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: May 2024 Update

By Waitwut
5/25/2024 10:40 am
Big Poppa wrote:
Once again...if the player generator would generate players that actually had attributes for their respective positions, very little of this player out of position would be happening. Players would more than likely play their actual positions.
This game doesn't need more bandaids, it needs fixing.


I completely agree with this. No band aids, just fixes. It is the only reasonable and most logical solution if there is any actual intent to bring in new users.

The last thing you want to do is create further disparity for a new owner to onboard. As of now, new owners are mislead how this game works from the start because of weights and talent generation. Core issues require true fix.

Re: May 2024 Update

By Cjfred68
5/25/2024 10:40 am
The game simply needs some changes to make it more interesting. When version 4.6 was first released game wide, there were many complaints (me included) that passing was dead and you couldn't throw for over 3,000 yards while other owners cheered that rushing and sacks were back and the Gane was more balanced.

Fast forward 2 years and passing numbers are back to near 4.5 numbers while rushing has become less effective.

That's what happens when owners have 2 years and a ton of data to figure out the best plays and player weights to use.

I would love JDB to limit players to actually playing their position group with minimum weights established so a defense would have to use 3 to 4 actual DL, 3 to 4 actual LBs and 4 actual DBs.

Just like with the version 4.6 release, everyone will struggle to figure out the new dynamics of the Sim but eventually the best strategies will be found for player weights and plays to use.

It's been the formula for MFN for as long as I've been playing.

New version release
Struggle
Adapt
Dominate

New version release
Struggle
Adapt
Dominate

The single biggest difference now compared to the past is that new versions lasted anywhere from 3 to 9 months and once you figured a version out, a new one was released. Version 4.5 lasted 3 years before version 4.6 was reluctantly released and we are past the 2 year mark using the current version minus the removal of 2 plays.

Re: May 2024 Update

By Vikings_Fan
5/25/2024 3:31 pm
Some flexibility is needed for player weights within positions, i.e., a reasonable range of weight. If all TE's, for example, are required to weigh 257# or else they cannot play the position, then we have a problem. I have a TE in one of my leagues who was converted to TE from WR. His weight maxed out at 250# even though he is 6' 3" tall; the only player that height that I have seen that didn't attain 257# at TE. And, in this example, TE is the top position on his player card. Let's hope we will not be in a position where a player is not eligible to play the top position on his player card because he falls a few pounds short of an unrealistic minimum "required" weight.

The case for a reasonable range of weight within a position can easily be made by a quick look at the height / weight of TE's in the NFL.

Juwan Johnson, TE for the New Orleans Saints: 6' 4" and 231#.
Darnell Washington, TE for the Pittsburgh Steelers: 6' 7" and 264#.

This example is from the far end of each extreme, but you get my point. A range of 240# to 260# would be acceptable for MFN.

Re: May 2024 Update

By TheWitchHunter
5/26/2024 8:33 pm
I like this. I relate.
Currently have a player I converted from WLB to SS.
Was 247# and has leveled out (same weight over 4 wks) at 230#.
The player was converted to SS the post season before, and the current season is in wk mid 13.
I dunno. I personally dropped from 250# to 164# over 17 months (yes, thats a bit o bragging).
EDIT: I used my experience to relate that yes, such dramatic weight loss is entirely possible and common in RL over 18-24 months. It's been 6 months with this player. Healthy weight loss is 4#-5# / month. Can we have "hire a chef" options? I'm just kidding. CLearly - the player pool wants to know the weight mechanism WIKI.
In no way could anyone do a MFN WIKI, and that is a huge problem moving forward. (end edit)

I'm gathering I am not alone in that consistency matters. Vikingsfan expressed the issue very well, and it encouraged me to contribute.
Fix weights. Fix the draft. Have more players available to fit the plays available.
In that order, IMHO.
It's been THE issue since I joined MFN in 2018.
Yes, I just addressed that issue as well.

The heart of the problem has always been that the player pool does not match the play selection - and that issue has always been magnified by the neglect of updating default player weights in relation to the current version of play.

Thanks, viking - for bringing attention to the village over the individual.
I think it's the most honest and true post in this thread, and I thank you for bringing it back to the front (always a Metallica reference. Always.)
Last edited at 5/26/2024 8:53 pm

Re: May 2024 Update

By Cjfred68
5/26/2024 9:12 pm
Vikings_Fan wrote:
Some flexibility is needed for player weights within positions, i.e., a reasonable range of weight. If all TE's, for example, are required to weigh 257# or else they cannot play the position, then we have a problem. I have a TE in one of my leagues who was converted to TE from WR. His weight maxed out at 250# even though he is 6' 3" tall; the only player that height that I have seen that didn't attain 257# at TE. And, in this example, TE is the top position on his player card. Let's hope we will not be in a position where a player is not eligible to play the top position on his player card because he falls a few pounds short of an unrealistic minimum "required" weight.

The case for a reasonable range of weight within a position can easily be made by a quick look at the height / weight of TE's in the NFL.

Juwan Johnson, TE for the New Orleans Saints: 6' 4" and 231#.
Darnell Washington, TE for the Pittsburgh Steelers: 6' 7" and 264#.

This example is from the far end of each extreme, but you get my point. A range of 240# to 260# would be acceptable for MFN.


From my time running the General Managers leagues, the following were the normal base weights for each position. Meaning a player switched to a new position would progress towards the following weights.

QB/K/P (Never mattered)
RB (217)
FB (240)
TE (257)
WR (198)
T (320)
G (305)
C (280)
DE (265)
DT (290)
LB (237)
DB (200)

The only real issues we had during that leagues run was players converting to FB coming up short on weight at 230ish and non-offensive lineman switching to the OL and never gaining enough weight.

I never had am issue with someone switching a DT or DE to LB or DB because being too heavy for the position gained no benefit and in fact had a definate penalty.

JDB has said multiple times in the past that each player has a hidden body frame which has a predetermined range of weight possible but as a owner we have no way of telling what that range is.

From my past experience, players will max out at +/- 50 pounds meaning +/- 7 points of speed but there are exceptions.

The significance of moving both LBs and TEs to other positions is pretty simple since both need a full set of offensive or defensive skills to be great at either position so the ability to move these potentially loaded players to other positions offers owners the most flexibility in filling their roster.

A MFN draft class will have maybe 20-30 true potential playmakers to chose from and it's very very rare for 5th, 6th or 7th rounders to be impact players let alone undrafted players which happens all the time in the NFL.

Yes, I'm well aware that MFN is not the NFL but let's be honest...it's exactly what the game is trying to emulate. If we are limited in changing players positions then there needs to be a much deeper draft class, build upon some updated default weights and the script for boom/bust needs to be less negative so we have an equal number of big booms as we have big bust.

Just about every owner playing has had a -31 bust in the 1st round and I can honestly say I've never seen a +31 boom. Why is that?

My two cents for what it's worth

Re: May 2024 Update

By warrior462
5/27/2024 7:21 am
Cjfred68 wrote:
... the script for boom/bust needs to be less negative so we have an equal number of big booms as we have big bust.

Just about every owner playing has had a -31 bust in the 1st round and I can honestly say I've never seen a +31 boom. Why is that?


I've come to absolutely dread the training camp sim. Least fun part of the game, bracing to see how hard your rookies get hit every season. Anecdotally, it seems to me that about 70% of rookies decrease in value. There is absolutely no reason for that.

Re: May 2024 Update

By Waitwut
5/27/2024 8:10 am
But guys, new UI is coming and you’ve all been complaining about that for years now.

Re: May 2024 Update

By Pernbronze
5/27/2024 11:39 am
warrior462 wrote:
Cjfred68 wrote:
... the script for boom/bust needs to be less negative so we have an equal number of big booms as we have big bust.

Just about every owner playing has had a -31 bust in the 1st round and I can honestly say I've never seen a +31 boom. Why is that?


I've come to absolutely dread the training camp sim. Least fun part of the game, bracing to see how hard your rookies get hit every season. Anecdotally, it seems to me that about 70% of rookies decrease in value. There is absolutely no reason for that.


It makes sense to me. Most college players never even sniff an NFL team. Most that make an NFL team are never even considered good. MFN actually seems to be pretty balanced with how many stars and good players there are at any given position. If anything there are too many good ones. That said it becomes moot when most of the top teams are filled with sim exploit players with bad overalls.

Re: May 2024 Update

By raymattison21
5/27/2024 10:39 pm
“Newton's second law of motion states that F = ma, or net force is equal to mass times acceleration. A larger net force acting on an object causes a larger acceleration, and objects with larger mass require more force to accelerate”

Fundamentally the issue is this formula and it is the core to how speed works here.
The ISSUE is what defines mass. We use weight in pounds alone. When we should use body mass index(weight /height) to define this characteristic. This same measure should be applied to how fatigue works as well.
Solving these two core issues would give a proper foundation to build off of. While giving a leg up over other sims. Then all the other banter can be applied after.

Re: May 2024 Update

By Cjfred68
5/28/2024 1:42 pm
Pernbronze wrote:


It makes sense to me. Most college players never even sniff an NFL team. Most that make an NFL team are never even considered good. MFN actually seems to be pretty balanced with how many stars and good players there are at any given position. If anything there are too many good ones. That said it becomes moot when most of the top teams are filled with sim exploit players with bad overalls.


That's not really my point, I can give you a decent list of undrafted players who made the HOF and Tom Brady is the ultimate example of a player drafted in the 6th round to end up the Goat and a 1st ballot HOFer.

Many players drafted in the 1st become big bust and the game gets that right but with high vol players drafted in the 5th, 6th, 7th or even signed as undrafted there should be an occasional +30 boom. They are plenty of -20+ busts every single draft so why not throw a few +20 booms in as well.

I'm not asking for a 1 to 1 ratio, even a 100 to 1 ratio is better then exists right now because what's the biggest boom everyone has ever seen for a rookie?

+15 to +17 I've seen happen but its super rare.

I love the entire structure of the draft and TC is still a fun spin to anticipate but the reality is you end up hoping for a -1/0/+1 for you 1st and 2nd rounders and jump for joy if you get a +4.

I just think the draft would be alot more interesting if a few BIG BOOMs happened for those 60 and under potential players taken in the later rounds. After hundreds of drafts in MFN, it's become fairly predictable and alot of owners see absolutely no value in 5th, 6th and 7th rounders unless you need a kicker, kick holder or long snapper.

"Every year, between 15 and 20 undrafted free agents make NFL rosters every year. This year should be no different, as there are more than a few players picked after the draft who have a chance, if not an inside track, towards making a 53-man roster and making an impact in their rookie season."

May 8 2024

NFLs ALLTIME UNDRAFTED TEAM

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nfl.com/photos/nfl-s-all-time-undrafted-team-0ap3000000567319&ved=2ahUKEwiC3vvi_7CGAxUkK1kFHSrECBIQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw19-8BxIygYdsPW8ggPlPML