1. GM mode. With an option to turn off salaries, free agency, etc. I play an NFL historical league and I want to reflect the trades or releases that were made in a particular year.
2. Sim option - Games that I don't play, need to have realistic stats. So I would definitely welcome that.
BTW - David, I know you mentioned that you plan to make Maximum-baseball in the future. From what I see in Maximum football, I would definitely buy a baseball game where you can customize anything. The PC market is starving for a good 3-D baseball simulation game.
Keep up the good work!
Release 3: In Development.
Moderator: David Winter
RE: Release 3: In Development.
A quick visual of the voting to date based upon people's first choices of available options:
- Attachments
-
- table.jpg (37.36 KiB) Viewed 391 times
RE: Release 3: In Development.
My priorities.
1. Additional Sim
2. GM/ Financial only as option
3. New 3D Engine
4. New Interface
5. H2H (will never have the time)
1. Additional Sim
2. GM/ Financial only as option
3. New 3D Engine
4. New Interface
5. H2H (will never have the time)
RE: Release 3: In Development.
Nice table Redwolf. [:)]
RE: Release 3: In Development.
Mine would be Sim Option, but someone else mentioned a "real" depth chart. That would be a close #2 for me.
Flashpoint Campaigns Contributor
https://twitter.com/22sec2
https://twitter.com/22sec2
RE: Release 3: In Development.
1. Financial system--makes league play more realistic and it's interesting and it should've been there in the 1st place
2. Sim option-- accurate stats are needed.
3. h2h, sincethe game has no multiplayer capability this would be good thng to have.
*What are the voting results so far?*
2. Sim option-- accurate stats are needed.
3. h2h, sincethe game has no multiplayer capability this would be good thng to have.
*What are the voting results so far?*
CFL rules!!!
RE: Release 3: In Development.
did I mention Gm mode 25 times
RE: Release 3: In Development.
Queston
What good is GM mode, if the simmed stats and simmed outcome of the games are not comparable with games played. Surely no one can play every game scheduled in virtually any league. One can trade manually, and keep track of money and contracts outside the game, but you cannot run all the games during a season and have comparable outcomes without the sim improvement or outside the game. Apparently all will eventually come, but why the GM first?
What good is GM mode, if the simmed stats and simmed outcome of the games are not comparable with games played. Surely no one can play every game scheduled in virtually any league. One can trade manually, and keep track of money and contracts outside the game, but you cannot run all the games during a season and have comparable outcomes without the sim improvement or outside the game. Apparently all will eventually come, but why the GM first?
Deltadog
-
garysorrell
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:47 pm
RE: Release 3: In Development.
I vote for the sim option.
I want my opponents in the postseason, if I make it there, to be there also because they were the best....not lucky.
I want my opponents in the postseason, if I make it there, to be there also because they were the best....not lucky.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
1) New sim option. As I recall, going to an artificial fast sim without keeping the old slow sim met with almost universally negative feedback that the community would be weary of that change. There was internal pressure to get the sim times down at that time, but the feedback was that stats are more important than a super fast sim.
2) Depth chart changes. This was discussed way back on the old boards. Having working depth charts is important. It would be nice to have the game make substitutions by fatigue level as well. The ability to create player packages could be a consideration along these lines.
3) Being able to have two tight ends or three running backs. This would simplify play design for jumbo and wishbone formations.
4) Updated schedule utility. Adding some schedule templates and a drag and drop feature would really help.
5) Defensive zone set by the player rather than a template. Having zones set by the player logic would be easier to work with and be more realistic.
6) Commissioner mode. This is an old issue as well. It would be relatively simple to create a financial model for the game.
7) Updated graphics. The graphics are fine for now (other than the big feet), but as long as you ask ....
8) Head to head online play. If this could be done on high speed cable/DSL lines, then I would welcome it. It would make larger non-sim leagues more viable. I'd place it higher, but I don't believe this one will be easy.
2) Depth chart changes. This was discussed way back on the old boards. Having working depth charts is important. It would be nice to have the game make substitutions by fatigue level as well. The ability to create player packages could be a consideration along these lines.
3) Being able to have two tight ends or three running backs. This would simplify play design for jumbo and wishbone formations.
4) Updated schedule utility. Adding some schedule templates and a drag and drop feature would really help.
5) Defensive zone set by the player rather than a template. Having zones set by the player logic would be easier to work with and be more realistic.
6) Commissioner mode. This is an old issue as well. It would be relatively simple to create a financial model for the game.
7) Updated graphics. The graphics are fine for now (other than the big feet), but as long as you ask ....
8) Head to head online play. If this could be done on high speed cable/DSL lines, then I would welcome it. It would make larger non-sim leagues more viable. I'd place it higher, but I don't believe this one will be easy.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
I really don't understand it. After all the b*tching and moaning about no multi-player (i.e. H2H) very few seem willing to pit their coaching abilities against another human.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
RE: Release 3: In Development.
ORIGINAL: Sonny
I really don't understand it. After all the b*tching and moaning about no multi-player (i.e. H2H) very few seem willing to pit their coaching abilities against another human.
Only a few have said that they are not interested in H2H. Most have only indicated by their votes that they feel that other improvements should come first.
Deltadog
RE: Release 3: In Development.
ORIGINAL: Deltadog
ORIGINAL: Sonny
I really don't understand it. After all the b*tching and moaning about no multi-player (i.e. H2H) very few seem willing to pit their coaching abilities against another human.
Only a few have said that they are not interested in H2H. Most have only indicated by their votes that they feel that other improvements should come first.
That is not what they said before release.[;)][:)]
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
RE: Release 3: In Development.
ORIGINAL: Sonny
I really don't understand it. After all the b*tching and moaning about no multi-player (i.e. H2H) very few seem willing to pit their coaching abilities against another human.
Hey, I NEVER indicated on this board that I wouldn't buy MaxFB if it didn't have a H2H feature. I'm more then happy that it has a SIM Type capability to allow Internet SIM leagues. I think a few of those people that bitched about no H2H support mostly just wanted to see MaxFB fail before release. If David can someday add H2H support, great, but right now there are more pressing issues to fix.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
H2H play without a doubt. Although it's not actually an added feature, but you will get a sales spike. I'm sure most, if not all of the H2H Fbpro community will switch over. It will draw buyers that are outside of your "base".
Don't do the same thing a certain very good baseball sim did. That is, drop h2h in favor of other features.
Add the extra mode of playability. Draw as many gamers in as possible. Then make the game better and better. A features list for a game is endless. H2H is huge. It is not a simple feature, it should be part of the game. There is an entire market to be drawn in from this. Any single feature can wait. Don't make the H2H market wait.
Don't do the same thing a certain very good baseball sim did. That is, drop h2h in favor of other features.
Add the extra mode of playability. Draw as many gamers in as possible. Then make the game better and better. A features list for a game is endless. H2H is huge. It is not a simple feature, it should be part of the game. There is an entire market to be drawn in from this. Any single feature can wait. Don't make the H2H market wait.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
Reminds me a bit of a fuss over at the IL-2 board a while back. The online flyers seemed to think that just about everybody plays or wants to play online. They made lots of noise and because of that initially appeared to be a majority. However, research by the developer found that about 85-90% of the customer base actually preferred offline play.
True there are lots of online players that wish to play in online leagues. Heck, I may even eventually explore this as well and I respect players who wish to play this way...
...but I am betting that the majority (perhaps even vast majority) are offline players.
True there are lots of online players that wish to play in online leagues. Heck, I may even eventually explore this as well and I respect players who wish to play this way...
...but I am betting that the majority (perhaps even vast majority) are offline players.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
ORIGINAL: redwolf1
Reminds me a bit of a fuss over at the IL-2 board a while back. The online flyers seemed to think that just about everybody plays or wants to play online. They made lots of noise and because of that initially appeared to be a majority. However, research by the developer found that about 85-90% of the customer base actually preferred offline play.
True there are lots of online players that wish to play in online leagues. Heck, I may even eventually explore this as well and I respect players who wish to play this way...
...but I am betting that the majority (perhaps even vast majority) are offline players.
Yes, the vast majority of people that buy anything that is an offline game, obviously did not buy it for it's online potential. The idea is to get those who would not normally buy the game without online play.
What i'm trying to say is, if you had a business that only sold womens shoes. Then asked their base if they would be interested in mens shoes, they'd probably say, that would be nice, but i wouldn't be interested in them anyway. The idea is to get both men and women to buy.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
I really don't understand it. After all the b*tching and moaning about no multi-player (i.e. H2H) very few seem willing to pit their coaching abilities against another human.
Actually, my league plays head to head on the same computer. We always have.
One has to understand that this poll has a built in bias, because many of the people here have already purchased the game without the H2H online play, and many people who wanted it the most are off playing FBPro or some other game.
H2H online play would be cool, but there are other things that need to be addressed that would make H2H league play a moot option, because league play itself needs a few tweaks first.
It's better to fix the hole in the gas tank before adding a supercharger to the engine.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
ORIGINAL: mudrick
Yes, the vast majority of people that buy anything that is an offline game, obviously did not buy it for it's online potential. The idea is to get those who would not normally buy the game without online play.
What i'm trying to say is, if you had a business that only sold womens shoes. Then asked their base if they would be interested in mens shoes, they'd probably say, that would be nice, but i wouldn't be interested in them anyway. The idea is to get both men and women to buy.
Ah, but using that same analogy, the business had better make sure the women's shoe sizes are indeed correct and they are of decent quality before they think of expanding to a men's line as well. [;)]
So, I would be in favour of adding H2H eventually, but for me to vote for it as a number one priority from the voting list - absolutely not.
RE: Release 3: In Development.
Not true, men may start buying there in numbers the women never came close to, and may end up being the best thing the shop ever did.[:D]
EDIT---- ROFLMAO, like men will EVER buy more shoes than women.
EDIT---- ROFLMAO, like men will EVER buy more shoes than women.