Multiplayer Text Sim Football Game Planning: Inherent Issues

[Ben E Lou]

I've been thinking about this a good bit recently, and wanted to start up a discussion about this here, because my thoughts don't just apply to FOF, but really to any past/present/future attempt at game planning in a MP environment (although all of my experience in MP Text Sim Football is with FOF.) The more I've thought about it, the more I've realized that there are inherent issues involved here, and two of them appear to be in direct conflict with one another.

1. META-GAME ISSUES WITH PERCENTAGE-BASED GAME PLANNING
The most obvious way to give us control in game planning is to go percentage-based. However, this can lead to a meta-game that has little/nothing to do with football. I'll give three specific examples from the IHOF

a. Georgia Gridlock running on third down--I started heavily perusing past game logs of my division opponents a season or two ago, and I noticed that Celeval LOVES to run on third and 5ish or more, so I started game planning for that. Is that something that the AI should pick up on and adjust to, or is it the responsibility of the human GM to do so? My personal opinion is that the answer in that case is "the human." Kevin had been doing it every game for a long time. If I'm paying attention, it comes as no surprise to me. That being said, I can understand the argument of those who might think that the AI should pick up on it and adjust accordingly. Another issue here is this: what if someone is paying close attention, picks up that Kevin likes to do that, and therefore goes to heavy run defense on 3rd and 7, and then Kevin decides to switch it up and play a more normal offense that week? Should that person be severely punished by being stuck in run defense on 3rd and 7 all game long while Nate Sutter converts third down after third down by passing?

b. Tucker cross-ups--I'm a player who likes to make heavy use of certain play types in certain situations, and with some pretty good success. I do it more when I'm playing against a human GM who I suspect relies heavily on "recommend" for this defense. Yes, Rex is more dynamic in the current version, but you still know, for example, that he's going to recommend a high percentage of "aggressive run" on third and 1 no matter what the personnel, so maybe going 75% pass against a GM likely to let the settings stay the way they are is a good idea. Same question as before: is that something the AI should pick up on and adjust to, or is it the GM's responsibilty? And again, what if I'm doing that, someone picks up on it, I realize they picked up on it, and so I then go to a traditional heavy run on third and 1 approach. Should I be able to convert third and short after third and short, just in the interest of the AI using my opponent's game plan as-is?

c. 2012 AOC Championship Game--Buzzbee controls Vicksburg. We were matched up in the Conference Championship last season. Vicksburg has one of the best RBs in IHOF history in Ronnie Kemp, and Buzzbee is known for a heavy ball-control offense. I decide to go with an extremely run-oriented defense in the game. Buzzbee anticipates that I might do that, so he wisely bumps up the passing. We hold the vaunted Kemp to 3.0 yards per carry, but their QB completes 24 of 31 and they win. In real life, a defensive coordinator picks up pretty quickly that "Hey, they're throwin' it more than normal," and adjusts accordingly. In percentage-based game planning, we're stuck in our heavy run defense all game long. Again, should the AI have significantly diverted from the game plan I entered and gone with more of a balanced one?

In all three examples above, a significant part of the team's performance is being determined not so much by sound football strategy as by winning or losing a meta-game based on making decisions that aren't really related to football strategy, so the argument might be made that the AI should take over the reigns more often. However, if you're inclined to say "yes" in any/all of the scenarios above, then the difficulty is in reconciling that response with this irrefutable truth:

2. TEXT SIMMERS *LOVE* CONTROL OF THEIR TEAMS--One of the draws of text simming is controlling our teams--having our teams do what we want them to do when we want them to do it. The most obvious (but perhaps difficult-to-program) solution to the percentage-based issues would be for the AI to be "smarter" and recognize that the other team is doing the opposite of what the human expected, and then adjust. Such a solution (if feasible) would help eliminate the meta-game of "hmmmm...I wonder what percentage he's going to use this week on 2nd and long". That sounds great in theory, but if we're honest, do we *really* want to deal with the potential consequences of such a solution?

For example: let's say I go into a game thinking that I want to go with very heavy running because my QB sucks, my best receiver is hurt, and I have a great defense and great punter. Our defense plays well and gives us a couple of key turnovers that we convert to FGs, and we run a punt back for a TD as well. It's the third quarter, and we have a 13-7 lead, despite only rushing for 2.8 ypc to that point because the other team recognized that we'd probably go run heavy, and went with a defensive game plan heavily tilted toward the run. A "smart" offensive AI/coordinator would recognize that the defense is keying on the run, and start passing more. That may well be disastrous, lead to multiple interceptions, and a loss, and it would also be beyond frustrating if we set out to run more, had the lead, yet the AI decided (correctly, it could be argued) to pass more.

3. NON-FEASIBILITY OF HEAD-TO-HEAD PLAYCALLING--Of course, all of this meta-game stuff would go away and we've have the best control if we were in a perfect gaming world where no one in our leagues had jobs, and we all had time to do head-to-head play calling against one another a couple of times a week in our MP leagues. This would eliminate the issues with percentage-based playcalling AND give us full control, but even if there was a game that offered this, the time commitment involved in the real world to do 16 head-to-head games per season is prohibitive. Either you'd have to stretch the 21 weeks of the season out over nearly a year real-time to give everyone a few weeks to hook up with their opponent and play the game out, or leagues would have to consist of just a few humans with similar time schedules who could commit to 1-2 2-hour blocks per week to play games out and get seasons done in a reasonable amount of time?


CONCLUSIONS??? ANSWERS???
I don't have any, really, but more than anything else, I'm writing this post to sort of "think out loud" about the tension that exists in percentage-based gameplans between the "meta-game" issues and the "lack-of-control" issues. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the stuff mentioned here.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

This isn't to say that I don't LIKE having percentage-based game planning, even, or that I have a better solution, but just to maybe talk through the tensions that exist.

[twothree]

I am not that in love with control over the play selection for my football team. And for me, either choice, percentages or the coach AI taking over, would be fine in a multiplayer text football game.

I prefer the GM role, so in FOF I hit "recommend" everytime. I know it puts me at a disadvantage against others in a multiplayer enviroment, but I go with what my coach recommends as I am the GM. And, it is usually easy to read the game logs and see which players use "recommend" and which don't in FOF.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by twothree

I am not that in love with control over the play selection for my football team. And for me, either choice, percentages or the coach AI taking over, would be fine in a multiplayer text football game.

I prefer the GM role, so in FOF I hit "recommend" everytime. I know it puts me at a disadvantage against others in a multiplayer enviroment, but I go with what my coach recommends as I am the GM. And, it is usually easy to read the game logs and see which players use "recommend" and which don't in FOF.

I second this. I rarely like being the head coach, just the GM is good for me

[Solecismic]

Just wanted to chime in and say Ben "gets it."

These are the issues that keep me up early in the morning. One of the main purposes of the board game (which really isn't a viable business option) is to come up with a simpler way of solving these problems.

FOF has a lot of code trying to deal with Ben's 1 and 2 right now, and it really isn't addressing the problem very well.

I think you can boil it down to one simple scenario:

You're standing at the line, you've called an off-tackle trap, and you see that strong safety just a few yards back. He's been cheating against the run all game long. What do you want your team to do? What would you accept, as someone who has put together a game plan that calls for that run play right now?

You see, simple research suggests that there are third-down situations where teams pass 95% of the time. So the "recommend" button gives you a 95 in those spots. Simple enough? No. That 5% is probably only when an offensive coordinator sees something in the defense to suggest that there's no way the opponent is even getting six in the box in time to stop a run from getting past the line.

I have three choices as a game designer, none of them particularly exciting.

1) Limit the benefits of changing defensive schemes. The positives - it's much easier to provide "NFL" numbers. The negatives - your defense is a sitting duck, you only get half of the experience, it's the least realistic approach.

2) Limit play-calling, eliminate the extremes, open up the differences between defensive schemes. The positives - you can find a balance between offensive planning and defensive planning. The negatives - it's very difficult to find that balance and anticipate what people can do with this system, it's less realistic.

3) Create an AI specifically to address these issues. After all, that's what the NFL does. The positives - it's a noble goal, you can even capture that information in the play-by-play and provide a better gaming experience. The negatives - you risk opening up even more loopholes, because the first word in AI is artificial, after all. You end up with much, much more code, and it becomes a maintenance nightmare. There have been elements of this approach in FOF from the beginning, and each version has some expansion of it, but it's still nowhere near where it could be.

My goal, obviously, would be a seamless 3. Right now, FOF is a 2+, but with all the quality MP leagues going on, the problems with a 2 approach are becoming more apparent. I don't think people want a 1 approach with this type of game - that's been my philosophy from day one.

[Anthony]

i've heard recently there's an issue with 2k7 regarding having a certain gameplan, a "super gameplan", if you will, where no matter the quality of your players the gameplan will result in great stats. not sure if this is a rumor or hogwash, but i've heard it through the grapevine nonetheless. not sure if this is in line with the intent of this thread, but since it's re: gameplanning i figured this would be a good starting place. i'll reserve comments on this until i hear more. if it's true - why hasn't this been made public? if we can pick apart maximum football and OOTP2k7, etc, isn't this piece of info (if true) kind of alarming? if it's true doesn't that mean certain people in the know can essentially join a new league and exploit it? just inquiring.

[adubroff]

One thing I think FOF is missing from its gameplanning/playcalling toolset is planned reaction. You can plan from the standpoint of "if we get up by this many points and there's this much time, play conservative pass defense." That's very cool, and very necessary. What you can't do is say: "If we're yielding 4+ ypc and the opposition is running more than 60% of its last 1st and 10s, then switch to aggressive run defenses until the percentage drops". I have a feeling that when Bill Belicheck game plans, he doesn't just think about what he'd like to set out to do, but he thinks about how he's going to react to success or failure. People say he's great at midgame adjustments, but I bet at least part of that is because he thinks about how he's going to handle success and failure of his initial plan.

[SteveMax58]

Certainly there is much more to getting it close to "perfect"...if that even exists....but perhaps there can be a solution which still allows the human coach to account for these scenarios, and also allow the "recommend" players to also benefit.

I would say that perhaps adding an alternative playcall % for all 4 schemes to the Gameplan Adjustments screen might help to alleviate the potential for a blown call. Next, you'd presumably need to key off "why" you'd use the alternate...which maybe could be a second additional selection box for "difference between expected vs. actual ingame". I'd imagine you could potentially trigger it's start time to look at the difference % with the same as all adjustments...or maybe add a seperate minutes to look at difference % with another box.

Essentially, it would serve as a second half(or perhaps earlier or later) adjustment to the actual game situation stats in that game(assuming the game is setup to have all of those same situations' game stats available internally). I might not have explained it as well as I could have...but thats my 2 cents.

[Solecismic]

That's one question you can ask (referring to adubroff). But any way you phrase it is open to exploitation. If it were as simple as Belichick telling his linebackers to cheat in on every play, then offenses would immediately ding them with a slant for 20 yards. It's often said in the NFL that offenses do what the defenses let them do. The difference between a good NFL defensive coordinator and a bad one is how well he disguises his goals on a play.

From a gaming perspecive, if you had that kind of option, testing would then give you a sense of how to use that option to find the exact percentages that most limited running opportunities. It's still nothing more than a gimmick. The bottom line is that if you go to far with that type of option, then you risk the creation of gimmick defenses that exploit the questions rather than tailor a plan in a realistic fashion.

Your question is a good illustration of exactly the problem a game designer faces when trying to move from a 1 to a 2 or 3 above.

To answer HA's question, look at the bug report section of the FOF 2007 forum. The game adjustments aren't working properly, and a few people have figured out how to turn that into an offense that racks up a lot of yardage without triggering the game's offensive game plan recognition code. This is part of the 6.0e plan, which I'm working on actively. This item is relevant in that solutions to these issues can be exploited - especially if there are bugs in the implementation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

[font=Arial]In real life, a defensive coordinator picks up pretty quickly that "Hey, they're throwin' it more than normal," and adjusts accordingly.

...unless he's Ron Rivera.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

c. 2012 AOC Championship Game--Buzzbee controls Vicksburg. We were matched up in the Conference Championship last season. Vicksburg has one of the best RBs in IHOF history in Ronnie Kemp, and Buzzbee is known for a heavy ball-control offense. I decide to go with an extremely run-oriented defense in the game. Buzzbee anticipates that I might do that, so he wisely bumps up the passing. We hold the vaunted Kemp to 3.0 yards per carry, but their QB completes 24 of 31 and they win. In real life, a defensive coordinator picks up pretty quickly that "Hey, they're throwin' it more than normal," and adjusts accordingly. In percentage-based game planning, we're stuck in our heavy run defense all game long. Again, should the AI have significantly diverted from the game plan I entered and gone with more of a balanced one?

I agree with your points essentially, it's hard to get to that immersive experience when there's these kind of metagaming opportunities. I think that's true in all computer games still, but it's something to continue to work at.

However, I also want to point out that it's not entirely unrealistic. This example you give before actually happens in real games all the time. I'm constantly watching pro games, and watching as coaches fail to make adjustments that you would expect. They stick to a game plan that's not working or fail to see something that seems apparent from home. So we should also remember that making wise adjustments, even obvious ones, isn't necessarily always the accurately realistic path.

[QuikSand]

Back to SkyDog's example (c)-- the idea of making changes "on the fly" based on what we see in the game at hand...

I wonder if some sort of overall setting/slider would be at least a bridge toward a user-defined balance here? If I enter an overall gameplan that does thing things that I generally think will work in this game against this opponent -- great. Then I have some overall setting like "Give coaching staff latitude to adjust to flow of game" and let me alter that setting -- I can make it a zero if I want to stick with my custom plan no matter what, or 100 if I want to have them start tweaking right out of the chute, or something in between based on my preference.

At least while the frontier of the possible lies in this sort of gray area - maybe that's a worthwhile things to consider.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Back to SkyDog's example (c)-- the idea of making changes "on the fly" based on what we see in the game at hand...

I wonder if some sort of overall setting/slider would be at least a bridge toward a user-defined balance here? If I enter an overall gameplan that does thing things that I generally think will work in this game against this opponent -- great. Then I have some overall setting like "Give coaching staff latitude to adjust to flow of game" and let me alter that setting -- I can make it a zero if I want to stick with my custom plan no matter what, or 100 if I want to have them start tweaking right out of the chute, or something in between based on my preference.

At least while the frontier of the possible lies in this sort of gray area - maybe that's a worthwhile things to consider.

No idea how feasible that is from a development perspective, but it seems like it would sure make sense from an end user point of view. With that sort of system, the user would at least get to dictate whether or not to give up control.

[Anthony]

to me this is much ado about nothing. the end result is i still have to have the talent on my defense to stop Tomlinson even if i know he's gonna be getting the ball a lot. if i have players with poor run stopping ability and Team A has a stud RB/Tomlinson-type player with a superior O-line that has excellent cohesion, i'm gonna still think their run game is going to be successful even if i go all out trying to stop it. every league has a Tomlinson/Ronnie Kemp type, in the IFL it's Alan Crespo. again, you feed these guys the ball and they have success even though the entire league knows they're getting the ball. superior talent always wins.

also, i think it's folly to match an extreme offense (runs a lot, for example) with an extreme defense (where you increase the run expectation percentages all the way up trying to stop the run). when i gameplan my defense i do it with the assumption the team i'm facing can in any given week change their gameplan. i've only done that once - against sovereignstar in the IFL - where i saw some blatant trends and i made some adjustments. there is so much that you have to take into consideration that i have only one approach to gameplanning (at least defensively): "this is what i'm going to do...try to stop it." in the case of sovereignstar, he was undefeated when we met in week 10. i saw those aforementioned blatant trends and i knew that someone who has an undefeated team (i think he was 8-0) isn't likely to start drastically changing up their gameplan just for the hell of it. i gambled correctly that he wouldn't fix what wasn't broken. successful teams are the only ones you can count on to not change things too drastically from week to week. it's the middle tier, crappy teams that you need to worry about, cuz they're the ones who are throwing things up each week to see what sticks.

even if i am facing an extreme offense i don't gear up to stop it. i'm content to let Alan Crespo get his yards, but i'm not going to be caught napping when his team decides to pass the ball. talent trumps the best of gameplans. this is all about mindset. in my mind *you* have to find a way to beat my defense, i don't have to find a way to beat your offense.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

to me this is much ado about nothing. the end result is i still have to have the talent on my defense to stop Tomlinson even if i know he's gonna be getting the ball a lot.

Yes, you're right. However, an issue to consider is this: if the human element in game plans is in a football game, then it needs to be able to make a meaningful difference. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time to have it there. It shouldn't be enough to make a team with 4-win talent into an 11-win team, but there should be enough play there so that an excellent strategist could consistently take teams with 8-win talent and win, say, 10 or 11 games. A text sim is a sports simulation, but it's also a game. And if an option is given for strategic decision-making, whether it's game planning or drafting players or who to send to summer league, and that option doesn't have the potential to make a meaningful difference, then it might as well not be there. I alluded to this quite some time ago at the IHOF boards when I wondered in a thread if the defensive game plan recommendations are TOO good. On the one hand, it's a compliment to Jim that he's done a great job in improving that aspect of the game, but on the other, if there's no way that a human can do any better than the AI in defensive game planning, then that element of the game becomes pretty much useless.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I alluded to this quite some time ago at the IHOF boards when I wondered in a thread if the defensive game plan recommendations are TOO good.

but again, recommendations, at least defensively, are about placement of your players. 3 or 4 deep zone for blatant pass plays. lot of guys in the box for obvious running plays. but talent is still key here. if you take 11 guys from FOFC and put us all in the box to stop Tomlinson, guess what? he's running over us. it matters not what you think i'm going to do on offense, it matters if you have the players to stop what i'm going to do on offense.

that's football right there.

i like this discussion, but this isn't the conundrum you would think it is. i have a bigger beef with FOF's gameplanning, but gameplanning with regards to MP isn't one of them. if it's 3rd and 1 and you know i'm going to run and i have my stud RB with my o-line that's been playing together for the last several years and you have a piss poor front four with no cohesion and maybe some conflicts to sweeten the pot, i'm getting that yard 9 times out of 10. you knowing what i'm going to do means nothing in this situation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

but again, recommendations, at least defensively, are about placement of your players. 3 or 4 deep zone for blatant pass plays. lot of guys in the box for obvious running plays. but talent is still key here.

That's fine, but we know, based on the game log parsings from FOF2K4, that run-aggressive versus a pass, or pass-aggressive versus a run helps make those plays more successful, and we know that run-aggressive versus the run, or pass-aggressive versus the pass helps makes those plays less successful. Further, I'd say that overall system mirrors real life in that if my safeties are moving forward just before the ball is snapped (run-aggressive), run plays are going to be less successful, and if my LBs are just dropping back into coverage and my DEs are peeling their ears back going after the QB (pass-aggressive) then pass plays are going to be less successful.

Yeah, LT is going to get his yards no matter what the defense is doing to some degree. However, if the very worst NFL defense sold out 100% to LT, they'd at least slow him down more than if they played "honestly."

[Buccaneer]

if the human element in game plans is in a football game, then it needs to be able to make a meaningful difference. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time to have it there

[rambling thoughts just because I feel like it]

That's the key. All strategic-type games (whether sports, 4x, wargames, etc.) have to find the balance between human decision making and internal AI mechanisms. In other words, how much control do you give the gamer, not only in user-interactions (i.e., what they are allowed to affect) but also in how much those interactions affect the game as well. Where the balance comes in is that while all interactions should be meaningful, not all mechanisms should require interactions. Lean towards having more user interactions (or control), then the risks of micromanaging become higher than the rewards of decision making. In some games, such risks are worth it if it rewards the gamer proportionantly. What it comes down to is, in MP games, what do you want the game to reward the gamer? In other words, what skills do you want the gamer to bring to the game and how do you weight each of those skills in respect to winning?

The inherent dichotomy in sports text sims is that, generally, the gamer has to wear two hats (GM and coach) whereas in real life, those are typically two persons. So, how much do you reward roster management vs. on-field management? Can a 4-win team be turned into a potential 11-win team in one season solely through roster management? How much do you balance that by requiring effective gameplanning in order to actually acheive 11 wins?

Where the issue comes in, as I have been along at IHOF, is that rewards actually can become penalities. Why work at getting the best personnel to rebuild a team when a 'super gameplan' to turn mediocre personnel into something better than they should be? On the flip side, why work at gameplanning when some user interactions are not being considered in the equation? Neither scenarios are fun and the workarounds are even less fun, imo. There is every bit of confidence that fixes will be made to restore the balance because as in all MP experiences, there are gamers that want to wear one hat more than the other, and they should each be rewarded accordingly. Or something obvious like that...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I cast my vote with twothree and MrBug. The metagaming based on the inability of a human player to intervene mid-game is fairly irritating. And the gameplanning system is too complex to be a whole lot of fun for me anyway. I want to be a GM, not fiddle with 200 sliders and pulldown menus. It's not worth the problems that come from it.

I'd vote for trimming the gameplanning aspect WAY back. Provide stock gameplans based on different offensive and defensive systems (maybe 5-10 options on each side of the ball), and some limited ability to tweak (a run/pass slider (with penalties for going too far counter to your basic system), short/medium/long pass, a blitz frequency, bump/man/zone, a go for it on 4th slider... maybe a couple others, but that's basically it. Just enough to allow people to build a plan to their team's strengths (or vice versa), not enough to get into the sort of metagaming Skydog talked about. And you disallow system changes during the season (as in TCY). Not only would simplifying gameplanning eliminate the metagaming problem, but I would actually enjoy that more (on its face) than I do the current gameplanning system. By streamlining I would actually feel like I had more control over gameplanning than I do now...

[Buccaneer]

A hypothetical question. What if the detailed/adjustment gameplanning screens disappeared from the game? In its place, you have a much more in-depth (NFL-like) coaching staff in which each position coach has strengths/weaknesses that directly translates to what happens on the field through the head coach/coordinators? This way, the balance leans toward player and coaching acquisitions and management without having to be concerned with percentages, adjustments, etc. Would this be a fun game for MP?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A hypothetical question. What if the detailed/adjustment gameplanning screens disappeared from the game? In its place, you have a much more in-depth (NFL-like) coaching staff in which each position coach has strengths/weaknesses that directly translates to what happens on the field through the head coach/coordinators? This way, the balance leans toward player and coaching acquisitions and management without having to be concerned with percentages, adjustments, etc. Would this be a fun game for MP?

Conceptually, it's at least possible that it would work out to be entertaining. What I don't know is how you'd implement competition for staff... make it all salary-based? Open contracts... poaching other teams' assistants with offers of an improved position? A staff salary cap of some sort, perhaps?

Personally, I don't think it would be nearly as entertaining as actually having control over the coaching and playcalling responsibilities... but it's possible it could work on a certain level.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A hypothetical question. What if the detailed/adjustment gameplanning screens disappeared from the game? In its place, you have a much more in-depth (NFL-like) coaching staff in which each position coach has strengths/weaknesses that directly translates to what happens on the field through the head coach/coordinators? This way, the balance leans toward player and coaching acquisitions and management without having to be concerned with percentages, adjustments, etc. Would this be a fun game for MP?

It's not a bad concept. But I think balancing it could be very difficult, as Quiksand suggests, particularly if what happens on the field is completely dependent on the coaches. You'd hate to have teams unable to run the sort of gameplan they want because they lose out in bidding on the coordinators who run that sort of plan. In any case it would be nice to see coordinators be stronger in certain systems than others as in TCY or BBCF...

[Buccaneer]

Do you guys perceive that you had better decision-making rewards in regards to gameplanning with earlier (and arguably, less complex) versions?

[Ben E Lou]

No. Currently the pitfalls and rewards are greater than ever. It's just that they're probably too significant This fact is on the table for FOF 6.0e, as Jim said.

I'd vote for trimming the gameplanning aspect WAY back. Provide stock gameplans based on different offensive and defensive systems (maybe 5-10 options on each side of the ball), and some limited ability to tweak (a run/pass slider (with penalties for going too far counter to your basic system), short/medium/long pass, a blitz frequency, bump/man/zone, a go for it on 4th slider... maybe a couple others, but that's basically it. Just enough to allow people to build a plan to their team's strengths (or vice versa), not enough to get into the sort of metagaming Skydog talked about. And you disallow system changes during the season (as in TCY). Not only would simplifying gameplanning eliminate the metagaming problem, but I would actually enjoy that more (on its face) than I do the current gameplanning system. By streamlining I would actually feel like I had more control over gameplanning than I do now...

The only way this would work with FOF would be with a MUCH more robust financial/coach/scout system. Any game that might try to approach it this way would absolutely have to have a very detailed system of finances, coach and staff signings, owner dictating who you can and can't hire, etc. Otherwise, it's a HUGE step down in control from what we're used to having in FOF.

[Buccaneer]

Currently the pitfalls and rewards are greater than ever. It's just that they're probably too significant

Only if it's too one-dimensional or unrealistic. There should be many paths to rewards based on where one chooses to make the key decisions. The degrees as to how significant the rewards or pitfalls end up being is a matter of game balance, which is probably what you started off by saying.

Perhaps one of the areas of contention which keeps popping up in threads like is the mechanics as to how we have control. Something has to be complex in order for us to feel like we can affect change. I guess it's a matter of where ever that complexity lies, it must be done right or if it can't, must not be done at all or scaled back.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A hypothetical question. What if the detailed/adjustment gameplanning screens disappeared from the game? In its place, you have a much more in-depth (NFL-like) coaching staff in which each position coach has strengths/weaknesses that directly translates to what happens on the field through the head coach/coordinators? This way, the balance leans toward player and coaching acquisitions and management without having to be concerned with percentages, adjustments, etc. Would this be a fun game for MP?

While I don't disagree with this, there are some concerns. The biggest being that most people would argue that the staff hiring phases are the weakest part of FOF. Why would we take this weak part and make it the focus of the game?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I cast my vote with twothree and MrBug. The metagaming based on the inability of a human player to intervene mid-game is fairly irritating. And the gameplanning system is too complex to be a whole lot of fun for me anyway. I want to be a GM, not fiddle with 200 sliders and pulldown menus. It's not worth the problems that come from it.

Personally, I am ambivalent in regards to the GM side of the game, but love the gameplanning aspect of it.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

The only way this would work with FOF would be with a MUCH more robust financial/coach/scout system. Any game that might try to approach it this way would absolutely have to have a very detailed system of finances, coach and staff signings, owner dictating who you can and can't hire, etc. Otherwise, it's a HUGE step down in control from what we're used to having in FOF.

It would be a huge step down in control, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I much prefer a well executed simpler game to a sprawling mess of poorly implemented features. The existing GM side of FOF would be plenty to keep me happy if paired with a simpler, more usable (and less metagame-able) gameplanning system. Any feature that detracts from the overall game experience is one feature too many. When I play single player I turn off personality conflicts and set gameplanning on autopilot, because those things make the game more like work than fun for me.

I'm all for lots of features and control when it works (FM has to be gold standard for sports sims on that front). It's not that I'm not interested in gameplanning and wouldn't like to be able to be involved on that side. It's just too complex. I'd like to make week-to-week tweaks based on opposition and injuries, but I can't just go in a push a slider to run more, I have to change 100 text boxes and who knows how many pull down menus... KISS.

In general I think a lot of games could benefit from doing less, but doing it better. Alas, it's a lot easier to market a new game with a big list of shiny new features rather than just saying that it does all the same shit, but better.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Personally, I am ambivalent in regards to the GM side of the game, but love the gameplanning aspect of it.

Well, we all have valid opinions on what makes the game fun. Sometimes it's possible to implement something in a way that pleases everyone. A lot of the time that's not the case, and a developer has to decide who his market is and what the core identity of his product is. I always felt that player management was the heart and soul of FOF, but it's possible I'm in the minority on this...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

A lot of the time that's not the case, and a developer has to decide who his market is and what the core identity of his product is.

General gaming observation: Very very very difficult to serve two masters without making both of them unhappy.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I'm all for lots of features and control when it works (FM has to be gold standard for sports sims on that front). It's not that I'm not interested in gameplanning and wouldn't like to be able to be involved on that side. It's just too complex. I'd like to make week-to-week tweaks based on opposition and injuries, but I can't just go in a push a slider to run more, I have to change 100 text boxes and who knows how many pull down menus... KISS.

I'm curious, what are you talking about with 100 boxes, etc.? I understand that there are different situations, but most of the boxes aren't going to matter at all. The big ones are 1-10 and 2nd and 8 - 10. Or, you can set up two basic gameplans, one passing and one running and interchange them from game to game. I feel that 2k4 is far worse than 2k7.

People might worry about the metagame, but what game doesn't have it? Diplomacy has it in spades. A game such as Puerto Rico has it as well. How about bash the leader games such as Illuminati, El Grande, Web of Power, etc.? In many games the issue becomes to play well enough to be able to move into the lead, but not good enough to be in the lead. In some games, you wind up playing differently from the way you normally do in order to gain an advantage over the other players. In some of these games, once you start down a path, you really can't change gears very well.

Also, if we're concerned about how things play out in the NFL, it happens quite a bit where a team does something unexpected for an entire game and they win. I understand where you might get upset about some areas where you go one way, but get "gamed" and lose because you can't adjust, but isn't that part of what the coach's play calling ability is supposed to come into play, by giving you a bonus on the play result?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

It's just too complex. I'd like to make week-to-week tweaks based on opposition and injuries, but I can't just go in a push a slider to run more, I have to change 100 text boxes and who knows how many pull down menus... KISS.

I'm not following you here at all. Once things are working as designed, changing the adjustments from week to week will be virtually unnecessary. The changes can all be done on the one "Basic" screen, and I don't even need to change passing around--just increasing running automatically changes the other percentages. I can't imagine a simpler system without completely doing away with percentages. And that would be a very bad idea for a patch.

[Dutch]

I would be strongly opposed to the HC/OC/DC modifying the gameplan for me. I want the completel satisfaction. If I win a game and find out it's because my gameplan was being crapped all over and the AI coaches "solved" the problem for me, it just wouldn't work for me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I would be strongly opposed to the HC/OC/DC modifying the gameplan for me. I want the completel satisfaction. If I win a game and find out it's because my gameplan was being crapped all over and the AI coaches "solved" the problem for me, it just wouldn't work for me.

...and I don't think you're alone in that, either.

[Dutch]

A possible solution, touched on already, was that along with the score based adjustments, there could be a run/short pass/medium pass/long pass adjustment. I'm assuming "the defense looked familiar with that play" is a step in that direction.

If after 1 (or 2 or 3) QTR --> Run % is {25} then add {20%} to pass aggression. (I'm not really sure how it could be included....just a thought with {} being variables between 0-100.)

But anyway, regardless of if that is an extra solution or not...If Skydog does his homework and finds out that I can't stop a strong passing game, he should be allowed to exploit that (and he does). I know I still want that sort of control in the game. He *should* be rewarded for getting around my defense afterall.

As an example: The Washington Redskins in the 80's were a highly prolific passing team, BUT they were run n stun. (run first and pass when you get 8 in the box) And if you have the right personnel, you should be able to pound away with the run and then throw deep when your opponent is least expecting it.

The key to that, should rest with the personnel. That really needs to be adjusted somehow. The "supergameplan" is not understood by all and not exploited by all, but it is understood and exploited by a few, regardless of what personnel they have no their team. The personnel you have on your team should be able to dictate success and failure of your gameplan vs you getting "the %'s right".

But anyway, just my two cents that I appreciate that you can exploit a gameplan, that's what we want. I just wish it made more sense. Or if I *know* that somebody is going to run a Run N Stun with average receivers and I have all-pro defensive backs, I should feel confident that "You ain't bringing that shit in my house!".

As a matter of opinion, I think I should feel confident that if I have two all-pro CB's and a couple of hard hitting safeties that I can concentrate on the run in my gameplan and not worry about those guys....they are good enough to take care of themselves.

Anyway, it's tricky, but we may be getting far ahead of what FOF2k7 is intended to do. Right now, I will just be content to know that there is a sense of logical balance in the the gameplan. That's missing right now, but I have no reason to doubt the gameplan (even as complex as it is now) can still have law and order restored like it was in FOF2k4.

Enough rambling....I hope I made sense.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'm curious, what are you talking about with 100 boxes, etc.?

FOF 2k7

Basic Offensive Play Selection Chart: 96 text boxes
Offensive Game Plan Adjustments: 160 pull-down menus, 3 text boxes
Miscellaneous Offensive Settings: 23 text boxes
6 Offensive Formation Settings menus x 18 text boxes each: 108 text boxes
Miscellaneous Game Plan Tendencies: 12 text boxes
Basic Defensive Play Selection Chart: 96 text boxes
Defensive Game Plan Adjustments: 160 pull-down menus, 1 text box
Defensive Personnel: 48 text boxes
6 Defensive Formation Settings menus x 10 text boxes each: 60 text boxes

A full FOF 2k7 Game Plan: 766 text boxes and pull down menus.

What a disaster...

but most of the boxes aren't going to matter at all.

If they don't matter, why are they littering my screen?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

If they don't matter, why are they littering my screen?

I'm assuming the thought is more like Skydog said, once you set most of them, you won't need to change them on a week to week basis. Those are YOUR basic philsophy regardless of the basic gameplan. That's where you will make your adjustments to counter what somebody else does. Roughly.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

3) Create an AI specifically to address these issues. After all, that's what the NFL does. The positives - it's a noble goal, you can even capture that information in the play-by-play and provide a better gaming experience. The negatives - you risk opening up even more loopholes, because the first word in AI is artificial, after all. You end up with much, much more code, and it becomes a maintenance nightmare. There have been elements of this approach in FOF from the beginning, and each version has some expansion of it, but it's still nowhere near where it could be.

Have you thought about expanding the use of the intelligence-type ratings here? I'm picturing a system where every QB and MLB has an "audible ability" based on Intelligence, Solecismic Test, Read Defense/Play Diagnosis, Leadership and Positional Experience. It's a rating you wouldn't even need to show--just document that QBs and MLBs can adjust the playcall at the line of scrimmage based on those five things--and yeah, include in the play-by-play that "the QB changed to a long pass on that play because he thought he saw the safeties cheating on the run".

To expand on this aspect of the game, I'd also consider adding at some point an "adaptability" rating for staff members which would represent their ability to change over the course of the game. As I said earlier, if you ever did go to "system" game plans in addition to percentage-based, it would be crucial for the coach/staff/financial system to get a long look. There would need to be enough smashmouth-oriented offensive coordinators, for example, for as many people who want one to get one. And more "adaptable" staff members should also be more able to have high ratings in multiple systems. So maybe a guy with 35 Adaptability who is rated 85 in Smashmouth isn't rated above 45 in any other offensive system, but a guy with 80 Adaptability who is rated 70 in Smashmouth is also rated 65 in Run N Stun, 60 in Run And Shoot, 63 in Vertical Passing, 58 in West Coast, 64 in Balanced, etc. Again, that would be a great way to put interesting decisions in the hands of the gamer: do I sign that guy who is "Excellent" at Smashmouth Offense but "Fair" in Adaptability to a long-term deal even though my stud RB is entering his 8th year in the league, or should I hire the one who is only "Good" at Smashmouth but is "Excellent" at Adaptability, because once my RB retires, I want to build around the 2nd-year QB I have who looks like a potential stud, and it would be great if he didn't have to change coordinators. It also goes without saying that teams should have a "learning curve" for bringing in a new system and/or new coordinators/head coach, but, of course, more intelligent players would pick up on the new ways of doing things more quickly.

If FOF is going to move from a 2+ to a true 3, I tend to think that the best way to do it would be through the Staff system, and also with a nod toward players' abilities to learn new systems.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm assuming the thought is more like Skydog said, once you set most of them, you won't need to change them on a week to week basis. Those are YOUR basic philsophy regardless of the basic gameplan. That's where you will make your adjustments to counter what somebody else does. Roughly.

Exactly. Once adjustments are set up to your liking, you should rarely/never have to change those.

[gstelmack]

I think the reality is that all of this control we have now is just a way to try and game the system to generate results, rather than trying to set up a gameplan to match your team and opponent. Basically issue #1 on SkyDog's issue list.

I'd rather see something a bit more general. I think I've said this before, but:

Base gameplan:
Slider for run vs pass
Slider for long / short FG attempts
Slider(s) for run direction
Slider(s) for pass distance
Formation / personnel settings: single-back, 2 TE, 3-wide, shotgun, etc

Adjustments:
Slider for aggressive / conservative on 3rd down
Slider for aggressive / conservative to punt or go for it
Slider for aggressive / conservative when getting behind
Slider for aggressive / conservative when getting ahead

That covers the vast majority of offensive gameplanning without giving players the illusion that they have more power than they do. On defense, I want:

Slider for watch for run vs watch for pass (which can affect number of men in the box)
Slider for nickel/dime vs base defense (although this gets adjusted based on offensive personnel)
Slider for double-covering the primary receiver

And that's about it (I expect my coach to call zone or man-2-man based on coverage skills, but if you want to add it, fine). Football is about the offense bringing personnel on, the defense bringing personnel on, defense reacting to offensive formation, and the offense audibling based on what they see (and the defense making a small correction). The offense tries to hide what they are doing, and the defense tries to hide what THEY are doing.

I think the current system is so complex, it's too easy to "game", and doesn't account for on-the-field audibles and leads to some very weird playcalls on defense (like 4-deep zone but aggressive run defense on 3rd-and-1) because not enough things are tied together. Defensive playcalling especially is not well set up for "It's 3rd-and-short, so I want to watch for a run up the middle. That means safeties need to be at the line, and CBs need to bump their man." The reality is part 2 of that is completely divorced from part 1. When I'm gameplanning, I just want to say "stack the line on 3rd-and-short" or "watch for the long strike on 3rd-and-short".

Part of me would like to see something like a scripting engine built in so I could write a script to control my gameplan. Provide hooks to interrogate the game situation, then let me write whatever code I want in Lua or Python or C# or whatever to make my play selection, and provide a default implementation that uses a simple GUI for the GMs out there. I say "Part of me", because I know the pitfalls that opens up and the difficulties of implementation, but it is a long-term dream.

[Buccaneer]

Warhammer, in my ramblings, I wasn't focusing on FOF specifically but on hypothetical football sims in general. We know that the coaching/financial aspects of FOF are the weakest parts, what if they weren't? What if a new game emphasized these more? We would still have the two general camps. Right now, we have GM-types simply going 'recommend' and then we have the hardcores being unsatisfied because they are not getting the results from their gameplans (as well as too good results from specific gameplans). Obviously right now the ideal solution is to fix what is broken because FOF is what it is. But the question will always be there is how much, in MP, do you reward the good GM (in focusing on talent) vs the good Coach (in focusing on getting maximum output)?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But the question will always be there is how much, in MP, do you reward the good GM (in focusing on talent) vs the good Coach (in focusing on getting maximum output)?

If both are in the game, then both need to be rewarded. It bears repeating that it's pointless to have a whole section of decisions (be it the "GM" or "Coach" part of a game) to make if the impact of excellent decision-making in that area isn't worth the time spent. As FOF is currently put together, roster-building and game planning are the two most involved areas of the game by far, with financial/coach/scout/staff a distant third. As large as those two sections are, the balance should be that in order to have a top-tier team year-in and year-out in MP, you should have to be strong in both shrewd player acquisition *and* shrewd game planning.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think the current system is so complex, it's too easy to "game", and doesn't account for on-the-field audibles and leads to some very weird playcalls on defense (like 4-deep zone but aggressive run defense on 3rd-and-1) because not enough things are tied together. Defensive playcalling especially is not well set up for "It's 3rd-and-short, so I want to watch for a run up the middle. That means safeties need to be at the line, and CBs need to bump their man." The reality is part 2 of that is completely divorced from part 1. When I'm gameplanning, I just want to say "stack the line on 3rd-and-short" or "watch for the long strike on 3rd-and-short".

But that is all part of the game planning. If you want to watch the run in 3rd and short and don't want to be in a 4 Deep Zone, change that in the defensive coverage screens. I loved this change because I can avoid exactly what you bring up.

But, if you are saying that people are trying to game the system by calling a 4 Deep zone to keep people from passing deep on them while calling a run aggressive play, we must be watching different sims because everytime someone runs against my 4 Deep I'm giving up a ton of yards. Heck, if they go short pass against my 4 Deep, I'm giving up 6 or 7 yards.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Have you thought about expanding the use of the intelligence-type ratings here? I'm picturing a system where every QB and MLB has an "audible ability" based on Intelligence, Solecismic Test, Read Defense/Play Diagnosis, Leadership and Positional Experience. It's a rating you wouldn't even need to show--just document that QBs and MLBs can adjust the playcall at the line of scrimmage based on those five things--and yeah, include in the play-by-play that "the QB changed to a long pass on that play because he thought he saw the safeties cheating on the run".

To expand on this aspect of the game, I'd also consider adding at some point an "adaptability" rating for staff members which would represent their ability to change over the course of the game. As I said earlier, if you ever did go to "system" game plans in addition to percentage-based, it would be crucial for the coach/staff/financial system to get a long look. There would need to be enough smashmouth-oriented offensive coordinators, for example, for as many people who want one to get one. And more "adaptable" staff members should also be more able to have high ratings in multiple systems. So maybe a guy with 35 Adaptability who is rated 85 in Smashmouth isn't rated above 45 in any other offensive system, but a guy with 80 Adaptability who is rated 70 in Smashmouth is also rated 65 in Run N Stun, 60 in Run And Shoot, 63 in Vertical Passing, 58 in West Coast, 64 in Balanced, etc. Again, that would be a great way to put interesting decisions in the hands of the gamer: do I sign that guy who is "Excellent" at Smashmouth Offense but "Fair" in Adaptability to a long-term deal even though my stud RB is entering his 8th year in the league, or should I hire the one who is only "Good" at Smashmouth but is "Excellent" at Adaptability, because once my RB retires, I want to build around the 2nd-year QB I have who looks like a potential stud, and it would be great if he didn't have to change coordinators. It also goes without saying that teams should have a "learning curve" for bringing in a new system and/or new coordinators/head coach, but, of course, more intelligent players would pick up on the new ways of doing things more quickly.

If FOF is going to move from a 2+ to a true 3, I tend to think that the best way to do it would be through the Staff system, and also with a nod toward players' abilities to learn new systems.

I would absolutely love a system like this.

[CU Tiger]

Im not sure if I have posted this before here or not, but my dream would be a combination of the sliders and the coach/coordinator system.

Where much like an NFL GM I could go to my coach before a given game and say run [much less/less/about the same/more/much more] than you have since this team cant stop the run and the same for pass and D.

And maybe even a setting to get certain palyers more involved.
I.E. I am paying T.O. a bunch of money Bill throw him the damn ball.

Ultimately it is up to the coaches and the players to implement the % I just direct the trends. Then I have control, but not tedium.

Maybe even set the preferences in preseason and have that as a base and be able to adjust off the base each week, but have the core ratings locked.

I REALLY like focusing more on the personnel side, despite the fact that I have found that I have fairly good gameplanning skills. I can usually outgameplan most every other GM in the MP leagues I have been in. But have chosen to play under house rules of sorts and recmommend only for some time.

I may be alone in this perspective, but I get enjoyment from seeing results with minimal (not NONE some is a necessity) input. As like so many I realistically usually sit down with 15 minutes to develop a GP for a coming week, between kids work responsbilities etc. It would be great to say hey coach. We need to run more, throw less, throw longer, and watch that damn short passing game that has been tearing us up. Oh and by the way, get that damn DE involved he needs to put more pressure on the QB. Of course how well they respond depends on the coaches and players and their inherent abilities.


Thoughts?
Is it even feasible?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A hypothetical question. What if the detailed/adjustment gameplanning screens disappeared from the game? In its place, you have a much more in-depth (NFL-like) coaching staff in which each position coach has strengths/weaknesses that directly translates to what happens on the field through the head coach/coordinators? This way, the balance leans toward player and coaching acquisitions and management without having to be concerned with percentages, adjustments, etc. Would this be a fun game for MP?

I think this is a very interesting idea. However, as others have said, this part of the game would have to be fleshed out much better for it to work.

I think each coach would have to possess a detailed history and philosophy toward the game (i.e. smashmouth, balanced attack, air it out, run-and-stun ). I think there would have to be a component of chemistry involved too (between the coach and GM and the coach and his players).

As a GM, you could suggest things like running/passing more or running a more balanced offense or making sure your star (and highly paid) player gets the ball a certain amount of time and based on the coach's personality and his relationship with you, he would either implement it into future gameplans, or call you a bleep and tell you to mind your own business.

Perhaps if you ignore your coach's input on a draft pick, the player you select could end up in the coach's "doghouse" and not see as much playing time as you'd like.

Obviously, position coaches working under head coaches would have different loyalties toward their bosses. Some would follow their head coach from job-to-job. Others would immediately jump at the chance to move up to a coordinator or head coaching position with another team.

You would also have to seek permission from other teams (GMs) to interview coaches still under contract. Would a coordinator denied permission to interview for a head coaching position become "Disgruntled?" as some players do when they don't get enough playing time?

Perhaps if you go through coaches like annual springwear, it would become harder to get quality applicants because of a bad rep in the coaching community.

I think Buc's idea could add an interesting dynamic to the game and perhaps tone down some of the meta-plan development that has happened in 2K7.

Of course, those who are all about gameplanning probably wouldn't like a game design shift toward something like this.

[st.cronin]

I don't like football gameplanning, whether in multiplayer or singleplayer. In the fofc-bbcf, I tweak the depth chart based on the type of offense or defense I'm running, and try to bring in players that fit that system.

I did the same thing with TCY - it was more about recruiting and deciding who to play, as opposed to how many running plays to call on 1st and 10.

I like playing games with sliders like FM or FBCB. In FM, you'll sometimes see players ignore your instructions - that gives you something else to think about, like "do I bench this player, or tweak my gameplan so his tendencies are productive instead of destructive."

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think a dynamic sweeping change to the coach/coordinator/position coach element is the next revolution for FOF. Jim has done a good job improving each version, but I think the next one needs to go in this direction IMHO. It's been discussed here and in other threads. I would really like to see this. You would definitely need a penalty (cohesion/getting used to a new system) for switching coaches too often or otherwise you will have a yearly merry go around. I would add that not only does this freshen up the series, it also would go a long way to remedying the gameplanning/adjustment conflict being discussed here.

[Anthony]

i copied and pasted this following post from an IFL discussion we were having. i edited it so it's more FOFC friendly. we're still on FOF2K4 so bear that in mind, new options/updates per 2K7 aren't reflected here:

if i were to make a game, my idea would be totally different. i would gear it towards the GM side of things, and instead of tweaking meaningless numbers i would have a master gameplan where you specify how many times you want to run (20-25; 25-30; etc) and if you want to focus on short, medium or long passing. then you can go further and specify who you want to get the bulk of the carries. so if you selected the 20-25 carry range, you can say on a scale of 1-10 your RB1 is set to 7 (70% of the carries), your RB2 is set to 2 (20% of the carries) and your backup fullback who seems to be better at running than blocking is set to 1, that way you can pick and choose who gets the ball and specify how many times they're gonna get it. the way it is now say if i want my backup FB or 3rd RB to get some carries i have to put them in certain situations. i would have to put my RB3 in, say, "passing downs" but then the possibility arises that he would get too many touches. what if i just want him to get literally 2 or 3 touches a game, just to keep his legs warm.

and then there is passing. i have to tell my QB "i want you to throw 22% in this range, 12% in that range, etc.". so does that mean in-game if i throw a huge bulk of my passes in screens, for example, that my QB will disregard my WR who beat the corner and is streaking down the field for a certain td?? i also want to say "Player X is my top WR, you target him the most and you make sure he's the first guy you look for on the field". i want to be able to set a priority # on my WR's, my #3 WR or even my FB should not be getting as many targeted passes as who i want to designate my top WR. why do i have to play around and tweak gameplans just to say who i want to get the most targeted passes and who isn't as important? granted, i use a higher percentage of multi-WR sets in my gameplan, but even if there's 4 WR's on the field the game seems to treat them all the same and that's not the case. but as it is now, you put the guy first on the depth chart (SE or FL) and set his playing time. so on a PT point, the AI knows who i want to play more. but from executing a play point, it doesn't know that even though i have a good pass-catching TE that he still comes 2nd to my awesome WR who i'm paying loads more to carry the bulk of my receiving game. i want to say "this guy is our top WR, no matter how many receiving eligible players are on the field you make sure the priority is on him on most plays and if he's not open then you finish making your reads". you mean to tell me Manning doesn't know where Harrison is on the field at all times no matter who else is on the field? i just want to make it simple. of course what is simple to one can be dumbed-down to others. just seems like i'm being forced to wear 2 hats and i only want to get paid for 1.

and since the game has "email", wouldn't it be nice to get an email from my coach around week 5 and he says "hi, Mr. Atlantic, we really have abandoned the run so far and i think if we were to get a little more aggressive in our run game it would keep defenses off our QB a little. what do you say?" and then at the bottom of the email are 2 buttons: "Agree", "Disagree". clicking "agree" will then automatically adjust my run "sliders" or drop down menu. if i had it at the "15-20 rushing attempts per game" selection, it gets bumped up to "20-25 rushing attempts". that really can't be hard to implement (so says the guy with no clue on programming).

there is really a lot out there that can be done to put the front office back in FOF. i only share my ideas or opinions on this cuz jim obviously has the programming prowess to bring most of these things to fruition, it's more a matter of getting him to see something a different way.

[Buccaneer]

I think some of the reasons why you got some of the comments posted here is that you have opened the issue up to a group of gamers that are either non-FOF players, non-hardcore FOF players or devotees of other text sims. While there is a group that would prefer to keep and play hardcore, there is also a viable group that would like to see that go under the hood and let the gamer concentrate on those elements that are or can potentially be more fun in MP and SP. I wonder if there is an opportunity here beyond the short term fixes?