House Rules for FOF 2004

QuikSand · 12-30-2003, 04:54 AM

Okay... we know that given enough time and effort, most of us can simply "beat" a universe of computer-run opponents. Chess notwithstanding (sorry, Garry) this just seems to be true in most things. It certainly seems to be true in the sports text sim world, including FOF.

So, many of us work to come up with "hosue rules" to try to add to the challenge of the game. Many players just decide not to do certain things, without following any particular structure or guidelines. Others, like me, would prefer to state their restrictions up front, define the exact rules, and then play "all out" within those rules.

I'll also set aside the somewhat separate concept of "challenge rules," which are (in my mind) a different sort of thing. Plenty of interesting challenges can be created in this game -- but when these challenges make a major departure from reality (only using undrafterd players, only using players from one state, that sort of thing) I think it's a different animal than just tryinng to temper the human adva ntages over the computer in general.

So, back to the question at hand: What house rules are you using with FOF 2004, what kind of results are you getting, and where can we go with this as a community?

QuikSand · 12-30-2003, 05:09 AM

Needless to say, I'll start off my own thread with the first response. (It's a tradition - you don't get to 12,000 posts without some tricks up your sleeve)

In my one FOF 2004 career (post-beta), I have been playing with some pretty modest house rules -- mostly trying to get a feel for the game. My main house rules have been:

No renegotiations - I've used this for a pretty long time, and I like it a lot. I just don't think that the game does a seamless job with player demands -- and there are too many opportunities to just keep your players around forever affordably by renegotiating your own players' contracts. The new "Cap out offer" feature in FOF 2004 (which inly redistriuibutes money within an existing contract) seems pretty fair to me, so I have allowed myself ot use it (though I have yet to do so more than once or twice). But, in general, my philosophy is that if I want one of my players to return to my team - I'll put in a bid in the open market, and pay what it takes to get him. (It's amazing the ripple effect this has on your pursuit of free agents, also -- suddenly you axctually care about those contracts, since you won't be able to negotiate them away after a couple of seasons)

Fair Bonuses - Another rule that I have grown to like is this: for every free agent player who seeks a significant bonus, my contract offer must include a bonus at least as large as the highest year's salary in the offer. This eliminates any temptation to bo serious backloading in the deal -- since that just jacks up the amount of guaranteed money that must be offered. It also eliminates the availability of the risk-free deals that some players will still accept -- offering multiple years with no bonuses, which allow you to cut or trade the player with no penalty at all. Wipe out those loopholes, and the FA bidding process becomes much more fair. (Along with the no-reneg rule, this actually puts us at a disadvantage with the computer teams, which is probably good for challenge's sake).

Fair Trades - I have grown a bit more confident with the trading mechanism in FOF 2004 than in previous versions, but I still think that there are too many ways to make gains from trades. So, I follow rules to limit my dealings. With players, the only trades I can make are those offered to me my computer teams, and only those that pass the so-called "fairness test." (i.e. alter the trade in some way, reinstate the original offer, and then see if the offering team will still accept it) During the draft, I am allowing myself ot initiate trades, but only deals involving draft picks. The one thing I don't allow is a "swap" of picks in future years - as i think the AI fails to adjust the value of future years picks based on team expectations (i.e. it's too easy for your 14-2 team to swap next year's first round pick with a team than went 3-13 last season). I think these two rules add a pretty reasonable balance to the trading engine-- you will still make a few deals along the way, and might move around on draft day, but you won't find yourself shopping every guy who has only one year left on his contract, and every decent reserve QB you come across.

For me, those are the three major rules that I use as a foundation for my house rules. Put that together, and I think you have advanced the cause of making the FOF 2004 experience more challenging, and at the same time still very realistic. You still have to make the same range of decisions that you want to make in a football sim -- only some absurd opportunities are eliminated from your consideration. I think they all work well, and work well together.

QuikSand · 12-30-2003, 10:59 AM

I am toying with another idea, which I plan to use after my current career takes a bend.

I'm thinking about the idea of "action points" - more or less as implemented in the new wave of European board games that have become popular in recent years. The basic idea is that for each turn (in these games) you have a certain budget of action points (AP) to use to do things -- and each action you take costs you a certain number of AP. So, you might have 5 total AP to use, and you maymove yout token one space for 1 AP, you may draw a card for 2 AP, or you may play a card for 1 AP -- something along those lines.

I don't have it all together, but my thinking is that something along these lines might beintriguing. Something like a separate "budget" of actiona points each year, which you spend by doing things in the game -- paying a top coach or scout, signing a free agent, using the franchise tag, and so forth. Each action you take to help your team counts for a certain number of AP, and you are required to stay within your pre-set budget of AP each season.

Still evolving, but I think the idea has some promise.

ez · 12-31-2003, 11:34 AM

AP were gonna be part of GT2, but the original crew (which included me...) dropped the ball with getting that going. was the idea ever implemented?

QuikSand · 12-31-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ez
AP were gonna be part of GT2, but the original crew (which included me...) dropped the ball with getting that going. was the idea ever implemented?

I haven't seen anyone using it, and it hasn't been used in the various GT projects I've bee involved with... but it's not all that dramatic an idea, I don't think.

Planning to stick around, ez?

QuikSand · 12-31-2003, 11:56 AM

By the way, I posted more on the AP idea in the general forum - as there just isn't much traffic here in "strategies."

AP discussion link

ez · 12-31-2003, 12:20 PM

like beathard and walsh, i've been lured from semi-retirement to consult for the eville triad...

i thought AP suited GT well as a means of "paying" for info from the omniscient one running the game. more detailed knowledge would cost more, etc.

i was hoping the AP budget could be somehow tied to team finances.

my initial take on using AP for things like particular extensions or trades is that it's a high-overhead variant on house rules like "max of 3 trades per season," which i've never really liked.

The Shadow · 12-31-2003, 12:56 PM

I already posted this in the General Discussion thread, but have you tried these 3 simple House Rules?

1. Don't take advantage of AI teams - no swapping future 1st round picks, no trading for stud rookies, fairness test on trades, etc.
2. Only bid on your staff (coaches and scouts) in the last stage.
3. Your team's salary cap starts out at 10% below league salary cap. It will go down 5% every time your team reaches the Superbowl. It will go up 5% every time your team has a losing season, but only upto 10% below league salary cap.

These 3 rules are simple to remember and still allow you to use most facets of the game (FA, renegotiations, Franchise designations, draft day trading, etc.). But these rules should make it challenging for anyone to dominate the league.

causeiambetta · 01-06-2004, 08:09 PM

Not taking controll of gameplans and play calling make the game hard enough as is.

yabanci · 01-10-2004, 03:22 AM

The only house rules I've been using are:

1. No lowballing on contracts, meaning that in renegotiations or free agency I offer them what they ask for or more.

2. No trading free agents I've signed unless they've played for me at least two years (i.e., no renting players for a year and then trading them for draft picks)

Other than that, I limit the total number of trades to a maximum of 2-3 per year and I don't make trades during the regular season, basically because this is how the AI teams do it. Overall I make sure trades seem "fair," but this hasn't really been an issue for me in FOF2004. I also don't go crazy hiring and firing coaches/coordinators. I usually let them finish their contracts unless they really deserve to be fired, as opposed to making a change just because someobdy a little better is available.

Franklinnoble · 01-14-2004, 01:50 PM

Want a challenge? Try winning with a crappy quarterback.

I've done dynasty reports (can't find them right off) that basically reinforce the notion that your QB is your single most important player. A good QB surrounded by "misfit toys" can win a Super Bowl. A solid team led by a lousy QB never has, in my experience.

causeiambetta · 01-14-2004, 11:53 PM

I want to take back what i said about the game being hard enough as is. As the post before me basically laid out. I drafted a stud QB iand then went 5 years straight superbowl wins. Including his rookie year and the last year where the whole team imploded due to salary cap. The QB is the single greatest difference maker, without question.

When my star QB is done, i'm going to see what the results would be with a great tail back, i don't think it'll be that great of a difference. Whether the game places too much emphasis on the QB is debatable, just like it is with the real life sport. The playoffs this year featured great QBs except for 2 teams; Cowboys (Quincy Carter) and Baltimore (Anthony Wright) both of which lost in the early rounds, and badly at that.

Yossarian · 01-17-2004, 03:25 PM

hey,

I'm a panthers fan and even I don't think JD is 'great' but if he wins two more games for us this season I'll take that back..

causeiambetta · 01-22-2004, 01:53 AM

only 6 pass attempts second half JD. i'm not so confident about the panther's O
Brady can bring the heat when he needs to.

12-31-2003, 12:56 PM	#8
The Shadow n00b Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hawaii	I already posted this in the General Discussion thread, but have you tried these 3 simple House Rules? 1. Don't take advantage of AI teams - no swapping future 1st round picks, no trading for stud rookies, fairness test on trades, etc. 2. Only bid on your staff (coaches and scouts) in the last stage. 3. Your team's salary cap starts out at 10% below league salary cap. It will go down 5% every time your team reaches the Superbowl. It will go up 5% every time your team has a losing season, but only upto 10% below league salary cap. These 3 rules are simple to remember and still allow you to use most facets of the game (FA, renegotiations, Franchise designations, draft day trading, etc.). But these rules should make it challenging for anyone to dominate the league. __________________ The Shadow Knows !!

01-10-2004, 03:22 AM	#10
yabanci College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jun 2003	The only house rules I've been using are: 1. No lowballing on contracts, meaning that in renegotiations or free agency I offer them what they ask for or more. 2. No trading free agents I've signed unless they've played for me at least two years (i.e., no renting players for a year and then trading them for draft picks) Other than that, I limit the total number of trades to a maximum of 2-3 per year and I don't make trades during the regular season, basically because this is how the AI teams do it. Overall I make sure trades seem "fair," but this hasn't really been an issue for me in FOF2004. I also don't go crazy hiring and firing coaches/coordinators. I usually let them finish their contracts unless they really deserve to be fired, as opposed to making a change just because someobdy a little better is available. Last edited by yabanci : 01-10-2004 at 03:26 AM.

12-30-2003, 05:09 AM	#2
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Needless to say, I'll start off my own thread with the first response. (It's a tradition - you don't get to 12,000 posts without some tricks up your sleeve) In my one FOF 2004 career (post-beta), I have been playing with some pretty modest house rules -- mostly trying to get a feel for the game. My main house rules have been: No renegotiations - I've used this for a pretty long time, and I like it a lot. I just don't think that the game does a seamless job with player demands -- and there are too many opportunities to just keep your players around forever affordably by renegotiating your own players' contracts. The new "Cap out offer" feature in FOF 2004 (which inly redistriuibutes money within an existing contract) seems pretty fair to me, so I have allowed myself ot use it (though I have yet to do so more than once or twice). But, in general, my philosophy is that if I want one of my players to return to my team - I'll put in a bid in the open market, and pay what it takes to get him. (It's amazing the ripple effect this has on your pursuit of free agents, also -- suddenly you axctually care about those contracts, since you won't be able to negotiate them away after a couple of seasons) Fair Bonuses - Another rule that I have grown to like is this: for every free agent player who seeks a significant bonus, my contract offer must include a bonus at least as large as the highest year's salary in the offer. This eliminates any temptation to bo serious backloading in the deal -- since that just jacks up the amount of guaranteed money that must be offered. It also eliminates the availability of the risk-free deals that some players will still accept -- offering multiple years with no bonuses, which allow you to cut or trade the player with no penalty at all. Wipe out those loopholes, and the FA bidding process becomes much more fair. (Along with the no-reneg rule, this actually puts us at a disadvantage with the computer teams, which is probably good for challenge's sake). Fair Trades - I have grown a bit more confident with the trading mechanism in FOF 2004 than in previous versions, but I still think that there are too many ways to make gains from trades. So, I follow rules to limit my dealings. With players, the only trades I can make are those offered to me my computer teams, and only those that pass the so-called "fairness test." (i.e. alter the trade in some way, reinstate the original offer, and then see if the offering team will still accept it) During the draft, I am allowing myself ot initiate trades, but only deals involving draft picks. The one thing I don't allow is a "swap" of picks in future years - as i think the AI fails to adjust the value of future years picks based on team expectations (i.e. it's too easy for your 14-2 team to swap next year's first round pick with a team than went 3-13 last season). I think these two rules add a pretty reasonable balance to the trading engine-- you will still make a few deals along the way, and might move around on draft day, but you won't find yourself shopping every guy who has only one year left on his contract, and every decent reserve QB you come across. For me, those are the three major rules that I use as a foundation for my house rules. Put that together, and I think you have advanced the cause of making the FOF 2004 experience more challenging, and at the same time still very realistic. You still have to make the same range of decisions that you want to make in a football sim -- only some absurd opportunities are eliminated from your consideration. I think they all work well, and work well together.

12-30-2003, 10:59 AM	#3
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I am toying with another idea, which I plan to use after my current career takes a bend. I'm thinking about the idea of "action points" - more or less as implemented in the new wave of European board games that have become popular in recent years. The basic idea is that for each turn (in these games) you have a certain budget of action points (AP) to use to do things -- and each action you take costs you a certain number of AP. So, you might have 5 total AP to use, and you maymove yout token one space for 1 AP, you may draw a card for 2 AP, or you may play a card for 1 AP -- something along those lines. I don't have it all together, but my thinking is that something along these lines might beintriguing. Something like a separate "budget" of actiona points each year, which you spend by doing things in the game -- paying a top coach or scout, signing a free agent, using the franchise tag, and so forth. Each action you take to help your team counts for a certain number of AP, and you are required to stay within your pre-set budget of AP each season. Still evolving, but I think the idea has some promise.

12-31-2003, 11:34 AM	#4
ez High School JV Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: parts unknown, weight unknown...	AP were gonna be part of GT2, but the original crew (which included me...) dropped the ball with getting that going. was the idea ever implemented?

12-31-2003, 11:56 AM	#6
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	By the way, I posted more on the AP idea in the general forum - as there just isn't much traffic here in "strategies." AP discussion link

12-31-2003, 12:20 PM	#7
ez High School JV Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: parts unknown, weight unknown...	like beathard and walsh, i've been lured from semi-retirement to consult for the eville triad... i thought AP suited GT well as a means of "paying" for info from the omniscient one running the game. more detailed knowledge would cost more, etc. i was hoping the AP budget could be somehow tied to team finances. my initial take on using AP for things like particular extensions or trades is that it's a high-overhead variant on house rules like "max of 3 trades per season," which i've never really liked.

01-06-2004, 08:09 PM	#9
causeiambetta n00b Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: stony brook, ny	Not taking controll of gameplans and play calling make the game hard enough as is.

01-14-2004, 01:50 PM	#11
Franklinnoble Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Placerville, CA	Want a challenge? Try winning with a crappy quarterback. I've done dynasty reports (can't find them right off) that basically reinforce the notion that your QB is your single most important player. A good QB surrounded by "misfit toys" can win a Super Bowl. A solid team led by a lousy QB never has, in my experience.

01-14-2004, 11:53 PM	#12
causeiambetta n00b Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: stony brook, ny	I want to take back what i said about the game being hard enough as is. As the post before me basically laid out. I drafted a stud QB iand then went 5 years straight superbowl wins. Including his rookie year and the last year where the whole team imploded due to salary cap. The QB is the single greatest difference maker, without question. When my star QB is done, i'm going to see what the results would be with a great tail back, i don't think it'll be that great of a difference. Whether the game places too much emphasis on the QB is debatable, just like it is with the real life sport. The playoffs this year featured great QBs except for 2 teams; Cowboys (Quincy Carter) and Baltimore (Anthony Wright) both of which lost in the early rounds, and badly at that.

01-17-2004, 03:25 PM	#13
Yossarian High School Varsity Join Date: Jul 2003	hey, I'm a panthers fan and even I don't think JD is 'great' but if he wins two more games for us this season I'll take that back..

01-22-2004, 01:53 AM	#14
causeiambetta n00b Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: stony brook, ny	only 6 pass attempts second half JD. i'm not so confident about the panther's O Brady can bring the heat when he needs to.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)