07-29-2020, 01:54 PMteztify Wrote: So, I just want to add that the conversation on this is not over. Testing is ongoing, and we are hopeful that we'll get more insight on this from teams (and players) as well. The HO ruling was made because it was felt that something had to be done to curb the issue immediately for a couple of reasons: first, to prevent the perceived "overpoweredness" of these types of strategies, to whatever extent they actually exist (again, testing is ongoing); and secondly to eliminate it as this sort of unrealistic strategy that doubtlessly frustrates players who don't want to be labelled as a goon or agitator, and because it was felt that making lines like this aren't in good faith nor are they a good representation of the sim we're trying to offer - that being one that replicates reality as best as possible.

Things like what you've suggested can still be on the table, but the season is already underway. The proposal you offer comes with a ton of overhead every time a player's role is changed in the sim (so, with 16 teams, probably nearly every day), and isn't something we can just add onto the simmer's plate all of a sudden, nor is it something we should be stopping the league for to take a few days to let everyone edit their player pages and then verify every player is in a role they're allowed to be in in the sim.

I think it's great to strive for greater player agency and it's something that I think will be explored more, and we should encourage more league discussion on. But was it doable for right now, instead of the HO ruling that was made? Not really. Will we find that it's the best solution for the problem long term? Maybe, maybe not, more testing and discussion is needed.


edit: and, I would add, if testing finds that these roles being used truly is repeatably overpowered with none (or limited) possible counters, allowing players to choose 5 roles still opens the door to GMs just building a team of players who have goon or agitator as one of their 5 roles. I'm sure there's no shortage of players in the league who would be fine with playing a bit differently than intended if it meant they got more wins, but it's the lack of good faith in it that's concerning, so I'm not sure if just giving players the option to list a few roles is the solution.

I didn't mean to imply this was a fix meant to be implemented tomorrow, or even next season. I recognize that that we're working with the best we can with minimal overhead. I only meant to point out that player agency has been limited since the start of FHM and this should be an area of focus in the coming months/years.

regarding the last bit, I don't think it's so easy as to be able to assemble a game-breaker, or even a marginally good strategy like all-agitator is perceived to be. It also requires there to be 12 forwards that want to have the possibility of being deployed as an agitator (if its one of their 2-5 roles, depending on how many we would want them to have, assuming this fix were real). That's a massive amount of buy-in and requires a massive amount of coordination through seasons and seasons of drafting. That, i think, is entirely different from any given GM flipping a few switches to all-agitator.

and even still, if tests prove that agitator is OP or something like that, this "limit one" rule does not have to go away either. The purpose of this proposal is to give players their agency back, not to replace measures meant to stop GMs from gaming the system.