i wish more people were like that instead of complaining about something they man up/woman up and try to solve whatever the problem is.

Yet i know that will NEVER happen because it seems the easier thing to do is to complain instead of putting on your thinking hat and get to working on it.

like for example
If you dont like how someone calls a pass defensed keyed then tell them why not make it a neutral defensed keyed play?
if you dont like how someone has only 2 rules (1 on offense and 1 on defense) why not suggest to them they should make more RULES?
If someone says something that might be taken offensive or the wrong way why not tell that person they might want to change the wording or delete the message altogether?
if someone always has your number instead of complaining or call that person a cheater why not try find ways to beat them or make rules that might help you beat them??
Etc.

1. I disagree.

2. To me with my experience. That sounds predictable. IRL of course
Sidenote. Bug exploit glitch whatever to me they all can be exploited.

3. I do not know who ryan is but i am a scout and have never lied in my life. Now that that is cleared up let us focus on some more truths. Look at the play by play for the first half of your playoff win the following year. All there and all real. Your coach called only eight plays. Let it go.

Also, i did beat you fair and square. We both had the same options. I set my fatigue and you did not. Your lack of detail costed you the win. It is getting old quick. You focus on the three points. I did not even care to know who you were..... even enough to know to scout you ...in a competitive way.

4. Yes sir. Once again very vague in who you are talking to but i will chime in. I in no way can dictate what you do. But i am allowed to have an opinion. So, is everybody else. Also, no one will tell me what to do unless i want to do it. So much agreed i think

5. Too bad certian phone users cannot do those same subs for special teams. Alot of the overrides dont work there. Never heard one user complain about that one. Oh well.

Rules are that important. Yet i will play with none and will continue to do so as new users play that way. As a beta user my feed back is from that perspective. One that looks at he game as an experienced user using newbie tactics. In other words win in a realistic way but spend little effort and time doing so. This is supposed to be fun right?

A whole game could be scripted. That is not my goal. As a real life coach i might call two different plays in the same exact situation. It is just how i feel at that time and i do not have an issuse with play calling at all cause its my coaches.

6. Much like 5 but i have this to say about special teams. I have been complaining for over a year and a half about them. JDB has changed numerous things in this regard and things he has done is always appreciated. My approach will be the same in any area of the game i feel is off.

Going back to the last part of 3. I love good competion and was sad to see you go. Perhaps we will be in the same division. That was the whole point to talk enough trash you would want to beat me bad. Much like you i am getting bored. Not with this game per say but if i like anyone else spends hours only to lose.....why not quit.

With what you claim in number 1....... and this is truely the case.....it could not be good for the games future . A supposed master contridicting what the developer says. I wish more data on the subject were presented. Not a pissing contest. Or all this could be an experience with a game and we are sharing it on a forum.

After the last game in 19, I'm more convinced that the matrix is just janky code.

I knew my opponent would key on certain sets, so I set my matrix to call the game this way o1n first down and second down:

35% - 203 and 122 sets
10% - 113, 212, 104 sets

The end result was in the first quarter my team ran 2 plays out of the 122 set and none out of the 203 set despite having as many plays available as the 113, 212, and 104 set. The result was another bad loss: https://mfn19.myfootballnow.com/log/2512

And, while I don't mind losing to Bryson loaded team that will not be beaten at all in 19 and is making me just want to quit the league, I'm getting really tired of "gameplanning" for the game to do whatever it wants anyway.

+1

Well, I wrote "Ryan" when I meant "Ray," so I guess that speaks to my attention to detail.

But back to you being too stupid to understand what's happening and/or flat-out lying ...

The problem is not that I neglected to set my fatigue. The problem was that I happened to log in at a moment when the fatigue-by-position feature, which wasn't yet working, was inadvertently deployed outside of mfn1. My fatigue settings were overridden, resulting in massive substitutions at every position. You really think this was the one and only game in my entire history in which I failed to set my subs? Or that I was just skating by with my starting RB getting 4 carries week in and week out, winning championships left and right because I set two rules and ran on autopilot?

The playoff rematch, as you say, is "all there and all real" at this link: https://mfn19.myfootballnow.com/log/2321

Coincidentally, my team called a different play on each of the first five offensive snaps. By "only eight plays" you mean 10 in the first half and 15 total for the game. Although my rules were set to utilize my full playbook, there are several explanations for this: the ever-popular "dice roll" excuse, the fact that I was mindlessly pounding the ball while blowing you out 68-2, converting first downs on first down, and scoring too quickly.

All i am saying is the playing field was fair. If anything i could make similar claims about who is smart or telling the truth. The only thing i am remarking on is your gameplay approach. Both games the same options were there for us both to win.

Who cares who actually won my focus is on why.

Game one, which i did not scout, i feel you would have won had the sub thing been right. You lost because talent was not in the right places.

Game two, you won and i feel you should have won.

Strageties were not the same but similar in rules were used to dictate when certain players/ plays were used i both games. This stragety is fair, but my looking dumb to you is me trying to get you to understand that this approach is faulted in RL and perhaps too effective here. Please do not be offended if i think it may be an exploit.

If only you and setherick have these matchups where gameplans are not matching up that leads me to think the glitch is from this approach of using only a hand full of plays for any giving situation.

As for being stupid it is in the area of rules. I feel the need/ time consumption is the problem but that is as deep as i got. I would ask better questions but do not know where to start. But i do know you called only eight plays more than once. Those two other plays were called very limited near the end of the first half.

A real life coach/ player would key that fade pass based what formation and down it was. A very simple real life approach. I am debating if that it should even be out of highschool games. IMO. At least under he new engine i could have scouted that play . Most a CB that can cover but that is another subject.

I can get behind what you're saying. The concerns I have mostly eminate from an unreliable passing game and code that in certain areas doesn't do what it's supposed to do. The randomness is too random, so I tried to break it down to situations I could control.

I also wouldn't include me in this discussion. My offensive game plans are usually much more complex. They just aren't being called or aren't working. The latter I can fix. The former I can't unless I just use rules.

That is how i take anyone playing any game. I think this anonmaly of play selection control is a construct of this game. One to prevent over use or abuse. A general thing will happen but selecting certain plays for certian situation with a bunch of rules will only highlight the dice roll effect.

Having more and less desirable plays to chose in any given situation though some plays probability would be lower in comparison would ensure that the higher probability plays were actually called more accurately because the scale is expanded and less of a dice roll it will be.

Current mathimatics say A coin flip would be 50/50 over infinity chances. But try flipping one and watch what happens. The results will rarely be 50/50 if like here with limited plays (chances) are highlighted by limiting options. I bet the dice roll here is 50/50. That is why i am saying limiting plays is causing this anomaly. Still, all purely hypothetical. It would explain yours and JDBs explination as both being correct.

Much like infinities more complex (using rules) might actually increase the power of the dice roll by lower the possble options.