 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by Trojan Man |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is, unfortunately, not likely to be good for business for someone like me, who plays solo offline CFM.
This is because online H2H players can mask or overcome a lot of the really problematic AI issues that plague solo offline CFM players. These range from playbooks to formation subs and rotations to roster management AI.
If the voice for franchise in the building is primarily a competitive player, I don't think we have a chance in hell of getting the cluster-mess that is their playbook feature fixed, or of getting significantly better roster management AI, or any of a host of other necessary changes.
I have to go through a pretty byzantine process to make solo offline franchise viable for multiple seasons, largely because of their incredibly poor playbooks and player management AI. I don't like having to do that, and I'd love it if we could get someone in there who represents the offline gamer's interests.
I think you have to be a primarily offline player to understand just how bad some core aspects of the game are and how badly they need fixing.
I say this as someone who is actually having a blast right now in offline franchise, but only because I signed out before the last patch and because I got my sliders just right. But getting this game to play well enough in franchise to keep me coming back is quite a challenge and I wish that weren't so.
For that reason, I wish the person they had speaking to CFM were a solo offline type. If that were the case, the core AI improvements brought about for this demographic would also benefit the competitive gamer because the core fundamentals would be better. I'm not optimistic that it will work the other way around.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Looking at the tweet’ers follow up request I think this may help you more than you think. I wouldn’t go so far to think that most online players are H2H players.
Leagues like my own were a rarity when the PS4 dropped. In our archives I’ve got plenty of “why use 16 teams. What’s with the half full leagues.” The point I’m trying to make is that the guy on twitter is looking for user independent difficulty settings which suggests there are cpu v user games as well as H2H games in his league.
I would even go so far to say in online leagues with cpu teams the AI problems are exacerbated. Where H2H games may mask some gameplay AI problems, almost all statistical outliers are vs CPU teams. This causes a material disparity for all things related to XP for users who have more CPU interactions.
With respect to roster management we are equals. The poor management causes the gap between competitive CPU and users to widen. It sends players to FA which should be on CPu teams. It requires commissioners to edit cpu rosters to change CBS to FSs where applicable or move OL around to not give up an inordinate number of Sacks.
There are more things online CFM players have in common with offline CFM players than things that make us different. The biggest divide in the cfm community is the number of seasons played during a cycle. I’m not sure how many seasons offline players go through. We typically range from 6-9 full seasons. I would be more concerned if the voice of cfm played one season, then restarted, again. And again. And again.
Or if the only thing that would send the average cfm user to year 2 would be “realistic draft classes” because after the second year, it’s all guesswork” without an ncaa game to export them, I can’t and don’t support shareable draft classes. Here I know I’m a minority.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk