Week 11 Discussion

[sovstar]

Just wait until next season and gameplanning with 2k7. It sucks. Or I do.

Anyway, Groth is back, boys.
My 2 WR free agent signings had over 100 yards receiving against the Toads.
sweet

Actually there are some issues with FOF2k7 and gameplanning, I suggest waiting until the next patch.

I'd be grateful if you would link me to threads where any issues are discussed.

[Warhammer]

Just wait until next season and gameplanning with 2k7. It sucks. Or I do.

Anyway, Groth is back, boys.
My 2 WR free agent signings had over 100 yards receiving against the Toads.
sweet

Actually there are some issues with FOF2k7 and gameplanning, I suggest waiting until the next patch.

I'd be grateful if you would link me to threads where any issues are discussed.

They're in the owners only section... I'll see if I can't copy and paste some of it.

[sovstar]

Just wait until next season and gameplanning with 2k7. It sucks. Or I do.

Anyway, Groth is back, boys.
My 2 WR free agent signings had over 100 yards receiving against the Toads.
sweet

Actually there are some issues with FOF2k7 and gameplanning, I suggest waiting until the next patch.

I'd be grateful if you would link me to threads where any issues are discussed.

They're in the owners only section... I'll see if I can't copy and paste some of it.

You're kidding me right? Why would stuff like that be posted in a private board?

[Warhammer]

Just wait until next season and gameplanning with 2k7. It sucks. Or I do.

Anyway, Groth is back, boys.
My 2 WR free agent signings had over 100 yards receiving against the Toads.
sweet

Actually there are some issues with FOF2k7 and gameplanning, I suggest waiting until the next patch.

I'd be grateful if you would link me to threads where any issues are discussed.

They're in the owners only section... I'll see if I can't copy and paste some of it.

You're kidding me right? Why would stuff like that be posted in a private board?

I think part of the reason is that they didn't want everything open knowledge at first (partly for fear that people would start using it in other leagues) because no one had run any hard tests. SkyDog has run a number of tests using different teams and has shown that when running things using a specific game plan that no matter what the personnel, the team plays much better.

[sovstar]

I guess that's reasonable.

[MrBigglesworth]

In the GEFL we are just into our first season with 2k7. I have a fairly good QB, who has averaged 59% completions and 4.5 300 yard games a season. In the off-season he took about a 5 pt rating hit (13th year), and so far this season with mostly the same receiving corps he has gone:

25/33 320
23/36 308
32/40 341

That's 80/109, 73%, so far. All three games were on the road, two games were against the #1 seeds of each conference last season. My RB is over 5.5 ypc so far, and we have the best offense in terms of yardage (but 6th in pts). This is my first ever gameplan for 2k7 and I put minimal work into it (thinking I'd adjust as the season wore on to get used to it), and so it's completely confusing to me why the players have such good stats.

If you were to tell me I stumbled upon some kind of 'super' gameplan, I wouldn't be disinclined to believe you.

[MrBigglesworth]

And another thing, on 2k4 anyway, I feel like I have no control over playing time. I have DT Canterbury at 2 playing time, and Harding is averaging 3.5 plays a game while Canterbury is averaging 64.

When MacKinnon was the backup LB, he averaged about 7 plays a game. Under the same settings, Paine is averaging 2 plays a game. (endurance levels are similar) It looks like the computer takes talent into account...well stop! I'M taking talent rating into account when I set the damn PT level! Computer, if you knew wtf you were doing, I would just hit recommend and save myself a lot of GD time!

It makes it hard to develop players without starting them.

/rant

[VitoStallion]

SLC looks to finally be responding to their new coach---we're a power running team with a damn good defense. Somebody should have told Oakland that we were the #1 pass defense---Hamilton sure looked shocked to find that out 8)

Your team came in and dominated, that I give you. You had a great game plan and completely stuffed every single facet of my gameplan, both on offense and defense. We had no answers and might has well walked over and handed you our playbook. Thats how dominating it was.
But don't break your arm patting yourself on the back just yet. Hamilton is limping around the field with a possible career ending injury(don't let the "probable" fool you. I have seen multiple quarterbacks end their careers with the strained quadriceps, and myself lost Eli Manning rated 86 for 33 weeks and his rating dropped to 32 the following season.). The leagues best reciever Martinez didn't even start this week allowing you to double Bice, and we then lost Martinez's backup as well(Winfrey) bringing us to one starting wideout.

I am not using injuries as an excuse for the loss, you beat the snot out of me. But before you go blowing yourself over your godlike pass defense......... we will see in week 17.

Regardless, good game bro. You outplanned and outplayed me.......this week.

You are dead wrong about the double team bro', go back and look at how many times your boys were double covered in the game---we play a 3-4 zone blitz scheme on defense and this is the first season I've gotten the players that fit my system. We rush well off the edges and keep the middle clogged with our SILB/WILB combo (check the tackles out between those two). I said we'd get you by 14 points and we came close.

We did that in YOUR house and don't think having both WRs back when you come to see us later is going to change what happened. I'm still pissed about that 52-20 loss in '07 and I'm making it a point to punk the Devils every time we see them.

Now the Mules are real Imperial Bowl candidates---that's a team I'll gameplan for

[Hell Atlantic]

Just wait until next season and gameplanning with 2k7. It sucks. Or I do.

Anyway, Groth is back, boys.
My 2 WR free agent signings had over 100 yards receiving against the Toads.
sweet

Actually there are some issues with FOF2k7 and gameplanning, I suggest waiting until the next patch.

I'd be grateful if you would link me to threads where any issues are discussed.

They're in the owners only section... I'll see if I can't copy and paste some of it.

You're kidding me right? Why would stuff like that be posted in a private board?

I think part of the reason is that they didn't want everything open knowledge at first (partly for fear that people would start using it in other leagues) because no one had run any hard tests. SkyDog has run a number of tests using different teams and has shown that when running things using a specific game plan that no matter what the personnel, the team plays much better.

oh yes, because IHOF are the bastions of righteousness and all that is good in the world. nevermind that 2 or 3 bugs were fixed specifically because one of their owners (Chubby) blatantly abused them to the point where some stats are grossly out of whack. but that's ok.

[Hell Atlantic]

And another thing, on 2k4 anyway, I feel like I have no control over playing time. I have DT Canterbury at 2 playing time, and Harding is averaging 3.5 plays a game while Canterbury is averaging 64.

When MacKinnon was the backup LB, he averaged about 7 plays a game. Under the same settings, Paine is averaging 2 plays a game. (endurance levels are similar) It looks like the computer takes talent into account...well stop! I'M taking talent rating into account when I set the damn PT level! Computer, if you knew wtf you were doing, I would just hit recommend and save myself a lot of GD time!

It makes it hard to develop players without starting them.

/rant

i agree. i really want to give QB Ike Jordan some PT, if for nothing else but to develop him some more. i don't necessarily want to wait until Dennis Collela goes down for me to hand the reigns over to Jordan. i wouldn't mind giving him some snaps at the end of a blowout. i can't do that. this isn't on my list of major gripes, but having Collela at 5 PT doesn't seem to mean anything. this opens up another problem i have - a lot re: FOF is just tweaking numbers that have minimal (at best) affect on the on-the-field results. i say at best because a lot of times i don't think changing a setting plus/minus 3 or even 5 points really means anything. instead of having a range of 0-100, Jim should just do 1-10. i've said this before and i'll say it again - i don't see how having something set at 78 or 73 will really mean anything.

if i were to make a game, my idea would be totally different. i would gear it towards the GM side of things, and instead of tweaking meaningless numbers i would have a master gameplan where you specify how many times you want to run (20-25; 25-30; etc) and if you want to focus on short, medium or long passing. then you can go further and specify who you want to get the bulk of the carries. so if you selected the 20-25 carry range, you can say on a scale of 1-10 your RB1 is set to 7 (70% of the carries), your RB2 is set to 2 (20% of the carries) and your backup fullback who seems to be better at running than blocking is set to 1, that way you can pick and choose who gets the ball and specify how many times they're gonna get it. the way it is now say if i want my backup FB or 3rd RB to get some carries i have to put them in certain situations. i would have to put my RB3 in, say, "passing downs" but then he would get too many touches. what if i just want him to get literally 2 or 3 touches a game, just to keep his legs warm.

and the silliness that is passing. i have to tell my QB "i want you to throw 22% in this range, 12% in that range, etc.". so does that mean in-game if i throw a bulk of my passes in screens, for example, that my QB will disregard my WR who beat the corner and is streaking down the field for a certain td?? i also want to say "Mullin is my top WR, you target him the most and you make sure he's the first guy you look for on the field". i want to be able to set a priority # on my WR's, my #3 WR or even my FB should not be getting as many targeted passes as who i want to designate my top WR. why do i have to play around and tweak gameplans just to say who i want to get the most targeted passes and who isn't as important? granted, i use a higher percentage of multi-WR sets in my gameplan, but even if there's 4 WR's on the field the game seems to treat them all the same and that's not the case. i want to say "this guy is our top WR, no matter how many WR's are on the field you make sure the priority is on him and if he's not open then you finish making your reads". you mean to tell me Montana/Young didn't know where Rice was on the field at all times no matter who else was on the field? i just want to make it simple. jim isn't a fan of simple. like i said, there is a lot that is unknown about this game and i think that's by design, the better to hide from things that are broken. the manual for this game (ie, no manual) and the in-game help are the worst i've seen.

[sovstar]

HA got Jim to comment on the gameplanning bug:

The game adjustments aren't working properly, and a few people have figured out how to turn that into an offense that racks up a lot of yardage without triggering the game's offensive game plan recognition code. This is part of the 6.0e plan, which I'm working on actively. This item is relevant in that solutions to these issues can be exploited - especially if there are bugs in the implementation.

I would bet that a patch will be out before we finish the 2009 season (or before the 2010 regular season begins), so we'll move to 2007 as planned.

[JesterBlaze]

i don't necessarily want to wait until Dennis Collela goes down for me to hand the reigns over to Jordan. i wouldn't mind giving him some snaps at the end of a blowout.

While it kicks in too late for my taste there is actually a point where FOF will do a major subbing of 2nd stringers for starters. Either that or I've just witnessed coincidences in substitutions at the same time I was up big in the late 4th.

FOF is just tweaking numbers that have minimal (at best) affect on the on-the-field results. i say at best because a lot of times i don't think changing a setting plus/minus 3 or even 5 points really means anything. instead of having a range of 0-100, Jim should just do 1-10. i've said this before and i'll say it again - i don't see how having something set at 78 or 73 will really mean anything.

For someone who gameplans week-to-week like myself I think you're right and 1-10 would be fine, but for someone playing a solo career and simming the whole season with one gameplan I think the 1-100 is better than 1-10.

Figure with 1000 plays per season a 5% difference is 50 plays.

[JesterBlaze]

HA got Jim to comment on the gameplanning bug:

The game adjustments aren't working properly, and a few people have figured out how to turn that into an offense that racks up a lot of yardage without triggering the game's offensive game plan recognition code. This is part of the 6.0e plan, which I'm working on actively. This item is relevant in that solutions to these issues can be exploited - especially if there are bugs in the implementation.

I would bet that a patch will be out before we finish the 2009 season (or before the 2010 regular season begins), so we'll move to 2007 as planned.

How does your code allow for "not triggering" your code??? :shock:

Scary explanation IMO.

We're cutting it close and this is the fifth patch I'm assuming from the "e". Nothing personal towards Jim but if your first 4 patches didn't cover things like this than I've not too much confidence this patch is going to result in a "stable game". Not that I like the idea of sticking with FOF 2004 either.

Here's hoping the 5th try is the charm!

[sovstar]

HA got Jim to comment on the gameplanning bug:

The game adjustments aren't working properly, and a few people have figured out how to turn that into an offense that racks up a lot of yardage without triggering the game's offensive game plan recognition code. This is part of the 6.0e plan, which I'm working on actively. This item is relevant in that solutions to these issues can be exploited - especially if there are bugs in the implementation.

I would bet that a patch will be out before we finish the 2009 season (or before the 2010 regular season begins), so we'll move to 2007 as planned.

How does your code allow for "not triggering" your code??? :shock:

I would guess that's a pretty standard description of an everyday bug. By that I mean that certain code just isn't getting accessed or read because something written before it isn't working as it should be.

[JesterBlaze]

While I can't deny the standard description (being that the only real description to a bug is "I don't know. That's why it's not working correctly. If I knew then it'd be fixed.") "the game's offensive gameplan recognition code" is a very generic description and if a single offensive play has been recorded then your "offensive gameplan recognition code" "worked" or there'd be no offensive play.

Of course now I sit here an imagine that Jim has some "universal" gameplan that runs first and foremost and then is only effected by the GM's gameplan in certain situations which is even more scary. ALL the offensive plays should be derived from start to finish from the GM's offensive gameplan. If a coach doesn't get a playcall in then his players may be smart enough to call a play on their own but there's no "universal football gameplan" that runs until a coach interferes.

I also know that when working on a bug explaining that bug to the public is not the highest thing on your priority list so I'll just hope that Jim knows what he's doing as he's the only one to see his code.