Impact of being injury prone?

Sudy Nym · 01-21-2008, 04:06 AM

After having read this thread I actually find myself liking how injuries work in this version of the game. You can look at a player's history, and if you see that he's had injuries to the same part of his body on numerous occasions, you can pretty much assume he's injury prone. And if he wasn't prone to begin the cycle of injuries, he likely is by now, as a result. Of course, it's also possible that it's coincidence, and that his proneness hasn't increased as a result of his injuries. Which is a lot of fun.

That said, there's still a lot I'd like to know about the system. One thing in particular: To what degree does having a high prone rating in a category affect the incidence of injury?

Or perhaps a better question to begin with: How does the engine decide to give a player an injury? Is it a random roll of the die? Every time a player is involved in a play, presuming a proneness of zero, does he have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting injured? (10,000 is, of course, a random number I've picked because I haven't any idea what that number should be.) And does a second roll of the die determine the length of the injury? And a third the cosmetic cause of injury?

And furthermore, is there a separate roll of the die for each of the four injury categories (back, arms, legs, other)? Or is this a secondary roll once the occurrence of an injury has already been decided? (If the latter, when are off-the-field injuries determined? Or is their being assigned completely cosmetic?)

Which brings us back to my original question, how much proneness affects incidence of injury. One thing I'd like to know is whether the risk of injury rises exponentially. Is it worse to have a player who's rated 200/200 in one category (and zero in the others) than it is to have one who's rated 50/200 in all four? The logical guess would be yes. But I don't know.

If it is exponential, at what rate would you estimate that risk increases? For example, would it be better to have that player who was 200/200 in one category than it would be to have one who was 150/200 in two categories? Or is a player approaching the maximum just so likely to re-injure himself (at least in comparison to one rated 0/200) that he should be avoided like the plague?

Any previous discussions you could point me in the direction of would be welcome. Most of what I found was more related to general injury frequency rate based upon league settings.

01-21-2008, 04:06 AM	#1
Sudy Nym Major Leagues Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Hill, ON Posts: 492	Impact of being injury prone? After having read this thread I actually find myself liking how injuries work in this version of the game. You can look at a player's history, and if you see that he's had injuries to the same part of his body on numerous occasions, you can pretty much assume he's injury prone. And if he wasn't prone to begin the cycle of injuries, he likely is by now, as a result. Of course, it's also possible that it's coincidence, and that his proneness hasn't increased as a result of his injuries. Which is a lot of fun. That said, there's still a lot I'd like to know about the system. One thing in particular: To what degree does having a high prone rating in a category affect the incidence of injury? Or perhaps a better question to begin with: How does the engine decide to give a player an injury? Is it a random roll of the die? Every time a player is involved in a play, presuming a proneness of zero, does he have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting injured? (10,000 is, of course, a random number I've picked because I haven't any idea what that number should be.) And does a second roll of the die determine the length of the injury? And a third the cosmetic cause of injury? And furthermore, is there a separate roll of the die for each of the four injury categories (back, arms, legs, other)? Or is this a secondary roll once the occurrence of an injury has already been decided? (If the latter, when are off-the-field injuries determined? Or is their being assigned completely cosmetic?) Which brings us back to my original question, how much proneness affects incidence of injury. One thing I'd like to know is whether the risk of injury rises exponentially. Is it worse to have a player who's rated 200/200 in one category (and zero in the others) than it is to have one who's rated 50/200 in all four? The logical guess would be yes. But I don't know. If it is exponential, at what rate would you estimate that risk increases? For example, would it be better to have that player who was 200/200 in one category than it would be to have one who was 150/200 in two categories? Or is a player approaching the maximum just so likely to re-injure himself (at least in comparison to one rated 0/200) that he should be avoided like the plague? Any previous discussions you could point me in the direction of would be welcome. Most of what I found was more related to general injury frequency rate based upon league settings.