More questions / thoughts

[Dirk9827]

I really have enjoyed reading the recent threads on this board. It's obvious there is a core of fans hoping that this game will fulfill a tremendous void in the game market. I have some questions / thoughts as well. Please forgive me if these questions have been already addressed, I read through a lot, but not all, of the posts. 1) Are playing ratings/potentials affected by playing time? For example, is it beneficial to provide a young quarterback playing time (even if it is late in contests) rather than letting him stay on the bench and just using him in practice? Does "game experience" help his development or does it not matter one bit? How does this compare to the development of players who redshirt? 2) Can individual on-field performance either positively or negatively impact a player's development (i.e. ratings/potential)? I suppose it would depend on a player's psyche, in part. But it does beg that old-age question: Does confidence breed success or does success breed confidence? Does a team's performance have any impact on a player's development? (Discouraged by poor seasons, encouraged by on-field success, maximizing time trying to develop as a player because of level of competition at position). 3) Now a question on the computer AI. One of my big peeves with Strat-O-Matic PC College Football (besides the preponderance of long gains for scores) is the AI. It is very frustrating to see the AI not deal with blowouts in an appropriate fashion. For example, Reggie Bush of USC should NOT be still carrying the ball in the 4th quarter of an 84-0 rout. Nor would most teams even pass the ball more than a handful of times up by 60+ points. Will the AI deal with such situation realistically? Most (but not all) coaches will call off the dogs in cases of blowouts, substituting liberally and running a much more conservative game plan. Yes, there are exceptions; the David Klingler-led Houston team comes to mind. Florida was known to run up the score a bit in their day (and admittedly, sometimes it's hard not to when you have incredibly deep recruiting classes...The second stringers are often much better than the opposing first stringers). 4) Another issue with sport sims in general is the "robotic" nature of the players. They never stray from the script. Well, football, of all sports, rarely works that way, particularly in the college ranks. I would really like to see a game that incorporates the unpredictable factor of sport into its engine. Here are some examples: 1) Broken (busted) plays. (Quarterback turns the wrong way to hand the ball off (or pitches wrong way)/ running back runs to wrong hole and collides with quarterback causing a fumble / QB trips over guards leg and falls down after snap / wide receiver runs the wrong route / wide receiver sets up on the wrong side of field and has to race over or is called for illegal formation / center does snap the ball on the right count / special teams players failing to line up for the play and (a) either missing it entirely (10 men on the field), (b) forcing a timeout to be called or (c) too many subs running on the field at once causing a penalty. 2) Deflected (tipped) passes that have a chance to be caught/intercepted. How about a game engine that allows for multiple fumbles on the same play (say during a fumble return, especially by a non-ball handler [i.e. off/def lineman who picks up the ball]. It would also be great to provide play-by-play detail of instances where a player decides not to jump on a loose fumble but instead attempts to pick it up and run with it (whether or not this attempt is successful)) 2) Oddball (non-scripted) plays. Part of the charm of college football is that players often make decisions that seem reckless and foolhardy sometimes (and of course, which adds to the mystique and lore of the sport over the NFL, which generally is more conservative and played by an elite few). It would be great to see the game show you things like: *During an interception (or reception) return a player attempt a lateral (will it be successful? A fumble ensure?) * A punt returner reversing field or running backwards in hopes of breaking a big return. Obviously, this can create massive loss of yardage on the return but could, if successful, result in a big gain. * Quarterback overriding the call in the huddle and calling for a very, very different play (the chance of this could be reflected in the ratings. An undisciplined player might be more prone to do this, as one with a tremendous amount of confidence.) * Quarterback scrambling like mad to make something happen, not throwing the ball away like a robot necessarily but hanging onto the ball far too long and (a) finally throwing it (check for illegal man down field) (b) getting sacked (c) grounding intentionally (if they don't roll out) * Wide receivers getting greedy and opting for making more yardage on the reception rather than running out of bounds as instructed. * Occasional mistakes by the officials. Remember the 5th down that cost a national championship? * Coaches who are flagged for arguing too much or running onto the field. * Fumbles that go out of the end zone for a touchback (yeah, that happened a couple of weeks ago in the Tennessee game) * Ok, just because it would be a hoot: some small-time computer AI controlled team actually attempt a drop-kick. * Players who get benched in middle of a game for doing something stupid (penalty, bad play or arguing with coach) * Any play involving an obscure rule. Does anyone know any? For example, in high-school football prior to the 2005 season, it was possible to have a play with two forward passes. Saw this play run as a trick play and it nearly caused a riot. (One pass had to be completely behind the neutral zone). My other favorite trick play involved a field goal kicker "forgetting" to bring the kicking block onto the field. As the team is lined for the kick, he yells for "block!", "block!" while running to the sidelines. The sideline coach and players scramble around looking” for the block. As he gets close to the sideline, the ball is snapped on a silent count and the kicker runs a fly pattern....TOUCHDOWN! 4) It would be good to see if off-field injuries play a part of the game. I am fairly certain this has been addressed before. 5) I don't think this could work because of player generation issues, but it would be interesting to see the rare player who plays in both Bowl Bound and in the Total College Basketball game. It would also be interesting to see if he eventually decides to "give up" one sport.

[Doomba]

Boy aren't you all gonna be pissed when this game comes out after this long and NONE of this kind of stuff is on it. :)

[BYU 14]

Glad to see you have weekends off from your speaking engagements on the power of positive thinking Doomba... :cool:

[dime]

It's late and I'm tired so I can't respond to all of this...but I do know there are weird plays in the play-by-play. I'm not sure how much of that is just random and how much of it depends on the experience/skill of the players involved...but they do happen. - botched handoffs - passes tipped into the air - intentional grounding (in the end zone, it is a safety) - QBs will scramble and can make a good or bad play out of it - RBs drop a pitch on option or wide sweep - missed/broken coverage by DBs (usually end up in TD) I haven't played enough seasons out yet to know how player development works, but some guys will have their morale suffer if they don't get playing time.

[Dirk9827]

Thanks Dime for the response. That's good to know. Should some of the suggestions made on this forum be deemed worthy of inclusion, perhaps these features will make it into some future version. For now, I would be happy with a college football simulation that strives to incorporate the aspect / play calling aspects of the sport in a realistic and entertaining fashion. Obviously, this game is aimed squarely at the sim crowd, which tends to be a stickler for realism and plausibility. For that reason, I would prefer that the developers of Bowl Bound delay release until any and all bugs are resolved. The worst thing (and what we learned from the Front Page series) is for a game to be rushed to market. Contrary to the opinion of one poster who alleged that I would be "pissed" if the game was released without any of the suggested features, no, I will not be upset. It's a video game, which is pretty low on the list of things worth getting angry over. BYU 14, nice dig.

[BYU 14]

I agree Dirk, in fact, the delay in release makes me look forward to the game that much more as Arlie is putting a premium on making sure the aspects most of us want are correct.

[chammer39]

And if they are not correct, then we can have a field day with complaints.

[Arlie Rahn]

[QUOTE=chammer39]And if they are not correct, then we can have a field day with complaints.[/QUOTE] are you saying you wouldn't have complained if we released the game a month earlier with issues? If that's the case, maybe I should have done that anyway :D

[chammer39]

No...I was just stating the facts. People will complain no matter what happens. Something is always wrong.

[BYU 14]

[QUOTE=Arlie Rahn]are you saying you wouldn't have complained if we released the game a month earlier with issues? If that's the case, maybe I should have done that anyway :D[/QUOTE] Shouldn't you be coding ;)

[Doomba]

Oh that's just great. Arlie spends time replying to your questions, and the game takes an extra 2 months now before it comes out!

[dime]

I don't know what Arlie's day job is, but I've gotten replies from him dated at 4am regarding a bug. So yeah, he's definitely doing a lot of coding.

[BYU 14]

[QUOTE=dime]I don't know what Arlie's day job is, but I've gotten replies from him dated at 4am regarding a bug. So yeah, he's definitely doing a lot of coding.[/QUOTE] Please don't take my post as anything but TIC, I totally respect the effort this takes............not quite as much effort as going out of your way to make a new friend everyday like Doomba does, but still quite a bit :)

[dime]

oh I know it was just teasing, no worries. I just wanted to mention that Arlie is working really hard on this.

[MrHaroldG]

I like the ideas listed in the first post and have a question in mind: will there be halfback/fullback/wide receiver option passes? I don't know of any football text sims that have any.

[Arlie Rahn]

[QUOTE=MrHaroldG]I like the ideas listed in the first post and have a question in mind: will there be halfback/fullback/wide receiver option passes? I don't know of any football text sims that have any.[/QUOTE] There are option plays where the QB can run, hand to the FB or pitch to the RB (or wingback). There are also reverses and run plays involving WRs. But, there are no passing plays involving no QBs. The main problem is that you have to make adjustments to the engine to allocate for a "crappy" QB (ie, the RB) that do not always involve disasterous consequences, while also being careful not to let these adjustments make bad real QBs become better. There are ways to do this, I just didn't think the risk in a first version was worth the small payoff of allowing a team to do a couple trick pass plays every season.

[Dirk9827]

Arlie, I agree with your premise for not adjusting the passing ratings in the game engine to account for the occasional halfback pass. In my humble estimation, the halfback pass (and other plays of similar ilk) has less to do with the passing ability of the running back than it does with the ability of the offense to fool the defense into believing the play to be a run. It is reasonable to assume that a college athlete who plays a "skill position" can, with practice, learn to throw a football 10 to 30 yards with reasonable accuracy. If a defense is out of position, the throw needn't be on the money as the receiver will generally be open. I believe using the halfback's "passing rating" as the major criteria for a successful trick play is misguided since the success of the play is not predicated on his ability to throw the "perfect" pass against normal coverage. Rather, we are talking about the ability to trick a defense, and the susceptibility of a defense to be tricked. Perhaps a matrix that looks at a myriad of factors such as down-and-distance, average yard per rush for the game, type of defense (aggressive defenses may be more prone), the relative discipline of the defensive backs/linebackers, intelligence of the defense to recognize the trickery, whether or not trick plays have been run before in the game or in recent games, the amount of practice time dedicated to running such plays, the ability of the running back to stay calm during the play and not rush the throw (and therefore "sell" the run), and do factor in the "athleticism" of the fullback in making the throw. The ability of a receiver to make the catch would be calculated using the normal factors (but would also be instrumental is "selling" the run while getting open for the pass). The fact is that trick plays are a part of football. As much as MrHaroldG and I would love to see them in Bowl Bound, personally, I would rather wait until version 2.0 for this feature if it means the difference between a well conceived implementation and one that yield unrealistic results.

[gopokes]

What about reverses on punt and kick returns? Just thought about that while reading the posts about trick plays. Just wondering if that would be part of the game. Fake reverses and reverses on punt and kick returns. It's something that I think would be interesting to see in the game. Often times it works quite well in real games.

[Arlie Rahn]

Great point, Dirk. And if I do work in halfback passes into a 2.0 version of BBCF, I would probably do it in the manner you describe. As to trick plays, you can do reverses, fake pitches, different deceptive screens and play action, as well as fake punts and FGs.

[Dirk9827]

Thanks Arlie, I appreciate the feedback and consideration. Honestly, halfback passes are a pretty rare event, and am completely understanding of why they were left out of this release. At risk of beating a dead horse, I think the beauty of such plays is that they on occasion can allow a less talented team to make a game out of a contest that should be a mismatch. The most difficult aspect of running a successful trick play is to do something to which you are unaccustomed. To create the illusion of one play while running another sounds simple, but getting players to exercise the discipline and patience necessary to "sell" the play, especially when their role is not instinctive, cannot be understated. On a halfback option pass, several seconds must pass between the time of the pitch and handoff and the pass attempt. The play must look like a running play, linemen (who are forbidden to go downfield, nonetheless), must make blocks that look like a running play, the receivers must look like they are part of a designed run, the halfback cannot begin to wind up for the pass too soon. Any of these groups fail and the element of surprise is lost and worse, disaster will likely ensue (interception, sack, fumble, etc.) As a result, these plays tend to rely more upon discipline, patience and experience than pure athleticism. Certainly, athleticism plays a part (as it does with every facet of football) as keeping pressure off the halfback is important as is the ability of the receiver to get open. While athletic attributes such as speed, strength, agility and size may vary significantly between players of the SEC and those of the Patriot League (no dig on this league, which produces many fine players), the factors that "sell" the trick probably do not. A relatively unskilled player (by SEC standards) in the Patriot League is just as likely to play with as much discipline, possess equal intelligence, and be just as experienced (just maybe not against the class of competition). Anyhow, I look forward to seeing how you eventually treat this issue. It is complicated and I am unaware of where one might find the success rate of gadget plays. Moving on, I am thrilled to hear about the inclusion of deceptive screen passes. The jailbreak screen is a college staple. A speedy, but undersized flanker or scatback can certainly take advantage of such a play to break off a nice gain with the help of a couple of blockers. Keep up the great work and thanks again for the response. It is appreciated! Dirk