Front Office Football Central  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-15-2020, 02:43 PM   #101
Jeremessiah
n00b
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Oh I remember another criticism of the allpass: that it's a cap workaround/exploit, and I'd like to voice my support for Tzach's position that any focused way of building a team is a cap workaround. The cap is there to make it purposefully difficult for teams to spend everywhere, so everyone but the AI is using a their version of workaround. Would it be an exploit for me to spend all my money on D-line while spending close to league minimum on LBs? I think most people see that as normal cap management.

PLUS: my army of 0 Runblock, 50ovr passblocking maniacs gets paid annoyingly well thank you very much. Starters want starter money. RB though, yeah I don't pay those guys anything.

Last edited by Jeremessiah : 02-15-2020 at 02:46 PM.
Jeremessiah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2020, 03:29 PM   #102
Jeremessiah
n00b
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
and another thing: no one's mentioned yet Tzach's latest IHOF season was obviously in some small part due to divine intervention on dice rolls. Don't deny the holy spirit's role in this.

Last edited by Jeremessiah : 02-15-2020 at 03:31 PM.
Jeremessiah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2020, 06:22 PM   #103
Elijin
n00b
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
I love this thread. I'm glad to have your all-pass offense in the IHOF. Even though we're buddies I'm going to try to destroy you every chance I get.

To the haters: I bet american football looks a lot more like tzach's brand in 70 years. Suspend a little disbelief. You must be a joy to watch a sci-fi movie with.

Last edited by Elijin : 02-15-2020 at 06:23 PM.
Elijin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2020, 07:54 AM   #104
MIJB#19
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgfan19 View Post
also could not help but notice you ignored my research regarding the lack of defensive game planning in IHOF. You're making the assumption the pass cannot be defended when teams are running a buzz. Makes no sense.
People are way too happy about letting the AI do their game planning. News flash (no wait, I'm just stating the obvious): the AI just randomly draws up a defensive game plan when you hit recommend.
As such, to be able to compete with avid game planners, you have to put some effort in it (and then make sure you actually keep using the right game plans ), it should and will make a difference.
So if people want another patch, it should be an attempt to fix the AI for actually doing a decent job of suggesting game plans for those (I suspect this applies to the majority of FOF players) who don't want to (or have the time to) micromanage game plans, especially on defense. I mean, when you have shiny big red bars on defense, you fully expect that defense to play like a top5 defense and not see a stacked defense rank bottom3 in total yards allowed.

That and please have player contract demands in SP and MP be based on the same logic. I'm all for having a tough cap in MP, but at least give the (human FOF) player a chance to actually offer contracts that will reasonably be considered, or give some feedback why a contract that was taken into consideration was turned down and especially not have them turn down contracts that are by all measures better than their own demands.
*ducks*
__________________
* 2005 Golden Scribe winner for best FOF Dynasty about IHOF's Maassluis Merchantmen
* Former GM of GEFL's Houston Oilers and WOOF's Curacao Cocktail
MIJB#19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2020, 02:43 AM   #105
Hammer
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Kudos to Dawgfan for stepping up and slapping a league wide ban on the all pass gameplan in the TFL. I doubt there would even be an 8.3 passing adjustment if commissioners did this a couple of months ago. Easily sorted.
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2020, 05:24 AM   #106
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremessiah View Post
You will always have guys like me who play for the love of doing something different, and I'm going to push the limits under whatever set of house rules. I don't focus on championships. If I get great offensive stats I'm not inherently bothered by going 8-8, I'm trying to build great careers and break records and put guys in the HOF.
Yup. It's a hobby. It's supposed to be fun. Hilariously, there are a handful of incredibly small-minded and self-centered folks who can't handle anyone having a way of having fun that differs from theirs.



"HE IZ ENJOYING DIS FAKE FOOTBALL GAME DIFFERENT FROM ME. THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HE MUST BE STOPPED!!!1"
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2020, 05:30 AM   #107
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Dola:


I remember some dude in a league I was in even said about something else, in all seriousness, "I know it's not against the rules, but there's a right way to play the game and a wrong way to play the game."



Sgt. Hulka with the big toe has good advice for those folks:




__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Last edited by Ben E Lou : 02-17-2020 at 05:45 AM.
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2020, 07:09 AM   #108
Hammer
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Not everyone wants to turn a game in to a competition to see who can find the flaws and loopholes in the game to increase the chances of winning. Same as in the NFL, some wouldn't considering deflating footballs to get ahead. I guess we should all stick to our sides of the fence and play with like minded people. I would rather walk away, or lose if I had to resort to finding weakness in the engine to get ahead.
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2020, 02:49 PM   #109
cdmikes
n00b
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
I play FOF because its the closest thing you're going to get to the real thing and this 100% pass attack is completely unrealistic. The QB wouldnt make it out of the season alive and the WR's legs would be falling off. FOF's D gameplanning also isn't elaborate enough to compete with these types of offenses.

I'm all for nerfing that type of gameplan but 8.3 patch hurts everyone in the process. How to fix the issue is up for discussion; I certainly dont have the answer, but imo it is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. Im glad Jim thinks so as well even if I disagree with how he's beginning the implementation of a "fix" w/ 8.3. I think Hammer has a good argument in that its a "familiars" issue.
cdmikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2020, 04:29 AM   #110
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdmikes View Post
I play FOF because its the closest thing you're going to get to the real thing and this 100% pass attack is completely unrealistic. The QB wouldnt make it out of the season alive and the WR's legs would be falling off.
Yes. And why don't they in FOF? Probably because your injury setting is unrealistically low. As has been pointed out, if you play with an unrealistic injury setting, you should expect some unrealistic things to happen. If you want realism, turn up injuries to somewhere in the 300s. Otherwise, the "realism" argument falls completely flat. What we're seeing is people wanting to play with unrealistic injuries but not accepting the consequences of doing so. Passing efficiency doesn't really decrease with over-usage. Both 538 and Football Outsiders (among others) have shown that. I recall reading a study at one of those two showing that even "overusing" play action (something like 10-15 times per game) doesn't reduce its effectiveness.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Last edited by Ben E Lou : 02-19-2020 at 04:42 AM.
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2020, 04:41 AM   #111
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Dola:


Here's just one of the studies to which I am referring:


For A Passing League, The NFL Still Doesn’t Pass Enough | FiveThirtyEight
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2020, 11:58 AM   #112
cdmikes
n00b
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
Yes. And why don't they in FOF? Probably because your injury setting is unrealistically low. As has been pointed out, if you play with an unrealistic injury setting, you should expect some unrealistic things to happen. If you want realism, turn up injuries to somewhere in the 300s. Otherwise, the "realism" argument falls completely flat. What we're seeing is people wanting to play with unrealistic injuries but not accepting the consequences of doing so. Passing efficiency doesn't really decrease with over-usage. Both 538 and Football Outsiders (among others) have shown that. I recall reading a study at one of those two showing that even "overusing" play action (something like 10-15 times per game) doesn't reduce its effectiveness.




I dont think the realism argument falls flat at all, as long as the expectations are realistic. People have jobs/life and we're stuck to a single simulation in MP to sign replacements for injured players(if players even get midweeks). Its asinine to expect that kind of commitment from players and commish's and its an ovr bad business model for a sim game. But I argue its not out of the question to curb these one dimensional offenses.



I think you make a good point with pass efficiency not dropping off with over usage but "over usage" is far from "all of the damn time" lol. At some point the law of diminishing returns will play its role and thats where I think the "familiars" argument holds weight and why its featured in the game.


If familiars isn't the answer, maybe expanding the defensive mechanics in the game could be a solution. Making defenses multiple; exotic blitz's, alignments, coverage's; whatever... As of now, going up against a 100% pass attack, we're helpless on the defensive side of the ball.



Also, whatever argument you have for PA here is irrelevant. There are no NFL teams implementing a 100% pass attack. If there is literally no threat of run AT ALL, do you think a LB is still going to bite?
cdmikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2020, 02:21 AM   #113
Hammer
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Also, whatever argument you have for PA here is irrelevant. There are no NFL teams implementing a 100% pass attack. If there is literally no threat of run AT ALL, do you think a LB is still going to bite?

100% There are a number of points in this thread that are debatable depending on your perspective, but this key point certainly isn't.


Another thing that we haven't really touched on yet is the positional game balance. One of the worse thing about FOF for a long, long time has been how over powered Wide Receivers are. 8.3 has been very positive in that light, it has given them a yank back on their chain. They are still probably over powered, but it moves them in the right direction.

We did have a chat over the 8.3 patch in a recent RZB podcast. Kicks in around 9.30 in, either side is league specific stuff that probably won't be of interest unless you play in the league.

[V5] ProBoards - Free Forums & Free Message Boards

Apologies for the quality, Wi-Fi was a little off in the stream.

I understand there are differences of opinion, and valid points on both sides of the argument. But rather than getting caught up in trying to win a debate and stand up for our mates, it would be great if we could come out of this accepting of some solid points on both sides. We all want the best game possible at the end of the day.

8.3 moving away from 2020 NFL stats is absolutely valid IMO, but if you want to go that route I don't see how you can dismiss the stats the 1% are producing because they are even more away from the 2020 NFL than 8.3 is.
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2020, 06:55 PM   #114
RD
n00b
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
After seeing the results of the 8.3 patches in FOF leagues I believe the patch has set the passing back a bit more than mentioned. It appears to have widened the gap between the haves and the have nots, those with well above avg WR are still going to be head and shoulders above the pack while those with slightly above WR's are going to see their numbers decrease quite a bit. I have heard grumblings of several GM's possibly leaving MP league due to the patch. While the intent of the patch was to nueter the all passing attack, it has gone beyond that IMO. I think a knee jerk reaction was done b/c a few GM's complained, now the teams with the much better WR's are clearly at a much larger advantage. Teams with a slightly above avg set of WR are going to find it hard to be successful. While above avg DB's are a must now, above avg WR's are still king, so don't believe that above avg WR's aren't king anymore, in my test they still are.

Last edited by RD : 02-20-2020 at 07:00 PM.
RD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 10:48 AM   #115
cdcool
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
Yes. And why don't they in FOF? Probably because your injury setting is unrealistically low. As has been pointed out, if you play with an unrealistic injury setting, you should expect some unrealistic things to happen. If you want realism, turn up injuries to somewhere in the 300s. Otherwise, the "realism" argument falls completely flat. What we're seeing is people wanting to play with unrealistic injuries but not accepting the consequences of doing so. Passing efficiency doesn't really decrease with over-usage. Both 538 and Football Outsiders (among others) have shown that. I recall reading a study at one of those two showing that even "overusing" play action (something like 10-15 times per game) doesn't reduce its effectiveness.

so 300 you believe is a realistic setting for Injuries?
cdcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 11:14 AM   #116
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcool View Post
so 300 you believe is a realistic setting for Injuries?

I think Ben has been there for a pretty long time, this is not a new development.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 01:11 PM   #117
tzach
Mascot
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
400 -- see my post on page 1 of this thread. 400 will get you close to the number of players on IR per season, plus enough injured players per week
tzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 03:04 PM   #118
cdcool
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzach View Post
400 -- see my post on page 1 of this thread. 400 will get you close to the number of players on IR per season, plus enough injured players per week

400 Okay, I'm going try that single player.
Thanks!

Last edited by cdcool : 02-24-2020 at 03:13 PM.
cdcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 03:13 PM   #119
cdcool
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
I think Ben has been there for a pretty long time, this is not a new development.

It's new for me that's why I asked him.
cdcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 03:19 PM   #120
cdcool
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzach View Post
400 -- see my post on page 1 of this thread. 400 will get you close to the number of players on IR per season, plus enough injured players per week


put the combine correlation to 0?
cdcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 04:48 PM   #121
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcool View Post
It's new for me that's why I asked him.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be snarky... was trying to separate out "new stuff arising from this patch" (which is basically the name of the thread) and "other stuff relevant to making the game arguably more realistic." This conversation has gotten tricky to follow in that respect.

So...I'll try again: I think the people here who have followed injury levels closely have observed for a long time that settings like 100 end up with far fewer injuries than a typical NFL season. That's not new, that's a long-standing observation. Whether it's good or bad is left as an exercise for the gamer, but at least it's an adjustable setting.

Just trying to help.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 05:00 PM   #122
cdcool
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
Sorry, wasn't trying to be snarky... was trying to separate out "new stuff arising from this patch" (which is basically the name of the thread) and "other stuff relevant to making the game arguably more realistic." This conversation has gotten tricky to follow in that respect.

So...I'll try again: I think the people here who have followed injury levels closely have observed for a long time that settings like 100 end up with far fewer injuries than a typical NFL season. That's not new, that's a long-standing observation. Whether it's good or bad is left as an exercise for the gamer, but at least it's an adjustable setting.

Just trying to help.

LOL..yes I agree 100 probablay would.

I'm trying too see if a setting of 400 works in getting realistic stats and injuries in 8.3 from you guys expereience in single player.

I believe my post fits in here.

Last edited by cdcool : 02-24-2020 at 05:09 PM.
cdcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 12:06 AM   #123
tzach
Mascot
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcool View Post
put the combine correlation to 0?
you don't need to go down to 0, but certainly much lower than 50 to get rid of the usual combine thresholds. the issue is that the AI struggles to draft with low combine correlation. i play with 20 in SP.

more importantly, you need to restrict the scouting bar of your coaches to less than 70, or less than 50 if you really want an NFL-like draft experience. if you have been playing fof for some time, anything above 70 will give you too much certainty in the draft prospects compared to the NFL success rate.

the link below contains some interesting analysis using two metrics for percentage of busts as a function of draft position in the NFL. you will routinely find experienced FOF players drafting much better than that in MP leagues.
The chance of a bust in the NFL draft

this post below from jim is still relevant to 8.3, and some may not have seen it so i'll link it below. interesting discussion on combines.
The NFL Scouting Combine and Wide Receivers Football Frontier

you can have a lot of fun looking at the combine scores and pre-draft evaluations of players in the nfl site. i came across NOS michael thomas the other day hehe.
NFL Events: Combine Player Profiles - Michael Thomas

the bottom line is that it's very difficult to recreate the NFL draft experience in a simulation and still make it fun and attractive to most people. fof does a good job for players that never heard of combine thresholds or static bars.

Last edited by tzach : 02-25-2020 at 12:07 AM.
tzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 12:22 AM   #124
cdcool
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzach View Post
more importantly, you need to restrict the scouting bar of your coaches to less than 70, or less than 50 if you really want an NFL-like draft experience.
Thank you for this!

Dumb question: How do you do that?

Last edited by cdcool : 02-25-2020 at 12:23 AM.
cdcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 02:18 AM   #125
tzach
Mascot
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcool View Post
Thank you for this!

Dumb question: How do you do that?


you have to do this manually -- when you are at the staff draft stage, look at the scouting bar of a prospective coach and don't hire anyone that has a scouting bar above the threshold you decided on (let's say 50)
tzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 02:24 AM   #126
cdcool
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzach View Post
you have to do this manually -- when you are at the staff draft stage, look at the scouting bar of a prospective coach and don't hire anyone that has a scouting bar above the threshold you decided on (let's say 50)

Okay cool!
cdcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2020, 03:07 AM   #127
Hammer
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Increasing injuries wouldn't solve the MP all passing problem. We would just see the all passing guys stack depth up at QB and WR. They could too, as no need to worry about RB and highly rated, expensive OL.
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2020, 09:27 AM   #128
Kodos
Resident Alien
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
It seems like cranking up injuries would probably help quite a bit.
__________________
Author of The Bill Gates Challenge, as well as other groundbreaking dynasties.
Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2020, 10:37 PM   #129
Sef0r
n00b
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
Yup. It's a hobby. It's supposed to be fun. Hilariously, there are a handful of incredibly small-minded and self-centered folks who can't handle anyone having a way of having fun that differs from theirs.



"HE IZ ENJOYING DIS FAKE FOOTBALL GAME DIFFERENT FROM ME. THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HE MUST BE STOPPED!!!1"


^^I fell into this category until I just stopped giving a fuck^^


If you can't beat them, join them. So I loaded up all of tzach and Ben's successful gamelogs and created all the plays that were successful.


However I stopped shy of putting the plays into the correct down and distance, etc, so I just hit "generate gameplan" and run a test until my test team got at least 10 WINs and the QB threw at least 2:1 TD/INT ratio with at least 550 pass attempts.


Then after all of that effort I find that the gameplan won't always work in MP as well due to many factors, etc. Which is why I do okay in some leagues and shit house in others.


ALSO...


I don't see the big deal with people venting about "realism" and wanting something that is as close to NFL as possible.
Those people (for which I am a member of, sort of) are no different to others who want in-season contract extensions, better DEF play and all the other "wish list" things out there that I'm fairly certain align more to the "NFL" way of doing things.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------
GM Houston Texans - CCFL
GM Snapfinger Jazz - IHOF
GM Detroit Lions - APFL
GM Green Bay Packers - FOOL
GM Jacksonville Jaguars - RZB

Last edited by Sef0r : 02-28-2020 at 03:45 AM.
Sef0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2020, 12:47 PM   #130
ezlee2
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sef0r View Post
in-season contract extensions

IMO, this was one of the worst decisions Jim has ever made as it really hampers making deals after the start of the season. I surely hope that he changes it back to the way it was prior to the change.
ezlee2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2020, 12:56 PM   #131
ezlee2
n00b
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodos View Post
It seems like cranking up injuries would probably help quite a bit.

I know this much. I'll never play in a league with that injury setting. Far too many CEI in FOF and there is nothing more deflating to lose your stud player. Totally sucks the fun out the game IMO.

One of the things I've always appreciated about Ben's leagues and something I tried to emulate in the RZB was the lower injury setting. We started at 50 but bumped it to 75 and I still prefer the 50 setting.
ezlee2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2020, 11:35 AM   #132
garion333
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezlee2 View Post
IMO, this was one of the worst decisions Jim has ever made as it really hampers making deals after the start of the season. I surely hope that he changes it back to the way it was prior to the change.

I agree. I still believe it was a fix to the way the $$ were reported to us at the end of the season. Instead of fixing the incorrect $$ shown for new players, he made it so we couldn't re-sign folks.
garion333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2020, 02:18 PM   #133
Pyser
Pro Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by garion333 View Post
I agree. I still believe it was a fix to the way the $$ were reported to us at the end of the season. Instead of fixing the incorrect $$ shown for new players, he made it so we couldn't re-sign folks.


The fix here IMO is make in-season renegotiations extensions only. Which also closely mirrors NFL deals. AND has the added benefit of keeping rookie deals a bargain for the full 4 years, where in game we get 3 (and then reneg in year 4)...compared to NFL which has the 5th year option for 1st rounders.
Pyser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2020, 11:18 AM   #134
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
To be fair, the old system of extending players during or near the end of the system created a massive loophole in logic, where the player weighted "current year salary" as a very meaningful thing, but then he never actually saw that money if the extension came after the season had ended (except the last stage).

So, I'd partially agree that cutting off all mid-season extensions was going too far. But let's not claim it was perfect before this change - he made the change to target something that was not working well or wisely. (I just wish he had treated the symptoms, rather than going straight to amputation)
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2020, 11:26 PM   #135
tzach
Mascot
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
i agree with quik, but the one case that should have contracts allowed under the current game dynamics are trades in season. so one can trade for a player in the last yr of his contract.

but i presume this contract stuff is also in place to enforce a realistic game dynamics, since in the NFL players with 1-yr left on the contract are rarely traded or extended during the season. there's perhaps 15-20 extensions during the season, with 3-4 high profile transactions late in the season, such as marcus peters, whitney mercilus, devante parker, lane johnson, and shaq thomson last yr.

NFL Transactions | Spotrac

here's jim's blog post on the issue for those that haven't seen it.

Renegotiations in Front Office Football – Football Frontier

Last edited by tzach : 03-03-2020 at 11:56 PM.
tzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2020, 06:45 AM   #136
garion333
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
I just wish he had treated the symptoms, rather than going straight to amputation

Exactly. And well stated.
garion333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2020, 07:19 AM   #137
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
There was a structural issue in place here undoubtedly. If you look at the exported data, you can see game doesn't have a place to store the old salary data that would have been required to properly calculate the cap hit of the two contracts (old and new,) so it was just doing the new one. I don't know how much it impacts other pieces of the game to add new data fields, but based on seeing the versions where new fields were added, I know it's a big deal. It may be that he felt he didn't have the time, when weighing it against other options.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Last edited by Ben E Lou : 03-04-2020 at 07:26 AM.
Ben E Lou 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 12:49 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.