Hey Martin! With this win, you have officially exceeded your win total from last season. Your roster has improved throughout this past offseason. Good luck throughout the rest of the season.

Thanks, but there's still plenty of work left to do.

Too many close games could have gone either way.

Not looking at a deep playoff run, if make it.

AI managed/coached Giants (6-1) and Jags (5-2) lead their divisions going into the 8th game. Is AI play selection and play calling improving? Just a coincidence? or are they getting favorable sims? There is still the overuse of GL offense run plays, but it is being overcome by these two teams, and several other Ai teams in other leagues.

You're getting as bad as smirt.

Now, if you look at those GL plays, there's an element of luck in it.

A number of the runs to the right, a player was in position to stop for short gain; good block or missed tackle happened.

In terms of defending the GL, a number of plays had runs to the left into the blitzer.

It may be the case the AI carries on using plays, rules previous owner left behind. As I said elsewhere, not in favour of the game banning the plays like that - Seth blocking long passes I understand and agree with - since inherently broken.

I dont mind the AI improving at all, in fact, I welcome it. The use of GL offense is one of the most primary problems with the AI managed play selection. Im not saying ban the GL offense, just that it be used for what it is intended to be used for, like in RL football. Can that be controlled so there is no exploitation of it? I would hope so, same as the auto manager correcting a roster deficiency. The AI coach calls the plays based on owner play selection, rules (if any), followed by factoring down/yardage situation and whatever else is used in the algorithm(s), I dont know how that is calculated. What I do know is that the AI coaches tendency to use the GL offense on first and 10 is not right, thats my opinion and Im sticking with it. I dont have a problem with the GL defense automatically being called against a GL offense play, in fact I make sure of it with a rule backing it up. I dont like the GL defense being auto called vs the 311 Power I and 2 TE personnel, as it is vulnerable to the pass plays and should not be used automatically in the first place. When scouting most teams, defensively, I can see the overuse of GL defensive plays due to the automatic use vs GL, Power I, 221, and 122 offense. If that position on the subject of the GL play use makes me more like Smirt, so be it. However, I think its the opposite, as those who have played in my leagues with play selection & use rules will confirm. I threw the towel in dealing with non-compliance and oversight, which is why I would prefer to see it done by league admin control, same as other league admin controls. There are those, like myself, who prefer a more RL simulation with play diversity and use, and there are those who dont.

There's been no AI improvement outside of MFN-TEST.

I prefer a more realistic game, personally.

In this instance though, you can't complain an offensive play is op when the defensive play called against it leaves defenders uncovered whilst at the same time, ignoring many rushes from that offensive formation running straight into unblocked blitzer; lengthy runs I've seen have often been down to missed tackles.

Where I really disagree is taking away the autonomy of owners to gameplan. If someone wants to run GL regularly, then the onus is on opponents to gameplan for it. That means analysing, finding plays that work defensively in the same way you look for mismatches offensively.

If the point is it's a situational issue, arguably could say the same about 005, 014 et al with no runs, 221 etc.

Which means that you are more like Smirt than I am, lol. Using a GL offense or defense every play is not RL football other than at the youth level, which Ive coached, along with HS level, JUCO, and Semi Pro. We had to keep the playbook simple in semi-pro as it was part time, not much practice (we had jobs), and players coming and going. So we didnt have much if any pre-snap motion in our plays, and the playbook was about 1/50th of an NFL or College playbook. If you want a more realistic NFL simulation, play overuse needs to be controlled and it is not controlled by leaving it up to individual owners or "autonomy", who use a limited # of plays instead of a ful 40/30 active playbook, which in most cases are limited to only those plays that have the best averages. In order to compete with those who are in the POs with all of their teams or consistently, you have to fight fire with fire and do the same or similar. You and I are at opposite ends of this issue, so will leave it at that.

Not at all - nobody is using it "every play". If the PA TE Drag effective? YES - if the defensive reaction to that is sub optimal.

You ensure eligible receivers are covered in man, blitz, you've covering both ends.

Plays that have the best averages? Well... yeah. You're not going to run many plays you're not good at.

The play count sounds good but has no real impact - game still has randomness guided by rules set.

What happens if your idea of play count - say at most a play run 5 times - is implemented; title game, win on the line but the play you've ideally ruled for can't be used as it's been run too many times?

The solution is for people to analyse *why* plays are successful and gameplan against them. Game engine advances over time should provide better balance.

With PA TE drag, it may well be the issue that eligible receive should be a WR1-3 rather than 4-5, if that's the case. That's a minor issue, not game breaking.

Now as for the other points.

If you're saying "only use GL in goal line situations / 3rd + short / 4th + short", then same argument applies to using 5WR in early and short downs, instead keep it for only 3rd and long...

The playbook numbers are maximum plays. If I'm using a heavy m2m HC, I'm using plays for that scheme not throwing endless zone plays in.

If that situation were to happen, the AI coach who calls the play based on several factors in the current game engine, would go to the next best call/play based on the parameters, if any, put in place by the human team owner/manager. Point is, knowing that you have a maximum play use per game, you also plan for it. RO leagues take it too far in the other direction, with no control over anything but the roster. Have you watched one of those games? Like watching paint dry, personal opinion. I reluctantly am in an RO league and it makes me cringe on more than half the plays used and called by the AI. Would like to see RO leagues have owner options, which could be set by preference/league admin for customization. The primary problem with RO/AI coach play selection/use is the use of GL offense in non GL situations which auto's the use of GL defense, stopping the run and drive in 90% of the play result. On my team Ive been trying to figure out how to increase the passing, as opposed to 40 or more run plays in a game. When the team is behind by 10 or more with 7 minutes or less in the 4th, I dont want to see my coach calling run plays. I also would like my coach/team to go for it on 4th down and inches and/or 0-1 yd situations based on field position and score, other than trailing by 4 or more with 3 minutes or less left in the game, which is not possible in current RO leagues.