Boom Bust revisited (due to patch)

[Bonegavel]

Ok. This has been trampled to death, but I would like to bring it up again with the release of the patch.

With the departure (hopefully) of Quiksand's patented boom/bust technology, isn't this going to shift the onus of picking solid players back to random chance? Personally, I think this isn't a bad thing, because in the NFL (i know this is a game, but bear with me) this is basically what the draft is; luck. How many awesome players today were post 5th round picks?

Having said that, if there is no "system" or, at the very least, indicators to picking good players, won't this put a lot of people's panties in a bunch?

This game has ZERO options (and as a result, zero fun) regarding scouting players. You use your scouts and that is it. You don't get to see combine scores, you don't get to see their college performance, you don't even get to talk with them. It would have been awesome had Jim tightly coupled FOF4 with TCY so you could view all the college stats your little heart desired, but alas, this isn't the case. This has yet to be seen, but the patch tweaked the TCY import so there probably be even less of cross-over (and one didn't really exist anyway).

It would be nice if Jim would add the following to the next patch, or next version:

a) tightly integrate with TCY. Even to the extent that FOF4 could open up that player's college stats from within the game. It would just need to know where the TCY folder resided.

b) add to scouting. Give me some combine scores, let me chat with the player to see if he meshes with me and my philosophy. He gives us a zodiac sign and other little things, so Jim understands that more information is good.

Bottom line: Personally, I never liked the red/green bar stuff, though I understand from a game standpoint why they are used. But, if we were given the proper information regarding a player, we wouldn't need red or green bars. I know not all people out there have the desire to pour over reams of data just to pick a player in the draft, but that would deepen the experience for me.

I'll have to wait and see what the patch does for the game, but I hope it adds a bit more random factor into players.

Again, i know this has been covered before, but I like discussing this, and this is a discussion board. :-)

[QuikSand]

All well put.

[Bee]

I'll go ahead and copy over what I posted in the patch thread:

Of course, the ideal situation would be to add in a multitude of factors (scouting combine, college stats, interviews, etc) that would play into calculating a reasonable change of identifying a breakout or bust player. Those factors could enter into the likelihood of a player busting or breaking out. While still being random, it would allow you to identify the chances of a breakout or bust. Since FOF doesn't allow for anything like this to be incorporated without a major overhaul, I think complete randomness with a reasonable frequency is the better option.

I think the ideal is a better system all together allowing more data like you suggest, but with the system we have I think randomness with a controlled frequency to avoid busts/breakouts getting out of hand is probably the optimal way of handling things. You still have a basic idea of the quality of the player based on ratings...occasionally that's going to be wrong because of breakouts/busts.

[Maple Leafs]

I'll be totally honest, even though I'm probably in the minority.

I liked QuikSand's system. I'm sorry to see it go.

I liked the idea of having a slight, not-100%-perfect-but-pretty-good advantage over the other teams. I like having slightly better drafts that the other teams. I like having a better team. I like winning more than an average number of championships.

I've never fully understood the people who complain about FOF being too easy. I always thought it was pretty much just right. I don't really understand the point of playing if I'm only going to win the championship every 32 seasons. I want to do a little better. That strikes me as being the whole point.

I'm weak. I know. Shun me.

[Fritz]

shunning

[Bonegavel]

Thanks Quik and nice quote Bee, sorry I missed that.

I'm not sure which side of the fence this one should fall. I think it is safe to say that NO NFL coach wants to draft busts (this can be argued -i am an Eagles fan and lived through Rich Kotite- but lets go with that fact). If that is a given, why are there so many Ryan Leafs? I'm sure his college stats were stellar. His performance on film was probably stellar as well. Why do these players bust?

If Ryan had been drafted by another team could he have done well? How many anti-Ryans are out there? If Trent Green wasn't injured would we have never seen Warner become a mega-QB? Dittos with Marc Bulger (too early to tell, but he looks very, very promising).

Fortunately, we get to play these whatifs without costing our franchises Millions of dollars. How many times in your FOF4 careers have you simply started your Rookie (or, freshman as Jim refers to them) for an entire season just to see what would happen? I do that during my lean years. If my team is in the crapper and at game 5 we are 0-5, I play the hell out of rookies and other misfits. Sometimes I find a gem. Most often I find dung beetles.

There are so many factors that go into player performance that it it boggles the mind (head coach, position coach, fellow player's performances, atmosphere of the team, owner, fans, city, personality off the field, friends gained off the field, etc) and it is safe to say that while some players may perform similarly on any given team, many would not. It would be totally dependant on their surroundings and situation. And, in real life we can't start the season over to see how Ryan Leaf would have performed had he been drafted by another team. But in FOF, we can.

Where am I going with this, I don't know. I do know that I want my cake and be able to eat it as well. I want there to be a "pattern" for picking players, yet I want that pattern to be difficult to find for each player. But, if it is different for each player it can't be a pattern. Catch-22.

[cuervo72]

What about finding those players that fit your particular style? I haven't done much drafting (got away from the game for a while, never mastered QS's system ), but I'm doing a dispersal draft for a OPU now. I'm going to try a hard-hitting, punishing defense, so I'm leaning toward those guys. Maybe now we need to focus a little more on the personality stats, and looking to guys who might "mesh" together better (all the leadership, astrology stuff). I guess my point is that there's no easy way to identify who's going to pan out, it's time to find other strategies that were being ignored/underappreciated before (assuming of course that all those peripheral traits actually DO something).

[Daimyo]

I think everyone wants to win more than once every 32 times... we just want it to be damn hard to do so and actually be an accomplishment when it happens.

[kcchief19]

We want to be able to win often, but we want it to be hard to do.

Bones thoughts are well put, but the still lead to an incomplete picture. You do away with the red/green bars and you want college stats, combine scores and "interviews" with the player. So if you have a player who rushed for 2,000 yards, runs a 4.2 at the combine and blows you away in the "interview," then is that guy a lock? That seems to be EXACTLY what the red and green bars do, except that now the job is even easier. I know there are people here who love that, then whine the moment a can't-miss guy busted because the AI cheated.

The problem is that there are still missing parts of the equation. Forget stats, the combine and "interviews" -- the main factor NFL teams use to draft players is film. Scouts will pour over every inch of film on a player before drafting -- how do you simulate that?

There is no way to simulate the human element involved in real-world player evaluation. You can convert every player in the world into numbers or red/green bars, but that will never tell you the whole picture.

As a result, sims have to find another way to "simulate" the experience. I don't see how adding superficial eye-candy improves the process.

What I like about FOF/TCY and the latest directions of the game is that the available players provide more choices -- in earlier incarnations, it would easy to find players who did everything well. Those players are far fewer in FOF4. You may have to sacrifice run-stopping skills for a pass-rushing DE or you have to settle for a guy who does both well but not great.

I think the best thing for Jim to do would be to create a "Black" level above wall street -- a level where the deck is stacked against the player. Injuries remain constant (I know how everyone here hates tricking up the injury factor), but in essence you need a whole lot of luck to win a title.

Now THAT would be much more realistic.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I'll be totally honest, even though I'm probably in the minority.

I liked QuikSand's system. I'm sorry to see it go.

I liked the idea of having a slight, not-100%-perfect-but-pretty-good advantage over the other teams. I like having slightly better drafts that the other teams. I like having a better team. I like winning more than an average number of championships.

I've never fully understood the people who complain about FOF being too easy. I always thought it was pretty much just right. I don't really understand the point of playing if I'm only going to win the championship every 32 seasons. I want to do a little better. That strikes me as being the whole point.

I'm weak. I know. Shun me.

Actually, I pretty much agree with you all the way... I had a lot of fun with Kickstand's system of picking rookies... made it possible to be very competitive while applying a house rule of never drafting in the first round, or even while playing a "misfit toys" dynasty.

[Bee]

Originally posted by kcchief19
We want to be able to win often, but we want it to be hard to do.

Bones thoughts are well put, but the still lead to an incomplete picture. You do away with the red/green bars and you want college stats, combine scores and "interviews" with the player. So if you have a player who rushed for 2,000 yards, runs a 4.2 at the combine and blows you away in the "interview," then is that guy a lock? That seems to be EXACTLY what the red and green bars do, except that now the job is even easier. I know there are people here who love that, then whine the moment a can't-miss guy busted because the AI cheated.

The problem is that there are still missing parts of the equation. Forget stats, the combine and "interviews" -- the main factor NFL teams use to draft players is film. Scouts will pour over every inch of film on a player before drafting -- how do you simulate that?

There is no way to simulate the human element involved in real-world player evaluation. You can convert every player in the world into numbers or red/green bars, but that will never tell you the whole picture.

As a result, sims have to find another way to "simulate" the experience. I don't see how adding superficial eye-candy improves the process.

I don't think it's eye candy when it actually affects the game. I would suggest still having a scouting report (similar to the red/green bars) perhaps in a text format similar to Mac Howard's SAAP game. This would give you a general impression of a player based on your scouts opinion (ie, a substitute for actual game film) without giving you a complete picture in one fell swoop. Next you'd have a variety of data that you'd have to use to independently verify/refute/refine your scouts opinion. Various scores from the combine, stats from his college career, interviews, personality tests, etc.

The key would be making these things mean something in the game. If your scout tells you a RB has great speed, but he only times out at 4.65 in the 40 - a red flag should go up. Maybe you need to check his college stats and see how many break away runs the guy had during his career. Did he have any injuries that might have slowed him down? How productive was he in his senior season? etc. All these types of things would need to be taken into account to determine the likelihood of a player busting or breaking out.

I guess what I'm saying is, there should still be a chance for a player to bust even when everything checks out, but there should be the opportunity for an astute gamer to identify the risk involved in picking the player. If everything checks out, maybe there's a 5% chance he'll bust, but if the red flags go up those odds have increased to 20%.

Of course, that's just my opinion. The only opinion that really matters is Jim's.

[Travis]

In EHM, or at least the old versions (haven't played in a while), the scouts were highly responsible for your impressions of a player (whether a 10 year vet or a rookie about to be drafted). You could study the same country or team with 2 or 3 scouts, and odds are, you'd get 2 or 3 different opinions on nearly every player in the country/team. What it meant for me was that I spent a premium on my coaching/scouting staff so that I'd lose less money through drafting busts/not getting the most out of current players by making sure my staff was top notch. This was a great way of doing it (there is an option in game to turn off the ratings view so you pretty much rely on scouting reports and statistics to see who's doing well).

Another option they had (which needed some work) was a hidden cohesion rating. Players with the same number (believe it was a 0-9 number) would play a little better when paired with another player that had the same number. In FOF, something like that could be used where the number would be somewhat based on style of play/preferred system to play in, etc.

Just a couple thoughts to throw out there anyway.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Bee
I don't think it's eye candy when it actually affects the game. I would suggest still having a scouting report (similar to the red/green bars) perhaps in a text format similar to Mac Howard's SAAP game. This would give you a general impression of a player based on your scouts opinion (ie, a substitute for actual game film) without giving you a complete picture in one fell swoop. Next you'd have a variety of data that you'd have to use to independently verify/refute/refine your scouts opinion. Various scores from the combine, stats from his college career, interviews, personality tests, etc.

The key would be making these things mean something in the game. If your scout tells you a RB has great speed, but he only times out at 4.65 in the 40 - a red flag should go up. Maybe you need to check his college stats and see how many break away runs the guy had during his career. Did he have any injuries that might have slowed him down? How productive was he in his senior season? etc. All these types of things would need to be taken into account to determine the likelihood of a player busting or breaking out.

I guess what I'm saying is, there should still be a chance for a player to bust even when everything checks out, but there should be the opportunity for an astute gamer to identify the risk involved in picking the player. If everything checks out, maybe there's a 5% chance he'll bust, but if the red flags go up those odds have increased to 20%.

Of course, that's just my opinion. The only opinion that really matters is Jim's.

Even better, if those kind of stats were available, you'd have the challenge that the pros have in drafting. Do they select the guy with the great college stats and mediocre physical characteristics, or do you go with the workout warrior who didn't post great numbers?

Really, the draft could look like this:

College stats - all 4 years
Type of college system (run oriented, run-and shoot, 4-3, 5-2, man-to-man, zone, etc)
Height
Weight
Bench Press @ 225
Shuttle Run
40 yard dash
Wonderlik
Interview Score or Attitude
And the green/red bars

THAT would be a helluva draft. You'd compare players with all these different intangibles versus the system that you run. Run a blitzing 4-3? Then go for the DE with great shuttle times and pass rush skill. Run a 3-4? Better draft the DE with a good bench press and is a run-stuffer.

[QuikSand]

Back to the original point of the topic...

In playing post-patch through almost ten seasons, I have two general observations (not supported by har empirical evidence, but pretty strong nonetheless):

- I have only had one real "bust" from my 10-12 first round selections. One DL just never reached any of his potential at all, but nearly everyone else I drafted really ealy has lived up to expectations.

-That said, my "comfort level" with players is much lower than in any previosu version. I know that soem will disappoint, and my lack of precision in undertanding who the busst will be has me adjusting my thinking pretty significantly. I'm still excited about my top draft picks, but I'm taking more precautions.


Overall, I have a pretty positive sense about this aspect of the new game. (At leat so far)

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand

-That said, my "comfort level" with players is much lower than in any previosu version. I know that soem will disappoint, and my lack of precision in undertanding who the busst will be has me adjusting my thinking pretty significantly. I'm still excited about my top draft picks, but I'm taking more precautions.

I think that's why you have to have some level of "randomness" in the bust/boom factor. It would be best if we could evaluate the risk involved in each pick, but not to the point of what it was like in the pre-patch game.

I've played through 5 or 6 seasons at this point and have had a couple players not develop as well as I had predicted, but none that I would categorize as a true "bust". I think the bigger improvement is the reduction of overall talent in the draft. I think that will be key in the increased challenge when using free agency house rules.

[cthomer5000]

I think the recruiting system in TCY would make a great draft system in FOF.

You have your regional scouts looking at players, giving them a 0-100 grade, telling you their strengths and weaknesses. You have limited funds to visit with (lets make that private workout) or interview them with. You have a better idea of what you're getting when you take a look at him yourself, but you don't have the time or money to look at everyone. Even when i think I've landed a superstar in TCY, sometimes they end up looking nothing like I expected. The opposite is also true, i've had a few walk-ons become legitemate contributers.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
-That said, my "comfort level" with players is much lower than in any previosu version. I know that soem will disappoint, and my lack of precision in undertanding who the busst will be has me adjusting my thinking pretty significantly. I'm still excited about my top draft picks, but I'm taking more precautions.


Overall, I have a pretty positive sense about this aspect of the new game. (At leat so far)

What I find is that I put a lot more stock in actuals, and less in potential. A potential stud player who is almost all green is a no-go in the early first round. For some players, like RB/CB/S I evaluate their utility as if they never develop.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
What I find is that I put a lot more stock in actuals, and less in potential. A potential stud player who is almost all green is a no-go in the early first round. For some players, like RB/CB/S I evaluate their utility as if they never develop.

Yes. Yes.