FBCB2 discussion: Full version now available

[whomario]

i think conference prestige also plays a role if i remember correctly.

[MrBug708]

Uggh. Offered 3 guys as Oregon and ended up losing them to Sac St, Eastern Washington, and Portland St. Total fail

[HeavyReign]

Conference prestige does play a role.

[Sweed]

Been looking this over and have seen one odd thing. I brought over my current fbcb save into the demo. My record is 22-8(11-5) and the breakdown between home and away shows 16-1 at home and 43-19 on the road.

I see someone posted team logos. FWIW I copied my logos from FBCB to the demo and they all work fine.

[whomario]

have you imported a save game from the old version ? As far as i can tell that´s what causing this.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I see someone posted team logos. FWIW I copied my logos from FBCB to the demo and they all work fine.

Don't forget there are new teams.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Don't forget there are new teams.

Yeah, I did think of it but at least 300 + teams are still right

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Been looking this over and have seen one odd thing. I brought over my current fbcb save into the demo. My record is 22-8(11-5) and the breakdown between home and away shows 16-1 at home and 43-19 on the road.

I see someone posted team logos. FWIW I copied my logos from FBCB to the demo and they all work fine.

Originally Posted by whomario

have you imported a save game from the old version ? As far as i can tell that´s what causing this.

Yeah, I did you just missed it Reported it as I hadn't seen it and thought it might be something HR could fix before release. If not certainly no big deal.

[whomario]

oh man, sleep deprivation ftw

Yeah, would obviously be nice if it were fixed, just wanted to narrow it down for HR not seeing that you allready did

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by whomario

oh man, sleep deprivation ftw

Yeah, would obviously be nice if it were fixed, just wanted to narrow it down for HR not seeing that you allready did

Too much FM?

[HeavyReign]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Been looking this over and have seen one odd thing. I brought over my current fbcb save into the demo. My record is 22-8(11-5) and the breakdown between home and away shows 16-1 at home and 43-19 on the road.

The old version wasn't erasing the road record at the end of the year.

[whomario]

I need my fix of encouraging posts on how the new version is coming along, any chance for that HR ?

Easter weekend with 4 free days coming up, just saying

in all seriousnes though : Even the demo allready kicked ass, cant wait to see how it´s gonna look over multiple seasons (allways the fun in the first version) The bad thing is i can´t go back to the first with the interface changes now. Not one to put stock into things like that (hence why i played FBCB over TCB and DDSCB) but in this case the improvement just makes a ton of sense ...

Will the "draft results" screen in the history require FBB btw ?

@ sweed : Actually haven´t played much of FM lately, my pc time went to FBCB and also finally got the Draft Day Sport Pro Basketball beta to run (and found it pretty good allready).
But i guess now that i´ve been reminded on FM ...

On a semi-serious word : Any chance to get foreign recruits bumbed up in ability again and any chance at all for good recruits (4 and 5 star) deciding late in the season on occasion ?

I also have the feeling that there are a few too many "touch fouls" in games. The end result in terms of FTs is ok but it feels a bit extreme. I totally get (and support) that the steals and pressure/trap effectiveness need to be limited, but maybe more instances where the offense needs longer to set instead of the question of steal or foul ?

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I have a long flight tomorrow, here is hoping you take pity on me and release your new version tonight so i have something to do on the plane ride!

[HeavyReign]

Originally Posted by whomario

Will the "draft results" screen in the history require FBB btw ?

No

Originally Posted by whomario

On a semi-serious word : Any chance to get foreign recruits bumbed up in ability again and any chance at all for good recruits (4 and 5 star) deciding late in the season on occasion ?

Expect a way for the user to tweak this. It would require opening up the FBCB.ini file and changing a value most likely. Right now it is somewhere in between where it was in the demo and where it was in FBCB1. I this see as an area where its hard to please everybody and that is always the best time to put in a modifier.

Originally Posted by whomario

I also have the feeling that there are a few too many "touch fouls" in games. The end result in terms of FTs is ok but it feels a bit extreme. I totally get (and support) that the steals and pressure/trap effectiveness need to be limited, but maybe more instances where the offense needs longer to set instead of the question of steal or foul ?

Its hard to say without seeing actual data from real life. I've looked at the distribution of each type of foul in the game and it seemed reasonable. My perception could be off though due to watching mainly Pac 10 games. Pac 10 refs are notorious for calling games too tight.

I have a long flight tomorrow, here is hoping you take pity on me and release your new version tonight so i have something to do on the plane ride!

As of today I'm done adding stuff most likely. I need to go through the screens and see if I can find ways to break the game. There is one other hangup that makes me feel . Hopefully I can get that sorted out today.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Originally Posted by HeavyReign

No



Expect a way for the user to tweak this. It would require opening up the FBCB.ini file and changing a value most likely. Right now it is somewhere in between where it was in the demo and where it was in FBCB1. I this see as an area where its hard to please everybody and that is always the best time to put in a modifier.



Its hard to say without seeing actual data from real life. I've looked at the distribution of each type of foul in the game and it seemed reasonable. My perception could be off though due to watching mainly Pac 10 games. Pac 10 refs are notorious for calling games too tight.



As of today I'm done adding stuff most likely. I need to go through the screens and see if I can find ways to break the game. There is one other hangup that makes me feel . Hopefully I can get that sorted out today.

Thank you for all your hard work!

[Emmett13]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

Thank you for all your hard work!

"!

I'm ready to line your pockets.

[whomario]

modifier is allways fine enough

as for the fouls : You could very much be right and i´m admittedly more of a pro-basketball watcher than a college-ball watcher, the general plan here was to post my clueless perception and see what others think about it

Just looked up some numbers and if anything the number of fouls and FTs is too low on the top-end of the scale, so you are right about the numbers. I just think that there might be too many touch-fouls and not enough in the act of shooting.

There´s propably (way) too many technicals here. The season high for a team is 14 player-technicals, 15 for overall which includes coaches and "benches" (and some teams have had more technicals by their bench than player on the court, loyola 7 to 0 for the subs, just thought i´d pass that on )
I´m pretty sure i have had players that top that comfortably over the course of the season on their own

So more shooting fouls, propably the same amount of non-shooting fouls (or a tad less) and less technicals is my vote

Thanks for getting the game done, will be spreading the word about it for sure !

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by whomario

On a semi-serious word : Any chance to get foreign recruits bumbed up in ability again and any chance at all for good recruits (4 and 5 star) deciding late in the season on occasion ?

Just curious, why? It's frustrating to have a 1/3 of the top recruits coming from foreign countries, when it isn't anywhere near realistic. The really good foreign players play professionally overseas, they don't go to college.

Even after the adjustment I've had some great players come in from overseas, including a player of the year as a junior.

I am pro modifier whenever possible!

[Groundhog]

I think the argument is that, IRL, though most talented foreign players play professionally, the ones that ARE going to the NCAA are often good players and extremely underrated as recruits.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think the argument is that, IRL, though most talented foreign players play professionally, the ones that ARE going to the NCAA are often good players and extremely underrated as recruits.

Most end up being bench players or role players. They have a larger presence at smaller schools and a lot of the guys that end up going to BCS schools end up enrolling in HS in the US.

[HeavyReign]

Prep schools have become huge and that's where some of the difference in perception comes from I'd think. If you look at it from the standpoint of schools going and getting players that haven't really been to the US, then Balldog is right. When looking at the game I tend to think of all foreign players in the same group whether they came to the US a year or two early or not. Since the game doesn't model prep schools, I just leave everyone in their home country. There is a similar issue with JC players now. You don't see good players going to JC's in basketball. Players who are going to have an issue qualifying end up at prep schools as well.

[Mike Lowe]

How do you get a job? Why do all of the head coaches have a salary of $0?

[Emmett13]

Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

How do you get a job? Why do all of the head coaches have a salary of $0?

You have to create a coach, then there is that big list of schools and you click on one and then click the button that says 'Take Job'.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by HeavyReign

Prep schools have become huge and that's where some of the difference in perception comes from I'd think. If you look at it from the standpoint of schools going and getting players that haven't really been to the US, then Balldog is right. When looking at the game I tend to think of all foreign players in the same group whether they came to the US a year or two early or not. Since the game doesn't model prep schools, I just leave everyone in their home country. There is a similar issue with JC players now. You don't see good players going to JC's in basketball. Players who are going to have an issue qualifying end up at prep schools as well.

JC's as the substitute for Prep Schools I don't really have a problem with... if there's one aspect missing, it's AAU Teams and pipelines. Half of UMass recruits since Kellogg was hired as coach are from DC Assault. Apparently BABC's (the main Boston team) director doesn't like Kellogg (or UMass since he's a Nike coach and we're a Reebok school), so we never get players from them, but the Springfield Playaz coach is an old HS teammate of Kellogg's.

It would be a lot of work and thinking to get a system included that modeled the summer league scene (you could scout certain tournaments instead of individual players, maybe juniors were shown too). I'd also understand if you want to use the Jim Gindin "It's not entirely accurate, but it's how recruiting works in the TCY world" defense. Either way, now's definitely not the right time to try and overhaul a major aspect - just release the game - I've got 3 4* and 1 3* in a UMass recruiting class and need to see how they turn out.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by HeavyReign

Its hard to say without seeing actual data from real life. I've looked at the distribution of each type of foul in the game and it seemed reasonable. My perception could be off though due to watching mainly Pac 10 games. Pac 10 refs are notorious for calling games too tight.

Here is a stat based website you could use. 2010 Pomeroy Ratings

67.3 is the average amount of possessions in a game.
20.4% of possessions should end in a turnover
32.7% of all rebounds should be offensive
Teams should shoot FTs 37.7% in comparison to shot attempts
Teams shoot 34.2% on 3 point shots, 47.7% on 2 point shots, 68.9% on FTs

Fouls per game ranged from 24.9(Texas State) to 13.9(Siena) with a median in the low 18s.

It was hard to find stats on Technical fouls but I did look at some referee stats and it appears a technical foul is called about every 3.5-4 games with that number declining every year.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/referees/stats

If you have any questions about this website please let me know. I have studied it quite a bit.

[HeavyReign]

Thanks. I look at kempom all the time during the season. I just don't know if I've seen a site that lists what% of fouls are shooting fouls, charges, etc for college bball.

[Izulde]

I don't know if I've mentioned this or not, or if someone's mentioned it, or if it's too late to get it in...

But a small thing I'd like to see is when assistants get hired at a job, it'll say on their coaching card what specific assistant job they got hired for. Right now it just says assistant, so I don't know if the guy was a recruiter, scout, or coaching assistant.

Some guys it's easy to tell, but a lot of them, especially at the lowest levels, it's hard to say. I think it's also worth looking at, because IIRC, assistant stat increases are tied to the position they're hired for.

Apologies if it's been mentioned before and/or if it was responded to. But it's the one thing that's irked me most from an immersion standpoint.

Oh and I'll go download the demo now.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

It was hard to find stats on Technical fouls but I did look at some referee stats and it appears a technical foul is called about every 3.5-4 games with that number declining every year.
Page not found - StatSheet.com

.

technicals per team : NCAA Basketball Stats - Full College Basketball Team Stats - FOX Sports on MSN

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think the argument is that, IRL, though most talented foreign players play professionally, the ones that ARE going to the NCAA are often good players and extremely underrated as recruits.

Then let them be underrated. Patty Mills, as good as he was in college, was probably a 2* kid, not a 5 star kid

[whomario]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Then let them be underrated. Patty Mills, as good as he was in college, was probably a 2* kid, not a 5 star kid

but since FBCB really doesn´t generate 2 star players that turn out like 5 star players ... (the star rating is directly linked to the ratings in the game file)
Actually he was a no-star rating best as i can tell, no one bothered rating him.
Which is the case with a lot of players, all things FBCB doesn´t mirror. Like HR said, you have to simplify here and look at the results, not the perception.

In an ideal world we´d have a rating for "recruiting knowledge" for each area for the head coach and assistants that determines how likely it is to a) identify, b) scout and c) convince a recruit to come.
The reason why certain colleges recruit internationals successfully is because they have connections to the countries via assistant coaches f.e. (one of saint mary´s assistant played there for 7 years, one of Gonzaga´s assistants has played in germany and has contacts there)

And with the rule changes kicking into gear now regarding eligibility the number of really good european players going to college will only increase ( Luke Winn at the NCAA Tourney – SI.com » Posts New Rule Could Clear Way for Kanter « )
(Australia doesn´t have that issue with their sports institute)

from the current hoop summit world team 5 guys will go to college next year.

In any case, if it´s going to be optional everybody can have it their way anyhow

[Emmett13]

I do wish some of the foreign players came from Africa. I realize they mostly come to US colleges by way of American prep schools. But I'd like to see a handful of African (mainly big men) in the leagues.

There are always some Chinese players. How many 100% Chinese players have their been in college?

[muns]

Originally Posted by whomario

but since FBCB really doesn´t generate 2 star players that turn out like 5 star players ... (the star rating is directly linked to the ratings in the game file)
Actually he was a no-star rating best as i can tell, no one bothered rating him.
Which is the case with a lot of players, all things FBCB doesn´t mirror. Like HR said, you have to simplify here and look at the results, not the perception.

In an ideal world we´d have a rating for "recruiting knowledge" for each area for the head coach and assistants that determines how likely it is to a) identify, b) scout and c) convince a recruit to come.
The reason why certain colleges recruit internationals successfully is because they have connections to the countries via assistant coaches f.e. (one of saint mary´s assistant played there for 7 years, one of Gonzaga´s assistants has played in germany and has contacts there)

And with the rule changes kicking into gear now regarding eligibility the number of really good european players going to college will only increase ( Luke Winn at the NCAA Tourney – SI.com » Posts New Rule Could Clear Way for Kanter « )
(Australia doesn´t have that issue with their sports institute)

from the current hoop summit world team 5 guys will go to college next year.

In any case, if it´s going to be optional everybody can have it their way anyhow

Im going to jump in here and say I think this is one of the biggest changes from FBCB to FBCB2.

You can go after 1 star and 2 star recruits and have them end up being great players by the time they are juniors and seniors. That part of the game has been revamped. So you dont have to just target 3 star recruits anymore when your at a lower prestige school to get great results. You can find a lot of hidden gem/ under recruited players that can become stars if you go that route.

Its a blast now in my opinion taking a lower rated school and trying to stick with them to see how good you can get them without going crazy when you loose one recruiting battle over a 3 star kid.

[whomario]

that´s great to here, i was obviously judging by the first version. Although even that did a nice job at this, especially in comparison with TCB/DDSCB.
Loved that the average 4 star player obviously was better than the average 3 star player, but that a ton of 3 star players could have easily been 4 stars and vice-versa. And they had definite strengths and weaknesses.

While with TCB/DDSCB i never got the feeling of variety here. Either a guy was good at everything, average at everything or bad at everything ...

You sure didn´t find well rounded players, but you sure as hell could find great kids doing a couple things really well. Sure they came with flaws (like a 18/5 low post scorer or a 6/12 with 3 blocks guy, or a 20+ PPG scorer that turns the ball over a ton or a great Passer at PG that can´t shoot or defend) but it still gave you a shot at building a nice team.

My comment came more looking at 60-100 Prestige schools as i haven´t played as a low prestige team in over a year, continued my existing save game and didn´t have the urge to start new (which i´ll do with the new one though).

So what is it that really changed here ? More well rounded players ? Less critical flaws (the 25 PPG scorer with 5/100 for handles is kind of the worst case for me) ?

More potential ability ?

Or are they simply rated "wrong" ? (higher boom/bust factor)

I´m curious

[muns]

Originally Posted by whomario

that´s great to here, i was obviously judging by the first version. Although even that did a nice job at this, especially in comparison with TCB/DDSCB.
Loved that the average 4 star player obviously was better than the average 3 star player, but that a ton of 3 star players could have easily been 4 stars and vice-versa. And they had definite strengths and weaknesses.

While with TCB/DDSCB i never got the feeling of variety here. Either a guy was good at everything, average at everything or bad at everything ...

You sure didn´t find well rounded players, but you sure as hell could find great kids doing a couple things really well. Sure they came with flaws (like a 18/5 low post scorer or a 6/12 with 3 blocks guy, or a 20+ PPG scorer that turns the ball over a ton or a great Passer at PG that can´t shoot or defend) but it still gave you a shot at building a nice team.

My comment came more looking at 60-100 Prestige schools as i haven´t played as a low prestige team in over a year, continued my existing save game and didn´t have the urge to start new (which i´ll do with the new one though).

So what is it that really changed here ? More well rounded players ? Less critical flaws (the 25 PPG scorer with 5/100 for handles is kind of the worst case for me) ?

More potential ability ?

Or are they simply rated "wrong" ? (higher boom/bust factor)

I´m curious

Great questions.

IMHO I think there is more talent coming from the 1-2 star range, but like you have mentioned there are some flaws with them. Youll find that some are overall are just better but again you can always find flaws.

It took me a while to adjust to the new system as in the old version I just went after all 3 star guys and built from there. With FBCB2 I failed at that right from the get go, and my repeated attempts also continued to fail. It wasnt until that I started to go after the 2 star guys that I had success building up small programs.

Its tough to really answer all your questions with a straight answer because alot of it has to do with the strategy you employ. Do yo spend money on your scouting coach, or bump your head coaches ratings up in the scouting department or do you skimp on your coaches for recruiting money. Obviously the scouting ratings play a factor here on how you see the recruits (5 stars all the way down to the 1 stars).


When playing at a higher prestige school (unless you strike out big time on alll of your other targets) you really shouldnt have a need to dip down into the 1 star recruiting scene, but there will be 2 star kids that could play key roles as back ups when they get older. I wouldnt recommend recruiting all 2 star kids on a big time program, but 2-3 sprinked in here and there isnt the end of the world like it used to be in FBCB, if the guy first into your system.

[whomario]

Hey, i had a 2 star player once hit the game winning shot in the semi final and then score 28 in the national championship game. Could shoot like crazy. His defense was a total disaster but if memory serves the rest of my team was studly on defense and so i figured that that was fine.

Ever since then if i scout at least 3,4 2 star guys to fall back on later in the season

regarding ratings :

I´ve allways wondered what exactly is determining scouting and recruiting ? How much is the HC rating, how much the assistant(s) ?

[Emmett13]

Just saw a maxed out coach at the age of 24 coaching UCONN. Boy, talk about a shoe-in (shoo-in?) for all the coaching records.

Let me also say how refreshing it is to see all these low prestige teams using up their scholarships. That was definitely my one major hangup with the last game.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by muns

Im going to jump in here and say I think this is one of the biggest changes from FBCB to FBCB2.

You can go after 1 star and 2 star recruits and have them end up being great players by the time they are juniors and seniors. That part of the game has been revamped. So you dont have to just target 3 star recruits anymore when your at a lower prestige school to get great results. You can find a lot of hidden gem/ under recruited players that can become stars if you go that route.

Its a blast now in my opinion taking a lower rated school and trying to stick with them to see how good you can get them without going crazy when you loose one recruiting battle over a 3 star kid.

I've noticed that in the one season demo when I'm running through some test runs with really low prestige teams like Loyola Marymount - who knows how accurate my scouts are, but I've seen green potential guys as low as the 1100/1200's iirc. I'll throw a couple red/green guys in spoiler tags. (Sorry about the lack of formatting - I assure you the post guys have the potential in the right places (INS/DRB/PSD) and I didn't post the one that had a 60+ handle and PRD but no inside game.)

#1106

Spoiler

RECRUIT DETAILS

#34 C James Massie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6-11
Weight: 234
High School: Western High School
Hometown: Anaheim, CA
GPA: 2.78
Test Score: 1230
Rating: *

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 41 0 13 51 32 4 20 34 29 18 25 29 53 35 79 43 14
Potential: B F F C C F C B C D D C

#1153

Spoiler

#22 PF Joel Kiernan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6-6
Weight: 225
High School: Rancho Bernardo High School
Hometown: Poway, CA
GPA: 2.23
Test Score: 940
Rating: *

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 44 35 7 0 32 10 40 74 20 33 30 19 71 42 65 49 56
Potential: A D F F B D C A D C B D

#1226

Spoiler

#51 SG James Kunkel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6-3
Weight: 186
High School: Roosevelt High School
Hometown: Fresno, CA
GPA: 3.00
Test Score: 960
Rating: *

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 48 44 22 30 32 20 14 14 22 25 54 0 42 67 32 96 55
Potential: C C D C A F F D D B C F

Now, of course, the big question I can't answer is how much of that potential you can actually reach when you're at a low program (stamina seems easy enough to bump, as it should be), so maybe hedge your bets with some JC players like this green/blue guy #242

Spoiler

#33 SG Richard Werth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6-2
Weight: 177
JC: Texas CC
High School: Del Valle High School
Hometown: El Paso, TX
GPA: 2.41
Test Score: 1050
Rating: ***

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 75 77 83 77 14 23 16 40 22 49 44 31 12 62 49 72 3
Potential: B B A A F D F D C C C C

But you can even find diamonds in the JC ranks - this guy was yellow/green #771

Spoiler

#40 C Jerry Szabo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6-9
Weight: 220
JC: Arizona CC
High School: Sabino High School
Hometown: Tucson, AZ
GPA: 2.43
Test Score: 950
Rating: *

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 66 30 19 68 22 25 33 49 49 62 14 42 45 28 73 20 0
Potential: B D D B D C D C C B C C

I've even seen HS red/blues as low as #441

Spoiler

#4 C Steven Lykins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6-9
Weight: 257
High School: North Rockland High School
Hometown: Thiells, NY
GPA: 2.04
Test Score: 970
Rating: ***

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 48 4 27 0 6 14 41 35 44 43 5 44 26 11 81 50 14
Potential: A D D F F C A C B C F A

Obviously the color block is shorthand, and you can plug in much worse players into specific roles, but even within how the game rates its players it doesn't match up 100% with the rankings. I'm gonna run through another test soon with a high prestige team, hire the best scout and ignore the assistant and recruiter, just scout 30 guys a week and see what I can get.

One other thing with recruiting I'd forgotten about - the amount of guards that are around December-on. I'm assuming this is mostly a product of the AI going after big men first, but it's always weird to see like 70 point guards, 20 shooting guards and 3 each of SF/PF/C in the best remaining 100 players.

[Emmett13]

Simmed 20 some seasons in FBCB1 to see how free throw shooting worked out. Turns out FBCB1 has the same problem (and I never noticed). After 20 seasons there are about 100 players in each season that shoot 90% or better from the line. Including a dozen up around 97%.

This year in the NCAA, only 10 players shot above 90%, and only 1 above 94%.

Something to look at maybe, anyways.

[Izulde]

While the new UI is prettier, it seems claustrophobic to me.

[Groundhog]

Been playing the heck out of the new version and I gotta say, I'm loving it. Text games in general don't have the same appeal to me anymore. Maybe it's because we have graphical games that are pretty good representations of the sports (NBA 2K, CH 2K8). Having said that, FBCB has me hooked again, and I'd only really slowed down playing the previous version about 6 months ago or so.

Now all I need is a pro basketball sim that has world leagues and a solid, HR-esque engine and I'm set!

[HeavyReign]

Heh...fbb site over its bandwidth limit for the first time ever on the current host. Working on it...

[jbergey22]

I havent had a chance to play the demo but I will certainly be getting this. Is there a facegen feature in this? I feel this adds so much to the game.

[HeavyReign]

Not this time unfortunately.

[MizzouRah]

For those beta testing, is it really that big of a jump from the original FBCB?

Still love that game, like most on here.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

For those beta testing, is it really that big of a jump from the original FBCB?

In short, yeah.

I mean, the game engine itself has had just minor tweaks from what I can see (steals exploit toned down, fatigue toned up), but the list of minor and not-so-minor additions and tweaks outside of the engine is very impressive.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

For those beta testing, is it really that big of a jump from the original FBCB?

Still love that game, like most on here.

Absolutely!

[Emmett13]

Chance of a release this week?

[MizzouRah]

Expand Balldog...

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I havent had a chance to play the demo but I will certainly be getting this. Is there a facegen feature in this? I feel this adds so much to the game.

Sorry but

Are you fucking kidding us? Why does everyone wnat to turn this game into FM or OOTP. The latter basically destroying a good game years ago before SI and please keep face the hell out of my sports text sims!

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

For those beta testing, is it really that big of a jump from the original FBCB?

Still love that game, like most on here.

Mizz I played the original for a few months but like TCY, FOFC it felt too 2001 UI and graphics. The new game look sgreat and makes long gaming much more enjoyable (YMMV)