When in the world is 4.6 coming? ~16 months and counting... Over reaction to the 4.3-4.5 cycle bails? Yikes?
Me thinks folks are striving for perfection over progress.
I am running out of ways to be creative :)
It is time to move forward, ASAP. Please "thumb up" if you agree :)

I looked at the stats in MFN 1 recently, and we don't want 4.6. There was one QB with >60% completion, and there was a CB that had 50 knockdowns and the season isn't over yet. I don't know what happened in beta, but it's not good.

"Thumbs up" all you want. I don't think the developer is counting thumbs to determine whether this project should progress forward.

Ive been wondering that myself here lately ..

This.

I'd rather play on a somewhat broken platform (I actually like 4.5, despite some very obvious flaws) than move on to another potentially even more broken engine.

Staying on 4.5 might be annoying with the flaws that it has, but at least it lets everyone compete on the same level, as the more casual players (have the chance to) catch up to the first movers and heavy exploiters.

(And no, I'm no saint. I use FL Hitch too. I've selected my plays based on what seemed to work for my team, rather than studying which are the flavour of the engine plays though. Also I run a full playbook where all plays (hopefully) gets used.)

but we want stats from 4.5? thousands of games played and unlimited user plans resulted in pretty horrible stats as well. most that were seen in beta, complained about but released anyway.

There would be no difference if it were released. People would complain and then figure out how to make the stats fit, but here are some that havent changed or got worse under 4.5

1. is the supposed 8 punt blocks in one game. hey but it happened in highschool once so why not here. we use equivalent 40 times so why not have similar stats.

2. Low accuracy qbs cant even complete a pass. no explination needed

3. zero qb runs.......

4. speed clearly rules or slow skill players are at a clear disadvantage

5. Over half of all passes go in to tight coverage

6. i had a seasons worth of tackle for losses in one game by one guy

7. a general lack of broken tackles by high breaktackle players...on the other side high tackling doesnt matter

8. A true wr can play db and pick off an absurd amount of passes and take them back for tds

9. Zone is severly broke in terms of effectiveness compared to a man under scheme

10. sacks are generally low same with hurries.....and knock downs and drops are broke there too!

could go on and on but you in particular have been the single most advocate for 4.5. only cause you had a hand in the testing. Your absence of the development of 4.6 is the only reason for a comment about it not being good

i am not advocating 4.6 as it clearly has some of the same flaws as 4.5 but its definitely better than 4.5. because its different in some areas .

countless man hours went into the final product of 4.5 when a dozen tweaks have been made to 4.6 . with only 600 games that have been tested by maybe 50 users different plans.

but none of it matters cause if it wasnt relased months ago....why would it be now?


i like any version but i am clearly over 4.5s poor stats.

Beta is the worse version of this sim I've ever played. One of the reasons why I stopped playing in MFN-1 is that I couldn't stand the changes that were being made because each one of them took the game backwards. And it's not like JDB has made ANY changes to Beta since I quit playing MFN-1 in October/November.

Here's a short list of what's wrong with passing in beta that makes the game unplayable:

1) Knockdowns have always been based on proximity of the defender to the WR. So to "fix coverage", JDB made the defenders stay closer to the WR. This just led to more knockdowns.

Proximity, illogically, is only based on a defender SP vs WR SP still. JDB "normalized" SP in MFN-1. This ... wait for it ... led to more knockdowns. Imagine that. If knockdowns are only based on proximity, and proximity is only based on SP, and you make players faster...

2) The only thing currently preventing QBs from completing every pass is knockdowns. Here's my last meaningful post from that league to highlight this:


The 61.3% knockdown rate there was before speed was "normalized." I'm sure I could get my knockdown rate for incompletions up to 80% playing nothing but fast defenders with no cover skills at all.

3) There is one real problem with 4.5 and it is still not fixed: The long passing, wide open WR nerf that still exists. 4.5 would be pretty great actually if not for that nerf.

We can complain all we want about the Hitch, but it can be stopped. And coverage is straight up broken for double teams, but that can be worked around.

These are just game engine problems.

i see 1) happening due to the speed gaps in the first place. Man/ bump for 4.3 and on had to be upped to ridiculous levels to make up for the speed gap. 4.6 had A slight change to zone dramatically dropping all pass numbers. Not one code has had knockdowns correct .....to fix 4.6s KD numbers coverage would need to be loosened up. Thus upping comp% as well. i dont see a real problem there...if we ever moved forward

1. i would call it raising the value of zero speed, not normalizing. There is nothing normal about our speed gaps due to the weight in pounds of our dots. Its was llike highschool 40 times now it more like Division 3 college parity. A team with sub 70 speed dbs didnt allow any deep passes pretty consistent under 4.6. That was never available under any prior codes, but this is only cause the zone changes in tandem there making zone viable for the first time ever.

2. I am not saying KDs are not ridiculous but reads are a huge problem as well. i have plenty of wide open wr drags ingored by qbs under 4.6. Some of my opponents on the other hand get 10 completions with the same plays to that same wr, while my QB will throw it to the triplecovered TE. THese QB algorithms came from 4.5.....the problem lies in there with those changes

If , not that it matters, 4.5 had the long passing nerf gone wrs would have 5000 yard seasons.... definitely not fun and zone would still be useless. I mean an nfl stlye zone not just cover 0,1 or 2,
all game long.

4.5 was made under a mircoscope ignoring many parts of passing...thus making money plays, which is 4.5 in a nutshell. not to mention how invaluable the play abuse penalties are now. They make such huge differences in outcomes that dont relate to actual ratings on the players card....well except speed . 4.4 and 4.5 have smashed all skill ratings into a window that has made them mostly usless.

I could let go of the speed thing if a skill rating for a small player actually mattered, but it just doesn't under any pre 4.6 code and thats cause the speed gaps were closed slightly. just not enough to justify loosening up coverage even more.

Like i said if it were released numbers comp% would be different than bets. Maybe not much better but that would depend if you like to throw deep or keep it short. 4.5 doesn't even have that option

Unless SP calculations have changed, the below should be true.

Raising the 0 SP is normalizing because of how SP in the game works. SP ratings are NOT based on a hard reference. That is 90 SP does NOT mean that a player runs X in the 40.

SP ratings are based on a hidden ideal SP which is only modified by the player's weight, and then how fast a player is compared to the rest of the players in the league at that position. So if you have the fastest CB in the league and he gets to 97% of the ideal SP, his SP is 97. The second fastest player, depending on how many players there are at that position, may also be 97. But more likely 96. That's why there are so few players above 90 SP anymore.

The reason that LBs can't get above 90 SP at average weight is they weight too much. At 237, the fastest you're going to get to is 90% of the idea. And then you may have 1 LB in the league at any given time that is going to get that fast.

So when the 0 floor was raised, it increased the number of players that could get closer to the ideal SP. That means there is less of a functional difference between SP gaps. That's a form of normalizing.

yes the numbers on the card are not concrete but a guy coming in at the lightest weight and trending a few pounds at camp could run faster than 96 speed at 191 pounds.

40 times look as such in beta and under 4.5....... if you set the fastest somewhere.....most likely on a kick off but i had 78 speed 198 pounder run almost as fast as a 91 speed @ 217#s.

191 pounds 198 217 237 241 243 248? 257 276 300 308 310? 316
96 speed 95 93 90 89 88 88 86 84 80 79 78 76
4.7 (40 in sec) 4.8 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.3

191 pounds 198 217 237 241 243 248? 257 276 300 308 310? 316
78 speed 77 75 72 71 70 70 68 64 60 59 58 56
4.9 (40 in sec) 5.0 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.7 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.5

I dont have many players slower than this to test but a 50 speed db runs a pretty slow 40 and by raising the speed of zero hes faster now compared to the 96.

Yes, raising zero did not touch the speed lost due to a players weight caused by fatigue or his acceleration being effected. Weight has a huge counter on speed despite the card. but the slowest light guy did get closer to the 96.... same as the 300 pounder he got closer to the elite speed DT but they still are slower than the DE at 276.

these speed gaps by weight have always been the problem.....for years we overpowered all skill ratings to counter act the disparity.

like i said there was 8 punt blocks in one highschool game IRL cause these speed gaps make the game a pop warner where athletic skill matter more due to the disparity. The game is functioining correctly under this base design.

I use only the top 80th percentile of speed per weight range for sub 276 pound players. Just so they are covering nfl like ground in the alloted time ....so the plays in the veiw finder work and look as designed.

In beta i dont think i saw a small guy who had lower than 40 speed. thats a zero i guess.....there some slow qbs and linemen but speed has never beeen the major problem it the gaps of speed caused by weight. Raising zero has helped but yes its not a fix all solution