New Sticky Note

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)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - Suggestion Box

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By Gscorpio
4/24/2024 2:48 pm
While I agree with the attributes needing to matter more other than just speed, I'd like to see the player weights equal to a hundred. Like for each position, allow 100 points to put in whatever attribute you want. If you want to put 80 points on speed you will only have 20 points to distribute to the others. I think this will challenge the owners a little and will make a little more sense to it as you can only put 100 points on any attribute anyway. Just my opinion.

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By Waitwut
4/24/2024 4:11 pm
Gscorpio wrote:
While I agree with the attributes needing to matter more other than just speed, I'd like to see the player weights equal to a hundred. Like for each position, allow 100 points to put in whatever attribute you want. If you want to put 80 points on speed you will only have 20 points to distribute to the others. I think this will challenge the owners a little and will make a little more sense to it as you can only put 100 points on any attribute anyway. Just my opinion.


Idk if that really matters. Weights are arbitrary and you can go about analyzing a player just by visually looking at attributes. I put very little stock into my weights or the default weights hardly even consider them until I’m forced to during trades or signing players.

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By asnboidmx
5/13/2024 6:18 pm
Can we remove keying on defense? Or at least nerf it a bit? I see teams (myself included) who will run 4-3 defense with blitzing and pretty consistently stop passing games because they use the pass key. And it doesn't even have to be the blitz. The 4-3 defense pass key seems capable enough to stop the run as well.

It just seems not logic based for a defense to not be punished when trotting out 2 DBs against 3 or 4 WRs. How can you possibly send the blitz whilst simultaneously play the pass lol. Maybe it's possible to punish that kind of defense but it feels silly for it to be so effective if you're not specifically gameplanning to beat it.

In my opinion, the play should speak for itself. A blitz should be good against the run and high risk high reward against the pass. And a non-blitz should be weak against the run but strong against the pass. You shouldn't be able to tell your team to simultaneously stop the run, pressure the qb, and also everyone else play the pass just in case! If the o-line holds up, it should be an easy 20 yard play.

Also running a defense with fewer DBs than WRs should be easy pickings for an offense. But as currently set up, playing fewer DBs than WRs seems to stuff the run and contain the passing game.
Last edited at 5/13/2024 6:20 pm

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By ColonelFailure
5/13/2024 7:48 pm
asnboidmx wrote:
Can we remove keying on defense?


I don't think it needs to be removed so much as being punished for incorrect keying (and maybe beefing up the run key a little - particularly against the 113/203). If you're pass keying you should be near guaranteed to give up higher-than-normal yards against the run.

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By Waitwut
5/14/2024 5:15 am
Without knowing what plays you’re running it is hard to say what really wrong here. Is base defense broken or are the offensive plays you’re trying to run broken.? Very very common to have useless offensive and defensive plays in this game. Most owners are probably using about a 20% or less subset of plays because they are the ones that work.

There is a lot of info about the effective plays in forums where they have been tested and proven at this point over many many trials. JDB need to not look far to find room for improvement, but needs to look first. I’m sure this is on the priority list.

Revised for constructive language
Last edited at 5/14/2024 1:51 pm

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By asnboidmx
5/14/2024 7:45 pm
The reason why I brought up removing keying is cause there was a blowout between two top teams in the league I'm in and I was curious to see what happened. The team that won mostly ran 4-3/3-4 defense against 2/3/4 WRs with a lot of success. It just doesn't feel realistic for a team to run one type of defense all game without being punished. There obviously could be more to it. Maybe their team is just that good.

But yeah, I think there needs to be a better balance between reward and punishment when lining up fewer CBs than WRs. Whether that is adjusting/removing keying or making all plays relevant against the expected scenario (3 CBs vs 2 WRs strong against pass/weak against run, 2 CBs vs 3WRs strong against run/weak against pass, etc)
Last edited at 5/15/2024 2:42 am

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By Cjfred68
5/14/2024 8:29 pm
Just about every play has 4 DBs except Goalline and FS is probably the most important cover DB in MFN when playing elite GMs because he mostly covers the TE which is almost always a WR with elite owners.

On plays where the LB is covering a top 3 WR then a CB is overided into that position.

The real problem with game plans is that there are only 12-15 offensive plays that work consistently and maybe 10 or fewer defensive plays worth a darn.

JDB needs to fix broken plays to really open up the game and he should start with long passing which is completely useless at the moment

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By martinwarnett
7/03/2024 5:00 am
Cjfred68 wrote:
Just about every play has 4 DBs except Goalline and FS is probably the most important cover DB in MFN when playing elite GMs because he mostly covers the TE which is almost always a WR with elite owners.


The benefits of playing a WR at TE are fairly well known, I don't think you need to be an "elite" owner to know and use it, just someone prepared to game the engine.

Whilst that clearly needs addressing, there are temp fixes that could be applied - namely making OOP penalties a lot stricter for those OOP where the gaming of speed is/has been a problem (WR->TE, CB->DE). Increase risk of injury. Things to disincentivise people from doing it to the point it gets eradicated - even prevent such depth charts / overrides.

On plays where the LB is covering a top 3 WR then a CB is overided into that position.[/quote]

Addressing the ability to play a WR as TE negates this - a lighter CB against a TE generally may not end well.

[quote]The real problem with game plans is that there are only 12-15 offensive plays that work consistently and maybe 10 or fewer defensive plays worth a darn.

JDB needs to fix broken plays to really open up the game and he should start with long passing which is completely useless at the moment


Agree, but I suspect the long passing issue is a result of a number of factors rather than a single thing that can be solved instantly. After all, long passing depends on passrush / o line blocking, QB ability to scan the field, WR ability to separate. If the QB hasn't the time to hold onto the ball for the play to develop... so imo it's not just a case of attempting a long ball that need fixing, but a number of areas giving the QB time.
Last edited at 7/03/2024 5:01 am

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By Waitwut
7/03/2024 6:20 am
Great idea Martin. We haven’t heard penalizing thrown out already 20 times.

Issue is, that doesnt fix the issue. So let’s say you do penalize for running a player out of position, but the game doesn’t get fixed and you’re forced to put a tight in tight end. Now you’ve just caused passing on short and medium range to decrease the catch percentage because The tight end is slower and more likely to be covered. Or, you begin to avoid calling plays with TE as a primary target, meaning less plays to an already depleted choice of plays.


So to confirm your fix is to further break rather than just fix the issues at their core? Let alone the game allows you to do this. JDB could easily make it not possible but hasn’t.
Last edited at 7/03/2024 6:27 am

Re: Game Engine Brainstorming Thread

By Pernbronze
7/03/2024 3:56 pm
Waitwut wrote:
Great idea Martin. We haven’t heard penalizing thrown out already 20 times.

Issue is, that doesnt fix the issue. So let’s say you do penalize for running a player out of position, but the game doesn’t get fixed and you’re forced to put a tight in tight end. Now you’ve just caused passing on short and medium range to decrease the catch percentage because The tight end is slower and more likely to be covered. Or, you begin to avoid calling plays with TE as a primary target, meaning less plays to an already depleted choice of plays.


So to confirm your fix is to further break rather than just fix the issues at their core? Let alone the game allows you to do this. JDB could easily make it not possible but hasn’t.


In other words you just can't handle having less exploits and the game being more balanced. Penalizing oop does fix one of the games biggest core issues which is exactly why you are railing against it being fixed, because your game planning revolves around exploits.