I don't pretend to be an authority on everything; I looked at some of the plays in a game you highlighted because feedback improves things.

I found most of those plays have some sense behind them. Others, I raised potential issues over - namely what could well be an acc/speed issue where to me it looks like DBs with better acc/speed *may* be having to stop to avoid overshooting receivers. I also raised what appears to be a number of offensive PIs, which could be delaying DBs.

Anybody knowing me knows full well I've never been a "Yes" man. I just believe that you need analysis and reasoning rather than just saying "broke. fix it". What is essential for JDB is for people to provide that reasoning and analysis because that not only highlights where potential issues may lie but also gives him a steer as to what the behaviour should be.

The fact is, coming from a software dev background, this league is invaluable for driving the game forward. It needs input with facts and evidence.

After that diversion, let's get back to the point.

I think the plays I linked do need to be looked at, JDB. I disagree with Warrior's "pass D broke" view, but some of those plays for me do raise questions.

- eligible receivers seem to run through defenders (literally) - as if stunning DBs, so creating space.
- DBs are stopping, meaning their momentum (knew I'd forgotten the word) is affected, giving receivers separation.

Now, I appreciate these may be graphical representation issues rather than sim engine issues, but I can see why Warrior has the view that he has having seen them - don't necessarily agree totally with him, I don't think they are preventing a release at this point, but I think they do need some investigation.

A number of those plays his DBs had better acc/speed than the WRs yet the WRs ended up with separation - including one WR with what 50 or so acc? Since the routes were often straight lines, it's clear that a DB with 80acc/80 speed would hit top speed faster than a DB with 54 acc/80 speed. The issue therefore is why the DBs stop. It's a Man defence not Zone so not that. Only thing I can think of if it's a sim issue would be the DB "overrunning", so stopping to "allow" the WR to catch up to the point the DB is at - which means momentum is with the WR. I may very well be wrong, but that's the first thing that leaps to mind.

Ok, let me make a tweak for week 14's games to see if I can help the M2M defender not get caught flat-footed on those routes.

Again, I've not idea if the reason I suggested is an issue, but I'm thinking if it is, then the behaviour should be that where the defender would hit that top speed before the WR, they are instead "pacing" themselves to keep in step with the WR - they are covering them, after all, not in a foot race. So if WR 54 acc, 80 speed, CB 80 acc, 80 speed, their acc gets reduced to a comparable rate to cover. I'm thinking that would alleviate the issue of too many big plays against good defenders.

Where the defender would hit top speed after the receiver, well, they'd be burnt.

What I'd not like to see from tweaks is the completion stats come down as a consequence and M2M become op.

Don't straw man me, this is not what I said and you know it. You don't need to respond to everything, and disagreeing that something needs looking into is not helpful or for you to decide. I'm glad to see you came around and are willing to see at least some of what I was pointing to. I am concerned that when certain owners get ahold of this code, they will find the right combination of players and plays to put up arcade type passing numbers. I'm not able to properly test this right now due to lack of proper personnel and a completely opposite gameplan philosophy that I've always had.

Was talking in general, not about you as an individual, sorry you feel that I was.

Your concern is something that will always be present until the sim is in a state that all plays have parity in terms of success, all styles have parity - as in all have strengths and weaknesses, but they balance out. I don't personally see anything in the current version in MFN-TEST that really backs your concerns, if I'm honest, but happy to disagree.

Playing a cover zero all game should get beat deeper more often than not. In the nfl this is a rarely used strategy in comparison.

On average, they need to use it is around 5% of the time, where zone-cover 2, 3, 4, and man-cover 1 are all used more frequently.

NFL heavy zone schemes reach almost 90% and heavy man schemes top out at like 40% of play calls.

In mfn, with the right offense, I want to see possible 700 yard games against teams that play defense like this without the right personnel in place.

It’s always fun to try plays out in a code switch and I do enjoy this code more but I see legit owners still winning too much while playing heavy man schemes. That makes this code a little different from the last.

Playing a cover zero all game should get beat deeper more often than not. In the nfl this is a rarely used strategy in comparison.

On average, they need to use it is around 5% of the time, where zone-cover 2, 3, 4, and man-cover 1 are all used more frequently.

NFL heavy zone schemes reach almost 90% and heavy man schemes top out at like 40% of play calls.

In mfn, with the right offense, I want to see possible 700 yard games against teams that play defense like this without the right personnel in place.

It’s always fun to try plays out in a code switch and I do enjoy this code more but I see legit owners still winning too much while playing heavy man schemes. That makes this code a little different from the last.

Agreed.

I think it's better in a number of ways, evolution rather than revolution, but if pushed, I'd still favour heavy blitzing, man to man over other D types.

You say you'd 'still' favor heavy blitzing and man-to-man over zone. Does this mean that while it's not better, it's not worse - or does it mean that you feel it's worse now?