GroupThink for FOF4?

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I think there's a divergence here, of sorts.

If we play with TCY files, then we probably don't want to do a truly "fictional" universe - since (I am told) tha TCY draft files create better players than the game itself does - all the young players would be out of balance.

However, using TCY files does add a good deal more background to the scouting process - which I think could add depth to this exercise.

My inclination is to go with TCY draft files, and that probably means dumping the "mature OPU" idea. We'd either play with the NFL players, or else with the original unaltered list of players - I'm pretty indifferent. Do you all concur?

Or are there other consistent options that I'm leaving out?

The other possibility would be to use TCY draft files to import into a fictional universe to "mature" it. For example, starting in 1970 with an OPU and every year import a different TCY draft file until 2002. Would that address the balance issue?

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
Too bad we can't go into the past with TCY..

Jim? you out there? ...

We could start with a mature league to 2002, then sim up to 2017 or so with TCY files and start fromt here? I know that's really mature and salaries will be all whacky.. but idano... or hell.. why can't we start an OPU in 2002, use TCY files, and go ahead 15 or 20 years?

Actually, we can go into the past in a way. You could import directly (although year born would look odd, but it doesn't affect retirements or anything). Or if you wanted to you could edit the year players were born in the TCY draft file with 3ric's editor (not that much work involved - about 5 minutes or so for each year).

[cthomer5000]

Agreed. import nothing but TCY players, either ignoring the year of birth or editing them with 3ric's draft editor.

[Bee]

One other thing I was thinking about. Now that we have the "play calling interface" will we be using it? I'm not interested in calling plays, but if someone who is really dedicated and wants to be the head coach wants to do that, I'd be fine with that. I'd actually be interested in seeing how it affects the game by calling your own plays. Of course, that might slow things down too much. Any opinions?

[wade moore]

I thought retirement WAS based on birth year? Or was that changed in FOF4?

As for play calling.. i'd be worried about the time it takes to do it... i don't want anything to hold us up because someone doesn't have time.. if we're not going blind, we might as well eliminate something time consuming like this.. that's my opinion atleast..

Besides, playcalling leaves too much room for exploiting the AI..

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
I thought retirement WAS based on birth year? Or was that changed in FOF4?

I believe Jim has said it's based on years played in a Q/A or chat recently. I'm not sure about past versions.

[Neel]

I would be interested in playing the role of owner. Watch over all the coaches, wonder where the wins are, and profits.

If the coach calls the plays, it could exploit the AI should the coach look to. Offensive playcalling is one of the best things about FOF4, and I would be willing to coach and call the plays, without exploiting the AI of couse, what would be the fun in that?

[DolaBump]

Well, the question of playcalling brings up another question regarding AI -- what kind of house rules are we talking about? I assume we'll set something up, but we should be careful not to restrict ourselves too much -- basically we have an advatage because we have so many people to look at each situation from so many angles -- and yet, we're at a disadvantage from the AI, because we have so many people to look at everything from different angles.

[Darkiller]

Count me in if I can play the role of :

- A College Scout : going deep into the TCY career and coming back with scouting reports for those who draft in FOF.

Since other members seem to be interested in this "job" as well, I'm very willing to be a "positional scout" and scout all QBs for instance (I'm very good at this).
Another option if we have many scouting volunteers would be "area scouts" where each of us scouts has a bunch of regions to scrutinize and send reports from players of your area only.

- A Consultant : giving my advice and knowledge on current Free Agents available, on those who'll be FA next year and that we should target, on potential trades that could significantly improve the team etc...

Basically, I have no idea up to this point about how much time I'll be able to give to this but I'll do my best.
That's why those "scout" or "football consultant" jobs are kind of free lances and should match well with time on this.

[Bee]

Well, I really think Quiksand should be GM. I seriously doubt anyone would object to that. Perhaps he can start looking at what positions everyone wants and think about filling some of them? That way anyone else wanting in will have an idea of what's still available? Just a thought (trying to prevent 20 people wanting to be QB coach or something and then having to chose one). Perhaps he can PM them and make sure they are ok with whatever position he wants them in and then list them out in the thread?

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by Bee
Well, I really think Quiksand should be GM. I seriously doubt anyone would object to that. Perhaps he can start looking at what positions everyone wants and think about filling some of them? That way anyone else wanting in will have an idea of what's still available? Just a thought (trying to prevent 20 people wanting to be QB coach or something and then having to chose one). Perhaps he can PM them and make sure they are ok with whatever position he wants them in and then list them out in the thread?

Agreed -- not to leach the fun out of this, but lets run it almost like an actual franchise -- Quiksand has been hired as the GM (it was his idea to bring this back after all) - now he gets to start assembling his staff, in basically whatever way he wants (of course he'll probably listen to our input, but he has final say). Whoever ends up as Head Coach is essentially on par with Quiksand -- if we get bogged down because the Off Coordinater disappears for a week, well either one can step in if they feel its necessary and take over those duties or get someone else to. Hopefully that will allow us keep this rolling for awhile.

The only real question I have left is the one I raised about house rules -- the wasy route is to say, "anything goes" but I don't know if we really want to go that way.

[Neel]

That is a great idea. Shouldn't someone named QuickSand be the GM of the Bengals?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Neel
That is a great idea. Shouldn't someone named QuickSand be the GM of the Bengals?

Sadly, no matter what house rules we implement, we can't make a team that bad.

[wade moore]

I agree with everything said.. make it like a real franchise to a certain extent, and it will run smoothly..

as for house rules.. I'm a pretty big fan of the ones that SkyDog is using in his latest dynasty, and QS Usually has a good handle on solid house rules...

We need someone to run the seasons and we could start.. and to decide what team...

[QuikSand]

Okay, I'll try to settle into some leadership role here.

I'll make one move - and appoint primelord as the team's defensive coordinator. With that, he will have at least some of the responsibility to actually sim the games and post results.

Right now, we need three volunteers for things:

-someone willing step up and help provide the game's starting point (and maybe some more direction on how we'll do that)

-two people who would be willing to play a fairly hands-on role in running this club: rookie scouting director, and offensive coordinator.

- - -

If we can get that far, then we'll at least have a core of people who are committed to moving this along, and can go from there.

I will consider items sent to me by PM, or those posted in this thread.

[primelord]

Thank you Quik. I am happy to run the sims part or even all of the time. I will also be happy to run the initial sims to get us started. Although I am not sure I feel strongly on whether we use TCY files or not.

I'll be happy to sim the years with TCY files if thats the way we want to go.

[QuikSand]

Is there going to be an easy source to get 20+ years of FOF4 files? (I think I recall someone at FOBL having a set of them... I may even have them in hand myself somewhere... I'll search a bit)

[QuikSand]

The people in this recent thread...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...&threadid=4865

...seem to think that using TCY draft files over-inflates the talent in the game. Might be too much to overcome in terms of realism - sounds like it really skews the game.

While I'd rather have the ability to look at TCY draft files... I'm leaning toward setting that aside, and sticking with the original game-generated drafts.

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by QuikSand
The people in this recent thread...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...&threadid=4865

...seem to think that using TCY draft files over-inflates the talent in the game. Might be too much to overcome in terms of realism - sounds like it really skews the game.

While I'd rather have the ability to look at TCY draft files... I'm leaning toward setting that aside, and sticking with the original game-generated drafts.

if we use TCY files for 20 years of simulation to give the league a background...then wouldn't everyones ratings be over-inflated, making it ok...but i can see one problem that is if every player is over-inflated it could make high first round draft picks less valuable in a way.

[QuikSand]

Yeah... it's the latter side I'm worried about. If everyone has ratings of 50 or 60, then the guys with 70 or 90 aren't really worth all that much.

[Bee]

I'm fine with not using TCY files. It takes a little of the fun away from scouting college players, but I think the net gain in the overall challenge is probably worth it.

If primelord can't run the initial setup file for some reason, I'd be happy to do it Sunday.

I did a quicksim today from 1987-2002, testing out salary cap numbers. I ended up with a cap around 97 million and a minsal of 310,000. Not sure if that's important or not, but I wanted to do it for my own curiousity.

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by Bee
I'm fine with not using TCY files. It takes a little of the fun away from scouting college players, but I think the net gain in the overall challenge is probably worth it.

If primelord can't run the initial setup file for some reason, I'd be happy to do it Sunday.

I did a quicksim today from 1987-2002, testing out salary cap numbers. I ended up with a cap around 97 million and a minsal of 310,000. Not sure if that's important or not, but I wanted to do it for my own curiousity.

Thanks Bee, I'd been planning to do that myself, but you've saved me some time. Its a bit of a high cap, but I think 15 years works for a decent history.

As for TCY files, it obviously takes an element of fun out of scouting the college game (something some of us could have spent the entire time working on) but the downside of inflated ratings seems a bit too large -- we could of course (if time permits) run a two test "history" careers and compare to see just how inflated we're talking about.

[primelord]

So are we in agreement then that we should just use the game generated players? If so I will go ahead and start simming the initial file.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by primelord
So are we in agreement then that we should just use the game generated players? If so I will go ahead and start simming the initial file.

I say go for it... thanks, primelord.

[cthomer5000]

If no one else does it, I'd like to volunteer for rookie scout. I'm also interested in being a veteran scout though (scouting the league), and that would probably be my top preference.

[Bee]

I'd like to put forth a possible House Rule.

No players can start out of position.
I mean at all, zero, zilch, nada. A LG can't start as a RG (backup would be ok I think). If you want the LG to start at RG, move him and take the rating hit. A SILB needs to be switched to MLB if you're running a 4-3 (and vice versa).

I think this does 3 important things.

1. It makes the game tougher (lowers ratings when moved, takes out the RB/FB advantage that's often exploited, etc).

2. It adds a little more interest for the position coaches. (Do you move that awesome backup C to LG?, What if the SILB is too small to play MLB and can only move to SS, cut him or move him?)

3. It adds a little more interest for scouts. (If we are running a 4-3 defense and looking for a MLB, do we take a chance on that great but small SILB? It could end up being a blown pick if he can't play MLB in a 4-3.)

I just thought it might add a little more interest to the game and add a little challenge as well.

[duckman]

I love the GroupThink concept. I especially enjoyed the first one with the Wyoming Wildfire. I'll be looking forward to reading the dynasty report.

[wade moore]

cthomer --

I saw we just have a "Lead Scout" not just rookie scouting if we don't use TCY files.. without TCY files, the rookie scouting becomes much less of a complex thing... So i say just have a lead scout, which you could do..
--------


I wouldn't mind being OC if no one else steps up to the plate, I just fear that my knowledge of the FOF games are much less than others who could put a better game plan together..

As for sims.. maybe we should rotate that? How detailed are we doing this? Without using TCY less time should be taken up in the off-season, so we could make the season more detailed, giving more jobs? Perhaps have someone who scouts the opposing team and we gameplan each week?

[wade moore]

Originally posted by Bee
I'm fine with not using TCY files. It takes a little of the fun away from scouting college players, but I think the net gain in the overall challenge is probably worth it.

If primelord can't run the initial setup file for some reason, I'd be happy to do it Sunday.

I did a quicksim today from 1987-2002, testing out salary cap numbers. I ended up with a cap around 97 million and a minsal of 310,000. Not sure if that's important or not, but I wanted to do it for my own curiousity.

what did you do for the starting salary cap?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
I'd like to put forth a possible House Rule.

No players can start out of position.
I mean at all, zero, zilch, nada. A LG can't start as a RG (backup would be ok I think). If you want the LG to start at RG, move him and take the rating hit. A SILB needs to be switched to MLB if you're running a 4-3 (and vice versa).

You beat me to the punch, I agree. (Not sure about L/R, but everything else I'm 100% behind)

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
what did you do for the starting salary cap?

$20 million. That's the lowest you can set it.

[cthomer5000]

i think LG should be able to play RG (just an example).

In real life, constantly when a player goes down they'll shuffle the interior line to get the best players out there. I just think we should be honest with ourselves at season start as to what we want these players to be. If a LG is going to start at RG all season long, we should switch positions.

[illinifan999]

I can be the rabid, annoying fan that only wants the best for his team.

[Bee]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
i think LG should be able to play RG (just an example).

In real life, constantly when a player goes down they'll shuffle the interior line to get the best players out there. I just think we should be honest with ourselves at season start as to what we want these players to be. If a LG is going to start at RG all season long, we should switch positions.

I basically agree. It's one thing if a guy is just going to be switched for a couple games while the regular starter is out, but long term if they are switching, I think we need to switch their position.

I know a lot of people don't think there's a difference, for example, between LG and RG but I remember an interview this season with one of the Redskin guards (Ross Tucker maybe?) and he had always played RG. When they brought in Tre Johnson, they asked Tucker(?) to switch to LG and he was really struggling. I think they ended up cutting him because he couldn't make the transition. Of course there are some guys who can play all the positions, but sadly that's not really reflected in the game.

But aside from that, I think it adds challenge and more decisions to the game.

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by Bee
I basically agree. It's one thing if a guy is just going to be switched for a couple games while the regular starter is out, but long term if they are switching, I think we need to switch their position.

I know a lot of people don't think there's a difference, for example, between LG and RG but I remember an interview this season with one of the Redskin guards (Ross Tucker maybe?) and he had always played RG. When they brought in Tre Johnson, they asked Tucker(?) to switch to LG and he was really struggling. I think they ended up cutting him because he couldn't make the transition. Of course there are some guys who can play all the positions, but sadly that's not really reflected in the game.

But aside from that, I think it adds challenge and more decisions to the game.

This is a good idea, though I believe that we do have to have a few caveats since ther number of times a players position can be changed is limited. As for the offensive line, at the beginning of the season we should have to decide where each player is playing and which side and set that -- for the most part a guy is either a right tackle or a left tackle, rarely both. That said, in cases of injury, we may need to plug in a RG for a LG, which does happen when necessary in the NFL -- and to switch a players postition for that is going to kill us. I do think that if a G is playing T we should make the switch but if its a fill-in injury situation (i.e. not for the rest of the year) we need a bit of flexibility. I think that this basically should apply across the board, though defesnive lineman are MUCH more flexible at switching sides, so that may be an exception -- also, if we want to have a LB play DE on passing downs, ala Boulware and Arrington in Marving Lewis' system, taht should possibly be another exception (though only in the passing down spot).

[Bee]

I would also add, I definitely think we need to switch SILB/WILB to MLB (or vice versa) and the same for NT and LDT/RDT. That's the difference in playing a 4-3 and 3-4, which should result in a change in ratings IMO.

[DolaBump]

One more possible exception is with back-ups -- often a player is simply "the back up outside linebacker" and to force a position change for backup is probably not necessary -- however, if he moves into a starting role, a change would then be required (again, this saves those changes for when they have an actual impact)

[wade moore]

I agree that this is a good rule with some caveates... Basically, I agree with the idea of not letting them start out of position for game 1... however, it seems silly to have to sign a guy in FA just because we don't have a RG, when we have LG ready to step right in..

[DolaBump]

This is basically just a bump, but I thought I'd ask primelord what initial settings were used for the simming (assuming you've started).

[Bee]

bump for Monday morning.

[Alf]

with the no-use of TCY files, I have to drop out and just be a follower. good luck in your project !

[Bee]

It seems most of us agree that we shouldn't play players out of position (with the exception of backups and "temporary" starters, so what other house rules should we use?

Typically, my experience with these types of careers have been that a majority of the players on the team will be free agents (often restricted free agents) and there will be a lot of cap room available the first season. Can anyone think of a good rule to keep us from coming in and snatching up all the top free agents the first year out, while allowing us some freedom?

[wade moore]

Perhaps a limit on how many offers we can make in the first day, and then nothing until the end?

[primelord]

Originally posted by DolaBump
This is basically just a bump, but I thought I'd ask primelord what initial settings were used for the simming (assuming you've started).

Unfortunately I haven't started yet, but I will have it done this evening. I am going to be simming the years as I work today. I do have a couple of questions about the setup. My plan was to just go with what bee had tested and start with an OPU from 1987 to 2002. Should I start out with the team we want to control? Or do we want to hope we can switch to the team we want after the 15 years?

Also have we decided we are going to just share the universe file for this? Or do we want to try and do most of it through screen shots etc? I think I can get us web space on the same server I hosted the petri dish files on which was pretty quick, but I will have to verify that for certain tonight.

[QuikSand]

My thinking is that we should start our team over, empty cupboard style. So, with that in mind... I really don't care what team you use to start with.

With that in mind... here's another thought. Maybe this league would be a good candidate for a complet facelift - rename all the cities and franchises, ratherthan playing the "NFL" all over again. I'd be in favor of doing this... editing the Dallas Cowboys to be the Fort Worth Blues, calling the Buffalo Bills the Niagara Falls Mutiny, whatever. Might be a way to add some flavor to the leagie, even - we could name franchises after various FOFC people... (the Austin Senators, the Tucker Balladeers, that sort of thing). Wide open possibilities.

[primelord]

Dola,

Also at what point do I want to stop the sim? Should it be in the offseason before the 2002 season? Are we going to play this as an empty cupboard?

[Easy Mac]

I think it should depend on the situation of the team. If its a good team, empty cupboard. If its a bottom dweller, keep the players.

And I say stop it after the 2001 season, before coach signing and stuff like that.

[Bee]

I think we should go with renamed cities and nicknames, but if we don't you will want to start with the team we want (highly unlikely we'll be able to switch after the quicksim).

I agree with Easy Mac that we should start right before the staff hiring phase. I always hate playing through a season with a coach and scout that I didn't pick.

I have no preference as to empty cupboard or not. I see advantages and disadvantages both ways.

[QuikSand]

I agree with Mac on timing... I'd like to start out by hiring a new coach and scout, rather than being stuck with them for the first year.

[Neel]

How often would games be simmed?