4-3 doesn't need an additional penalty, those DLs are nerfed.

Last game was a good one for measures of play abuse. Detroit picked one pass and one run on offense and one defensive play.

They hung around for a quarter of play and then got blownout. In general they were slower than us and once the penalties kicked in the running game exploded.

Both offensive plays used by Detroit were good ones. Flanker hitch and hb counter. The big difference I had noticed is how effective the pass pplay was in comparison to the run play . None was over effective but the pass play was sneaking some in there in the third....where the run play was nullified by the start second.

Not that any of this is good or bad , but my run game seemed to just explode and get better as the abuse went up. Where passing was not so pronounced . The defense play was a straight man with a wlb blitz .

This play should be vulnerable to the deep pass but that wasn't noticed heavily . Our longest pass was to the backup fb for 43 yards while we had 3 runs for longer distances.

The only reason I am noting all this right now, during zone tweaks, is the chess match involved during play selection and how powerfull things become with play counts over 5. Our highest count for an individual play was 6 then one with 4.

So our guys were using maximum ratings while Detroit must have had little to none left by the end of the game. There qb was useless by the 4th .

Like I said good or bad doesn't matter, but loosening those penalties are higher on my list of late only because the game gets so squewed. Run blocks are so effective in comparison to let's say that slant pattern , and the accuracy of the qb quickly becomes useless while I expected more broken tackles.

Cause for 4.4 , 4.5 and 4.6 I don't value tackling ability or run blocking and I really value accuracy and that slant pattern with some speed. These parts aren't balanced and the abuse penalties amplify it.

Tightening up those areas along with some others would definitely call for a lowering of the play abuse penalties but I think right now is a good chance to bump it down some in retaliation to some of the parabolic changes .

I like that the qb threw 5 ints but I think the wr could have made a few more grabs . Same for that defense play . We passed 35 times for 350 yards and ran for almost the same exact numbers . It was a base defense set with 4 line men 3 lbs and 4 dbs. That should do better vs. The run....not lining up lbers to cover WR's in a 5 wide set and it seemed to work better .

I really wonder if they would have won without the penalties . Idk

Here are the problems that I see:

1) Too many knockdowns.
Why) Coverage is really improved, which means that players are staying closer to the man they were covering. The problem here is that technical coverage skills should be modifying a player's game SP, but they aren't. Play is still too dependent on SP vs SP, so players stay close and knockdowns were always based on proximity and not player skill.

2) Too many incompletions and not enough sacks.
Why) QBs are not holding the ball long enough and going through their reads effectively. They are throwing into double coverage too quickly instead of dumping off. And they are throwing immediately instead of letting receivers get into their routes. This is probably do to how hook and curl passes were fixed. On a hook route, the QB should the throw before the man turns. On every other route, the player needs to get into the route before the QB throws.

3) DL nerfs need to end.
Why) I've seen multiple plays where the DL gets to the QB before the QB throws and just stands there. QBs need to throw the ball away, dump off, or run.

4) No throwaways (still). No QB running (still).

---

1) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876072
a) QB doesn't hold the ball long enough for the TE to run the route. Should dump off the RB.

2) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876076
2i) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876079
2iii) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876113
2iv) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876114
a) QB throws the ball immediately. Doesn't let the WR get into his route.

3) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876077
3i) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876081
a) How is this not a sack?

4) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876107
a) Throws into double coverage even though literally everyone else is single covered. Doesn't let any other receivers run a route. Either need to dump off or run.

5) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876108
a) What is this?

6) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876110
a) Should throw to the RB.

7) https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10283#1876111
a) Really terrible zone coverage here.

Also, I'm pretty sure the catching logic is still inverted. Low catch guys rarely "drop" a pass even if they don't catch everyone thrown their way. High catch guys drop a lot of WIDE OPEN passes still. Why is that nerf still around?

“By setherick
9/07/2019 1:01 pm
Here are the problems that I see:

1) Too many knockdowns.
Why) Coverage is really improved, which means that players are staying closer to the man they were covering. The problem here is that technical coverage skills should be modifying a player's game SP, but they aren't. Play is still too dependent on SP vs SP, so players stay close and knockdowns were always based on proximity and not player skill”


the speed vs speed thing does seem the most off . Bump clearly slows recievers down, but if that’s not active the only thing that plays a part is route and if a defender misses there they are playing catch up. Tightening Zone has helped but if they miss they are way out of position as well

The worst is slower guys leave windows for either deep passes for the defense or the offense lets up too many ints. A lot of my ints of recent are throws to my slower players . Like my TEs. I would like to think better reads would help this or better pocket presence (scrambling /intelligence) could find a more viable option in some senerios. I don’t mind the tight windows so much but it has escalated knock downs , drops and ints

Could we reverse or switch the parabolic effect to make a 100 speed player closer to a zero speed player? If I am understanding it correctly that would devalue speed or at least thats what I thought it was installed for in the first place.

Now wrs can play dB and they pick off a lot of passes cause they have speed, intelligence, and pass catching but no cover skill if they are a Nickel or dime defenders facing lower rated wrs . Really cover skill or any technical skill has to matter in other areas. Or speed will always be king. And that not bad but it definitely has shrunk the windows of success

What about not parabolizing speed but parabolizing techinical skills and lowering the effectiveness of those cause catch ,route ,ball carry , fumbling, and tackling matter but they seem unbalanced . We never have relevant elite nfl numbers in those categories.

Still, all this feels like it for another release. Some users don’t take to big changes

Speed actually is linear, it is not parabolic. I've only been migrating attributes to parabolic that are position-specific so that players who are not in a natural position don't have reasonable skills even though they are less than 30 or 40. Most attributes are still linear, including all purely physical attributes.

Thanks! that was one of the biggest questions I had with this change . That's how I see it play out in games, but I had never found any correct verification anywhere from anyone .

But not to beat a dead horse smirts got a wr playing both sides of the ball. Hes listed at cb5 and he's got 6 picks in 8 games. Its Version 4.5 right out of an allocation but that seems ridiculous considering this info.

At least it ties in to the idea that reads are off, passes are forced and speed is overrated . Or at least it feels too sensitive In general . On a side note...I just drafted speed in the same league and our qb with only arm and 70 accuracy has taken only 2 sacks in half a season . Our Oline is pretty junkie as well, but I tried to keep pass block over 80 , but some how we run pretty well too

This contradicts something that you said about 8 months ago (I don't remember if it was PM or thread). If Speed is linear, then why are we not seeing the big jumps in difference between 75 and 90 that we used to see?

Also this seems reversed from actual logic. Shouldn't positional attributes be linear so that the distance formula causes them to have a greater impact from 100 and non-physical attributes be parabolic so that the difference from 100 was close to the attribute difference from 100?

That is, unless, we're mixing parabolic and exponential again.

The other problem with knockdowns has, and continues to be, ball placement: https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/10297#1878790

On the linked play, that pass should be well out in front of the TE who has a step on the defender. That way the TE can reach out and catch it, thus, using his size, catch, and route to his advantage over the smaller, slower defender.

Terrible zone read on the next play. The defender comes up way too far.