Depth chart governance discussion

JDB wrote,

"The original problem came from players putting athletes into their depth charts who would be, in real life, absolutely unrealistic, yet in MFN gave them an advantage. I had initially hoped that this freedom would self-correct as the game engine properly simulated everything, but I’ve concluded there will always be something users can exploit. Rather than spend all development time chasing cat-and-mouse issues, I added the player position-change matrix to require that you place players in the positions they were initially created for."

In my not so humble opinion....

1. Eliminate position changes and thus the whole "weight / speed" thing. Sure, sometimes players do change positions to some extent. Deebo can run some plays from the backfield, Ronnie Lott became a great safety, but.. usually, at the professional level, guys are what they are. They certainly dont make these radical changes to their bodies. Let it go..

2. You really need the ability to design plays in a game like this. Then his "position" doesnt matter.. And you can "scheme up" solutions to team problems rather than making Deion Sanders a defensive end..

3. Fix the talent distribution and increase the amount of talent. You also need to add some degree of uncertainty about players. The draft here is well done with the "boom / bust" thing and player volatility. Maybe take that farther with some unpredictable player development. Make more players available. Sometimes a Brock Purdy (or Tom Brady!) happens.

4. Gonna give this it's own number.. FIX THE DUMB SPEED THING!! Please.. Just make speed a linear rating of how fast a player is capable of running. None of this 11 speed fullback ****! If you have a realistic distribution of ratings (and realistic talent distribution) it begets realistic behavior by your owner / coaches.

5. If someone tanks, if some team loses a bunch of games, there oughta be a chance the program fires him! IRL, being an NFL head coach is a great job. You get paid a lot of money to win football games and show everyone you aren't clueless. Losing football games makes you unemployed. The game should mirror that...

Thats all.. Just trying to help. I am an emotional little guy sometimes... :)

CM

The closest thing to 3, in terms of unpredictable player development, had you scouting players for the draft to see actual athletic and potential skill ratings. It was fun but didn’t last.
Currently, we should be getting better draft pools though.

Draft player obfuscation
by jdavidbakr (Site Admin) @ 6/08/2017 11:27 am
New feature testing in the beta leagues in their upcoming drafts - player obfuscation

Obfuscation is the act of making a message, data, or computer code difficult to understand on purpose.

Dont understand the point of player obfuscation. Making it more difficult to evaluatie or what?

Player evaluation is a critical ability in MFN, and if someone uses the game default player weights, they are at a major disadvantage, which shows in the league standings every season. When you look across the leagues with the fewest teams owned/managed by computer, you see the same acount names at the top of their divisions and CC/LC spots. One of the reasons for that consistency is their player weights, which determine their draft picks, trades, and FA pickups, especially Early FA 1 and 2 in a league where the computer auto managers cut starters after their 4th season. Those winning owners also know what positions are more important than others, which can be seen in first and second round draft picks and FA bids.

Overall, I dont need more player obfuscation, based on the definition of the word. I would like to see improved player ratings and trade meter value, which might also improve the "talent distribution" in the draft pool. There is a vast difference between a WR with a 90+ rating and 2000 trade score vs an OL with the same, which one would you pick over the other? No contest. Player ratings, especially default values and trade scores need to be overhauled, or.... the game will continue to be dominated by the same owners who are doing so now.

Design plays? I dont think that would work anywhere near as much as improving the interaction of the existing play selection and the attributes of the players. Zone coverages, 3 deep and 4 deep, are rarely if ever used by the top winning MFN players. When I advise someone on their gameplanning and play selection, I tell them to go with no more than 8-10 defensive plays total, and 20 or less offense. The plays I recommend are not hard to determine, you can see them when you scout a consistent winner or go through the game play log if you really want to dig into it. As I stated before, take the play selection and use out of the hands of the team owner/general manage, as it is in real life NFL. Thats the way it is in RO leagues, but painfull to watch the computer coached games, when they use horrible offensive plays based on the field position, yards to go, and down. Overuse of the GL offense is one of the primary malfunctions of the computer coach. Overuse of the run plays is another, which is one of the factors that makes a computer owned team easy to beat. The MFN owners who win the most all have defenses that are very difficult to run against, if you havnt noticed.

More controls in the hands of league admins is the best option in my opinion at this time. More RL simulation/results vs Video Game style. Full play selection and use vs limited, players only playing designated postions vs wide open play anywhere. The type of MFN game a person likes to play is a matter of preference and leagues could be set up to match preferences. The only real difference now is RO vs not RO.

With all due respect, all the things you said are arguments FOR user play design. It's a good thing for there to only be 6 defenses that work? It's a good thing that you cant run the ball on some coaches? It's a good thing that creativity is so stunted that the same people win all the time? It's good that the same canned formula is the only narrow way to win? Same with player unpredictability.. It's good that everyone who uses similar player evaluation weights gets to win?

I appreciate what you and others do to promote and help improve this game. I have the same goal in mind. Maybe I am mischaracterizing your arguments. Please explain.. :)

CM

Yeah Coco, you are not mischaracterizing, you are confirming my statements and preferences. if I read the above correctly. :)

I would rather see a more level playing field vs a narrow window of advantage based on limitation of play selection and use, and player weighting/rating. I would really like to see the separation of team owner/manager and coaches, and coach attributes affecting both player development and gameplanning. More control of game style in the hands of league admins, as not everyone want more realism vs arcade.

And achieve that how? I agree that player talent needs to be broader. And that would have a huge impact on all the things you spoke of that I would consider negatives. You could have a game like that and I would probably like it better. Adding a play editor would absolutely be a huge "time hole".. That's the argument against it, not that it will not help competitive balance. In my opinion, and I am not the "expert" here on this game, you certainly are along with a couple handfuls of other folks, but what I see is a game that isnt like the real football that we all love. It's very narrow (as you have said often in just the couple weeks I have been back) and needs realization in several areas.

BTW, I just noticed that now, you cant slot defensive backs into linebacker slots which, IRL, is exactly what nickel and dime defenses are. I havent checked yet if you can, say, put a WLB in a defensive end slot which is what happens IRL when your defensive ends "slide inside" on passing downs. Again, a problem that wasnt really a problem but only potentially became a problem because of a odd distribution of talent. Speed rushers dont really work in the NFL because at some point in a pass rush you have to convert speed to power. 237 pound linebackers have severe problems implementing power against Trent Williams. There are a lot of things like that in this game. Yet when a player "loses weight" he keeps his same strength.. I could go on and on...

I will shut up now (applause!!!). You guys are smart. You'll figure it out.. :)

CM

Weight/speed in the game engine. You can put players where the player matrix allows. Generally, lighter position players in a heavier weight slot is a massive issue within the game - see Smirt. Sure, speed needs addressing,but that's an evolutionary step.

The matrix also doesn't consider formations. You don't see it as a non admin, but it's a pain enough as it is without adding formations. If a good UI can be devised, then great.

@CoconutsMigrate, if you had checked the matrix or even the players, you would have found out that at least D-line and LBs are interchangeable in this league.
DBs are bound to their primary positions as the speed / weight factor is not adjusted up to now.

I recently came back to mfn after about a year of being away and after a few years of not being that "into" it. I thought 4.5 was a fun game. 4.6 not so much. My point was that the issue with "speed" is that there's no corresponding counter with power. So the exploits that JDB is trying to control by limiting position switches and so on would be best controlled by making attributes more realistic. No more 80 strength cornerbacks, right? To try to control those kinds of exploits by just disallowing the position changes is not going to work very well. I say this in general, not really knowing the code or anything. But it's obvious that people had concluded that slower, larger players didnt work very well. In RL, power sometimes IS the answer. So, to me, you have to fix that.. I think the whole "point" that Smirt makes is, "Hey, this is broken! Look what I can do!!" Hilarious really.. :)

CM

Without disallowing the position changes (or more accurately, giving league admins the flexibility to set them), then there are utterly unrealistic CBs becoming / being played as DEs...