"Black Monday" in FOF2004?

yabanci · 12-31-2003, 08:23 PM

The big story at the end of each NFL season is which coaches will get axed. Then the story is how xxx coach will breathe new life into yyy [losing] team. This made me think about whether the "black monday" phenomenon exists in FOF. I sim very slowly so I only have a few seasons to judge, but what I always see at the hiring coaching phase is this: (1) coaches/coordinators/scouts aren't fired for poor performance, they all play out their contracts; (2) win/loss records don't matter. A team that goes 3-13 three years in a row will resign its head coach if the he has good ratings. A team that goes 13-3 three years in a row with three superbowl victories will hire a new coach if someone with higher ratings is available (typically a rookie coach but sometimes the coach from the 3-13 team).

Do you think FOF has "black monday"? Should it? Any ideas on what changes, if any, should be made?

QuikSand · 12-31-2003, 08:57 PM

I join in your frustration here. I am generally unsatisfied with the way the coach and staff system works in FOF... it has gotten better, but I think for the most part we (the users) have been fairly content just to accept that these things are in the game at all, and haven't worried a lot whether this part of the game makes sense.

I, personally, don't think that the contract-based system really makes a lot of sense -- coach contracts are such a small part of real football decision-making, why should they govern everything in FOF? As you said - the only coaches who are not retained are the ones who are out of contract - and it cuts both ways -- even the very best and most successful coaches become available every few years to the highest bidder.

I also am unsatisfied with the division of responsibilities in the FOF 2004 game. When I think of a "coordinator" in the NFL, the first thing I think of is "the guy who calls the plays." In FOF, it's just the opposite -- the coordinator is basically the "player development coordinator" for his half of the team, which makes little sense to me.

It seems unlikely that I would ever go out and look to hire away someone else's OC or DC in FOF 2004 to be my head coach -- but in my opinion, that progression should be absolutely essential to the proper "flow" of the coaching universe.

The game is, of course, plenty entertaining and playable without these things -- but overall, I would like some tweks to make the coach/staff universe seem more realistic and immersive.

Dutch · 12-31-2003, 09:26 PM

Coaches are basically like O-Lineman right now. We have rating on them and a few basic stats. For O-Lineman we get key run blocks and which way the RB went and how he faird (if we care to go that deep into the logfiles). With coaches, we have career records and run and pass rankings for our teams to guide us.

But for the most part, we don't have any other feedback about how well they are doing. Are they an assett? Are they what's making the team do so well? Are they hurting a team that could get further with a different coach? We would need some sort of feedback for these things to ever evolve. And Jim has been open to the idea of adding in more feedback later down the line.

PineTar · 12-31-2003, 09:51 PM

I heard that the Bears fired Dick Jauron because Jerry Angelo wanted to seek out a head coach (preferably a Sagitarius) with a higher avoid injury rating.

cthomer5000 · 01-01-2004, 01:37 AM

I think coordinators should be set at one side of the ball. They should either be offensive or defensive, with the option of becoming a head coach. I just don't like seeing the history of a coach who has flip-flopped between offensive and defensive coordinator of various squads.

Maple Leafs · 01-01-2004, 11:16 AM

Agreed, this sort of thing needs to be in there. It's one of the few things that you can point to and actually say "Madden franchise mode does it better than FOF".

Cringer · 01-01-2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
I join in your frustration here. I am generally unsatisfied with the way the coach and staff system works in FOF... it has gotten better, but I think for the most part we (the users) have been fairly content just to accept that these things are in the game at all, and haven't worried a lot whether this part of the game makes sense.

I, personally, don't think that the contract-based system really makes a lot of sense -- coach contracts are such a small part of real football decision-making, why should they govern everything in FOF? As you said - the only coaches who are not retained are the ones who are out of contract - and it cuts both ways -- even the very best and most successful coaches become available every few years to the highest bidder.

I also am unsatisfied with the division of responsibilities in the FOF 2004 game. When I think of a "coordinator" in the NFL, the first thing I think of is "the guy who calls the plays." In FOF, it's just the opposite -- the coordinator is basically the "player development coordinator" for his half of the team, which makes little sense to me.

It seems unlikely that I would ever go out and look to hire away someone else's OC or DC in FOF 2004 to be my head coach -- but in my opinion, that progression should be absolutely essential to the proper "flow" of the coaching universe.

The game is, of course, plenty entertaining and playable without these things -- but overall, I would like some tweks to make the coach/staff universe seem more realistic and immersive.

I agree with this 100% and have hopes of improvement in this area down the road.

pskov · 01-01-2004, 11:33 AM

I personally think that the whole idea of an 'Avoid Injury' rating is stupid. (Sorry Jim

)

Troll · 01-01-2004, 01:09 PM

I have an idea to fix this, i dont know if it could be implemented. I think that when you hire a coach he should not be given a contract just a salary. I think you should have the option to fire him at any time for poor performance and the computer has the same option and a way IMHO to implement this in a very good way is to totally get rid of coach's ratings. Of course these ratings wouldnt really disappear they would just not be visible to us. This way you could actually see the hot comoditites and maybe hire awway that D-Cordinator that just won the super bowl to your squad and he may or may not be good as a head coach u just have to wait and see. Also to make it a little easier the coaches could just have a speciality like one coach my be a Defensive Specialist, while another is an expert Motivator, another guy could be a strict Disciplinarion. The game should also allow for in season firings in extreme occasions. The game could maybe add a rating like the players desire to play for the current coach. In circumstances like this year's oakland's team when the players have absolutely no desire to play for your coach he could be dismissed mid-season and one of you Cordinators could take over the head-coach role and keep his Cordinator duties.

Dutch · 01-01-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

to implement this in a very good way is to totally get rid of coach's ratings. Of course these ratings wouldnt really disappear they would just not be visible to us. This way you could actually see the hot comoditites and maybe hire awway that D-Cordinator that just won the super bowl to your squad and he may or may not be good as a head coach u just have to wait and see.

If implemented properly, this is something that might be very rewarding to have in the game.

Anthony · 01-01-2004, 04:36 PM

i too have a problem with this.

what i DEMAND jim to include in the game is this (very important so listen up):

have offensive/defensive rankings for all coaches. the record of the team he had 4 seasons ago means nothing to me. if i'm looking at an OC, i want to know how the defense did as well as where the offense was ranked. why? because that OC presiding over a 4-12 team doesn't mean that particular OC was bad....it could very well mean that the defense was horrible. through tons of clicking and searching thru reports we can ascertain this info, but i want coach rankings where they matter most.

and speacking of which - has anyone been fired yet? it seems to me this has become one of the weaker points of Jim's sim engine, as i don't know what it takes to get fired. only now, after 6 seasons am i turning a profit. maybe i was give na reprieve after winning the Super Bowl in season 3, but i'm in 2008 and only now have turned a profit (after renovating the stadium and raising ticket prices). i want to get fired for not making a profit and for my bad decisions. i've only had one bad season in my current career, maybe that helps.

i like the harder trade AI, btw. those teams won't take crap at all or even second-tier crap.

mckerney · 01-01-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yabanci
Do you think FOF has "black monday"? Should it? Any ideas on what changes, if any, should be made?

It's not called Black Monday. Get it straight, it's Whacking Day and it was first created as an excuse to beat up on the Irish.

RedKingGold · 01-01-2004, 08:09 PM

Whacking day,.....wasn't that in a Simpsons episode where they all whack snakes with "whacking" sticks. I think it is very early Simpsons.

Any thoughts?

(By the way, my family celebrates Whacking day with squirrels)

yabanci · 01-01-2004, 09:34 PM

This seems like an area of the game that can be very much improved, and since analysts are now saying the NFL is a coach's league I think it's worth it for Jim to give this part of the game an overhaul. Maybe there should be some kind of fluctuating approval rating that compares what a team is expected to do (based on roster strength, for example) and what it actually does. So if a coach is in his first year and his roster is ranked in the top five but the team finishes 5-11, the coach's approval rating would drop. A couple more years like this and he would be fired. On the other hand, if the team's roster strength is in the bottom five and it ends up 5-11, the coach would not take a hit in his approval rating. Maybe this could flow into a reputation rating -- a coach that consistently is able to get his team to perform better than expected based on roster strength or whatever would develop a reputation as a winner (like Parcells or Vermiel). If a coach has a good reputation, his approval rating would not be affected so much by a bad year.

Crapshoot · 01-01-2004, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RedKingGold
Whacking day,.....wasn't that in a Simpsons episode where they all whack snakes with "whacking" sticks. I think it is very early Simpsons.

Any thoughts?

(By the way, my family celebrates Whacking day with squirrels)

Dead on- one of the better Simpsons episodes, if I say so myself...

12-31-2003, 09:51 PM	#4
PineTar High School JV Join Date: Oct 2000	I heard that the Bears fired Dick Jauron because Jerry Angelo wanted to seek out a head coach (preferably a Sagitarius) with a higher avoid injury rating. Last edited by PineTar : 12-31-2003 at 09:52 PM.

12-31-2003, 08:57 PM	#2
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I join in your frustration here. I am generally unsatisfied with the way the coach and staff system works in FOF... it has gotten better, but I think for the most part we (the users) have been fairly content just to accept that these things are in the game at all, and haven't worried a lot whether this part of the game makes sense. I, personally, don't think that the contract-based system really makes a lot of sense -- coach contracts are such a small part of real football decision-making, why should they govern everything in FOF? As you said - the only coaches who are not retained are the ones who are out of contract - and it cuts both ways -- even the very best and most successful coaches become available every few years to the highest bidder. I also am unsatisfied with the division of responsibilities in the FOF 2004 game. When I think of a "coordinator" in the NFL, the first thing I think of is "the guy who calls the plays." In FOF, it's just the opposite -- the coordinator is basically the "player development coordinator" for his half of the team, which makes little sense to me. It seems unlikely that I would ever go out and look to hire away someone else's OC or DC in FOF 2004 to be my head coach -- but in my opinion, that progression should be absolutely essential to the proper "flow" of the coaching universe. The game is, of course, plenty entertaining and playable without these things -- but overall, I would like some tweks to make the coach/staff universe seem more realistic and immersive.

12-31-2003, 09:26 PM	#3
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	Coaches are basically like O-Lineman right now. We have rating on them and a few basic stats. For O-Lineman we get key run blocks and which way the RB went and how he faird (if we care to go that deep into the logfiles). With coaches, we have career records and run and pass rankings for our teams to guide us. But for the most part, we don't have any other feedback about how well they are doing. Are they an assett? Are they what's making the team do so well? Are they hurting a team that could get further with a different coach? We would need some sort of feedback for these things to ever evolve. And Jim has been open to the idea of adding in more feedback later down the line.

01-01-2004, 11:16 AM	#6
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	Agreed, this sort of thing needs to be in there. It's one of the few things that you can point to and actually say "Madden franchise mode does it better than FOF".

01-01-2004, 11:33 AM	#8
pskov Mascot Join Date: Nov 2003	I personally think that the whole idea of an 'Avoid Injury' rating is stupid. (Sorry Jim )

01-01-2004, 01:09 PM	#9
Troll H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Dec 2003	I have an idea to fix this, i dont know if it could be implemented. I think that when you hire a coach he should not be given a contract just a salary. I think you should have the option to fire him at any time for poor performance and the computer has the same option and a way IMHO to implement this in a very good way is to totally get rid of coach's ratings. Of course these ratings wouldnt really disappear they would just not be visible to us. This way you could actually see the hot comoditites and maybe hire awway that D-Cordinator that just won the super bowl to your squad and he may or may not be good as a head coach u just have to wait and see. Also to make it a little easier the coaches could just have a speciality like one coach my be a Defensive Specialist, while another is an expert Motivator, another guy could be a strict Disciplinarion. The game should also allow for in season firings in extreme occasions. The game could maybe add a rating like the players desire to play for the current coach. In circumstances like this year's oakland's team when the players have absolutely no desire to play for your coach he could be dismissed mid-season and one of you Cordinators could take over the head-coach role and keep his Cordinator duties.

01-01-2004, 04:36 PM	#11
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	i too have a problem with this. what i DEMAND jim to include in the game is this (very important so listen up): have offensive/defensive rankings for all coaches. the record of the team he had 4 seasons ago means nothing to me. if i'm looking at an OC, i want to know how the defense did as well as where the offense was ranked. why? because that OC presiding over a 4-12 team doesn't mean that particular OC was bad....it could very well mean that the defense was horrible. through tons of clicking and searching thru reports we can ascertain this info, but i want coach rankings where they matter most. and speacking of which - has anyone been fired yet? it seems to me this has become one of the weaker points of Jim's sim engine, as i don't know what it takes to get fired. only now, after 6 seasons am i turning a profit. maybe i was give na reprieve after winning the Super Bowl in season 3, but i'm in 2008 and only now have turned a profit (after renovating the stadium and raising ticket prices). i want to get fired for not making a profit and for my bad decisions. i've only had one bad season in my current career, maybe that helps. i like the harder trade AI, btw. those teams won't take crap at all or even second-tier crap.

01-01-2004, 08:09 PM	#13
RedKingGold College Starter Join Date: Oct 2002	Whacking day,.....wasn't that in a Simpsons episode where they all whack snakes with "whacking" sticks. I think it is very early Simpsons. Any thoughts? (By the way, my family celebrates Whacking day with squirrels)

01-01-2004, 09:34 PM	#14
yabanci College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jun 2003	This seems like an area of the game that can be very much improved, and since analysts are now saying the NFL is a coach's league I think it's worth it for Jim to give this part of the game an overhaul. Maybe there should be some kind of fluctuating approval rating that compares what a team is expected to do (based on roster strength, for example) and what it actually does. So if a coach is in his first year and his roster is ranked in the top five but the team finishes 5-11, the coach's approval rating would drop. A couple more years like this and he would be fired. On the other hand, if the team's roster strength is in the bottom five and it ends up 5-11, the coach would not take a hit in his approval rating. Maybe this could flow into a reputation rating -- a coach that consistently is able to get his team to perform better than expected based on roster strength or whatever would develop a reputation as a winner (like Parcells or Vermiel). If a coach has a good reputation, his approval rating would not be affected so much by a bad year.

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