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 - General MFN Discussion

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Mcbolt55
11/07/2022 7:56 am
I agree that familiarity needs to be applied fairly across the board. Maybe the blitzes would be overpowered if that was changed, and considering how long passing has the pass blocking nerf to completely neuter them that means there are 2 “fixes” that essentially just cancel out what should occur naturally (blitzes disrupting deep passing)

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Bruno77
11/07/2022 8:10 am
Mcbolt55 wrote:
I agree that familiarity needs to be applied fairly across the board. Maybe the blitzes would be overpowered if that was changed, and considering how long passing has the pass blocking nerf to completely neuter them that means there are 2 “fixes” that essentially just cancel out what should occur naturally (blitzes disrupting deep passing)


Long passing, that's a complete different story. If we want to talk about something that would even out the playing field, considerably more than FZ ever could, remove all long passes. People who just load recommended for gameplan or select long passes willingly get extra screwed over by its existence in 4.6.

JDB mentioned to me before the reason he has familiarity set up this way is that offenses became way too overpowered later in the game when they tested fair familiarity across the board.
Last edited at 11/07/2022 8:10 am

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Mcbolt55
11/07/2022 8:16 am
Who loads a basic recommended gameplan? That sounds like recipe for disaster, I guess roster only leagues don’t mess with that, but that has never appealed to me.

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Bruno77
11/07/2022 8:24 am
Mcbolt55 wrote:
Who loads a basic recommended gameplan? That sounds like recipe for disaster, I guess roster only leagues don’t mess with that, but that has never appealed to me.


There are a lot of owners that either do that or willingly have long passes in their playbook for no good reason when I go to scout them. Long passes shouldn't exist.

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By setherick
11/07/2022 9:06 am
This was never an issue. In fact, having negative familiarity may actually be caused by your team having >100% familiarity with a play.

jdavidbakr wrote:
I think the bars suddenly becoming empty is a rendering issue, possibly due to a rounding error causing it to display greater than 100%.


This thread from 2019: https://usflwfl.myfootballnow.com/community/6/5708?page=2

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Smirt211
11/07/2022 9:16 am
Long passing, that's a complete different story. If we want to talk about something that would even out the playing field, considerably more than FZ ever could, remove all long passes. People who just load recommended for gameplan or select long passes willingly get extra screwed over by its existence in 4.6.


No no no let them get hit. There has to be a separation for effort level between those putting in the work and those who do not. You can't hand people everything on a silver platter.

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Smirt211
11/07/2022 9:18 am
You can't come in Day 1 and have everything constructed to play at the same level of an individual playing for 5 years.

Each diving factor found = removal. One by one by one...you leave nothing to skill level.

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Bruno77
11/07/2022 9:38 am
Smirt211 wrote:
Long passing, that's a complete different story. If we want to talk about something that would even out the playing field, considerably more than FZ ever could, remove all long passes. People who just load recommended for gameplan or select long passes willingly get extra screwed over by its existence in 4.6.


No no no let them get hit. There has to be a separation for effort level between those putting in the work and those who do not. You can't hand people everything on a silver platter.


I'm just saying if he wanted to improve parity, why not do that (remove a net negative rather than a net positive)? Would do more good than just removing FZ/FB Dive.
Last edited at 11/07/2022 9:39 am

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Bruno77
11/07/2022 9:41 am
I'm doing fine without FZ/FB Dive so I can't complain with them gone, just saying solely removing those wouldn't bring the parity he claims would come after. If anything should be removed to bring parity, long passes would be that thing.

That being said, the removing plays that are broken (good or bad) rabbit hole is not a good one imo.
Last edited at 11/07/2022 9:42 am

Re: Is negative familiarity still broken?

By Smirt211
11/07/2022 9:50 am
Yeah, it isn't because you punish ingenuity and creativity by removing plays that are difference makers.

If I find a play that is potent and it gets picked up and carries steam to where it gets copied, pasted and spotlighted by many others for usage, why should my hard work get a strike back punishment?

If every road I take in unearthing a gem of a play that dominates, goes main stream and gets me a naughty Smirt/poor autonomous usage lashing from JDB like FB Dive what prevents me from going eh, peace - not worth my effort any more.