I don't really understand why making the probability of injuries be tied to something you can see when you're recruiting makes injuries a BIGGER problem. It's pretty simple now - you're that scared of losing a player to injury, only recruit guys with very high durability.

dahs, we all spend a good amount of time, energy and money on this game. There are enough random factors already, we don't need another one that's capable of derailing your entire season.

I think the randomness of injuries may become the equivilent of losing Early Entries.

One guy with a 30 DUR may get hurt a couple seasons and miss 20-25 games. Another guy with a 30 DUR will play every game. Rewarded for nothing but having luck on your side.

The Injury has been modified a bit:

Sunstro suggested:

Just thought I would throw another idea out there. Maybe consider getting rid of major injuries altogether, but increase the frequency of minor injuries (the ones that take you down to around 80%), with low DU guys more likely to get injured, and slower to recover. Then, the DU rating would be more relevant because low-DU guys would get injured most seasons, but only drop to about 80%. This would lower their overall effectiveness, but still allow them to play (your stud 99-RB guy plays like an 80-RB guy, for example). It seems to me that that would make me consider DU in recruiting, but at the same time, wouldn't totally destroy a season. You'd just have to consider the risk/reward of the guy playing at 85% most of the time.

As of the latest post, the response was that things had moved towards that from where they were.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 5/03/2010can 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

I noticed no difference in its current state at the begining it was pretty high.

I just don't understand how making injuries all minor makes sense in the context of the game as it exists. Either totally remove health or allow for major injuries. It seems to me to be utterly ridiculous that you have a full scale of health but only use the top 20% of it. If 50% isn't an option then why does it even exist as a theoretical possibility?

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 5/03/2010The Injury has been modified a bit:

Sunstro suggested:

Just thought I would throw another idea out there. Maybe consider getting rid of major injuries altogether, but increase the frequency of minor injuries (the ones that take you down to around 80%), with low DU guys more likely to get injured, and slower to recover. Then, the DU rating would be more relevant because low-DU guys would get injured most seasons, but only drop to about 80%. This would lower their overall effectiveness, but still allow them to play (your stud 99-RB guy plays like an 80-RB guy, for example). It seems to me that that would make me consider DU in recruiting, but at the same time, wouldn't totally destroy a season. You'd just have to consider the risk/reward of the guy playing at 85% most of the time.

As of the latest post, the response was that things had moved towards that from where they were.

That is a great idea.

Dahs, you dont want to lose a star player for 15 games over pretty much sheer randomness. We are talking about the 10 DUR guy that gets hurt for 20 games......what about the 70 DUR guy that has a freak 10 or 15 game injury?

Note that I am presuming 'IN that direction' does not mean 'exactly that was adopted' but that it 'moved towards that from where it was now'