FOF4 - The Verdict?

QuikSand · 07-14-2003, 02:09 PM

Well, I don't knwo if anyone else has been really putting FOF4 through its paces since the last patch to 4.0c -- but I've made it into a pretty mature career under the new version.

Without rehashing my entire career thread, I'll say that with a somewhat limiting set of house rules (not the toughest I've played under) I have had the predictable rise of m team to become the best, most consistent team in the league- though the path has not been without its struggles.

Anyway - I'm always interested to see what is the prevailing opinion. If there is actually anyone here at Front Office Football Central who is actualy playing Front Office Football... what do you think?

In particular, what do you think about the game's overall challenge?

Anrhydeddu · 07-14-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
If there is actually anyone here at Front Office Football Central who is actualy playing Front Office Football

That's rather funny.

TroyF · 07-14-2003, 02:17 PM

I cannot find my FOF4 game. I've misplaced the CD's for both TCY and FOF4 and simply cannot find them.

I'll probably just wait until .400 studios comes out with theirs and if it doesn't meet my needs, reorder FOF4 and TCY.

I've been waiting for people's impressions of the patch, which seem to be filtering out very slowly.

TroyF

QuikSand · 07-14-2003, 02:21 PM

I'll answer my own question, to some degree.

There's a phenomenon in FOF4 that seems to play a huge role in the equalization in this game. And, in my view, it has good and bad outcomes.

In FOF4, like its predecessors, free agent players have certain demands. We know how this works - they won't even listen to an offer below their general expectation range. Over the FA process, if they go unclaimed, their demands will gradually come down, but not by all that much-- maybe 25% or so ovr the whole 20 weeks.

As a result, there are always players who go unclaimed through the FA process. In many cases in FOF4, these players are high quality players -- guys who are reasonably demanding big-dollar, multi-year contracts. When nobody has the cap room or the interest in them, they sit unclaimed up and through trainincg camp.

In FOF4, though - something new happens. Immediately after training camp, most of these quality players get snagged by computer teams, who sign them to modest one year deals. This happens before the human team gets any chance to make any offer to them-- and therefor tends to empty the FA market of any quality talent that might have been there just prior to camp.

Now, it's certainly possible to criticize this as unrealistic. Sure, it happens sometimes - decent players have to settle for a short term deal in hopes of playing well and then getting paid the following season. But it's not a wholesale phenomenon - we don't see twenty solid starting-claiber players going through this every year-- being forced to ink one-year minsal deals with whoever will make some room. No - in reality, there isn't such a "cliff effect." Players gradually recognize they won't get the big deal they want, and they sensible adjust their demands - both money and duration - to better fit their actual market.

So, in FOF4, we certainly see too many high quality players who end up with scattered careers - playing one year at a time, moving team to team, sometimes year after year. It's more than is realistic.

It also has an odd effect on the game universe. In my FOF4 patched career, I have noticed more than once that a team rising to be the new champion was a team that managed to get a few of these high quality cheap post-camp free agents. One team in my league signed three guys - a star-caliber WR, DE, and CB - all in the same year. With all that cap value (and all three guys starting all season) they rolled through the regular season at something liek 14-2 and won it all. The next season, with all those guys gone, they stumbled right out of the playoffs.

Yes, I know it happens in real life that good teams follow up with bad seaons - but this particular reasoning doesn't seem to fit. You don't sign a bunch of haggard veteran washouts after free agency and suddenly see them lead you to dominance.

On the upside - the fact that these players simply are not available to us (the human team) means that we don't ge ethe chance to make these gains ourselves-- and that sometimes we will come up against a super-team that might have gotten ths kind of edge. In a sense, it's a "cheat" for the CPU teams that we continue to outmanage, outdraft, and outstrategize. They get this little plum - every year or two, they might get to sign a $10 million player for $1.2 million or somesuch deal.

In my view, this is a pretty big component of the long-term dynamics in this game. Overall, I think that FOF4 will tend toward more chaos in the upper tier of its standings than the predecessor games, and more so than in real football. And I think this odd, seemingly random, distribution of grossly undervalued quality players, is a prime factor behind that.

Fritz · 07-14-2003, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
In particular, what do you think about the game's overall challenge?

I still find the game modestly challenging, but rewarding enough.

Godzilla Blitz · 07-14-2003, 02:29 PM

I started a career using your (Quiksand's) house rules as well, but have decided to play it slow and watch each game play out. Still in my first season, but am greatly enjoying the game so far.

Not many observations yet, but the expanded record keeping is fantastic.

I thought the expanded game plan screens would be a micromanagement hell, but I just zapped them with "recommend" in the beginning of the year, and have only gone in a tweaked them a couple of times since then. Much better than I thought, and I have yet to find myself screaming at my coach in the fourth quarter, when he used to throws three incomplete passes in a row with a ten-point lead and eight minutes to go in FOF2001.

So far, thumbs up!

Bee · 07-14-2003, 02:37 PM

The point you are talking about Quiksand is one of the reasons I'd like to see the draft placed in the middle of the free agent signing period. (Or in other words, 10 weeks of free agency, the draft and then 10 more weeks of free agency). If the roster management AI (including the signings during free agency and the computer's ability to actually cut non-productive players) were tightened up to the same degree as the recent patch addressed the drafting AI, I think this would be a much better option than how things are currently handled. The salary requests would have to be addressed as well to drop more dramatically during the second set of free agency steps.

Also, along the same lines...there is still a tendency for free agents to sign with the gamer's team. I think this really needs adjusting. Perhaps even to the point where the gamer is given a handicap towards signing free agents on the hardest difficulty level.

Overall, I think the draft has been dramatically improved but the free agent market still needs a lot of work.

Godzilla Blitz · 07-14-2003, 02:43 PM

Dola...

Excellent explanation, Quik. I saw this in FOF4a, and was thinking that at least this is better than having top free agents available to the human player at the beginning of the year.

One other thought, though, and I'm not sure if this has changed or not since FOF4a, but I saw quite a few outrageous acquisitions of the nature you describe. The one that came to mind was when a team added Brett Favre (with outstanding ratings at the time) to a low-sal one-year deal after he drifted through free agency, then sat him on the bench all year (they had one other outstanding quarterback).

Just plain silly. One, Favre would never sign a one-year deal to sit on the bench at the peak of his career. Two, there were a dozen teams with crappy quarterbacks who should have jumped at the opportunity to get him on their team.

I'm not sure how one could go about fixing this, though. The obvious answer would be to have players drop their demands more realistically through the free agent process, but then the human player would know that was coming and wait until week 20 to acquire top players cheaply (most likely the AI would be asleep here).

If there would be a fix, it would seem that there would have to be a major investment of time to get the system working correctly here.

MIJB#19 · 07-14-2003, 02:48 PM

what i've seen in fof2 (and likely hasn't been fixed in fof4, seeing the demo) is that the game orders al teams random with the gamer listed last.
Then, each team cuts and signs to the 53-man (60-man) roster, one by one.
Maybe that should be fixed, with not 1 team making 15-20 roster moves but just up to 5 at the time, leading to 3 or 4 rounds of roster cuttting/signing.

Could it be that the first team ordered in the above explained way is the out of nowhere super bowl champ with 3 super star one-year mercenaries?

Leonidas · 07-14-2003, 02:55 PM

QuickSand

I have never been able to put my finger on this problem, but you hammered it. I thought all along maybe I was just doing something wrong. I mean, geeze when I offer Jevon Kearse $2M he laughs it off then I find later on he signed a minimum salary deal with Arizona and I just go WTF? Drives me nuts.

Now that I started OOTP I have to say FOF4 is last on my list behind OOTP and TCY. I probably wouldn't buy it at all except when I start into TCY I always wind up getting a pro football jonz and just have to have the game, no matter how dissappointing certain aspects are. Then I'll play it a couple months, get bored or pissed, and move on to baseball again, all the while still trying a new TCY dynasty now and then. I'd say that FOF4 is a good game, but not great like TCY or OOTP.

Godzilla Blitz · 07-14-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leonidas
I have never been able to put my finger on this problem, but you hammered it. I thought all along maybe I was just doing something wrong. I mean, geeze when I offer Jevon Kearse $2M he laughs it off then I find later on he signed a minimum salary deal with Arizona and I just go WTF? Drives me nuts.

I can understand that this can be frustrating, but from a challenge standpoint, I have to believe it's much better than anything we've seen before in FOF. At least it makes the game harder. Sure, I wish it worked better, but IMHO, it's not a game breaker.

Fritz · 07-14-2003, 03:08 PM

Since I don't sign FAs, this part of the game has gone unnoticed.

Bee's idea of splitting FA is a good one. Some rounds, then the draft, the the June 1 "roll over" date for contracts, then a few more rounds.

If you really wanted to capture the offseason you would probably have something like this:

FA rounds 1-6 (players want full value)
Rookie Draft
FA rounds 7-14 (some players take full value, some take reduced)
*june 1st roll date*
round 15-20 (players take reduced low year offer)

SplitPersonality1 · 07-14-2003, 03:09 PM

Interesting observations.

From my perspective as a FOF2001 holdout, I guess I'm glad I waited. FOF4 sounds like a very good game, but not a vast improvement over FOF3.

In reading all of the FOF4 threads, no one has yet given me a reason to rush out and buy the game. Everyone has nice things to say, but I don't get the feeling that anyone was truly wowed by innovative gameplay or greatly improved AI.

I will probably upgrade at some point - maybe when FOF5 comes out. As for now, I am quite happy with my version of the game.

Just my 2 cents.

Bee · 07-14-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
Not many observations yet, but the expanded record keeping is fantastic.

The team summary, scouting reports, etc are a major improvement for me as well. It's now much easier to look at another team and get a "feel" for their team without actually going through their roster player by player.

condors · 07-14-2003, 04:12 PM

I play the game and watch players careers

i do almost nothing in the free agent market

i totally enjoy the game and my team goes through transition years (espcially when we are lacking at qb)

so i give fof4c two thumbs up

Godzilla Blitz · 07-14-2003, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SplitPersonality1

In reading all of the FOF4 threads, no one has yet given me a reason to rush out and buy the game.

Unlike FOF2001, FOF4 has scroll bars that are visible to the naked eye.

Karim · 07-14-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
I thought the expanded game plan screens would be a micromanagement hell, but I just zapped them with "recommend" in the beginning of the year, and have only gone in a tweaked them a couple of times since then. Much better than I thought...

I haven't picked up FOF4 since that was one of my biggest concerns. So much effort went into those screens and it just feels awkward to pay for the game only to click "recommend" on most of the screens.

Also, how does the expanded positions play out? Is there really much of a difference between a LT and RT or LDE and RDE? In the demo, I had a RT with great pass protection that I thought I should switch to a LT, and his ratings went down. It seems I should have played him out of position (but is it really?)

I've tried playing the demo about four times since the game was released but am still a FOF2001 holdout also. Chemistry based on astrological signs was also a real turnoff but that's just me...

finkenst · 07-14-2003, 05:40 PM

So, regarding fof4 and you used to enjoy fof2 and fof-original, but can't restore to play fof2 again and fof-original doesn't really appeal to you, either. what would you do when you have a jonz for playing a pro-fof?

Bee · 07-14-2003, 07:03 PM

Karim,
According to Jim there's a small disadvantage associated with playing a player out of position (RT for LT). I believe he has said the degree of disadvantage varies by "how far" out of position the player is playing (for example, more of a disadvantage playing a C at LT than a RT at LT). That being said, the general consensus is the disadvantage isn't all that noticeable and most veteran players seem to ignore it. You can also switch a player's position and there's a hit to his reds and greens. The hit to the reds is dependent on how much experience he has had at his old position. The hit to the greens is dependent on how well he translates to his new position. So if you switch a MLB to ILB the greens won't take much of a hit (if you switch him to SS it will take a bigger hit). Same with the reds and experience. A rookie switching from MLB to ILB won't take a huge hit, but a 8 year vet switching from MLB to ILB could take a bigger hit on his reds.

Also the chemistry thing with the astrological signs is optional. Even turned on they seem to be mostly ignored by the majority of the players from what I've seen. (again they don't seem to impact the game in any noticeable way).

finkenst,

I'd buy FOF4 if you liked previous versions and no longer have access to them. I'd recommend buying it even if you did still have the older games because of the improvements (especially over FOF2 - with all respect to the french contingent

),

Fritz · 07-14-2003, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
Even turned on they seem to be mostly ignored by the majority of the players from what I've seen. (again they don't seem to impact the game in any noticeable way).

I do not agree that their impact is not to be seen. (in 4c)

Ben E Lou · 07-14-2003, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
I do not agree that their impact is not to be seen. (in 4c)

What Fritz said.

It appears that the impact of chemisty is much more noticeable now.

Bee · 07-14-2003, 07:23 PM

You think it makes a noticeable difference (the team chemistry) with the new patch? I know Jim modified it in the patch, but I still haven't really seen any results that I could tie to team chemistry. Perhaps I just haven't been paying close enough attention. The next time I get into a career, I'll track it closer than I have been and see if I can tie poor play to bad team chemistry.

Fritz · 07-15-2003, 12:06 AM

My current (home) team was a OPU grouping with marginal talent. After 3 seasons I was still starting a backup quality SE, a #3 type RB, and a marginal starter at RG (all leaders). Actually, my OL was passible, but there were no studs. What I was lacking was a QB of any note. In the Year 4 rookie draft I picked up a guy in the late first round who projected to develop into a functional starter (with NO accuracy). I started him right away, curious to see if his 5'9" frame could compete.

The following year I took another QB in the mid first round. His actuals were as good as the 5'9" guy, and he was scouted to be more accurate, so my plan was to start him. Three games into the regualr season the new QB went out with a 3 game injury. Now starting the 5'9" guy again I burned through the next three games, and so decided to keep the short guy in until he started to falter. The little guy went 10-3 , and took me to the big game.

Somewhere in here I noticed that he had an affinty to the RG and SE. Over the next 7 years this not so good SE, who was the WR leader, put up some solid (not great) numbers. Far better than numbers than he should have gotten. The RB (with an affinty for the RG) I mentioned above started 12 seasons, never going under 1000 yds. He also never had ratings worth looking at, the type you would not even pick up as a rookie filler for the 4th job. As long as this QB, RB, SE, RG were playing, my team won. I almost always had better players on the roster at those positions, but playing anyone other than the 4 was like a kiss of death.

Also of note was this SE posted much betters number than a FL with more talent. 14 years into a career he is in poor shape if you look at the red bars, but he still manages to put up 800yds/6 TDs as a starter.

The RB retired (medical) after 12 years as the league rushing leader with 13571 yards. No other RB that I have played has produced, and all have been more talented.

The other, more talented, QB had a conflict with the SE, and could never get anything going. I eventually traded him for a high 1st round pick, which may indicate his apparent ability.

Syrinx · 07-15-2003, 08:18 AM

Wow, Fritz! Even if behind the scenes the effect isn’t as large as indicated in your account, that’s an awesome story!

For the skeptics, I enjoy playing with chemistry, and quickly forget/ignore that it is based on astrology. It’s really just a placeholder; you could replace (in your mind) the astrological signs with 12(?) different behavior types and move on. AND as Bee pointed out, it is optional.

SkyDog, do you have any specific in examples that make you feel that chemistry is more important (pre or post patch) then people give it credit for?

QuikSand · 07-15-2003, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Syrinx
For the skeptics, I enjoy playing with chemistry, and quickly forget/ignore that it is based on astrology.

Ding, ding!

I, too, find it weird how so many people are so vocally opposed to this. I'm sure that Jim was thinking the same thing - he could have just as easily used a series of colors or numbers to represent different personality types, but added some "flavor" by using the astrological signs.

To my surprise (and his, I'm sure) this seems to have backfired - it doesn't seem like anyone thinks of this as a good idea, but I hear lots of people object to the "use of astrology" in the game.

Dutch · 07-15-2003, 10:35 AM

I don't think it's a case of people being upset with astrology. It's more of a case of people being annoyed that they don't know how it works in the game and then "astrology" is easy pickin's for being bashed.

Karim · 07-15-2003, 12:48 PM

I realize that astrology is a place holder, but seeing it up front as the "visual" basis for team chemistry is irksome. Why can't there be an UNH icon like CM to show the guy is unhappy and then list in his profile his concerns? Just my opinion...

Fritz's account though, makes it sound like team chemistry is ALL that matters...

Fritz · 07-15-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Karim
Fritz's account though, makes it sound like team chemistry is ALL that matters...

Whoa there cowboy. I wasn't try to say that at all. I was saying marginal (or worse) players were more productive when the chemistry was right.

07-14-2003, 02:29 PM	#6
Godzilla Blitz College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	I started a career using your (Quiksand's) house rules as well, but have decided to play it slow and watch each game play out. Still in my first season, but am greatly enjoying the game so far. Not many observations yet, but the expanded record keeping is fantastic. I thought the expanded game plan screens would be a micromanagement hell, but I just zapped them with "recommend" in the beginning of the year, and have only gone in a tweaked them a couple of times since then. Much better than I thought, and I have yet to find myself screaming at my coach in the fourth quarter, when he used to throws three incomplete passes in a row with a ten-point lead and eight minutes to go in FOF2001. So far, thumbs up! __________________ Current Blog Projects: Final Fantasy: Lost in Japanese Kaboom Review Last edited by Godzilla Blitz : 07-14-2003 at 02:33 PM.

07-14-2003, 02:43 PM	#8
Godzilla Blitz College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	Dola... Excellent explanation, Quik. I saw this in FOF4a, and was thinking that at least this is better than having top free agents available to the human player at the beginning of the year. One other thought, though, and I'm not sure if this has changed or not since FOF4a, but I saw quite a few outrageous acquisitions of the nature you describe. The one that came to mind was when a team added Brett Favre (with outstanding ratings at the time) to a low-sal one-year deal after he drifted through free agency, then sat him on the bench all year (they had one other outstanding quarterback). Just plain silly. One, Favre would never sign a one-year deal to sit on the bench at the peak of his career. Two, there were a dozen teams with crappy quarterbacks who should have jumped at the opportunity to get him on their team. I'm not sure how one could go about fixing this, though. The obvious answer would be to have players drop their demands more realistically through the free agent process, but then the human player would know that was coming and wait until week 20 to acquire top players cheaply (most likely the AI would be asleep here). If there would be a fix, it would seem that there would have to be a major investment of time to get the system working correctly here. __________________ Current Blog Projects: Final Fantasy: Lost in Japanese Kaboom Review

07-14-2003, 02:55 PM	#10
Leonidas College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Anglia	QuickSand I have never been able to put my finger on this problem, but you hammered it. I thought all along maybe I was just doing something wrong. I mean, geeze when I offer Jevon Kearse $2M he laughs it off then I find later on he signed a minimum salary deal with Arizona and I just go WTF? Drives me nuts. Now that I started OOTP I have to say FOF4 is last on my list behind OOTP and TCY. I probably wouldn't buy it at all except when I start into TCY I always wind up getting a pro football jonz and just have to have the game, no matter how dissappointing certain aspects are. Then I'll play it a couple months, get bored or pissed, and move on to baseball again, all the while still trying a new TCY dynasty now and then. I'd say that FOF4 is a good game, but not great like TCY or OOTP. __________________ Molon labe

07-14-2003, 03:08 PM	#12
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	Since I don't sign FAs, this part of the game has gone unnoticed. Bee's idea of splitting FA is a good one. Some rounds, then the draft, the the June 1 "roll over" date for contracts, then a few more rounds. If you really wanted to capture the offseason you would probably have something like this: FA rounds 1-6 (players want full value) Rookie Draft FA rounds 7-14 (some players take full value, some take reduced) june 1st roll date round 15-20 (players take reduced low year offer) __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

07-15-2003, 12:06 AM	#23
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	My current (home) team was a OPU grouping with marginal talent. After 3 seasons I was still starting a backup quality SE, a #3 type RB, and a marginal starter at RG (all leaders). Actually, my OL was passible, but there were no studs. What I was lacking was a QB of any note. In the Year 4 rookie draft I picked up a guy in the late first round who projected to develop into a functional starter (with NO accuracy). I started him right away, curious to see if his 5'9" frame could compete. The following year I took another QB in the mid first round. His actuals were as good as the 5'9" guy, and he was scouted to be more accurate, so my plan was to start him. Three games into the regualr season the new QB went out with a 3 game injury. Now starting the 5'9" guy again I burned through the next three games, and so decided to keep the short guy in until he started to falter. The little guy went 10-3 , and took me to the big game. Somewhere in here I noticed that he had an affinty to the RG and SE. Over the next 7 years this not so good SE, who was the WR leader, put up some solid (not great) numbers. Far better than numbers than he should have gotten. The RB (with an affinty for the RG) I mentioned above started 12 seasons, never going under 1000 yds. He also never had ratings worth looking at, the type you would not even pick up as a rookie filler for the 4th job. As long as this QB, RB, SE, RG were playing, my team won. I almost always had better players on the roster at those positions, but playing anyone other than the 4 was like a kiss of death. Also of note was this SE posted much betters number than a FL with more talent. 14 years into a career he is in poor shape if you look at the red bars, but he still manages to put up 800yds/6 TDs as a starter. The RB retired (medical) after 12 years as the league rushing leader with 13571 yards. No other RB that I have played has produced, and all have been more talented. The other, more talented, QB had a conflict with the SE, and could never get anything going. I eventually traded him for a high 1st round pick, which may indicate his apparent ability. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster Last edited by Fritz : 07-15-2003 at 08:34 AM.

07-14-2003, 02:17 PM	#3
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I cannot find my FOF4 game. I've misplaced the CD's for both TCY and FOF4 and simply cannot find them. I'll probably just wait until .400 studios comes out with theirs and if it doesn't meet my needs, reorder FOF4 and TCY. I've been waiting for people's impressions of the patch, which seem to be filtering out very slowly. TroyF

07-14-2003, 02:21 PM	#4
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I'll answer my own question, to some degree. There's a phenomenon in FOF4 that seems to play a huge role in the equalization in this game. And, in my view, it has good and bad outcomes. In FOF4, like its predecessors, free agent players have certain demands. We know how this works - they won't even listen to an offer below their general expectation range. Over the FA process, if they go unclaimed, their demands will gradually come down, but not by all that much-- maybe 25% or so ovr the whole 20 weeks. As a result, there are always players who go unclaimed through the FA process. In many cases in FOF4, these players are high quality players -- guys who are reasonably demanding big-dollar, multi-year contracts. When nobody has the cap room or the interest in them, they sit unclaimed up and through trainincg camp. In FOF4, though - something new happens. Immediately after training camp, most of these quality players get snagged by computer teams, who sign them to modest one year deals. This happens before the human team gets any chance to make any offer to them-- and therefor tends to empty the FA market of any quality talent that might have been there just prior to camp. Now, it's certainly possible to criticize this as unrealistic. Sure, it happens sometimes - decent players have to settle for a short term deal in hopes of playing well and then getting paid the following season. But it's not a wholesale phenomenon - we don't see twenty solid starting-claiber players going through this every year-- being forced to ink one-year minsal deals with whoever will make some room. No - in reality, there isn't such a "cliff effect." Players gradually recognize they won't get the big deal they want, and they sensible adjust their demands - both money and duration - to better fit their actual market. So, in FOF4, we certainly see too many high quality players who end up with scattered careers - playing one year at a time, moving team to team, sometimes year after year. It's more than is realistic. It also has an odd effect on the game universe. In my FOF4 patched career, I have noticed more than once that a team rising to be the new champion was a team that managed to get a few of these high quality cheap post-camp free agents. One team in my league signed three guys - a star-caliber WR, DE, and CB - all in the same year. With all that cap value (and all three guys starting all season) they rolled through the regular season at something liek 14-2 and won it all. The next season, with all those guys gone, they stumbled right out of the playoffs. Yes, I know it happens in real life that good teams follow up with bad seaons - but this particular reasoning doesn't seem to fit. You don't sign a bunch of haggard veteran washouts after free agency and suddenly see them lead you to dominance. On the upside - the fact that these players simply are not available to us (the human team) means that we don't ge ethe chance to make these gains ourselves-- and that sometimes we will come up against a super-team that might have gotten ths kind of edge. In a sense, it's a "cheat" for the CPU teams that we continue to outmanage, outdraft, and outstrategize. They get this little plum - every year or two, they might get to sign a $10 million player for $1.2 million or somesuch deal. In my view, this is a pretty big component of the long-term dynamics in this game. Overall, I think that FOF4 will tend toward more chaos in the upper tier of its standings than the predecessor games, and more so than in real football. And I think this odd, seemingly random, distribution of grossly undervalued quality players, is a prime factor behind that.

07-14-2003, 02:37 PM	#7
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	The point you are talking about Quiksand is one of the reasons I'd like to see the draft placed in the middle of the free agent signing period. (Or in other words, 10 weeks of free agency, the draft and then 10 more weeks of free agency). If the roster management AI (including the signings during free agency and the computer's ability to actually cut non-productive players) were tightened up to the same degree as the recent patch addressed the drafting AI, I think this would be a much better option than how things are currently handled. The salary requests would have to be addressed as well to drop more dramatically during the second set of free agency steps. Also, along the same lines...there is still a tendency for free agents to sign with the gamer's team. I think this really needs adjusting. Perhaps even to the point where the gamer is given a handicap towards signing free agents on the hardest difficulty level. Overall, I think the draft has been dramatically improved but the free agent market still needs a lot of work.

07-14-2003, 02:48 PM	#9
MIJB#19 Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands	what i've seen in fof2 (and likely hasn't been fixed in fof4, seeing the demo) is that the game orders al teams random with the gamer listed last. Then, each team cuts and signs to the 53-man (60-man) roster, one by one. Maybe that should be fixed, with not 1 team making 15-20 roster moves but just up to 5 at the time, leading to 3 or 4 rounds of roster cuttting/signing. Could it be that the first team ordered in the above explained way is the out of nowhere super bowl champ with 3 super star one-year mercenaries?

07-14-2003, 03:09 PM	#13
SplitPersonality1 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Grafton, WI	Interesting observations. From my perspective as a FOF2001 holdout, I guess I'm glad I waited. FOF4 sounds like a very good game, but not a vast improvement over FOF3. In reading all of the FOF4 threads, no one has yet given me a reason to rush out and buy the game. Everyone has nice things to say, but I don't get the feeling that anyone was truly wowed by innovative gameplay or greatly improved AI. I will probably upgrade at some point - maybe when FOF5 comes out. As for now, I am quite happy with my version of the game. Just my 2 cents.

07-14-2003, 04:12 PM	#15
condors College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	I play the game and watch players careers i do almost nothing in the free agent market i totally enjoy the game and my team goes through transition years (espcially when we are lacking at qb) so i give fof4c two thumbs up

07-14-2003, 07:03 PM	#19
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Karim, According to Jim there's a small disadvantage associated with playing a player out of position (RT for LT). I believe he has said the degree of disadvantage varies by "how far" out of position the player is playing (for example, more of a disadvantage playing a C at LT than a RT at LT). That being said, the general consensus is the disadvantage isn't all that noticeable and most veteran players seem to ignore it. You can also switch a player's position and there's a hit to his reds and greens. The hit to the reds is dependent on how much experience he has had at his old position. The hit to the greens is dependent on how well he translates to his new position. So if you switch a MLB to ILB the greens won't take much of a hit (if you switch him to SS it will take a bigger hit). Same with the reds and experience. A rookie switching from MLB to ILB won't take a huge hit, but a 8 year vet switching from MLB to ILB could take a bigger hit on his reds. Also the chemistry thing with the astrological signs is optional. Even turned on they seem to be mostly ignored by the majority of the players from what I've seen. (again they don't seem to impact the game in any noticeable way). finkenst, I'd buy FOF4 if you liked previous versions and no longer have access to them. I'd recommend buying it even if you did still have the older games because of the improvements (especially over FOF2 - with all respect to the french contingent ),

07-14-2003, 07:23 PM	#22
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	You think it makes a noticeable difference (the team chemistry) with the new patch? I know Jim modified it in the patch, but I still haven't really seen any results that I could tie to team chemistry. Perhaps I just haven't been paying close enough attention. The next time I get into a career, I'll track it closer than I have been and see if I can tie poor play to bad team chemistry.

07-15-2003, 08:18 AM	#24
Syrinx H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Atlanta, GA	Wow, Fritz! Even if behind the scenes the effect isn’t as large as indicated in your account, that’s an awesome story! For the skeptics, I enjoy playing with chemistry, and quickly forget/ignore that it is based on astrology. It’s really just a placeholder; you could replace (in your mind) the astrological signs with 12(?) different behavior types and move on. AND as Bee pointed out, it is optional. SkyDog, do you have any specific in examples that make you feel that chemistry is more important (pre or post patch) then people give it credit for?

07-15-2003, 10:35 AM	#26
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	I don't think it's a case of people being upset with astrology. It's more of a case of people being annoyed that they don't know how it works in the game and then "astrology" is easy pickin's for being bashed.

07-15-2003, 12:48 PM	#27
Karim College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Calgary	I realize that astrology is a place holder, but seeing it up front as the "visual" basis for team chemistry is irksome. Why can't there be an UNH icon like CM to show the guy is unhappy and then list in his profile his concerns? Just my opinion... Fritz's account though, makes it sound like team chemistry is ALL that matters...

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