Well spank my ass and call me charlie

[sovstar]

Case in point, I went with an extremely run heavy game plan in another league. One week, I pass the ball 42 times! No, I was not getting blown out either... The next week, same game plan I pass the ball 22 times. What was the difference? Nothing, just bad luck with the RNG in the first game. That is going to happen in ANY game like this.

WK 16 vs RayCo
-----
Normal 1st and 8-10 yard situations-- Ran the ball 16 of 18 times
Normal 2nd and 3-7 yard situations-- Ran the ball 7 of 9 times

WK 17 vs RayCo
-----
Normal 1st and 8-10 yard situations-- Ran the ball 10 of 11 times
Normal 2nd and 3-7 yard situations-- Ran the ball 2 of 3 times
**Only 25 Normal situation plays in total


Bad luck with the RNG, eh?

[Argot]

I don't think it does this, but it would be nice, is if it actually looked back at the game and adjusted based on what has already happened that game. If the 50% turned up 4 passes in 5 plays because of fluke 'rolling', maybe the coach could start favoring runs a bit more to balance it out. I don't think it does that though, but who really knows.

Anyone remember Playmaker Football. I remember it actually did this, and felt that it was one of the best play simulators ever. Other things were left to be desired but I guess you can't have everything.

[sovstar]

You can click on the injury that injured players have and it will give you an idea of how serious it is. Sprained Knee returned "Player can maintain a high level of performance, there is a moderate risk of reinjury."

Nice!

[MrBigglesworth]

You can click on the injury that injured players have and it will give you an idea of how serious it is. Sprained Knee returned "Player can maintain a high level of performance, there is a moderate risk of reinjury."

Nice!

I like that!

[JesterBlaze]

Jim understands football far more than most other game designers out there do.

I'll debate that with...

Once you get to understand FOF, there is a lot going on under the hood. What many people don't realize is that at its heart FOF is a random number generator.

Football is anything BUT random. It is a very specific set of instructions on EACH play, not "either run up the middle or pass deep - flip a coin on the field to decide between the two".

And if there's one single "taken for granted philosophy" of football that I've become accustomed to in my experience it's: "Defense wins championships."

Which is exactly at odds with FOFs two cardinal rules: "Offense beats defense if even semi-close to talent" and "Everyone's 2-minute offense scores more than half the time".


The most disgusting evidence I have: I wasted my first overall pick in this league (8th overall) on a 90 overall DT who hasn't done shit for his CAREER!! I'll argue that DT is one of the least "scheme-based" positions and one of the most "talent based". The object of the DT is to disrupt, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason (inferior gameplanning included) for Edmund Peacock to have the pathetic stats that he has over this many seasons.

BTW - I'm just stating my case, not trying to change your mind on the subject.

[Suicane]

While i agree with most of your post JB, I also must state that it's highly possible that Peacock is just a bust, even if his ratings dont make you think so. Alot of guys with good bars don't ever come close to playing like their bars indicate they should.

[JesterBlaze]

While i agree with most of your post JB, I also must state that it's highly possible that Peacock is just a bust, even if his ratings dont make you think so. Alot of guys with good bars don't ever come close to playing like their bars indicate they should.

I won't argue with the fact that he might be a bust... but I will say (as I've said before) that if you're going to show ratings (which I DON'T think you should show in a football game as there is no ratings in real life, only results) then the ratings should be what you show.

[Warhammer]

Case in point, I went with an extremely run heavy game plan in another league. One week, I pass the ball 42 times! No, I was not getting blown out either... The next week, same game plan I pass the ball 22 times. What was the difference? Nothing, just bad luck with the RNG in the first game. That is going to happen in ANY game like this.

WK 16 vs RayCo
-----
Normal 1st and 8-10 yard situations-- Ran the ball 16 of 18 times
Normal 2nd and 3-7 yard situations-- Ran the ball 7 of 9 times

WK 17 vs RayCo
-----
Normal 1st and 8-10 yard situations-- Ran the ball 10 of 11 times
Normal 2nd and 3-7 yard situations-- Ran the ball 2 of 3 times
**Only 25 Normal situation plays in total


Bad luck with the RNG, eh?

Shows me not to post without looking at the result in depth! :P

I still shouldn't have passed the ball that much even with everything else in that game.

[Warhammer]

Jim understands football far more than most other game designers out there do.

I'll debate that with...

Once you get to understand FOF, there is a lot going on under the hood. What many people don't realize is that at its heart FOF is a random number generator.

Football is anything BUT random. It is a very specific set of instructions on EACH play, not "either run up the middle or pass deep - flip a coin on the field to decide between the two".

I'm not arguing that point. In SP mode, you can call the plays and have complete control over the actions that your team performs. But, how do you account for that in a MP situation? The way that Jim chose to do so was by setting up a game plan. It is up to the user to decide how many times they want to pass/run in a given situation. Then, from there you decide either the type of pass you want to throw, or where you want to run. Set up those %s accordingly.

Where I had issues with this was the engine couldn't differentiate between a 3rd and 3 pass where I would go with a short out and a 2nd and 3 pass where I would be willing to air it out. You had no control over that besides turning down your long pass %.

And if there's one single "taken for granted philosophy" of football that I've become accustomed to in my experience it's: "Defense wins championships."

Which is exactly at odds with FOFs two cardinal rules: "Offense beats defense if even semi-close to talent" and "Everyone's 2-minute offense scores more than half the time".

The complete adage is "Offense wins games, defense wins championships." I agree with that to a large extent, and in FOF this is still true. I have yet to see a stellar offensive team with no defense win a title. Look at our bowl winners. Were any of those teams offensive juggernauts? Orlando certainly wasn't, Madison wasn't, Norfolk had an offense, but their strength was their defense (in my opinion), St. Louis was probably the most offensive minded team to win the title. Little Rock had a good offense, but they were 4th in points against in the NC last year. But even St. Louis was a top 10 team in points against the year they won (if I counted right, they might have been 11th or 12th, either case, it was a pretty good squad).

I agree that the 2 minute drill is too strong, for the top QBs. I haven't seen many scrub QBs take a team down in the last few minutes, but I have seen plenty of good/great QBs do it. Especially if they already have a few comebacks under their belt.

The most disgusting evidence I have: I wasted my first overall pick in this league (8th overall) on a 90 overall DT who hasn't done shit for his CAREER!! I'll argue that DT is one of the least "scheme-based" positions and one of the most "talent based". The object of the DT is to disrupt, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason (inferior gameplanning included) for Edmund Peacock to have the pathetic stats that he has over this many seasons.

BTW - I'm just stating my case, not trying to change your mind on the subject.

How many RL players have tested great, scouted great, and just weren't up to snuff? Look at Rick Mirer, even his first year in the NFL he was pretty dang good. He just never did much after that. What about Ryan Leaf? Everyone thought he was the one that was the sure thing and people had questions about Manning. Again, his rookie season wasn't that bad. It wasn't until after that season that the wheels fell off his career. I can go on and on.

The other issue is that often times you need more than one stellar player to get results out of one. I have taken great players in other leagues that put up great numbers. But, I never had someone opposite that player to take the heat off of him. The result was poor play by my supposed stud. Increase the overall talent around the guy, and suddenly he plays like the player he is/was/supposed to be, etc.

Like you, I'm not trying to change people's minds, I just think that a lot of people don't realize everything going on under the hood in FOF. Also, one other thing people forget about, cohesion and affinities can make a huge difference in performance.

[SteveBsFan]

How many RL players have tested great, scouted great, and just weren't up to snuff? Look at Rick Mirer, even his first year in the NFL he was pretty dang good. He just never did much after that. What about Ryan Leaf? Everyone thought he was the one that was the sure thing and people had questions about Manning. Again, his rookie season wasn't that bad. It wasn't until after that season that the wheels fell off his career. I can go on and on.

Well also keep in mind he's talking about a supposedly 'developed' guy based on his ratings. Rookie / Draft busts are extremely common in RL and in this game... in fact they're probably more common in RL. A Ryan Leaf in FOF would be a guy who was drafted as a 30/80 but after 5 years his ratings finished at like 35/35.

A more comparable situation would be like the NFL re-starting and having a draft, and watching guys like Seymour and Freeney look average on the line, or Urlacher playing like an avg LB, or Manning, Brady, etc suddenly forgetting how to throw.

I do agree with what you also said though about taking the heat off a player. The players mentioned above have a lot of talent, but like almost every position in football, you need help. Seymour on a very weak defensive line wouldn't do as well because offensive lines can double team him and pretty much take him away w/o worry about anyone else. Same with any QB, it's tough to be a great QB with lousy WR's or lousy pass blocking.

Also, a good example in FOF of that being true is Timmerman. He was barely an avg RB until I started beefing up my offensive line, and now he's playing like his ratings show.. What makes Peacock so odd, and why I understand his frustration is that Lawrence has a strong overall defensive line. It's pretty shocking to see his team near the bottom in run defense, but I don't know all the factors. Maybe he just played really great O-Lines.. maybe his defense broke down for like a game or two and killed his season numbers.

Who knows, defense is pretty tough to get right in this game.

[BuddaKINGII]

What makes Peacock so odd, and why I understand his frustration is that Lawrence has a strong overall defensive line. It's pretty shocking to see his team near the bottom in run defense, but I don't know all the factors. Maybe he just played really great O-Lines.. maybe his defense broke down for like a game or two and killed his season numbers.

Look at Lundquist's numbers since switching to the 4-3. There is alot of talent at guards and centers so that might be one factor. It also might be from my other defensive players stepping it up. Who cares really he'll bounce back after I move him out to RE. :roll: :lol:

[MrBigglesworth]

Am I taking crazy pills? How is Peacock a bust? Last year in the NFL Tommie Harris and Shaun Rogers started the Pro Bowl for the NFC. They had 32 and 39 tackles, and 3.0 and 5.5 sacks, respectively. In the AFC it was Stroud (42 and 1) and Jamal Williams (53 and 0). Peacock averages 70 tackles and 6 sacks when he plays a full season. So how is it exactly that everyone is determining that he is a bust?? I'll gladly take him off of Lawrence's hands.

[sovstar]

Am I taking crazy pills? How is Peacock a bust? Last year in the NFL Tommie Harris and Shaun Rogers started the Pro Bowl for the NFC. They had 32 and 39 tackles, and 3.0 and 5.5 sacks, respectively. In the AFC it was Stroud (42 and 1) and Jamal Williams (53 and 0). Peacock averages 70 tackles and 6 sacks when he plays a full season. So how is it exactly that everyone is determining that he is a bust?? I'll gladly take him off of Lawrence's hands.

Because he isn't stopping the run 95% of the time.. ?

[SteveBsFan]

Btw, a little off-topic from the Peacock thing..

Did they do anything to MP security in 07? Passwords, anything? Thanks!

[ifl]hi just noticed this ifl code tag so had to test it, i'm probably doing something stupid[/ifl]

[sovstar]

Did they do anything to MP security in 07? Passwords, anything? Thanks!

Passwords and the league files are now encrypted.

[ifl]hi just noticed this ifl code tag so had to test it, i'm probably doing something stupid[/ifl]

You did not disappoint.