An Interview with FOF's Jim Gindin
Written by: Josh Allen
Congratulations on the latest release in the Front Office Football series, Jim, and thanks for sitting down with Gamenikki and taking the time to answer a few questions for us. Let's get started.
Gamenikki: Front Office Football 2004 was the first game in the franchise to implement online multiplayer, and with over a dozen multiplayer leagues out there, there are those who have called the feature "the best thing to ever happen to FOF." Certainly, many of the added features in FOF 2007 appear to have the multiplayer gamer in mind. How many, if any, of those changes and additions are a direct result of your involvement with the International House of Football league?
Jim Gindin: The biggest change I made based on active, long-term participation in the IHOF is the redesign of the game-planning scheme. Partcipation gave me a much stronger sense of what made more of a difference to people as well as what seemed a little tedious. There are still hundreds of selections you can make on offense and defense if you have the time, but there are fewer than before, and now there's a core of options that gives you the opportunity to have more of an impact on your team. I think we'll see teams putting together plans that give them more of an individual personality. Over time, I think people will develop plans almost like signatures.
Gamenikki: In the case of FOF 2004, one of the early criticisms was that it just didn't look that different...until people started seeing the impact of mentors, chemistry, and other additions that didn't necessarily stand out at first glance. With FOF 2007, the changes and additions seem to have a more visible role; the advent of red-flag players ("problem children," if you will), interviews and an actual combine bringing more depth to free agency and the draft, and height and weight playing a significant role with respect to player performance and development.
So the question is, what kind of balance between subtlety and visibility do you seek when making changes or adding new features? Has that approach changed at all in the last three years?
JG: Those aren't questions I ask during the planning phase. I have a notebook which contains dozens of features I'd like to add. When I start work on a new game, they're all on the list. The first thing I do is redesign the game's database based on these changes. That gives me a very good idea of how much development time each feature will require, and the list takes more of its final form. Because of this approach, the focus is always on what I think will have more impact on how people play the game. My goal is to keep the game on people's hard drives long-term, not necessarily sell the most copies in the first week. If I do the former, I can maximize sales in the long run. That's one advantage of not having the game sold in stores at retail. There's no pressure to sacrifice function for glitz.
Gamenikki: One neat new feature is the ability to right-click on a player's ratings within his card to see how likely he is to successfully convert to another position. What I've noticed is that it's possible to do that with other teams' rosters as well, at least in the single-player game.
Will that be present in multiplayer, and if so, will it be modified by any given team's scout?
For example, if I were scouting a fringe player I hoped to acquire from a rival GM via trade, and I checked the experience chart, would I see a potentially different picture than the other GM?
JG: This feature is based on experience alone. It's simply a variation of the green bar/red bar dynamic and is not part of the calculation used when converting a player. It's vital to have this information when making the conversion, though, because it gives you a very good idea of the percentage of green (potential versus actual rating) you'll see post-conversion. It serves two purposes - one to give you a quick idea of what you need to do to get your right tackle, for example, up to speed for a seamless transition to left guard. And it helps you understand better if a player should be expected to fully develop that potential.
Gamenikki: One cause for rejoicing in multiplayer leagues is very likely the change to the 'past injustices' system, whereby roster filler players are less likely to bear a grudge than starters.
Given the possibility for drastic quality differences at a given position, how will the game be differentiating between the two types? Number of starts at the position since joining the team? Salary? Overall ratings level? Some combination?
Maybe on a tangent, if memory serves, you've talked before about wanting to add such elements as roster bonuses to the contract side of the game. Have you given any thought to allowing GMs to specify particular roles to a player, so that a team pursuing a mid-level player might be able to offer starting time as an added enticement for a player who might otherwise take an offer that results in his serving as a backup elsewhere?
JG: In the NFL, the money you receive is that guarantee of playing time. Teams can not afford, under the cap system, to waste a lot on a backup. You offer starter money, you had better be starting that player if you want to remain competitive. I had initially wanted to offer roster bonuses for individual seasons, but when I began studying how contracts have changed in the last couple of years, I found that these bonuses are simply extensions of the original signing bonus. They are very similar to incentives in that manner, which are already in the game.
I felt that adding roster bonuses, given how things are evolving in the NFL, might be confusing and not much of a value-add. In a year or two, we will see this new contract evolution stabilize, and I think I can better convey that to the gamer through the use of guaranteed salary rather than roster bonuses. That's a mechanism I can implement down the road that I think would give the gamer much more control without making a complex system much more complex.
The game now bases the past injustices trigger on talent level and what stage the player was released during the season. Poor players may still get angry and refuse to sign again, but it won't be after the first catch and release.
Gamenikki: The introduction of La Ligue Etrangere Solecismique looks fascinating. The question is, is it intended to supplant the existing volatility system with short-term and long-term booms/busts, or is it meant to complement the current setup?
JG: It's intended as a complement to the player development system. Just an opportunity to take one player on your team and give him a chance to show you something. If people start doing this with first-rounders, though, I can see it has missed its mark and I'll have to increase the injury risk (there is one already, but it's small). This feature is more aimed at lower-round selections.
Gamenikki: The interview system for potential draftees seems like it could have a really interesting impact on multiplayer leagues. Since an additional set of potential ratings bars are shown for players you've interviewed, is it conceivable that the same player could show up as, alternately, a stud or a dud to two different multiplayer GMs?
JG: That extreme a variation isn't likely. It's more likely that a player shown to expect a large increase to one GM might show up as with an expectation of a small increase to another. There will be differences, but they shouldn't be all that large. I didn't want this feature to seem random. Then it just becomes tedious quickly. But I also didn't want it to reveal everything. There's a delicate balance here, and, out of every new feature I've added to the game, this is the one that I'm most uncertain of the reaction. The new draft is going to intimidate people at first. It is very tough to draft well, maybe too tough.
Gamenikki: Last question, Jim. Thanks again for taking the time to talk with us.
Your aversion to revealing your projects before they're ready is well-known, and yet, on solecismic.com, you seem to indicate that after you get settled in Michigan, your next project is "most likely an update of The College Years."
That's just a red herring to pave the way for the smash hit release of Front Office Curling, isn't it? ;)
JG: I have been known to change my mind early in the development phase. If I'm not at my best while I'm working on the toughest pieces early on, it's not going to go quickly or go well. But TCY2 is my intention right now. I have had some interesting discussions with people about the potential for different directions on the pro game, so if things change, they will change in that manner. I think it would be the best business decision, if I remain solo, to update the college game next.
My aversion to talking about future projects is more a belief that hype hurts you in the long run rather than helping you. But there's a balance there, too. I think people will be more comfortable knowing what I'm working on, even if they aren't receiving incessant hype or know much about the intended release date. It's always good to change things up occasionally. I hope to find a way to properly strike that balance between hype and uncertainty.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the game, Josh.