Multiplayer: Front Office Football, or football?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

Not in my experience. But heck, what do I know? My FOF teams have sucky defenses.

In the end, it's probably one of those 'accepted exploits'.

[MIJB#19]

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.

That's bullshit. Go back to the discussion and READ what he said, again and again until you DO understand. It was pretty clear, Jim said several times that there is no bug, just a little bit of a flaw in the design. That trade he offered was simply a way to get the whiny bitches to STFU and stop calling Jim a liar. You are throwing something into the discussion that doesn't belong here.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

That's bullshit. Go back to the discussion and READ what he said, again and again until you DO understand. It was pretty clear, Jim said several times that there is no bug, just a little bit of a flaw in the design. That trade he offered was simply a way to get the whiny bitches to STFU and stop calling Jim a liar. You are throwing something into the discussion that doesn't belong here.

Calm down, and then go run a test of the percentage of carries that a guy with 90 endurance gets, and compare it to a guy with 50 endurance.

[stevew]

omg fof multiplayer drama

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Calm down, and then go run a test of the percentage of carries that a guy with 90 endurance gets, and compare it to a guy with 50 endurance.

But that would destroy the immersion effect.

[Senator]

I have made toy models out of each player from my multiplayer team with the exception of Ron "Gravy" Shields. Immersion for me is just another word for insanity.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Calm down, and then go run a test of the percentage of carries that a guy with 90 endurance gets, and compare it to a guy with 50 endurance.

That doesn't prove anything, you should test players with endurace of 0, of 10, of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100. Only if the 0 endurance guys get the most carries and the rest goes down in a lineair line, you are on to something. There's never been shown any proof of that by tests, so don't tell me to go testing your accusations of how the game is broken.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But that would destroy the immersion effect.

About that, you still haven't responsed to my question how my writing about the IHOF made playing there less fun to you.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

There's never been shown any proof of that by tests, so don't tell me to go testing your accusations of how the game is broken.

Proof was never shown publicly of the FB carries bug, either, now was it?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Proof was never shown publicly of the FB carries bug, either, now was it?

FB carries bug?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

FB carries bug?

I found it and reported it to Jim 3ish months after the game was released. It was fixed in a patch a long time ago, but I find it impossible to believe I'm the only guy who noticed, in the tens of thousands of seasons that had been played at that point, that you could set your FB up to 100 and get him more carries, rather than the 40 it says in the game plan screen.

EDIT: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...39&postcount=5

(Number 14).

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

Whoa, whoa whoa. If I have a choice for equal money of getting a great all around DB, who can play all three coverages equally well, I will choose him over the guy that is only good at one coverage. With a choice between a guy with two good coverage ratings vs. one, I will take the guy with two everytime. Where I think value can be had is in a guy that is rated in the 80s or 90s of a specific coverage that also plays a second coverage well. You can get that guy for 1/2 the cost of the top DBs. If I am only going to play for the two coverages anyhow, why should I pay for the third?

My problem with Telluride is that I have not been able to find good DBs that are good at two coverages. That is why the pass D was so bad last year, we have been in transition there for the last 2-3 years. My other team (Hartford) has done extremely well with this, and it has allowed me to use the money in building up other parts of the team.

[flere-imsaho]

By the way, the poll choices are skewed. I voted #2 because I do sit my starters in preseason, but for me doing so doesn't ruin the "playing of football" aspect. Other than that, I'm mostly here to simulate football.

I bring this up because the options are suggesting that the moment you do anything unrealistic, at all, you're effectively "playing the game" to some degree. That's an assertion with which I disagree. Furthermore, I think the distinction between the two is one SkyDog does not accurately understand and has caused the current tension in the CFL.

[MIJB#19]

I stand corrected on the RB endurance issue. Thanks for explaining it, SD.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I found it and reported it to Jim 3ish months after the game was released. It was fixed in a patch a long time ago, but I find it impossible to believe I'm the only guy who noticed, in the tens of thousands of seasons that had been played at that point, that you could set your FB up to 100 and get him more carries, rather than the 40 it says in the game plan screen.

EDIT: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...39&postcount=5

(Number 14).

Bah. If you want to get your FB more carries, play him at RB. :-D

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Bah. If you want to get your FB more carries, play him at RB. :-D

No kidding.

As for flere's comment, I absolutely understand the difference. It's more than inactivating starters in the preseason, though, as has been pointed out. Not signing draftees. Playing one coverage exclusively. The list goes on. My personal preference would be that everyone is testing the game, figuring out how things work that are unclear, and putting that information to good use against me. I am satisfied, however, with just playing against "human AI," if you will. In SP, I can pretty much get every player I really want. That's not true in MP, and there are few/no ways to "game the system" when it comes to player acquisition (although the draft is definitely something that can be studied, tested, skills improved, and "football sense" isn't necessarily the bottom line there). All the other stuff (gameplans, developing players faster by leaving crappy mentors active, preseason HDGP's, etc.) may add up to an extra couple of wins or losses per year, when all is said and done. They won't make or break you, at least as far as we have been able to tell in nearly three years. It doesn't bother me if others go for the uber-realism stuff. It's the other side that is bothered. I do understand, which is why I started this thread. Expectations makea big difference.

Now, I'm curious how many of those who say they go for as realistic as possible would have ignored redliners had they still been around for multiplayer drafts.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Kodos

SkyDog -- I just find it strange that you are so gung-ho to have realism in many facets of the game, but then in others you have no interest in it at all. For instance, you are all in favor of realism when it comes to the injury setting (you always vote for raising them to "realistic levels" in IHOF), but when it comes to actual games being played in a way that no team in the history of football has ever played them (throwing deep every single play), that seems to be okay to you. And to do it for such a small reward--it just doesn't make sense. We already have one Chubby in the league. That is more than enough.

Sorry I missed this, Kodos. Here's the deal: I want the game's settings (including injuries) to be as realistic as possible. I want baseline stats to be as realistic as possible. I want the way things are presented to be as realistic as possible. I'll test, poke, prod and give feedback to developers to help make games as realistic as possible, in terms of what input we give as a gamer (what we have to do to be successful), and in terms of what output (stats, media, etc.) we gamers are given. I would PREFER that the game not be set up so that more plays=more development, no matter what kinds of plays they are.

BUT....

It IS set up that way, and it's still a game to get better at. Once it is time to get competitive, I'm not going to hold back anything. I guess it is that I accept the fact that I have to play with house rules against AI, but against humans, I'm willing to go for it.

Does that explain it?

[Kodos]

I guess I see it as if you want the game to be realistic, don't go looking for unrealistic stuff. I would never discover some of the things Chubby and you have come up with, because I don't go looking for holes in the AI. I just try to play a smart, straightforward game and incorporate bits of knowledge that others pass on. For instance, I would never discover on my own about many of the more basic useful things you guys have come across (like the whole zodiac thing). I pretty much go by the draft stuff that you originally posted way back when.

It's kinda like what I look for in Madden or NCAA football opponents. When I play, I'd like the teams to act like a real NFL team acts. I don't want to play against somebody who runs the same few plays all the time, or who picks a team with a fast QB and then just runs constantly with him. Or who uses known glitches in the game to tire out my offensive line. Or who finds a weakness in the AI and the exploits it in a game, no matter how silly or unrealistic the exploit is. Or who constantly runs no-huddle.

I joined IHOF because I figured I would get fellow players who wanted to do things in a straightforward way. That's why Chubby's antics are annoying to me.

It's why I play guys from FOFC online in Madden. It's with hope that they won't play like the rest of the idiots online, because I find that style to be irritating and not fun. I just want to play somebody who drops back normally, throws it to the open receiver, and doesn't feel the need to do goofy things in the hopes of winning.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I guess I see it as if you want the game to be realistic, don't go looking for unrealistic stuff. I would never discover some of the things Chubby and you have come up with, because I don't go looking for holes in the AI.

I don't really go looking for it, either. I go looking for how things work, and in the process, stuff comes up. Someone else commented about a QB getting more development for throwing a lot of passes, so I said, "Hmmmm..I wonder if that is the case. Is that really in the game?" There are lots of things in FOF that I wonder "is that being modeled?" Sometimes, I come up with a test to see if it is being modeled. And sometimes, that test reveals something I wasn't looking for at all. If I played Madden, I'd never wonder that. I can SEE it on the field, and it is physically modeled. I have no idea whether or not FOF uses a little internal grid that players move on, or if it is all percentages and numbers. For example, if my opponent's safeties come up and play tight in Madden, I can throw deep, and if they play deep, I can throw short or run. I can't see any of that in FOF, so in order to know what works, what doesn't, and what counters what, I have to test, or just guess. Sometimes, those tests end up revealing holes in the AI.

[WSUCougar]

Another aspect of this is league structure, specifically the overall intent/approach of the league's owners as a whole. As much as I love IHOF, there are times when I think to myself, "Why am I in a league with people who would do X, or even think of changing Y?" Part of that points directly to Ben's initial statement and question. Which game are you playing?

I think ideally, the league would declare itself in advance so that there are no illusions to the contrary. If I know going in that some owners will be "cut-throat" in their approach to the game system, I can live with that a lot more than when I equate things for the league with my own vision of simulation, immersion, etc.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I think ideally, the league would declare itself in advance so that there are no illusions to the contrary.

That's precisely what I was trying to say in the first post.

[Samdari]

I think everyone here needs to learn what AI means before participating in the discussion further. The manner in which players gain experience and obtain current skill, for example, is not AI. Ben having figured out how that works is not exploiting the AI. The AI is not involved. The only thing that really could be considered AI in multiplayer is in how players evaluate FA offers (since people with presumably real intelligence are making the other decisions). Everything else is just a game system. Not all game systems are the mythical AI.

Now that that is over with, on to the discussion.

I think one thing the "role players" are missing is that this game is not football. It is one man's attempt to simulate football. Jim would be the first to tell you that any such simulation requires trying to approximate complex interactions with simpler formulae. I would argue that despite the protestations to the contrary in the documentation, Jim also had to make some assumptions about football. So FOF does not really test players' knowledge of how NFL football works, but how well their perception of how the NFL works agrees with Jim's assumptions and simplifications. This is a great game and the best approximation of the NFL to date, but it still is a long way from accurately modeling the NFL.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Right, but since we don't know what Jim's assumptions are, but we do know his goal is to model the NFL, our only option is to assume Jim got it right and play it that way. Unless of course you are a game engine detective.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Right, but since we don't know what Jim's assumptions are, but we do know his goal is to model the NFL, our only option is to assume Jim got it right and play it that way. Unless of course you are a game engine detective.

Amen.

And no one take this the wrong way, but I am going there...

Why were so many people disappointed with Madden's sim or game stats? Why were so many people disappointed with Maximum Football. As a consumer, when you buy a game of a certain genre, you expect it to model certain things.

If I am playing a sub sim, I expect to have to lead the ship I am trying to torpedo, and expect to have do use some geometry to figure out along which track I am supposed to shoot.

If I am playing a pro football game, I expect penalties, rules, etc. to be modeled correctly. I expect certain types of coverage to be effective against certain types of passes, etc.

My main beef with much of the mysteries about FOF is not with the game engine itself, I can live with some issues there. But I do want to know why some things are the way they are, or vaguely how they work. The more information I am given, the better I can figure out why things are happening. I wish the play that was run was spelled out, so I can figure out that I was running into the teeth of the defense, or that I was trying a HB Dive out of a trips formation, etc.

I have no problem with someone out-coaching me. That is the game. I have problems when I am out-coached because someone knows that the when running a trips formation that the SE is considered the #2 WR regardless of how good he is, thus masking him from my top CB. Just because someone has enough free time on his hands to figure this out, does not excuse the fact that this should be public knowledge. People that exploit a bug like this bug the daylights out of me.

That said, if someone wants to throw the ball deep every play, I have no problems with that, because I can look at a coach's tendencies and account for that.

[Icy]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My main beef with much of the mysteries about FOF is not with the game engine itself, I can live with some issues there. But I do want to know why some things are the way they are, or vaguely how they work. The more information I am given, the better I can figure out why things are happening. I wish the play that was run was spelled out, so I can figure out that I was running into the teeth of the defense, or that I was trying a HB Dive out of a trips formation, etc.

I have no problem with someone out-coaching me. That is the game. I have problems when I am out-coached because someone knows that the when running a trips formation that the SE is considered the #2 WR regardless of how good he is, thus masking him from my top CB. Just because someone has enough free time on his hands to figure this out, does not excuse the fact that this should be public knowledge. People that exploit a bug like this bug the daylights out of me.

Can't agree more with you, it really frustrates me when some basic knowledge is not made public. Look at FM, you for sure can't know exactly how to win, but you know exactly what means each rating and how each rating affects each thing during the game, not the exact amount, but at least if it's used by the engine on a given situation or not. Look at the M.Vaughan guide for FM, without telling you that 2A-3C+4B=Goal, he tells you what to look for on each player attributes for a given position or situation.

The coverages "mistery" really bugs me, and even more when we just dumbed it down to just hire guys good at one coverage and run it most of the times, that is what kills the game immersion, not to know the basics about how coverages work in the game. At least for me it's really hard to judgue CB's as i don't know what means the coverage ratings and we lack basic info like how good is the CB tackling or how fast he is or how is his acceleration, etc. I guess for example that man-2-man coverage is a mix of speed, tackling and how good is the CB playing that kind of defense, but it's just a guess, i need or a better explanation of what means each coverage rating or at least more simple info like speed or tackling habillity, etc.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

our only option is to assume Jim got it right and play it that way

I think Jim is a great programmer. I love his games. However, he is not perfect; therefore I cannot just assume he got it right. Plus, there are some things that a football fan can't know without either poring over game film, or testing the game. For example even if I know for 100% certain that Jim nailed every aspect of football, I'm not sure what's worse against the run when a team is in the 4-WR set? 4-deep zone, or a blitz with bump and run coverage? I could argue it either way, but to know for sure, I'd have to pore over hours and hours of game film (which I don't have access to), or test the game to find out. If I'm playing a team with 4 solid wide receivers and a good running back, I'd sure like to know.

I have to agree with Warhammer to a degree, although I disagree with his characterization of some things in FOF as "bugs," when they are clearly design/development decisions. I'd take it a step farther: the lack of documentation of some things encourages "game engine detectives," as I've been derisively called now. That derision is a new thing, something that has changed tremedously from the old days of FOFC. I'd go so far as to say that Jim's way of not documenting some things actually made this community more fun and helped cause it to grow to what it is. People tested and analyzed and posted and we tweaked tests and shared information and posted game plans galore and no one complained one iota. Heck, in many of my dynasties I used to post my offensive game plan in full detail for each season. You wanted to know something more about FOF? Go figure it out, or just ask at FOFC, and *someone* would devise a test, post the results, and we'd all analyze and come up with conclusions. It was a lot of fun for everyone, I would dare to say. So, what changed?

What changed, I think, is obvious: multiplayer changed everything. With multiplayer, the public information pool has dried up tremendously. I learned this the hard way when I posted some of my findings on the combine and volatility. It was either the first or second major strategy-type post after FOF2K4's release. (The other one I'm thinking of was Quik's great study on what birthdates create conflict and affinities. I'm not sure which post was first.) I was hoping that others would respond in kind with detailed stuff from their tests. It didn't happen for a LONG time, and I was left to wonder if some people in my league now knew what I already knew, PLUS whatever information THEY knew and weren't sharing. As I've watched this thread develop, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that because of the introduction of multiplayer, some things that have been kept in secret should become more known.

[Icy]

Skydog, good thoughts about how things changed with MP and how the lack of information that could have been fun in the past for game detectives is now a big cause of frustration as the information is kept in secret for the community while it ws shared before. Of course everybody could run those tests, but while it's fun for some guys, it's so boring for others, and not only that, some test are impossible to do as there are lots of different variables in the game.

As you said, in the crap madden, at least we can see if the WR beat our CB usign his speed or if the CB didn't cover him well, in FOF we can't know it with the info we get from the pbp so we need more info from the developer about how some things work.