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: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By raymattison21
8/17/2017 6:35 am
Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
Here is a practical case, to better understand how this will affect the game and the players.

What will be the consequences for my 100 spd, 87/99 pass rush LB turned DE, weighting 250 ? He is useless rignht now as a DE (i drafted him to have a great pass rusher).



I know Pray is injured , but play him in 87. This latest adjustment is for players like him. You should see a minor difference in his favor because of it .

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By setherick
8/17/2017 7:02 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
setherick wrote:
Initial impression is to revert this code change. I have a decent-to-great pass blocking OL. I had given up 14 total sacks through 8 games. I gave up 6 in the last game.


I'm looking at the game log, I only see 2 of those sacks have a 'sack allowed' attribution which would be the only sacks that this change would have effected.


This is a good point. The game doesn't count blitzing LBs right now as "sacks allowed." I didn't track the plays in the previous game, but I have noticed that OL don't "stay home" when they block. They always engage even if it's not necessary. So if no one is over the RG, and the RT has the DE locked up, and the C has the DT locked up, the RG will immediately double team either the DE or the DT and leave the SLB free to blitz. Even though in this case, he needed to drop in his stance and hold the line. I'll start making note of these plays when I see them.

As far as I can tell, the only reason the OL gets to a blitzing LB at all is because the LB spacing is still off. Most of the time, the LBs are still lined up directly behind the DL instead of 5-7 yards off the LOS so that they can read and move.
Last edited at 8/17/2017 7:05 am

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
8/17/2017 8:29 am
Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
Here is a practical case, to better understand how this will affect the game and the players.

What will be the consequences for my 100 spd, 87/99 pass rush LB turned DE, weighting 250 ? He is useless rignht now as a DE (i drafted him to have a great pass rusher).



He'll do better than he did previously, but his weight will still pull him down unless he's lined up against a similarly smaller OL.

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By Ragnulf-le-maudit
8/17/2017 11:10 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
Here is a practical case, to better understand how this will affect the game and the players.

What will be the consequences for my 100 spd, 87/99 pass rush LB turned DE, weighting 250 ? He is useless rignht now as a DE (i drafted him to have a great pass rusher).



He'll do better than he did previously, but his weight will still pull him down unless he's lined up against a similarly smaller OL.


Should i expect him to be able to gain some weight, and then be better ? Otherwise i will make him a lb again, where he should do well.

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
8/17/2017 11:28 am
Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
jdavidbakr wrote:
Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
Here is a practical case, to better understand how this will affect the game and the players.

What will be the consequences for my 100 spd, 87/99 pass rush LB turned DE, weighting 250 ? He is useless rignht now as a DE (i drafted him to have a great pass rusher).



He'll do better than he did previously, but his weight will still pull him down unless he's lined up against a similarly smaller OL.


Should i expect him to be able to gain some weight, and then be better ? Otherwise i will make him a lb again, where he should do well.


Your call, he should be able to gain weight to where a DE assignment will take him but I don't know how long it will take with the new 'frame' logic. (You have an advantage that you wouldn't have in future players in that you know his frame is 250, DE's are set to go to 275 which should be within his reach at that frame)

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By Ragnulf-le-maudit
8/18/2017 1:15 am
Is 275 thé most effective weight for DEs ?

If i read correctly, in the future, we won't be able to know the frame of a player?

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By kicker10bog
8/18/2017 8:35 am
My game last night/this morning had 6 "allowed sacks" total. However, the olinemen who allowed them either don't have great technique or are weak, so I think that's ok. Except my TE. He's strong and a good blocker.
Last edited at 8/18/2017 8:36 am

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By raymattison21
8/19/2017 6:53 am
I am not quite understanding the effect of this change, but what I do know is I think it is awesome . The jury is still out as catch overs seem quite random and pressuring the qb is up , but passing is completely different . ......or alot harder.

Line play is more exciting , no doubt , but the return game is completely nerfed. I dont use overides so other might be experiencing different things , but has any one return a kick or punt for a TD?

Fumbles seem through the roof for certain players( lower protect ball) . ...but i like it..

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By setherick
8/19/2017 8:49 am
raymattison21 wrote:
Line play is more exciting , no doubt , but the return game is completely nerfed. I dont use overides so other might be experiencing different things , but has any one return a kick or punt for a TD?


There has been 1 and only 1 PR TD in MFN-1 or 87 this season.

Re: [Code Update] Line play/blocking update, player 'frame'

By raymattison21
8/20/2017 7:39 pm
The weight of players seem to be changing very rapidly . I comparison to the past . Is this intended ?