Would you like to see the injury system redesigned?

Simple enough question, just want others opinions on this... and no I'm not talking about the number of injuries but how injuries are handled over all once sustained.

Personally I hate the current system, players with minor injuries can't play at all, players with upper body injuries can't play at all, and the thing that just sparked this thread from me, a player went out for 5-6 months for -tendonitis-?!?! i had a player out last season for 1 1/2 months with a stress fracture in his lower back. There's just a minor difference in these injuries.

Anyway more detail on my thoughts,

I would like to see players with minor things like a bruises, gashes, etc able to be selected for the squad, granted they will play at a lower level but there is no reason you shouldn't at least be able to select them.

I would like to see players with upper body injuries like sprained wrists, -possibly- broken arms, etc selectable for play since those aren't injuries that will prevent practice or play, excluding keepers of course. Obviously things like rib injuries, concussions, or other head injuries can't play or practice.

Lastly like i said, half the season for tendonitis? That's just dumb. Would be better if that were a niggling sort of injury that would hamper the player at various points, and more significantly if he doesn't get time to rest and heal. But it's certainly something that can be played with and if they aren't played or getting practice it's something that will clear up FAR faster.

Just get annoyed with the, one size fits all injury system with the only difference being how long the player will be out.

If you think half a season for tendonitis is excessive you should have a word with Owen Hargreaves

Simple enough question, just want others opinions on this... and no I'm not talking about the number of injuries but how injuries are handled over all once sustained.

Personally I hate the current system, players with minor injuries can't play at all, players with upper body injuries can't play at all, and the thing that just sparked this thread from me, a player went out for 5-6 months for -tendonitis-?!?! i had a player out last season for 1 1/2 months with a stress fracture in his lower back. There's just a minor difference in these injuries.

Anyway more detail on my thoughts,

I would like to see players with minor things like a bruises, gashes, etc able to be selected for the squad, granted they will play at a lower level but there is no reason you shouldn't at least be able to select them.

I would like to see players with upper body injuries like sprained wrists, -possibly- broken arms, etc selectable for play since those aren't injuries that will prevent practice or play, excluding keepers of course. Obviously things like rib injuries, concussions, or other head injuries can't play or practice.

Lastly like i said, half the season for tendonitis? That's just dumb. Would be better if that were a niggling sort of injury that would hamper the player at various points, and more significantly if he doesn't get time to rest and heal. But it's certainly something that can be played with and if they aren't played or getting practice it's something that will clear up FAR faster.

Just get annoyed with the, one size fits all injury system with the only difference being how long the player will be out.

Tendonitis and a lower back stress fracture are not even close to the same thing and like steveo says Hargreaves has missed the best part of two years with that injury

i voted no.

Tendonitis can vary significantly in severity and in rare cases may even require surgery, I think the injury's model is fine as it is in FM.

Quote regarding tendonitis from another site.

Is surgery ever needed for patellar tendonitis?

Exceedingly rarely. On some occasions, patients have persistent patellar tendonitis symptoms despite the treatment mentioned above. In these patients with chronic patellar tendonitis, who have tried the above treatments for at least a year, surgery can be considered. Surgery is usually considered if a portion of the tendon can be seen as degenerative on the MRI.

Source.

I voted other as as far as I can see injuries are still not as frequent or as frequently severe as in real life. I would suggest if you don't like injuries go off and play FIFA.

Tendonitis and a lower back stress fracture are not even close to the same thing and like steveo says Hargreaves has missed the best part of two years with that injury

i voted no.

Wasn't clear, but I was being sarcastic about the stress fracture and tendonitis, with the intention of saying a stress fracture is far more serious.

But I will say you all have a fair point on the tendonitis, I honestly didn't know it could be that serious. I had it in the past and it was a very minor thing, cleared up completely in a couple months with no real treatment.

That being said, no one has addressed why players with minor injuries can't be selected to the squad. Sure there are times you can use injections to get them through the next game and they'll be out longer. But that's not how it works, if an injury is minor enough and a player wants to play they can get injections every match, many time they get them at the start of a match and at half time. There are also cases of some players playing big matches with semi-serious knee related injuries.

Edit: Knew this would happen.. people need to learn how to read.

I voted other as as far as I can see injuries are still not as frequent or as frequently severe as in real life. I would suggest if you don't like injuries go off and play FIFA.

This poll/post has nothing to do with frequency at all.

You do realise that the injuries descriptions are just that, a text tag in a database.

The player doesn't really has an upper body injury, a gash, a sprain, a tear. When the ME calculates that an injury occurs it selects it from a potential database.

What you call the injuries is fairly irrelevant.

Way way down my list of things id like to see addressed in FM12

You do realise that the injuries descriptions are just that, a text tag in a database.

The player doesn't really has an upper body injury, a gash, a sprain, a tear. When the ME calculates that an injury occurs it selects it from a potential database.

What you call the injuries is fairly irrelevant.

Why are all you supporters dodging the point? Everything in this entire game is a tag for a number in a database somewhere.

The point is that everyone likes to talk about FM's depth, except there is no depth in the injury system because it is exactly what you said. Just a random number of days out of training and play. But if it had depth then it wouldn't just be a random number of days out, it would actually be a system you could interact with instead of just making sure you have a backup for that position.

To be honest, I do kind of agree with you, in that the "Player has <insert injury>, will be out for <insert time> approach could do with updating. Taking the Hargreaves example, how many times did it look like he was on his way to recovering, only to have yet another setback? There's absolutely no way any player in FM would miss 2 years like he has. Same with Woodgate, and the number of times its looked like his career might be over, only for him to FINALLY get fit again.

To be honest, I do kind of agree with you, in that the "Player has <insert injury>, will be out for <insert time> approach could do with updating. Taking the Hargreaves example, how many times did it look like he was on his way to recovering, only to have yet another setback? There's absolutely no way any player in FM would miss 2 years like he has. Same with Woodgate, and the number of times its looked like his career might be over, only for him to FINALLY get fit again.

I'm going to say this just to prove to all the blind supporter I'm not just whining...

This is another aspect that would be really good for the system. Because if you risk playing someone with an injury it can get worse, or something you thought had cleared up returns. Could lead to physios having more impact as well, as they wouldn't just be saying 'x will be back in y time'.

I just think it would be nice to have a more dynamic injury system. It's one of the most shallow aspects of the game as is.

Edit: regarding Braundjoh's post below...

Not I didn't mean playing them too soon after an injury. We all know the condition aspect to getting injured. I mean playing -with- an injury if the system allowed it.

Might be getting the wrong end of the stick about your above post, but playing someone too soon after they've come back from injury in the game does risk further injury due to low condition. Doesn't matter beyond that though, and doesn't mean he will get the same thing again, so could do with being more in-depth.

But I agree that physios should be more involved with the dynamic injury system you're talking about. More options are always a good thing, but it's not high on the list of things I would like to see personally. Would be good though

Honestly, it's pretty low on my list of priorities. I suppose it could always be improved though.

I'm going to say this just to prove to all the blind supporter I'm not just whining...

This is another aspect that would be really good for the system. Because if you risk playing someone with an injury it can get worse, or something you thought had cleared up returns. Could lead to physios having more impact as well, as they wouldn't just be saying 'x will be back in y time'.

I just think it would be nice to have a more dynamic injury system. It's one of the most shallow aspects of the game as is.

Edit: regarding Braundjoh's post below...

Not I didn't mean playing them too soon after an injury. We all know the condition aspect to getting injured. I mean playing -with- an injury if the system allowed it.

Don't get me wrong I think the injury system works well at the moment but as you say shallow is a fairly good description of it.

A more dynamic injury system would be nice if that depth adds something extra to the game. But we also need to consider that other areas of FM are probably more in need of the programming time.

I'd like to see players struggle to come back from long lay offs.

I'm also fairly sure there are some injuries that a player can play with.

this is kinda in there, when players are coming back from injury they will usually get a yellow cross beside them, which means they are fit enough to play but not near full fitness, if you play players during this period there is a chance they will end up out for longer, whilst its maybe not the same as giving a player an injection when returning from fitness its still kind of in there.

Yeah, when the inj icon is yellow they can play. The above post is tied in with what I meant in my earlier post.

The injury system is pretty cosmetic but I'm happy to see it stay that way.

Perhaps the labels could be a bit more sensibly attributed.

I voted yes as i would like to see something revamped. Overall though finances/transfer system is my number 1. Good poll though, ecourages debate.

Don't get me wrong I think the injury system works well at the moment but as you say shallow is a fairly good description of it.

A more dynamic injury system would be nice if that depth adds something extra to the game. But we also need to consider that other areas of FM are probably more in need of the programming time.

Fair enough, and I've said this same thing about other ideas people have put out. The ME, transfer system, etc... plenty of core areas that need work.

But aren't player injuries a very core element of managing a club? Which would mean having a shallow system handling that aspect cuts pretty deeply. So if the system needs work then it needs work, if we don't tell SI that then they won't ever work on it will they.

As for prioritizing... I'm thinking an injury system would rank higher then things like agents, yet people raved about agent additions. I'm sure there is some other minor new feature that can be done without for a year or two in exchange for a better injury system.

Regarding the programming time... I think that would be minimal, they already have the basics of it, but instead of having the 'yellow' injury icon for minor injuries they are still 'red'. The yellow icon only comes up after longer term injuries as a sign of returning to light training, but you can at least put the player in your squad then. That just has to be expended out to make more use of it with more minor injuries. The big time part of it would just be planning out what injuries have what level of severity and if they can be played or not. That at least gets rid of the 'player x is out for y days' one size fits all randomness. To add to that it would just take the coding of temporary modifiers to a players injury attribute to add in the injuries getting worse aspect.

So yeah, not the primary thing that needs to be changed, but should be higher on the list then some of the stuff SI have worked on. But lets all be fair, i didn't ask if it should be changed by 2012... I simply asked if it should be changed for the better at some point. Because, again, if we don't tell SI areas that could add depth to the game we can't expect them to always do it on their own.

I'd like things like where Evans and Carrick delayed surgery for half a season or so, risking more serious injuries along the way. More knocks that are largely insignificant but annoying because it tires players out more - but not enough to warrant an orange "Inj" icon. More physio feedback and feedback from them and fitness coaches on how to tailor their physical training as a result. The ability to ease players into light training after serious injuries. More granular physios and training (i.e. a knee specialist or a top-quality physiotherapist?). And so on.

I'm going to stick my oar in here because injuries take a huge amount of flack.

First things first, to make sure there is absolutely no confusion and no one is any doubt, I watch every single match in 2-D Full Match Replay.

Injuries are not shallow, they are not linear, they are not set in stone. That's just the impression you get from not watching your games and not going through the heartache of seeing your player take a knock.

Players that get injured can play the next game. Not all the time but certainly very regularly. The only injury that you can't play a player next match as a rule is the one where he is stretchered off. Every other injury can either be for that match only or for a while. I have had players running around with green crosses finish the match and have nothing wrong them after the game. A cut head needs medical attention, it doesn't need a week on the physio table. Learn to pay attention. When your player takes a knock check his profile. It will tell you what the staff think the problem is. If it sounds like something unimportant then it's spmething unimportant. If it says "potential ankle/knee/calf/hamstring" then he is in trouble. Pay attention. The game doesn't go into this much depth for it to deserve flack because you don't look.

Secondly the TYPE of injury you get depends on WHAT HAPPENED to your player. If mister One Anticipation dribbles skillfully at speed through the opponent defence and gets tackled hard by a strong Centreback then he is out for a year with a broken leg. If mister injury prone gets a Centreback jumping all over him to win a clearance then he is out for 6 days with bruised ribs.

Weak players take a lot of soft knocks. Idiots get hurt. Remember this. You wont find any better injury advice anywhere on any forum.

Like everything else in this game if you are complaining about it you are not very good at it and you have the wrong attitude. If you ask for help that is a completely different matter. A minority of things are dubious in FM, injuries are not one of them.

You're going to get a fair bit of flack simply because you didn't read the OP properly - he's not complaining injuries are problematic - he's saying there's not enough depth.

Injuries need more flexibility (for lack of better words).

I'm aware of the fact a knock (green cross) can be just a non-threatening bruise on the thigh or a potential season-ending ligament injury...

I'm also aware of the fact a player can be out of the game (red cross) but be ok the next day...

But the injury system being a bit simplistic has NOTHING to do with people not "understanding" how and why players get injured, or with people complaining about injuries (nobody did in this topic...)

As said, the cycle is: player gets injured, player's out for N days, player's back on light training (orange 'inj' icon), player's fine might just need to regain fitness.

We're missing non-sidelining injuries (broken nose, broken finger etc), relapses and, most important, chronic injuries...

There are plenty of footballers who kept on playing while half-injured, or who went through months of on-off the injury list due to their injury allowing them to play a couple of games before getting worse again.

Instead FM just works on an almost boolean system: player's fine/player's injured. Only very low Natural Fitness/Stamina attributes can sort of replicate the nightmare of playing while carrying persistent injuries.

We'd have players with "orange 'inj'" still able to play, albeit with lowered fitness %, or at least having AN OPTION to do so if we want/need to.

Is it a priority? No, not compared to transfers, managers turnover, AI judgment/squad building skills, newgens.

But surely we could have done without agents one more year and have a more flexible injury system.

At this point we'd just NOT get a description for injuries... just "he's injured for N days", because it makes no difference if it's a gashed leg, a concussion or the runs...

You're going to get a fair bit of flack simply because you didn't read the OP properly - he's not complaining injuries are problematic - he's saying there's not enough depth.

I'm guessing you are new here because I have written entire threads about the mechanics of injuries. Yet again some random OP refuses to look them up and yet again I am expected to repeat myself at length in great detail because someone is unable to watch a football match.

I will take whatever flak is handed out, because at the end of the day it will be me yet again teaching someone how FM works. I know how this goes.

I'm in no hurry to repeat myself every time someone mentions injuries, that's why I give hints and not instructional manuals every time I post in GD. The big hint this time around was Anticipation. If that doesn't imply significantly more depth than the OP thinks exists in the game then that is his fault.

We're missing non-sidelining injuries (broken nose, broken finger etc), relapses and, most important, chronic injuries...

So we are missing lots of specific words to describe general principles that are already ingame? Next time one of your players takes a knock that reduces his condition by 15% you want a long drawn out detailed report to tell you it was a relatively unimportant injury?

Meh.

I'm guessing you are new here because I have written entire threads about the mechanics of injuries. Yet again some random OP refuses to look them up and yet again I am expected to repeat myself at length in great detail because someone is unable to watch a football match.

Ok, so since you have done such extensive research into the game why don't you point out what we're missing about by not being able to play someone with a simple bruise or strained wrist.

And what exactly is anticipation have to do with anything? Anticipating players getting injured and pulling them off? Well getting injured has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread except for the morons that didn't read the thread.

So enlighten us great one.

Ok, so since you have done such extensive research into the game why don't you point out what we're missing about by not being able to play someone with a simple bruise or strained wrist.

And what exactly is anticipation have to do with anything? Anticipating players getting injured and pulling them off? Well getting injured has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread except for the morons that didn't read the thread.

So enlighten us great one.

A little something I wrote a year before you joined this forum.

I'm guessing you didn't do a forum search.

A little something I wrote a year before you joined this forum.

I'm guessing you didn't do a forum search.

No I didn't search for it, because I knew it would be completely pointless to do so, and I was right.

That whole huge block has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

Again, I ask the most basic thing that is relevant to this thread.... Why can't a player with a very simple and minor injury like a bruise or a strained wrist be part of our lineup?

This thread has nothing to do with the causes of injuries, but like I said, only the stupid that can't read don't know that. The thread is about a lack of depth in the injury system, and as we talked about earlier (but of course you would know that since you can't read), a greater depth also equals other risks of injury, not exactly something a whine thread would do now would it.

Why can't a player with a very simple and minor injury like a bruise or a strained wrist be part of our lineup?.

Because he is a pussy.

Your tough players will be completely availabe after the match, but you wont be on here talking about it because you didn't notice it.

I thought you were asking a question worth answering. My mistake.

I voted no, I can't say its something that bothers me and it certainly shoundn't be one of the priorities for fm 12. There are a number of other areas i'd like to see improved first.

Why does anyone get shot down as soon as they offer an 'idea' to try and make the game a bit more detailed and realistic? I mean surely if more of the SI community think of ideas like the OP and write them down in here then the more of a chance of a new game-breaking idea for SI and FM if developed properly and worked on? Not saying for a minute this one is, although I do like it but if other members see another user get flamed as soon as they offer an idea (which at the end of the day is all this is from the OP) then no-one else will dare to write one down.

If you don't agree with the OP, I don't see why people have to wade in and throw personal insults about or be condescending, just state your side of the discussion and why you do or do not agree.

Back to the thread, and like x42bn6 said, I would welcome a more in-depth way of injuries happening and being treated, as in you could tailor a schedule to a certain player because he has previous hamstring problems, i.e reduce short sprints in training, which could be obviously Aerobic in the current game.

Or maybe in the future, we could have physio's that specialise in different areas of their work, obviously there are more pressing matters that people think need work on like has been said, but it's an idea that could work if developed in the future.

Simple enough question, just want others opinions on this... and no I'm not talking about the number of injuries but how injuries are handled over all once sustained.

Personally I hate the current system, players with minor injuries can't play at all, players with upper body injuries can't play at all, and the thing that just sparked this thread from me, a player went out for 5-6 months for -tendonitis-?!?! i had a player out last season for 1 1/2 months with a stress fracture in his lower back. There's just a minor difference in these injuries.

Lol only a slight difference? ok then...

Examples - Hargreaves, King, Woodgate.

Andy Driver (plays for my team Hearts) was out from 2008 to 2010 with tendonitis in his knee so that seems like a pretty serious injury to me if the tendonitis is severe, it looks like your player had moderate tendonitis but just be thankful it was only 5-6 months.

So to answer your question, no I don't think the injury system should be redesigned just because you had a player out for 5-6 months with tendonitis

So to answer your question, no I don't think the injury system should be redesigned just because you had a player out for 5-6 months with tendonitis

You need to work on your reading comprehension. There is much more to the OP than you acknowledge.

Also, Hargreaves problems were far from simple tendonitis...King has an arthritic condition...Woodgate has a groin injury. What do these have to do with tendonitis?

For those of you unhappy with the injury descriptions etc, see link below to GilsMans injury model. Great add on to the game, really enhances my gaming experience.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/163936-RELEASED-GillsMan-s-New-Injuries-Model/page2?highlight=gillsman+injuries

So we are missing lots of specific words to describe general principles that are already ingame? Next time one of your players takes a knock that reduces his condition by 15% you want a long drawn out detailed report to tell you it was a relatively unimportant injury?

Meh.

Meh what?

A knock will reduce the in-game condition of a player... but provided nothing happens he'll be JUST FINE for the next match.

Clearly you're more interested in looking smart and in-the-know than in actually reading what other people wrote... I didn't say a word about long-winded news items to describe "what is already in the game".

Tell me, do we have players suffering from nagging and persisting injuries? No we don't... A player is either "red inj", "orange inj" or fit. And his level of fitness won't be influenced by an injury once his "inj" status is gone.

Basically the healing process is s STRAIGHT LINE always going up... Just like in real life eh?

What about those players who are "fit enough to play but nowhere near top condition"? In FM this just happens due to playing too much/too often. Nothing more. So forget having players carrying a "chronic knock" but still able/forced to play...

I don't know that the injury system as it is is truly broken, but there is undoubtedly room for improvement.

I'd like to see, for example, players with recurring injuries. They could be potentially noted as such by the physio and could be handled in a manner of "<Player> will be unavailable for approximately x days after <injury> started bothering him again"

You need to work on your reading comprehension. There is much more to the OP than you acknowledge.

Also, Hargreaves problems were far from simple tendonitis...King has an arthritic condition...Woodgate has a groin injury. What do these have to do with tendonitis?

Heh, thanks for this insight...

I've noticed that the majority of the people against they idea have failed to even address half the entire concept. They are simply blind SI supporter instead of wanting to work to see the game progress. Now, like some of them have said, if it's about more important things need to be done first, that's fine and I can agree with that. But so far most of the people that have posted reasons for 'no' have little to no relevant reasoning.

But hey, we should all know that's the status quo for any forum.

In regards to Biscotti's post... Never said it was completely broken, just shallow.

I'm guessing you are new here because I have written entire threads about the mechanics of injuries. Yet again some random OP refuses to look them up and yet again I am expected to repeat myself at length in great detail because someone is unable to watch a football match.

You've forgotten our debates on how the training module was unintuitive already?

I will take whatever flak is handed out, because at the end of the day it will be me yet again teaching someone how FM works. I know how this goes.

This is how you come in:

OP: I think injuries need more depth - why not have X, Y and Z? I think this is more realistic.

You: Injuries work like this: A, B and C.

Nobody wants a full description of how injuries work - we're talking about adding depth to them!

I'm in no hurry to repeat myself every time someone mentions injuries, that's why I give hints and not instructional manuals every time I post in GD. The big hint this time around was Anticipation. If that doesn't imply significantly more depth than the OP thinks exists in the game then that is his fault.

You are basically saying that there are hints to which injury a player suffers and shows whether they can play again or not - we're talking about much, much more than that. The OP mentioned more types of minor injuries, of which some can be played through (i.e. more icons than just red or orange "Inj" icons). The thread then developed on how we could enhance the whole injury module. Your part about anticipation is one drop in the ocean and in the end if only you can understand it, it suggests that the module is unintuitive.

So we are missing lots of specific words to describe general principles that are already ingame? Next time one of your players takes a knock that reduces his condition by 15% you want a long drawn out detailed report to tell you it was a relatively unimportant injury?

Possibly?

I'd want more, anyway. I'd want to know that the injury was a minor knock to his arm and hence his speed won't really decrease that much, although you can expect Stoke to exploit this damaged area with more shoulder-barging. I'd like to have a module that allows players to have weak areas - perhaps a graph showing the frequency of arm injuries is frequent for this player, but he almost-never suffers leg injuries, oddly enough. I'd like physios to suggest modifying his training regime to help reduce the frequency of these injuries. I'd like more granular levels of "Inj" besides just red and orange. And so on.

We don't need an essay on how injuries work. We all know you can write these - but this is not what we are after.

I think one of the problems is that "yellow" injuries disappear too quickly most of the time, and they hamper condition too much.

We could use injuries that don't hamper performance much at all, but make it likely that a player who isn't normally injury prone will pick up an injury that stops him playing (eg a player carrying a wrist strain could be selected to play, score three goals and run 12km, but might fall on his bad arm and have to go off). I appreciate a player might pick up an injury during the match, but it almost always impacts on condition and therefore performance, and they tend to disappear after the match.

We could also do with players carrying knocks that have almost healed, and having near enough full condition at the start of the match, but degenerate rapidly once they start playing and have to go off at half tine with 60% condition, for example.

Another thing is where a player loses a lot of confidence as a result of suffering a lot of (possibly-recurring, possibly all in the same sort of body part) injuries. I personally feel that Fábio da Silva is slightly more cautious when attacking nowadays, because he rarely finishes games without injury. You can also bet that Hargreaves will be very nervous about his knees and hamstrings if he ever plays again. This could be another suggestion.

Another thing is where a player loses a lot of confidence as a result of suffering a lot of (possibly-recurring, possibly all in the same sort of body part) injuries. I personally feel that Fábio da Silva is slightly more cautious when attacking nowadays, because he rarely finishes games without injury. You can also bet that Hargreaves will be very nervous about his knees and hamstrings if he ever plays again. This could be another suggestion.

Do you mean like a players bravery atttibute being hit after being on the end of a very bad leg breaking tackle?

Do you mean like a players bravery atttibute being hit after being on the end of a very bad leg breaking tackle?

Does this happen in-game? I didn't think it did.

It's not necessarily bravery, of course. For example, Saha used to be really quick but nowadays he doesn't rely on his pace so much because he has hamstrings of cotton wool, although he is certainly capable of it. A player who perhaps used to hit the ball as hard as he can while shooting may start placing the ball more often if he picks up a lot of silly injuries doing it. And so on.

Does this happen in-game? I didn't think it did.

It's not necessarily bravery, of course. For example, Saha used to be really quick but nowadays he doesn't rely on his pace so much because he has hamstrings of cotton wool, although he is certainly capable of it. A player who perhaps used to hit the ball as hard as he can while shooting may start placing the ball more often if he picks up a lot of silly injuries doing it. And so on.

No I dont think it does happen in the game. Thats my point. Im sure as hell it hapens IRL. I bet Holden thinks twice about going in for a 50/50 challenge again. So you could say his bravery has taken a knock.

Also somebody like Aaron Ramsey. After his injury it would surprise me if he went diving into tackles without a second thought. But with somebody like Ramsey and how he plays, I could see it having a knock-on effect to his anticipation (of the game and challenges) and will make him more aware of his surroundings than what he previously was.

No I dont think it does happen in the game. Thats my point. Im sure as hell it hapens IRL. I bet Holden thinks twice about going in for a 50/50 challenge again. So you could say his bravery has taken a knock.

Also somebody like Aaron Ramsey. After his injury it would surprise me if he went diving into tackles without a second thought. But with somebody like Ramsey and how he plays, I could see it having a knock-on effect to his anticipation (of the game and challenges) and will make him more aware of his surroundings than what he previously was.

I like the thought of this... injuries having a direct impact on the attributes. However, it would be extremely hard to get down right and take a lot of extra work. So that's something SI should keep in mind but it's probably best if they take smaller steps with changes. I'm not a big fan of morale, but injuries should obviously have an affect on that at the very least. I really like the idea of having things like bravery drop after a serious injury, or even a high determination making an injured player push harder or rehab quicker. But probably be safer to have that as something added into the system once they have more depth at all first, mainly because of the time it would take and if done wrong it will make a lot of people unhappy.

Clearly you're more interested in looking smart and in-the-know than in actually reading what other people wrote... I didn't say a word about long-winded news items to describe "what is already in the game".

Tell me, do we have players suffering from nagging and persisting injuries? No we don't... A player is either "red inj", "orange inj" or fit. And his level of fitness won't be influenced by an injury once his "inj" status is gone.

Basically the healing process is s STRAIGHT LINE always going up... Just like in real life eh?

What about those players who are "fit enough to play but nowhere near top condition"? In FM this just happens due to playing too much/too often. Nothing more. So forget having players carrying a "chronic knock" but still able/forced to play...

What I am interested in is the fact that the only difference between a player that takes a knock and is otherwise fine and a player that takes a knock but is suffering but can still play is a news item. There is no fundamental difference between finishing a match at 69% because your player took a knock and finishing the match at 69% with some new "injured but okay to play" system. It would amount to nothing. I already consider players that takes knocks and lose vast amounts of conditions but are otherwise okay to play the next match as carrying a minor injury. The risk of injury playing someone with low condition goes up, their performance decreases, and if you do play them in the next match then you have to plan a rest for them further down the line.

It terms of MANAGER DECISIONS what you ask for already exists. In terms of overblown guff that makes a song and dance about pointing out to the manager that 90% condition isn't a great starting level in a match, no it doesn't.

I already play the game you are asking for. How come you can't see it?

Nobody wants a full description of how injuries work - we're talking about adding depth to them

That is what is most frustrating about discussions down here, people are not interested in explanations because the depth puts them off, and then they ask for increased depth that lo and behold actually exists ingame.

Take injury types for example, in my essay I point out that there is a clear and logical correlation between player attributes and common injury types sustained. Certain players are more prone to certain types of injury simply by the manner in which they play their football.

So when someone like RBKalle says that "there are no recurring injuries in FM" what this person means is that they have not checked a players injury history, and they have looked through game editors and found no "recurring injury" entry. It means they have not actually looked at the game as a whole to see if recurring injuries occur by some other manner, and as I said over a year ago, they do.

Recurring injuries are caused by a players playstyle and performance. Battleaxes will receive recurring contact knocks, head wounds and broken ribs and gashes and so on. Idiots will receive recurring ligament damage, twists, breaks and so on.

What's more rather than these being simple unavoidable "recurring injury flags" in the players profile that can never be altered, these actually existing recurring injuries in FM can be solved by improving tactics or the playstyle of the player through training.

Injuries have significantly more depth than anyone has given any credit to in this topic, and until that is recognised and until that becomes a platform for debate this topic is moot.

You've forgotten our debates on how the training module was unintuitive already?

Did you see how the training module changed for FM11? Balanced Categories and Training Focus. Does that remind you of anything?

Superfiicially the training module hardly changed. Under the hood however it changed fundamentally, because SI finally balanced the categories and enabled an option to Focus on attributes that otherwise would simply be trained along similar categorical lines irrespective of position requirement.

Functional, robust game improvements. Not superficial fluff. That is how SI work and so if you want to offer up suggestion for gameplay improvements and be taken seriously you are going to have to arm yourself with detailed knowledge of how X system currently works and then come up with a way to improve it's function, not it's appearance.

What I am interested in is the fact that the only difference between a player that takes a knock and is otherwise fine and a player that takes a knock but is suffering but can still play is a news item. There is no fundamental difference between finishing a match at 69% because your player took a knock and finishing the match at 69% with some new "injured but okay to play" system. It would amount to nothing. I already consider players that takes knocks and lose vast amounts of conditions but are otherwise okay to play the next match as carrying a minor injury.

No, the difference between a player finishing a match with 69% only, and finishing with 69% and an injury is that the player that the former just got a little roughed up, it's not a playable injury because by the next match they are back at 100%. See if you actually have a system with the depth of a playable injury you don't have 100% condition until the injury is healed but you can still play them in need be. The current system is a player is either 100% (or close in times of congested schedules) or they can't play period. There is no depth in that.

That is what is most frustrating about discussions down here, people are not interested in explanations because the depth puts them off, and then they ask for increased depth that lo and behold actually exists ingame.

Explanations are fine... -IF- they are relevant. But you're little essay isn't relevant at all. You can go on and on about all that and that there are recurring injuries in the game but you are dead wrong. You are injecting depth into the system by your own thoughts, it's imagined. Because Everything you say about the type of player getting this or that does NOT happen in-game. Injuries are first and for most random, the only part of the game that effects that randomness is a players hidden injury attribute.

All this crap you are talking about is just that, pure and utter crap because it is not how the game works. You just like trying to sound smart, but you don't understand you utterly FAIL at it.

Put it this way, if you were at all right that all this you are babbling about is how the game really worked, don't you think all the other supporters would say the system had all the this depth you claim? Hell, earlier in the thread a few supporters agreed the system is shallow, because you are either delusional or a troll.

Oh one last thing... "Functional, robust game improvements. Not superficial fluff." gee, like agents?

Tell you what, offer up any proof that anything you have said is proof. data that shows true recurring injuries, details of the code that show you're claims are actually as it works. But don't try to turn that around and ask us for the proof, because you are the -ONLY- person in this entire thread making these claims from either side. So being in the extreme minority the burden of proof is on your stupid ass.

I definitely want improvement on the injury system, especially the physio being more active. I'd like to see my head physio to send me a memo about a potential injury for certain player, and give me a team report on everyone's injury proneness. Sometimes there is no way to really know how injury prone a player is if he doesn't play often enough to get injured. The coach/scout reports often doesn't tell anything or report incorrectly.

Why does anyone get shot down as soon as they offer an 'idea' to try and make the game a bit more detailed and realistic? I mean surely if more of the SI community think of ideas like the OP and write them down in here then the more of a chance of a new game-breaking idea for SI and FM if developed properly and worked on? Not saying for a minute this one is, although I do like it but if other members see another user get flamed as soon as they offer an idea (which at the end of the day is all this is from the OP) then no-one else will dare to write one down.

New features are often game-breaking indeed lol

I think you have a point there SFraser. A player with, say low agility, will try and stretch for a ball and pull his hamstring. Because his agility is low there's a bigger chance of that injury recurring (or a similar injury anyway). So although there isn't a specific news item to say that it's a recurrence of an old injury, it still happens in a way due to a player's attributes.

That is what is most frustrating about discussions down here, people are not interested in explanations because the depth puts them off, and then they ask for increased depth that lo and behold actually exists ingame.

Take injury types for example, in my essay I point out that there is a clear and logical correlation between player attributes and common injury types sustained. Certain players are more prone to certain types of injury simply by the manner in which they play their football.

So when someone like RBKalle says that "there are no recurring injuries in FM" what this person means is that they have not checked a players injury history, and they have looked through game editors and found no "recurring injury" entry. It means they have not actually looked at the game as a whole to see if recurring injuries occur by some other manner, and as I said over a year ago, they do.

Recurring injuries are caused by a players playstyle and performance. Battleaxes will receive recurring contact knocks, head wounds and broken ribs and gashes and so on. Idiots will receive recurring ligament damage, twists, breaks and so on.

What's more rather than these being simple unavoidable "recurring injury flags" in the players profile that can never be altered, these actually existing recurring injuries in FM can be solved by improving tactics or the playstyle of the player through training.

Injuries have significantly more depth than anyone has given any credit to in this topic, and until that is recognised and until that becomes a platform for debate this topic is moot.

Injuries are not necessarily match-specific. Hargreaves has tendonitis and Ledley King has very bad knees. Giggs has bad hamstrings.

Recurring injuries too are therefore not necessarily match-specific. Recurring tendonitis; recurring viruses (due to a perhaps poor immune system); and so on.

Of course it is possible for recurring injuries to happen in the case that you suggest, but we don't have a model of a player's physique as such - in King's case, for example, he's not really that injury-prone overall - he's just incredibly injury-prone in his knees.

This is the depth that is being talked about.

Did you see how the training module changed for FM11? Balanced Categories and Training Focus. Does that remind you of anything?

Superfiicially the training module hardly changed. Under the hood however it changed fundamentally, because SI finally balanced the categories and enabled an option to Focus on attributes that otherwise would simply be trained along similar categorical lines irrespective of position requirement.

Functional, robust game improvements. Not superficial fluff. That is how SI work and so if you want to offer up suggestion for gameplay improvements and be taken seriously you are going to have to arm yourself with detailed knowledge of how X system currently works and then come up with a way to improve it's function, not it's appearance.

I know enough to know that the current injury system isn't in-depth enough - no model is perfect. I don't need to be an expert on cancer to know best-practices on how to avoid it. I don't need to have written an essay on injuries in order to suggest improvements to injuries.

It's not appearance changes I'm advocating - I'm advocating that we have the ability to specify genetic, physical attributes for a player suggesting that each part has its own distinct injury-proneness, so that we have the ability for injuries to be dynamic independent of what is suffered in the match, like Ledley King. I'm advocating physios and fitness coaches take a more proactive and advisory role than what they do already, by suggesting changes to a player's training or style of play. I'm advocating mentality changes for players who suffer lots of injuries, who may be more reluctant to go in for hard tackles or rely on pure pace.

If anything, I would consider the "focus" part to be superficial compared with what I am advocating - this is a rather fundamental change from a single injury variable "Injury Proneness" (which, by the way, is static and arguably incorrect).

There's also the possibility that players could be affected by conditions at early ages that could affect their development. Scholes is a very famous example of an asthmatic top-level player, and I'm pretty sure during his early years he spent an awful lot of time working on his fitness to compensate for it.