Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [GD] Injuries
More like a "pointless" tactic than a "safe" tactic
the injured player had 18% activity, how is that "safe"?
in actual safe tactics the important players get 0-4% activity to lower the risk of injury...
(edited)
the injured player had 18% activity, how is that "safe"?
in actual safe tactics the important players get 0-4% activity to lower the risk of injury...
(edited)
Yes always something to say ...
He has safe enough position he needs to play to get trained...
He has safe enough position he needs to play to get trained...
If he has 18% activity then no, he doesn't have a "safe enough position". He had the exact same activity % as in his last league "normal tactic" game.
What do you think makes a safe tactic...? Weird shape, players in corners?
Nope, it's all about making important players have a low % of activity so that they have a lower chance of getting injured...
What do you think makes a safe tactic...? Weird shape, players in corners?
Nope, it's all about making important players have a low % of activity so that they have a lower chance of getting injured...
I play same safe tactic with same opponent as you see players on that position some times do not have even percent
Different thing is this week I do not have official game and many first squad players need to play. Obviously there is a risk if player is better cause he goes offensive but is pure random this...
Is it possible once at least to not comment everywhere?
I'm enough frustrated that my one of only striker will miss most important part of season you can just keep your smart option for yourself..
Different thing is this week I do not have official game and many first squad players need to play. Obviously there is a risk if player is better cause he goes offensive but is pure random this...
Is it possible once at least to not comment everywhere?
I'm enough frustrated that my one of only striker will miss most important part of season you can just keep your smart option for yourself..
If you don't want to see comments you can simply not complain on the forum. If you complain, I have every right to discuss what you wrote.
What you are playing is far from a good safe tactic for a friendly game. You don't have players that are "activity lures" and have a much higher risk of injury (because they are weak players and they can get injured without causing problem). That's the whole point of these tactics.
Plus your "safe tactic partner" has a terrible tactic as well. You both should "sacrifice" 2 players in centry, DEF + MID/ATT who would get most of the activity and just dribble/tackle each other all the time, that's how the safety in these tactics works.
For example in my last friendly player #1 Palofox had 82% of activity and player #2 Corrias had 55% of activity.
At the same time players that I cared most for had in this game: 1%, 2%, 3% and 5% of activity.
I play same safe tactic with same opponent as you see players on that position some times do not have even percent
your previous games, activity in that position: 13%, 23%, 16%, 9%. I have no idea why you make things up.
(edited)
What you are playing is far from a good safe tactic for a friendly game. You don't have players that are "activity lures" and have a much higher risk of injury (because they are weak players and they can get injured without causing problem). That's the whole point of these tactics.
Plus your "safe tactic partner" has a terrible tactic as well. You both should "sacrifice" 2 players in centry, DEF + MID/ATT who would get most of the activity and just dribble/tackle each other all the time, that's how the safety in these tactics works.
For example in my last friendly player #1 Palofox had 82% of activity and player #2 Corrias had 55% of activity.
At the same time players that I cared most for had in this game: 1%, 2%, 3% and 5% of activity.
I play same safe tactic with same opponent as you see players on that position some times do not have even percent
your previous games, activity in that position: 13%, 23%, 16%, 9%. I have no idea why you make things up.
(edited)
I filled games by friendly the two games on top number 7 2 then next game no rating...
I've never quite understood the appeal of so-called "safe tactics". Never have I used it and never have I had problems with many injuries.
I checked my friendlies all this season as well as the previous season. 0 injuries.
Has anybody tried collecting any empirical evidence as to the effects of "safe tactics" versus just playing normally?
I checked my friendlies all this season as well as the previous season. 0 injuries.
Has anybody tried collecting any empirical evidence as to the effects of "safe tactics" versus just playing normally?
Watching matches it's quite obvious that only players with the ball or running to it get injured
But, unless you get a 0% of activity, the risk will always be there
The question is: do you want to get 10 injuries per season or just 5? (idk the exact numbers but it could be something like that)
But, unless you get a 0% of activity, the risk will always be there
The question is: do you want to get 10 injuries per season or just 5? (idk the exact numbers but it could be something like that)
Of course I don't know how the stuff actually works, but I find it curious to read about injuries while playing "safe", when at the same time I never experience any excess of injuries while playing normally.
I might be off the mark here, but to me it seems like other factors may be at play other than merely the activity factor.
Either that or I'm just extremely lucky in my friendly matches :p Not so much in normal matches.
I might be off the mark here, but to me it seems like other factors may be at play other than merely the activity factor.
Either that or I'm just extremely lucky in my friendly matches :p Not so much in normal matches.
There is no difference between injury probability in official and friendly games. So yes, you're lucky.
Luck is a huge factor. I had seasons with 0-1 injuries, I had moments when I had 3-4 injured players at the same time.