BuzzerBeater Forums

I pointed out I am not a native speaker. I used the word 'gripe' as I know it, with its first meaning in the Webster dictionary: "to complain naggingly or constantly; grumble". "To complain constantly" seems to be fitting the bill, and I've never seen this particular use as being derogatory. But then again, this is just me.

I particularly meant long-term problems with the players, not with the team. As in, no-one was on the shelf for 4 weeks, losing 3 levels of stamina and 4 levels of game shape. Or something like that.

Beyond that, being able to field a capable line-up even when you have 1 or 2 injuries is a part of managing your roster. Given that quite a number of these injuries were game only, I'd hazard a guess that you probably haven't had 3 players injured at the same time for more than 1 week.

A downside to such an idea is that a user can know that once they hit the threshold, none of their players will be injured for the rest of the season. That being said, if a user hits the threshold, they have been screwed by the random number generator often enough that the knowledge won't be a big advantage.

I thought the whole point of the cap was to prevent from being screwed by the random number generator too much. I don't like this idea for several reasons:

First, because any system with concurrent positive probability events is self-regulating (i.e. it is increasingly less likely to get a large number of consequent 'successes' - in this case, injuries);

Second, where do you draw the line? Do you control for the number or week total of injuries? How do yo deal with game injuries?

If you control for length, this system gives comparative advantage to teams who get several long injuries. Sure, they lose 1 or 2 players for a long time, but the rest of their squad becomes invincible.

If you control for number, then squads that sustained several short injuries are clearly better off.

If you control for both, well, then you get the worst of both worlds.

Third, it just feels plain artificial and unnecessary. It's a can of worms, and it creates more potential problems than it solves.

If you have doctor level X, we assign an injury in a non-linear way weighted strongly towards shorter injuries between 0 and (10+X)/2 weeks, and then we subtract X/2 weeks from the injury length. So the better your doctor, the higher the odds that when those weeks are subtracted, you'll get an immediately-healed player.

First thing that comes to mind: implement a structure, where a player can play hurt.

Very rough example: put in additional variable, say "health". Injuries affect health, which then recovers towards its maximum value. At your own risk, you can field a player at less than 100%, but he will perform worse and this will slow down his recovery and the benefit he gets from training.

This opens the door for new types of staff like rehab specialists, and whatnot. Thoughts, everyone?

I don't think injuries can make the game any funnier at all.
The less they are into the game, the happier the users will be. Injuries only increase the random ... and now, if you have 2-3 players out in the same time, you can even risk a drop of entusiasm buying their substitutes.

Hi, I'm tending to agree on WFU03 on this one. I think the system as it is now takes to much away from the pleasure of playing. The example of getting your newly bought star injured before the playoff finale illustrates it. I believe it takes alot more away from the game than the satisfaction added from more realism, and my guess is alot of gamers - experiencing injuries like that - would agree. Now, since obviously this could destroy a full season, people might give up on the game. I guess, this is not something you would want to happen - including from a business point of view.

You are asking for a change to the staff system to possibly mend this. One thing you could do is split the role of doctor into 2. Adding a physio - responsible for conditioning - which level would decide what the doctors do now. When a injury happens, the level of your physio will influence it's seriousness (as the doctor does today). The level of your doctor however, would - as suggested - decide how fast a player heals. As an extra you might add that a player can play hurt - with an added risk of re-injury. However, again the level of your physio and/or doctor could help reduce the risk.

Most importantly though you should reduce the chances of getting injuries. Someone mentioned that scrimmages should have a reduced risk. I agree, but perhaps it could be taken further. Why not make it a strategic decision mixed in with the level of effort. For instance you could increase the risk of getting injuries when people play "crunch time". Reduce it when people play "take it easy" or scrimmages.

To sum things up:

- chance of getting an injury should be reduced
- chance of getting an injury depends on effort level
- level of doctor should influence speed of healing
- split doctor into physio and doctor, with physio adapting current doctors role
- make it possible to play hurt (added extra risk of re-injury)

Anyway, back to Pens vs Flyers... :-)

my suggestion-request :

players heal faster if you have a better doctor

change the injury time instead of weeks to days. i mean that it could be dday-to-day injury or 10 day injury not strictly week. with minimun 2 official matches per week 2 weeks injury will destroy tactics , training , etc .

for example i bought a c for backup and training . he wqas injured for 6 weeks so i had great trouble in almost a season. also the training was recked for a whole season [even if he was 18 at the time] .

let the players loose 3-4-5 matches and not 2-3-4 weeks

Do you realize this has already been done in the middle of last season, and players cannot really get injured for more than 5 weeks anymore, provided you have a decent doctor?

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/9/2008 10:31:35 PM