Warrior General Games

So the real problem is Energy Regen.

Here's the basics of what happens.

Player Starting Energy is X.
Player burns Energy from a play. (B)
Player recovers Energy. (R)
Player Starting Energy for Play #2 is X-B+R which is usually back at X again for 100 Conditioning players.

Here's the solution:

If you're on the field for 2 consecutive players, you burn (B) additional Energy after the 2nd play.
If you're on the field for 3 consecutive players, you burn (B) additional Energy after the 3rd play (you already had the additional burn of play 2).
If you're on the field for 4 consecutive players, you burn (B) additional Energy after the 4th play (you already had the additional burn of the plays 2 & 3).
If you're on the field for 5 consecutive players, you burn (B) additional Energy after the 5th play.

ETC. The more consecutive plays you play, the more Energy you burn. Once you get a rest play, you start the cycle all over again.

This stops players from playing every play in a game, thus requiring some/ a lot of depth. High Conditioning players will certainly play more than Low Conditioning players but can stay on the field for a longer streak.

The generic problem is the Energy burn rate is too low for the 100 Conditioning builds that Agents make.

That makes sense to me.

thumbs up just because my puny brain just went BOOM!!!

I don't think this is a pressing need. Either you balance the player abilities and max conditioning with smaller roster. Or bigger roster for more specialization and less conditioning. Learn to build for team needs and plans.

Originally posted by JokersChaos
I don't think this is a pressing need. Either you balance the player abilities and max conditioning with smaller roster. Or bigger roster for more specialization and less conditioning. Learn to build for team needs and plans.

what are you even talking about? how many teams right now opt to use "bigger rosters and less conditioning" over "smaller rosters and max conditioning"? zero good teams.right now high cond players are better in almost every slot, and almost every s* is 100 cond and never gets benched due to the high cond. so essentially you can reword your post to say either you can build a "good team" or a "bad team". good insight there pal

to piggy back off xars post - the most "pressing" need in the game right now is to rebalance the conditioning issue now that they adjusted the salary cap issues. how many teams use 1 s* HB or 1 s* SS or 2 s* DT etc etc and all playing 60+ snaps a game with no rest or backup (i know my team does lol). you cant cheese the system by spamming rookie OTs anymore so now the goal more than ever will be spamming high cond on every starting player (esp s* players) so that you can maximize the extra cash you saved to fit more s* power on the roster for a super team.

making an adjustment like what xars is recommending is a very balanced way to fix the loophole which allows teams to sacrifice depth of the roster for superstar players, which will lead to more depth on rosters and more depth in competition. its a very good suggestion, +1 xars

Originally posted by Sov.
what are you even talking about? how many teams right now opt to use "bigger rosters and less conditioning" over "smaller rosters and max conditioning"? zero good teams.right now high cond players are better in almost every slot, and almost every s* is 100 cond and never gets benched due to the high cond. so essentially you can reword your post to say either you can build a "good team" or a "bad team". good insight there pal

to piggy back off xars post - the most "pressing" need in the game right now is to rebalance the conditioning issue now that they adjusted the salary cap issues. how many teams use 1 s* HB or 1 s* SS or 2 s* DT etc etc and all playing 60+ snaps a game with no rest or backup (i know my team does lol). you cant cheese the system by spamming rookie OTs anymore so now the goal more than ever will be spamming high cond on every starting player (esp s* players) so that you can maximize the extra cash you saved to fit more s* power on the roster for a super team.

making an adjustment like what xars is recommending is a very balanced way to fix the loophole which allows teams to sacrifice depth of the roster for superstar players, which will lead to more depth on rosters and more depth in competition. its a very good suggestion, +1 xars

I'm not saying that it doesn't s work to low roster high condition. I'm just saying it's not the only way to go to have at least a good team. So with all the other issues immediately I just think there's higher priorities at the moment.

I think this is a terrible idea. What about positions that you only have one of on the team, like QB, C, FB, FS, SS??? You basically want every team to have at least 40 players.

The real reason to have a high conditioning player is intra-play stamina. They outplay another player with higher skills and lower conditioning because they get the most out of their skills in real time. That will never change no matter what is done to conditioning.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
I think this is a terrible idea. What about positions that you only have one of on the team, like QB, C, FB, FS, SS??? You basically want every team to have at least 40 players.

i am sure there is a way to void out this change for QB as cond/morale is already tough on QB as is, but yeah for the rest of the positions like C, FS, SS, etc you will need a backup instead of just having 1 s* player or one high cond player. FB is an easy fix, just dont run all 2TE/2WR formations and the FB will rest. have a backup C or swap a G to backup the C.

the point of this change is that too many teams are exploiting the fact 100 cond players never need to be benched. therefore you can save a ton of salary to use on more superstars rather than having to have 2 non s* players for the same position. this is why the current culture and meta of the game is to exploit these loopholes and stack as many superstars as possible on your roster in lieu of any form of depth. everyone complains there is too many s* on teams but then whines about good solutions to fix the problem. its an either/or lol

I still think the best solution is to limit the # of S* with the formula I provided.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
I still think the best solution is to limit the # of S* with the formula I provided.

Which is?

I would say the answer is to mimic what you see in reallife. Have energy drop MUCH faster(particularity for heavy contact interactions), and by that I mean around twice as fast while on the field. During the first series players will be fine and still have good energy, but by the 2nd or 3rd series they'll start to labor if not rested. On the flipside, energy should be regained faster while off-field(at a smaller rate than its lost though). This means means that players can be subbed out for a set of downs and gain some wind back. It also really makes long defensive stands wear down a defense. Strategy-wise, it really opens up more styles of play like ground n' pound.

If Intimidation was fixed, you'd get more energy drain per contact.