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: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By mardn72
6/30/2018 3:20 pm
JDB, did you include the fixes to draft player generation and late roun volatility in this release? That’s the part I was most excited for, but I don’t think I saw it in the notes.

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By raymattison21
6/30/2018 5:29 pm
hchoudhry17 wrote:
I'm just trying to make sure it wasn't just me and that having great defensive linemen isn't as great of a benefit anymore


LBs blitzes got the worst of it. still I think double digits are possible , most of my pressure was from the edge. DT sacks are down as well, but a good (6 games ) run they would get one a game during that time.

Generally line play is more important from both sides , but underachieving high rated players with fall out to RNG a bit to often . The QB code which generates sacks could be tweaked as well, but what would happen if we improved zone. Would sacks go up QB ratings down? Who knows the code is so sensitive .

We were tops last season in sacks and we're competitive to say the least with nfl sack numbers for team leaders numbers. Pressure was generated in a different way and so was alot of passing algorithms for the qb.

So, I am ok with sacks right now, and I would like to see the numbers in different leagues. It's pretty easy to run now so changing that game should increase pass attempts and sacks.

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By Infinity on Trial
6/30/2018 7:06 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
LBs blitzes got the worst of it. still I think double digits are possible , most of my pressure was from the edge. DT sacks are down as well, but a good (6 games ) run they would get one a game during that time.

Generally line play is more important from both sides , but underachieving high rated players with fall out to RNG a bit to often . The QB code which generates sacks could be tweaked as well, but what would happen if we improved zone. Would sacks go up QB ratings down? Who knows the code is so sensitive .

We were tops last season in sacks and we're competitive to say the least with nfl sack numbers for team leaders numbers. Pressure was generated in a different way and so was alot of passing algorithms for the qb.

So, I am ok with sacks right now, and I would like to see the numbers in different leagues. It's pretty easy to run now so changing that game should increase pass attempts and sacks.


This is the wrong forum, but I have a request for 4.4: The ability to hide comments from certain individuals.

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By setherick
7/01/2018 11:24 am
raymattison21 wrote:
hchoudhry17 wrote:
I'm just trying to make sure it wasn't just me and that having great defensive linemen isn't as great of a benefit anymore


LBs blitzes got the worst of it. still I think double digits are possible , most of my pressure was from the edge. DT sacks are down as well, but a good (6 games ) run they would get one a game during that time.


The reason that DT and LB sacks fell is because the OL actually blocks appropriately now. LBs were getting double digit stacks because the LG would disappear on most plays leaving a nice big gap to blitz through. That was the best fix in 0.4.3.

<Insert comment about how people should watch the film more.>
Last edited at 7/01/2018 11:25 am

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
7/02/2018 8:14 am
mardn72 wrote:
JDB, did you include the fixes to draft player generation and late roun volatility in this release? That’s the part I was most excited for, but I don’t think I saw it in the notes.


Yes, those are part of 0.4.3.

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By Beercloud
8/31/2018 9:24 am
i know im late to the party on this type of play in this version, but what all is contributing to the wide open drops? Especially the swing passes.
They dont seem to be random. There seems to be a rhythm to them with all kinds of player types.
I like seeing these wide open drops on occasion, but they seem to be too frequent and almost predictable.
So i was wondering if maybe something else besides attributes and weather had something to do with it.

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By setherick
8/31/2018 2:31 pm
Beercloud wrote:
i know im late to the party on this type of play in this version, but what all is contributing to the wide open drops? Especially the swing passes.
They dont seem to be random. There seems to be a rhythm to them with all kinds of player types.
I like seeing these wide open drops on occasion, but they seem to be too frequent and almost predictable.
So i was wondering if maybe something else besides attributes and weather had something to do with it.


Receivers have been purposefully nerfed until coverage is fixed. True story.

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By Beercloud
9/01/2018 11:24 am
So receivers are nerfed to drop passes a certain number of times per open target?
I guess that makes sense to what I am seeing.

Then I think removing it for the beta test league (only) would be beneficial so we can get a better picture of what were testing and the results that go with it. Nerfs make areas muddy and harder to see. For me anyways. If things have to be nerfed, add them at the very end.

I've brought this up before and maybe its being done behind the scenes, but would having one test league with no injuries and all attributes being the same per position be beneficial?
Seeing how the engine is working per corrections made and identifying problems might be easier.

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
9/01/2018 11:36 am
Beercloud wrote:
So receivers are nerfed to drop passes a certain number of times per open target?
I guess that makes sense to what I am seeing.

Then I think removing it for the beta test league (only) would be beneficial so we can get a better picture of what were testing and the results that go with it. Nerfs make areas muddy and harder to see. For me anyways. If things have to be nerfed, add them at the very end.

I've brought this up before and maybe its being done behind the scenes, but would having one test league with no injuries and all attributes being the same per position be beneficial?
Seeing how the engine is working per corrections made and identifying problems might be easier.


The "nerfing" setherick is referring to is a reduction of catch probability based on the distance downfield. It's actually not touching anything less than 12 yards downfield. Right now if I turn that off you can score 200 points per game by just playing long passes on offense, so it's there to simulate the fact that long passes are huge when they are successful but are infrequently successful. Some of this will probably always stay because there are other reasons that long passes can be harder to catch than short passes that this game will probably never simulate, but I acknowledge that the penalty is higher than it should be.

I actually am able to test play pairs and give all players the same attribute, and actually wouldn't be opposed to doing some of that and making the results available from my testing environment if some of you would like to break down film that way (I'd prefer to give the links via PM rather than in the forums because that environment is not always running and gets reset frequently and I don't want to confuse someone who might casually come across the link in the forums).

Re: Version 0.4.3 Release Candidate Discussion

By setherick
9/01/2018 1:14 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
Beercloud wrote:
So receivers are nerfed to drop passes a certain number of times per open target?
I guess that makes sense to what I am seeing.

Then I think removing it for the beta test league (only) would be beneficial so we can get a better picture of what were testing and the results that go with it. Nerfs make areas muddy and harder to see. For me anyways. If things have to be nerfed, add them at the very end.

I've brought this up before and maybe its being done behind the scenes, but would having one test league with no injuries and all attributes being the same per position be beneficial?
Seeing how the engine is working per corrections made and identifying problems might be easier.


The "nerfing" setherick is referring to is a reduction of catch probability based on the distance downfield. It's actually not touching anything less than 12 yards downfield. Right now if I turn that off you can score 200 points per game by just playing long passes on offense, so it's there to simulate the fact that long passes are huge when they are successful but are infrequently successful. Some of this will probably always stay because there are other reasons that long passes can be harder to catch than short passes that this game will probably never simulate, but I acknowledge that the penalty is higher than it should be.


There are a lot of problems with this:

1) The penalty shouldn't apply to passes < 20 yards since that is the real long ball target distance for NFL QBs. An NFL QB should be able to pinpoint pass any pass < 20 yards while not under pressure.

2) That's not how the penalty is actually applied. It appears to be applied twice for wide open receivers, and not applied at all for covered receivers. Wide open WRs drop - and I'm not exaggerating - 50% of their passes. My 100 catch receivers in DHF went from 80% catch rates to 50-60% catch rates in the transition to 0.4.3.

3) The penalty is still applied for passes <= 12 yards. This is evident by looking at RB swing passes to high catch RBs. 50% of the time they either stop (dive catch) or drop the ball completely. But the < 0 yard distance from LOS could be a separate bug.
Last edited at 9/01/2018 1:15 pm