Posted by Rails on 12/22/2010 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 12/22/2010 10:30:00 AM (view original):
Here's the response to the ticket I submitted on end-game foul logic:

"It's not usually possible to direct a certain player to foul when you're intentionally fouling. Whoever is closest to the ball and can get to that player will commit the foul. Sometimes that may end up being the same guy a few times in a row.

There is no special substitution logic for when you're intentionally fouling. Since that is normally at the end of the game, foul trouble isn't much of a concern at that point."

I disagree that foul trouble isn't a concern at the end of games (that's exactly when it is a concern).  And if there isn't special substitution logic for intentionally fouling, shouldn't there be?

Exactly.  Agree with you ethan.  Teams all the time direct certain players to commit fouls and certainly there are O/D substitutions for that all the time. 

But what happens if the guy you are directed to commit the foul is far away, while a guy with 4 fouls is nearby, does he just stand there and wait for someone to come over, allowing time to run off the clock? I'm with CS on this one.

To the extent possible...players can't dribble and hold the ball forever.  A lot of teams will give up 3-5 seconds to avoid fouling the other team's best or to avoid fouling out.  Does it always happen?  No.  But certainly there is both substitution logic as well as player logic.  HD uses none.  It's a pretty key piece of strategy irl.

Going back to the initial question - you have 4 guys averaging close to or over 30 minutes.  Even with 4 OTs that's probably too much, especially given that they have unexceptional stamina.  Starters with staminas in the mid-70s would usually play something like 23 minutes in this engine.  They're probably playing fatigued and that causes fouls to skyrocket.  I bet if you tighten up your fatigue settings the foul rates will go down.