Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > FOF9, FOF8, and TCY Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-13-2024, 05:07 PM   #101
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
ok, thanks for this. I'll have to make some adjustments to my processing file then. I'll see if I can do it tomorrow. I ran it with the 26 team numbering, so I'll need to rerun it. I should also make a post on the qb's since Johnny U is a 5 in the files... If you strictly follow the percentages there are only 4 9 rated qb's in history. I think people could guess 2, then 1 they would be like ok, and the 4th would be a surprise.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2024, 05:08 PM   #102
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Eh, just grabbed my personal computer. Here's the numbers, let me know if you have any questions! Note that 22_4_14 is for 1961-1962 and 22_4_15 is for 1963-1965.

Sorry to be lazy can you tell me which years for which schedules for the others as well?
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2024, 05:35 PM   #103
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
21_4_14 is 1960 (Dallas joins)
22_4_14 is 1961-1962 (Minnesota joins)
22_4_15 is 1963-1965 (Titans and Texans become Jets and Chiefs)
24_4_14 is 1966 (Atlanta and Miami join)
25_4_14 is 1967 (New Orleans joins)
26_4_14 is 1968-1969 (Cincinnati joins)

If it makes it easier for you, feel free to tell me what numbers you want each team to have instead.

And 4 9s sounds right, that's supposed to be "generational" talent, right? We're talking 64 years, so if there's 4, that means an average generation is 16 years? That sounds like the career length of a typical really good QB, so I think that makes sense.Seeing a post on it would be awesome.

Last edited by Passacaglia : 06-13-2024 at 08:03 PM.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2024, 11:48 AM   #104
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Ok, I've emailed them to you. We'll see if the zip file makes it.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2024, 12:41 PM   #105
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
I got it -- so far so good! I started a game as the 1960 Eagles, and the teams seem like they have the right QBs on them! I'll email you my league_info, default_teams, and schedule files.

You rock, nilodor! If you ever need anyone else to corroborate that you don't smell, I'm your guy!
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2024, 12:56 PM   #106
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
1969 looks good based on the QBs, too. I just realized that the QBs have their own file, and thus I haven't even looked at anyone who would be in the actual players files. But it's probably a pretty safe assumption that if you got it right for the QB file, then you got it right for the player file.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2024, 01:09 PM   #107
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
Was actually just looking at it. The biggest one is getting the teams right. Did you use a consistent mask like you showed here for all the years between 60 and 69? The salaries will still be geared to a 1000, which I think is a 100 million cap. I find the granularity is better with the sim engine, but you can just run a multiplier if you want something different.

Whoops, the files I sent you are not geared to 1000. I'll fix those when I get a chance and send them again. I think setting it to 1000 makes sense since nothing is perfect here*, and users can set it to whatever they want.**

* -- This feels like a no-win situation where something is going to look off. When I set the salary cap and salaries to be really high, they look weird considering the time period. But if I set the cap and salaries low, they look stupid compared to the financials around ticket prices and stadiums.

** -- Note to any users who makes these changes: The text files suggest keeping the same proportion between minimum salaries and salary cap that's originally in the files, and I've found that when it's not proportional, it does make the game funky. So, make sure if you're adjusting the cap, make the same adjustment to all the minimum salaries.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2024, 01:32 PM   #108
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Okay, I just sent you a revised league_info file that should be aligned to the salary cap you have. I also realized I forgot to send you the xxxx_info files, so I sent you those, too.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2024, 02:05 PM   #109
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Thanks, I'll send them along to Ben one of these days. Let me know how they go.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2024, 07:20 PM   #110
beatle
H.S. Freshman Team
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Once again, Thank You, for doing these files! Much appreciated!
beatle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2024, 01:54 PM   #111
KingZal
n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
ok, thanks for this. I'll have to make some adjustments to my processing file then. I'll see if I can do it tomorrow. I ran it with the 26 team numbering, so I'll need to rerun it. I should also make a post on the qb's since Johnny U is a 5 in the files... If you strictly follow the percentages there are only 4 9 rated qb's in history. I think people could guess 2, then 1 they would be like ok, and the 4th would be a surprise.
I noticed that when I was looking through your QB files and I was pleasantly surprised. I know you used a statistical approach and didn't bring your personal biases into play, but I like that your files reward how talented he was even if he never won a Super Bowl.

For anyone who's curious, the player is:

Spoiler
KingZal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2024, 02:25 PM   #112
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Hey nilodor, I think something is still up with contract lengths. I was looking at the 1966 file, and maybe four teams had 30+ players on contract for 1967, a few more had single digits, and a ton had zero. I can alter this myself again to make something that looks more reasonable, but I just thought I'd let you know.

Last edited by Passacaglia : 06-18-2024 at 02:26 PM.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2024, 02:26 PM   #113
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
Thanks, I'll send them along to Ben one of these days. Let me know how they go.

Does Ben host there somewhere or something? I've put a few up on Dropbox (free version, so I'm not even positive people can DL it), but if Ben has something he does, maybe that's better.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 09:02 AM   #114
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Does Ben host there somewhere or something? I've put a few up on Dropbox (free version, so I'm not even positive people can DL it), but if Ben has something he does, maybe that's better.

Ben does host them, you can access them through the FOF9 reference link. If you have them together and want to send it in that would be great!
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 11:59 AM   #115
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
Ben does host them, you can access them through the FOF9 reference link. If you have them together and want to send it in that would be great!

I can do that. Let me know if you want to change contract lengths in your file first, though.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 12:43 PM   #116
NawlinsFan
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southern Maryland - For Now!
Are any of your schedules covering pre-merger or are you considering combing the AFL and NFL schedules?
__________________
SEPIUS EXERTUS: Often Tested
SEMPER FIDELIS: Always Faithful
FRATERS INFINITAS: Brothers Forever
NawlinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 01:16 PM   #117
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by NawlinsFan View Post
Are any of your schedules covering pre-merger or are you considering combing the AFL and NFL schedules?

The schedules I'm making are all pre-merger. There are some preseason games where AFL teams played NFL teams, after the merger was agreed on but before it happened (so like 1967-1969), but that's it. There's already a 26_6_14 schedule that has AFC and NFC teams play each other. I'm not sure where I got it, if it came with the game, or if it was from nilodor, but that's what you'd want to use if you're looking for a post-merger schedule -- you could probably use that for 1968 or 1969, since those have 26 teams. You could probably use it for even earlier years and be fine, but the further back you go, the more empty teams you have. Well also, I think team numbers might get screwed up, but I can walk you through that if there's something specific you're looking to do.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 02:37 PM   #118
NawlinsFan
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southern Maryland - For Now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
The schedules I'm making are all pre-merger. There are some preseason games where AFL teams played NFL teams, after the merger was agreed on but before it happened (so like 1967-1969), but that's it. There's already a 26_6_14 schedule that has AFC and NFC teams play each other. I'm not sure where I got it, if it came with the game, or if it was from nilodor, but that's what you'd want to use if you're looking for a post-merger schedule -- you could probably use that for 1968 or 1969, since those have 26 teams. You could probably use it for even earlier years and be fine, but the further back you go, the more empty teams you have. Well also, I think team numbers might get screwed up, but I can walk you through that if there's something specific you're looking to do.

Asking as I am making helmets now. Almost done with 60 and moving on from there.

__________________
SEPIUS EXERTUS: Often Tested
SEMPER FIDELIS: Always Faithful
FRATERS INFINITAS: Brothers Forever
NawlinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 04:44 PM   #119
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Those look awesome!
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 05:03 PM   #120
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Oh also, the last post on page 2 should help you with what number you need to choose for each team so the game knows how to put them in the right place.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2024, 05:26 PM   #121
NawlinsFan
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southern Maryland - For Now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Oh also, the last post on page 2 should help you with what number you need to choose for each team so the game knows how to put them in the right place.

Yeah, numbering will follow creation to ensure they are numbered correctly from season to season.
__________________
SEPIUS EXERTUS: Often Tested
SEMPER FIDELIS: Always Faithful
FRATERS INFINITAS: Brothers Forever
NawlinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2024, 10:02 AM   #122
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Hey nilodor, I think something is still up with contract lengths. I was looking at the 1966 file, and maybe four teams had 30+ players on contract for 1967, a few more had single digits, and a ton had zero. I can alter this myself again to make something that looks more reasonable, but I just thought I'd let you know.

I'll take a look at it
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2024, 10:57 AM   #123
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
1961 coaches file is done. I took a detour to work on a schedule file for the dynasty I'm planning, which will have a weird mid-to-late 60s ish kind of set up. My plan is to do these until 1966, when my dynasty will start, and from there see how much interest there is in going out to 1976, since I have one for that year, and that means I probably already have most of the coaches inputted somewhere, and it's just about putting them in the right place. But if no one even wants it, I won't bother.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2024, 03:06 PM   #124
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
I'll take a look at it

Ok, so I looked at the 66 file.

In my master file for Baltimore there are 47 players, 35 of which play for Baltimore in 67. In the 66 players file there are 43 players none of which have a salary.

I think I figured it out. When I wrote the contract code I wrote it for the 32 team league, i.e., the team number would only change if the player changed teams. For FOF9 the team numbers for the same team change when the league is a different size. Good catch, I'll fix it up and run the database again. I haven't had anytime to play with the files, so I really did only minimal QC, glad someone was paying attention!
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2024, 03:15 PM   #125
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Ok, I've fixed it. I'll rerun the files now. This also affected the players years with team, which plays into the cohesion rating.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2024, 03:18 PM   #126
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
If you're interested, the above example now gives 33 of the 43 in the player file (excluding qb's) who have contracts beyond year 1.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2024, 03:57 PM   #127
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Awesome! You truly don't smell!
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 08:06 AM   #128
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
I've sent the files in to Ben, so hopefully they should be up in the reference link soon.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 04:43 PM   #129
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Awesome! I just sent him my files too.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 09:08 PM   #130
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Also, all kickers are rated 0. The help file says that for FB, K, P, and LS, the highest rating that can be assigned is a 2. That's not completely true, I gave Jan Stenerud a 9, and I gave Fred Cox a 6. But it could be that when you go higher than 2, it's not meaningful -- in the one universe I loaded with it, Stenerud was an 83/89 and Cox was 83/83. This file also has a 0 for all Punters, except for Marshall Newhouse, who will have a 1 when he enters the league in 2010.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post

There's a note in the ratings file that kickers/punters should be rated a 10, 0, 1 or 2. I'm not sure why, but that's the note. So I abided it, I haven't played around with it.

Hey nilodor, any chance we can revisit this? Like you say, there's a note say all kickers/punters should be rated a 10, 0, 1, or 2. But all kickers are rated 10 or 0 -- there aren't even any 1s or 2s. And for Punters, there's just one 1 -- Marshall Newhouse. I still believe that you *can* have ratings higher than 2, but it might not make sense to. In a quick test, I gave one kicker a rating from 9 to 1 to see what would happen.

The 9 was 68/75
The 8 was 33/47 (rookie, possible X-factor?)
The 7 was 63/78
The 6 was 54/68
The 5 was 37/37
The 4 was 48/70 (rookie, possible X-factor?)
The 3 was 65/89 (rookie, possible X-factor?)
The 2 was 57/57
The 1 was 47/67

I took the same kickers and rated them all 2:
43/47
42/50
83/88
77/87
69/69
53/71
41/61
63/73
69/81

Both times these 9 kickers were all in the Top 10, with one rando slipping in. I dunno -- I think either capping them at 2, or letting them go to 9 makes sense. I think that the 2s seem to mostly all end up "good kickers", although it's not like having ratings up to 9 are warping things, and even kickers rated as high as 8 end up not that good. But when they're all 0s or 10s like what's in here now, there's very few that are even decent. FWIW, you've already violated the note in your players file because the note says that it applies to FB and LS too, and you have FBs going up to 8.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 09:21 PM   #131
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Hey nilodor, I think something is still up with contract lengths. I was looking at the 1966 file, and maybe four teams had 30+ players on contract for 1967, a few more had single digits, and a ton had zero. I can alter this myself again to make something that looks more reasonable, but I just thought I'd let you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
If you're interested, the above example now gives 33 of the 43 in the player file (excluding qb's) who have contracts beyond year 1.

I'm seeing the same thing for Baltimore -- 33 players have are on contract for next year, plus 2 QBs, so in the salary cap report, it shows 35 players on roster for next year. Perfect!

But, I'm still seeing a few teams with no players under contract for next year. Not nearly as many, but still a few. Philadelphia (team 17) has 4, N.Y. Jets (team 18) has 1, and Oakland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Diego, Washington, and San Francisco (teams 19-24) have none. The players on Philadelphia and the Jets are not QBs, and these are 1966 (24_4_14) team numbers.

Last edited by Passacaglia : 06-21-2024 at 09:34 PM.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 09:29 PM   #132
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
ok, thanks for this. I'll have to make some adjustments to my processing file then. I'll see if I can do it tomorrow. I ran it with the 26 team numbering, so I'll need to rerun it. I should also make a post on the qb's since Johnny U is a 5 in the files... If you strictly follow the percentages there are only 4 9 rated qb's in history. I think people could guess 2, then 1 they would be like ok, and the 4th would be a surprise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZal View Post
I noticed that when I was looking through your QB files and I was pleasantly surprised. I know you used a statistical approach and didn't bring your personal biases into play, but I like that your files reward how talented he was even if he never won a Super Bowl.

For anyone who's curious, the player is:

I was just realizing I'd never looked at the historical quarterbacks file that comes with the game. That file has 3 QBs that are rated a 9. Two QBs are a 9 in both files -- Steve Young and Tom Brady. The historic file gives Joe Montana a 9, and you give him an 8. You give Peyton Manning a 9, and the historic file gives him an 8. Your fourth 9, spoiler guy, gets a 6 in the historic file.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:03 PM   #133
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Hey nilodor, any chance we can revisit this? Like you say, there's a note say all kickers/punters should be rated a 10, 0, 1, or 2. But all kickers are rated 10 or 0 -- there aren't even any 1s or 2s. And for Punters, there's just one 1 -- Marshall Newhouse. I still believe that you *can* have ratings higher than 2, but it might not make sense to. In a quick test, I gave one kicker a rating from 9 to 1 to see what would happen.

The 9 was 68/75
The 8 was 33/47 (rookie, possible X-factor?)
The 7 was 63/78
The 6 was 54/68
The 5 was 37/37
The 4 was 48/70 (rookie, possible X-factor?)
The 3 was 65/89 (rookie, possible X-factor?)
The 2 was 57/57
The 1 was 47/67

I took the same kickers and rated them all 2:
43/47
42/50
83/88
77/87
69/69
53/71
41/61
63/73
69/81

Both times these 9 kickers were all in the Top 10, with one rando slipping in. I dunno -- I think either capping them at 2, or letting them go to 9 makes sense. I think that the 2s seem to mostly all end up "good kickers", although it's not like having ratings up to 9 are warping things, and even kickers rated as high as 8 end up not that good. But when they're all 0s or 10s like what's in here now, there's very few that are even decent. FWIW, you've already violated the note in your players file because the note says that it applies to FB and LS too, and you have FBs going up to 8.

I'll take a look at this.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:04 PM   #134
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
I'm seeing the same thing for Baltimore -- 33 players have are on contract for next year, plus 2 QBs, so in the salary cap report, it shows 35 players on roster for next year. Perfect!

But, I'm still seeing a few teams with no players under contract for next year. Not nearly as many, but still a few. Philadelphia (team 17) has 4, N.Y. Jets (team 18) has 1, and Oakland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Diego, Washington, and San Francisco (teams 19-24) have none. The players on Philadelphia and the Jets are not QBs, and these are 1966 (24_4_14) team numbers.

I think it's that the team number's are changing so frequently, so I'd need to do the lookup a different way. This will take a bit longer (it won't take that long, I just don't have any free time for a bit, so it will have to come on a free lunch hour at work).
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:10 PM   #135
nilodor
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
I'll take a look at this.

Weird, I must have screwed something up when I brought them in from the ratings file as they're all 0's. I think I might go 0 to 10 since I already have them rated that way.
nilodor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:51 PM   #136
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilodor View Post
I think it's that the team number's are changing so frequently, so I'd need to do the lookup a different way. This will take a bit longer (it won't take that long, I just don't have any free time for a bit, so it will have to come on a free lunch hour at work).

If it's easier, I can set up the team numbers differently. I already did that for my own semi-fictional league, so that the standings-based scheduling works with what the standings were the year before.
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.