New Sticky Note

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 - Beta Chat

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By raymattison21
11/10/2020 8:30 am
TheAdmiral wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
FOV is the degree of angle the QBs uses when targeting receivers. It takes in to account the way the qb is facing at the moment. Its only used in passing situations. Intelligence/ experience “finds the hole” but i like to use carry in tandem with to simulate the rb having “good vision “


But there is no reason why field of vision should not be incorporated for all positions. I see it being very important for MLB's, Safeties, Slot receivers, Tight Ends, Full Backs and Running Backs.


I think it’s just more speed vs speed. In mulls case the play is like a counter...the LBer and safety follow the FB to the other side...they bite and leave that gap open but the cb on a blitz b lines to the ball carrier. Mulls assignment is to run off tackle and he does but it looks as though the cb would not allow for anything.

Sure he could have cut it up for a yard or two but the defense gave up that initial gap integrity with man assignments anyway . Say there is not a blitz and the LT blocked well it would have been a nice gain.

There’s like a centralized dot guys correlate to but alot of times it seem guys pass through one another in the blocking running game. They get real skinny and slip through...whether it be a ball carrier or blitzer.....and sometimes they don’t.

Not much “juking” or “cut backs” in general ....just guys taking the shortest distance to a predetermined spot. That last part has been adjusted in the past but perhaps it’s more related to the tackle angles the defender take. As that part has changed to counter the power of outside runs combined with a really fast back. lbers and dBs run parallel to contain backs if not assigned to a blitz.

That stuff is all pretty much the same for all no matter the ratings but non static ones and alignments/ assignments is what’s going to help you win the battle.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By raymattison21
11/10/2020 1:41 pm
setherick wrote:
The other problem with yards per attempt is that all of the routes are still too shallow. This has been a problem forever, but it's becoming more apparent now that other things are improving.

Basically every set route needs to be extended 2-3 yards. The drag routes, for instance, hug the LOS when they should be 3-4 yards deep. The 2-3 yard hitch routes would be OK if they were automatic, but they are not hitches. Instead, they are short hooks, which means they should end 4-5 yards deep. The hook routes end up being 5 yards deep when they should end up being 6-8 yards deep.

On the hitch and hook routes, the WR needs to spin and sit because the ball should be in the air before they spin. On the hook route the WR needs to come back fast and sit. Right now, on both types of plays, the WR continues running after he spins.

QBs also do not anticipate their routes and put the ball in the air before the receiver is in position (enough). Like Admiral said above, this is most noticeable on long passes where a QB needs to put the ball in the air when the receiver is 10-20 yards from where he's going to catch it.



This would help ypa but even more so facing man coverage. Pushing this code out quickly as a patch to the 4.5s huge flaws seems hard cause of the ability to stretch the feild right now. Man is overpowered compared to zone and some of these timing route changes might be better reserved for 4.7 with other changes that were shelved.

I am not against a lot of long passes being useless. There’s plenty of shorter passes to choose from. . Some seem to work (the ones without TEs) but in general , like any code after 4.3, there are not enough passes to the wrs. Nfl numbers have 10 rbs/FB/TEs are n the top 50 for targets . We got double that.....

The key right now is changing pass blocking to give more time to throw or change how tight coverage is. My QBs just throw it to a triple covered TE way too often. Force it deep to a wr or give him more time to find one. Just stop throwing to the 3rd and 4th options so often. That code will get better feed back.

Play a man under and hope the qb doesn’t run. Sprinkle in some key blitzes to limit the over powered running game and keep turnovers low with play calling. The only reason I don’t find this code “fun “ is the lack that we of ability to stretch the field. Well without yards after the catch ..especially to the backs out of the backfield

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By Infinity on Trial
11/10/2020 2:20 pm
I haven't been vocal here lately because the passing problems appear to be well established. Just want to point that I'm rushing for 280 yards per game at about 7 yards per carry. I'm almost tempted to try to run the ball even more to see how extreme this can get. I could see how this code would allow someone to dominate even well-established leagues by stocking up on OL and RB and simply running every down.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By TheAdmiral
11/10/2020 5:17 pm
Victory has got to the end of season 2 regular season. Here's a spreadsheet with stats from the season, might be of interest so you can see where the game has changed.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/143k_CaYKVA0I356GFK3_JXPd7m2ZdZdPQnI_anlXRtE/edit?usp=sharing

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By setherick
11/10/2020 7:18 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
I haven't been vocal here lately because the passing problems appear to be well established. Just want to point that I'm rushing for 280 yards per game at about 7 yards per carry. I'm almost tempted to try to run the ball even more to see how extreme this can get. I could see how this code would allow someone to dominate even well-established leagues by stocking up on OL and RB and simply running every down.


I'm concerned about this as well. I'm also concerned about defense.

Ignore the first 5 games of my season. I wasn't active for the first 3, and I didn't switch playbooks or import rules until game 5.

Games 6-10, however, oh boy. My off the streets defense is giving up 3.6 PPG and 115.2 YPG. I don't know what would happen if I had good players.

This is where I point out that I'm running the same auto-pilot defense that I put in when I'm going to be unavailable for long stretches of time.
Last edited at 11/10/2020 7:19 pm

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By Infinity on Trial
11/10/2020 7:51 pm
Yeah, Green Bay aside, my defense has shut teams down even though I haven't even put in rules or paid attention to the gameplan settings.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By TheAdmiral
11/10/2020 8:15 pm
It's the nature of MFN-1, there are a lot of team's that are very old and very slow. There's several reasons why, for instance I use MFN-1 to test and evaluate, I'm not concerned with win/loss in this league.

A lot of owners are 'tourists' and pass through quite quickly, never staying long enough to build a competitive team. Others sign in infrequently, long standing owners get attached to players and hold on to them too long so they become ineffective.

Personally, I think MFN-1 should be invite only, or applications on request. Looking primarily for people interested in developing the game, with feedback a pre-requisite requirement.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By setherick
11/10/2020 8:19 pm
I think this speaks more to how offense vs defense is still too much of play vs play and not player vs player. If I can take a player with slow defensive players, and consistently shut teams down, in MFN-1 by knowing which plays work well against which sets in general. Then what's going to happen when I have a full roster of fast, talented players, especially on the DL?

To be clear, there are a number of us that know how to game plan the plays vs set defensive planning strategy.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By Infinity on Trial
11/10/2020 8:22 pm
Just want to clarify it's not the W-L record we're concerned about. It's the imbalance between offense and defense. Tarq isn't exactly a newbie, and I beat him 59-0. Ray and I played to a 16-6 finish.

I remain hopeful that JDB will find some solutions to the passing game and make this a moot point.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac

By TheAdmiral
11/15/2020 12:23 pm
First 4 weeks stats from Franchise Football - Roster Only League, currently using BETA.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ieB3IAIbxNSagij9DM8jTmhH1y7EE6cxumCwxeOV7co/edit?usp=sharing

Only 1, 300 Yard passing game this season. Getting Coaches to throw the ball in RO Leagues is tough, getting them to throw in RO when sacks are high and ypa are low is almost impossible.

Year 4 Average points per game: 14.375 per team, High 35.75 ppg, Low 4.75 ppg
Year 3 Average points per game: 12.17, 19.69, 5.13
Year 2 Average points per game: 12.96, 21.625, 7.125
Year 1 Average points per game: 11.54, 23.56, 5.88

Y4 PPG skewed a little by one team playing without a QB for 2 weeks!

Year 4 Average passing yards per game: 136.25 yards, High 211.8, Low 69.8
Year 3 Average passing yards per game: 158.9, 240.8, 100.9
Year 2 Average passing yards per game: 165.69, 235.5, 105.9
Year 1 Average passing yards per game: 168.35, 247.6, 101.2

Passing yards significantly down

Year 4 Average yards per attempt: 5.16 yards, High 7.4, Low 2.7
Year 3 Average yards per attempt: 5.32, 7.1, 2.9
Year 2 Average yards per attempt: 5.68, 8.0, 4.2
Year 1 Average yards per attempt: 5.68, 7.9, 3.7

YPA also down but not so much, suggests that either less passing attempts made or less completions

Year 4 Average rushing yards per game: 125.34 yards, High 228, Low 43.8
Year 3 Average rushing yards per game: 86.54, 138.4, 51.6
Year 2 Average rushing yards per game: 97.05, 160.4, 42.9
Year 1 Average rushing yards per game: 81.99, 131.8, 33.2

A big rise in rushing yards

Year 4 Average yards per rush: 4.14 yards, High 6.1, Low 2.5
Year 3 Average yards per rush: 2.9, 3.7, 2.6
Year 2 Average yards per rush: 3.31, 4.5, 2.5
Year 1 Average yards per rush: 2.83, 4.2, 1.6

A big rise in yards per rush.