Yes.

The "next" one up is the Cover 2 Man Under in the nickle 3-3-5. Suddenly being called 8-15x per game by far too many GMs - especially when this particular play used to be limited to special occasions and (used to) require overs to work well.
(EDIT): This was NOT a commonly used play before the removal of the flat zone.
Play removal is not a viable option.
(end edit)

It's important to note that the well documented broken play matrix - in that the code will prefer a play up to 5-1 over any other play that fits (Eg 1dm/m in nickle). The play matrix itself prefers the two 1dm/m nickle lays that are impacted by the negative defensive play familiarity bug. Setherick really did a lot of work on this topic long ago, and stressed then how important it was to fix the play matrix bug.

So. Here we are.

Even the AI run teams are "cheating."

Though it's not technically cheating. There is no possible way for any human or AI run team to compete and not use defensive plays impacted by the bug, as over 70% of the defensive plays available to choose from are effected by the negative play familiarity bug. Even I am forced to use a few - or not use nickle 1dm/m for gosh sakes!

The right thing to do would be to not use any defensive play affected, but i'd be competatively punished. Thus, I'm forced into using bugged plays that provide an unreasonble - even if minute - yet cumulative benefit to my defense. Being forced to cheat and compromise my concepts of gaming integrity is also being punished.

Cumulative. Compounded by other legacy bugs.
Fix this ****.

People are spamming that play? That's not a very good play to spam imo.

That nickel coverage has probably been the 2nd most common defense I’ve seen when scouting opponents, but it also rarely checks in with an average yardage against below 4 yards, where as the flat zone was frequently in the 2’s.

From what I've seen Nickel 335 Cover 2 is godawful against the run and even worse against flares/**** like that.

@McBolt
See play matrix bug.

Which is why it used to require careful and specific ovverrides and limited usage via player created rules.

See play matrix bug.

Edit: play matrix bug post: https://vikings.myfootballnow.com/community/6/3034?page=1#20426

So it’s only good against very specific conditions, aka not broken….if used outside those parameters it fails

Was it fixed properly? I can see why this would be the scenario you'd have to use otherwise you'd have bad DBs making plays or not enough guys in the box to stop the run against a 203 formation.

Not broken.
Definitly bugged via negative defensive play familiarity.

Can't help but wonder if that's why any player - perhaps me or you, lost that game by 1-4 pts , can we? Especially when the opponent had 10 defensive plays in their playbook, and every single one of those plays had the negative familiaity bug.
If every play any user's offense runs is cumulatively penalized over the course of the game - were they honestly beat, best team won by 2 pts, or did the bug abuse by the opponent cost that player the playoffs or a league championship?

...and these penalties carry from game to game as well.

Cumulative and compounding.

I think it is important to note defensive plays effected by the negative play familiarity bug are not broken.
They are just bugged. It's (an) engine issue, not a broken play issue.

Someone mentioned flat zone 4.6 data...
well, it wasn't "broken" in 4.5. Just very effective :)
4.5 did not have the negative defensive play familiarity bug.

So, the question regarding the deflection about the real issue - the removal of the flat zone is:
Did the negative play familiarity bug "break" an already effective play in 4.6?


It's important to note the community was "Look! Squirrel" -ed when JDB removed the flat zone and fb dive when the negative play bug was originally addressed in my fix the engine or i quit post. I said as much at the time.

That's enough from me today.