I like you, Smirt, I was joking.

There's nothing in the game code targeting you. My reference was a general one around exploits in code, ie the speed thing leading to the position change matrix.

I apologise if you thought my post was an angry one.

Getting back to the point, when re-creating it, get the JavaScript pop up box which gives the main reason and often says ( + 2 other errors ) - note, that second part can vary.

I've recommended those additional errors should be displayed - ideally within the page rather than a pop-up - to give greater clarity of what's going on. Should only be displayed if there's something within the owner's remit to fix.

I'm kinda late to that party, but want to help the game out, which means helping JDB out by passing on issues found in the community, doing my best to re-create and pass on info not in original complaints.

We're not the Illuminati, there are no MFN branded cloaks for us to wear.

I'm happy to discuss - within reason - what happens.

People raise issues, suggest ideas. These get fleshed out via discussions. JDB comments as appropriate - for example, pointing out something isn't a bug.

Are people informed about certain things there? Yes - high level overviews, for example changes going into MFN-1, the last of which was tweaks to Zone defence vs the rush. People gave their views on how they felt it should work. That engagement by actual players helps JDB and thus helps the game progress.

This is documented in the roadmap for the most part - which I've asked should be made easier to find. https://www.myfootballnow.com/roadmap.

Smirt, you're an absolute character - never change - game would be worse off if you ever left.

What I do take exception to is an insinuation there that we benefit from inside knowledge. That's bs for a number of reasons.

1. MFN-1 win last season, I generally **** at the game.
2. I've been posting workarounds to issues.
3. I've spend a LOT of time collating issues, re-creating, passing on. A lot of time on some private stuff that could help the game in the future.

I hope your comment was just frustration and nothing else.

We're good, bro . JDB has been silent, you have been very vocal - like the only one on the boards. The energy level and motivation came off as JDB speaking through a 2nd account, however, I now see you are the good guy relaying from the developer's chat. As for the exploits...

I have dominated w/ all off and then all def currently as JDB made the game more closed in and destroyed drafts. If we played the way he wanted it - parity - no big plays would happen or moving the ball. Even before this, we can't throw 1 long pass and most med get sacked. I don't think I exploit, I survive. I am sure the mfn-1 zone-run d is being looked at because of what my rules can do to it when activated.

I'd say JDB is more busy fixing things than anything else.

As I've said, he really needs to publicise the roadmap page more because there you can see what's been changed, what's planned, what he's looking at. It's automatically updated as changes put into place.

I've asked he at minimum have sticky threads containing that link in General, Help and Bugs community forums; also to add to the monthly update thread.


I'd say there are arguments draft generation of player does need work. It's pretty tough to find a quality TE outside 1st round, I've tended to find for example - plenty of #3 calibre in my experience.

The ethos isn't that no big plays should happen or that the ball wouldn't be moved. It's more that the game is envisaged to be more like pro football. Yes, it's a game but it's not realistic to have rosters stacked with WR, CBs. The speed issue has been an exploit - not a cheat, it's not - but an exploit of issues in the game engine. Most people coming to the game fresh would just think that's simply not "realistic".

What is really needed is parity in the sense that for a given game engine, there's no one way to success. Run heavy, pass heavy, if you gameplan well, either approach can give success if you work at things - gameplan, recruitment, depth, overrides. We're not at that level yet and the UI work, which was needed, has taken some attention away from that.

If you look at the roadmap, JDB is looking at long passes. Within the framework that we know long passing is well, damaging, admin owners have the option to turn certain plays off; NFL league has removed all long passes.

With regards to the zone def vs rushing, the fact is Zone is broken on a number of levels. I've laughed at the irony that people in mfn-1, certainly the experienced ones may not notice differences due to avoiding using it... but people are testing it out.

For reference, there's no talk of anything you have done in that area. The issue has been related to how the defenders react on rushes; there has been a tendency to fail to break off early enough, hence not reacting to the run until ball carrier hits LoS. As a consequence rushing vs zone can be pretty effective, which is why people blitz to get bodies there.

I'm not going to say what JDB has done with regards to that because we don't get told - we're not going to be told internals of the game engine. The view I've espoused is that imo defenders should look to get to their zone initially - at time of handoff, checks should be made to determine if they "see" the handoff, at which time negate dropping back and play the run. I suggested maybe field of vision could be a useful attribute as part of that. That would allow defenders to react accordingly, but also miss the handoff till too late, a good balance.

Think of yourself as an excellent test of the game engine, helping to improve it.

I didnt have didn't have many issues either except for inactive rules didn't migrate over with the active rules.
And some War Room bugs, but I think those have been getting fixed.

I just want to state for the record that JDB pushed zone defense to nerf/end passing. The 2 main sets I and we all use out of the big3. i.e. don't allow flares to pull up blites. Now he says oh s##t and is trying to dull the running. At least visually a pass v. zone defense is not attacking familiarity and moving the red bar. JDB wants it all ways.

*blitzes. Blitzes you can pull up as an offense and jack up the red bar familiarity to the moon like Artemis II.

The additional errors are the future years not being under the year 1 total contract. A 6 year contracy will say there is an error plus 4 more...a 5 year contract says 3 more errors, etc