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

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by TurfToe

Congrats to SkyDog for finding a way to maximize development. If I stumbled across a little gem like that I probably wouldn't have shared it. It's called competitive advantage. Oh wait, the damned ego always gets in the way, eh SkyDog?

If competitive advantage were my desired outcome, then I absolutely wouldn't have posted it. I have other motives, and I assure, ego has nothing to do with them.

If this results in a change in injury settings and a quicker sim for preseason it will be worth all of the drama.

Word.

[TurfToe]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I have other motives, and I assure, ego has nothing to do with them.

It didn't come off that way Dog. Your responses in the CFL thread screamed ego. You could have simply stated what you were doing and reference the thread where you were discussing it, as opposed to trying to take the wind out of other owners' sails when they were discussing their team's performance. You also had somewhat of a condescending delivery when replying to comments about your gameplan. That coupled with the other responses was dripping with ego.

Sorry, just sharing a perspective.

May I ask your motives? I see 2:

1. Improve Honolulu.

2. Highlight a player develpoment issue you've found in the game.

#1 has been met with mixed emotions in the league that Honolulu resides in and #2 has been addressed by Jim with a pretty specific statement.

Again, I am teh ghey so excuse my lack of the mastery of the obvious if I've missed the other motives.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Another guy threw deep a good bit more than I did, and no one got on him about it. I'll throw deep at precisely the same percentages he did in tomorrow's sim. Exactly what is wrong with that???

My understanding of your previous statement was that you were intending to use your original "development" gameplan, which clearly agitated a few folks in the CFL. I was simply attempting to advise you that a return to that gameplan might again agitate folks who are in the middle of debating whether or not to allow it.

If I misunderstood and you were planning to reuse the watered down version of the gameplan you and Taco had agreed upon for the last sim, then disregard my post.

[Buccaneer]

Good f'n grief. Is it going to come down to having a commissioner or a committee reviewing every single game plan prior to running a sim to see if there's anything in there that are going to hurt someone's feelings? The pre-season (if chosing to run it) is all about player development and not getting star players hurt - as defined by FOF. The mechanics of achieving those results are irrelevant. And in the results of player development, they are not that siginificant however you chose to do it, just a little bit better in a little shorter timeframe.

JIMGA: Big difference. One is real people, the other is a computer program.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Buc, that all depends on the league. If a league wants to do that, so be it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

JIMGA: Big difference. One is real people, the other is a computer program.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, or I didn't word it like I meant (take enough Lortab's & that's easy to have happen) -- my guess is that, if you isolated the people who posted in both threads, the same people whining about SD's use of the tactic would frequently be found to have whined about the use of proper baseball strategy; likewise those who approved of one are likely to approved of the other.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, or I didn't word it like I meant (take enough Lortab's & that's easy to have happen) -- my guess is that, if you isolated the people who posted in both threads, the same people whining about SD's use of the tactic would frequently be found to have whined about the use of proper baseball strategy; likewise those who approved of one are likely to approved of the other.

I knew exactly what you meant and you may find similarities (with both extremes). But I would argue that there would be many (a majority?) that would have no problem doing that in a computer program (i.e., OOTP pbp) but not in real life. It is silly to have any amount of feelings toward fake baseball (or football...) in comparison to feelings toward one another in real life. As one starts blurring the two and in cases making inanimate objects more important (as documented in cases of mmorpg), that's where real problems can occur.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Teams have been playing preseason games much longer than they have been shown on TV.

You clearly aren't a season ticket holder. We spend an extra $450 a year for two exhibition Giants games.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As one starts blurring the two and in cases making inanimate objects more important (as documented in cases of mmorpg), that's where real problems can occur.

Buc, I don't have the foggiest notion how you're leaping from where I was to where you're landing. I see where you're going, just not sure why what I said was your jumping off point. No problem, but still really different.

You're going waaaaaaaay too deep versus what I was talking about, which was strictly a guesstimate that there'd probably be 90% matching of positions on the two, not quite 1:1 but still pretty high.

That's it, that's all I meant, not anything at all to do with degrees of severity or importance of the two things or anything about why I think the strong correllation would exist or anything other than just "I bet there'd be a lot of matches".

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

My understanding of your previous statement was that you were intending to use your original "development" gameplan, which clearly agitated a few folks in the CFL. I was simply attempting to advise you that a return to that gameplan might again agitate folks who are in the middle of debating whether or not to allow it.

If I misunderstood and you were planning to reuse the watered down version of the gameplan you and Taco had agreed upon for the last sim, then disregard my post.

I was planning on going with my watered down version, but increasing long passing to 80%, or whatever the exact outcome the other guy had this week. (I think it was either 80 or 81%.)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

See, now we're all getting along.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

which i in turn, as commish, would say "thanks for the warning. I too, will give you one warning, field a 'realistic' gameplan or Ill find a 'realistic' GM." Then you would do it, I would likely warn you a second time. you would do it again, and I would regrettably have to give you the boot.

Obviously, you don't get the scenario that I've put out there. I would stay on the "safe" side of realistic, increasing by a small percentage each week until warned, then eventually, a commish would have to say. "Well, that x% long passing gameplan last week was realistic, but if you try (x+5)%, that's unrealistic."

[Flasch186]

based on that scenario alone I simply would boot you from the league before you did anything....the fact that thats what you want to do is enough for me.

Now, what likely would happen is eventually someone would complain flagging the gamelog, send it to the commish where you'd be warned. You may reply why is that one too much yet the one the week before wasnt? Because this time someone complained and the commish agreed. you'd lower it a bit perhaps, being unable to prove whatever X% change there was/is and if someone else complained you'd be putting your MP league career at risk over a few % points. Seems silly youd want to risk that unless of course you shouldnt be playing MP anyways....then, perhaps the commish would be doing you a favor in booting you and allowing you to spend more time with the wife.

[TurfToe]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Obviously, you don't get the scenario that I've put out there. I would stay on the "safe" side of realistic, increasing by a small percentage each week until warned, then eventually, a commish would have to say. "Well, that x% long passing gameplan last week was realistic, but if you try (x+5)%, that's unrealistic."

Putting hard numbers into a rule is where the impossibility lies. Subjectivity and objectivity are worse than apples and oranges and more like oil and water. Well, somewhere in between really.

I think intent would have to be the guiding factor, which is what Flasch is going after here. Despite what the gameplan numbers are, the intent of 'working the system' is what ruffles the feathers of some and impresses others.

Despite all of the debate (some good, some garbage) the two sides have been identified and their ground has been clearly marked. Here on out the individual leagues should be making it known what is tolerated or not in their universe, whether it be by guiding principle or hard and fast rules. Personally, I would hate to see gameplan rules in my league.

Another point to consider is that if everyone adopted this gameplan, where is the advantage? We would be back to the scenario we have now with no one doing it, meaning each team would have players developing at the same rate with no specific advantage going to anyone, right? In my league, I just need to know which way we're going to do it so I can get on with the worst part of the game.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I was planning on going with my watered down version, but increasing long passing to 80%, or whatever the exact outcome the other guy had this week. (I think it was either 80 or 81%.)

If you mean me, I had long passing (40+) at 100%.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by General Mike

If you mean me, I had long passing (40+) at 100%.

Yeah, I think Atlantic City was the team.

[Icy]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Obviously, you don't get the scenario that I've put out there. I would stay on the "safe" side of realistic, increasing by a small percentage each week until warned, then eventually, a commish would have to say. "Well, that x% long passing gameplan last week was realistic, but if you try (x+5)%, that's unrealistic."

Maybe i'm not underestanding you properly, but do you mean that your idea of enjoying a game is just to try to be always at the border of the rules and giving continuous headaches to the league commish until he has to warn you?

Nothing against it but then probably you should look for leagues where the only thing that matters is winning at all cost and trying to exploit the game engine and rules and not roleplaying at all as else you will destroy the other owners experiences playing that way.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Icy

Maybe i'm not underestanding you properly, but do you mean that your idea of enjoying a game is just to try to be always at the border of the rules and giving continuous headaches to the league commish until he has to warn you?

Nothing against it but then probably you should look for leagues where the only thing that matters is winning at all cost and trying to exploit the game engine and rules and not roleplaying at all as else you will destroy the other owners experiences playing that way.

And I think what you and others misunderstand is that the goal is to maximize player development just like it is the goal in real life NFL. It's just the mechanics of doing it in FOF is different than in real life, for obvious reasons.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And I think what you and others misunderstand is that the goal is to maximize player development just like it is the goal in real life NFL. It's just the mechanics of doing it in FOF is different than in real life, for obvious reasons.

And there are quite obviously different philosophies on what developmental practices permitted by FOF should be permissible in MP leagues. Neither is necessarily right or wrong, but it seems to be important that owners in a given league agree on which philosophy they wish to adopt. Disagreement on this issue seems likely to lead to a poorer overall experience for everyone.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And I think what you and others misunderstand is that the goal is to maximize player development just like it is the goal in real life NFL. It's just the mechanics of doing it in FOF is different than in real life, for obvious reasons.

Granted, but there are rules (either stated or understood) around pre-season games in the NFL, and how they are to be competed. If a team treated the preseason games like an extended scrimmage, it would pervert those (stated or understood) rules. It's my feeling that the same thing is happening here.

[Julio Riddols]

Quick question..

Is this still an issue with 2007? We have a brewing controversy in eNFL that needs some settling.

[Ben E Lou]

My understanding was that it was addressed for FOF2K7, although I haven't tested for it.