Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dan Sez

Fatigue applies to the HB position not the player

Recommended Posts

Just read this surprise on the GDR site. Why even have Classic RB or the heavy run offenses at all then.

 

It helps the Fun and Gun teams.

 

Anyone here thinks this makes sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this over there too and wasn't quite thrilled with the response of...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

if HB fatigue applies to the position and NOT the individual RB then i would clearify that in the manual... the manual states HE and HIM not the positions of HB1

 

Quote:

Each game that you play a HB in a non 50/50 ratio he will become slightly fatigued for the next game and all subsequent games. The degree that he is fatigued is based on how unbalanced the set ratio of plays between HB1 and HB2 was. Once an HB becomes fatigued he cannot regain his lost effectiveness – that fatigue of being overplayed will linger with him all season. This is normal but it must be managed!

 

 

 

gamedayScott

gamedayritual Team

 

 

This is a valid point.

We will revise the manual language.

 

In the meantime, the help tab in the tools section on the strategy page itself does explain HB fatigue and other strategy elements accurately and is easy to navigate to.

 

Cheers,

Scott

:shocking:

 

I'm trying to think of a good way to argue with 'em about this, but they seem to be fixing the wrong thing here. :headbanger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I wonder if I can run my main back 70-30 for 7 games and then change the order and ratio to 30-70?

 

How strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I wonder if I can run my main back 70-30 for 7 games and then change the order and ratio to 30-70?

 

How strange.

Nope...the lowest percentage you can use on the HB1 is 50%. Can't quite see why you can't have a "3rd Down Back" or something like that, playing 10- 15 % of the snaps. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is RETARDED. Let's say you run a HB into the ground for the first 10 games. He gets injured and you throw a backup/FA in there....and he's instantly fatigued from being utilized so much??? :shocking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another really good example of have this system has gone to extremes.

 

I built my team around a passing attack but that can be easily nullified by a team using the right D scheme. Now owners who built a team around the run are also penalized. This fatigue through the year concept is awful. The better backs, like LT, always do even better in the second half. It also funny how it perceives that the only position in football that gets fatigued are RBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was to the player. I just happened to use 50/50 week 1 because I couldn't decide who would be better between Portis and McAllister. Went 70/30 McAllister last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right D scheme can nullify any Offensive playbook, not just the passing attack.

 

I don't mind the idea of Fatigue for the RB that much but I definitely disagree with their decision to attribute the modifier on the position instead of the player. It's back-asswards :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought it was to the player. I just happened to use 50/50 week 1 because I couldn't decide who would be better between Portis and McAllister. Went 70/30 McAllister last week.

It's currently being discussed

 

HB Fatigue-Trade

 

Don't know if they changed their minds half way though or didn't explain things correctly to begin with, unfortunately like many an issue that seems to be coming up here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't mind the idea of Fatigue for the RB that much but I definitely disagree with their decision to attribute the modifier on the position instead of the player. It's back-asswards :wall:

Agreed. It should be on the player, and I think only if you go over 70-75 percent...not 50.

 

I've been using 50/50 simply to keep my HBs fresh for later in the season. Now that I know that you'll never get *any* HB1 at full strength if you "overuse" one of them, it would be pretty tough for me to not use 50/50 before week 10 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rotochamp1

I actually had a conversation about this issue with Cam after week 1. I know iti is an item that they will be looking at closely for revision by next season. I am not sure what they are planning to do during this season as I have not followed the discussions on their forums but I do know that it will be changed by next season. However, for those who do not like the fatigue factor at all, it will still be there in some form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with the fatigue per se, I just think it could be better implemented. It does force a person to depend on more than one HB, which is good, but with the 50/50 ratio it begs a person to run an absolute RBBC which isn't realistic when you have a stud on your team. As a matter of design, it works to de-emphasize the HB position (which I think was their goal) but it does it in an excessive way.

 

Also I don't necessarily agree that all positions should fatigue. Running a RB into the ground is a well known phenomenon (because of all the punishment), but I haven't heard such a thing when talking about a WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also I don't necessarily agree that all positions should fatigue. Running a RB into the ground is a well known phenomenon (because of all the punishment), but I haven't heard such a thing when talking about a WR.

Isn't that automatically built in to the real player? What's next having simulated injuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's next having simulated injuries?

OHOHOHOH!

 

Can I unleash a simulated stomach flu on the entire Underdogs team, seeing as I play them this weekend??? :ph34r:

 

 

:headbanger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also I don't necessarily agree that all positions should fatigue.  Running a RB into the ground is a well known phenomenon (because of all the punishment), but I haven't heard such a thing when talking about a WR.

Isn't that automatically built in to the real player? What's next having simulated injuries?

These are good points. If you are trying to bring realism, it seems like the fatigue is already built into a decline in carries/points as the season progresses. Is the intent to get people to use 2 running backs like traditional fantasy football? One of the effects of this being that the relative value of RB's in the draft is enhanced?

 

Perhaps one of the ways to model the fatigue would be based on actual carries per game during the season,in addition to the age factors discussed earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also I don't necessarily agree that all positions should fatigue.  Running a RB into the ground is a well known phenomenon (because of all the punishment), but I haven't heard such a thing when talking about a WR.

Isn't that automatically built in to the real player? What's next having simulated injuries?

That is a good point. The same thing occurred to me last night after I was done posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also I don't necessarily agree that all positions should fatigue.  Running a RB into the ground is a well known phenomenon (because of all the punishment), but I haven't heard such a thing when talking about a WR.

Isn't that automatically built in to the real player? What's next having simulated injuries?

That's actually a great point. They should probably remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per their comments on this abomination of a rule, I am very, very unhappy with this game, this site and this "simulation".

 

We are all being played for suckers to help them figure out what the frock they want to do next year.

 

Beta game testers should NOT have to pay to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they ever going to change guys like Mike Anderson amd Reuben Droughns to HBs? Or, are they locked in as FBs? I don't mean to ######, but that's pretty lame, if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are they ever going to change guys like Mike Anderson amd Reuben Droughns to HBs? Or, are they locked in as FBs? I don't mean to bitch, but that's pretty lame, if so.

They are locked in as FBs for 2005. A fairly major loophole IMO, and I bid for Droughns immediately after I found out about it. The only downside is that they don't get the 0.5 pt per carry bonus, but the tradeoff is more than worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... don't mean to ######,...

I'm carrying that torch for ya. Just as long as all the players know I am not complaining about you or them nor anyone taking advantage of a flawed system.

 

I am not happy about the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK...are ya done yet?

 

We all understand already that you're not happy with GDR, you can stop complaining everytime that something new comes up...we get it!

 

Did we all pay to play an unpolished piece of software...YES, I doubt it's the first time though. If you've bought anything from Microsoft, Adobe, Quark, pretty much any software developer within the last couple of years; then you've received unfinished software with poor documentation. It's a fact of society today...you don't have to like it but get used to it.

 

Now let's look at the price involved, $30 for the season. If you only count one week ahead of time and plan on not making the playoffs, we're lookin' at 15 weeks. NOw taking the SAlly Struther's approach, that's less that 30 cents a day for something (good or bad) will keep you "entertained" for the football season.

 

The Rules

 

We're all in the same boat here. Roto was the only person that played the baseball edition, so he may have had a better idea of how some of these things work. All of us coulda/woulda done things differently had we known what to expect. There were plenty of players that I didn't get that I wanted, I even had what I thought was a competitive or even better deal. Get over it...it's already passed!

 

I WANT the rules to evolve and change. I like the idea that I may help make this unique Fantasy Football game better. Why not "suggest" ways to improve the system instead of griping that things are wrong and you're a victim of their mistakes.

 

Your right, this is more of a "simulation"...that's what I expected when I was reading the description. We all probably had different expectations coming in to this but the best thing to do now is to make the best of the season-at-hand.

 

This will probably be received harsher than I truly intended, for that I apologize. I just think it is time to move forward instead of dwelling on the past

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The system is flawed and the FB classification and HB Fatigue REALLY need to be addressed in the future

It definitely is a flaw. When Anderson was snatched up as a FB, I emailed support asking them if he'd be playable in the FB slot, and they said yes. This was after I'd read a misleading thread that indicated (to me) that this wasn't going to be the case. So I guess rather than wait for yet another team to take advantage of the goof-up, I went with it.

 

Anderson counted for 10 pts from the FB position last week. Wow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

This will probably be received harsher than I truly intended, for that I apologize. I just think it is time to move forward instead of dwelling on the past

If it was the past, I would agree with you. Is it still fubared? Yes it is and getting more screwy by the week. Then that means the problems are in the present and beyond, unless you are in some kindof time warp talking to me from the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×