League Forums

Dear JDB

Until there are "requirements" for minimum # of active plays out of 40 offense & 30 defense and until there is a max use limit of one or more plays in a game, the overuse is going to continue, whether intended or not.

When the roster is over limit on the 53 player, or 46 active player, the Ai coach steps in and makes cuts. The Misc settings control FG length, the fatigue setting controls how much the starters play vs the subs, the GP Distance Adjustment Speed controls whether to use a short, med, or long play consideration, the Hurry Up contols the play call when trailing by a certain amount at the end of a game, same for Slow Down, 2 pt conversion decision, coin toss call, and when to pull starters in pre-season and based on score.

I dont know how difficult it would be to put some control in similar to the roster size (53) and active players (46),and the Misc Settings, probably quite a bit Im assuming, especially for one person to handle. IMHO, the game would be much better with less gameplanning by the "owner" and more involvement by the "coaches". I know Im not the only one who has brought up the concept of more involvement by the coaching staff, which would make it a lot more important and interesting as far as the management of the coaching staff goes. The only other option is the roster only leagues, and I find those games excruciating to watch, lol. Would be nice if there were a balance between the two ends of the scale. I recently played a game vs a strong opposing team that used less than 4 defensive plays the entire game, with very little if any overuse penalization. So, the overuse "penalty" is not preventing the problem.

Wholeheartedly agree with the majority of this post. I posted in here and the main forum re: making Coaches more 'relevant'

But it also frustrates me when a team running the same handful of plays without any overuse penalty. It makes no sense that a team runs the same play for the umpteenth time that the other team is clueless on how to stop that play. Perhaps there should be some way if a team sees the same defense constantly from the opposing team they will 'audible' another play in

Is this still an issue or has it been addressed?

Thanks

Back when you still played the blitz still worked . Around the time you left the overuse penalties had to be strengthen to a high level. As a lot of the discoveries were alarming. But it was there in the first place Only to make up for other parts of the code that was lacking.

The compromise was to penalize all offensive plays and blitzes only. So when I threw long every time with three plays by the time the second half came the strategy was completely neutralized. Same when when I blitzed one and kept one in deep zone. By far the most overpowered defense then as there was several options to keep play counts down but produce monster stats

Still, the level that blitzing effectiveness was lowered alot and almost forced teams to stop blitzing all together vs the pass. . As one could run 10 different blitzes 4-8 times a game and get at least mixed results. 70% blitz schemes were almost viable but suspect to big plays

Like blitzes ....Offensive plays take the similar penalty which is actually a boost the the other team. Not an actual lowering of the offenders skill but a raising of skill they are facing. Scouting plays and familiarity plays a part in how quickly things are recognized.

Some where in that time select ratings have been made parabolic . Making a higher rating further from a lower rating. Combing these two made play abuse a bit more powerful as one could see effectiveness after 3 calls on a select play. There is indication in the play by play verbage that signifies a possible different outcome which you are almost guaranteed to see after 10 calls of a single play.

All of this has made play selection a chess match of numbers but gained a desired effect of lowering an all blitz , all long pass, all run week side scheme...... almost making them a thing of the past.

Now that history has been laid down let us move on to the new exploits, which is what’s being touched on here by gdad and admiral. (I think)

Having a slight effect on general play effectiveness was that the passing code was almost completely rewritten. This has reads and such changing. Things like QBs don’t run anymore and now there’s almost some plays that out preform others that has made a select few better than others.

Now Pass defense has bump being an example of hand fighting during the route slowing guys a lot muddling reads even more. Another thing that made certain plays better ... well depending on the offense you like but passes deeper and to the outside we’re far a few inbetween .

All this has made it a bit easy to stop the pass with play that are not broken, Missing assignments or and unbalanced level of zone effectiveness compared to man. This had has stats swinging widely even with the play overuse keeping the others areas described earlier in check.

Two real years on this code caused owners to evolve and find new ways to win . A punt block bug was mastered changing out comes and what’s discussed here is a play in the 46 defense where the LDE was unblocked almost every time as long the gap in speed caused by a players weight was large enough.

It’s an Unpenalized call because is from a base defense which comes from only 3 or 4 different coaching styles but guys finished the season with over 8 sacks a game by one player. The offensive calls kept taking penalties but not this base call.

Another thing was The Unpenalized base call and had it doing well is the 43 with the LBs In the zone flats. They really are playing a deep curl which effectively shuts down the passes to the backs in the flats and the slant pattern which kills in this version of the the passing code.

The rewrite of passing algorithms combined with abuse penalties and lack of deep outside production has made base defensive schemes too powerful vs the pass. Which has people wondering where the over use penalties went. They were just never there as 4.3 didn’t have these tweaks to the level they are now.

Run the 46 play to disrupt certain plays and the 43 flats play to disrupt others . In clear passing situations run a play out of quarters to shut them down. Rule in blitzes here and there to stop the run and you have a simple recipe for success.

Jdb acknowledges that the play overuse penalties are temporary so I am looking at future code change to balance things out. Currently beta has tweaks to shut off the punt block and the 46 bug which look promising as those two were the worst of the most recent general release (version 4.5)

I know I'm in the minority with this opinion, but I don't think basic non-blitz defensive plays should be penalized for overuse.

For the IRL enthusiasts: The Seattle Seahawks went to back-to-back Super Bowls while running a Cover 3 every single down; the Patriots put on a clinic on how to beat the Cover 3 with Xs and Os. The Bucs won a Super Bowl running a Tampa 2 every down; eventually, teams figured out how to destroy the scheme (see Chiefs, Herman Edwards tenure).

To use the 46 Heavy as an example, the fix should be the blocking assignments, so the LDE doesn't come untouched every down. The pattern of nerfing plays and implementing draconian penalties is a major drawback to this game.

For one season in mfn19, I implemented a rule to run the 113 counter or Post Flags on first down — initially thinking defenses would have to choose between stopping the run or pass. Instead, I exposed some things that were broken with passing and coverage. This came to be known as the Infinity System. I kept the rule in place all season to bring attention to a problem that needed to be fixed. As IRL, when something works, others rapidly emulate. Something needed to be done.

The preferred solution: Fix passing/coverage problems.

What actually happened: Nerf Post Flags so it doesn't work, force players to drop passes when they get open downfield, and implement overuse penalties.

Tomorrow, like most of the numbered leagues, mfn19 becomes extinct.

I get that overuse is annoying and often not very realistic, and that it can turn players away from the game or derail a league. I just wish the energy put into this complaint was redirected toward things like overhauling the playbooks so there are a variety of functional plays available, and fixing the mechanics of the game.

It appears that JDB is on the right path with the latest beta update.

I accept that some plays should not get play overuse penalties on Defense. All Offensive plays should get 'over-use' calls to show that your team has become predictable. This 'should' happen from familiarity (which looks to be nonsensical right now) and keying on set plays.

So if a team plays a limited book of plays on Offense (10-15 instead of forty) then Defensive Co-ordinators/Head Coaches should be all over which plays to call to kill plays/limit their effectiveness like FL Hitch - in essence, they become predictable, in a game where you need to be unpredictable.

Are the plays that people are limiting themselves too really the only dozen plays that work? If so, why are the other 100+ plays perennially ineffective no matter the personnel. What can be done to make those plays more viable. In my opinion, every play that is in the playbook should have some level of effectiveness, some level of risk/reward otherwise you might just as well run the FL Hitch on every down and distance and Man OLB Flat zone on defense.

Yeah, massive amount of work had to be done for us to unearth the limited plays that work. It's kind of like you're attached to something which gives you a shock through your body every time a bad offensive play/result occurs. So you do everything you can to avoid a repeat result. We went through those early rotation of games in versions 4.3 through 4.5 and with each long pass that resulted in an auto-sack it was like 'ok, I can never run that play again.'

Eventually, you cull through and basically discover only a handful work (lets call it 3-4 in your playbook) - long pass wise and most of them are siphon dump offs to the RB. Therefore, now you rotate through your playbook, sort long passes and stream-line it to possessing that trait. (must have a backfield outlet, all else out) Bam, extremely limited and just 1 example.

Imagine all the long passes that go poof, vanished from your playbook due to it lacking the outlet and/or resulting in an auto-sack such as 2-1-2 TE Out for example....

One of the things that setherick and I are seeing in the DB is that it's really a play vs play issue. X offensive play always works against these three defensive plays, and never works against the rest, for example.

But the underlying problem is that you're really still limited to 15-25 offensive plays that really work against anything, on average. I feel like it should be more like, "take your pick of these 80 plays that all have the potential to be successful with the right personnel."

Thanks for all the replies. Helpful information.

I've decided to give it a try with a new league that has an allocation draft starting next week. That is, if there are enough players for the league to start.

https://football-league-now.myfootballnow.com/

We'll see how it goes.

Since the post that initiated this thread and having been exposed to the upcoming new version I would still recommend that a minimum # of plays be required and/or the full contingent of plays (40/30) be active. It seems to be that simple... same as when the Ai kicks in on roster and salary cap requirements.

What would really be a nice improvement for MFN would be the relation between the players & coaches having an effect on play performance. For example, your head coach favors a Pass Focused Offense, and you've made it a priority that your OC also favors the same, and your Receivers, Backfield, and TE coaches have similar preferences and attribute values. Those coaches attribute values would total up to have an affect on a play's performance, where a passing play would be slightly enhanced based on the coaching influence along with all the other factors, including the defensive coaches influence, play familiarity, field position, etc. Maybe that would be the way to get a higher degree of variety in the play use and calls.

At this point, in order to compete and win vs the usual suspects, myself included, reduced play selection and overuse is a requirement and unfortunately is farther away from RL simulation. I'd like to see the Rules function changed so that certain plays cannot be exclusive, that the Ai coaches are "guided" on the calls. This is supposed to be a football team management game more than a coach calling the plays game, and if the coaches are'nt gettin the job done, just like RL NFL, you get new ones.