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: Beta update release

By mardn72
3/10/2018 9:44 pm
setherick wrote:
setherick wrote:
I wouldn't push this into beta yet. There are some definite red flags. I'll write up some notes and send them to you later on tonight.


I've already been talking to JDB about this. Now that I'm digging through film, this change looks really solid. Slow DBs are viable against faster WR in longer routes, but SP definitely still makes a difference in the open field. If the WR can break hard after a catch, an 85 SP WR will easily outrun a 65 SP WR, which is what we'd expect. However, a 50 SP, 100 M2M WR will stay closer to an 75-85 SP WR down the field and can make a tackle preventing a lot of those 50+ yard TDs that we see so frequently in the beta leagues. This should be an interesting change to test.


Nice! That's exciting news. I'm really looking forward to this release in the general leagues once we get these last kinks irons out. Thanks JDB and Setherick for your continued hard work on this.

Re: Beta update release

By raymattison21
3/11/2018 9:41 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
I'm pushing today an update to man-to-man, setherick I'm taking your suggestion to have the M2M impact the speed of the WR. I haven't watch a ton of film with this change but the little I have looks better, I am a little concerned though because the completion percentages are low on the testing site (best is < 70%). Curious to see how it looks in a league with real gameplanning. The AI may be throwing too many long passes, or the QB logic may be making a poor decision more frequently than he should.



Based off some results discussed later in this thread by you and seth. I was wondering if a similar application could be an adjustment to the slow guys who use zone coverage as well?

Re: Beta update release

By setherick
3/11/2018 10:18 am
I don't think the same adjustment for zone defense makes logical sense. Slow DBs are actually effective in a zone until the WR gets behind them and then they become a liability since they aren't going to chase anyone down.

Slow DBs were a liability in M2M all the time even though they were supposed to be engaging with the WR. Good DBs are going to use every technique they have in M2M to make sure that the WR cannot get up to full speed, which is probably why there are so many different ways you can get DPI calls now in the NFL but OPI is usually ignored. The reason that I suggested using M2M as a modifier was to mimic the hand fighting, playing off the hip, and angling that good cover CBs employ each play. Faster WRs still speed away from slower DBs in the open field with the code update.

I think the problem with Zone coverage right now is that DB reaction time and reading the plays are not that good.

Of course, as Infinity likes to point out all the time, there would be less of a need of adjustments like this (even though I think it makes perfectly logical sense in terms of the way the game is played) if player generation was more standardized. So no more sub-60 SP DBs, etc. Or if SP ratings were better normalized.

Re: Beta update release

By raymattison21
3/11/2018 11:06 am
setherick wrote:
I don't think the same adjustment for zone defense makes logical sense. Slow DBs are actually effective in a zone until the WR gets behind them and then they become a liability since they aren't going to chase anyone down.

Slow DBs were a liability in M2M all the time even though they were supposed to be engaging with the WR. Good DBs are going to use every technique they have in M2M to make sure that the WR cannot get up to full speed, which is probably why there are so many different ways you can get DPI calls now in the NFL but OPI is usually ignored. The reason that I suggested using M2M as a modifier was to mimic the hand fighting, playing off the hip, and angling that good cover CBs employ each play. Faster WRs still speed away from slower DBs in the open field with the code update.

I think the problem with Zone coverage right now is that DB reaction time and reading the plays are not that good.

Of course, as Infinity likes to point out all the time, there would be less of a need of adjustments like this (even though I think it makes perfectly logical sense in terms of the way the game is played) if player generation was more standardized. So no more sub-60 SP DBs, etc. Or if SP ratings were better normalized.


I would think nobody below 50 speed and all DBS(sub 230) over 80. But I could go on about speed to weight to time ratios.

One could twist the words to align some explanation of why a good cover guy would slow down a fast reciever. (Who's a poor route runner ) figured that would be the explanation . ....it works to some extent in word form.

I understand coverage to mean you get there quicker cause the wr is rounding off routes/cuts...taking more time to cover the same distance to where the ball is being placed . Plain and simple. All of that matters but not on a fly pattern .

So to me it doesn't make logical sense . ......but it fits our system and if it works I accept it. I see fast safeties playing over the top could be the huge benefit of this change .

I was just thinking in terms of zone .....why not allow allow bit more time for defenders to get into position vs. Fast/ poor route runners? That is being done for manto man. In other words of course. You could just say they are making better reads?

As for zone reaction time and reads could be to blame but I think positioning aND anticipation is more to blame . Probably one in the same, but zone is pretty bad at times.

I might be missing some understanding of this change , but I want it to look good in the game veiwer . ...those dropped passes look real bad...especially when there is a catch over right after .

Other wise nice work! I can't wait to see what you guys come up with . ..only to break it..jk!





Re: Beta update release

By setherick
3/11/2018 11:41 am
I disagree with this statement:

I understand coverage to mean you get there quicker cause the wr is rounding off routes/cuts...taking more time to cover the same distance to where the ball is being placed . Plain and simple. All of that matters but not on a fly pattern .


I see coverage as a combination of techniques - cushion, slide, mirror, punch, jam, hand fighting, playing off the hip, angling the receiver inside/outside, and reads. Most of which don't actually require the defensive back to be all that fast - otherwise everyone would have started drafting WRs like Al Davis did. There is a reason why someone like Tim Brown succeeded whereas Darrius Heyward-Bey did not. Brown developed into a fluid route runner and could beat a lot of the jams.

The problem in MFN right now is that all CBs on deep routes open the gate and let speedier WRs run right past them. They don't cushion correctly, until 0.4.3 they were not jamming correctly, they don't slide or mirror off the line to angle the WR inside or outside of the play. This turns most medium and long routes into foot races, which means that all the Al Davis owners out there with the 95 SP WRs with little technique are successful most of the time.

Re: Beta update release

By Ragnulf-le-maudit
3/12/2018 5:18 am
After a quick look today, the game looked really good. There were little deep passes on both side, but when it happen, it did look good. My opponent have some grat cornerbacks anyway. Two INTs apiece, which is reasonable because our teams are good, and my INTs came on a play by an underneath defender in the passing lane, and on a lobbed pass under pressure amid a crowd of defenders.

Re: Beta update release

By setherick
3/12/2018 6:23 am
Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
After a quick look today, the game looked really good. There were little deep passes on both side, but when it happen, it did look good. My opponent have some grat cornerbacks anyway. Two INTs apiece, which is reasonable because our teams are good, and my INTs came on a play by an underneath defender in the passing lane, and on a lobbed pass under pressure amid a crowd of defenders.


INTs are still way too high and make no logical sense. My opponent had 5 total DBs and most of them were pretty bad, so I ran a game plan that would keep them on the field most of the game and wear them down. The result? I threw 6 interceptions? https://beta87.myfootballnow.com/box/1470

Re: Beta update release

By raymattison21
3/12/2018 9:00 am
setherick wrote:
Ragnulf-le-maudit wrote:
After a quick look today, the game looked really good. There were little deep passes on both side, but when it happen, it did look good. My opponent have some grat cornerbacks anyway. Two INTs apiece, which is reasonable because our teams are good, and my INTs came on a play by an underneath defender in the passing lane, and on a lobbed pass under pressure amid a crowd of defenders.


INTs are still way too high and make no logical sense. My opponent had 5 total DBs and most of them were pretty bad, so I ran a game plan that would keep them on the field most of the game and wear them down. The result? I threw 6 interceptions? https://beta87.myfootballnow.com/box/1470


I think I threw one int on deep passes while my opponent threw 6 or 7 on mostly short passes. He was 100 s across the board and my qb just had accuracy .

Re: Beta update release

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
3/12/2018 11:55 am
Pushing a beta update today to turn down INTs and turn up completions. Also including some more play-by-play feedback if a pass is incomplete because it was poorly thrown as opposed to just a bad catch attempt.

Re: Beta update release

By Ragnulf-le-maudit
3/12/2018 1:04 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
Pushing a beta update today to turn down INTs and turn up completions. Also including some more play-by-play feedback if a pass is incomplete because it was poorly thrown as opposed to just a bad catch attempt.


Of course, my qb has thrown 14 INTs in 5 games, which is bad, but my comp % is up compared to last season from 63,6 to 65% ( It's not great, but it's not bad. I run mostly a short passing attack. ). There are 11 QB over 60% in beta87. Last year in the NFL, 26QBs with at least 200 attps had a completion% over 60 (of course some teams had multiple qbs). But a lot of team in beta are playing a long passing attack, which is not the case in the NFL.