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 - Community Help Forum

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/28/2016 6:57 am
Reeve and lane?

Maybe the default skills weighting that he had left wasn't correct?
Which were the skills that he'd given too much emphasis to and not to?
Last edited at 10/28/2016 7:02 am

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 7:22 am
jhartshorn wrote:
Reeve and lane?

Maybe the default skills weighting that he had left wasn't correct?
Which were the skills that he'd given too much emphasis to and not to?


Reece and Lane, Lane is worse in every attribute save 2.... scrambling and speed.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By setherick
10/28/2016 7:39 am
jhartshorn wrote:
Reeve and lane?

Maybe the default skills weighting that he had left wasn't correct?
Which were the skills that he'd given too much emphasis to and not to?


The default weights are generally terrible. 30 SP RB with 100 carry and 100 avoid fumble. He's an 80 by the default weights. Will never gain more than 1 yard per carry, but he's an 80 overall.

100 SP RB with 40 carry and 40 avoid. He's a 55 by the default weights. He'll average 5-7 yards per carry in the right system, but he's 25 points worse than the 30 SP RB.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
10/28/2016 8:29 am
Infinity on Trial wrote:
JDB, so much of the discussion lately has focused on users trying to better understand the code so we can figure how why the passing game is so infuriating. I'm more interested in your assessment: When you look at the film and overall results, what do you identify as the chief causes of poor passing results?

I have no idea what's wrong. I just know the low and inconsistent completion percentages severely undermine an otherwise fantastic game. And we don't seem to be getting anywhere by trying to drill down into QB decisions, accuracy mechanics or pass rush. Clearly, we're not going to fix this by realizing we undervalued arm strength or scrambling or FOV or any combination of individual ratings.


Part of the culprit is the nature of the pendilum swing as we go from having one aspect of the game being too strong, then the opposition is strengthened, then it turns out to be too strong, so the other side is strengthened ... somewhat of an unfortunate side-effect of having the game in a 0.X release state. As the game matures I'm hoping those pendilum swings will become less and less.

WarEagle wrote:
jhartshorn wrote:
I'll leave this kinda thing for you guys. For me I just wanted some simple indication of linking play types to likely receivers: something u guys probably knew when you were 6yo!


Yes. Anyone who has grown up watching football knows who the intended #1 target should be on any given passing play, but that knowledge doesn't translate to MFN.

Here, I have no idea who is going to get the ball. Most likely the ref after a sack.


I've thought about making the receiver progression static, but the problem I have with that is that it becomes too predictable. I do realize that in the NFL each play has a pre-determined progression, and often they will run the same or similar plays with a different progression to keep the defense guessing. I'd like to give you more control - i.e. set the receiver progression based on the defensive alignment, for example - but I'm wanting to make sure it doesn't become too overwhelming to you as the game planner. The compromise at this time is to have the weight system and let it be somewhat random, favoring instead making sure that your #1 WR gets more targets than your TE (for those who were around in the first several iterations of the game engine you may recall every team's leading receiver being the TE, I really don't want to go back to that). Some of the decisions I've made also have to do with making sure you don't have to make playing MFN a full-time job to feel like you've got the ability to field a competitive team.

Plenty of room to make the passing game better - trust me, I am not satisfied at all with the way it currently is.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By raymattison21
10/28/2016 8:54 am
setherick wrote:
jhartshorn wrote:
Reeve and lane?

Maybe the default skills weighting that he had left wasn't correct?
Which were the skills that he'd given too much emphasis to and not to?


The default weights are generally terrible. 30 SP RB with 100 carry and 100 avoid fumble. He's an 80 by the default weights. Will never gain more than 1 yard per carry, but he's an 80 overall.

100 SP RB with 40 carry and 40 avoid. He's a 55 by the default weights. He'll average 5-7 yards per carry in the right system, but he's 25 points worse than the 30 SP RB.




The more interesting part is how well the traded QB Reece is reflecting his ratings over in Buffalo. Magically he became an elite QB overnight. Undefeated with a 65 completion rate and a 108 passer rating. Wow!

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By WarEagle
10/28/2016 9:16 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
I'd like to give you more control...but I'm wanting to make sure it doesn't become too overwhelming to you as the game planner. The compromise at this time is to have the weight system...


Have you considered making the progression weights configurable by play type (short, med, long)?
Although it would be less than setting the progression for each play, it might be a good start.

Example:
For each passing play type (short, med, long) you could set the following weights (similar to how we setup the personnel gameplan option):

Progression Priority
Short Pass Plays:
WR1 - 10%
WR2 - 5%
WR3 - 5%
WR4 - 20%
WR5 - 10%
ShortRoute - 45% (any short route)
MedRoute - 5% (any med route)
LongRoute - 0% (any long route)

Med Pass Plays:
WR1 - 20%
WR2 - 10%
WR3 - 5%
WR4 - 5%
WR5 - 5%
ShortRoute - 5%
MedRoute - 45%
LongRoute - 5%

Long Pass Plays:
WR1 - 40%
WR2 - 20%
WR3 - 0%
WR4 - 0%
WR5 - 0%
ShortRoute - 0%
MedRoute - 0%
LongRoute - 40%

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 9:21 am
raymattison21 wrote:
setherick wrote:
jhartshorn wrote:
Reeve and lane?

Maybe the default skills weighting that he had left wasn't correct?
Which were the skills that he'd given too much emphasis to and not to?


The default weights are generally terrible. 30 SP RB with 100 carry and 100 avoid fumble. He's an 80 by the default weights. Will never gain more than 1 yard per carry, but he's an 80 overall.

100 SP RB with 40 carry and 40 avoid. He's a 55 by the default weights. He'll average 5-7 yards per carry in the right system, but he's 25 points worse than the 30 SP RB.




The more interesting part is how well the traded QB Reece is reflecting his ratings over in Buffalo. Magically he became an elite QB overnight. Undefeated with a 65 completion rate and a 108 passer rating. Wow!


Maybe I just **** at this game ;)

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By Brrexkl
10/28/2016 3:08 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
[





I've thought about making the receiver progression static, but the problem I have with that is that it becomes too predictable. I do realize that in the NFL each play has a pre-determined progression, and often they will run the same or similar plays with a different progression to keep the defense guessing. I'd like to give you more control - i.e. set the receiver progression based on the defensive alignment, for example - but I'm wanting to make sure it doesn't become too overwhelming to you as the game planner. The compromise at this time is to have the weight system and let it be somewhat random, favoring instead making sure that your #1 WR gets more targets than your TE (for those who were around in the first several iterations of the game engine you may recall every team's leading receiver being the TE, I really don't want to go back to that). Some of the decisions I've made also have to do with making sure you don't have to make playing MFN a full-time job to feel like you've got the ability to field a competitive team.

Plenty of room to make the passing game better - trust me, I am not satisfied at all with the way it currently is.


Well that explains it.

In MFN 7 in my First Draft I took TE Leon Arana, who was a 99 with 100 SPD, ACC, STR, 85+ Catch and Courage, great blocking for the Run. I tried to make a TE Centric Offense, like the Pats 2 TE when Gronk/Hernandez. I did everything I could to target my stud Rookie TE.

I had a QB with 100 FOV, 99 Accuracy, 89 Arm, 75 Scramble (Benny Worrell) but 14 Speed. He was Joe Montana on Paper, he was Joe Dirt on the field. Sucked completely, his Speed negated everything.

So my #1 Round TE did nothing. About 2 Catches a game. He sucked so bad because either the QB couldn't get him the ball or the offense refused to target him, that I moved his 265 pounds of awesomeness to RB and traded the QB.

I replaced the QB with a 6th Round Rookie QB with 97 Speed... and literally nothing else over 50. Even his Scramble was bad. He was just as good as Benny Worrell.

So I took all but like 5 passes out of the Play Book and only passed when I absolutely had to, Drafted all Defense and said screw Offense. Offense sucked... but made the Play Offs (first time in Denver's History in MFN-7, and only the second .500 or better record) and Won a Play Off Game.

Moral of the story... until I hear QBs and TEs are working, **** offense. I'll try to Trent Dilfer/Ravens my way.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By lellow2011
10/28/2016 3:16 pm
Brrexkl wrote:
jdavidbakr wrote:
[





I've thought about making the receiver progression static, but the problem I have with that is that it becomes too predictable. I do realize that in the NFL each play has a pre-determined progression, and often they will run the same or similar plays with a different progression to keep the defense guessing. I'd like to give you more control - i.e. set the receiver progression based on the defensive alignment, for example - but I'm wanting to make sure it doesn't become too overwhelming to you as the game planner. The compromise at this time is to have the weight system and let it be somewhat random, favoring instead making sure that your #1 WR gets more targets than your TE (for those who were around in the first several iterations of the game engine you may recall every team's leading receiver being the TE, I really don't want to go back to that). Some of the decisions I've made also have to do with making sure you don't have to make playing MFN a full-time job to feel like you've got the ability to field a competitive team.

Plenty of room to make the passing game better - trust me, I am not satisfied at all with the way it currently is.


Well that explains it.

In MFN 7 in my First Draft I took TE Leon Arana, who was a 99 with 100 SPD, ACC, STR, 85+ Catch and Courage, great blocking for the Run. I tried to make a TE Centric Offense, like the Pats 2 TE when Gronk/Hernandez. I did everything I could to target my stud Rookie TE.

I had a QB with 100 FOV, 99 Accuracy, 89 Arm, 75 Scramble (Benny Worrell) but 14 Speed. He was Joe Montana on Paper, he was Joe Dirt on the field. Sucked completely, his Speed negated everything.

So my #1 Round TE did nothing. About 2 Catches a game. He sucked so bad because either the QB couldn't get him the ball or the offense refused to target him, that I moved his 265 pounds of awesomeness to RB and traded the QB.

I replaced the QB with a 6th Round Rookie QB with 97 Speed... and literally nothing else over 50. Even his Scramble was bad. He was just as good as Benny Worrell.

So I took all but like 5 passes out of the Play Book and only passed when I absolutely had to, Drafted all Defense and said screw Offense. Offense sucked... but made the Play Offs (first time in Denver's History in MFN-7, and only the second .500 or better record) and Won a Play Off Game.

Moral of the story... until I hear QBs and TEs are working, **** offense. I'll try to Trent Dilfer/Ravens my way.


Fast running backs with avoid fumble work, WRs with high pass rec courage work, QBs with high scramble and speed seem to work in the current sim.

Just look at this guy in MFN13 https://mfn13.myfootballnow.com/player/137
Nothing about his attributes say he should be any good, bad arm strength, bad passing release, bad Field of Vision, mediocre at best Accuracy and Look off. The only thing he has going for him is a good scramble rating and speed.

7 games in this is his statline:
137/220, 62.3 completion percentage, 1,963 yards, 8.92 ypa, 10sacks/67yards, 25TDs/6ints, 117.67 QBR

He threw for over 5,000 yards the previous season.

Re: In the word of Colombo...

By jhartshorn
10/28/2016 3:48 pm
Quote from previous post:

Re: Custom Player Weights (Need Explanation)
By parsh
9/02/2016 7:30 pm
Someone posted this awhile back in the forums, so I feel it's okay to repost .. I saved it because I think it has a bunch of good info. Whoever originally posted this .. thank you
-------------------------------
"Top Attributes (in order)

QBs -- Intelligence, Scramble, Arm, Accuracy, Lookoff, Release
Analysis: Intelligence helps the QB learn plays, which is essential. Scramble affects accuracy on the move. You can expect your QB to be on the move 70-80% of the time regardless of how good your OL is until changes are made to the passing game.