FOF2K4: Sharin' A Little 4-1-1 For The Preseason

[Ben E Lou]

Bizarre turn of events in the CFL:

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:19 pm

Taco CFL Commissioner Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 1910 Location: Durham Bulldogs Here are my thoughts on the issue... As Raven Hawk posted, the official object of the CFL according to our constitution is "To have fun (and win the CFL Bowl while doing so)." As I've discovered while serving as commissioner: everyone's definition of "fun" is different. For Raven Hawk, this event has reduced his "fun" for the understandable reasons he has stated. For SkyDog, this has increased his "fun" (I'm guessing because it can be fun to discover a new strategy and get "success" using it). So.....since we can't please everyone, I think we need to do what's best for the league. I think if a considerable number of owners followed SkyDog's example then it would hurt the overall "fun" level of the league. Therefore, I am asking SkyDog (and everyone else as well), to not use such unrealistic gameplans during the preseason. I am aware that it is impossible to quantity what "unrealistic" means. As usual, if the majority of owners disagree with my decision then we will go with the majority rule. _________________

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:30 pm

SkyDog Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 111 Location: Hanahan, SC Owner of Honolulu Bloodthirsty Beagles Taco wrote: Here are my thoughts on the issue... As Raven Hawk posted, the official object of the CFL according to our constitution is "To have fun (and win the CFL Bowl while doing so)." As I've discovered while serving as commissioner: everyone's definition of "fun" is different. For Raven Hawk, this event has reduced his "fun" for the understandable reasons he has stated. For SkyDog, this has increased his "fun" (I'm guessing because it can be fun to discover a new strategy and get "success" using it). So.....since we can't please everyone, I think we need to do what's best for the league. I think if a considerable number of owners followed SkyDog's example then it would hurt the overall "fun" level of the league. Therefore, I am asking SkyDog (and everyone else as well), to not use such unrealistic gameplans during the preseason. I am aware that it is impossible to quantity what "unrealistic" means. As usual, if the majority of owners disagree with my decision then we will go with the majority rule. This is crap. How do you define "unrealistic?" I've got a young QB. He needs to work on his passing. Is 10% enough running? 20%? 30%? If you say 20%, and I set my gameplan to run 20% of the time, but then my coach passes a little more and I don't make it, then do I get punished for that??? Come on, you've GOT to give SOME kind of guideline for this. Otherwise, you're just leaving me flying blind. _________________ The media don't understand the problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:45 pm

Fonzie Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 1331 Location: Tucson Toros SkyDog wrote: Otherwise, you're just leaving me flying blind. I hope you stored a parachute on your Sopwith Camel. _________________ Ring of Fire Division Champions 2009

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:50 pm

SkyDog Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 111 Location: Hanahan, SC Owner of Honolulu Bloodthirsty Beagles Fonzie wrote: SkyDog wrote: Otherwise, you're just leaving me flying blind. I hope you stored a parachute on your Sopwith Camel. Seriously, though, I want to improve my team as much as possible in my next two preseason games. Therefore, I want to run as many plays as possible in my next two preseason games, while staying within the rules. There either needs to be a defined rule about this, or anything goes. _________________ The media don't understand the problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:01 pm

Doug5984 CFL Commissioner Joined: 02 Apr 2004 Posts: 858 Location: Tulsa Talons I think one thing that has made this league great, and fun for me is the lack of "strict" rules. If we say 10%, 20%, 15% whatever- it just gives people a number they can use- I like Taco's decision to simply use the rule of "unrealistic" and to judge this rule I think we have just done so. If something seems unrealistic there is a discussion and if the majority find it unrealistic, we will go with that... that is just my 2 cents. _________________ Talons = playoffs!!! Butch Fulton- What a shame... Marvin Raffo- He's the man!

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:03 pm

SkyDog Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 111 Location: Hanahan, SC Owner of Honolulu Bloodthirsty Beagles Doug5984 wrote: I think one thing that has made this league great, and fun for me is the lack of "strict" rules. If we say 10%, 20%, 15% whatever- it just gives people a number they can use- I like Taco's decision to simply use the rule of "unrealistic" and to judge this rule I think we have just done so. If something seems unrealistic there is a discussion and if the majority find it unrealistic, we will go with that... that is just my 2 cents. So then, you have an owner saying, "I want to abide by the rules." Instead of making the rules clear, you are saying, "No, you have to GUESS what the rule is. If you guess wrong, you get punished." You can NOT be serious. _________________ The media don't understand the problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:17 pm

Joe Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 926 Location: Sacramento Dragons I am very against limiting what people can do with their gameplans, whether those limits are implictly or explicitly listed. _________________ Dallas Dragons: Coming to a CFL near you in 2014 San Andreas Division Champions: 2008, 2009, 2010

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:44 pm

SkyDog Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 111 Location: Hanahan, SC Owner of Honolulu Bloodthirsty Beagles Joe wrote: I am very against limiting what people can do with their gameplans, whether those limits are implictly or explicitly listed. Well, I am very against it, too. However, I'm willing to abide by the rules, if Taco will give me a rule to abide by. I'm going to bed soon, but will get up at 5:30am, in time to create a new export. However, I need SOME kind of guidline besides, "Guess what the limit is" before I can do that. _________________ The media don't understand the problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Seriously, what in the WORLD am I supposed to do now??? I've posted publicly, and also PMed the commish asking for clarification. I guess he has already gone to bed. The next sim is at 6am. I want to do everything I can to maximize my players' development, but remain within the rules. This "ruling" gives me no clue what "the rules" are, though. Thoughts???

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Seriously, what in the WORLD am I supposed to do now???

My suggestion would be to find a league that isn't commished by somebody who is influencing by candyassed whining.

In the more short-term, if it's pre-season, set everything to 50-50 & just forget about it. Any league being run that way ain't worth investing 10 seconds of worry about anyhow IMO.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Seriously, what in the WORLD am I supposed to do now??? I've posted publicly, and also PMed the commish asking for clarification. I guess he has already gone to bed. The next sim is at 6am. I want to do everything I can to maximize my players' development, but remain within the rules. This "ruling" gives me no clue what "the rules" are, though. Thoughts???

Recommend.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Thoughts???

Cowboy up?

[Buccaneer]

SD, do whatever is best for your team. Most everyone else sounds like a bunch of whiny Frenchies.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Thoughts???

rename your team the "Drama Queens"?

[Raven Hawk]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My suggestion would be to find a league that isn't commished by somebody who is influencing by candyassed whining.

Nor one that is influenced by the Programmer/Developer's recommendations:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm not going into the details of how all this works in FOF, but given the injury risks and the peer pressure, I would suspect that MP leagues should act as the NFL would, and adopt an "I don't like what I see, please stop it" policy for this type of behavior. Because it would be fairly difficult, and include extremely little reward for the gamer, to create an economic disincentive and/or a nagging commissioner's role in the game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raven Hawk

Nor one that is influenced by the Programmer/Developer's recommendations:

I don't think I'd want Jim to commish a league either, so I don't know that's exactly a ringing endorsement.

You whined, you got your way, at least have the dignity not to gloat about it.

[VPI97]

I understand Taco's intent, but I think that having a policy to police gameplans may just be setting the CFL up for a huge fiasco in the future. What happens when a team gets beat in the playoffs by a running back who gets 50 carries in the game? ...or if a playoff birth is decided by a quarterback who throws for the game winning touchdown on his 55th attempt? ...or any number of possibilities. If you think the guy on the losing end isn't going to complain, you may be right...the first time. Maybe even the second/third times...but eventually someone is going to reference that rule and demand something be done in a game that actually means something. It'll be a nightmare trying to fix that mess.

[Ben E Lou]

Update:

I scaled back my offense, and went with recommend on defense. We still managed to combine for 144 plays, 62 offensive, and 82 defensive, meaning that our offense stayed on the field for a normal number of plays, but our defensive plays increased by roughly 30%. Not optimal, but not bad. As expected, another team used this tactic this week. They threw deep MUCH more than we did, percentage-wise, but only managed 141 total plays.

More bizarre-ness, though, from right before the sim, and my response:

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:55 am

SkyDog Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 121 Location: Hanahan, SC Owner of Honolulu Bloodthirsty Beagles Taco wrote: - Try to construct a gameplan that would be beneficial to real players in real life. For example, throwing deep on every play would not really help anyone get better. The distribution for the type of pass plays should not be so extreme. If I'm under that constraint, then I'd expect the rest of the league to be, too. It's only fair. If we're trying to be "beneficial to real players in real life," then I'd suggest that to be fair, every team should have to play their starters at least SOME during each preseason game. After all, leaving them inactive for the entire preseason isn't in any way "beneficial to real players in real life." Quote: - You've got to mix in some run plays...I hate to throw out a percentage since this isn't a hard rule...but let's say 20%. - There won't be a punishment for breaking these "rules" during today's preseason game. So...no punishment, but it is a "rule." OK... I guess I'll go with 20% in normal situations, but I intend to do what I do in a normal regular season gameplan when I'm behind and in longer yardage situations, and that is pass a good bit more than 80% of the time. Going to set my gameplan now, but I still find this very bizarre and unfair that I'm being asked to abide by a standard "beneficial to real players in real life") that the rest of the league will not have to abide by for this sim. I'm on IM right now. I'd like to chat a bit more before submitting this export if at all possible. _________________ The media don't understand the problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Raven Hawk

Nor one that is influenced by the Programmer/Developer's recommendations:

That's all well and good, and I understand and appreciate Jim's comments, and agree that what he suggest is the most "realistic." That being said, it is impossible to fairly enforce such a rule in a league setting. You've got to have definitive lines drawn, and this one is waaaayyyyy too fuzzy.

[Toddzilla]

From the peanut gallery (as I have no skin in this game whatsoever):

Taking the lead from Jim's original comment - let's say this happened in the NFL, and the Colts decided to throw deep on every play. Forget the backlash from the fans and viewers, the opposing teams go to the league and say "Jeez, how are we supposed to get our practive reps in on defense when these lunatics are chucking the ball 60 yards down the field on every play?"

In this case, I imagine the commissioner would ask the Colts, "Please don't do that." They wouldn't say "Run the ball X times" or "You can only pass the ball X% of the time." The directive would be intentionally esoteric, and then it would again be up to the league to determine if the Colts were making a good faith effort to comply.

For the Colts to throw their arms up and cry "Well how much do we need to run the ball? What poercentage of passing plays is too much?" would be - in addition to immature and whiny - a disingenuous attempt to skew ther arguement.

I think "Hey Colts, knock it off." means just that, and any reasonably intelligent GM/coach knows what that means.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

From the peanut gallery (as I have no skin in this game whatsoever):

Taking the lead from Jim's original comment - let's say this happened in the NFL, and the Colts decided to throw deep on every play. Forget the backlash from the fans and viewers, the opposing teams go to the league and say "Jeez, how are we supposed to get our practive reps in on defense when these lunatics are chucking the ball 60 yards down the field on every play?"

In this case, I imagine the commissioner would ask the Colts, "Please don't do that." They wouldn't say "Run the ball X times" or "You can only pass the ball X% of the time." The directive would be intentionally esoteric, and then it would again be up to the league to determine if the Colts were making a good faith effort to comply.

For the Colts to throw their arms up and cry "Well how much do we need to run the ball? What poercentage of passing plays is too much?" would be - in addition to immature and whiny - a disingenuous attempt to skew ther arguement.

I think "Hey Colts, knock it off." means just that, and any reasonably intelligent GM/coach knows what that means.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The difference here is that there is a tangible benefit to throwing it deep down the field every play. You're right. Doing so in real life would be a stupid thing to do. There isn't a benefit in the NFL. There IS a benefit here, one I've tested and confirmed. If there existed an explainable benefit in the NFL, you and I both know that the Colts would be protesting the ruling, and at the very least asking for guidelines. I'm trying to maximize my development. The league is asking me not to maximize my development. It is therefore very reasonable, indeed, my DUTY as a responsible team owner, to do the best I can do for my team. That's why I'm asking for a defined limit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm trying to maximize my development. The league is asking me not to maximize my development.

And I'm surprised that you aren't more concerned about the latter statement.

Maybe your commish is a long-lost relative of NASCAR's France family (well known for making up sometimes vague rules to cover situations they hadn't anticipated/weren't controlling).

Just another example of why I'd rather go to the dentist (which I'm about to do) instead of play MP.

[Passacaglia]

I guess I look at this using the Prisoner's Dilemma. Would the league be fun if everyone threw deep passes every preseason play? No, it would be really lame -- coaches would get no ability to judge anything about their players, and all the development gains would balance out. I can't believe people actually want to see leagues be like this.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I guess I look at this using the Prisoner's Dilemma. Would the league be fun if everyone threw deep passes every preseason play? No, it would be really lame -- coaches would get no ability to judge anything about their players, and all the development gains would balance out. I can't believe people actually want to see leagues be like this.

Is the preseason fun now? Can it ever be? It's a waste of time in real life and in the game. I wouldn't enjoy it any more or less regardless of result.

[stevewed]

More plays makes sense. I don't see why anyone would think this is cracking the game or doing anything sneaky.

Also, if, when the lion roars a third time, if you press UP, UP, DOWN, DOWN, LEFT, LEFT, RIGHT, RIGHT, then all your players get big heads and unlimited ammo.

[Buccaneer]

Try to construct a gameplan that would be beneficial to real players in real life. For example, throwing deep on every play would not really help anyone get better. The distribution for the type of pass plays should not be so extreme.

Aww gee, don't some of you nerds realize that you are playing a game and not GM/coaching a real life team?? Where in the world would you think this is a role-playing game instead of a mathematical simulation?

By the way, didn't Oakland have a pass-all-the-time gameplan against the Broncos a few years back?

[KWhit]

I don't see this as any different than making your starters inactive for the whole preseason.

Realistic? No.
The best decision for a team? Yes.

The real issue here is that the preseason in FOF doesn't work like it does in the NFL, so you'll either have to make a butt-load of rules to try to turn the FOF preseason more like the NFL or you have to accept that it is flawed and allow GMs to do what they want.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't see this as any different than making your starters inactive for the whole preseason.

Realistic? No.
The best decision for a team? Yes.

The real issue here is that the preseason in FOF doesn't work like it does in the NFL, so you'll either have to make a butt-load of rules to try to turn the FOF preseason more like the NFL or you have to accept that it is flawed and allow GMs to do what they want.

KWhizzle is right on, yo!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Aww gee, don't some of you nerds realize that you are playing a game and not GM/coaching a real life team?? Where in the world would you think this is a role-playing game instead of a mathematical simulation?

By the way, didn't Oakland have a pass-all-the-time gameplan against the Broncos a few years back?

Isn't this the same board where everyone bitches that NFL Head Coach didn't give realistic stats, and bitches about Madden giving unrealistic stats? It would seem to me that people around here are generally looking for as close to an NFL simulation as they can find.

Having said that, it seems like most games have a few areas where you are forced to play in a certain way if you don't want everyone else to have an advantage. It is too bad those situations exist, but they probably weren't expected during development. Do what everyone else does, consider it a minor flaw in the game and move on. If it really bothers you that people gameplan to throw deep every play, blitz 11 men. You'll either knock the QB around a lot, or you'll constantly give up quick scores and make sure the other team's offense doesn't develop well.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My suggestion would be to find a league that isn't commished by somebody who is influencing by candyassed whining.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

SD, do whatever is best for your team. Most everyone else sounds like a bunch of whiny Frenchies.

Oh, nice.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Aww gee, don't some of you nerds realize that you are playing a game and not GM/coaching a real life team?? Where in the world would you think this is a role-playing game instead of a mathematical simulation?

Without intending to, you've actually made a pretty astute comment here. In my opinion, the majority of the GMs in the CFL are more interested in the "role-playing" aspect of an online MP FOF league than the mathematical simulation part, to be honest.

In this context, what SkyDog's done flies in the face of the overall league culture. To whit:

Originally Posted by VPI97

I understand Taco's intent, but I think that having a policy to police gameplans may just be setting the CFL up for a huge fiasco in the future. What happens when a team gets beat in the playoffs by a running back who gets 50 carries in the game? ...or if a playoff birth is decided by a quarterback who throws for the game winning touchdown on his 55th attempt? ...or any number of possibilities. If you think the guy on the losing end isn't going to complain, you may be right...the first time. Maybe even the second/third times...but eventually someone is going to reference that rule and demand something be done in a game that actually means something. It'll be a nightmare trying to fix that mess.

Without intending to, you're misrepresenting the situation. I don't believe there's anyone in the CFL who has a problem with a pass-happy or a run-happy offense. We've had the scenarios described above, and we've not had a problem with it.

But that's not what SkyDog is doing.

SkyDog is (was) using a gameplan that is not only pass-happy, but is long-pass happy. Not only this, but his defense is deliberately designed to maximize the chance that his defense will stay on the field as long as possible.

This is not simply a matter of someone changing every "Run %" on the gameplan screens to "0" and letting the team air it out. This is far above and beyond that. There is a gradation here, and I'm surprised some of you can't see the difference.

[stevewed]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If it really bothers you that people gameplan to throw deep every play, blitz 11 men. You'll either knock the QB around a lot, or you'll constantly give up quick scores and make sure the other team's offense doesn't develop well.

Ooooooooooo. Sneaky. I like this guy.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This is not simply a matter of someone changing every "Run %" on the gameplan screens to "0" and letting the team air it out. This is far above and beyond that. There is a gradation here, and I'm surprised some of you can't see the difference.

Let me get this straight...you guys have no problem with someone who would use a 0% run gameplan in a regular season game, but that guy goes off his rocker when SD puts out a wacky gameplan in a meaningless pre-season game? That really seems weird to me.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Would the league be fun if everyone threw deep passes every preseason play?

Fascinating question. Maybe your response to this really determines the obvious big split on this whole matter.

To me, and I presume many others, the manner and content of preseason games contributes absolutely zero to the amount of fun I get from a league. I get the sense that others disagree, and that they place some sort of weight in what happens in those games, which i guess is fine.

But if there's a "never the twain shall meet" situation here - it's probably on this issue most of all.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Let me get this straight...you guys have no problem with someone who would use a 0% run gameplan in a regular season game, but that guy goes off his rocker when SD puts out a wacky gameplan in a meaningless pre-season game? That really seems weird to me.

They're not the same thing. Choosing to pass on every down is different from concocting an offensive and defensive gameplan that specifically seeks to keep one's defense on the field for the maximum amount of time possible.

One is a legitimate (though risky) offensive strategy. One is a potential method to take an advantage of the mechanics of FOF to develop one's defensive players as much as possible.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

To me, and I presume many others, the manner and content of preseason games contributes absolutely zero to the amount of fun I get from a league. I get the sense that others disagree, and that they place some sort of weight in what happens in those games, which i guess is fine.

But if there's a "never the twain shall meet" situation here - it's probably on this issue most of all.

I couldn't have said this better.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

They're not the same thing. Choosing to pass on every down is different from concocting an offensive and defensive gameplan that specifically seeks to keep one's defense on the field for the maximum amount of time possible.

One is a legitimate (though risky) offensive strategy. One is a potential method to take an advantage of the mechanics of FOF to develop one's defensive players as much as possible.

Despite the fact that you're categorizing one as legit and one as a method to take advantage of the game, the only difference between the actual offensive gameplans is that SD needs to vary the length of his throws. If SD does that and mixes up his defense a little, he should be in compliance with what is an accepted strategy, correct?

Edit - Never mind...I would assume that the 'legit' 0% run strategy would now apparently be outlawed in the league due to Taco's post this morning on the CFL board.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Edit - Never mind...I would assume that the 'legit' 0% run strategy would now apparently be outlawed in the league due to Taco's post this morning on the CFL board.

I think the argument being made was that people should gameplan for their opponent rather than just gameplanning for the maximum number of plays.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think the argument being made was that people should gameplan for their opponent rather than just gameplanning for the maximum number of plays.

I think SD should argue that that wouldn't be realistic for pre-season games. No NFL team gameplans for their opponents in the preseason...they gameplan to maximize the development of their players.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If it really bothers you that people gameplan to throw deep every play, blitz 11 men. You'll either knock the QB around a lot, or you'll constantly give up quick scores and make sure the other team's offense doesn't develop well.

Yes, that is what people should be doing, trying to figure out how to screw up the strategy.

[gottimd]

Why not just both teams gameplan to punt on first down, have a tie, no one gets developed besides the punters and we'll call it a day, ok?

This thread is starting to smell like diarrhea.

[cuervo72]

Heck, I didn't think gameplanning for the opponent was a requirement anyway. I don't think *everyone* goes through and completely reconstructs their gameplan based on who they're playing...

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Heck, I didn't think gameplanning for the opponent was a requirement anyway. I don't think *everyone* goes through and completely reconstructs their gameplan based on who they're playing...

It always surprises me in a thread like this how many people intentionally try to misunderstand comments made by others so they can attack specific words rather than try to understand ideas being presented. Do you really think your statements address anything I said? Did I comment anywhere that *everyone* completely reconstructs their gameplan based on the opponent? People set gameplans to exploit weaknesses in their opponents or they set gameplans to highlight their own strengths. People may use one gameplan all season believing that their strenghts are better that those of others and they don't need specific gameplans.

I don't have a horse in this race since I don't play MP FOF, I was just trying to get people to understand how much they aren't listening to each other. I should know better than try to mediate for people that arean't really looking to find a solution.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I think SD should argue that that wouldn't be realistic for pre-season games. No NFL team gameplans for their opponents in the preseason...they gameplan to maximize the development of their players.

I disagree that they gameplan to maximize the development of their players. The gameplans are more general since they never know who will be on the field, but they still generally gameplan for different situations and get experience for different players to see how they perform in the situations. They still play real football with real strategies, they just don't always play their best players.

Again, I don't really care about the MP outcome of this discussion, it just seems like it would be helpful for people to try to understand why the arguments are being made and not just run straight to the "How will I know how to legally gameplan in the regular season?" argument since that completely misses the point.

[Raven Hawk]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Let me get this straight...you guys have no problem with someone who would use a 0% run gameplan in a regular season game, but that guy goes off his rocker when SD puts out a wacky gameplan in a meaningless pre-season game? That really seems weird to me.

Just one comment on this. The difference here is that there is a punishment for doing this in the regular season - your team loses and it counts. If this type of game planning was employed during the regular season by a team that was 0-14 (where a loss really is a reward to a higher draft pick rather than a punishment), just so that they could develop their players, it would be considered "throwing the game," which many, if not most, leagues don't allow.

[TurfToe]

As a CFL owner, I'm bothered by the drama generated by this situation more than the situation itself.

SkyDog seems concerned with rules, punishments, rules without punishments, and the like. The CFL already has a vague, catch-all rule that wraps itself around sportsmanship. Some have called this gameplanning method unethical and in poor form (reads: integrity) and that is their right to do so.

While the sportsmanship rule is vague, sportsmanship in this specific context appears to be subjective at best. I saw the gameplan as working the system and thought it was very un-CFL. However, my litmus test is usually: does it break a specific CFL rule and does the game allow you to do it? The result to my litmus test is, no it does not break a rule and yes the game allows you to do it. So, objectively, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what SD did. Period. End of discussion. However, (I love 'howevers') the subjectivity involved with this is that some people think it is just uncool. I also see why they think it is uncool, but it's just not illegal. A rule to curb this behavior is not only an impossibility but the thought is utterly rediculous.

I must now go back to what has been suggested a few times and that is that the league has asked SD to "knock it off". So SD, knock it off. I believe if similar results were achieved with a slightly less extreme game plan, the issue would not have come up. Also, if SD didn't feel the need to gloat about what he did or why he did it, many would have thought him weird (what Honolulu owner isn't?) and nothing more. Instead, SD felt the need to respond to comments being made in the forum and that's what started the whole mess. Note to everyone, if you're doing something that helps your team and others make comments, simply ignore them and go about your business.

The CFL is obviously different from other MP leagues. We tend to do things different and play the game for different reasons. It comes up all the time how the CFL does X but the IHOF does Y. I still don't get the point of these discussions. I also don't get the point of dragging the overplayed drama from the CFL to the FOFC. Does it matter how many non-CFL owners agree with SkyDog when it comes to CFL drama? No, it doesn't. So let's drop this already and move on with our lives. I don't see common ground anywhere on this topic (there's two sides and the grey area is non-existent) nor do I see any rule changes in the CFL's future. No rule was broken and no rule should be enacted, it's simply a matter of culture. But like I always say, fuck 'em and do what you want.

SD, out of curiosity, what's the net gain from this gameplan method? I'm assuming you have numbers since it has been tested and proven. Please tell me it's more than a couple points as I will truly laugh myself into a shitting-in-my-pants coniption fit if the time and webspace wasted on this topic isn't justified by like 10-20 points across the team.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Subby

We should definitely also make a rule that teams have to play all their starters during pre-season because sitting them and avoiding injury is a totally unrealistic loophole cheat.

Right?

I find this the most amusing aspect of this whole discussion. Not risking star players to injury in preseason is, IMO, a much bigger benefit than the relatively small development from the relatively small number of extra plays gained by extreme game plans, as well as a bigger distortion of NFL-like reality. Yet there seems to be no movement to force owners to play their best players in preseason.

[Raven Hawk]

And I do appreciate another revelation that I have had provided by both Flere and Bucc. That is that there are two different kinds of players that play this game:

1. People who are "role-playing" a GM position
2. People who are playing a text sim game

I would categorize myself as the first and probably categorize Skydog as the second. I think that there is a rift between intentions and that this is what is causing the problem. We both see the game in a different light and for a different purpose.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I guess I look at this using the Prisoner's Dilemma. Would the league be fun if everyone threw deep passes every preseason play? No, it would be really lame -- coaches would get no ability to judge anything about their players, and all the development gains would balance out. I can't believe people actually want to see leagues be like this.

I think you could not possibly reduce the fun factor in FOF's preseason. I am stunned to hear that anyone gets anything out of it at all. I think you'll find those people are in a small minority.

Besides, I think it gives you a chance to evaluate pass rushers.

[cuervo72]

Maybe the CFL just isn't the league for SkyDog.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Maybe the CFL just isn't the league for SkyDog.

There does seem to be a culture mis-match. Of course now that this has gotten so much publicity, I'd bet that other owners will slowly start shifting toward this strategy.

[TurfToe]

Originally Posted by BrianD

There does seem to be a culture mis-match. Of course now that this has gotten so much publicity, I'd bet that other owners will slowly start shifting toward this strategy.

The #2's might but I doubt the #1's will. But I think the answer lies in what the net gain is. If it's a handful of points, I don't think many will shift.

There's definitely a culture mis-match and the two sides just need to agree to disagree.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by TurfToe

As a CFL owner, I'm bothered by the drama generated by this situation more than the situation itself.

SkyDog seems concerned with rules, punishments, rules without punishments, and the like. The CFL already has a vague, catch-all rule that wraps itself around sportsmanship. Some have called this gameplanning method unethical and in poor form (reads: integrity) and that is their right to do so.

While the sportsmanship rule is vague, sportsmanship in this specific context appears to be subjective at best. I saw the gameplan as working the system and thought it was very un-CFL. However, my litmus test is usually: does it break a specific CFL rule and does the game allow you to do it? The result to my litmus test is, no it does not break a rule and yes the game allows you to do it. So, objectively, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what SD did. Period. End of discussion. However, (I love 'howevers') the subjectivity involved with this is that some people think it is just uncool. I also see why they think it is uncool, but it's just not illegal. A rule to curb this behavior is not only an impossibility but the thought is utterly rediculous.

I must now go back to what has been suggested a few times and that is that the league has asked SD to "knock it off". So SD, knock it off. I believe if similar results were achieved with a slightly less extreme game plan, the issue would not have come up. Also, if SD didn't feel the need to gloat about what he did or why he did it, many would have thought him weird (what Honolulu owner isn't?) and nothing more. Instead, SD felt the need to respond to comments being made in the forum and that's what started the whole mess. Note to everyone, if you're doing something that helps your team and others make comments, simply ignore them and go about your business.

The CFL is obviously different from other MP leagues. We tend to do things different and play the game for different reasons. It comes up all the time how the CFL does X but the IHOF does Y. I still don't get the point of these discussions. I also don't get the point of dragging the overplayed drama from the CFL to the FOFC. Does it matter how many non-CFL owners agree with SkyDog when it comes to CFL drama? No, it doesn't. So let's drop this already and move on with our lives. I don't see common ground anywhere on this topic (there's two sides and the grey area is non-existent) nor do I see any rule changes in the CFL's future. No rule was broken and no rule should be enacted, it's simply a matter of culture. But like I always say, fuck 'em and do what you want.

SD, out of curiosity, what's the net gain from this gameplan method? I'm assuming you have numbers since it has been tested and proven. Please tell me it's more than a couple points as I will truly laugh myself into a shitting-in-my-pants coniption fit if the time and webspace wasted on this topic isn't justified by like 10-20 points across the team.

TT: I didn't bring this here to "drag the overplayed drama from the CFL to the FOFC," nor to "gloat about what I did and why I did it." In fact, the reason I posted has very little directly to do with the CFL's response. VPI and flere have come very close to nailing my reasons for posting this hear.

I'll have to re-look at the net gains possible, as I ran some more tests last night that pushed total plays well over 200. (The biggest change was that goal-line offense on every play gets the defense looking very familiar with that play extremely early in the game.) My guess is that the net gain will be in the 10-20 points per team range, but I'll have to look again. I probably won't have time tonight, but probably will this weekend. If someone has the time and the inclination to run further tests before then, feel free to use and tweak the gameplan I've maximized plays with the best (when both teams use it). It is {here}. (Note: that gameplan won't work as well in a SP environment against an AI team, because it involves being ready for the pass on every single play. The AI will have great success running the ball, therefore taking up more time. It was designed for a test MP league with both teams using it.)

[TurfToe]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

TT: I didn't bring this here to "drag the overplayed drama from the CFL to the FOFC," nor to "gloat about what I did and why I did it." In fact, the reason I posted has very little directly to do with the CFL's response. VPI and flere have come very close to nailing my reasons for posting this hear.

I just think that copying and pasting most of the thread was "dragging the drama". BTW, The Rounders will unveil our new passing play 'Dragging the Drama' this week in San Antonio. It involves a 3-TE set and 2 FB's in the backfield.

I really didn't understand what you were trying to accomplish until you felt the need to respond to comments. After other GM's were discussing their player's performance, you told them exactly what your game plan was set to in order to take the wind out of their sails. Then when GM's wondered in prose about why your settings were like that and what you were experimenting with, you felt it necesary to explain that it wasn't an experiment, it was tested, it was proven, and that you knew how to make the most out of the system. Ooopsies! That's where the can of worms was opened. Yes? Or did I post a revisionist version of what happened? I'd copy and paste the thread but that is teh sux0rs.

If the gain is significant, it would be hard to not employ the gameplan.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Maybe the CFL just isn't the league for SkyDog.

That SkyDog adopts a somewhat different approach than most CFL owners couldn't be more clear. It may be that this was a poor pairing.

[Grammaticus]

Whats up, is he kicking everyone's Azz in season?

[Pyser]

Personally, I think if this was anyone but Skydog, people would be yelling "cheater!" at the top of their lungs.

I think this is very clearly exploiting the game in a way that wasnt intended by its designer...and as such, should be labeled a bug (one which Jim seems to already be taking steps to correct....another red flag saying this shouldnt be done by anyone running a team in MP).

[Subby]

I like this TurfToe guy...

[TurfToe]

Originally Posted by Subby

I like this TurfToe guy...

I don't like him, he is teh ghey.

Speaking of teh ghey, Fonzie suddenly appears to be immmune to my prodding.

Fonzie seems to have caught a case of Life. He is sorely missed and our feelings are hurt when our chiding falls on deaf ears. We will be vigilant and our resolve will remain strong.



Just say no to Toro.