80% FM injuries vs 100% real life injuries!?

[Surfer]

Im sure its been discussed here before, but since Im not a regular forum guy and didn´t get any reply from bugs/medical forum - Im asking again  

I have played FM over 20 years and I recently read somewhere that FM game uses only 80% of real life injuries. They have comprehensive statistic about injury reports season by season and have tweaked this over the years. So I came here to check and saw, that its true. SI has confirmed it.

Andrew James - Injury numbers are set at about 80% of real life, and we use a lot of data to ensure this figure is maintained. 

That confuses me alot!! Why?

As far as I know FM has been the greatest football simulation game of all time. And thats because it most realistic and similar to the real life... which of course is and should be the case. Everything they implant in the game comes from real life. And thats the sort of experience we - the players - would like to have. I know that there are players who rant and moan about injuries which have destroyed there save, but thats what happens in real life all the time. Half the squad is injured, clubs are underperforming, Managers get sacked - thats football life. Thats what I wanna experience in the game!

Knowing that about 80% of real life injuries are in the game means, that if 4 of my players are injured then theoretically it should be 5. I would be happy, knowing that I have to make decisions - decide who to play, use younster or give injections etc. It would be much more intresting and realistic.

Overall, knowing this information kind of ruins the game a little bit!? .... maybe (not ranting  )

I know its too late now and maybe even too difficult to code (Im not a IT guy), but I reckon it would be awesome if in the future there could be atleast an option how to play your game. Example In preferences - injury frequency for arcade players 1. none 2. 50% -  for full on players 3. default 4. realistic. Like theres an option to use fake players.

OR maybe there is an option for this, Im just too noob?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Surfer

[Geordieboy52]

I'm not sure what you're asking; do you really want players (even if simulated) to go through experiences like Fabrice Muamba, Carl Ikeme or god-forbid Davide Astori?  There's a reason they don't have all the injuries that could happen in real life - its a route I don't want to go down.

[Svenc]

This is done to easy Player Frustration -- and they are still being frustrated (and even may end in a bad spell) for as Long as it wouldn't be tuned down to 0%. Basic rule of the thumb, with thousands of Players playing, and the slightest bit of a probality, stuff will happen as if it were common place even if it is anything but in the Grand scheme of things.   (The Law Of Large Numbers)

However, this needs to be balanced carefully with Squad Management (Play time demands of backup Players). Naturally, the AI then is with their best Players most of the time too. I've seen plenty enough Players that get more bang for the buck / wage budget though, as they "meta" their Knowledge that Injury streaks, a lot of the time, aren't all that common.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Svenc

[isignedupfornorealreason]

4 hours ago, Surfer said:

That confuses me alot!! Why?

Because it's not worth dealing with people whining about it.

A lot of initial reviews on FM games are complaints about the amount of injuries. Players just don't understand and/or refuse to register that the amount of injuries are quite low considering.

[TokyoWanderer]

The game could probably include the option for players to choose the level of injuries they want in their game, within a reasonable range of course (turning off injuries should not be an option). The OOTP baseball simulator that is similar to FM in many ways has this option. Probably worth raising in the feature suggestions thread

[herne79]

1 minute ago, kidd_05_u2 said:

Probably worth raising in the feature suggestions thread

This.  If you would like the feature of being able to choose different levels of injuries to be considered for inclusion, raise it in the Feature Requests Forum .

[KUBI]

It's been like this for years now. The reason is simple, there would be too many complains about injuries if the amount would be realistic.

Even with 80% there are "too many injuries" threads after each release of the game. 

To add an option for 100% is something that was already posted as a feature request.  But one more time could not harm.

[Svenc]

35 minutes ago, kidd_05_u2 said:

The game could probably include the option for players to choose the level of injuries they want in their game, within a reasonable range of course (turning off injuries should not be an option). The OOTP baseball simulator that is similar to FM in many ways has this option. Probably worth raising in the feature suggestions thread

I think it may be worth a try. SI have Always stated that Levels of difficulty are not their Thing. It's a sim after all.

However, injury rates don't adjust difficulty as such. They apply to all Managers competing, after all. If the Player loses more playing time to injuries, so would the AI Managers. However, I don't think the Chance is that high. It would still mean additional balancing / coding. Probably even down to coding different AI Manager squad rotation routines. The Player may be Aware of his choice and adjust from the off. How About the AI though? Another stumbling block may be that SI would probably Need to consider their Player Motivation modules. With increased/decreased Risks of injury, backup Players may get more chances to play -- or fewer ones. This sounds a simple Addition, but probably isn't.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Svenc

[TokyoWanderer]

hace 6 minutos, Svenc dijo:

I think it may be worth a try. SI have Always stated that Levels of difficulty are not their Thing. It's a sim after all.

However, injury rates don't adjust difficulty as such. They apply to all Managers competing, after all. If the Player loses more playing time to injuries, so would the AI Managers. However, I don't think the Chance is that high. It would still mean additional balancing / coding. Probably even down to coding different AI Manager squad rotation routines. The Player may be Aware of his choice and adjust from the off. How About the AI though? Another stumbling block may be that SI would probably Need to consider their Player Motivation modules. With increased/decreased Risks of injury, backup Players may get more chances to play -- or fewer ones. This sounds a simple Addition, but probably isn't.

That's why I said an in-game toggle for injuries should consider a reasonable range. I would image a 20% change in the amount of injuries should not lead to massive changes in other areas.

In fact, I would say many of the things you mentioned are programmed for a realistic level of injuries already. I think the struggles many players have to manage squad happiness regarding playing time is in part because the low level of injuries (and of red cards since we are here) reduces the need for you to play backups. Teams have large squads of 30-ish players or more, but chances are you won't need to use more than 22-23 due to the low level of injuries. In fact, I see that once I'm out of cup competitions, I rarely need more than 16 or 17 players.

[leviathan1904]

Can only agree with the opinion that the artificial reduction to 80% simply feels wrong for a football simulation. And it's a pity that you have to follow the "frustrated ones". What bothers me most about the lower injury rate is that the Medical Center as a feature is becoming almost obsolete. High training intensity and high playing style intensity do not lead to an extent of injuries that would require sensitive control -- exactly what the Medical Center is normally intended for. Sometimes I dismiss my physiotherapists and sports scientists because they are simply superfluous. This is a pity and deprives the game of its depth. 

However, the option for different injury rates would probably open the Pandora's box. There would be claims for optional levels everywhere. 

[Svenc]

25 minutes ago, leviathan1904 said:

 

However, the option for different injury rates would probably open the Pandora's box. There would be claims for optional levels everywhere. 

Customaziable Long shot, tap-in and one on one conversion ratios Incoming.  

[Viking]

I suggetsted it in this thread: 

 

[Mars_Blackmon]

Then people wonder why the game is easy...

[Mars_Blackmon]

2 hours ago, KUBI said:

It's been like this for years now. The reason is simple, there would be too many complains about injuries if the amount would be realistic.

Even with 80% there are "too many injuries" threads after each release of the game. 

To add an option for 100% is something that was already posted as a feature request.  But one more time could not harm.

Lol I reckon it should be posted just as many times as a “too many injuries” thread pop up.

 

most of those players that complain about injuries probably don’t play long term saves...

[Surfer]

On 08/11/2019 at 16:29, Geordieboy52 said:

I'm not sure what you're asking; do you really want players (even if simulated) to go through experiences like Fabrice Muamba, Carl Ikeme or god-forbid Davide Astori?  There's a reason they don't have all the injuries that could happen in real life - its a route I don't want to go down.

Im asking for SI to acknowledge that right thing to do and most realistic would be if we players have atleast an option to play with 100% injuries. Im not talking about players dying or getting horrible injuries (altough getting career ending injuries is part of football unfortunately  ). Rather adding thoes little injuries. I dont mind if my team is injury rigged. Then I have to find less injury prone players, reduce training, rotate more ets. I just dont understand if some players complain about injuries then the decision is to reduce it and thats the answer. Especially when they have real life statistics on the table.

Real life football simulation game + real life statistic = Real life statistic in the real life football simulation game. Easy 1+1=2!  

BUT life goes on and FM20 is coming soon  

[Dagenham_Dave]

I think one of the devs sabotaged the code this year and have turned it into 8% of real life, not 80%.  I've always been reasonable at avoiding injuries, but in my first full season this year, I had two injuries, both only for a few days. (I've already reported it)

 

EDIT - The 'sabotaged' bit was a joke, I know how sensitive some are on here....

Edited November 11, 2019 by Dagenham_Dave

[s1111]

I'd much rather have a realistic number of injuries. It gets to the point where you can just have a really small first team squad of 19-20 players, only needing 3 centre backs for example, because I can't see any need for any more players

[enigmatic]

On 08/11/2019 at 15:45, KUBI said:

It's been like this for years now. The reason is simple, there would be too many complains about injuries if the amount would be realistic.

Even with 80% there are "too many injuries" threads after each release of the game. 

To add an option for 100% is something that was already posted as a feature request.  But one more time could not harm.

This. Also I assume fewer injuries reduces the risk of lopsided scorelines and strange results sequences due to the AI not handling them properly [especially goalkeeper injuries in-match]

-

I do think the Medical Centre has made managing fitness and reducing injury risk very easy for someone that cares about it, but tbf that's what it's for. And for me I use it to justify giving my backups more game time, not to avoid having to play them.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Squad management is much easier now with both the medical centre and playing time pathways in the game. Add to this the dynamics and how detailed player unhappiness is, and if you take the time and plan properly, you shouldn't have many issues with your squad outside of other clubs trying to poach your best players. 

That said, I would be all for injuries being ramped up to the level they are in real life. Partly for the amusement factor of witnessing the meltdowns on here. 

[Bromley Raven]

One thing worth remembering is that the 80% v 100% figures are not the whole story. There are a load of other things to consider to get realistic injuries and while I hope that they change their minds and implement 100% injury rates they also need to think about issues including the following:

Does the definition of injured in the game match the definition of injured in the stats? For example, https://www.premierinjuries.com/injury-table.php use potential return dates. Is this the same in FM, or do they count as uninjured as soon as they're back in full training, even if their fitness isn't high enough to start a game and they need time in reserves? I don't know the stats source FM use but unless the definition matches exactly they may need to adjust the rate.

Has FM got a realistic match injury to training injury ratio. I've felt in the past that there were too many in game injuries and too few training injuries. If this is the case then even though overall injuries could be too low, injuries to first choice players could be too high. This would make injury rates seem higher than they are.

For in game injuries are they distributed realistically amongst positions? I'm sure that wingers get injured more than centre backs both in the game and in real life, but how closely do they match real life? If you keep getting injuries to players in the same position then this will frustrate players.

Are injury lengths realistic? You frequently hear about players missing a real life game due to a knock in training during the week, or being ill, and then being back for the next match. This happens in the game but only rarely. I'd like to see more short injuries in the game.

All the above is based on my subjective and probably wrong opinion. SI have collected the stats and I haven't so they are much more likely to have it right than me. I'm just pointing out that total number of injuries is just a small part of the story.

[Surfer]

24 minutes ago, Bromley Raven said:

One thing worth remembering is that the 80% v 100% figures are not the whole story. There are a load of other things to consider to get realistic injuries and while I hope that they change their minds and implement 100% injury rates they also need to think about issues including the following:

Does the definition of injured in the game match the definition of injured in the stats? For example, https://www.premierinjuries.com/injury-table.php use potential return dates. Is this the same in FM, or do they count as uninjured as soon as they're back in full training, even if their fitness isn't high enough to start a game and they need time in reserves? I don't know the stats source FM use but unless the definition matches exactly they may need to adjust the rate.

Has FM got a realistic match injury to training injury ratio. I've felt in the past that there were too many in game injuries and too few training injuries. If this is the case then even though overall injuries could be too low, injuries to first choice players could be too high. This would make injury rates seem higher than they are.

For in game injuries are they distributed realistically amongst positions? I'm sure that wingers get injured more than centre backs both in the game and in real life, but how closely do they match real life? If you keep getting injuries to players in the same position then this will frustrate players.

Are injury lengths realistic? You frequently hear about players missing a real life game due to a knock in training during the week, or being ill, and then being back for the next match. This happens in the game but only rarely. I'd like to see more short injuries in the game.

All the above is based on my subjective and probably wrong opinion. SI have collected the stats and I haven't so they are much more likely to have it right than me. I'm just pointing out that total number of injuries is just a small part of the story.

True that!

[Purple]

Even though a simple option would be handy, you can change the occurrence probability for all types of injuries in the editor.

[Svenc]

Interestingly, the term of short knocks were increased About two Releases ago AFAIR. The actual amount of injuries has gone up as a result. The bigger difference to me isn't the short-term knocks. It's the longer term injuries. In actual Football roughly 50% of all injuries are 3 weeks or longer.

 

edit: Interestingly, I'm wondering whether the 80% Tuning does its Job. What People may mainly react badly to isn't so much a "realistic" Long-term Ratio of injuries. It's may be the inherent randomness at work. You cannot put an exact number on Things of Course. But as being a Football Player is a high intensity physical activity -- every day -- there should be a significant Risk of an injury  occuring for any Player no matter what. That Risk cannot ever be even anywhere close to 0% at any Point of the Season.  And so even that well managed, low injury prone playmaker may miss an entire Season due to two serious injuries every once in a while for someone.  The club appointing the best medical staff the world has ever seen may still suffer somewhat of a Crisis three Seasons in a row. At thousands of playing this, this is exactly what's gonna happen. It's only a matter of for whom and where.

80% or no. (And that's not advocating for there to artificial limiters into the game's Code. As soon as they go in, it's the end of all Simulation.)
 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Svenc

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, Purple said:

Even though a simple option would be handy, you can change the occurrence probability for all types of injuries in the editor.

Some third party sites have made reduced injury patches for previous FMs. Looks like there's a case for them doing an increased patch too...

[Svenc]

Going by bug Reports, in the future Penalty conversion ratios will be tuned and balanced to be Long-term above +15% of Football too. This is to make it a bit less likely that guys may miss penalties in a row in ANY of the thousands of simulations started by Players of this. More importantly, and as to popular demand: In particular with Squads filled with world class invincible kickers (Long-term conversion over dozens - 100 penalties mostly ~80-85% IRL), this would render streaks of subpar/ below average Performances from the spot -- let alone over successive Seasons -- or even three seasons a row -- almost impossible to happen. No matter how hard and often anybody would try  start a save. (kidding).  

That aside, this seems to be the first release ever which sees an injury bug thread complaining About "too few injuries". Technically this should have happened to thousands on any recent release, giving the target. However, Frustration is powerful and leads to the dark side. Plus it's been acknowledged by SI that lower league there may be an issue, possibly due to less strain put on the Players. (Despite all, not a doubt hundreds of Players are suffering an injury streak on FM2020 as we speak, btw.)

Edited November 16, 2019 by Svenc

[Os]

It's like Brexit all over again.

[SpS_Zen]

I did a similar request last year. I already had saves in fm 19 where i got like 90% less injuries without having my physio staff full. I got more injuries during the beta, but the amount still feels a bit low. They could also consider injuries during the pre-game. It happens a player injured during the warm-up before a game.

[RBKalle]

Il 11/11/2019 in 12:56 , Bromley Raven ha scritto:

One thing worth remembering is that the 80% v 100% figures are not the whole story. There are a load of other things to consider to get realistic injuries and while I hope that they change their minds and implement 100% injury rates they also need to think about issues including the following:

Does the definition of injured in the game match the definition of injured in the stats? For example, https://www.premierinjuries.com/injury-table.php use potential return dates. Is this the same in FM, or do they count as uninjured as soon as they're back in full training, even if their fitness isn't high enough to start a game and they need time in reserves? I don't know the stats source FM use but unless the definition matches exactly they may need to adjust the rate.

Has FM got a realistic match injury to training injury ratio. I've felt in the past that there were too many in game injuries and too few training injuries. If this is the case then even though overall injuries could be too low, injuries to first choice players could be too high. This would make injury rates seem higher than they are.

For in game injuries are they distributed realistically amongst positions? I'm sure that wingers get injured more than centre backs both in the game and in real life, but how closely do they match real life? If you keep getting injuries to players in the same position then this will frustrate players.

Are injury lengths realistic? You frequently hear about players missing a real life game due to a knock in training during the week, or being ill, and then being back for the next match. This happens in the game but only rarely. I'd like to see more short injuries in the game.

All the above is based on my subjective and probably wrong opinion. SI have collected the stats and I haven't so they are much more likely to have it right than me. I'm just pointing out that total number of injuries is just a small part of the story.

Good points...

I'll add a few extra considerations about FM and injuries.

* in FM20 Beta I've found quite a fair amount of "negligible injuries", those with 1-2 days of "orange Inj" status. I think we'd need a bit more of those, especially when schedules get crowded and there are shorter recovery times.
IRL, rotation is a necessity to preserve players. In FM it's almost optional unless you have unfit or old players. Speaking of which.

* Low fitness/condition should have a bigger impact. Currently you can field players with <90% fitness and it's not gonna be much of a problem. In actual football, you ofter hear (and can see) how "X isn't fully fit" and that actually affects his game.
FM should probably give bigger penalties for fielding not-so-fit players, thus encouraging rotation.

* Wear and tear injuries don't really seem to happen in FM. Despite the medical center, most injuries still feel completely random (actually I've had cases of "a player will pick up an injury tomorrow", with different players getting injured on the same day upon reloading a save). It can be the third-choice keeper in training, a guy with 4 Injury Proneness rupturing his Achilles tendon or the 34yo with brittle knees injuring his elbow.

Training intensity, overall fatigue and general injury tendencies (recurring issues, weakened body parts) should play a bigger role. At times it still feels like a RNG.

* Playing style should indeed affect injury chances. High-intensive gegenpressing should be much more taxing, instead players can go full-throttle for 90+ minutes with minimal penalties in terms of fitness and performance.

[Mars_Blackmon]

On 16/11/2019 at 05:01, RBKalle said:

Good points...

I'll add a few extra considerations about FM and injuries.

* in FM20 Beta I've found quite a fair amount of "negligible injuries", those with 1-2 days of "orange Inj" status. I think we'd need a bit more of those, especially when schedules get crowded and there are shorter recovery times.
IRL, rotation is a necessity to preserve players. In FM it's almost optional unless you have unfit or old players. Speaking of which.

* Low fitness/condition should have a bigger impact. Currently you can field players with <90% fitness and it's not gonna be much of a problem. In actual football, you ofter hear (and can see) how "X isn't fully fit" and that actually affects his game.
FM should probably give bigger penalties for fielding not-so-fit players, thus encouraging rotation.

* Wear and tear injuries don't really seem to happen in FM. Despite the medical center, most injuries still feel completely random (actually I've had cases of "a player will pick up an injury tomorrow", with different players getting injured on the same day upon reloading a save). It can be the third-choice keeper in training, a guy with 4 Injury Proneness rupturing his Achilles tendon or the 34yo with brittle knees injuring his elbow.

Training intensity, overall fatigue and general injury tendencies (recurring issues, weakened body parts) should play a bigger role. At times it still feels like a RNG.

* Playing style should indeed affect injury chances. High-intensive gegenpressing should be much more taxing, instead players can go full-throttle for 90+ minutes with minimal penalties in terms of fitness and performance.

This is way realistic injuries are important. Cutting corners will have a knock on effect in other areas when trying to simulate realistic football. 
 

lack of injuries enables the user to exploit high pressure tactics without repercussions.

 

lack of injuries or rest means less need to rotate players therefore the user will have to deal with morale issue more often.

 

lack of injuries results in the AI transfer listing good players because they aren’t getting the playing time, giving the user an advantage in the transfer market.

lack of injuries give a neat feature like Medical center an afterthought.

Most importantly lack of injuries means that a higher chance of your starting 11 getting injured in matches because the backups doesn’t play much...

[majesticeternity]

For those of you wanting more realistic injuries, I’ll be doing another Realistic Injuries file for FM20. When it’s available, feel free to test and give feedback, so maybe we can achieve some of the things mentioned in this thread. 

[Surfer]

3 hours ago, majesticeternity said:

For those of you wanting more realistic injuries, I’ll be doing another Realistic Injuries file for FM20. When it’s available, feel free to test and give feedback, so maybe we can achieve some of the things mentioned in this thread. 

Cheers for that!

Just out of curiosity, How does it work? Only for human controlled teams and for AI aswell? Will there be more random injuries or is it rather systematic? 

Most importantly ... Can it be done without messing the game up completely?  Will there be any side effects?

[Seb Wassell]

On 11/11/2019 at 17:52, enigmatic said:

Some third party sites have made reduced injury patches for previous FMs. Looks like there's a case for them doing an increased patch too...

I'm not actually sure this is possible. You can change the Occurrence Ratio, but that just changes how injuries are shared out, not the total.

10 hours ago, majesticeternity said:

For those of you wanting more realistic injuries, I’ll be doing another Realistic Injuries file for FM20. When it’s available, feel free to test and give feedback, so maybe we can achieve some of the things mentioned in this thread. 

As per above, I'd be interested to know if/how you affect the overall number.

On 16/11/2019 at 10:01, RBKalle said:

* in FM20 Beta I've found quite a fair amount of "negligible injuries", those with 1-2 days of "orange Inj" status. I think we'd need a bit more of those, especially when schedules get crowded and there are shorter recovery times.
IRL, rotation is a necessity to preserve players. In FM it's almost optional unless you have unfit or old players. Speaking of which.

The largest category by far in FM is short term injuries, 1-5 days. We have about the right proportion of short term to medium term to long term when compared to reality. In versions prior to FM18 we had too many long term and too few short term.

Quote

* Low fitness/condition should have a bigger impact. Currently you can field players with <90% fitness and it's not gonna be much of a problem. In actual football, you ofter hear (and can see) how "X isn't fully fit" and that actually affects his game.
FM should probably give bigger penalties for fielding not-so-fit players, thus encouraging rotation.

I would actually strongly argue for the opposite. As you say, "X not being fully fit" is commonplace in reality. However, many FM Users remain determined to only field players with 90%+ condition when in actual fact this is overkill. In reality, most players operate in the 80%-90% range for the majority of the season. The effects of fielding "unfit" players are there, but often avoided by User action. The AI is much more willing to use players below "optimal" fitness. That being said, if you have examples of it either being too easy to keep players fit (condition not necessarily injuries) or unfit players not being impeded by this during the match please do get them posted in our bugs area and we'll investigate.

Quote

* Wear and tear injuries don't really seem to happen in FM. Despite the medical center, most injuries still feel completely random (actually I've had cases of "a player will pick up an injury tomorrow", with different players getting injured on the same day upon reloading a save). It can be the third-choice keeper in training, a guy with 4 Injury Proneness rupturing his Achilles tendon or the 34yo with brittle knees injuring his elbow.

Training intensity, overall fatigue and general injury tendencies (recurring issues, weakened body parts) should play a bigger role. At times it still feels like a RNG.

Obviously by reloading the save you are invalidating/changing the experiment somewhat, but injuries are not predetermined in FM, nor should they be. Instead, every factor that could accumulate towards a player being injured is evaluated and contributes towards the chances of that player suffering an injury at a given point given the appropriate action taking place (instances in training, matches, illness, etc.). If you were to reload the same point, with a decent enough sample size, 1,000 times you would certainly expect to see variance and anomalies, but generally you would expect to see the players that are more likely to suffer injury suffer more injuries than those less likely to suffer injury. If only the players that were likely to suffer injury suffered injury I would consider that a major issue. As above however, if you feel this is not well represented in FM, please do post some examples in our bugs area and we will investigate.

Quote

* Playing style should indeed affect injury chances. High-intensive gegenpressing should be much more taxing, instead players can go full-throttle for 90+ minutes with minimal penalties in terms of fitness and performance.

It does, but it sounds like you have some examples where it doesn't do this to the extent that you would expect. Please do get them posted so we can take a look.

On 11/11/2019 at 11:56, Bromley Raven said:

Does the definition of injured in the game match the definition of injured in the stats? For example, https://www.premierinjuries.com/injury-table.php use potential return dates. Is this the same in FM, or do they count as uninjured as soon as they're back in full training, even if their fitness isn't high enough to start a game and they need time in reserves? I don't know the stats source FM use but unless the definition matches exactly they may need to adjust the rate.

For the purposes of this discussion, "injury" = injury occurrence incidence. 1 injury = 1 injury occurrence. We balance and monitor a number of injury details, but when it comes to "how many injuries are there", it is simply a case of how many injuries occur. The above link is useful for comparing how many players are injured at any one time, which is obviously more than just injury occurrence but time out and other factors too. An FM snapshot often compares quite neatly to the snapshot in the link, relative to the 80% figure and of course accounting for this being a static sample plucked from something that is wholly dynamic. Both the above link and FM consider a player to be injured when they are either in recovery or rehabilitation (red and orange injuries in FM).

Quote

Has FM got a realistic match injury to training injury ratio. I've felt in the past that there were too many in game injuries and too few training injuries. If this is the case then even though overall injuries could be too low, injuries to first choice players could be too high. This would make injury rates seem higher than they are.

Roughly, yes we do.

Per 90 minutes the overwhelming majority of injuries occur in matches, however given that (very) roughly only one 90 minute match is played for every 6 hours or so of training this number evens out in real terms.

Quote

For in game injuries are they distributed realistically amongst positions? I'm sure that wingers get injured more than centre backs both in the game and in real life, but how closely do they match real life? If you keep getting injuries to players in the same position then this will frustrate players.

Rather than positions (or roles) it is actions that correlate to injuries. Some actions are more likely to lead to injury than others. Of course, some types of players are more likely to perform (or be on the receiving end) of these actions. This is modelled. Every injury has a cause.

Quote

Are injury lengths realistic? You frequently hear about players missing a real life game due to a knock in training during the week, or being ill, and then being back for the next match. This happens in the game but only rarely. I'd like to see more short injuries in the game.

Yes. In fact following a reworking for FM18 the majority of our injuries are short term, as in reality. We introduced a new category of injuries, 1-5 days, most often seen in-game as a "tight" injury. Prior to this our overall numbers were correct but our split between short, medium and long term was not.

Quote

All the above is based on my subjective and probably wrong opinion. SI have collected the stats and I haven't so they are much more likely to have it right than me. I'm just pointing out that total number of injuries is just a small part of the story.

We have some very large internal spreadsheets - covering everything from overall frequency, severity, (average) time out, recurrence ratios and so on - and draw our real-life data from official and academic studies on injuries in football.

The simplest explanation for why we have 80% of "real life" injury numbers* in FM is perception. If 80% in FM feels like 100% of reality but 100% in FM feels like 120% when compared to reality, and assuming our Users do not keep meticulous spreadsheets, does the simulation feel real or not?

* "Injury numbers" = total occurrences. Everything from there on, such as time out, cause, etc., is either mapped to reality or the relative proportion of reality.

@Dagenham_Dave - Injuries being too low in non-professional divisions (only) is a known issue.

[enigmatic]

5 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

I'm not actually sure this is possible. You can change the Occurrence Ratio, but that just changes how injuries are shared out, not the total.

Maybe it's a placebo patch   

[Seb Wassell]

13 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Maybe it's a placebo patch   

To be fair I am not certain. The injury module is a sophisticated beast with many variables. Depending on the tweaks made and the size of database used you could potentially be shifting injuries to or from an unseen area of the game, which would give the impression of an overall frequency change without actually implementing one. I'd be interested to see the approach taken and results achieved however.

Simplest way of considering it is this: say we need to give out X number of injuries per day on average to hit our desired total for that season, the occurrence ratio of each injury describes how likely it is that that specific injury will be part of today's X. If you change the occurrence ratio you change how likely a certain injury is to occur on any given day, but you do not change the overall total, X still equals X it is now just made up of different injuries. Of course, when you then consider time out injured and so on it gets a bit more complicated and I suspect the extremes will indeed cause the model to flex and even bend, but to the best of my knowledge there is no direct nor meaningful way to deliberately change the total number of injuries outside of our office. If you could do this, you could seriously damage your save, as injuries affect everything from progression to AI transfer behaviour.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

The simplest explanation for why we have 80% of "real life" injury numbers* in FM is perception. If 80% in FM feels like 100% of reality but 100% in FM feels like 120% when compared to reality, and assuming our Users do not keep meticulous spreadsheets, does the simulation feel real or not?

To be honest, I'm not sure the majority of your customer base are actually eyeing injuries in Football, unless they'd be betting, perhaps. Therefore, few of them have any actual benchmark to go by. Unlike much else, injury data isn't a hot Topic in more Mainstream Football media.

That said, there's the perception too that the "AI would much fewer shots to score" and similar. Can we expect the AI's conversion to be nerfed say -5% from real Football too so that it doesn't feel like that? Just kidding of Course! Actually, I think this could be dealt with easily, in particular as from my experience loads of Players have at least an equal if not much better shot conversion than the (average) AI team without realizing: Having the Feedback as to that more prominent somewhere. (Data Analyst, etc. etc. etc.)

Edited November 18, 2019 by Svenc

[Eckfahne]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Seb Wassell:

To be fair I am not certain. The injury module is a sophisticated beast with many variables. Depending on the tweaks made and the size of database used you could potentially be shifting injuries to or from an unseen area of the game, which would give the impression of an overall frequency change without actually implementing one. I'd be interested to see the approach taken and results achieved however. (…)

I have done a "more injuries file" for the past three FM installations by increasing occurence ratios for all injuries (if possible; some have values already above what the editor accepts) in the German community. Both my own experience with those files and the reports of people using it indicate higher levels of injuries - in terms of players being absent at the same time. It is also clearly visible among the AI teams if you compare games with and without those files (see some example figures for FM2019 here: http://www.meistertrainerforum.de/index.php/topic,25826.msg946813.html#msg946813 ). This is probably because of the effect you describing (more heavy injuries at cost of the lighter ones), but the intention is achieved - you just have to worry more about how much risk you go. Be it with playing times, training levels, buying injury prone players and so on. I have however never heard or experienced any detrimental effect on AI performance in this saves. So while the method isn't perfect, it is probably the best that can be done from the players side - if you are in the small boat of those wishing to have more trouble on the injury front. Of course I would love to see a direct way of changing number of total injuries in the editor - feel free to add it  

[Seb Wassell]

42 minutes ago, Eckfahne said:

I have done a "more injuries file" for the past three FM installations by increasing occurence ratios for all injuries (if possible; some have values already above what the editor accepts) in the German community. Both my own experience with those files and the reports of people using it indicate higher levels of injuries - in terms of players being absent at the same time. It is also clearly visible among the AI teams if you compare games with and without those files (see some example figures for FM2019 here: http://www.meistertrainerforum.de/index.php/topic,25826.msg946813.html#msg946813 ). This is probably because of the effect you describing (more heavy injuries at cost of the lighter ones), but the intention is achieved - you just have to worry more about how much risk you go. Be it with playing times, training levels, buying injury prone players and so on. I have however never heard or experienced any detrimental effect on AI performance in this saves. So while the method isn't perfect, it is probably the best that can be done from the players side - if you are in the small boat of those wishing to have more trouble on the injury front. Of course I would love to see a direct way of changing number of total injuries in the editor - feel free to add it  

As you say, sounds like this affects time out injured rather than actual injury frequency by making larger injuries more likely to occur. Therefore, whilst the total number of injury occurrences may remain static, when players do suffer injuries they are more likely to be out for longer, thus at any one time each club has "more" injuries than standard. If that achieves what you are after, fair enough. Keep an eye on how it affects progression, more time out injured = less development.

[Spitzenspiel]

I played a save with Real Sociedad in La Liga in FM19 with the "more injuries"-file. For me it was a more realistic experience regarding injuries. I had about 2 to 5 players missing at the same time because of injuries during every season, which I think ist quite normal. nowadays. For some youngsters this was a chance to get several starting-11 experience, which helped them in their development, but of course I also had a hot prospectr with a long injury, which probably was not so good for his career. I will play with the more injuries file again in FM20. It feels more realsitic and I like the situations as a manager when somebody I normally would have left on the bench is showing good performance on the pitch!

[Mars_Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

As you say, sounds like this affects time out injured rather than actual injury frequency by making larger injuries more likely to occur. Therefore, whilst the total number of injury occurrences may remain static, when players do suffer injuries they are more likely to be out for longer, thus at any one time each club has "more" injuries than standard. If that achieves what you are after, fair enough. Keep an eye on how it affects progression, more time out injured = less development.

It also effects what positions are prone to certain injuries. By default, GK’s seem to be invisible.

[Seb Wassell]

1 hour ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

It also effects what positions are prone to certain injuries. By default, GK’s seem to be invisible.

Each injury has a chance of occurring for outfield players vs goalkeepers. Quite deliberately some injuries either occur vary rarely, not at all or exclusively with goalkeepers.

[majesticeternity]

5 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

As per above, I'd be interested to know if/how you affect the overall number.

You can take a look here:

Any insight you have would be great!

It originally started from here: http://www.meistertrainerforum.de/index.php/topic,23030.0.html, and I updated/changed it for FM19. 

Of course everything can be opinion-based, but in the testing I've done, along with playing a 15 season save, it does seem to have changed things. I went into the player filters to look at those with each specific injury, as well as several specific players' injury history, and then tested before and after differences. It seems alot more realistic and I've really enjoyed it.

[Surfer]

On 18/11/2019 at 17:05, Seb Wassell said:

The simplest explanation for why we have 80% of "real life" injury numbers* in FM is perception. If 80% in FM feels like 100% of reality but 100% in FM feels like 120% when compared to reality, and assuming our Users do not keep meticulous spreadsheets, does the simulation feel real or not?

Uhhh, Im sorry, I didnt catch that. I understand that injuries are complex issue. But for the sake of argument and for dummy like me if we put this discussion to black and white. If there's , lets say 1000 injuries per year in Premier league, does that mean that in FM there is 800 injuries or not? 

[KUBI]

You could also try out this one:

 

[Spurs08]

6 hours ago, Surfer said:

Uhhh, Im sorry, I didnt catch that. I understand that injuries are complex issue. But for the sake of argument and for dummy like me if we put this discussion to black and white. If there's , lets say 1000 injuries per year in Premier league, does that mean that in FM there is 800 injuries or not? 

It does, but SI are arguing that because their users wrongly think there's more like 800 injuries in real life, it feels like a better simulation. They've made a design choice to balance around the incorrect perceptions of users rather than reality. (You can see this in real-life football discussions - fans regularly think their team is very unlucky with injuries or must have rubbish medical staff, and rarely notice a period with only 2-3 players out as a good one).

[Jezzabythesea]

There are two things that make this game pretty much unplayable. The first, a topic for another thread, is the transfer market and the inablity to sell your players, leading to bloated squads etc. The second is injures.

SO MANY INJURIES!!! I mean wtf!!!

I was informed by a member of staff (presumably the head physio) that they were expecting around 127 injures during the course of the season! This seemed a bit high to me so I googled it, and found out that the average number of injuries for a Premiership team is 38! So, without kicking a ball my physios were expecting more than 3x the average!?? Now I went out and got the best coaches and medical team I could. We have superb training facilities, so how was this figure calculated? What was it based on? I was doing a save on create a club which only allows you to have the number of players at a club that were already there in the real team, so I already know that the 38 was based on the same sized squad. I let my AM set up the team training, U23 &U18 Managers did their respectve training. At the end of the season we actually had 148!!! I didn't play a fast game or gegenpress, I didn't overplay players. I rotated the squad, played friendlies to keep everyuone fit. So why the ridiculously high number of injures. To be honest I started to play a second season, but rage quit after 4 big injuries, and an assotment of lesser injuries, 3 of them to some my star players, before the season had even started. Two of them were to players I was trying to sell. And two were both RBs. I don't think this is a coincidence. I've noticed from previous iterations of the game, that it is rather fond of injuring all the playes in one position. Usually the wingbacks, and one of the players  was trying to sell was of coure a WB. Which is why I now have three of each in all the squads and never loan any of them. Because I know as soon as I do it will trigger the 'injury crises' storyline. So does anyone have a definitive answer on injures, becaue I don't think I am going to bother again unless I can get a handle on it. It's hard enough dealing with the schitzoid personalities who loose it at the slightest excuse, but this injuries thing is just too much. Answers like 'it's just part of the game, mate' can go suck a big one lol. Serious answers only please. Thanks :-)

Edited November 7, 2020 by Jezzabythesea

[Freakiie]

So you necro a thread, that's about FM injuries being lower than real life, with SI and various posters confirming this (One of the rare cases I've seen where both sides agreed!) and complain about too many injuries? Interesting.

Now those 38 injuries for premiership teams, was that their senior team? Because I have the slight feeling it was. Meanwhile, the medical center prediction is for all your squads so obviously it's going to be much more than 38, especially considering that you generally have a bunch more youth players than you have senior team members.

Not sure what definite answer you're expecting in a thread where basically every poster agreed to the fact that injuries don't happen often enough in FM.

Oh, and as for not being able to sell players? Not bloating your database really helps with that.

[Dagenham_Dave]

You're clearly doing something ridiculously wrong to be experiencing too many injuries on FM20, it's been the most lenient game in the entire series when it comes to this. I have the opposite issue, I can't build a bigger squad because my players are hardly ever injured. 

Also, this....

45 minutes ago, Jezzabythesea said:

found out that the average number of injuries for a Premiership team is 38!

...is nonsense. Given that a Premiership team will have on average 5-6 players out every week, over a 38 game season, that's considerably more than 38 over the whole year. Your deduction would mean a team would only ever have (on average) one player injured a week. Right now, Everton have 10 injured players and Crystal Palace have 9. 

[FrazT]

The amount of injuries in FM is based on actual stats from leagues around the world and has regularly come out at less that the reported actual figures.  Of course there will be times when you get a run of injuries, but over a season they should even out.  Users rarely remember times when there are few injuries and there has been no evidence that injury levels across the board are consistently above actual figures.

[samdiatmh]

is the "comparison to real life" based on the actual injury, or when they're back

 

I took a look at the first one from the injury link (or this https://www.premierinjuries.com/injury-table.php),
and it sees Calum Chambers - he's "back in full training and is progressing toward match fitness", but isn't scheduled to be back until December 3rd
FM definitely wouldn't still see it this way, he'd be available for selection now (and arguably rightfully so)

Should FM be making their injuries more lengthy? bringing a guy back into the match squad a month early (compared to real life) is clearly some kind of fundamental issue

[Daveincid]

Am 21.11.2019 um 12:41 schrieb KUBI:

You could also try out this one:

 

@Seb Wassell this would actually be awesome to get some feedback from the developers. It was and still is my biggest project in fm. My experience so far in longtime-tests are quiet positive. Maybe there are some critical points I haven't seen so far. If you need the excel-file with all the data for calculations just let me know!

Cheers

Daveincid