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 09d60821

By raymattison21
9/16/2020 9:57 am
Infinity on Trial wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/11985#2234301

This was my favorite part of this code. Blitzing at an alarming rate around 70 % of snaps opened doors for this beautiful run. Bad defensive call as the safety was lined up over the wr2 giving a clear sign of double coverage(that would not happen IRL either cause he’d be losing his gap integrity ) and the call was abused.

The reason I like it cause we shut down the running game until later.... then boom big run after big run. Still, the problem is we created zero pressure and sacks blitzing so much . Running you could say they wore us down or whatever but you see the play abuse in effect creating some sort of realism. Passing they just had more catch overs as the game progressed.

Still I would like to see future codes not have the abuse penalties out.


I am extremely disappointed that non-blitz defenses now have an overuse penalty.

My RB1, who had all the right physical skills and never fumbles, couldn't gain more than 2 yards with his 62 ball carry. Then the backup comes in and runs wild with his 100 ball carry.


This had only 4 guys blitzing but was penalized because the LB section says blitz 1. Other plays.... well one I can think of we ran over ten times and it wasn’t penalized. But that one did not have a blitz for the LB even though it’s almost the same play as for who blitzes. No penalties on this play I think.


Play: Man Cover 1
Formation: 3-4 Normal
LB: Zone In

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By Infinity on Trial
9/16/2020 10:01 am
raymattison21 wrote:
Infinity on Trial wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/11985#2234301

This was my favorite part of this code. Blitzing at an alarming rate around 70 % of snaps opened doors for this beautiful run. Bad defensive call as the safety was lined up over the wr2 giving a clear sign of double coverage(that would not happen IRL either cause he’d be losing his gap integrity ) and the call was abused.

The reason I like it cause we shut down the running game until later.... then boom big run after big run. Still, the problem is we created zero pressure and sacks blitzing so much . Running you could say they wore us down or whatever but you see the play abuse in effect creating some sort of realism. Passing they just had more catch overs as the game progressed.

Still I would like to see future codes not have the abuse penalties out.


I am extremely disappointed that non-blitz defenses now have an overuse penalty.

My RB1, who had all the right physical skills and never fumbles, couldn't gain more than 2 yards with his 62 ball carry. Then the backup comes in and runs wild with his 100 ball carry.


This had only 4 guys blitzing but was penalized because the LB section says blitz 1. Other plays.... well one I can think of we ran over ten times and it wasn’t penalized. But that one did not have a blitz for the LB even though it’s almost the same play as for who blitzes. No penalties on this play I think.


Play: Man Cover 1
Formation: 3-4 Normal
LB: Zone In


You were actually using the 3-4 Double WR2. I didn't realize it was the 3-4 version. So it's just a four-man rush, but still penalized because an LB is one of the four. Great.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By TheAdmiral
9/16/2020 6:29 pm
Quick question? Do we have unrealistic expectations of the game? Or rather the players in the game?.

It seems that we want our blockers to block on every down and our rushers to apply pressure/hurries or sacks on every down. We can't have it all. There has to be an allowance for 'bonehead' decision making and players making plays.

Has the changes made to blocking to eradicate the punt block led to DLs and LBs being neutered on every down. It seems there has become a very fine line between overpowered and underpowered.

I think (just my opinion) that we should be focusing on obvious errors and glitches e.g. A player standing still throughout a play. There has to be mistakes made by players otherwise it's just a complicated game of Rock, paper, scissors where play A always beats play B which beats play C which loses to play A.

If a specific play is always too strong (punt block, FL Hitch etc) and nothing seems to neutralize it, then that play should be analysed as to where and when it works and which plays should best defend it and find out why they don't.

Conversely we should also look to highlight plays that just don't work and find out why it doesn't get the anticipated results. Basically, look for the outliers both good and bad and learn from that.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By Infinity on Trial
9/16/2020 6:40 pm
Nobody wants perfection. I want QBs to throw downfield, and complete a reasonable percentage when they do. I also want blitzes to matter and for sacks to be feasible but not overwhelming. I don't think that's asking too much.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By TheAdmiral
9/16/2020 6:41 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
Nobody wants perfection. I want QBs to throw downfield, and complete a reasonable percentage when they do. I also want blitzes to matter and for sacks to be feasible but not overwhelming. I don't think that's asking too much.


Agreed.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By raymattison21
9/16/2020 7:28 pm
“that play should be analysed as to where and when it works and which plays should best defend it and find out why they don't.

Conversely we should also look to highlight plays that just don't work and find out why it doesn't get the anticipated results.”

these two statements are the same to me. The reason they don’t work or are exploited is cause nobody would do that in real football at the rates here. I don’t want to find out what works here based on our code . I want the code to act in the realms of real football.

Nobody will pick up the wrong blitzer almost every time, or throw to a covered receiver every every time , or take a sack almost every time . Especially when the skills are what should differentiate it. Otherwise speed will rule. These plays posted clearly represents that to me and will be ones I either seer towards or away from come a new code release.

It’s not that that guy messed up because of this rating or skill set. It’s cause his assignment within that play is either lacking or broken somewhere in the scenarios of code within the snap to whistle


Ideally you want the assignments correct then you would want the guy to act accordingly. If something is non nfl like then is just rudimentary. I am with infinity here as it not to much ask but maybe too much to code right now.

Suggesting things within the ways the code currently works would be easier to tweak and rewriting complete parts of code requires more of everything as one part could effect another or put it way ahead in terms of completion when compared.

I am ok with punt blocks now but not pressure...no way

And like I said if pressure is upped then passing will be down. Then if If passing is upped then ints could be turned down. I will still trend towards certain plays that have always been broke. That’s why I suggested fixing zones cause tons of holes were tackled at once with a simple fix. Qb scrambles could be looked at .... really any scenario when the play breaks down on both sides of the ball could be looked at .....while the whole time tweaks to the effectiveness of certain ratings could hone the whole thing in.

Changing reads would be great but we just did that in 4.3 or something, but there more throws into tight coverage now. It helped infinity and I s last game drops go through roof. Really guys jumping routes bad would have a great effect on leveling defensive effectiveness. How many off ball knockdowns and ints , while in man , do you see a game? I count like a dozen....so why not play man here ? Maybe cause a lot of nfl teams don’t well at least not every snap.

I think it was the madden bowl a paid contest was won by a guy who ran every time .... drafted no QBs and beat everyone. That’s embarrassing for a game with so much money flowing through it. His handle was like “the joke “or something like that but quite fitting in the end. He just exploited weak parts of the code.

We got to tighten up those weak parts one by one and not overpower other parts in the process. I heard the new madden is taking some flack so I am not worried about that here. Just keeping it balanced.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By setherick
9/17/2020 7:18 am
Infinity on Trial wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
... but I was speaking particularly in th ability to get pressure with 3-4 LBers. 4.5 that was weak and it still had weak now. I saw your LB had two pressures last game but searching the log I could not see them?

I would feel better about this code is pressure was different and ints were down.


I see now.

Yes, the LB pressures are exclusively from the GL Attack plays.

Blitzes were completed "nerfed" and remain "nerfed." In the DB setherick maintains, he recently added pressures by position. As far as we can tell, neither of us has ever recorded a pressure by a LB from the LB position in any base, nickel or dime defense under 4.5.


I can tell you why this is, but everyone will just IGNORE me like two years ago when I FIRST pointed out what the issue is.

The QB's blitz recognition and "pressure clock" is off. They are too sensitive on SHORT and MEDIUM throws and NOT sensitive enough on LONG throws.

On almost every short and medium throw, the QB immediately recognizes the blitz and dumps off to the RB. That's the reason why plays like the 4-3 double LB blitzes work against plays like the HB Flare. It's not because they get close to pressuring the QB -- they don't. It's because the QB immediate recognizes the blitz and dumps it off to the RB when he's still behind the LOS.

This is reversed on Long passes. When the DL (and it's only the DL) breaks contain, the QB panics, pulls the ball down, runs around in circles, and takes a sack.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By TheAdmiral
9/17/2020 9:28 am
raymattison21 wrote:
“that play should be analysed as to where and when it works and which plays should best defend it and find out why they don't.

Conversely we should also look to highlight plays that just don't work and find out why it doesn't get the anticipated results.”

these two statements are the same to me. The reason they don’t work or are exploited is cause nobody would do that in real football at the rates here. I don’t want to find out what works here based on our code . I want the code to act in the realms of real football.

Nobody will pick up the wrong blitzer almost every time, or throw to a covered receiver every every time , or take a sack almost every time . Especially when the skills are what should differentiate it. Otherwise speed will rule. These plays posted clearly represents that to me and will be ones I either seer towards or away from come a new code release.

It’s not that that guy messed up because of this rating or skill set. It’s cause his assignment within that play is either lacking or broken somewhere in the scenarios of code within the snap to whistle


Ideally you want the assignments correct then you would want the guy to act accordingly. If something is non nfl like then is just rudimentary. I am with infinity here as it not to much ask but maybe too much to code right now.

Suggesting things within the ways the code currently works would be easier to tweak and rewriting complete parts of code requires more of everything as one part could effect another or put it way ahead in terms of completion when compared.

I am ok with punt blocks now but not pressure...no way

And like I said if pressure is upped then passing will be down. Then if If passing is upped then ints could be turned down. I will still trend towards certain plays that have always been broke. That’s why I suggested fixing zones cause tons of holes were tackled at once with a simple fix. Qb scrambles could be looked at .... really any scenario when the play breaks down on both sides of the ball could be looked at .....while the whole time tweaks to the effectiveness of certain ratings could hone the whole thing in.

Changing reads would be great but we just did that in 4.3 or something, but there more throws into tight coverage now. It helped infinity and I s last game drops go through roof. Really guys jumping routes bad would have a great effect on leveling defensive effectiveness. How many off ball knockdowns and ints , while in man , do you see a game? I count like a dozen....so why not play man here ? Maybe cause a lot of nfl teams don’t well at least not every snap.

I think it was the madden bowl a paid contest was won by a guy who ran every time .... drafted no QBs and beat everyone. That’s embarrassing for a game with so much money flowing through it. His handle was like “the joke “or something like that but quite fitting in the end. He just exploited weak parts of the code.

We got to tighten up those weak parts one by one and not overpower other parts in the process. I heard the new madden is taking some flack so I am not worried about that here. Just keeping it balanced.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I guess I'm just saying the game will always have 'shifting sand' with tweaks to coding. Similar to the NFL making rule changes to 'nerf' plays - take the onside kick as an example. NFL have made it virtually impossible for the kicking team to recover the ball with rule changes - essentially they've tweaked the code.

(As an aside the Onside kick in MFN needs to be addressed at some point as often the ball does not travel the necessary 10 yards, with no penalties applied) and recoveries seem unnaturally high.

What I'm saying is are we getting too tied down in the minutae of each play when perhaps we should be focusing on what a play is supposed to do and whether it achieves that aim. Also, plays that stick out as being 'broke' because they work too well get the focus but we should also be looking at plays that are 'broke' because they don't work.

If more plays were 'viable' perhaps we'd see more expansive playbooks and play familiarity would be more of a factor (anyone know why if you key on Man OLB Flat Zone every week your team stays at 0% or drops to a negative % for familiarity).

Why are all plays from the 2RB/3TE set at 100% familiarity even if you haven't used a play or even that formation in several seasons?

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By Smirt211
9/17/2020 9:53 am
2 RB/3 TE set.

Think of it as a starting basis/gift. It's a main goal-line set; thus supposed to be a widespread every team uses it function. Therefore, for years (real time!) you're given that as a starting point to build around. 2 RB/3 WR is given some plays at full red bar, too, right?

I think it's cool to give something to operate off of but I do want to say if my memory is correct newer leagues like CJ's No Holds Barred the 2 RB/3 TE set started off @ 0% on all plays.

I may be wrong.


Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By Smirt211
9/17/2020 9:56 am
(anyone know why if you key on Man OLB Flat Zone every week your team stays at 0% or drops to a negative % for familiarity).


It's a desire to make zone defense function-able. Bring it to the forefront. Awhile back blitzing was given that over-use penalty and then endless efforts were poured into giving credibility to zone defensive plays to push that up while pushing blitzing down.

But, yeah, I don't like it. I've been at -75% on that play when someone mashed it at me. It rewarded the mashing with each and every usage of it.