Transcript Of FOF2K4 Q&A With Jim Gindin (10/22) - Page 3

Dutch · 10-23-2003, 06:30 PM

So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

Easy Mac · 10-23-2003, 06:31 PM

theoretically... but if you can't trust the guys on the FOFC, who can you trust.

Solecismic · 10-23-2003, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dutch
So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

I can think of two ways to stop this.

1) Autosave after every simulated game, which means they'd have to backup and go through quite a few hoops to cheat. I don't think people really would go for that option.

2) Do a low-level format to the hard drive for every simulated game, so that if the participants have any questions, the FBI could break into the commissioner's home, take the hard drive, and examine it for those formats (just a joke, I'd never do this).

Only a server-based solution really can prevent cheating. If you don't trust the commish, don't join the league.

Draft Dodger · 10-23-2003, 06:46 PM

I'm just here to find the answer to this:

PrimeLord:Q: Can you explain any more about your change of direction earlier in the year?
JimG: It has to do with an opportunity I had a while back. I did a lot of design work, but the opportunity was no longer there when I finally responded. My fault for not jumping on it when I had the chance.

FloridaFringe · 10-23-2003, 06:47 PM

I second that above.

Solecismic · 10-23-2003, 06:56 PM

I'm going to evade this question. Sorry. I won't even drop a hint, except to say that, again, none of this has anything to do with .400, as has been speculated.

I received eight or nine serious offers back before I went with EA. If you produce a game, and it's well received, opportunities arise. I missed a good opportunity, that's all. My fault.

Even saying as much as I did months ago (which prompted the question last night) was probably too much.

Draft Dodger · 10-23-2003, 07:02 PM

I think people are less curious about WHO the talks were with, but WHAT type of game you were thinking about doing.

I understand if you don't want to answer - obviously, it's just something many of us have been curious about.

Easy Mac · 10-23-2003, 07:03 PM

plead the 2nd jim.

cody8200 · 10-23-2003, 07:12 PM

you mean the 5th??

dacman · 10-23-2003, 07:15 PM

Nah, the 2nd -- he'd answer but then he'd have to shoot you.

cody8200 · 10-23-2003, 07:18 PM

sabotai · 10-23-2003, 08:10 PM

Cheating can happen in many forms in every game (See HM), and it's basically a risk you have to take if you want to join an online league. It's part of the beast and there really is no way to stop it unless you set up a true server-client game. That would take too much time to do (no time left for anything else).

Ksyrup · 10-23-2003, 08:13 PM

Who is this HM character that you speak of?

rexallllsc · 10-23-2003, 08:26 PM

Although I think I'll buy TPF before FOF2004 (I'll prob. stick to FOF2), I think .400 could do a better job promoting the game, as they need to win their audience a bit more, whereas FOF has the built in client base. What I mean by that is more screenshots, an in-depth diary (as opposed to just explaining the features, run an actual season).

Does anyone know if the PbP has been modified in FOF 2004, a la cm3?

MizzouRah · 10-23-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Does anyone know if the PbP has been modified in FOF 2004, a la cm3?

Nope. I believe Jim said it's the same as FOF4.

Todd

rexallllsc · 10-23-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MizzouRah
Nope. I believe Jim said it's the same as FOF4.

Darn. I seriously think that would add a lot to the game.

MizzouRah · 10-23-2003, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rexallllsc
Darn. I seriously think that would add a lot to the game.

Yes it would, but I think we'll see it eventually.

Todd

revrew · 10-24-2003, 12:25 AM

I've loved FOF2k1. I looked for a game like it for years, ever since the invention of Pong and the drafting of John Elway. When I finally downloaded it, I was in love from day one.

I didn't buy FOF4 because there was quite a bit of buzz about how many bugs it had. I wanted to wait for a better version.

But here's what I've read from QS's diary and the Jim chat:
1. 2004 has all the added features of FOF4 - player interaction, agent personalities, etc.

2. The free agency and renegotiation processes have been made more realistic

3. The draft board has gone away from artificial number ratings toward a more IRL approach

4. Sorting and player profiles have been made easier/more accessible

5. Game planning and depth charting are easier than ever before

6. I can now join a league and get my a$$ handed to me by QuickSand and do the same to, say, Kodos. Or, I can take all my ZFL commishing experience and use it to commish a FOFC league.

Given all that, I'm really confused as to why there's all this bitching.

Jim, how much can I pay for the honor of playing this game? Does your religion allow us to nominate you for sainthood?

--signed, one really happy football simmer

McSweeny · 10-24-2003, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by revrew
I've loved FOF2k1. I looked for a game like it for years, ever since the invention of Pong and the drafting of John Elway. When I finally downloaded it, I was in love from day one.

I didn't buy FOF4 because there was quite a bit of buzz about how many bugs it had. I wanted to wait for a better version.

But here's what I've read from QS's diary and the Jim chat:
1. 2004 has all the added features of FOF4 - player interaction, agent personalities, etc.

2. The free agency and renegotiation processes have been made more realistic

3. The draft board has gone away from artificial number ratings toward a more IRL approach

4. Sorting and player profiles have been made easier/more accessible

5. Game planning and depth charting are easier than ever before

6. I can now join a league and get my a$$ handed to me by QuickSand and do the same to, say, Kodos. Or, I can take all my ZFL commishing experience and use it to commish a FOFC league.

Given all that, I'm really confused as to why there's all this bitching.

Jim, how much can I pay for the honor of playing this game? Does your religion allow us to nominate you for sainthood?

--signed, one really happy football simmer

i'm in the same boat. I loved FOF2 and 2k1 and didn't get 4. So i'm really really looking forward to this version

Easy Mac · 10-24-2003, 12:44 AM

opposite boat. I only own one NFL FOF, FOF4. I'll buy it, even though I'm not a multiplayer kind of guy, but I'll try it. If I don't like multiplayer, oh well.

3ric · 10-24-2003, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Solecismic
Given the amount of work that has clearly gone into the draft project, I'm going to do what I can to help out there.

If those draft files originally came from spreadsheets, the good news is that it won't be hard to convert those spreadsheets into ones compatible with the draft file generator.

If not, I'll try to find some time to write a converter in the days following the release.

That's great, Jim. But that won't be necessary - with my editor, it's possible to copy the entire content of a draft file to Excel just like that. Just select the whole sheet, Ctrl-C, switch to Excel, Ctrl-P. See the attached file, should take me about an hour to do all 30 of them.

Draugluin · 10-24-2003, 02:46 AM

I have purchased every incarnation of FOF since the first EA game but I think I may start waiting two years between releases given the lack of solo player enhancements since FOF2k1. I'll make an exception here for TCY2.

Why is it sooo much to ask to be able to start a career with a fictional player database that is not static upon recreation?! Every other text sim down the line has this feature. Hell, in this aspect the game has regressed from FOF2.. see the primer utility. That utility put to shame the 'one player universe' so-called feature.

Dutch · 10-24-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Solecismic
I can think of two ways to stop this.

1) Autosave after every simulated game, which means they'd have to backup and go through quite a few hoops to cheat. I don't think people really would go for that option.

2) Do a low-level format to the hard drive for every simulated game, so that if the participants have any questions, the FBI could break into the commissioner's home, take the hard drive, and examine it for those formats (just a joke, I'd never do this).

Only a server-based solution really can prevent cheating. If you don't trust the commish, don't join the league.

Okay, I was just checking. If multiplayer is successful beyond a scope that you or I see, there will inevitably be leagues where people don't know everybody else or even the commissioner and I was thinking more of that scenario.

QuikSand · 10-24-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dutch
So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

Has any multiplayer game out there using the commissioner-style system (as opposed to an online hosted game) found a way to get around this? I honestly don't know of any reasonable way to avoid this potential problem. It's certainly a possibility in every FPS and OOTP league I know of... just seems to be the nature of the beast.

Gallifrey · 10-24-2003, 11:19 AM

The talk about a commish cheating is a concern to anyone who is thinking of starting a league.

What happens when a commish puts all the pieces in place, has some good luck on injuries and makes a run deep into the playoffs? Maybe wins the whole thing?
Well, the talk will not be nice I am sure.

To me the fun is in the strugle to win, and that way winning is more fun. I can't understand why someone would cheat so their team would win sooner than later...why bother with a league of a bunch of humans? Doesn't register in my brain...but I find good things about winning only 3 or 4 games in a bad year. I love the draft even more!

This is a real head scratcher...Like Solecismic said "If you don't trust the commish don't join the league".

But what if the commish works for the FBI?

Ben E Lou · 10-24-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
Has any multiplayer game out there using the commissioner-style system (as opposed to an online hosted game) found a way to get around this? I honestly don't know of any reasonable way to avoid this potential problem. It's certainly a possibility in every FPS and OOTP league I know of... just seems to be the nature of the beast.

Yeah...and even online hosted games aren't immune from cheating. The 13-year-old-boy mentality of hackers is still alive and well.

Senator · 10-24-2003, 11:45 AM

I think you know who you can trust. I just cannot imagine anyone joining a league with someone like HornsManiac as the commish. Talk about putting the fox in the henhouse. I am just glad he more than lived up to my expectations. I was shouted down for months by people for calling him out.

Dutch · 10-24-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

I honestly don't know of any reasonable way to avoid this potential problem.

That's all I was looking for. Thanks, QS.

VPI97 · 10-24-2003, 01:27 PM

Those reasons are why I suggested before in this thread that the only way to avoid insinuations and allegations of cheating is to be in a league where the commissioner only performs commish duties and doesn't have a team in the league.

Leonidas · 10-24-2003, 03:19 PM

I love the FOF games, especially TCY, and I truly respect and admire what Jim has done and feel a significant amount of customer loyalty. However, as a solo player this looks more like an update to FOF4 than a new game. Same interface, same style of play, etc. Just a whole lot of enhancements and online play.

If I had the time to make a serious go of online play I wouldn't think twice about buying this game. But I can't, so I won't. If Jim were able to offer the enhancements as a cheaper upgrade and make the online version a different game (I know he probably can't afford to) then I would by the upgrade.

Different people have different needs for their gameplay. Personally, I have grown much fonder of FOF4 in recent weeks and am in the middle of a dynasty I have put a lot of work in and do not want to lose it. My one and only complaint to Jim is that he has yet to incorporate the ability to export earlier gamefiles into later games. I really think he does himself a disservice because of this.

Outside of the FOF forum I suspect there are a lot of people who would be much more willing to buy his new games if they could keep their old dynasties. I believe this is one of the key things that makes OOTP such a superior sim, and certainly one of the main reasons I will continue to buy Markus' product. Just my two cents of constructive criticism.

QuikSand · 10-24-2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leonidas
Just a whole lot of enhancements and online play.

I found that particular complaint a bit amusing.

sabotai · 10-24-2003, 03:41 PM

I think if a game can use old careers or not is a pretty good indication to how much has been added to it or changed.

EDIT to change the wording around. Even I had trouble reading it...

Castlerock · 10-24-2003, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leonidas
My one and only complaint to Jim is that he has yet to incorporate the ability to export earlier gamefiles into later games.

Be careful what you wish for. In software development, this is known as backwards compatibility. If a developer needs to maintain backwards compatibility, he is severely hand-cuffed when adding features (or even changing existing ones). Sure, it can usually be done... but not without great effort/cost. As a result, some really great ideas can and will get dropped from a release to maintain backwards compatibility.

Killebrew · 10-24-2003, 04:42 PM

Regarding online league cheating:
If you cannot trust others then an online league is not for you. Most successful online leagues have Commishes that have a solid track record and are well known in an online community. You can get to know people very well on the net, in some cases these might be people a majority of the league has known for many years. For my 60+ sim years of online league experience there has never been any question of a commish cheating. That being said (grr), it's still great advice choose your league and/or commish very carefully.

Killebrew · 10-24-2003, 04:43 PM

Dola -

Quote:

Originally posted by Castlerock
Be careful what you wish for. In software development, this is known as backwards compatibility. If a developer needs to maintain backwards compatibility, he is severely hand-cuffed when adding features (or even changing existing ones). Sure, it can usually be done... but not without great effort/cost. As a result, some really great ideas can and will get dropped from a release to maintain backwards compatibility.

yes, yes, that design decision definately handcuffs the developer. Once a product has reached a certain level of devel it is safer but there are any serious changes that have to be made then backwards compatibility often prevents those changes.

Leonidas · 10-24-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Castlerock
Be careful what you wish for. In software development, this is known as backwards compatibility. If a developer needs to maintain backwards compatibility, he is severely hand-cuffed when adding features (or even changing existing ones). Sure, it can usually be done... but not without great effort/cost. As a result, some really great ideas can and will get dropped from a release to maintain backwards compatibility.

So by this logic the next version of Windows should not be compatible with any other Microsoft product ever made before it. The next versions of Excel, Word, Power Point, etc don't need to worry about work done on previous versions because it severely handcuffs the developer.

Does anyone here who has played OOTP think that game has been handcuffed by its "backwards compatibility"?

From Jim's chat the other night I really do not see enough advances made in the game, that I was hoping for, to say enough great breakthroughs have been made to justify ignoring the issue of backwards compatibility. Any questions on major changes (not enhancements) to the game were usually answered with "No, I will look at that in the future."

I understand online gaming is a HUGE addition for many players. As I said, if I had the time to give an honest effort to an online league I'd buy this game in a heartbeat. No question it would be well worth it. But for doing my solo leagues I see nothing to entice me into buying the new game. I respect the fact many of you are excited for the game and I understand why. I wish I could join you, but my personal needs for a new game are not being met by what Jim is doing with this version. Being able to export dynasties I have spent what time I can devote to the game is a very important feature to me.

All that said, if Jim elects to do a TCY2 I will give that much more consideration. While I dearly loved TCY, it was a first attempt at a great concept that has enormous room for growth. If he does another version I am certain it will have grown enough to be worth my purchase, regardless of its abilities to export dynasties. So I certainly intend to stick with Solecismic products, just not this particular one.

And for some reason that still eludes me (

, I love everyone (well, most everyone) on the FOF forum, even when we disagree on a point. Hell, I like it all the more when that happens.

maximus · 10-24-2003, 09:49 PM

If there are a few things that really stand out to me about FOF2004 they are the draft and that career stats are stored for every player for as long as your universe goes on. To me, thats incredible.

Sweed · 10-25-2003, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Killebrew
Dola -

yes, yes, that design decision definately handcuffs the developer. Once a product has reached a certain level of devel it is safer but there are any serious changes that have to be made then backwards compatibility often prevents those changes.

I'm not a programer but does this neccesarily have to be true? Is there not a way to work around this even though it won't be perfect? I'm thinking that with all the stats being generated in a game like fof, ootp, or tpf that some kind of importer could be designed by the developer along the lines of Lahman if nothing else. Could this be done by exporting the stats to the "converter" where they would be changed to ratings that the new engine could use and then import the current contract and "new" ratings into the game along with the stat history? Kind of like importing a historical Lahman db season into ootp?
Or is this something that's impossible or just too hard to do to make it worth while?

maximus · 10-25-2003, 12:55 AM

Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers.

sabotai · 10-25-2003, 02:35 AM

"I'm not a programer but does this neccesarily have to be true?"

Yes.

For you example, something liek that might work, but...

"Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers."

TPF hasn't even come out with one version yet (so TPF hasn't DONE it yet, they're just saying they will...). By saying this, they are in effect, limiting what they will do in the next versions. Jim never planned to have backward compatibility for the first version, and so he never designed his files/data structures for this purpose.

It's a judgement call, really. TPF decided to make backwards compatibility a priority. While they'll have people who buy their game because of this, they'll be people who won't buy it because after the 2nd or 3rd version, they'll run out of things they'll be able to do with their core structures, and won't be able to expand more on the game (and basically only add fluff/gimmicky stuff like OOTP seems to be doing now, IMO)

FOF decided not to limit itself by doing that, and while Jim'll lose customers because people can't carry over dynasties, he'll gain customers because he can keep going with his core, expand on it at will, and add much more.

So it's a give and take situation.

A perfect example is the Almanac that got added to FOF2k4. There is simply no way this feature would work with imported FOF4 careers because the FOF4 files do not save the data needed for this feature. So if the files don't save it, then he obviously can't import the data. So you import an FOF4 career and now you have an almanac that can't work. So, the only options are to leave out the almanac (limiting feature list) or not make it backward compatible.

sabotai · 10-25-2003, 02:39 AM

dola,

"So by this logic the next version of Windows should not be compatible with any other Microsoft product ever made before it. The next versions of Excel, Word, Power Point, etc don't need to worry about work done on previous versions because it severely handcuffs the developer. "

He didn't even come CLOSE to saying this, Leonidas. Business applications are one thing, small computer games are another. I don't see any Fortune 500 companies that require FOF to be backwards compatible so their business can keep existing. Besides, how different is the latest version of Word from the one that came out in say, 1998. Not very (I use both...). But that's the thing, business application don't NEED to keep adding a ton of features with each release in order to sell them. Games do.

"Does anyone here who has played OOTP think that game has been handcuffed by its "backwards compatibility"? "

Yes.

The_herd · 10-25-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sabotai

"Does anyone here who has played OOTP think that game has been handcuffed by its "backwards compatibility"? "

Yes.

I for one second this, OOTP has been an excellent series in its own right, but the changes from one version to the next seem to be more like expansion packs than new games altogether.

I respect those who want each version of a game to be backwards compatible with the last, however, I would rather have large scale improvements to the overall game.

Sweed · 10-25-2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sabotai
"I'm not a programer but does this neccesarily have to be true?"

Yes.

For you example, something liek that might work, but...

"Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers."

TPF hasn't even come out with one version yet (so TPF hasn't DONE it yet, they're just saying they will...). By saying this, they are in effect, limiting what they will do in the next versions. Jim never planned to have backward compatibility for the first version, and so he never designed his files/data structures for this purpose.

It's a judgement call, really. TPF decided to make backwards compatibility a priority. While they'll have people who buy their game because of this, they'll be people who won't buy it because after the 2nd or 3rd version, they'll run out of things they'll be able to do with their core structures, and won't be able to expand more on the game (and basically only add fluff/gimmicky stuff like OOTP seems to be doing now, IMO)

FOF decided not to limit itself by doing that, and while Jim'll lose customers because people can't carry over dynasties, he'll gain customers because he can keep going with his core, expand on it at will, and add much more.

So it's a give and take situation.

A perfect example is the Almanac that got added to FOF2k4. There is simply no way this feature would work with imported FOF4 careers because the FOF4 files do not save the data needed for this feature. So if the files don't save it, then he obviously can't import the data. So you import an FOF4 career and now you have an almanac that can't work. So, the only options are to leave out the almanac (limiting feature list) or not make it backward compatible.

Since you mentioned ootp, Markus is currently making version 6 with an all new engine and ratings. He has said there will be importing but some things may not work the same from version to version. You may have some players that were very good in v5 become avg and some avg players become very good because of the new engine and ratings.

Some have a huge problem with this because they want there league to come in "perfectly" with no real changes. I'm not in this crowd, I understand things will be different and that's ok. I just want to bring in the players I've had in my world for about 7 seasons of playing out every game myself (a huge time investment).

My hope in my example above was to at least be able to use the old ratings and stats to make a roster that would work in the new version. Hopefully there career stats would transfer in on their new player card and their current contract but even if they didn't starting with a roster like this where you "knew" all your players would be nice.

With regard to almanacs, ootp5 added one this year. The only drawback is it won't compile seasons played before v5 which is understandable. Wouldn't this have been possible with fof?

As a non-programer I just hoped there could be a way to do this without a lot of work, perhaps there is not.

As you said about tpf, they have only said they will do this they haven't actually done it. I am currently looking at both games but will only be buying one. I wish I had the time to do both. This won't be the deal breaker for me as I'll get the one that "feels" like real football to me but it is a factor.

Thanks for your earlier response.

sabotai · 10-25-2003, 11:39 AM

"The only drawback is it won't compile seasons played before v5 which is understandable. Wouldn't this have been possible with fof?"

It could be possible...but I can't say for sure without actually seeing the code. But working on a tool to import would also take time away from working on other things. I'm sure there are a lot of things in FOF2k4 that make it incompatible with FOF4. The almanac just being one of them.

"As you said about tpf, they have only said they will do this they haven't actually done it. I am currently looking at both games but will only be buying one. I wish I had the time to do both. This won't be the deal breaker for me as I'll get the one that "feels" like real football to me but it is a factor."

Well, put it this way. The good news is I doubt either company will be coming out with a new pro game next year, so you could one this year, and the other next year.

Ramzavail · 10-26-2003, 11:51 PM

JimG: Q: Will multiplayer play be limited to setting up game plans and having one machine do the simulation, or will head to head play-calling be an option?
JimG: Head-to-head play-calling is not an option in the new game.

This disappointed me the most, but I have come to grips that creating a simulation with head to head capabilities is very difficult, therefore I should stop expecting it.

Although my question is - if theres play calling with multiplayer leagues - is there a way to play games via Netmeeting and set the game up to call plays from both sides of the ball (although I realize it might become a problem for the opponent to see what play (run or pass) he is calling) ?

Deattribution · 10-26-2003, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramzavail
JimG: Q: Will multiplayer play be limited to setting up game plans and having one machine do the simulation, or will head to head play-calling be an option?
JimG: Head-to-head play-calling is not an option in the new game.

This disappointed me the most, but I have come to grips that creating a simulation with head to head capabilities is very difficult, therefore I should stop expecting it.

Although my question is - if theres play calling with multiplayer leagues - is there a way to play games via Netmeeting and set the game up to call plays from both sides of the ball (although I realize it might become a problem for the opponent to see what play (run or pass) he is calling) ?

That's a good point, I don't do playcalling, but still for those who do....

Not sure about the Netmeeting feature you're talking about, but doesn't MSN have a feature to share a program via same computer? Never used either enough to know exactly how it works.

Ramzavail · 10-27-2003, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deattribution
That's a good point, I don't do playcalling, but still for those who do....

Not sure about the Netmeeting feature you're talking about, but doesn't MSN have a feature to share a program via same computer? Never used either enough to know exactly how it works.

Goto Start, Run then type "conf" to start Netmeeting, you get the other persons IP address and you can connect with him.

I use this to play in an APBA Baseball league online, we load it up, load up lineups etc and play/sim the game in front of our eyes and make pitching/hitter changes as we see necessary. Ton of fun, for the detailed oriented - want to manage everything type of GM.

In FOF, playcalling is possible, but is it possible to call both plays for both teams? If so - then I think it would be possible to have a FOF league playing via Netmeeting with playcalling for the games. Just one problem would be that both players will see what they are calling as they will be clicking on the plays in front of each others eyes, not sure if there would be a way around that.

Anyway, I would still be VERY inclined to join a league that would exploit something like that.

Celeval · 10-27-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dutch
So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

Technically, yes, although there are ways to help prevent that. That's one of the reasons I typically run my CFBL sims in a live chat room, and give results as I go - to help reassure people that I'm on the straight and narrow. Of course, since I can't win in the postseason, that probably helps, too.

Kevin

sabotai · 10-27-2003, 03:28 PM

"In FOF, playcalling is possible, but is it possible to call both plays for both teams?"

Not in FOF4, and since Jim didn't plan to add head-to-head play calling, I wouldn't expect any change to the play calling screen. I doubt it'll be possible.

But, people find ways around everything in many creative ways. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Ramzavail · 10-28-2003, 08:28 AM

I thought head to head play calling would go hand in hand with multiplayer.

For example, if you wanted to set up a multiplayer league with you and 2 friends and all the rest of the teams be controlled by the computer...All three of us would gather around one computer and play the games, offseason, etc.

If there is playcalling like there was in FOF 4, what if one of the league games is against your friend (human vs human) and not against the computer? Then playcalling is not an option? Then you must sim?

That doesn't make sense to me.

10-23-2003, 06:46 PM	#104
Draft Dodger Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Keene, NH	I'm just here to find the answer to this: PrimeLord:Q: Can you explain any more about your change of direction earlier in the year? JimG: It has to do with an opportunity I had a while back. I did a lot of design work, but the opportunity was no longer there when I finally responded. My fault for not jumping on it when I had the chance. __________________ Mile High Hockey

10-23-2003, 07:02 PM	#107
Draft Dodger Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Keene, NH	I think people are less curious about WHO the talks were with, but WHAT type of game you were thinking about doing. I understand if you don't want to answer - obviously, it's just something many of us have been curious about. __________________ Mile High Hockey

10-23-2003, 07:15 PM	#110
dacman College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: speak to the trout	Nah, the 2nd -- he'd answer but then he'd have to shoot you. __________________ No signatures allowed.

10-23-2003, 07:18 PM	#111
cody8200 High School Varsity Join Date: Nov 2000	lol

10-23-2003, 08:13 PM	#113
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Who is this HM character that you speak of? __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

10-23-2003, 06:30 PM	#101
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	So can the commissioner replay a week over and over again until he gets the results he wants before anyone is any wiser about it?

10-23-2003, 06:31 PM	#102
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	theoretically... but if you can't trust the guys on the FOFC, who can you trust.

10-23-2003, 06:47 PM	#105
FloridaFringe H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Fort Lauderdale Fla	I second that above.

10-23-2003, 06:56 PM	#106
Solecismic Solecismic Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Canton, OH	I'm going to evade this question. Sorry. I won't even drop a hint, except to say that, again, none of this has anything to do with .400, as has been speculated. I received eight or nine serious offers back before I went with EA. If you produce a game, and it's well received, opportunities arise. I missed a good opportunity, that's all. My fault. Even saying as much as I did months ago (which prompted the question last night) was probably too much.

10-23-2003, 07:03 PM	#108
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	plead the 2nd jim.

10-23-2003, 07:12 PM	#109
cody8200 High School Varsity Join Date: Nov 2000	you mean the 5th??

10-23-2003, 08:10 PM	#112
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	Cheating can happen in many forms in every game (See HM), and it's basically a risk you have to take if you want to join an online league. It's part of the beast and there really is no way to stop it unless you set up a true server-client game. That would take too much time to do (no time left for anything else).

10-23-2003, 08:26 PM	#114
rexallllsc Banned Join Date: May 2003	Although I think I'll buy TPF before FOF2004 (I'll prob. stick to FOF2), I think .400 could do a better job promoting the game, as they need to win their audience a bit more, whereas FOF has the built in client base. What I mean by that is more screenshots, an in-depth diary (as opposed to just explaining the features, run an actual season). Does anyone know if the PbP has been modified in FOF 2004, a la cm3?

10-24-2003, 12:25 AM	#118
revrew Team Chaplain Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Just outside Des Moines, IA	I've loved FOF2k1. I looked for a game like it for years, ever since the invention of Pong and the drafting of John Elway. When I finally downloaded it, I was in love from day one. I didn't buy FOF4 because there was quite a bit of buzz about how many bugs it had. I wanted to wait for a better version. But here's what I've read from QS's diary and the Jim chat: 1. 2004 has all the added features of FOF4 - player interaction, agent personalities, etc. 2. The free agency and renegotiation processes have been made more realistic 3. The draft board has gone away from artificial number ratings toward a more IRL approach 4. Sorting and player profiles have been made easier/more accessible 5. Game planning and depth charting are easier than ever before 6. I can now join a league and get my a$$ handed to me by QuickSand and do the same to, say, Kodos. Or, I can take all my ZFL commishing experience and use it to commish a FOFC league. Given all that, I'm really confused as to why there's all this bitching. Jim, how much can I pay for the honor of playing this game? Does your religion allow us to nominate you for sainthood? --signed, one really happy football simmer __________________ Winner of 6 FOFC Scribe Awards, including 3 Gold Scribes Founder of the ZFL, 2004 Golden Scribe Dynasty of the Year Now bringing The Des Moines Dragons back to life, and the joke's on YOU, NFL! I came to the Crossroad. I took it. And that has made all the difference.

10-24-2003, 12:44 AM	#120
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	opposite boat. I only own one NFL FOF, FOF4. I'll buy it, even though I'm not a multiplayer kind of guy, but I'll try it. If I don't like multiplayer, oh well.

10-24-2003, 02:46 AM	#122
Draugluin n00b Join Date: Dec 2001	I have purchased every incarnation of FOF since the first EA game but I think I may start waiting two years between releases given the lack of solo player enhancements since FOF2k1. I'll make an exception here for TCY2. Why is it sooo much to ask to be able to start a career with a fictional player database that is not static upon recreation?! Every other text sim down the line has this feature. Hell, in this aspect the game has regressed from FOF2.. see the primer utility. That utility put to shame the 'one player universe' so-called feature.

10-24-2003, 11:19 AM	#125
Gallifrey High School Varsity Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Seattle, Washington	The talk about a commish cheating is a concern to anyone who is thinking of starting a league. What happens when a commish puts all the pieces in place, has some good luck on injuries and makes a run deep into the playoffs? Maybe wins the whole thing? Well, the talk will not be nice I am sure. To me the fun is in the strugle to win, and that way winning is more fun. I can't understand why someone would cheat so their team would win sooner than later...why bother with a league of a bunch of humans? Doesn't register in my brain...but I find good things about winning only 3 or 4 games in a bad year. I love the draft even more! This is a real head scratcher...Like Solecismic said "If you don't trust the commish don't join the league". But what if the commish works for the FBI?

10-24-2003, 11:45 AM	#127
Senator FOFC's Elected Representative Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The stars at night; are big and bright	I think you know who you can trust. I just cannot imagine anyone joining a league with someone like HornsManiac as the commish. Talk about putting the fox in the henhouse. I am just glad he more than lived up to my expectations. I was shouted down for months by people for calling him out. __________________ "i have seen chris simms play 4-5 times in the pros and he's very clearly got it. he won't make a pro bowl this year, but it'll come. if you don't like me saying that, so be it, but its true. we'll just have to wait until then" imettrentgreen "looking at only ten games, and oddly using a median only, leaves me unmoved generally" - Quiksand

10-24-2003, 01:27 PM	#129
VPI97 Hokie, Hokie, Hokie, Hi Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Kennesaw, GA	Those reasons are why I suggested before in this thread that the only way to avoid insinuations and allegations of cheating is to be in a league where the commissioner only performs commish duties and doesn't have a team in the league. __________________ CT & Jivin - "Surprisingly Entertaining"

10-24-2003, 03:19 PM	#130
Leonidas College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Anglia	I love the FOF games, especially TCY, and I truly respect and admire what Jim has done and feel a significant amount of customer loyalty. However, as a solo player this looks more like an update to FOF4 than a new game. Same interface, same style of play, etc. Just a whole lot of enhancements and online play. If I had the time to make a serious go of online play I wouldn't think twice about buying this game. But I can't, so I won't. If Jim were able to offer the enhancements as a cheaper upgrade and make the online version a different game (I know he probably can't afford to) then I would by the upgrade. Different people have different needs for their gameplay. Personally, I have grown much fonder of FOF4 in recent weeks and am in the middle of a dynasty I have put a lot of work in and do not want to lose it. My one and only complaint to Jim is that he has yet to incorporate the ability to export earlier gamefiles into later games. I really think he does himself a disservice because of this. Outside of the FOF forum I suspect there are a lot of people who would be much more willing to buy his new games if they could keep their old dynasties. I believe this is one of the key things that makes OOTP such a superior sim, and certainly one of the main reasons I will continue to buy Markus' product. Just my two cents of constructive criticism. __________________ Molon labe

10-24-2003, 03:41 PM	#132
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	I think if a game can use old careers or not is a pretty good indication to how much has been added to it or changed. EDIT to change the wording around. Even I had trouble reading it... Last edited by sabotai : 10-24-2003 at 03:42 PM.

10-24-2003, 04:42 PM	#134
Killebrew H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Feb 2003	Regarding online league cheating: If you cannot trust others then an online league is not for you. Most successful online leagues have Commishes that have a solid track record and are well known in an online community. You can get to know people very well on the net, in some cases these might be people a majority of the league has known for many years. For my 60+ sim years of online league experience there has never been any question of a commish cheating. That being said (grr), it's still great advice choose your league and/or commish very carefully.

10-24-2003, 09:49 PM	#137
maximus Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Where the system is screwed	If there are a few things that really stand out to me about FOF2004 they are the draft and that career stats are stored for every player for as long as your universe goes on. To me, thats incredible.

10-25-2003, 12:55 AM	#139
maximus Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Where the system is screwed	Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers.

10-25-2003, 02:35 AM	#140
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"I'm not a programer but does this neccesarily have to be true?" Yes. For you example, something liek that might work, but... "Not to pry in with TPF but I don't understand how TPF can do this and Jim won't. This is a huge feature to alot of sim gamers." TPF hasn't even come out with one version yet (so TPF hasn't DONE it yet, they're just saying they will...). By saying this, they are in effect, limiting what they will do in the next versions. Jim never planned to have backward compatibility for the first version, and so he never designed his files/data structures for this purpose. It's a judgement call, really. TPF decided to make backwards compatibility a priority. While they'll have people who buy their game because of this, they'll be people who won't buy it because after the 2nd or 3rd version, they'll run out of things they'll be able to do with their core structures, and won't be able to expand more on the game (and basically only add fluff/gimmicky stuff like OOTP seems to be doing now, IMO) FOF decided not to limit itself by doing that, and while Jim'll lose customers because people can't carry over dynasties, he'll gain customers because he can keep going with his core, expand on it at will, and add much more. So it's a give and take situation. A perfect example is the Almanac that got added to FOF2k4. There is simply no way this feature would work with imported FOF4 careers because the FOF4 files do not save the data needed for this feature. So if the files don't save it, then he obviously can't import the data. So you import an FOF4 career and now you have an almanac that can't work. So, the only options are to leave out the almanac (limiting feature list) or not make it backward compatible.

10-25-2003, 02:39 AM	#141
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	dola, "So by this logic the next version of Windows should not be compatible with any other Microsoft product ever made before it. The next versions of Excel, Word, Power Point, etc don't need to worry about work done on previous versions because it severely handcuffs the developer. " He didn't even come CLOSE to saying this, Leonidas. Business applications are one thing, small computer games are another. I don't see any Fortune 500 companies that require FOF to be backwards compatible so their business can keep existing. Besides, how different is the latest version of Word from the one that came out in say, 1998. Not very (I use both...). But that's the thing, business application don't NEED to keep adding a ton of features with each release in order to sell them. Games do. "Does anyone here who has played OOTP think that game has been handcuffed by its "backwards compatibility"? " Yes. Last edited by sabotai : 10-25-2003 at 02:41 AM.

10-25-2003, 11:39 AM	#144
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"The only drawback is it won't compile seasons played before v5 which is understandable. Wouldn't this have been possible with fof?" It could be possible...but I can't say for sure without actually seeing the code. But working on a tool to import would also take time away from working on other things. I'm sure there are a lot of things in FOF2k4 that make it incompatible with FOF4. The almanac just being one of them. "As you said about tpf, they have only said they will do this they haven't actually done it. I am currently looking at both games but will only be buying one. I wish I had the time to do both. This won't be the deal breaker for me as I'll get the one that "feels" like real football to me but it is a factor." Well, put it this way. The good news is I doubt either company will be coming out with a new pro game next year, so you could one this year, and the other next year.

10-26-2003, 11:51 PM	#145
Ramzavail College Starter Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Strong Island, NY	Re: Transcript Of FOF2K4 Q&A With Jim Gindin (10/22) JimG: Q: Will multiplayer play be limited to setting up game plans and having one machine do the simulation, or will head to head play-calling be an option? JimG: Head-to-head play-calling is not an option in the new game. This disappointed me the most, but I have come to grips that creating a simulation with head to head capabilities is very difficult, therefore I should stop expecting it. Although my question is - if theres play calling with multiplayer leagues - is there a way to play games via Netmeeting and set the game up to call plays from both sides of the ball (although I realize it might become a problem for the opponent to see what play (run or pass) he is calling) ?

10-27-2003, 03:28 PM	#149
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"In FOF, playcalling is possible, but is it possible to call both plays for both teams?" Not in FOF4, and since Jim didn't plan to add head-to-head play calling, I wouldn't expect any change to the play calling screen. I doubt it'll be possible. But, people find ways around everything in many creative ways. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

10-28-2003, 08:28 AM	#150
Ramzavail College Starter Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Strong Island, NY	I thought head to head play calling would go hand in hand with multiplayer. For example, if you wanted to set up a multiplayer league with you and 2 friends and all the rest of the teams be controlled by the computer...All three of us would gather around one computer and play the games, offseason, etc. If there is playcalling like there was in FOF 4, what if one of the league games is against your friend (human vs human) and not against the computer? Then playcalling is not an option? Then you must sim? That doesn't make sense to me.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)