A patch is needed in this game

[SteveBsFan]

Skydog does make a good point, looking at the list of players years 8+, we have:

18 QB's rated higher than 60.
6 CB's rated higher than 60
3 safeties rated higher than 60

That's a pretty steep ratio of QB to secondary, so we were clearly getting a huge influx of QB's, especially from TCY since all but one of those QB's are under 10 years (and that one is a backup).. I don't remember when we stopped using TCY, but it's clear from that list, it was definitely a QB factory.

Now, it's starting to balance out....

From years R-7:

Players over 60:

QB - 15
CB - 11
S - 15

That being said, those non QB's do usually retire quicker than the QB's, but I think when that massive batch of year 10+ QB's retires, we may see a little less passing.. hopefully our next few drafts are more defense heavy as well.

Higher injuries would also make it interesting too. That would certainly help lower the offensive production of the league. Maybe we should think of scaling it up this off-season?

[DakotaGeorge]

I have been complaining a long time about the games issues. The finance blows and is disgusting the game planning is kinda corky. Some of the on field things done are stupid. I mean I could go on and on. I do not know why the game is over powered in the passing game. I think we need a completely new game from maybe even a completely new company. I do not mean we as a league but we as in football sim enthusiasts. I mean us as a league could really use a major patch for this game or a fof 2010. The finances need to be fixed and the whole outline of the game in my opinion.

With that being said do not think that pass defense is just your DBs and their ratings. you need to run schemes and formations aswell.

Also I dont get the idea and I am not too optimistic that a new patch or a new version is even in the works. Sooo like everyone told me when I brought up some fixes for the finances. We all play the same game with the same rules and the same flaws just the way it is.

[SteveBsFan]

How difficult of a change was this?

I can't imagine herding the majority of the owners to thinking this would be a good idea.

an interesting result however.

What is ours set at? I think changing it from like 100 to 200 would be drastic, but if it helps, I may be all for it. Another option would to up it 25% over the next 4 seasons, just to give people time to build depth... Either change doesn't bother me

[SkyDog]

How difficult of a change was this?

I can't imagine herding the majority of the owners to thinking this would be a good idea.

an interesting result however.

Difficult in convincing people? Not terribly. We were at 150 at the time, though. One thing that we did determine with near-certainty is that the injury rate is linear. If you go from 100 to 150, you will have roughly 1.5 times the injuries. If you go from 100 to 200, you will have roughly twice the injuries.

[sovstar]

lol

Jave complains about injuries at 110. Imagine 200.

[Matt]

Difficult in convincing people? Not terribly. We were at 150 at the time, though. One thing that we did determine with near-certainty is that the injury rate is linear. If you go from 100 to 150, you will have roughly 1.5 times the injuries. If you go from 100 to 200, you will have roughly twice the injuries.

I would empathize with the argument that it may take "fun out of the game" by increasing the injury level because star players would get hit by the injury stick.

[SteveBsFan]

I would empathize with the argument that it may take "fun out of the game" by increasing the injury level because star players would get hit by the injury stick.

I don't really see that. Star plays get hit with the injury stick in the NFL, it happens. IMO it's a little more fun to build depth than ride the backs of a few star players. Of course others may disagree, but i'm definitely in favor of at least a raise to 150ish if not more.

[tarcone]

I am in favor of raising the injury number.
Injuries happen. Roster management is fun.

[Matt]

don't get me wrong, I'd be for that. It would add a lot of interesting roster management for everyone. I was just saying that I would understand both sides of the argument

[W0LF3MAN813]

injuries are fine where they are, i think you've just had a string of bad luck injury wise

[Chris Rex]

Not knowing the game mechanics, is there any way to dampen the draft a bit as well?

[Kobeck]

set injuries to NFL normal, what is that 300 in FOF

In the IFL we put a lot of effort into the offseason and that would definatly reward the teams with depth.

Fresno has no depth, but then again 0-5 teams have no starters either.

[kingfc22]

Up the injuries. I try to build a team with some depth, but my game planning is no where near the knowledge that some have in this game.

I have no desire to play SP which irks me because that seems like the only way to learn the FOF secrets.

[Jave]

Up the injuries? LOL, sure why not, I still have a few starters playing, might as well take care of that.

[SteveBsFan]

Up the injuries? LOL, sure why not, I still have a few starters playing, might as well take care of that.

You've just had shitty luck to be honest. There are only six teams in the league right now with more than 4 injured players, and it's not even that drastic of a list..

Fresno - 6
Hartford - 5
Little Rock - 7
Madison - 5
Oakland - 7
Reno - 5

Out of those 35 players from the 6 most injured teams, 12 are listed as probable (34%)

Take a look at the NFL injury report, and this is only by week 4

http://www.nfl.com/injuries?week=4

There were 24 players listed in the Bengals / Browns game alone. If you add in the injured players from the Bucs, that's 40 players listed on 3 teams, dwarfing anything we see in the IFL. Half the teams in the NFL would take your injury report any week

The *only* thing I don't like about increasing injuries in the IFL are the random ratings hits for serious injuries. Many of them are unrealistic and frustrating, but hey you take the good with the bad.