FOF2007: Player's Starting Time

[SlyBelle1]

You have the ability to say what % of plays each position should participate in. What I'm wondering, in most cases, why wouldn't your normal key positions always be 100% or close to 100%. For example, I can't see rotating my QB or offensive line in on only some of the plays. I would only see them come up with an injury or fatigue. According to the game notes, it does say fatitgue also figures into the calculation.

Therefore, am I thinking about this wrong or should I really be putting those positions at 100%?

[kcchief19]

To clarify: the quarterback number on playing time doesn't correlate to percentage of snaps -- it is essential how fast is the "the hook" on a starting quarterback. Put it at 1 and he might get jerked following the first interception; put it at 9 and he's not coming out barring injury.

As for the other percentages, it depends on other criteria such as endurance. If you play your offensive line at 100%, some might be able to take it but others won't. If they get too tired, you'll see degraded performance and that will carry over to the next game.

My initial impression is that the "recommended" playing time percentages are determined by a combination of position, endurance and the ratings of the backup. My current offensive line recommeded settings are all at 85-90%, while my entire defensive line is at 50%.

It will take some experimentation to determine the impact of certain numbers, but initial impression is that the settings are fairly realistic, with the exception perhaps of the offensive line. There are plenty of offensive linemen who never come out of the game, but thus far I haven't seen the AI handle that. But my RT at 90% only has an endurance of 73.

Now that playing time percentage is so much more dynamic, it might be worthwhile to look at how endurance ratings are created; right now, my impression is that they are static, meaning that a 73 endurance at tackle is the same as a 73 endurance at QB. If endurance were more position specific, that might result in offensive linemen having more endurance that would result in more players would could play 100% without getting fatigued.

But some of this is putting the cart before the horse in terms of research. I'd be interested in seeing how 100% playing time impacts fatigue, but my impression is that for success you don't want to be putting those positions at 100%.

[SlyBelle1]

To clarify: the quarterback number on playing time doesn't correlate to percentage of snaps -- it is essential how fast is the "the hook" on a starting quarterback. Put it at 1 and he might get jerked following the first interception; put it at 9 and he's not coming out barring injury.

As for the other percentages, it depends on other criteria such as endurance. If you play your offensive line at 100%, some might be able to take it but others won't. If they get too tired, you'll see degraded performance and that will carry over to the next game.

My initial impression is that the "recommended" playing time percentages are determined by a combination of position, endurance and the ratings of the backup. My current offensive line recommeded settings are all at 85-90%, while my entire defensive line is at 50%.

It will take some experimentation to determine the impact of certain numbers, but initial impression is that the settings are fairly realistic, with the exception perhaps of the offensive line. There are plenty of offensive linemen who never come out of the game, but thus far I haven't seen the AI handle that. But my RT at 90% only has an endurance of 73.

Now that playing time percentage is so much more dynamic, it might be worthwhile to look at how endurance ratings are created; right now, my impression is that they are static, meaning that a 73 endurance at tackle is the same as a 73 endurance at QB. If endurance were more position specific, that might result in offensive linemen having more endurance that would result in more players would could play 100% without getting fatigued.

But some of this is putting the cart before the horse in terms of research. I'd be interested in seeing how 100% playing time impacts fatigue, but my impression is that for success you don't want to be putting those positions at 100%.

Kc, thanks for the feedback. I can see all your points. I'll have to do some tweaking and see what I come up with. I would have just thought why not put them in until they are fatigued, which the game should handle in taking them out. Assuming the game does that well, I'm not sure why they would ever be over fatigued or carry over to the next game. Most offensive lines play all the time and week to week without any effect.

[molson]

That brings up a good question - if I set a guy's % too high for his endurance, will he be left in the game when he's too tired? How am I to know what endurance # correlates to what PT%?

It would probably make more sense for 100% to mean that guy is in for 100% of plays that he's not fatigued for. But in that case, you'd probably want most of your starters at 100%, unless you want want to give a backup more time, or you want to rest your starters.

[jbmagic]

That brings up a good question - if I set a guy's % too high for his endurance, will he be left in the game when he's too tired? How am I to know what endurance # correlates to what PT%?

It would probably make more sense for 100% to mean that guy is in for 100% of plays that he's not fatigued for. But in that case, you'd probably want most of your starters at 100%, unless you want want to give a backup more time, or you want to rest your starters.

Just remember in FOF 2007 that fatigue carries over from game to game. So 100% might not be a good idea to do always.

[SlyBelle1]

That brings up a good question - if I set a guy's % too high for his endurance, will he be left in the game when he's too tired? How am I to know what endurance # correlates to what PT%?

It would probably make more sense for 100% to mean that guy is in for 100% of plays that he's not fatigued for. But in that case, you'd probably want most of your starters at 100%, unless you want want to give a backup more time, or you want to rest your starters.

Exactly what I was thinking...not 100% sure what it means in relation to the game. I personnaly would want my starters to go as much as they could, unless I really wanted to work in my backup players.