So many injuries

[Rupal]

SI can say whatever they want with great respect, Mike! If it's down to excessive training then please explain why it happens with new saves? I am trying to do a Truro save (being basically fond of suffering!!). Of course, you start off with several injuries but after one friendly and two first team games I have another THREE long-term injuries on top of the ones I got for free at the start. They haven't been training long enough for me to have done that much damage (season is only a week old for goodness' sake and I do not have excessive closing down or hard tackling set either - indeed tempo is set to slow and tackling to gentle). I'd put it down to bad luck except that this is not the first time a save has been ruined in precisely this way by a long chalk! The fact is that enjoyment of the game is seriously affected. I can accept that having 6 or 7 injuries is not excessive for clubs with average numbers of available players and that the position of (say) Newcastle at the start of a save is worse BUT the latter have far more short-term injuries than poor old Truro - the majority of their 11 injuries will be back within 2 weeks. The loss of 6 or 7 players in a squad with a total of only 12 or 13 non 'greyed out' players is a **** of a lot more serious than the same number in a squad of 30 plus! Do SI claims about the numbers of injuries being in line with the real-life situation take such matters as the proportion of a squad down with long-term injuries into account? In any case, whether the statistics back up SI's claim of realism or not is not altogether the point! The fact is that a significant number of people find their enjoyment of the game seriously affected by the numbers of injuries as can been seen by the existence of lots of threads of this sort and it would be in SI's interests to take account of this in future releases in the series.

 

[Scotty98TR]

SI can say whatever they want with great respect, Mike! If it's down to excessive training then please explain why it happens with new saves? I am trying to do a Truro save (being basically fond of suffering!!). Of course, you start off with several injuries but after one friendly and two first team games I have another THREE long-term injuries on top of the ones I got for free at the start. They haven't been training long enough for me to have done that much damage (season is only a week old for goodness' sake and I do not have excessive closing down or hard tackling set either - indeed tempo is set to slow and tackling to gentle). I'd put it down to bad luck except that this is not the first time a save has been ruined in precisely this way by a long chalk! The fact is that enjoyment of the game is seriously affected. I can accept that having 6 or 7 injuries is not excessive for clubs with average numbers of available players and that the position of (say) Newcastle at the start of a save is worse BUT the latter have far more short-term injuries than poor old Truro - the majority of their 11 injuries will be back within 2 weeks. The loss of 6 or 7 players in a squad with a total of only 12 or 13 non 'greyed out' players is a **** of a lot more serious than the same number in a squad of 30 plus! Do SI claims about the numbers of injuries being in line with the real-life situation take such matters as the proportion of a squad down with long-term injuries into account? In any case, whether the statistics back up SI's claim of realism or not is not altogether the point! The fact is that a significant number of people find their enjoyment of the game seriously affected by the numbers of injuries as can been seen by the existence of lots of threads of this sort and it would be in SI's interests to take account of this in future releases in the series.

I fail to see how the size of a squad would ever affect a players injury, in real life or the game.

And people keep saying that "if there isn't a bug how come dozens of people are having this problem". But if you think of all the people playing FM, I don't think a dozen people claiming to have a problem is too bad to be honest. The majority of people don't have a problem, therefore I don't see how it could be claimed to be a bug and not something you are doing wrong...

 

[Rupal]

But obviously the size of a squad is an issue when looking at the numbers of injuries in a club. If Man U, with 40 players (say, because I haven't checked) and substantial funds to obtain replacements has 9 injuries that is a misfortune. If Billericay, who have 16 (again say) and don't have two halfpence to rub together, get 9 injuries, that is a catastrophe! Elementary mathematics shows that Billericay under such hypothetical circumstances, are far more severely affected by injuries than Man U and saying that 9 is a realistic figure is simplistic from a GAME PLAYING point of view. It's the proportion of injured to fit players which is the point. Too great an insistence on 'realism' may well adversely affect playability and it must be borne in mind that first and foremost FM is a computer GAME. And you know very well that there have been far more than a dozen people moaning about this matter over a number of years - it's been a running sore over several editions of FM. Closing your eyes to a problem doesn't solve it!

 

[Scotty98TR]

Closing your eyes to a problem doesn't solve it!

Just as tricking yourself into believing there is a problem, doesn't make it exist!

 

[Rupal]

Just as tricking yourself into believing there is a problem, doesn't make it exist!

Indeed that is correct. But it's not a matter of deluding oneself if one says that playability is adversely affected by something in a game. If I feel that my enjoyment of the game is less than it ought to be because of the way in which injuries are dealt with then that is a matter of fact. If it was only me that might be put down to some foolish eccentricity on my part. However, you must be aware that the question of injuries in FM has given rise to a fair number of threads of this sort over various editions and that I am actually not alone in this. It may well be that my preference for managing in the lower leagues where such injury crises have more damaging consequences because of small squad sizes makes me more likely to be critical from the game playing perspective than the majority of people who, I believe, manage large clubs at high levels. Nevertheless, that doesn't alter the fact that, for a number of others and myself, the injury issue is one which does tend to spoil the game play.

 

[Scotty98TR]

But you have bought a game which is intended to be as realistic as possible. You can't decided the game coding is wrong because you don't enjoy it. I would much prefer it if I could score it with every shot I took on FIFA, but that doesn't meant he game should be made like that.

And I refer you back to my point before. A lot of people have brought up this "problem"; but YOU must acknowledge that most people haven't. And I think the majority of FM players play at lower levels, so that is not a valid argument at all.

 

[Scotty98TR]

Indeed that is correct. But it's not a matter of deluding oneself if one says that playability is adversely affected by something in a game. If I feel that my enjoyment of the game is less than it ought to be because of the way in which injuries are dealt with then that is a matter of fact. If it was only me that might be put down to some foolish eccentricity on my part. However, you must be aware that the question of injuries in FM has given rise to a fair number of threads of this sort over various editions and that I am actually not alone in this. It may well be that my preference for managing in the lower leagues where such injury crises have more damaging consequences because of small squad sizes makes me more likely to be critical from the game playing perspective than the majority of people who, I believe, manage large clubs at high levels. Nevertheless, that doesn't alter the fact that, for a number of others and myself, the injury issue is one which does tend to spoil the game play.

But you have bought a game which is intended to be as realistic as possible. You can't decided the game coding is wrong because you don't enjoy it. I would much prefer it if I could score it with every shot I took on FIFA, but that doesn't meant he game should be made like that.

And I refer you back to my point before. A lot of people have brought up this "problem"; but YOU must acknowledge that most people haven't. And I think the majority of FM players play at lower levels, so that is not a valid argument at all.

 

[Trinity4eva]

Indeed that is correct. But it's not a matter of deluding oneself if one says that playability is adversely affected by something in a game. If I feel that my enjoyment of the game is less than it ought to be because of the way in which injuries are dealt with then that is a matter of fact. If it was only me that might be put down to some foolish eccentricity on my part. However, you must be aware that the question of injuries in FM has given rise to a fair number of threads of this sort over various editions and that I am actually not alone in this. It may well be that my preference for managing in the lower leagues where such injury crises have more damaging consequences because of small squad sizes makes me more likely to be critical from the game playing perspective than the majority of people who, I believe, manage large clubs at high levels. Nevertheless, that doesn't alter the fact that, for a number of others and myself, the injury issue is one which does tend to spoil the game play.

Im just wondering how you explain how i have never had this "injury Problem" are you saying that your version of the game is different to mine ? i have played well over a hundred seasons including a team in the very lowest level of the english league pyramid and have never expirienced an injury problem? Why isnt it happening to everybody if indeed it is a problem, Like you say or is it we have different definitions of what a problem is ?

 

[Mike.]

SI can say whatever they want with great respect, Mike! If it's down to excessive training then please explain why it happens with new saves? I am trying to do a Truro save (being basically fond of suffering!!). Of course, you start off with several injuries but after one friendly and two first team games I have another THREE long-term injuries on top of the ones I got for free at the start. They haven't been training long enough for me to have done that much damage (season is only a week old for goodness' sake and I do not have excessive closing down or hard tackling set either - indeed tempo is set to slow and tackling to gentle). I'd put it down to bad luck except that this is not the first time a save has been ruined in precisely this way by a long chalk! The fact is that enjoyment of the game is seriously affected. I can accept that having 6 or 7 injuries is not excessive for clubs with average numbers of available players and that the position of (say) Newcastle at the start of a save is worse BUT the latter have far more short-term injuries than poor old Truro - the majority of their 11 injuries will be back within 2 weeks. The loss of 6 or 7 players in a squad with a total of only 12 or 13 non 'greyed out' players is a **** of a lot more serious than the same number in a squad of 30 plus! Do SI claims about the numbers of injuries being in line with the real-life situation take such matters as the proportion of a squad down with long-term injuries into account? In any case, whether the statistics back up SI's claim of realism or not is not altogether the point! The fact is that a significant number of people find their enjoyment of the game seriously affected by the numbers of injuries as can been seen by the existence of lots of threads of this sort and it would be in SI's interests to take account of this in future releases in the series.

SI say what is fact, because they work of fact and real life stats. If you dont like that, why did you buy a game that aims to model such factors as closely as possible?

 

[Mike.]

Im just wondering how you explain how i have never had this "injury Problem" are you saying that your version of the game is different to mine ? i have played well over a hundred seasons including a team in the very lowest level of the english league pyramid and have never expirienced an injury problem? Why isnt it happening to everybody if indeed it is a problem, Like you say or is it we have different definitions of what a problem is ?

There is a discussion on some parts of injury modelling, SI feel there is definitely room for improvement here (I'd always wondered about this part, so am happy that's being talked about), but the actual rates are below real life. That part they are very happy with.

 

[Trinity4eva]

Does injury modelling mean the type and severity/length of the injury?

 

[Rupal]

Im just wondering how you explain how i have never had this "injury Problem" are you saying that your version of the game is different to mine ? i have played well over a hundred seasons including a team in the very lowest level of the english league pyramid and have never expirienced an injury problem? Why isnt it happening to everybody if indeed it is a problem, Like you say or is it we have different definitions of what a problem is ?

If the incidence of injuries is perfect then why are there people complaining about them then? That sort of argument cuts both ways.

 

[Rupal]

You certainly can say that the game coding does not provide the enjoyment which a not inconsiderable number of people feel that it should. It's a matter of semantics as to whether that can be described as 'wrong' or not. In passing, I understand that more people play with higher level teams according to what I have read, but, of course, that may well be wrong.

 

[Scotty98TR]

If the incidence of injuries is perfect then why are there people complaining about them then? That sort of argument cuts both ways.

No it doesn't, because not that many people are complaining about to compared to all the people that aren't!

 

[Mike.]

Does injury modelling mean the type and severity/length of the injury?

Yes, for example you shouldnt get a player getting a hamstring strain injury from a bad tackle, strains are not impact injuries. You get then from over exertion, yet sometimes you get them from a bad tackle in game, which is wrong.

Or a occasionally player getting a green cross injury, game ending and he has a major groin strain, or fractured ankle. In real life, you are not finishing the game with either, you're leaving on a stretcher, so they should be red injuries.

 

[Mike.]

You certainly can say that the game coding does not provide the enjoyment which a not inconsiderable number of people feel that it should. It's a matter of semantics as to whether that can be described as 'wrong' or not. In passing, I understand that more people play with higher level teams according to what I have read, but, of course, that may well be wrong.

You don't rewrite coding if your approach is overwhelmingly backed up by real life statistics. Especially when its a minority and every test you run backs up your stance.

 

[Rupal]

No it doesn't, because not that many people are complaining about to compared to all the people that aren't!

You have claimed that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the incidence of injuries. If people are complaining about them it shows that they don't agree. You also suggested that if it WAS a problem it should happen to EVERYBODY. Hence, your own criteria suggest that there should be unanimity about the injury question and there clearly is not. Thus the argument does, indeed, cut both ways. You didn't say 'most people', or 'a lot of people', you said 'everybody'. QED.

 

[Rupal]

You don't rewrite coding if your approach is overwhelmingly backed up by real life statistics. Especially when its a minority and every test you run backs up your stance.

If you are trying to make a successful GAME it might be very wise to do so. Your coding may well not make for the most enjoyable experience for your customers however much it's backed up by real life statistics. If you are in the business of making a GAME you need to take playability into account. I think this is the essential difference between our approaches here. You assume that if it's accurate it must be the right thing to do and ignore the game play aspect. I regard FM as a computer game and, as such, for me, it stands or falls by playability. Hence, your constant reiteration that the statistics are accurate doesn't address my concerns. If, as one can see from what they have said in various threads, some people give the game up because of the injury question then that's an issue that it would be sensible for the game producers to take into account. It's people's perception of how much fun it is to play the game which is at the heart of the matter.

 

[Rupal]

On another matter, Scotty, I am still waiting for your response in the other thread where I hoped that you would be able to explain exactly what I did wrong with that Truro save and why it couldn't possibly have been the programming. Thus far, the silence has been deafening! Cat got your tongue or could it just possibly be that you don't have an answer? I won't hold my breath......

 

[Mike.]

If you are trying to make a successful GAME it might be very wise to do so. Your coding may well not make for the most enjoyable experience for your customers however much it's backed up by real life statistics. If you are in the business of making a GAME you need to take playability into account. I think this is the essential difference between our approaches here. You assume that if it's accurate it must be the right thing to do and ignore the game play aspect. I regard FM as a computer game and, as such, for me, it stands or falls by playability. Hence, your constant reiteration that the statistics are accurate doesn't address my concerns. If, as one can see from what they have said in various threads, some people give the game up because of the injury question then that's an issue that it would be sensible for the game producers to take into account. It's people's perception of how much fun it is to play the game which is at the heart of the matter.

The game is more successful than its ever been. More to the point they are quite open about trying to get as close to the realism of a match as possible, with all its ups and downs . The game play aspect of it works, they haven't ignored it all. It just makes no sense whatsover to change something for a minority, which fundamentally breaks the balance of the game, because make no mistake, an accurate representation of injuries is part of the focus for the game.

Unless the playability is down a bug, which they are very confident is not, they are not randomly going to change injury rates. I mean, what would you change them to? Make them happen half as often as real life? a quarter? That's just not ever going to happen. Because its arbitrary, unbalanced, and has no realistic representation of what they are trying to do.

No offence but that isn't how a game developer works. Its not down to our differences, its down to how a game dev works. I reiterate it because that is how it works. Simple. You don't randomly unbalance a game, because a few people are not having their perception of "fun". And yes, having too few injuries is almost as bad as having too many, because then the representation is lost.

If you are giving up the game because you dont like having the kind of injury crisis that happens in real life, you probably shouldn't have bought the game in the first place. This isnt FIFA. Not everything will go your way.

That's it from me on this anyway. SI are always going to stick close to realism in this case. So this discussion is moot.