07-29-2020, 10:22 AMPremierBromanov Wrote: Many of us have a player type in mind when we create a new player or when we add points to a stat. We envision the effects higher stick checking might have, as replays of Datsyuk steals swim in our head. Or maybe we up that shooting range and accuracy on our defenseman, seeing Brent Burns rip clappers from the blue line. Maybe we toss some checking, hitting, strength, and stamina in hopes of creating a Tom Wilson. All of these examples are to say that the fantasy of having a player is a very strong one and i would argue one of the biggest draws for the SHL. It's important to users to have agency over the fantasy of their player.

Indeed, this is encouraged in the build tool, with the dropdown of the player roles. It offers 21 archetypes for forwards and 14 for defensemen and each one has particular strengths and requires particular stats be fairly high. These are highlighted in red. The builder says "What do you want to make? We will help you." It hammers that fantasy home and offers more to fantasize about. Woah, I can be a goon? Or maybe Gretzky's office? It might be cool to be a garbage collector.

The point is, the roles are suggested to be in the players control. And they should be. But they aren't.

One of the reasons FHM was exciting to switch to was the fact that GMs had their own measure of control over how the team played. There was more fine-tuned controls over the tactics, how a given line played, how many minutes. It was possible to assign a specific player a specific role and if they were good at it, they would see success in that role. The combinations are nigh endless.

But what happened was that it allowed GMs to have agency at the cost of player agency. Most of the time, the players aren't even aware of the roles they've been assigned. GMs play players like chess pieces. While this is great for the job of GM and helps good GMs be better and bad GMs be noticeably worse, it comes at the cost of player fantasy.

Here's my take. At player creation, just like with SimonT, you pick 5 roles your player can play (or 4 for defensemen). It's not so small that your player gets pigeon-holed into a bad role, but not too broad as to allow every forward to pick agitator anyway. These roles live on your player page and do NOT affect your stats in any way. I think we want to get away from that sort of thing. Easy, breezy. 

I've trimmed down your original post because there are some of the things that I want to address.

As the coach of the New Orleans Specters, when I was brought on for FHM it was very important for me that players have agency. When I created my first (and still only) played Darnell Johnson, I imagined him being a clean, clinical, non-nonsense defenseman. Clutch poke check, great positioning, laying out in front of pucks. That's who I always wanted to be, and that's who I built to be in FHM. That player agency, that fantasy is what I love about the SHL. I've often compared it to D&D for hockey nerds, and I think that's a good comparison. Build your player as you would your D&D adventurer.

When I took over in my first season I specifically went out and talked to each member of my team and asked them a simple question: What type of player do you want to be? And together we worked on making them a build that suited their player type. We used a better understanding of the way the sim engine works and which stats it prioritizes in the second FHM season to review each and every player's build one on one and make sure they were given the best chance possible to succeed in the role they wanted to play in.

A lot of my players, probably about half, told me they wanted to play as whatever the team needed, and that was very helpful for me to achieve my vision of the team. But, still, even with those players who were willing to hand over full control, I still made sure the broad strokes of what they wanted to do were represented. For at least one player on the team, we still have a plan in progress. One of our younger players who is still actively building up, we've got a multi-season plan in place to build them up first as a defensive forward, into a two way, and then allow them to grow into the role as an offensive forward later on. But they were very understanding in that, for FHM, each forward needs a strong physical and defensive base first.

I try not to play my players out of role or out of position, but it does happen from time to time. I try to keep my players informed on what roles they're playing, what line/units they're on, and what kind of time they're going to be getting. Sometimes it's easier than others to keep everyone informed. In the playoffs, for example, things are so volatile and liable to change between every game, and sometimes multiple times between games that it's hard to keep up.

And yes, even with the agitators. The team was informed what we were going to be doing and why. We saw the potential power of the build and informed a member of HO, who said it was a known thing but that they didn't think it would work that well. We were challenged by this person to "feel free to prove [them] wrong". We asked if it would be reviewed and fixed if it proved as strong as it seemed, and they said yes. So from the very beginning, for us, the intention was to get it fixed and banned. We were not the first team to run it. Chicago ran all goons the first day of pre-season, and that's what tipped us off. Whether they did it as a joke or what, who knows. But with a little testing we found the strength inherent in the scheme and wanted to do the right thing. When we tried to, we were rebuffed, and that led to the unfortunate circumstances of the first match day.

Edit:

Also, I'd recommend checking out the Player Roles section of the FHM6 online manual. Players could select a major role that the team then has to play within. Not the most elegant solution, but it could work.