In the Update section from the top - oriole just added:

Just a quick update on Fatigue. I've been analyzing games for the last couple of days, and I've got a couple of things that I'm changing with regards to fatigue. I'm including this hard to read chart. This represents a players fatigue level over the course of the game. Each player has 50 stamina the X is the time and Y is the fatigue level. 
A couple of things to note are that the relative decrease in fatigue seems to be ok. You can see the varying degrees of fatigue on each player. The things that are standing out right now are that the Rest is having too much of an influence. A player recovers too quickly if they are off the field. I'll be toying with that. In addition it appears as though only a running back (on 50% pass/50% run gameplan) drops below the 90% mark in the first half. This is way to shallow, and I'll be looking at increasing this for each player. 

The chart indicates what each player level is at various times in the game. We have to assume that all the same players stay in the game and play the same number of plays. What worries me about this chart is that if all players have a stamina rating of 50 - why do some players get more tired than other players? If the stamina rating is the same they should fatigue the same for the same number of plays - UNLESS THERE IS SOME EXTRINSIC VALUE APPLIED TO DIFFERENT POSITIONS!

So by viewing the chart - 50 stamina running back gets more tired than all other positions and doesn't recover as fast and a QB with a rating of 50 doesn't get as tired and recovers faster. So a rating of 50 for a RB isn't really 50 when compared to a QB?!?!?!?

I believe this is again contrary to what we expect in this game. We expect that if my 50 rated DL is going up against your 50 rated OL that they will get tired at the same rate and my use of the player settings will either earn me an advantage or not. But if my 60 rated DL is essentially equal to your 50 rated OL due to some invisible extra given to the OL then that is an error and a mistake in the game. Same for all positions.

Oriole, while you are working on the stamina thing fix this ambiguity. Make 50 = 50 so your chart of all 50 stamina players should look like 5 overlapping lines, not a rainbow of different results for the same attribute value.

This is the same problem we see for many items in the attributes - 90 speed for DL?, strength for QB - for running or arm strength? and now tech for anyone. Don't add another attibute to the mix that we just can't understand.

I just want It to be as close to real life in game fatigue as possible.  Take OL for instance don't they play for the most part the whole game in real life but is that because of fatigue or more because the talent drop from the starter to the back up is too big.  As far as the RB's I ran my back 25+ carries a game last season usually over 30 as much as 45 on more than one occasion with no adverse affects.  I think anything you do in excess should cause fatigue.  Running all the time or passing all the time should cause fatigue that requires you to use more of your backups.  I mean even if a receiver doesn't catch a pass he still had to run his route.  He would probably use more energy if he caught a pass but he still uses energy to run a route.  They may fatigue already just from running a route I don't know.  I just don't want to see one aspect penalized over another (run vs. pass). 

I agree with katz on this.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. To me, this is absurd. Quarterbacks should fatigue as fast as running backs? That just makes no sense. Dropping back 3-5-7 steps and throwing the ball does not fatigue you as much as running through the line and getting tackled. Are we really saying that they are the same/similar? Seriously. I don't get the logic at all. The chart has some logic to it. But obviously there is not enough fatigue, or enough fatigue that actually effects gameplay.

katz, I could not disagree with you more.  Not only SHOULD different positions fatigue at different rates, different actions should also cause them to fatigue at different rates.  For example, a WR running the ball should fatigue more than one "just" running a route (the effects of being tackled).  An outside run should be more fatiguing than an inside run (approximate gain/loss being equal). A long run is more tiring than a short run.  Throwing a pass should be less tiring than a scramble.

Posted by noah23 on 12/13/2013 7:24:00 PM (view original):
I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. To me, this is absurd. Quarterbacks should fatigue as fast as running backs? That just makes no sense. Dropping back 3-5-7 steps and throwing the ball does not fatigue you as much as running through the line and getting tackled. Are we really saying that they are the same/similar? Seriously. I don't get the logic at all. The chart has some logic to it. But obviously there is not enough fatigue, or enough fatigue that actually effects gameplay.

What I'm saying is that if a player has a stamina of 50, regardless of position, it should be treated as a stamina of 50 and not have an artificial neutralizing factor attached to it. Player ratings changes in levels of stamina for each position should be modified rather than an outside number introduced. This number should also change with position changes. I can see what you are saying noah and bhazelwood, but what this game needs is more transparency not more hidden code affecting the ratings.

Stamina is one of the attributes that I think is confusing in its current use in the engine. Along with health and durability. A players health should be what is affected by his stamina and durability. Are the numbers shown in the game PBP the players health? or fatigue level? And how do those relate to stamina? It would seem that the relationships should be more interactive. Players that play a significant amount of plays should actually have stamina numbers go up during the season and be able to show high health numbers during the game (less of a drop in the PBP numbers). Back-ups who don't play as much should show a lower stamina number and have their health number (in the PBP) decrease much faster.  Durability would be the ability to avoid or recover from injuries (which would show up as a decrease in health). At the beginning of the exhibition season, all players may begin with 100% health and 80 stamina (unless the scouting reveals the need to lay off the buffet, then they may report back at 60-70% stamina). If they play a certain # of plays in the ex games, by season start they may be at 100% and 100. Players who don't play may be at 100% health and start to drop in stamina, just as other attributes drop with disuse. Injuries and game dings may drop the health down, but not affect stamina until they don't get to play.  

Personally, looking at real life and playing ability while fatigued, I would say that the decrease in stamina shown by all players should be much slower and the recovery during a rest period should be almost nil, except maybe at half time. Now, it seems almost all players are able to return to full stamina, even in the 4th quarter. The stamina curve should be steadily downward, with a slight uptick at the half and then downward again. In the 4th, all the regular players should be at the 80-85% level with lower stamina players into the 70's. When injuries are added, any player that gets a ding during the game may lose an additional 10% at that time which carries over the rest of that game. The shark tooth pattern noted in oriole's graph isn't realistic and is too much of a short term swing after each series. Fatigue is more of a long term phenomenon, hence the desire to wear your opponents down.

Also, players that have low stamina (from not playing) or low durability (causing dings and injuries) may not be able to begin the next game with 100% health and may not be able to get back to 100% without a game off.

It just shows how really far this game is to being a five star game. Right now we are really hoping it gets to three stars, but right now it is stuck at about 1 1/2.
 

Why should a QB that hands the ball off 50 times fatigue at the same rate as the RB that carries the ball 50 times?  The actions of various positions are different, hence the rate of fatigue should be different for each position.

The other question that needs to be answered is how much does fatigue affect performance.  If all it measures is when the player needs to catch his breath, that's highly unrealistic. 

IMO, it should work like this.  Start with a basic model:

Everyone on the field loses 1% per play.
If you're primary on the play, you lose an additional 1%.  i.e. RBs running the ball, WRs targeted for a pass, defender making the play.
For every play of rest you get when off the field you regain 1%.

Start with that baseline, then use individual STA to adjust that baseline.  Players with high STA will lose less than 1% per play.  Players with low STA lose more than 1% per play.

The biggest issue not discussed is how effective fatigued players are.  Who cares if he's at 80% fatigue level if he performs at 100%.  This is what I'm seeing and I think this is the bigger issue.  Players need to get gassed and it needs to show in the pbp results.

Posted by bhazlewood on 12/13/2013 9:29:00 PM (view original):
katz, I could not disagree with you more.  Not only SHOULD different positions fatigue at different rates, different actions should also cause them to fatigue at different rates.  For example, a WR running the ball should fatigue more than one "just" running a route (the effects of being tackled).  An outside run should be more fatiguing than an inside run (approximate gain/loss being equal). A long run is more tiring than a short run.  Throwing a pass should be less tiring than a scramble.

+1

Currently there is no "health" rating. There is also not "game to game fatigue" and while both of these would be great, they would require a complete overhaul of the system I believe. A quarterback who hands the ball off should fatigue less then one who throws the ball who should fatigue less then one that scrambles or runs on the play. There shouldn't necessarily be differing calculations per position but rather what the person is doing inside the play.

We need to be a little realistic in our expectations here.

There is a health rating - look at the bottom of the player ratings page. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to actually make it more interactive. It changes when players are injured (if and when again).

Posted by katzphang88 on 12/14/2013 12:58:00 AM (view original):
There is a health rating - look at the bottom of the player ratings page. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to actually make it more interactive. It changes when players are injured (if and when again).

It doesn't function in the way you describe. The health rating only applies when a player is injured. I believe It would still require a massive change to the system

I think you can have stamina be equal across the board.  For the most part, comparing different positions doesn't always make sense.  1 stamina is still 1 stamina though, or should be.  Most running backs have higher stamina to start than most qbs or linemen (in the real game of football as judged by aerobic and anaerobic endurance).  The quantifiable one unit of stamina is still easiest to make sense of if it is universal.  DIfferent positions should have a higher or lower amount of total stamina to start rather than attempting to make stamina mean different things to different positions.  Or as mentioned above, different activities would have a different stamina cost.  Running should be different than throwing (regardless of position).  Stamina can still be universal in both cases though.   

As an example, linemen tend to have greater strength than WRs (both in game and in real football).  Why not include total stamina differences as inherent in each position rather than changing and qualifying what stamina means based on position?   

I would think that a majority would disagree with whatever is programmed due huge number of variables involved.

For instance, I disagree with what most posted above. They would, then, disagree with me. Agreement would be a difficult thing.

Honestly, I don't much care how they determine fatigue as long as it is logical and visible.  What matters to me is to see player performance visibly deteriorate as they fatigue.  Without this, STA/fatigue doesn't matter.