NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By CoachDumphool321
4/17/2019 11:09 am
Ludicrous and bad for the game.

My rookie team was/is having problems losing late in games because my backup QB can only complete passes to the opponent. Okay, so he had only 200 plays experience and was making a minimum salary. Perhaps expected.

Another team recently let go of a veteran QB with 9 years and 5000+ plays experience and I picked him up to try to stop this nonsense, paying him a cool $2.7 mil/year to combat player fatigue.

And... (Drum roll pls)...

If you know anything about the way MFN is being ruined, you guessed it. My $2.7mil walk- on is doing WORSE than the mininmum salary joker.

The logic is simple. Why have a backup QB if he can ONLY lose games for you? What is the point of this nonsense?

How is one supposed to combat QB fatigue and errors if the only option available (other than some cheat) is a no-go?

I strongly suspect that this change came about because some whiner cried to the brass that his all-powerful team with the league's best QB lost on a couple flukey/lucky plays to a much lesser team with a well-trained backup QB.

Too **** bad!! In the real world (ahem) that kind of stuff DOES OCCASIONALLY HAPPEN!

GET OVER IT!

In a realistic sim, you're going to lose some of the time, AND THE BETTER TEAM DOES NOT ALWAYS WIN!

Take your occasional losses like men and stop pressing for changes that are ruining this game.

If I refuse to participate in more than one league, how can it be any wonder? How much of this crapola are we supposed to put up with?

I'll say it again. Second time.

No fun. No fun at all.

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By punisher
4/17/2019 12:26 pm
CoachDumphool321 wrote:

My rookie team was/is having problems losing late in games because my backup QB can only complete passes to the opponent. Okay, so he had only 200 plays experience and was making a minimum salary. Perhaps expected.


his team if anyone wants to point out what is going wrong
link = https://mlf.myfootballnow.com/team/14

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By Smirt211
4/17/2019 12:41 pm
QB Play.

As far as I know QB Fatigue isn't a thing any more for the starter. Sim engine plays completely different from the past in terms of you used to be able to build up a starter's pitch count and out-last/out-wit to prevail in a game by bending not breaking. Forcing more throws and tiring the QB out. But now the engine is completely different and who knows what with the suppressed offense and how it plays out via knock downs and all that jazz.

QB coming cold off the bench and having them perform horribly was done to prevent GMs utilizing a two-prong QB attack while stepping on the gas the entire game, chucking and ducking with an all-fire aerial assault.

I believe it was v4.3 the fatigue penalty on QBs was reduced and that's when the back-up, cold off the bench QB became a factor.

It was also at this point that teams could go 100% passing with their starting QB with no worries or concerns.

Version 4.5 QBs, basically, the majority of QBs perform badly as per how the sim is structured.


Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By vcr5150
4/17/2019 3:10 pm
having a backup come in "cold" and ineffective is as ridiculous of an idea as having a starter become fatigued and fading during the end of a game.

Penalizing backup QBs was to counter teams rotating QBs - this artificial "nerfing" to fix exploits always ends up creating unintended and undesired results. Would have been better to lessen the talent pool, making it tough to acquire 2 good QBs - much as it is in RL football.

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By Cdog13157
4/17/2019 4:55 pm
So just play 1 QB the whole game. Unless ur starting QB gets hurt then u have a problem

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By shauma_llama
4/17/2019 9:48 pm
I don't think QBs get tiREd throwing the ball. If they're getting sacked or knocked-down a lot that's a different story.

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By TarquinTheDark
4/18/2019 2:24 am
Cdog13157 wrote:
So just play 1 QB the whole game. Unless ur starting QB gets hurt then u have a problem


You're entirely missing the point. The dead off the bench nerf is bad for the game.
Last edited at 4/18/2019 2:26 am

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By Beercloud
4/19/2019 12:15 pm
It's still much better than the rotating QB's.

Most backup QB's coming off the bench **** **** in RL. It's usually a dumpster fire. But we do see the occasional surprise. Not sure how the game could incorporate that scenario though. A hidden clutch rating or something idk?

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By Smirt211
4/19/2019 12:26 pm
Go next level with it. Not sure how you code this, however, if a starting QB gets injured the sim engine recognizes it and when the back-up comes in it pays him respect. No cold off the bench.

But if someone tries that convoy QB system and thinks they can bring it back then the sim engine says 'nah, you're done, dude.'

Basically, it comes down to the starting QB getting an injury tag/red flag during the game, sim engine recognizing it and treating the backup as the new starter with starter designation. (not cold off the bench penalties)

Re: Artificial suppression of backup QBs has to go

By vcr5150
4/19/2019 12:34 pm
I think the solution for the rotating QB system is to not have the starter get so fatigued in the first place. Unless a QB is sacked or hit a lot - they should not be fatigued to where their performance has a significant drop off.

The other issue was there were too many talented QBs - so teams were able to have a backup with 85+ rating. The position was too strong from a talent standpoint.