Players Condition - NEW

[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..

[ByloBand]

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

I believe the confusion stems from the fact that I will not allow myself to get pinned down to a single position when lines are drawn, and people are forced to take sides. This issue, like everything else in life, gets forced into a black or white, with us or against us mentality, and I am always in the gray area, acknowledging that both sides' arguments have merit. I'm too old to waste time taking sides, I try to broker compromise, comradery, and understanding.

On one hand, I think it makes perfect sense to assume that if you push your players harder, they should tire faster or more significantly. On the other hand, I do think there should be a significant reward for managers who choose to press their players harder.

On one hand, I think players being tired should be part of the game. On the other hand, I agree with many of you who have said that we need deeper benches and more versatile players to help offset tired players.

I doubt this answers your question, but hopefully it helps you understand my position.

[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?

[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.

[Moi]

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.

Hi there, vad!

I wanted to answer this to avoid reaching the wrong conclusions. But first of all, thanks for taking the time to do this study However, as you would agree, the study is not long enough and thorough enough to assume anything.

Tactics do have an important impact into the game. Selecting different pressure styles (high pressure - whole pitch vs low pressure - half pitch) HAS an impact in your players and in your team's performance. Same works with man-to-man and zonal defensive styles. More demanding tactics give you a boost on your performance, in exchange of higher condition drop. As in real life. Of course we can't tell you how it affects the performance of your players, this is up to every manager to "investigate", but yes, of course, high pressure gives you an extra performance boost, while normal pressure doesn't (however, it also influences other things).

Before, it didn't make sense to have one tactic (high pressure) giving a team better performance, in exchange of same drop condition than the other option. What we have changed is the impact in the condition that these tactics require, and obviously they're not tactics that should be constantly used, because YES, they use a lot of condition.

In your study you mention 3 games, but you can't make conclusions based only on the few changes/settings you did for every one of them. For example in the 2nd one, you switched one tactic with 0-2, but you already said he was stronger by a star, and higher level. It ended 0-3. How do you know it wouldn't have ended 0-4 if you hadn't selected that? Well, you don't.

Game 3: you selected zonal and low pressure, ended drawing the match. How do you know you wouldn't have won the match if you had switched to high pressure at half time? Maybe that boost would have had a decisive impact, hurt the other team and led you to score a goal (or even a couple).

Just because you switched tactics in one match against a much stronger opponent when you were losing 0-2 and you immediately didn't score 5 goals doesn't mean these tactics don't have impact on the game/performance/chances to win. Switching to high demanding tactics like these will give you a boost but of course won't guarantee you'll immediately win the game. They just give you more chances, at a price.

I'll say that again: More demanding tactics will have impact in your performance and chances to win, BUT in exchange of your players consuming more condition. Like in real life, if you have your whole team doing high pressure on their rivals, yes, that gives you better performance ... for a while, because it makes your players lose a lot of energy very quickly, so you can't (or shouldn't) be doing that all the time in all the matches. Just when you need it.

If you force your team to press hard their rivals for the whole 90 minutes match, of course they will be exhausted at the end of it. No teams in real life do that pressure for 90 minutes, because when you've been doing this for a while, player performance drops as they get more and more tired.

That is the goal of the change we did.

[Gert Funck]

...

Again you fail or refuse too address the new extreme ingame condition drop, that is the real issue, that is actually causing a lot of injuries no matter what tactics you chose ? what are your reel intentions here, because more realistic it is not.

And injured players are stockpiling by managers, and too be frank draining all the joy out of this great game, when all you can think about is how to get enough red packs to actually have a lineup, and even more to make it competitive

[Moi]

Not at all, Gert Funck

I am not refusing anything. I am explaining how it works. If you don't want the condition of your players to drop much more than before, don't use extreme tactics that force your players to run and press their rivals all the time. If you don't use them, your players' condition will be similar than it was before. Of course the less condition your player has, the more chances he has to get injuried. So it's something to take into account when forcing them to do high pressure for long periods of time. But the injury formula itself hasn't changed.

[Gert Funck]

Not at all, Gert Funck

I am not refusing anything. I am explaining how it works. If you don't want the condition of your players to drop much more than before, don't use extreme tactics that force your players to run and press their rivals all the time. If you don't use them, your players' condition will be similar than it was before. Of course the less condition your player has, the more chances he has to get injuried. So it's something to take into account when forcing them to do high pressure for long periods of time. But the injury formula itself hasn't changed.

and my tactics


But why does a player 95% condition go into red condition in late minutes of game (increased risk of injury) that is new, and the real IMO issue

[spornybol]

Not at all, Gert Funck

I am not refusing anything. I am explaining how it works. If you don't want the condition of your players to drop much more than before, don't use extreme tactics that force your players to run and press their rivals all the time. If you don't use them, your players' condition will be similar than it was before. Of course the less condition your player has, the more chances he has to get injuried. So it's something to take into account when forcing them to do high pressure for long periods of time. But the injury formula itself hasn't changed.

i`m not using high pressure game yet i got 3 injuries in the same day over two games and 5 injuries in 4 as i said in earlier thread so you can`t say this change has NOT had a knock on effect with injuries