Front Office Football Central
Page 73 of 132 « First < 2363646566676869707172 73 74757677787980818283123 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Maximum Football??? (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=45810)

Ben E Lou 03-27-2006 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daivd
Canadian issues with the game will be handled first. This includes patches and bug fixes. If a change is required to make the game more playable as US rules but would change the way it is played under Canadian rules, the change might not be made. Any corrections needed to be made to make the game correct under Canadian rules may effect the US play.

And you people mocked me earlier for giving druez his deserved props for seeing through this guy... ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by druez
I thought this was a serious attempt to make the next great football game, not some kind of mentle masturbation for you to stroke your ego about how great Canadian Football is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog
I think druez is right about him having a burr up his butt about canadian Football. Who in the WORLD would list that *before* our version in a feature list, as if that's going to draw more people???

In my interactions with him on his board, I quickly thought that Daivd seemed to have a rather large Canadian chip on his shoulder. Reading this comment that I missed from way back only confirmed that the chip was even larger than even I had suspected. Just wow.

stevew 03-27-2006 09:24 AM
I think we need to merge all the Maxifootball threads together. Get this thread even more bloated, :)

Yeah, and I remember seeing that bit about Canadian football being the most important version to Daivd and then and there realizing that he was a tard. I'd consider buying a canadian game if it actually worked right, as the formations and stuff seem like they would be fun in a video game. But if the game has US and Canadian Rules in it, the US ones better darn well work right. Currently MAxi has some sort of Hybrid rule set that doesnt work for either.

MIJB#19 03-27-2006 10:30 AM
C'mon boys and girls, 1,300 views to go and this thread is the best viewed evah in FOFC History!

I didn't think this thread would live so long, but the recent post tell me I need to read up on the last 10 pages.

Honolulu_Blue 03-27-2006 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew
Maximum Football stuff.
__________________
"I want these mother------- snakes off the mother------- plane!"

Someone's done stoled my sig!

stevew 03-27-2006 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue
Someone's done stoled my sig!

When did you do yours? I think i set mine last thursday

Honolulu_Blue 03-27-2006 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew
When did you do yours? I think i set mine last thursday

Good question. To be honest, I think it was last Thursday too...

OMG!!1! WFT!!1!!!1

cartman 03-27-2006 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Now looking at the top portion, the stats look loosely realistic, but then when you see how many people rushed the ball, it boggles the mind:

Especially since all that running was done without the availability of the triple option!

:D

digamma 03-27-2006 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Now looking at the top portion, the stats look loosely realistic, but then when you see how many people rushed the ball, it boggles the mind:

A couple of posts down in that thread, this guy explains he was calling plays for both teams. That explains why these stats aren't half bad.

Bee 03-27-2006 11:17 AM
I didn't even know Tennessee and Mississippi State were in Canada.

Franklinnoble 03-27-2006 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bee
I didn't even know Tennessee and Mississippi State were in Canada.

Someday, we'll learn not to underestimate the customizeability of this game...

Antmeister 03-27-2006 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma
A couple of posts down in that thread, this guy explains he was calling plays for both teams. That explains why these stats aren't half bad.

You know what is really sad. The guy who posted that shot has been beta testing this game for about 3 years. You would think that they would have caught some of the more basic errors. JUst strange.

http://maxfb.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=196&

FrogMan 03-27-2006 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
You know what is really sad. The guy who posted that shot has been beta testing this game for about 3 years. You would think that they would have caught some of the more basic errors. JUst strange.

http://maxfb.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=196&

LOL!!! from that thread, second page:
Quote:
On the defense one of the safeties is lined up out of bounds, which if I'm not mistaken would be illegal (never seen it happen but it would be a penalty against the offense so I assume the D is the same). Is that already a known issue in the game?

and Daivd's answer at the time:
Quote:
It's an alpha screenshot.

I see that from alpha to beta to gold to released to patched, things have changed a whole lot... :D

FM

cartman 03-27-2006 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
You know what is really sad. The guy who posted that shot has been beta testing this game for about 3 years. You would think that they would have caught some of the more basic errors. JUst strange.

http://maxfb.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=196&


So, I wonder that now since 3 years have passed, if Magnum357 had to drop down his textures to remove the artifacts. :D

AlexB 03-27-2006 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
You know what is really sad. The guy who posted that shot has been beta testing this game for about 3 years. You would think that they would have caught some of the more basic errors. JUst strange.

http://maxfb.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=196&

Things about the pic at the top of this thread (ignoring the -7 vs 156 rushing yards):

The safety is lined up out of the field of play
The D line matches up one on one against the strong side O-line, with no LB's covering the short run against the QB, RB or FB
Either a defender is in a really horrible position (worse than out of the back of the end zone) or there are only ten players on the field

And some of the responses to this screenshit:

'That looks impressive! In fact, the entire pic looks really good'
'It looks like the game is looking really good. So good I may want to cry'
'WOW!!!! I'm getting pumped!!'
'Cool!'

And Daivd posted in this thread as well, without apparently being worried

Antmeister 03-27-2006 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrogMan
...I see that from alpha to beta to gold to released to patched, things have changed a whole lot... :D

FM

Yep....it's amazing it wasn't fixed in 3 years and that same guy is now talking about how he has to play both sides of the ball to get realistic results. What is the point in that?

Antmeister 03-27-2006 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang

As I look back through this thread, I didn't realize how much truth this book cover had.

Antmeister 03-27-2006 09:20 PM
Uh....now this is an interesting formation. And the person who posted it said the play went ahead without any sort of penalty. Wow!

dawgfan 03-27-2006 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Uh....now this is an interesting formation. And the person who posted it said the play went ahead without any sort of penalty. Wow!
I guess the number of players on the LOS for the offense is one of the customizable rules of the game?

cartman 03-27-2006 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Uh....now this is an interesting formation. And the person who posted it said the play went ahead without any sort of penalty. Wow!


How many guys were in motion at the snap?

:D

Antmeister 03-27-2006 09:29 PM
And if you want to read someone's 4 game dynasty, check this out:

Quote:
Hi,

I played 4 different games using CFL rules @ All Pro settings, 1.0.106 built in and testing at 7 mins per quater at quick play.

First game
Game pad (Arcade Mode) vs CPU

When CPU or Human controller miss a field goal both should be rewarded a single point. Did not happen.

During the game while 20 second clock is ticking I wanted to make a WR sub. I used the mouse to click on the player I want to sub but it frozed. I could not move the mouse pointer. I had to reboot the computer.

Game results: incomplete

Second Game
Game pad (Arcade Mode) vs CPU

CPU rushes the ball on serveral occations when it was 2 and 13 and 2 and 19 but it rushed and then the game skipped to 3rd down.
At that point, the default lineup for punt return players came on. I did switch to global when it happened the first time earier in the game.
It freezes up when I want to make a sub changed.

Game results: incomeplete

Third game
Game pad (Arcade Mode) vs CPU
When the CPU punted the ball away the ball disappeared for a few seconds leaving my controller man to jerk a bit back and forth. Soon afterwards my player was tacked but did not have the ball. It showed that after the tackle was made, my player did have the ball in the end. Some how I did not see the whole frame of the moving ball.

Scoreboard did not display any single points to the score after attempted field goal was made by human controller or CPU.

Game Results: Toronto 14 (CPU) Edmonton 52 (human controller)

Forth Game
CPU vs CPU
I did not play this game at all and wanted to test it vs computer vs computer

Interesting that the number of plays is 50 percent passing and 50 percent rushing in each quater.

Lots of passing plays were incomplete.

Several times the receiver or SB was running but it could have been catchable because it was no more than two yards from the possible target. Sometimes a player with good ability and intellegence could make a jump to catch a ball or a small dive to catch it. Can this be fixed?

When a CPU rushes the ball for some reason instead of going forward to reach 10 yards, the CPU player goes backwards or goes directly across from the middle of the scramble to get tackled. Only gained 1 yard or so. If he had kept going after breaking through from the outside of the O-line he could have gotten 10 yards or more for a first down.

Other than that the final game

Toronto 14 Hamilton 19

CPU Toronto rushed 33 for 53 yards and 1 TD
CPU Hamilton rushed 28 for 44 yards and 1 TD

CPU Toronto and Hamilton missed 2 field goals but did not get any single points??

Both quaterbacks did not pass more than 100 yards in a game.

Passing
CPU Toronto was 56 att 12 comp for 47 yards and 1 TD and 2 interceptions
CPU Hamilton was 54 att 16 comp for 43 yards and 1 TD and 3 interceptions

Toronto had 3 fumbles while Hamilton had 2 fumbles

I don't know if its my computer or not but if you want to take a look at my DxDiag I have attached it.

stevew 03-27-2006 09:33 PM
The sheer size of the feet on these players is absolutely hilarious. It still cracks me up, they must all wear like size 18 or more.

Pumpy Tudors 03-27-2006 09:35 PM
Jeez, Daivd couldn't even get the rouge right. He loves the CFL and can't even get the rouge into the game. I can get a rouge on my BACK (see picture below), and he can't get it into the game that he spent 5 years programming? What?

Groundhog 03-27-2006 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors
Jeez, Daivd couldn't even get the rouge right. He loves the CFL and can't even get the rouge into the game. I can get a rouge on my BACK (see picture below), and he can't get it into the game that he spent 5 years programming? What?

And NOW the thread is officially complete.

cartman 03-27-2006 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
And if you want to read someone's 4 game dynasty, check this out:

I nominate this dynasty for a Golden Scribe. Maybe it will lessen the pain of having to lose the hours for those games he'll never get back.

bbor 03-27-2006 09:42 PM
PUMPY PIX!PUMPY PIX!!

DeToxRox 03-27-2006 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma
A couple of posts down in that thread, this guy explains he was calling plays for both teams. That explains why these stats aren't half bad.

How do you run for 270 yards .. and only get 8 first downs? Did they just play you get 4 downs?

jbmagic 03-27-2006 09:50 PM
This game is the worse release in history.

This game is not even ready for beta.

Do you guys ever remember a worse game release than this game?

cartman 03-27-2006 09:55 PM
Here's a gem:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm...76334&mpage=2#

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daivd
I'm aware that the Maximum-Football web page discusses a demo but at this stage plans for a demo are not firm.

My priority right now is bug squashing and overall game improvements. When that's under control I may look at a demo but the reality is that this game really doesn't lend itself well to one. Due to the large amount of customization and openness of support files, it would be extremely difficult to rein all that in to make a demo.

Demo's are very useful in that they, at the very least, let potental buyers see if the game will run on their machine. I am aware that many people have passed on the game due to lack of a demo. It is something however that must take a back seat to those that have purchased the full game and are looking for support.

If and when a demo is available, it will be announced.

Thanks
David

So, demos are mostly useful as a "smoke test". Got it. If it installs and runs, you should buy it, regardless of the gameplay experience.

:D

cartman 03-27-2006 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbmagic
This game is the worse release in history.

This game is not even ready for beta.

Do you guys ever remember a worse game release than this game?

Sadly, the only one that comes to mind is FB Pro '99, but it was farther along functionality wise than Max-FB is.

Dutch 03-27-2006 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeToxRoxDVHStyle
How do you run for 270 yards .. and only get 8 first downs? Did they just play you get 4 downs?

All these guys are Barry Sanders.

-1 yards
-2 yards
punt
0 yards
-2 yards
85 yards TD!!!111!!!11!!

:rolleyes:

bbor 03-27-2006 10:01 PM
I tend to diagree...this is the best game ever....look at all the entertainment we are getting out of this game and we havent spent a dime :D

Antmeister 03-27-2006 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
Sadly, the only one that comes to mind is FB Pro '99, but it was farther along functionality wise than Max-FB is.

Hey now, don't bring FPS FBPro 99 into this. What did they do to deserve to be compared to this alpha game. :D

Antmeister 03-27-2006 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbor
I tend to diagree...this is the best game ever....look at all the entertainment we are getting out of this game and we havent spent a dime :D

I can't argue with that. I actually keep going to the site hoping to see Matrix improve this game. Now I am wondering if/when they are going to stop supporting this title. Each patch brings new problems. But if it wasn't for these things, this thread would have died long ago. Unfortunately they keep posting juicy screenshots and tantalizing posts that I can't help but share. :D

cartman 03-27-2006 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Hey now, don't bring FPS FBPro 99 into this. What did they do to deserve to be compared to this alpha game. :D

Hey now, I used to post the "beta", "unsupported", "never supposed to see the light of day" patches that made FB Pro '99 into a halfway decent game at my site. I would receive almost daily emails from a guy at Sierra, asking me to take them down from my site. I wrote back to him, asking him why should I do that, since the patches addressed many of the problems people were having, and Sierra had abandoned the game anyway. I even offered to host files for the upcoming bull riding and bass fishing games. Those emails went unanswered.

digamma 03-27-2006 10:29 PM
Quote:
Demo's are very useful

As if Quik didn't have enough reasons to avoid giving Mr. Wintre money.

Antmeister 03-27-2006 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma
As if Quik didn't have enough reasons to avoid giving Mr. Wintre money.

LOL!

Antmeister 03-27-2006 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
Hey now, I used to post the "beta", "unsupported", "never supposed to see the light of day" patches that made FB Pro '99 into a halfway decent game at my site. I would receive almost daily emails from a guy at Sierra, asking me to take them down from my site. I wrote back to him, asking him why should I do that, since the patches addressed many of the problems people were having, and Sierra had abandoned the game anyway. I even offered to host files for the upcoming bull riding and bass fishing games. Those emails went unanswered.

I feel you pain sir.....I feel you pain......well except the part where I was totally neglected by Sierra, but I can pretend to feel that kind of pain as well. :D

stevew 03-27-2006 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma
As if Quik didn't have enough reasons to avoid giving Mr. Wintre money.

English is now apparently customizeable.

Dutch 03-27-2006 11:07 PM
Here's another easy question. How do you get 9 first downs on 22 yards rushing and -15 yards passing?

Cringer 03-27-2006 11:08 PM
73 pages and I am not sure if I have posted in this thread yet, so I just wanted to say hi.

And Maximum Football is really neat.

Cringer 03-27-2006 11:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
Here's another easy question. How do you get 9 first downs on 22 yards rushing and -15 yards passing?

I was going say sacks, but that team was only sacked once. Lots of negative rushes?

Dutch 03-27-2006 11:13 PM
17 of 38 passing for -15 yards? 20 punts for 00? 1 of 7 in FG tries. So they were doing something right to get into FG range. What a mess.

stevew 03-27-2006 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cringer
I was going say sacks, but that team was only sacked once. Lots of negative rushes?

Sacked 8 times I believe. IF each of those completed passes went for 5 yards(17completions for 85 positive yards), that would mean that 8 sacks were for an average of 12.5 yards each to get us to -15 yards passing.

AZSpeechCoach 03-27-2006 11:24 PM
Damn...those are some fine rendered trees in the background. Makes me want to buy it.

Antmeister 03-27-2006 11:26 PM
Well if you look at the other team they have 85 passing attempts and 33 rushing attempts. I had no idea you could run that many plays and amass 741 total yards. But yet they completed less than half of the passes.

Antmeister 03-27-2006 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew
Sacked 8 times I believe. IF each of those completed passes went for 5 yards(17completions for 85 positive yards), that would mean that 8 sacks were for an average of 12.5 yards each to get us to -15 yards passing.

Well what makes that stat confusing is that it is placed under Passing statistics and not Defense. So you would think that the he threw 3 interception when it is probably the other team.

Cringer 03-27-2006 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Well what makes that stat confusing is that it is placed under Passing statistics and not Defense. So you would think that the he threw 3 interception when it is probably the other team.

Yeah, that is what threw me. The 8 sacks should be listed for the other team, since it is listed as an offensive stat.

Stupid game. (BREAKING NEWS)

stevew 03-27-2006 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Well what makes that stat confusing is that it is placed under Passing statistics and not Defense. So you would think that the he threw 3 interception when it is probably the other team.


My bad, that's what I get for reading the box score and actually assuming it is logical with a quick glance over. :)

Cringer 03-27-2006 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antmeister71
Uh....now this is an interesting formation. And the person who posted it said the play went ahead without any sort of penalty. Wow!

BTW, is 95 a d-linemen playing both ways? And is he the QB? Asking a center to snap shotgun is enough, but in this formation he has to do it at an angle no matter who the QB is.

Cringer 03-27-2006 11:39 PM
dola- and #63 is a little far back off the line isn't he? Maybe he is an eligable receiver.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.
Page 73 of 132 « First < 2363646566676869707172 73 74757677787980818283123 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.