Use of the GL defense, moreso extreme overuse, is in need of correction and control if the game is to be more of a simulation of RL NFL football. Its overuse was non-intentional in my game in Paydirt yesterday, and resulted in a horrible game played. Both the GL offense and defense should only be used where it is used in RL NFL football games, on 0-1 yard situations and on the goaline, what it was named for. Just my op. and I stand by it.

If someone wants to run it every play, then it needs to have the real life consequences for doing so - chunks of yards conceded, scores etc.

That needs to be organic, not drive by artificial rules.

Understand your thinking on that Martin, but I dont agree. Not "artificial rules", actual controls is what I would prefer. The game engine has now gone overboard on roster control, but nothing on play use control. Its not more of a RL simulation of NFL football, its less, when someone uses the GL defense on half or more of their total defensive plays for the game. Its also not more of a RL NFL simulation to use the GL offense in other than very short yardage situations. I dont know if there has been an adjustment in the last day or two in the game engine or not, but the following happened twice in the most recent game btw my Broncos and Phils Saints ...........

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21551#3937372

3-4-DEN 46 (12:06) 9-John Koch pass complete to 39-Michael Buhl for 46 yards. TOUCHDOWN! NOS 6 DEN 0
Offensive Play: Goal Line Normal PA TE Drag
Defensive Play: Goal Line Attack #3
Run Key
Rule: GL vs GL

so, it seems we go from one extreme to another when it comes to GL plays. I have not seen those two plays interact and result in zero coverage before. And it happened twice in the game, both same result. GL defense being auto'd against GL offense is not a good idea if this continues, I will be deactivating the GL defense completely so it cant be called or used. Im really tired of the GL play situation, overall, including overuse by the AI coach, its not a better simulation of an NFL game. Can a defense have a broken coverage? sure, but not consistently and back to back in same game.

In other news, interceptions seems to have improved. Weeks 11 - 13 had the following passing stats:

Short Pass
attempts: 1290
completions: 1014
pct: 0.7860
avg_pass_air_dist: 3.7271
interceptions: 17
int_pct: 0.0132

Medium Pass
attempts: 1135
completions: 655
pct: 0.5771
avg_pass_air_dist: 7.5868
interceptions: 46
int_pct: 0.0405

Long Pass
attempts: 206
completions: 90
pct: 0.4369
avg_pass_air_dist: 12.0874
interceptions: 19
int_pct: 0.0922

I'm going to say that's related to a previous similar issue around defensive coverages. You're covering WR1-3, so if that player was down as a WR4-5, you've nobody assigned to him.

Looking at the defensive play...

LDE: Blitz Left
LDE: Blitz Left
DT: Blitz Right
DT: Blitz Middle
RDE: Blitz Right
SLB: Blitz Left
MLB: Blitz Middle
WLB: Blitz Left
CB: Man WR-2
CB: Man WR-1
SS: Man WR-3

Given no defensive player tried to cover, none blocked, I'm going to say he was WR4 or 5.

So poor defensive planning in leaving any eligible receivers free; that TE drag is a play Smirt regularly uses in leagues as it's effective when you get a mismatch against the defence.

On the flip side, there's also examples where the offence run plays are stuffed because they run to the side with the free blitzer; also seen some productive runs usually due to missed tackles.

Now is Goalline attack #3 broken? Not per se, no - it does what it says on the tin. Now the wider issue is a lack of audibles, defensive not seeing uncovered receiver. How should the game engine resolve that though? It's almost an argument for striking out from the playbook plays that don't cover WR1-WR5... but the reality is, you pays your money, you pick your prize. You're gambling the full on blitz doesn't leave WR4-5 open. You can't be happy when it stuffs the run but also complain an eligible receiver is uncovered.

Attack #1, Attack #2 GL defences both cover WRs1-4. 3 Deep Man covers all 5.

I don’t want to address the goal-line issue in 4.7, but I think it should be one of the first things we tackle in 4.8.

I’m feeling pretty good about where 4.7 stands with the interception fix. Let’s bring this thread back to dealbreakers for the 4.7 fixes. I’d like to give it another offseason, a preseason, and probably at least four weeks of the regular season to run before releasing it as a general release—especially with the depth chart.

So, with regard to what we’re targeting in 4.7—improving the passing game—are there any concerns anyone wants to raise at this point? Remember, the goal is iterative changes, so I’m looking for issues that are overcorrections or newly introduced problems, rather than “X or Y is still not where it should be.”

Testing is a long process, and I feel that it is being rushed (for the gameplay changes anyway; mid next season may be reasonable for the depth chart, assuming no further issues pop up). When testing, it takes time to build play familiarity, and until you have that, you can't really know how well a play is actually going to perform. One of my main concerns relates more to a long time problem that wasn't nearly as big a problem under the old code. Recievers (even slow ones) get way behind defenders (even fast ones) at an alarming rate. Under the old code, the QB would almost entirely ignore the wide open receiver way down the field and hit the TE or the RB in the flat. Now, he is throwing to them, resulting in too many big plays against defenses that should be well equipped to avoid them. Please take a very close look at my game against Arizona, that is the best example I can currently think of.

I'd disagree it's being rushed. You're looking at 2 seasons plus so 34 games + pre season per team.

Play familiarity for players, get what you're saying, but I think there are plenty of experienced owners who know what the problems were and can tell if progress has been made on those, plus can see if things have regressed.

Would be nice if some newer owners chimed in, fresh pair of eyes and all that.

With regards to the game you cited, here's what I saw (will focus on long plays only due to having a life).

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930726

FIrst scrimmage play WR2, Acc 81, Speed 84 blows past the double team - had to check closely if your players had collided.
You had Lauritzen and Roberson on him; slower, heavier LB beaten. Roberson seems comparable, acc speed wise but I'll throw this out there - Roberson has 15 route running. If that's important for DBs (think potentially it models the smoothness of the hip movement etc) then that could explain being beaten - or if the two defenders impeded each other.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930730

LB on TE. There looked to be contact there around 4-5 yards, maybe could've been a PI call either way, but I got the vibe your defender got thrown off. Not the worst coverage in the world, one of those plays - nothing that looked majorly wrong.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930749

Your Weiner got beaten... for an 80 yard catch. Looking at that, around the 28(?) yard line, looked to be contact - Weiner certainly stopped. Hold has far less acceleration but higher max speed. What I'm going to throw out here is either the contact caused Weiner to stop, creating separation or if there wasn't any contact, it may well be the case Weiner hit his top speed earlier than Holm - as Holm still getting up to top speed, that may have caused Weiner to have to slow to be near the WR - so Weiner slowing, Holm speeding up.

Now if that's the case - players use acc, speed to get to top speed as soon as possible, that could well be a slaw in coverage, overshooting receivers taking longer to get to max speed. Defenders shouldn't go 0-100 but should match the receiver where possible - unless dropping to Zone centre.

The route was effectively run straight - so need to elaborate route running or acceleration, more or less a factor of speed. My view kinda makes sense because the DB would have to slow - turn - get back to top speed IF he was waiting for the WR to catch up, whereas WR already at full speed.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930789

May be a graphical glitch, but you #20 didn't seemingly start to move till the WR ran over him. Again a pure speed factor, the WR having better acc and speed, so again looks like by the time the WR got past created that separation as DB slow to react.

These refs are definitely slow to flag anything...

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930830

Roberson on TE. Again, looks like contact by the eligible receiver downfield, discombobulates your defender... c'mon refs thrown the **** flag.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930833

Good coverage, just think in this case the WR did a good job avoiding any B&R, split the two defenders. Just a good play on the receivers part, can't legislate against those . Looks like once turned the defenders, make that room for the QB to thread the ball in. Good play.

Sensing a pattern that when the DBs have to turn there's a delay giving the WR the advantage, but that would kinda make sense, going from backpedalling to turning and running straight. This play wasn't a blown coverage or something showing an issue with the sim engine for me.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930846

TE again, WLB leaves him as blitzing, looks like the FS is assigned to him, but there's a defensive pick play going on there - LB? SS? covering the RB cuts in front of the FS.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/21511#3930864

The CB is playing off - looks as if he waits for the WR to get to him before running with him, by which time the WR is clear. Again, the noticeable thing is the WR acceleration is 54.

Now, if you look at the game stats, there were a number f big plays but the QB was 19/30 - 63% - hardly Phil Simms SB level, given you picked him twice and had six sacks.

I don't see anything there that screams "Don't even think of releasing!". The only thing that mildly piques my interest is a could of plays where it looks like WR running into DB - tho accept that may just be a rendering glitch - where it looks like the DB is "stunned" for a small delay, and what appears to be DBs losing a step when they appear to have outpaced the WR on the route.

Other than that, it seems to have improved passing.

It's somewhat amusing, but mostly annoying the way you speak like an authority on everything, especially when your teams are, for the most part, pretty bad. Are receivers constantly running straight by DB's because they're "turning around" in the NFL? No. Does it happen occasionally? Sure. This game is a huge red flag for the code and coverage issues. You're acting like a yes man for JDB, everything you say is "here is why things are just right as they are". With that attitude, things won't get fixed or improved.

It's perfectly fine to disagree about whether something is an overcorrection or an acceptable tradeoff. That's exactly why I have this group testing the release candidate from different perspectives.

What I don't want is the discussion becoming personal. Whether someone's teams perform well or poorly has no bearing on whether their analysis is worth considering.

As the developer, I'm reading all of this feedback carefully. I've reviewed the statistical trends, individual games, and many of the examples that have been posted here. At this point, I'm generally happy with where the passing game is compared to previous versions.

That doesn't mean every concern raised has to be "fixed" before 4.7 ships. One of the guiding principles for development has been iterative improvement. My goal for 4.7 is to determine whether the interception fix and passing changes are a net improvement over 4.6 without introducing any major regressions.

There will always be things we'd like to improve further. If I tried to solve every concern before releasing, we'd never release. So part of my job is deciding which issues are blockers for the current version and which ones become candidates for the next round of iteration.

That's why I appreciate detailed analysis from everyone, even when people reach different conclusions. Those discussions help me determine whether something is a release-blocking regression, an acceptable tradeoff for this version, or simply an area we should continue refining in a future release.

So please continue posting examples, game logs, and analysis. Just keep the conversation respectful and focused on the simulation rather than each other.