Couple of FOF Questions

[Warhammer]

A few quick questions:

1) Does anyone know what impact QB Style has on the game?

2) How does 3rd down rushing work? Is this a modifier only in 3rd down situations or is this an adder for 3rd down, and a negative for 1 + 2 downs?

[GroundCat]

1) None

2) modifier for 3rd down situations.

[MrBigglesworth]

(2) is actually under debate in the Strategies section.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

(2) is actually under debate in the Strategies section.

That was 3rd down receiving. I am looking at running.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That was 3rd down receiving. I am looking at running.

Well I've never written a football simulation, but I think it's safe to assume that they could operate under similar parameters

And I think it was 3rd down passing that they were talking about...

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A few quick questions:

1) Does anyone know what impact QB Style has on the game?

I do not have any proof, but through observation I believe that the QB style helps determine what plays a quarterback learns. A QB with a style of Long Passes will tend to learn Single Back Trips, Single Back Five Wide before they would learn Strong TE Pairs.

This is most evident if you take QB's who don't know many formations and look at what formations they do know.

I don't have any clue if there is a set pattern for the various QB's to learn the plays or if there is a random chance, with formations suiting that QB's style having a higher probability.

Would probably be fairly easy to test.

[Ben E Lou]

....and another death blow is dealt to the idea of having better, more comprehensive Solecismic manuals. {sigh}

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

....and another death blow is dealt to the idea of having better, more comprehensive Solecismic manuals. {sigh}

Meaning he won't improve them if we're answering these questions ourselves? (Not sure I get it)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Meaning he won't improve them if we're answering these questions ourselves? (Not sure I get it)

Meaning why in the world would he spend time on improving them when it is increasingly evident that many people don't bother to read the information that is already given?

Originally Posted by FOF2K4 Manual

Known Formations Screen

The Known Formations Screen lists which formations your quarterback understands.

During games, you will only be able to select plays using these formations while this quarterback is in control.

Quarterbacks learn new formations during training camp. Generally, they tend to learn formations more relevant to their style of play before they learn other formations.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A few quick questions:

1) Does anyone know what impact QB Style has on the game?

2) How does 3rd down rushing work? Is this a modifier only in 3rd down situations or is this an adder for 3rd down, and a negative for 1 + 2 downs?

NICE TRY! Like that will help you against the Volunteers. How many people need to be involved for this team to beat us?


/tongue in cheek for those that need to be told.

[MrBigglesworth]

What formations are for a roll-out QB?

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Meaning why in the world would he spend time on improving them when it is increasingly evident that many people don't bother to read the information that is already given?

Good point.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Meaning why in the world would he spend time on improving them when it is increasingly evident that many people don't bother to read the information that is already given?

Still don't get it. No help file ever written has ever been used to it's full capacity. That is a totally unrealistic expectation.

Get mad at someone for wasting board space/time for questions that can be answered replying "RTFM". But don't let that be an excuse for sub-par help files.

[Loki]

SkyDog got SERVED!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

Still don't get it. No help file ever written has ever been used to it's full capacity. That is a totally unrealistic expectation.

Get mad at someone for wasting board space/time for questions that can be answered replying "RTFM". But don't let that be an excuse for sub-par help files.

I agree to a point, BUT we're talking about a solo developer here. Perhaps Jim's most finite resource is his time. Many people (yours truly included) have been clamoring for more documentation of Solecismic games, but to do so takes time. If this thread existed in a vacuum, then it wouldn't be a big deal. I've seen quite a few threads where a fairly-new guy asks a question that is answered in the manual. That's not the big deal. However, what I've noticed also in multiple instances is that the newbie gets a "Nobody knows" or "Hmmmm, I'm not sure, but I think it works like this...." from someone who has spent a good bit of time at this forum and with the game. Again, given the finite amount of time that Jim has, based on the fact that a good bit of stuff in his rather spartan documentation is getting missed by vets, why should he write a BIGGER manual?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree to a point, BUT we're talking about a solo developer here. Perhaps Jim's most finite resource is his time. Many people (yours truly included) have been clamoring for more documentation of Solecismic games, but to do so takes time. If this thread existed in a vacuum, then it wouldn't be a big deal. I've seen quite a few threads where a fairly-new guy asks a question that is answered in the manual. That's not the big deal. However, what I've noticed also in multiple instances is that the newbie gets a "Nobody knows" or "Hmmmm, I'm not sure, but I think it works like this...." from someone who has spent a good bit of time at this forum and with the game. Again, given the finite amount of time that Jim has, based on the fact that a good bit of stuff in his rather spartan documentation is getting missed by vets, why should he write a BIGGER manual?

Because the manual is so spartan that most people haven't read it since about FOF2? Seriously, if only a handful of your questions are answered in the manual, why would you consider that the first place you'd turn to for information?

I'd also point out that it is not well organized for browsing or just sitting down and reading through. You pull up a page for a screen, put it away, pull up another page, etc. There's no way to just step through all the pages to read them like you would a typical game manual. Plus the index is sparse, just an entry for each page in the help, making it difficult to find items unless you are staring at a UI element on a particular screen.

Take the example in here. The QB rollout style is not explained on the Player Attributes screen, its explained under the Known Formations screen. So if you are looking for what the rollout affects, you have to already know what it affects to find it in the help. Here is the complete contents of the Help for the Player Attributes screen, one of the more complex and heavily used screens in the game:

Originally Posted by FOF Manual

The Player Attributes screen allows you to view your scout's impressions of each player on your roster in great detail.

Every important attribute for every player is included on the screen. You can view either your scout's impression of your players' current skills, or his assessment of their future development.

During the season, you can use the Quick Switch button to move a reserve player into a starting role on your team. The former starter is moved into the original player's role at that position. This simply gives you a subset of the function available on the individual depth chart screens.

It's no wonder that people don't often look through the manual to answer a question.

[mhass]

What's this board for if not the discussion of FOF? Cut the guy a break.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Because the manual is so spartan that most people haven't read it since about FOF2? Seriously, if only a handful of your questions are answered in the manual, why would you consider that the first place you'd turn to for information?

...because it is sometimes the only word from the developer's mouth, and it does shed light on some things.

Plus the index is sparse, just an entry for each page in the help, making it difficult to find items unless you are staring at a UI element on a particular screen.

Uh, no. All you have to do is type in the word you're looking for. In this case, I knew it was in there, but didn't remember where, so I typed in "formations."

Here is the complete contents of the Help for the Player Attributes screen, one of the more complex and heavily used screens in the game:

It's no wonder that people don't often look through the manual to answer a question.

As one who wants more documentation, I don't get your beef with that text. It gives the necessary information to use that screen, does it not?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

....and another death blow is dealt to the idea of having better, more comprehensive Solecismic manuals. {sigh}

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'd also point out that it is not well organized for browsing or just sitting down and reading through. You pull up a page for a screen, put it away, pull up another page, etc. There's no way to just step through all the pages to read them like you would a typical game manual. Plus the index is sparse, just an entry for each page in the help, making it difficult to find items unless you are staring at a UI element on a particular screen.

Wouldn't gstelmack's argument be proof that we need better, more comprehensive manuals?

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree to a point, BUT we're talking about a solo developer here. Perhaps Jim's most finite resource is his time. Many people (yours truly included) have been clamoring for more documentation of Solecismic games, but to do so takes time. If this thread existed in a vacuum, then it wouldn't be a big deal. I've seen quite a few threads where a fairly-new guy asks a question that is answered in the manual. That's not the big deal. However, what I've noticed also in multiple instances is that the newbie gets a "Nobody knows" or "Hmmmm, I'm not sure, but I think it works like this...." from someone who has spent a good bit of time at this forum and with the game. Again, given the finite amount of time that Jim has, based on the fact that a good bit of stuff in his rather spartan documentation is getting missed by vets, why should he write a BIGGER manual?

I agree to a point, BUT
I have read the entire help file (more than once) and I didn't remember this answer was there. Doesn't mean I would not be served by a better help file. This is a complex game and very few are going to remember every detail in even (today's) spartan manual.

A slightly different angle... If the help was better it would be the first place people would turn for an answer. I will often do a search here before I search the help.

[mhass]

The forum is called Front Office Football Central. Not Front Office Football Unless It's in the Manual.

[gottimd]

There is no manual for the FOFC boards either.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by gottimd

There is no manual for the FOFC boards either.

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/faq.php?

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree to a point, BUT we're talking about a solo developer here. Perhaps Jim's most finite resource is his time. Many people (yours truly included) have been clamoring for more documentation of Solecismic games, but to do so takes time. If this thread existed in a vacuum, then it wouldn't be a big deal. I've seen quite a few threads where a fairly-new guy asks a question that is answered in the manual. That's not the big deal. However, what I've noticed also in multiple instances is that the newbie gets a "Nobody knows" or "Hmmmm, I'm not sure, but I think it works like this...." from someone who has spent a good bit of time at this forum and with the game. Again, given the finite amount of time that Jim has, based on the fact that a good bit of stuff in his rather spartan documentation is getting missed by vets, why should he write a BIGGER manual?

Obviously this is directed at me, so I'll respond. Yes, it's in the manual. Sorry I can't remember every single topic covered in there. Sorry I don't have the ability like some SkyDogs to access the game when I'm at work. Sorry for trying to be helpful and help out a fellow gamer. Sorry that the information I gave was most likely learned from reading the manual but I didn't recall where or how I learned it. Sorry I'm not a newbie and could be excused for telling somebody something that they could have read in the manual. Sorry that my efforts to share information, no matter what the source, have undermined all your glorious efforts to get better documentation. Sorry that one fucking sentence equals a 'good bit of stuff'. Sorry that some SkyDogs weren't here to point to the location in the manual before I so foolishly responded.

I understand where you are coming from, but to chastise someone simply because they offered information that they didnt' realize was in the manual is a little silly, IMO of course.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Obviously this is directed at me, so I'll respond. Yes, it's in the manual. Sorry I can't remember every single topic covered in there. Sorry I don't have the ability like some SkyDogs to access the game when I'm at work. Sorry for trying to be helpful and help out a fellow gamer. Sorry that the information I gave was most likely learned from reading the manual but I didn't recall where or how I learned it. Sorry I'm not a newbie and could be excused for telling somebody something that they could have read in the manual. Sorry that my efforts to share information, no matter what the source, have undermined all your glorious efforts to get better documentation. Sorry that one fucking sentence equals a 'good bit of stuff'. Sorry that some SkyDogs weren't here to point to the location in the manual before I so foolishly responded.

I understand where you are coming from, but to chastise someone simply because they offered information that they didnt' realize was in the manual is a little silly, IMO of course.

I wasn't directing it at you individually, and I certainly wasn't "chastising" you, either. There is a big difference between LAMENTING something, as I was doing (hence the 'sigh' in the first post) and jumping on someone. Look carefully at what I said again. It wasn't directed at any individual. As I said, this pattern has repeated itself quite a bit. The collective is what I was lamenting. If one guy forgot that they gleaned this or that from the manual, no sweat, no biggie, no impact. In that situation, we give each other a hard time about not RTFM, and move on. I doubt it would have any impact. However, because it has happened quite a bit, my concern is that Jim (and other developers) will interpret it thusly, "They SAY they want more documentation, but they don't really know what I've already given them."

If I recall correctly, this concern isn't something that I just conjured up, either. A comment from a developer (I forget which one) triggered this line of thinking on my behalf, and I've noticed it since.

Be assured that he intent of my post was not in any way to criticize you.

[larrymcg421]

Are we actually talking about Front Office Football on Front Office Football Central? Whose crazy idea was that?

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If I recall correctly, this concern isn't something that I just conjured up, either. A comment from a developer (I forget which one) triggered this line of thinking on my behalf, and I've noticed it since.

I'm pretty sure Jim has made some comments about guys missing what is already in the help file. Whether this was at IHOF or over here I'm not sure. Anyways, it goes both ways.

1) Does the current help file blow? Yes
2) Do guys go to the FOF help file before they come here? No
3) Do I blame them? No

[GroundCat]

Does the help file say how to get GroundCat's WR more passes?

[cthomer5000]

SkyDog: making FOF less fun to play since his interview with Dr. K earlier today.

[Raiders Army]

Dwight Gooden?

[gottimd]

Jack Kevorkian?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by gottimd

Jack Kevorkian?

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/viewt...t=4693&start=0

Actually, the interview was techinically with Scrawls. I want to give proper credit. I just find SkyDog's refusal to roleplay hilarious. (read a few posts down below the Week 6 previews).

[sovereignstar]

Now *that* is the SkyDog that I had an AIM conversation with last December during FidoGate.

[sovereignstar]

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...because it is sometimes the only word from the developer's mouth, and it does shed light on some things.

I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T read the manual, just that it is difficult, and if you don't remember some bit of trivia six months later it's not always easy to find it.

I go through this every single day at work. Designers are always griping that we are always coming to them with questions about things that are already documented, and we're always griping that most of the time when you do go look for it, it isn't there (or it's well hidden, or spread across multiple documents). It only takes a couple of times of looking for something and not finding it before you stop looking.

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Uh, no. All you have to do is type in the word you're looking for. In this case, I knew it was in there, but didn't remember where, so I typed in "formations."

I specifically said "index". You're on "find". And you searched for "formations", not "QB style" which was the question. If I type in "QB" in the Find, I get "Determining Retirement" and "Drafting Players". Going to "QB style" generates nothing. If I type in "style", I get to the "Known Formations" screen, and now I'm where you're talking about. So I'm through 3 searches, having to ignore the first word on the player attributes screen. And what's worse, I had to read three different sections of the document COMPLETELY before finding the answer at the end of the last one (if I skip any of the three, I may miss it; Windows Help doesn't highlight your search keywords in the text). While people SHOULD have the patience to dig a bit, they typically don't, and will take the easy way out. And it won't take many such searches to start giving up altogether.

Originally Posted by SkyDog

As one who wants more documentation, I don't get your beef with that text. It gives the necessary information to use that screen, does it not?

My point was that if I want to know about a player attribute, I'm going to start with the player attribute screen documentation, aren't I? If I want to find out how many players I need at each roster position, I go to the roster screen. Why would I go to the "Known Formations" screen to get information on the QB style that is on the "Player Attributes" screen? This is an inconsistency in where to look for information in the documentation: sometimes it's on the screen with the element you're looking for info on, and sometimes it's on the screen with the element that USES the data you want information on.

To summarize my point: there is a lot of good information in the documentation. I wish there was an easy way for me to read it sequentially every time a new version of FOF comes out. If I have a specific question, it's not always obvious where to look in the docs to find the info, and I don't know how far to dig before realising it's not actually in there. And there is a fair amount missing, so I'm not likely to dig far. So yes, everyone should read the manual, but I'm not going to bash people because they ask questions that happen to be answered in it, because there are many good reasons why they won't remember the answer or had trouble looking it up.

[Buzzbee]

SkyDog, as I said, I understand your point. It is hard for us as players to justify asking for more documentation when we don't use the documentation that is there. My point was that just because someone doesn't remember that a certain piece of information came from page X-c in the documentation doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't read the doc or use it as a reference at some point.

Yes, we as players probably tend to depend a little too much on the knowledge that floats around here rather than making the effort to look something up for ourselves. In that regard, Jim and other developers are 100% correct to resist expanding documentation and focus on improving the gaming experience.

However, it also goes the other way in that if certain aspects of the game aren't discussed at all in the doc, or is discussed in a way that is so vague as to be useless, we as gamers succumb to human nature and assume that all of the doc is vague and/ or useless. It is a very fine line between giving away too much of how the game works and not enough, and I don't envy Jim and others in his position.

My last comment is this: rather than roll your eyes and groan when someone post "I'm not sure, but I think it works like this..." and you know that it is addressed in the doc, then why not post as much. "Hey, I don't have time to look it up, but I KNOW this is covered in the doc somewhere. That way you can get it straight from the horses mouth." Or, if you'd like we can all avoid posting "how do you.." threads and simply PM you our questions.


Oh, and by the way, apology accepted.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I found even Jim's explanation to be wanting. Ok, so it affects in what order you learn formations. So, does it tell me what formations match each style? No. Does it confirm for me that is the only effect of QB style? No.

It seems it affects formations, so that's why we see the explanation in the formation section, but what about potential affects? I'd have to use what is clearly an underperforming organization and search function in the help file to see if there are others.

Sorry, SD. Defending the help file is a losing argument. It's got some stuff in there, but like the neighborhood library with 57 books, it's hard to argue that is the first place someone should go for help on a subject.

[Ben E Lou]

Uh, you're really misreading me. I'm not defending the help file. I'm saying it needs a great deal more. All I'm saying is that by completely poo-pooing it when it does have some good information, y'all may be sending a message you really don't want to send.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T read the manual, just that it is difficult, and if you don't remember some bit of trivia six months later it's not always easy to find it.

Oh, I agree that it can be difficult, although I wouldn't classify formations as "trivia" by any means. I get the impression it is pretty danged important.

While people SHOULD have the patience to dig a bit, they typically don't, and will take the easy way out. And it won't take many such searches to start giving up altogether.

Heh. My wife says that sometimes I'm patient to a fault, and what I perceive as her impatience really bugs me. Same thing probably applies here on some level. Go figure.

To summarize my point: there is a lot of good information in the documentation. I wish there was an easy way for me to read it sequentially every time a new version of FOF comes out. If I have a specific question, it's not always obvious where to look in the docs to find the info, and I don't know how far to dig before realising it's not actually in there. And there is a fair amount missing, so I'm not likely to dig far. So yes, everyone should read the manual, but I'm not going to bash people because they ask questions that happen to be answered in it, because there are many good reasons why they won't remember the answer or had trouble looking it up.

Well, as I said, my intent wasn't to bash by any means. I agree that things can be difficult to find. The first thing I do (before playing the demo, even--speaking of things that are spartan....) when a Solecismic demo is released is print out every page of the manual and read everything at least two or three times. I'm pretty good at remembering things that I deem to be important, so I usually "know its in there somewhere" and therefore probably have a little more motivation to dig.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Now *that* is the SkyDog that I had an AIM conversation with last December during FidoGate.

Yup. Just like then, I tried to answer questions asked of me as accurately as possible.

Elucidate regarding the picture, please.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/viewt...t=4693&start=0

Actually, the interview was techinically with Scrawls. I want to give proper credit. I just find SkyDog's refusal to roleplay hilarious. (read a few posts down below the Week 6 previews).

I'm genuinely curious here. Do you think that I should have played along anyway despite the fact that I would have found it silly and superfluous? I answered one question in such a manner, but I just couldn't stomach doing the whole thing that way.

[MIJB#19]

Cthomer, SkyDog, let it rest...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Cthomer, SkyDog, let it rest...

I'm not trying to argue. I'm just trying to understand what he was expecting of me, to see if it is possible to avoid an argument about such in the future.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Cthomer, SkyDog, let it rest...

MIJB, purchase a sense of humor.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm genuinely curious here. Do you think that I should have played along anyway despite the fact that I would have found it silly and superfluous? I answered one question in such a manner, but I just couldn't stomach doing the whole thing that way.

I just genuinely think it's funny that you had no problem pretenting to be Gary Handy, but couldn't go one step further and refrain from mention the game itself, in-game ratings, etc.

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding why you would agree to the "interview" if you couldn't play along. It's not like you haven't seen what every other interview in the league looked like.

I just find the whole situation quite funny, to be honest.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I just genuinely think it's funny that you had no problem pretenting to be Gary Handy, but couldn't go one step further and refrain from mention the game itself, in-game ratings, etc.

I hear ya on that being a little quirky. I can only go so far. You'd agree that we all have our limits, though.

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding why you would agree to the "interview" if you couldn't play along. It's not like you haven't seen what every other interview in the league looked like.

I didn't want to just completely dis the entire process. As I said, I played along as much as I could. I think I fully played along once earlier with a player interview, and I just felt like I was selling out. Anyway, at least it sounds like there are no hard feelings, which is good.

[gottimd]

My cats name is mittens.

[MIJB#19]

It looks like you two seem to agree now, but not until after I posted. I claim full credit for it.

[GroundCat]

GroundCat can't decide if some people take this way too seriously, or not nearly serious enough.

[GroundCat]

The bottom line is that GroundCat was right way back in post 2.