Players Condition - NEW

[Killroy]

Ok, just played 2 games with teams on own half pressuring and zonal defense. Energy loss is varying between 19-32%. This is a lot better then yesterday if you ask me where I saw all players go deep into yellow. Didn't change a thing though. 32% loss is a bit harsh though.

[Sons of Pitches]

If you want to make the game more realistic (which is fine) be sure to make other changes at the same time as the one that forces many of us to reach into our pocket to buy more green and red packs.

I'm all for realism.

[ByloBand]

I struggle with how to feel about the frequent injuries. It is impossible not to notice that players get injured more often in T11 than they do in real life, that is just a fact. But in real life, managers/trainers cannot simply wave a magic wand and instantly make a torn ACL go away. Also, the rampant injury problem seems to affect each team equally, which applies a twisted "fairness" to an overall unfair situation.

The solution to injuries and player's losing condition, as mentioned by several people in this thread, seems to be to increase the bench size to 25. I would find that a welcome change, but that would greatly increase the need for tokens and IMO as soon as Nordeus made that change, people would stop complaining about conditioning and shift to complaining about token consumption.

[Jogrew]

It's a disgrace, especially if the condition refresh is not increased from only 5% per 3 hours. Also what does it affect the goalkeeper too?

[Samuro]

I struggle with how to feel about the frequent injuries. It is impossible not to notice that players get injured more often in T11 than they do in real life, that is just a fact. But in real life, managers/trainers cannot simply wave a magic wand and instantly make a torn ACL go away. Also, the rampant injury problem seems to affect each team equally, which applies a twisted "fairness" to an overall unfair situation.

The solution to injuries and player's losing condition, as mentioned by several people in this thread, seems to be to increase the bench size to 25. I would find that a welcome change, but that would greatly increase the need for tokens and IMO as soon as Nordeus made that change, people would stop complaining about conditioning and shift to complaining about token consumption.

That's why I asked to generate many "versatile" nordgen players too, beside increasing the bench capacity... If they generate much more player that at least can play with 2 position "token" consumption wouldn't be a problem, because people can buy older player that already can play in 2 position without the need to training them to make them versatile..
because when one player get injury, then we have 2 or 3 subtitutes.. Usually, people will open to bidding war if there is a versatile player such as a player who can play as amc-mc-dmc.. But, if there are a lot of this player, with different ages, then the risk of bidding war will be lower.. We, as a manager (with low token) will be content, nordeus content too, and there a little peace on top eleven..

[ByloBand]

That's why I asked to generate many "versatile" nordgen players too, beside increasing the bench capacity... If they generate much more player that at least can play with 2 position "token" consumption wouldn't be a problem, because people can buy older player that already can play in 2 position without the need to training them to make them versatile..
because when one player get injury, then we have 2 or 3 subtitutes.. Usually, people will open to bidding war if there is a versatile player such as a player who can play as amc-mc-dmc.. But, if there are a lot of this player, with different ages, then the risk of bidding war will be lower.. We, as a manager (with low token) will be content, nordeus content too, and there a little peace on top eleven..

I can get behind that idea! I too have lamented the inability of 90% of the players to grasp more than one position. I would especially like to express my frustration that a ML or MR must first learn either DML or DMR before they can learn DL or DR. I played ML and DL my entire youth career, and while there are differences, they are not THAT different

[Samuro]

I can get behind that idea! I too have lamented the inability of 90% of the players to grasp more than one position. I would especially like to express my frustration that a ML or MR must first learn either DML or DMR before they can learn DL or DR. I played ML and DL my entire youth career, and while there are differences, they are not THAT different

Sooo, do you agree that nordeus have to do something about this condition or not ? because at #17 you have a different opinion..

[vad]

Here are some results.

Game 1. The opponent is close by strength. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game, did not change anything. Won 5:0.

Game 2. The opponent is stronger by a star, and higher level. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game. At minute 60 was losing 0:2. Switched to high pressure, man-to-man marking. Saw no improvement, the opponent scored one more goal. Lost 0:3.

Game 3. The opponent is stronger, 130 vs 127. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game, made no changes. Draw 0:0.

So from all looks it appears that the change is only about being "realistic", but it has no impact on the gameplay and on the chance to win. That is, if you set your team for high pressure and man-to-man marking, you will enjoy high realism of their losing condition twice faster, but their more intensive play will not translate into scoring more goals or losing less.

Such is Nordeus' definition of high realism.

[khris]

Here are some results.

Game 1. The opponent is close by strength. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game, did not change anything. Won 5:0.

Game 2. The opponent is stronger by a star, and higher level. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game. At minute 60 was losing 0:2. Switched to high pressure, man-to-man marking. Saw no improvement, the opponent scored one more goal. Lost 0:3.

Game 3. The opponent is stronger, 130 vs 127. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game, made no changes. Draw 0:0.

So from all looks it appears that the change is only about being "realistic", but it has no impact on the gameplay and on the chance to win. That is, if you set your team for high pressure and man-to-man marking, you will enjoy high realism of their losing condition twice faster, but their more intensive play will not translate into scoring more goals or losing less.

Such is Nordeus' definition of high realism.

I was thinking in that too... visual realism, because now, with logic, 2 different options of pressure waste different condition, but, the base is the same.
The key, are the players, and their internal proggramming, and all things in T11, as Ive said many times (wrong positions, morale, condition, victory bonus,... and +) affects just a little bit.
I've played with 0 condition many matches, noticed a increasing of % injury chances, but performance, can not be too different, game is not too "extense", to say a word, to simulate % per % every change.
So, simply, the best that managers can do, is belive in the players, play in low pressure, + zonal, and attending and doing the basic work that I always remind to managers, that is with the subs' + previous work testing players in positions and labours of corners + fouls, it have to be enough.

[spornybol]

so since this change in condition i`v never had so many booking`s so can`t get red pack with all the injuries they are giving me had another 2 injuries today meaning i need 24 reds to heal but wait i only get 1 red a day from daily gifts



edit above is my 1st game of day i still have another to play later at this rate i won`t have 11 player to play game let alone player`s with condition