11-04-2021, 09:30 AMBy-Tor Wrote: My two thoughts after skimming most of this:

1. Not a huge fan of archetypes if it means some people will be capped at a lower TPE than others. Not against the idea, but want the potential for equal growth.

2. While I think there is definitely a line of "too much", I think having a perennially successful team is an ode to the skill of the GMs. Anyone is able to build what those teams have if they put the work in. Kinda like the NHL - FAs go to good culture teams, winning teams, and avoid losers. I think if GMs only want to put in 75% effort, they should have a team performing at 75%. Additionally, successful teams will train their prospects to fit into their system no matter if we are talking about Hamilton or real life. 


...I think?

I agree in principle that good GMs should be rewarded, but the issue is we are a player league first, so knowing how far to go in that direction is a big question. Rewarding GMs or teams too much for knowing a lot about the engine (like now), ends up punishing any player that isn't on one of those teams by just making them have no hope of winning ever. The fact is, HAM is by far the most successful team at this time, but they are not the "best" team of players, so when you say any team can build that... the reality is they cannot unless they know deeply how FHM works or put in a lot of time to figure out, which is just not something people can do. We have seen a steady decline in interest in GM applications, and part of this is how much work FHM stands to be, and the lack of hope for teams to really go anywhere without a huge amount of effort, which is where something needs to be adjusted before we straight run out of people who will actually do the job.