My best game of the season, when I should've beaten that *** Seth and he has to complain...

From my perspective, I've had a lot of low scoring games this season - some due to my poor offence.

I think there's some merit to what Seth writes - being honest, without the turnovers he'd have won in regular time be a 3 score margin - but these things happen.

^^I will say that^^^

I think you should make players have variable weight for each position. Currently every position has the same weight and that makes it easy to exploit speed, even with reasonable position restrictions.

For example, all DE are 276 pounds while DT is 300 pounds. Because speed kills in the current game, you should have all our DL be DE to maximize speed.

By adding some variable weight range of say 0-30 pounds, it would probably prevent stacking certain positions. Also it's more realistic than static weights.

So in our league, we're currently discussing strict position restrictions to avoid having teams putting CBs at LBs, WR at TE, basically prevent spamming speed at every position. These position restrictions will likely work but there are some edge cases that could derail it.

Are there override restrictions? If not, a user could just override their formations and put WR in spots they shouldn't be, CBs at LB/DL. That would defeat the whole purpose of position restrictions.

Another edge case is signing only CBs and no other positions. How would the system handle that? Would it place the CBs in the missing depth chart positions like LB/DL? This would also defeat the purpose of position restrictions. Maybe you've already thought of it, but I think a possible solution would be to automatically sign players to fill up those positions. Cut players if they are already over the roster limit.

I actually think there should be a way to enforce teams to have a minimum number of playable players at each position. I've seen plenty of times where a team doesn't have a P/K or places a non P/K at those positions. I think the easy solution here would be to force sign/cut to fill up those positions. I believe there's already logic for that if you're over/under the roster limit.

Override restrictions are a good idea, but it doesn't prevent players from not using overrides to avoid player restrictions. Override restrictions are certainly something that could be coded into the admin league setting options for league admins, and definitely a place for MFN to attempt player restrictions.

My other hand wants to cry out:
What if we told Belicheck, Seifert, Lambeau, Knox, Reid, etc et al how they can use their players? The point is, the NFL let's coaches use players at will. Positional restrictions in MFN go against everything both HS, college and the real NFL allow when it comes to who plays where.

I think fixing default player weights and player creation will correct a LO T of position abuse issues.
Clearly speed still kills 7 yrs in.
So, why are there rb. wr. lbs, and dbs with any speed below 70 and any acceleration below 60 being created?

I'm guessing it's easier to fix player generation and the default weights than to have 10's of admins creating 100's of rules.

I'm not trying to dismiss you. An idea of merit, absolutely. Worth pursuing.

For how much longer is MFN going to avoid fixing player generation and default player weights and continue to rely on admins to herd rabbits in a bold yet useless attempt to fix player generation and default player weights?

There's been a whole lot of bad relations caused because some GM took great offence because some admin had nothing but good intentions. If an admin could fix 4.6 position issues over the last 4 years, they freakig would have by now.

Fix player generation.
Fix default player weights.
Fix a whole lot of fighting.

You oughta be able to play anyone wherever you want. But... right now, an offense can substitute, say, a fast WR for a targeted TE in a play and the defense doesn't adjust from whatever they called. In real life, guys with binoculars see the substitution and decide if they wanna go to nickle or whatever. In MFN, the defense is stuck with what they called. They don't adjust and thus are stuck with a mismatch...Mismatches do happen IRL but it's always the defense's choice... Not here... IMHO you gotta fix that.. then overrides are okay...


ID

I've always thought it would be a good idea to allow a boom or bust at training camp, to possibly have some relationship with a team and/or coach.

So then a player who boomed with their drafted team/coach, could get traded, or get a new coach with the and team, and possibly turn their career around. Or stay about the same. Or get worse.

As it happens in real life. Just my thought.

I'd scrub global access to the new website. I'd get my beta's in line. I'd make the new website beta only requiring proof of experience and approval by the game dev.

I'd give the folks providing assistance exact bugs to test and the playground to test them in. That playground would provide very limited testing grounds directly related to the bug being fixed instead of testing bugs in full system setting.
There must be BOTH a dedicated alpha with limited bugs and no beta crossover coding issues, AND a limited beta testing ground that permits each bug to be tested individually within that specific beta testing ground.

I'd create a beta environment that permitted testing each bug in a unique, applicable only to that bug situation. I'd make sure testers could repeatedly test each specific bug outside of the complete interface. Run bug test. Confirmed Y/N? Notes: Next bug test.
I'd make sure the alpha site (old site) was absent of influence of beta website changes (that requires 2 distinct servers; one for testing that is full of all the bugs and a stable user site that is absent of most bugs).

MFN's biggest issue is that the beta testing ground to fix bugs is also the alpha site user experience. These MUST be separated in order to improve both the ability to test and to prevent a bad user experience in the alpha site.

Clearly, the old interface is still the Alpha. Clearly, the Alpha site is being grossly harmed by bugs that should be limited to a separate beta experience. Therefore, the beta testing ground IS the Alpha ground. This should NEVER be the case. Never. Beta and Alpha should *always* be 2 distinct entities, with one never bleeding its problems into the other.

All carts, no horses, if one can catch the metaphor.

Now, running around stating what *I would do* is rather unproductive. SUGGESTING a few ideas based on my experience just might lead to progress.
I strongly encourage MFN to separate the user UI from the Beta UI.
I suggest that the new UI not continue to bleed into and create problems with the old UI.

I suggest 2 distinct servers. One to do testing (Beta Server), and one that is stable and unaffected by any changes made to the beta server (the Alpha Server). Both absent of being affected by any changes made to the other.

To sum: I'd suggest a person have a parachute before skydiving. Right now MFN is free falling and not in a delicious Tom Petty kind of way. ;)

If one wants to maximize beta testers, then one should probably make beta testing free of charge.
I will not pay money so I can place a team in a beta league and/or group.
I won't pay money for what MFN currently is.
I will not pay to test for a game I am not willing to pay money for in it's current form.
I would happily run bug tests, IF i did not have to pay to do so AND if beta testing had a specific way to test bugs in situ via beta and in absentia of the Alpha site experience.

Working for free at walmart sucks enough, paying to be able to beta test in MFN is too much to ask.

You know what should be fixed before starting anything else. These stupid 8 interception games: https://paydirt.myfootballnow.com/box/13959

The interception code is jacked up because the way passing works. Basically any QB with more than 50 accuracy will complete 80% of their passes that are not intercepted or knocked down or dropped.

And they have this accuracy at all levels. This is why receivers drop almost any pass that goes more than 10 yards in the air.

That's why the offensive line stops blocking on medium and long passing downs because quarterbacks would otherwise drop fines dimes (that would of course be dropped) all game where they threw to a receiver.

Either you know more about this game than JDB does, or you’re completely wrong.

Either way, this issue sounds like it would require reviewing logic and take the full four hours a month JDB commits to minor adjustments to UI for the sake of monthly forum posts implying “progress”.