I have a player that I promised would start but got injured a few games ago and his health is only at 80 now. When his health was at 60 I tried to start him but the engine wouldn't let him play. This morning his work ethic dropped by 10 and I got this message:

"Coach, the one thing I learned when I was a kid was that if you tell someone you're going to something, you do it. You told me I'd be THE starter, but I've started exactly 9 games - not quite THE starter you promised. I'm not sure if I can play with someone who can't follow through on his promises."

Has anyone had this happen before? It seems that injuries should change the circumstance.

EDIT: forgot to include that his health is just now at 80 after 6 games of being injured

I think that's a glitch.  If he's started every game in which he was 80% healthy, he should be satisfied.   Send a ticket

They recently update that logic, so it could well be you are one of the first to see this new logic.. Send a ticket and post here if you would on how it was resolved.

if you start him going forward should be fine - the question is what % health makes it count toward starting - I think ...not sure....that seble said in some thread about 3 weeks ago that it counts if he is ABLE to play - that is, it only is ignored if he is OUT not if he is at say 70% etc

Posted by metsmax on 11/17/2011 9:51:00 AM (view original):
if you start him going forward should be fine - the question is what % health makes it count toward starting - I think ...not sure....that seble said in some thread about 3 weeks ago that it counts if he is ABLE to play - that is, it only is ignored if he is OUT not if he is at say 70% etc

If that true thats pretty stupid logic. Most coaches arent going to throw a gimpy guy, who is barely able to play, out in the starting lineup unless theyre a lot better than the alternative.

Posted by blackdog3377 on 11/17/2011 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 11/17/2011 9:51:00 AM (view original):
if you start him going forward should be fine - the question is what % health makes it count toward starting - I think ...not sure....that seble said in some thread about 3 weeks ago that it counts if he is ABLE to play - that is, it only is ignored if he is OUT not if he is at say 70% etc

If that true thats pretty stupid logic. Most coaches arent going to throw a gimpy guy, who is barely able to play, out in the starting lineup unless theyre a lot better than the alternative.

look back a few weeks in the forum and you will find a thread about this including comments from seble

Posted by metsmax on 11/17/2011 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by blackdog3377 on 11/17/2011 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 11/17/2011 9:51:00 AM (view original):
if you start him going forward should be fine - the question is what % health makes it count toward starting - I think ...not sure....that seble said in some thread about 3 weeks ago that it counts if he is ABLE to play - that is, it only is ignored if he is OUT not if he is at say 70% etc

If that true thats pretty stupid logic. Most coaches arent going to throw a gimpy guy, who is barely able to play, out in the starting lineup unless theyre a lot better than the alternative.

look back a few weeks in the forum and you will find a thread about this including comments from seble

But thats so much effort! I think Ill just take a nap. Maybe someone else will find it....

CS Response:

Ben,

We do not count games where he is out against him, but as soon as he's technically able to play (but still not 100%) he will expect to play if a promise was made.

My Response:

Thanks for your response. I've heard that the game logic has just been updated in the last few weeks for this situation. However, I feel like I was blindsided with this because there was no message from the player stating "I'm good to go, Coach" or something like that. It doesn't seem fair that I'm supposed to know at exactly what % I need to put him back in the game. And even if I did know what that would be, it seems that I would be running a huge risk of re-injuring the player.

Posted by metsmax on 11/17/2011 9:51:00 AM (view original):
if you start him going forward should be fine - the question is what % health makes it count toward starting - I think ...not sure....that seble said in some thread about 3 weeks ago that it counts if he is ABLE to play - that is, it only is ignored if he is OUT not if he is at say 70% etc

Yeah I'm not too worried about him transferring, it's really the work ethic hit that bothers me. In real life if a player was at 70-80% health, I think it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't complain about the guaranteed start...

Here is the thread from a few weeks ago

http://www.wisjournal.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=446309&TopicsTimeframe=30&TopicsPage=7

Posted by bdpoor on 11/17/2011 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 11/17/2011 9:51:00 AM (view original):
if you start him going forward should be fine - the question is what % health makes it count toward starting - I think ...not sure....that seble said in some thread about 3 weeks ago that it counts if he is ABLE to play - that is, it only is ignored if he is OUT not if he is at say 70% etc

Yeah I'm not too worried about him transferring, it's really the work ethic hit that bothers me. In real life if a player was at 70-80% health, I think it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't complain about the guaranteed start...

the work ethic will recover in about 5 games I believe as long as you start him

CS Response:

"In order to close a loophole with promises, we had to make the starting requirements dependent on team games played instead of player games played when compared to player games started. The side effect of that is injured players now expect to play in any game where they are available (>60%). There's no way for us to account for them being at less than 100%, so as long as they are available to play they will expect to.

Also, there is no increase in injury chances if they play at less than 100% health. Chances are based purely on the player's Durability."

Didn't realize that 60% and over was considered good to go and that the health% has nothing to do with injuries, just durability...