Warrior General Games

The HB makes sense though. It's the only position everyone pushes conditioning to 90+ and push toughness to 50+. It is literally the only dot built to withstand usage all game. That is literally everyone build working exactly as designed.

I do agree with issues on QB that energy lowers instant every play for just standing there.

i also really agree with normalizing the energy drain on QB's

Originally posted by william78
I'm not sure anyone is suggesting anything sneaky or to favor one position or style, or at least I'm not, other than re-look at the conditioning on some of the positions, even for a video game some of it doesn't make sense. A HB absorbing that sort of punishment on a regular basis (40 carries and kicks) ought to be totally done at the end of the game min in game breath just smoked

Which is not the argument that was happening. The argument that was happening was that apparently having zero energy has no effect on players.

"HBs with 100 conditioning shouldn't be able to run the ball 40 times a game" is a distinctly different argument than "Being out of energy doesn't have any effect". The latter is absurd, which is why I assumed the argument was actually just trying a different angle to a suggestion that got a lukewarm response the first time around.

Which like, personally, the original argument is a lot more compelling than the latter that ignores the obvious implications. Making players play even worse with low energy is going to make every player need 90+ conditioning, and make lower tiers even more garbage...and is silly anyway because half the positions already invest heavily in conditioning because the effects are already significant.

Toning down the high end of conditioning makes much more sense. Is it for the better? I don't really know, it's slightly more realistic but does requiring more depth at positions really add a lot of gameplay value? It feels like it's primary value is limiting the number and/or value of superstars, which is the actual real suggestion. Takes awhile, but we finally get there.

Originally posted by Corndog
"Being out of energy doesn't have any effect".

Which is a distinctly different argument than "players on zero energy still perform too well depending upon their position and/or task"

Ah yeah, one overstatement is the entire argument laid out over these pages, my bad.

It would be useful if people would tag their overstatements for me then, so I can ignore those arguments and focus on the real ones.

I mean to begin with, arguing that the effect isn't big isn't saying that it doesn't exist, so you even mischaracterized his overstatement.


I think they are big depending, but that in reality you can see a team coast on 0 if they have a decent morale still for a very, very long time, particularly on defense, and at QB/possession receiver on offense, performing at arguably too high a level.

But, for QBs, they kind of have to because of how the position drains energy exceedingly quickly with throws and with how they burn energy moving in the pocket, standing in place after some handoffs, etc.

Originally posted by Raid
I think they are big depending, but that in reality you can see a team coast on 0 if they have a decent morale still for a very, very long time, particularly on defense, and at QB/possession receiver on offense, performing at arguably too high a level.

Okay, cool, we can start from there.

I'm tired of guessing, so I'll just ask, in what way will changing that improve the game overall? What's the upshot?

Originally posted by Corndog
Okay, cool, we can start from there.

I'm tired of guessing, so I'll just ask, in what way will changing that improve the game overall? What's the upshot?

I'm just forming the arguments, in my opinion it could be seen that the energy levels of DBs and possession receivers can be generally too low with out a high enough penalty to their play, which can be unfair to other players who need to be maintaining that conditioning or teams that focus on draining conditioning/morale - but I also can see why we have to have it not be too severe or else rookie becomes a crap-show of everyone only building conditioning monsters.

Perhaps looking into a more severe or satcking punishment for longer streaks without a play on the bench, aside from at QB where drain is already more ridiculous, and think about that as a way to counter the zombie affliction on top of help the original argument - that a HB shouldn't be able to run all game long with no breaks.

Of course, I would be against such a measure as my team uses only 1 back

Originally posted by Corndog
Okay, cool, we can start from there.

I'm tired of guessing, so I'll just ask, in what way will changing that improve the game overall? What's the upshot?

Almost no teams have players bottom out on energy. If you let your players do that, then its a conscious choice. One that clearly doesn't affect some positions nearly enough. Oline is a clear example of this, as are possession WRs and CBs.

Originally posted by ellix
Almost no teams have players bottom out on energy. If you let your players do that, then its a conscious choice. One that clearly doesn't affect some positions nearly enough. Oline is a clear example of this, as are possession WRs and CBs.

just need to make an effective team at sub 20 cond easy. i'll allow an exception at HB

Originally posted by ellix
Almost no teams have players bottom out on energy. If you let your players do that, then its a conscious choice. One that clearly doesn't affect some positions nearly enough. Oline is a clear example of this, as are possession WRs and CBs.

So is a new era of completely ignoring conditioning coming soon?