand that there are bound to be some mysteries about how things work. All that I ask for is that they are made public knowledge to benefit the community as a whole. Unfortunately, not everyone shares my idealism.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

WH's remarks allows me once again to say to Jim: please increase documentation greatly. I don't even get why it isn't. I think your sales would probably increase, so there's your motivation. I'm not asking for a cheat guide just some real basic stuff. The classic example is the double coverage option in gameplanning.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

1. We now know that high-endurance backs are limited in the number of carries they can get, so we value guys with medium endurance above guys with high endurance, if all else is equal.

Top 5 rushing attempts last season in the IHOF:
Ray Ray Lyle (491): 52/54
Randy Reagor (442): 70/80
Kurt Basso (433): 50/52
Joey Babbage (365): 89/89
Ronnie Kemp (361): 94/94

I'm not convinced that high-endurance has less of a chance, yet.

Originally Posted by SkyDog

2. We offer FA contracts based on a guy's ratings, not on his on-field performance (guys that boom in FA-2 in particular).

Ratings = scouts. Are you saying that watching what a player does in practice, how he runs routes, etc... i.e. what his ratings represent... don't make any difference in how a player should be evaluated? Do players who sign after the draft (i.e. FA-2) in the real NFL not typically work out for teams?

Originally Posted by SkyDog

3. We don't offer contracts to guys who bust right after the draft.

Given. This is much more common than it should be (and I don't do it).

Originally Posted by SkyDog

4. We place extra value on guys who have gained a small number of ratings points per year, even if they haven't played very much or very well, because we know that's a very strong indicator that he'll boom later on.

Granted as well, but I put this alongside watching a guy continue to grow as a player since college, and the scout basically saying "Yeah, this guy keeps getting better than I thought". I don't see any reason to not take that into account, for realism.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Top 5 rushing attempts last season in the IHOF:
Ray Ray Lyle (491): 52/54
Randy Reagor (442): 70/80
Kurt Basso (433): 50/52
Joey Babbage (365): 89/89
Ronnie Kemp (361): 94/94

Worth also noting (because of the dropoff between 3 and 5) that Kemp has three 400+ carry seasons to his name, and this was a "down" season for him.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree with the guy who commented about FOF and "power" gaming. That's a good point. I understand not documenting the ins and outs of some things, but I think there needs to be basic documentation about, say, the strengths and weaknesses of each coverage scheme. Just a basic chart like this:



would make a difference. As it stands now, it takes setting up a pretty time-consuming system of tests to figure out this information.

If we had this, I would be thrilled!

This is the type of thing I am talking about though. I might see that I need this information and that there seems to be some correlation with what I see on the field, but how do you set up a test for this? How do you hack the player file, etc?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Worth also noting (because of the dropoff between 3 and 5) that Kemp has three 400+ carry seasons to his name, and this was a "down" season for him.

I seem to remember him being injured or something. I remember him not playing against me in one of my games with the Vipers this season.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This is starting to become one of the best FOF threads ever. A good solid friendly discussion on an important issue. I am hoping Jim sees this as an opportunity to tweak some things to eliminate a lot of the contentious issues here. Better documentation would be a start. Did I say that already?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I thought of four more at lunch. These are all accepted practices in FOF multiplayer.

1. We now know that high-endurance backs are limited in the number of carries they can get, so we value guys with medium endurance above guys with high endurance, if all else is equal.
2. We offer FA contracts based on a guy's ratings, not on his on-field performance (guys that boom in FA-2 in particular).
3. We don't offer contracts to guys who bust right after the draft.
4. We place extra value on guys who have gained a small number of ratings points per year, even if they haven't played very much or very well, because we know that's a very strong indicator that he'll boom later on.

We're going to again show how this is different viewpoints.

You say these are all accepted practices? I don't know that the are...

#1 - I think this only applies to a handful of IHOF owners. I don't think this is a big community accepted thing. I know that I for one do not evaluate this way. And, as Celeval mentioned, it may all be blown out of proportion quite a bit anyways.

#2 - My FA offers are based around both ratings and performance. Personally, I think some of the worst off-season moves in IHOF have been big FA offers to guys who have ratings but not performance (i.e. your former DE Terrel Rodgers) who then do the same. part of the reason that my team has several lowly ranked guys who have played very well (i.e. Harry Glass) is because I look at performance as much if not more than ratings. So, it may be what "most" people do but it isn't necessarily the smartest way to do it. Besides that, as Celeval mentions, it's not like NFL GM's are going 100% on stats. They have scouts telling them about the players. That is what we have here, I don't see how this is "unrealistic"

#3 - Some do, some don't. Again, if NFL scouts knew someone stunk before contract signing time, they wouldn't sign them either. This is fishing for somehow that we're not being "realistic" when we're just limited by the game and what it does. That being said, in IHOF I have advocated rules that would force people to sign draft busts as I do see the flaws in the realism here.

#4 - Some do, some don't. I again think you're talking about a handful of owners, mostly in the IHOF. I tend to not get worked up over these guys as you're talking about a small % that really pay off. But even so, it's not like you don't have these kinds of guys in the NFL. Again, you have guys that play on practice squads and show improvement, then show themselves a bit more as a 3rd and 2nd teamer, and despite not having the "physical skills" they play hard and do well, later on making it as a full starter. Your inability to "role play" this I think is limiting your ability to see how it compares to the NFL. Being that it is a text sim with no video or anything to see players, Jim has to model it a certain way. This seems to be one of those things that you can find parrallels to in the NFL it's just not modeled 100% the same because that's not possible.

So, in your examples, I just really don't agree with your premise. Your mentioning things that are modeled loosely on something in the NFL, even if not implemented in the best way possible.

What I am referring to are actions that are blatantly "not realistic" or "gaming the system". Whether it be artificially creating more plays in the preseason to make your green bars go more to red by completely unbalanced gameplans that have no intention of scoring positive results on the field of that game or game plans that exploit flaws in the way you can gameplan defensively to give your team an unrealistic advantage that could not be had in the NFL.

[cuervo72]

I'm not sure if asking your owner what the exact amount he will pay for a coach and then immediately throwing that amount at your target would be necessarily realistic, but that's probably the smart thing to do in MP.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm not sure if asking your owner what the exact amount he will pay for a coach and then immediately throwing that amount at your target would be necessarily realistic, but that's probably the smart thing to do in MP.

I must plead guilty here, but again I think that is a combination of many things but one of the main being that there is ZERO reason not to do this. I think we can all agree that this is one of the most, if not the most, limited part of the MP experience.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by wade moore

We're going to again show how this is different viewpoints.

You say these are all accepted practices? I don't know that the are...

#1 - I think this only applies to a handful of IHOF owners. I don't think this is a big community accepted thing. I know that I for one do not evaluate this way. And, as Celeval mentioned, it may all be blown out of proportion quite a bit anyways.

#2 - My FA offers are based around both ratings and performance. Personally, I think some of the worst off-season moves in IHOF have been big FA offers to guys who have ratings but not performance (i.e. your former DE Terrel Rodgers) who then do the same. part of the reason that my team has several lowly ranked guys who have played very well (i.e. Harry Glass) is because I look at performance as much if not more than ratings. So, it may be what "most" people do but it isn't necessarily the smartest way to do it. Besides that, as Celeval mentions, it's not like NFL GM's are going 100% on stats. They have scouts telling them about the players. That is what we have here, I don't see how this is "unrealistic"

Agreed. I look at on-field performance at least as much as I do ratings now. Stupid Terrell Rodgers!

#3 - Some do, some don't. Again, if NFL scouts knew someone stunk before contract signing time, they wouldn't sign them either. This is fishing for somehow that we're not being "realistic" when we're just limited by the game and what it does. That being said, in IHOF I have advocated rules that would force people to sign draft busts as I do see the flaws in the realism here.

I was the person who originally suggested mandatory draft-pick signings.

What I am referring to are actions that are blatantly "not realistic" or "gaming the system". Whether it be artificially creating more plays in the preseason to make your green bars go more to red by completely unbalanced gameplans that have no intention of scoring positive results on the field of that game or game plans that exploit flaws in the way you can gameplan defensively to give your team an unrealistic advantage that could not be had in the NFL.

Agreed.

Wade and I are peas in a pod.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Top 5 rushing attempts last season in the IHOF:
Ray Ray Lyle (491): 52/54
Randy Reagor (442): 70/80
Kurt Basso (433): 50/52
Joey Babbage (365): 89/89
Ronnie Kemp (361): 94/94

I'm not convinced that high-endurance has less of a chance, yet.

Jim told us plain as day that it does, by offering to trade Ray-Ray straight up for the other guy he didn't take in the draft (can't remember who it was) to "compensate" for him using that knowledge before all of us knew it.

Originally Posted by Jim, at IHOF

You guys don't know how close I've been to quitting the league over this.

If you can, go back into the league pre-draft for that season and look at the two players. I was set to draft Foreman, but I felt his hole recognition might be overrated and I knew the endurance rating implementation was uneven enough not to matter. Lyle looked like the classic superstar with a bad scout impression. I turned out to be right.

This kind of issue is why I initially turned Ben down when he asked me to be in the league. I can't help but see things when I look at the draft. If I succeed here (and I had a very good team initially, and have, for the most part, quickly rebuilt my team to replace my good, but aging players), what have I proven? Nothing. It's like being the Yankees with an infinite budget in baseball, except my currency is knowledge of the game. No one outside of New York likes the Yankees.

The first season, I paid almost zero attention to drafting and got a draft full of busty critters. My first-round pick that season didn't even make the team two years later. Then I decided that essentially tanking wasn't fair to the league, either, so since then I've been studying a lot more, and that led to wanting Lyle more than Foreman.

If I had known how much that decision would affect others' enjoyment of the league, I would have simply kept the pick I had and drafted Foreman third and hoped I was wrong.

I'll open an offer right now. If Quik wants to trade me Foreman straight up for Lyle, I'll do it, and hack the league file so that their bonuses are transferred without penalty. That offer will remain open as long as I'm in the league.

But also keep in mind that there will be future versions of the game down the road (I don't know when) and if Foreman's endurance is much higher, that will translate. I do not like the algorithm I initially used to handle running back carries and it will be replaced in future versions. Although I have no idea how or if leagues will move to new versions down the road.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The game is supposed to be about how much you know about football.

And that, I do believe, is ultimately the root of where you & I disagree on this.

The "game" you just described doesn't exist AFAIK. Or if it does, it's a trivia contest or something.

Not even IRL does "how much you know about football" translate directly to winning (since rosters aren't identically matched, nothing controls mistakes by players, etc).

Regardless, pretty good discussion IMO.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And that, I do believe, is ultimately the root of where you & I disagree on this.

The "game" you just described doesn't exist AFAIK. Or if it does, it's a trivia contest or something.

Not even IRL does "how much you know about football" translate directly to winning (since rosters aren't identically matched, nothing controls mistakes by players, etc).

Regardless, pretty good discussion IMO.

Agreed, good discussion.

Mistakes are supposed to be a part of the game, I just look at the game planning role as trying to put players in a situation where you can minimize their mistakes and maximize their skill set.

Talking about knowing the game, I mean strategy, not that "Too Tall" Jones wore #72 or something. Knowing how to put your roster together, etc.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen players wonder why they are giving up tons of yards passing because their secondary is good, etc. Then you look at their ratings and they don't match up. One player is a jack of all trades, master of none, another is good a BnR, the others are good at M2M, and he is running a zone scheme, etc.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

We now know that high-endurance backs are limited in the number of carries they can get, so we value guys with medium endurance above guys with high endurance, if all else is equal.

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Jim told us plain as day that it does, by offering to trade Ray-Ray straight up for the other guy he didn't take in the draft (can't remember who it was) to "compensate" for him using that knowledge before all of us knew it.

Reread the quote.

Originally Posted by Jim

If you can, go back into the league pre-draft for that season and look at the two players. I was set to draft Foreman, but I felt his hole recognition might be overrated and I knew the endurance rating implementation was uneven enough not to matter. Lyle looked like the classic superstar with a bad scout impression. I turned out to be right.

He doesn't say anything about mid-range endurance being better. Just "uneven enough not to matter"; i.e. the high endurance doesn't necessarily give enough of a boost to matter. Doesn't say anything about mid-level endurance better than the high-level endurance, that's just silly.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I can't tell you how many times I have seen players wonder why they are giving up tons of yards passing because their secondary is good, etc. Then you look at their ratings and they don't match up. One player is a jack of all trades, master of none, another is good a BnR, the others are good at M2M, and he is running a zone scheme, etc.

Shhhh...be quiet! They might hear you!

[Senator]

I am curious what the winning percentage is of those who "dig deep in the guts of the game" versus those who role play in multiplayer.

[WSUCougar]

Well, just look at Tucker...

*ducks*

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Senator

I am curious what the winning percentage is of those who "dig deep in the guts of the game" versus those who role play in multiplayer.

They aren't mutually exclusive. I do dig deep into the game, but stay realistic in my actions. I think I've got a pretty darn good feel for the way scouting works, and base some of my drafting on that. I've got my own ideas around gameplanning for a particular opponent that work well at times and bite me in the rear at times. I've got a pretty good idea of how players react to different styles of contract offers, sometimes based on what they're asking to begin with. I've dug pretty deep to figure some of this out. Doesn't mean I'm not roleplaying in MP at the same time - if I find something that's unrealistic, I'm not going to make use of it.

[Senator]

What a softball I just threw!

[WSUCougar]

Bottom line for me is that I play a game for enjoyment. Part of my enjoyment is realism, so I try not to approach FOF as a system to be manipulated. Does that put me at a competitive disadvantage? Perhaps. But if I had to tear into the algorithms and analyze the numbers any more than I do now, it would cease to be fun.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Bottom line for me is that I play a game for enjoyment. Part of my enjoyment is realism, so I try not to approach FOF as a system to be manipulated. Does that put me at a competitive disadvantage? Perhaps. But if I had to tear into the algorithms and analyze the numbers any more than I do now, it would cease to be fun.

Coug just explained how I feel in a MUCH shorter statement than I did.

[Buccaneer]

Two thoughts.

wade, you are never going to get a league of 32 owners on the same page. No matter what rules are in place, there will be some that are in it for the prestige or at least, just something to do without giving it much thought. There some of those in IHOF as well as all other leagues.

The second thought is what Senator alluded to. I believe that there is enough randomness and unpredictability in FOF (as in most other games) that no matter how much you want to beat the system in MP, it will not guarantee success. Even though Jim holds back when playing in IHOF, even he can be surprised at outcomes of certain games.

But let's say beating the game gets you 15% better than average results, what then? You still have to have the players that are better than most everyone else (ie. the stars of the position). The key to MP, from my observation, is how well you draft, you acquire FAs and you trade. How do you think NPL remains competitive year after year while Tucker or many other teams have not?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Top 5 rushing attempts last season in the IHOF:
Ray Ray Lyle (491): 52/54
Randy Reagor (442): 70/80
Kurt Basso (433): 50/52
Joey Babbage (365): 89/89
Ronnie Kemp (361): 94/94

I'm not convinced that high-endurance has less of a chance, yet.

This bulk numbers are meaningless to me unless I see the total overall % of the team's carries by the back.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If we had this, I would be thrilled!

This is the type of thing I am talking about though. I might see that I need this information and that there seems to be some correlation with what I see on the field, but how do you set up a test for this? How do you hack the player file, etc?

You don't have to hack the player file. That sort of thing would be considered cheating universally, I would think.

I've given a lot of thought to testing the coverage schemes. Coming up with all the test cases is pretty daunting. There are so many things to consider. What if changing up coverages doesn't matter? Does the offense become very familiar with that coverage if you use it all game long? How accurate are those scouted numbers for individual ratings? I've done some basic testing, basically taking the same team, setting it on all M2M for a season, running that same season 10 times, logging stats each time, then setting it on all 2-deep, running that same season 10 times, logging stats each time, etc. I've learned SOME things about coverages, but I'm pretty sure there's more there than I've figured out.

As for Tucker, my testing had been pretty limited, compared to what I've wanted it to be, but it has increased tremendously this summer, particularly in the last couple of months. I made the mistake of posting my findings on combine scores, volatility and the like to this board, thinking that others would post their test results on other things in return. It didn't happen very much at all for a very long time. Then, I made the mistake of never testing the preference draft, and I got CREAMED in the one in IHOF. I'd basically never done one of those, and made some assumptions of how it worked. It worked very differently from how I expected it to work, and was patched later on. I'm quite sure that the testing I had done on game plans helped me out for the first couple of seasons, but the bottom fell out when I had two random busts of very high draft picks that I traded for, and my QB situation never panned out like I thought it would in those early years. I think you'll see some better results this year, assuming that injuries don't kill me. The bottom line, though, is that you can't get blood out of a turnip in FOF, which is a good thing. My suspicion is that someone who knows it all about FOF might be able to get, say, 12 wins out of a 10-win team, and someone who really sucks might get 8 wins out of the same team.

[cuervo72]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not hiding results from any tests.

(nor did I ever test the preference draft, I just liked the idea of starting with a young team and seeing it grow)

Now, I figure yes, if I tinkered enough in SP I could find a lot more out (especially as Celeval points out on contracts, where I admittedly know nothing). Heck, if I paid more attention to IHOF and FOFL, there is probably much information to be gleaned. Maybe when I meet more adversity I will, but right now I just don't have enough of a will to figure this stuff out.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not hiding results from any tests.

(nor did I ever test the preference draft, I just liked the idea of starting with a young team and seeing it grow)

Now, I figure yes, if I tinkered enough in SP I could find a lot more out (especially as Celeval points out on contracts, where I admittedly know nothing). Heck, if I paid more attention to IHOF and FOFL, there is probably much information to be gleaned. Maybe when I meet more adversity I will, but right now I just don't have enough of a will to figure this stuff out.

You don't need to go anal, you've already figured it out.

IHOF Owner/GM, Frederick Red Menace, 2004-present; NAC Mid-Atlantic Champs '04, '07, '08, '09, '10, '11; NAC Champs '09, '10, '11;IHOF Champs '09, '11

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Now, I figure yes, if I tinkered enough in SP I could find a lot more out (especially as Celeval points out on contracts, where I admittedly know nothing).

Not that I know all that much either, but some... the fucked up thing is that the most egregious cheating that we've seen in MP leagues involves people specifically running contract offers $1k at a time to find the lowest point the player would take. Hell, if you spent that much time in a SP career doing it, you'd probably know enough about player preferences to guess pretty well in MP to begin with without cheating.

[stevew]

in this post
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...6&postcount=93

All i see is CT's quoted field, and do not see this part

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

This bulk numbers are meaningless to me unless I see the total overall % of the team's carries by the back.

until i click on the quote button. Several other of his posts seem to be that way too, and it's only for that user, either when i am logged in or off. like his setup is limited for him to only post a certain amount of lines or something.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Agreed, good discussion.

Mistakes are supposed to be a part of the game, I just look at the game planning role as trying to put players in a situation where you can minimize their mistakes and maximize their skill set.

Talking about knowing the game, I mean strategy, not that "Too Tall" Jones wore #72 or something. Knowing how to put your roster together, etc.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen players wonder why they are giving up tons of yards passing because their secondary is good, etc. Then you look at their ratings and they don't match up. One player is a jack of all trades, master of none, another is good a BnR, the others are good at M2M, and he is running a zone scheme, etc.

Only when you pay attention to a single bar. I believe cthomer alludes to looking at the whole (or at least to multiple indicators), which is why he wins. A CB that is good at one coverage but suck at all the other bars is still a CB that sucks.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Celeval

people specifically running contract offers $1k at a time to find the lowest point the player would take

These people apparently never watched the Clock Game.