I recently returned to MFN at the request of my bro and, hopefully, to have a little fun.

Not having fun. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Problem?

No one expected MFN to be perfect. There were always glitches and bugs.

But a couple of years ago when I first joined MFN, even with the bugs, the outrageously ridiculous game endings, all kinds of glitches, and engines which relied almost exclusively on one player rating (speed), the games were still fun to watch and teams fun to manage because, a lot like life, almost anything could happen.

The problem with the latest release is that there is almost no "realistic, life-like, randomness." 4.5 seems to have been written by someone who seems to think that everything in life, every happenstance or result, can be calculated down to an exact equation.

Wouldn't that be nice.

Well, life doesn't work that way. But MFN now does.

For example, whenever a new player or player training in a new DB position defends a pass, there is automatically a pass interference penalty as the result. (10 or eleven in the last game I watched).

As another example, It is now basically impossible for the average backup QB to come off the bench and complete a pass. Any pass. Ever.

Ridiculous numbers of interceptions.

Stop a replay and look at the rating and experience of any two players about to be involved in some interaction (blocking, tackling, pass defending, etc). The results of those interactions can be determined beforehand with virtually no variability.

Young players with great potential (long blue bars) but low current ratings (red bars) perform exclusively at the 'red' level and never at the 'blue' level. Or anywhere in between. So young QBs, for instance, with great potential can go 0 for 173 with 25 ints and will never be able to complete even a 2 yard pass, until their blue bars turn mostly red.

It IS realistic that young, inexperienced players would perform inconsistly (that is, somewhere along their 'blue' bars somewhat randomly) when compared to their veteran counterparts who would be much more consistent.

It is NOT realistic that until an inexperienced player reaches some predetermined length of their 'red bars' that they can never, ever be successful at anything, at all. But this is MFN today.

I could go on and on, but to make it short and simple - from the standpoint of realism, 4.5 has implemented the worst changes and design decisions I've ever seen or could ever imagine.

Just awful.

And, most importantly, it is also absolutely no fun when every result can be boiled down and predicted by some exact calculation, which seems to be the evident intention of the current game engine.

Not realistic and no fun at all.

Two big thumbs down.

Completely agree and with the old codes, it was only the home teams that were given a slight boost at playing better. I have noticed that now the losing teams during the games have that same edge. For instance, if you are ahead and about to turn the game into a blowout, the CPU almost always tries to make the other team come back via the winning team turning the ball over more often (fumbles, INTs) or increased penalties on the winning team. Sorry but when your team is 12-0 and playing a 3-9 team, it should be a blowout type of game, not ALWAYS a closer game than what it should have been. Also, not only are INTs up but fumbles are way up too along with injuries. It really seems like parity with ALL teams was the idea behind this new code.

4.5 is hot garbage

Ive been playing football games for probably longer than most on here have been alive, not that it gives me any leg up on anyone else when it comes to opinions and likes/dislikes, its just kind of a "qualifier". Back before the computer age/internet, I played APBA, Stratomatic, one with the light under the plays (what was that one called?), electric football with the vibrating field (used an LP cover to hide the formation before the play started), Sports Illustrated, and even worked on making a better football game combining the best of what I experienced with board games. I also played and coached a lot of RL football, its been a big part of my life.

So, like many who play this game, I would like to see as much "realism" in it as possible, the subject of this thread. All I can say about MFN is that it's a work in progress, and David is very responsive to objective feedback and criticism. Thos of us who take time to post our opinions and thoughts are all a part of the game's development in that sense. I agree with a lot of what has been posted in this thread relative to game play and the 4.5 version. I dont enjoy watching games that use the same plays a majority of the time along with repetitive outcomes. For example, the way too many passes to the RBs in the flats. There are a lot of things I would like to see improved in the game, one being variety of results & play selection, another being the effect of players ratings on performance. Until the number of successful plays, both offense & defense, are expanded and become more random, those plays will be used the most and the game will be repetitive. One solution would be to have a minimum level of play selection to be automatic or required, same as roster requirements with respect to # of players and salary cap. I would like to see play selection and game strategy more influenced by the coaching staff than it currently is, along with their effect on player development (booms/busts in camp & during season). Time outs should be called at the end of the 2nd half when your defense has the opponent deep in their end of the field. Holding penalites should be declined when the hold results in a differential of less than 5 yds when the hold occurs on the opponents 10 yd line or less. Punt returners, based on intelligence rating, should not field the kick inside the 5 yd line most of the time. Those are all RL football basics and when I see them happen, very frustrating.
Pass interference was just brought into effect in 4.5, and it was needed to simulate RLF. I dont know what the #'s are in the NFL/college for the frequency of PI, but I do know that PI can be a game changer, including not calling PI (Rams/NO playoff). I also dont like reading that my receiver made a great move on the CB which resulted in a 2 yd gain on 3rd & 8. I dont see the need for all the play comments about DBs getting away with holds, doesnt do any good to know about it, does it? The play comments could use a lot of improvement and more variety. There are a lot of things that will improve the game as far as making it more realistic, and posting both your complaints and suggestions will help to make that happen. Dont quit the game because it's not what you want or like, help it to improve and do the best you can with the way it is, it's the same for all the other players. If there is a better pro football management/coaching game online, I havnt found it, let me know if you do, would like to see it and compare. cheers, gdb

Strat-o-Matic was fun. Enjoyed Bowl Bound and later versions of Paydirt as well. I hear that the 1976 Seahawks defense in 1977 Strat-o-Matic was two fours and NINE zeros. WoW. LoL.

+1





+1 :)

I'm surprised with all the criticism that David keeps the game going. I agree with GDB, if there's better sim out there, please let us know.

The game is part-time for David and I thoroughly enjoy it; I do not approach the game from a realism perspective, but coach according to the rules and current game version.

If you know the QB will dump to a RB on third and long, then don't run a play with the RB out of the backfield in that situation.

Funny thing about life- you can't please everyone.

Cheers,

Bmarq

PS- Great Job David, I appreciate the time you put into MFN.

The point is, we criticize because we care. There isn't a better sim out there. JDB has done a wonderful job and his time and effort is greatly appreciated. The members of this community who post here want the game to be better. We know JDB reads the forums, and pays attention to our critiques and suggestions.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen or participated in projects like this which failed because the developers got emotionally invested in wrong turns, were pressured by other stakeholders into quick fixes, or simply didn't get the feedback they needed. They usually wind up starting a nerf/buff band-aid spiral that gets in the way of actual game development.

There seems to be a strong consensus that while 4.5 got some things right, overall it is a step in several wrong directions, or that several of the changes have had multiplier effects which are throwing parts of the game out of balance. It limits the pathways to competitive success.

I personally don't give a hoot if all my dudles (dots, toons, whatever) perform exactly according to current NFL statistics, or at some historical, collegiate, high school or pee-wee level. I care that the game is fun . . . which means expanding the pathways to success, not restricting them to the same subset of choices that everyone else is using in order to cope with the latest nerfs.

That said, I'd prefer to see more time taken fixing those issues, not less. Several of these issues were apparently due to rushed fixes to issues raised in previous versions. Hopefully JDB will take the time to address those issues more thoroughly.



+1

I'd say more of a giant leap in the wrong direction, point is, if he wants this to go commercial and really start paying his bills, it needs to improve. If nobody complains, how's he going to know what to fix? QBs ignoring wide-open receivers and throwing into double-coverage, that's a problem. Sure, college QBs and rookie NFL ers get tunnel vision like that, but highly experienced vets? Of course this doesn't happen often in the new version, because WRs rarely get open anyway and most passes are going to RBs like they're the primary on every pass.

There's a difference between raising concerns, belaboring a point and irrational exaggeration however.

Concerns about 4.5 have been raised over the past month to the extent that we can safely assume JDB is more than aware of its shortcomings.

Even with the game in its current state I'm more than happy to continue paying to play, and I've complete confidence that the mind that put together the simulation to this point will take it to greater heights in the future.

It is not a "hot mess" nor a "dumpster fire" it is at worst "a bit disappointing"... IMHO, naturally.