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)

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: I am curious if. ..

By hollyhh2000
8/06/2020 9:30 pm
it would help if we would have more useful defensive plays.

why so many plays where one or more receivers are completely uncovered.
when I look at my SFs positioning when they play deep, I don't dare to play more zone.
we don't have presnap movement so SF blitzes take way too long before they generate pressure.

If we had overuse penalty on defense, it would be very easy to use your offensive play selection to force defenses into the overuse penalty

Re: I am curious if. ..

By setherick
8/06/2020 11:08 pm
hollyhh2000 wrote:

If we had overuse penalty on defense, it would be very easy to use your offensive play selection to force defenses into the overuse penalty


We do have it, but it only applies to blitzes. And it is easy to force teams that blitz too much into getting overuse penalties.

Re: I am curious if. ..

By vcr5150
8/25/2020 4:42 pm
The problem I have, and I admit I don't fully understand what it means, but you can have a negative rating for play familiarity. In league 79 - it was my team that lost in the championship game. I obviously scouted that play in my game planning - but when I look at the play in question - it says my team has a -66% Offensive Familiarity. NEGATIVE 66%.

I don't understand how it could be a negative number. As I said, I honestly don't know what that means - but every other play I look at ranges from 0-100%.

Another problem is that the team I played the game prior was similar on defense by running only a handful of different plays. Between those 2 games, my team took 13 injuries. 4OL, a FB, a TE, and RB. The opposing teams had 3 and 1 injuries in those 2 games. That game plan can really grind up a team.

I think there has to be some level of overuse penalty to make up for the fact that there is no in-game adjustments possible. Especially when there can be negative number assigned to play familiarity (which evidently means on 28 pass attempts you can count on 9 incompletions, 10 sacks, 1 INT, and 2 fumbles.)

Re: I am curious if. ..

By TarquinTheDark
8/25/2020 4:58 pm
vcr5150 wrote:
'28 pass attempts ... 10 sacks'
I can guess what one of those plays was.
Last edited at 8/25/2020 5:00 pm

Re: I am curious if. ..

By setherick
8/25/2020 5:09 pm
Don't look too much into it. Play knowledge affects very few things in the game. The one place where play knowledge is at all important is QB accuracy, and then only the PK of the play the QB is running is factored into the calculation. The rest of the time PK is important, it's like INT. It's something that can change a minor outcome, but not a major one.

Re: I am curious if. ..

By tribewriter
8/25/2020 8:43 pm
setherick wrote:
Don't look too much into it. Play knowledge affects very few things in the game. The one place where play knowledge is at all important is QB accuracy, and then only the PK of the play the QB is running is factored into the calculation. The rest of the time PK is important, it's like INT. It's something that can change a minor outcome, but not a major one.


Even without looking too much into it, how do you logically arrive at negative play familiarity when you are consistently practicing against that play to become more familiar with it?

Re: I am curious if. ..

By setherick
8/25/2020 9:09 pm
JDB would have to answer this. I'm just referring to this being the key reason why some folks are saying they are losing games to owners that use certain plays.