I wonder if now that more bigs have per they will adjust it so they can actually hit outsides shot. I gave up trying to have my 80+ per bigs hit anything higher then 30%.

Quote: Originally Posted By Iguana1 on 4/30/2010
Ouch. My first taste of the injury factor in the test world.

Player with a Durabilty rating of 14. He goes down to a 37 health rating with a torn hamstring. It's been quite awhile since I had a player drop to a 37.

Improving 4 points per practice. Looks like it'll take 11 games to get to a 80, 16 games to 100. And this is good why?

Well, perhaps not recruiting and relying on players with a 14 durability will be in order then. . .

I say increase roster size to about 15.

The worst is going to be, and I see it coming a mile a way, when people have their 90+ DUR players get injured. There will be a lot of complaining about that. We see it in HBD, and we'll see it here just as much if not more.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

It actually does. If I was guardin Lebron and he took 100% of his shots (no double teams etc) he'd shoot at least 90%. He wouldn't suddenly become less effective at getting around me and dunking the ball all the time, or taking pretty much non contested shots as hes a foot taller and has 100+ pounds on me just because his shot attempts have increased.

Well great, let me know when there is a 1-on-1 game featuring a guy with 100 ratings across the board and a guy with 10 (maybe). I'll bet that the decrease in efficiency built into the game wouldn't be a big factor in that situation. But because that scenario will never happen, I don't think it's partcularly applicable.

Is it just me or are a lot of people just looking for something to complain about? Hey, this is a great game as far as I'm concerned, and I believe it's going to get better. How much better we'll see, but honestly I fully expect 2 things. ..1. Pretty major improvments across the board...and 2. Some will not be satisfied regardless of the improvements. Like always, just my .2 cents...

The only thing I do not like about HD is the injury thing. WIS needs to remember we are paying customers. If I am paying the $10, I dont want one of my players missing 20 games.

I understand to adjust the durabililty effect somewhat, and I may be in the minority by thinking injuries should be the last thing that plays into wins/losses.

I agree chewchad. I am ok with injuries exisiting, but I am sure they turned them up too far now. A Dur 10 player shouldn't be hurt 40-50% of his games, which is what its looking like is going to happen.

Injuires aren't fun. Sure they are needed in some part, but total random killer things like this just aren't going to make anyone happy. We don't have to eliminate them, but these 35% injuries are too much.

Knock the low durability guys to 80% or whatever, that's fine, but killing good players with a 50% injury really hurts if it is a likely occurance.

I agree with both chewchad and reinsel. Guys, if you haven't sent in a ticket with your concerns about injuries, do it today! It's easier to get it fixed before the new engine starts.

Quote: Originally Posted By chewchad on 5/03/2010
The only thing I do not like about HD is the injury thing. WIS needs to remember we are paying customers. If I am paying the $10, I dont want one of my players missing 20 games.

I understand to adjust the durabililty effect somewhat, and I may be in the minority by thinking injuries should be the last thing that plays into wins/losses.

I agree with this. If we are going to be subjected to a noticeable increase in injury frequency and severity we should have larger rosters with walkons that can dribble and basketball and chew gum at the same time. I do not hink this is going to be a good change. I think that durability should be dropped altogether.

I kind of go the other way with this. It's another tradeoff during recruiting, risk vs. reward. Get low DU, you can possibly get a better player, a diamond in the rough, sort of, who may have higher cores. In my case, a DUR of 1 is like Mr. Glass. He's effectively out for the season. It'll certainly give me pause going forward when I'm recruiting...but in some cases maybe it's a gamble worth taking. Injuries happen in real life, sometimes season-ending ones, too. I'm OK with WIS making DUR more important, to a degree. And based on what I can tell so far, I don't think they've crossed the line yet.

can someone who paid attention quantify the change to how long a player can play? someone said most guys can play 30 minutes now, but was that for zone, or press?

if anybody was watching closely enough, how many minutes would you say a starter playing 22mpg today in the press could play? what about a starter playing 28mpg in the zone?

also, to those suggesting larger rosters due to increase in injuries - the change to allow players to play longer should more than offset the injuries, it sounds like. and increasing roster size has tons of ramifications, most of which you would not like. for starters, the rich would get so much richer, it would really not be fun for anybody else. think UCLA under wooden when they had 17 or 18 scholarships.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 5/03/2010
can someone who paid attention quantify the change to how long a player can play? someone said most guys can play 30 minutes now, but was that for zone, or press?

if anybody was watching closely enough, how many minutes would you say a starter playing 22mpg today in the press could play? what about a starter playing 28mpg in the zone?

I was running uptempo with a man/press and players set on "Tired" with 90+ STA were getting 32-34 minutes. Fatigue of "Getting Tired" dropped them down to 26-28 minutes.

Playing Normal tempo and man/press a PF set on "Tired" with a 74 STA played 30, 33, 28, 28 and 30 minutes.

There are a few guys on other teams averaging 37+ minutes. Gardner-Webb is even playing uptempo with three guys over 35.