Login

caltroit_red_flames · 04-14-2020, 07:18 PM

04-14-2020, 07:14 PMgolden_apricot Wrote:
04-14-2020, 06:56 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: The update scale is already extremely friendly

This is my take on the update scale as well, I get if the site wants to make the SHL a more competitive leauge, but do you want to make it so that a rookie is literally uncompetitive in the J for two seasons to do that? This is a risk that HO will not make just to appease teams that are struggling. In addition, these team literally cant continue to be this bad as the good teams with strong prospect pools will have to either move prospects or roster players in the near future to maintain a 17 player roster.

Exactly. There's not going to be a lot of parity within a season, which is a good thing because the good teams shouldn't be missing the playoffs otherwise TPE is fucking pointless, but there will be parity from season to season as players improve and others regress. If we want more parity then regression needs to be harder.

***boom*** · 04-14-2020, 07:19 PM

Other than the fatigue issue caused by FHM’s horrid scheduling, I haven’t seen too many issues with it so far in the SMJHL, and it’s hard to come up with changes to the SHL that don’t affect that as well. There’s a solid gap between the good and bad teams without being ridiculous - Detroit has dropped three games to middling opponents and Anchorage has hit a skid after going on a huge run.

caltroit_red_flames · 04-14-2020, 07:20 PM

04-14-2020, 07:17 PMLeoben Wrote:
04-14-2020, 06:56 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: The update scale is already extremely friendly

Make it less friendly after you hit a milestone.

Along with your idea of tougher regression to cycle more players, I'd expedite players getting to a TPE number where they can be serviceable in the SHL, but then slow it down after they hit that number.

That's exactly what we already have. The scale is super friendly up to 11, then it gets brutal at 15 to make it so players can only get 20 in a couple attributes for one season.

Code:
From 5 to 7, it costs 1 TPE to improve an attribute by one.

From 7 to 9, it costs 2 TPE to improve by one.

From 9 to 11, it costs 5 TPE to improve by one.

From 11 to 13, it costs 8 TPE to improve by one.

From 13 to 15, it costs 15 TPE to improve by one.

From 15 to 17, it costs 25 TPE to improve by one.

From 17 to 20, it costs 40 TPE to improve by one.

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 04-14-2020, 07:24 PM

04-14-2020, 06:26 PMhotdog Wrote: to take it back to a serious note for a sec, I preach this every time a discussion like this comes up so let me preach it again here - we shouldn't be making decisions based on 30-game sample sizes. If we could show over a 1000-game simulation that the disparity was massive, the call for parity would be more convincing. (Unfortunately FHM doesn't allow for this sort of mass-testing, so it'd be pretty laborious to actually do that, but that's the sort of data that is necessary for these sorts of discussions.)

True but as far as I know, results in various FHM test-sims before the season had similar results. It's certainly too early for any definitive conclusions but even in the small samples we have so far there are still some pretty clear effects that keep showing up and I'd argue that it's becoming less and less likely that its just a fluke.

Also, I doubt that a mass test-sim would give us that much more insight in this specific case. We already know that the bad teams will be terrible and that the good teams will be great, the two big questions are 1. why that is the case and 2. if it is something that we like or that we want to counteract.

Leoben · 04-14-2020, 07:25 PM

04-14-2020, 07:20 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
04-14-2020, 07:17 PMLeoben Wrote: Make it less friendly after you hit a milestone.

Along with your idea of tougher regression to cycle more players, I'd expedite players getting to a TPE number where they can be serviceable in the SHL, but then slow it down after they hit that number.

That's exactly what we already have. The scale is super friendly up to 11, then it gets brutal at 15 to make it so players can only get 20 in a couple attributes for one season.

Code:
From 5 to 7, it costs 1 TPE to improve an attribute by one. From 7 to 9, it costs 2 TPE to improve by one. From 9 to 11, it costs 5 TPE to improve by one. From 11 to 13, it costs 8 TPE to improve by one. From 13 to 15, it costs 15 TPE to improve by one. From 15 to 17, it costs 25 TPE to improve by one. From 17 to 20, it costs 40 TPE to improve by one.

I meant total TPE. But thanks for posting the update scale.

I guess we only need one or the other though. Harder regression might make more sense.

***golden_apricot*** · 04-14-2020, 07:26 PM

04-14-2020, 07:19 PMthecanadiancanuck Wrote: Other than the fatigue issue caused by FHM’s horrid scheduling, I haven’t seen too many issues with it so far in the SMJHL, and it’s hard to come up with changes to the SHL that don’t affect that as well. There’s a solid gap between the good and bad teams without being ridiculous - Detroit has dropped three games to middling opponents and Anchorage has hit a skid after going on a huge run.

stamina issues are always going to be a thing. HO is discussing changes to this (that i fully disagree with but understand where they are coming from) that will make it slightly less of an issue but not something that can be ignored lie it could in sths which is a good thing. Have your player go runs some laps week to week and get that stamina up if you want to play 20 minutes a game. that said, the old update scale made the J almost unplayable, as you saw the same thing that tor and tbb are seeing, but in the J and it was way worse. There are kinks that need to be worked out but please can we not talk about going back to a sim that has 2 attributes that do anything positive for your player

**The__Y-man__100** · 04-14-2020, 07:28 PM

04-14-2020, 03:23 PMnour Wrote: like others have said in this thread i think its hard to call one season’s results as a failed experiment measures up to 50 seasons of STHS. A lot of people, from GMs to players, are still very much in the learning process here and over time i think we’ll see better parity. HO is offering free total build changes this coming offseason for people who tried out something on their player and didn’t like it’s result, and as a whole despite the larger gap, most of the teams on the outside of the post season picture this season are the same as the ones who were outside last season, they know they’re rebuilding and they understand the position they’re in, I doubt they havent communicated to their players that they’re rebuilding and pushing to be competitive in the future but arent right now

Great idea btw

First ever Yukon Malamute draft pick (1st overall S65)

***golden_apricot*** · 04-14-2020, 07:36 PM

04-14-2020, 07:28 PMThe__Y-man__100 Wrote:
04-14-2020, 03:23 PMnour Wrote: like others have said in this thread i think its hard to call one season’s results as a failed experiment measures up to 50 seasons of STHS. A lot of people, from GMs to players, are still very much in the learning process here and over time i think we’ll see better parity. HO is offering free total build changes this coming offseason for people who tried out something on their player and didn’t like it’s result, and as a whole despite the larger gap, most of the teams on the outside of the post season picture this season are the same as the ones who were outside last season, they know they’re rebuilding and they understand the position they’re in, I doubt they havent communicated to their players that they’re rebuilding and pushing to be competitive in the future but arent right now

Great idea btw

dont complement HO, they are the baddies remember?

SlashACM · 04-14-2020, 07:43 PM

Make easier regression

caltroit_red_flames · 04-14-2020, 07:43 PM

04-14-2020, 07:25 PMLeoben Wrote:
04-14-2020, 07:20 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: That's exactly what we already have. The scale is super friendly up to 11, then it gets brutal at 15 to make it so players can only get 20 in a couple attributes for one season.

Code:
From 5 to 7, it costs 1 TPE to improve an attribute by one. From 7 to 9, it costs 2 TPE to improve by one. From 9 to 11, it costs 5 TPE to improve by one. From 11 to 13, it costs 8 TPE to improve by one. From 13 to 15, it costs 15 TPE to improve by one. From 15 to 17, it costs 25 TPE to improve by one. From 17 to 20, it costs 40 TPE to improve by one.

I meant total TPE. But thanks for posting the update scale.

I guess we only need one or the other though. Harder regression might make more sense.

Yeah harder regression is the way to go, you don't want to make it harder to progress after milestone, that's effectively punishing someone for being active

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 04-14-2020, 07:55 PM

Just repeating "Good teams deserve to be good" over and over again is such a lazy argument. Nobody is denying that and the much more important question is HOW good they should be. Same goes for the other end of the specturm. Should a good bad/team merely win/lose most of their games? A large majority of them? Or almost every single one?

Over the last few seasons, the top-team in the NHL has averaged about a 0.730 Win-Percentage, the top-team in the SHL had similar numbers, I would say slightly lower but not by much. In this current season, we have four teams on par to beat that number and the best team in the SHL right now is better than every post 1920s NHL-team. We have left the realm of realism completely with those numbers and even if the will level out a bit over a bigger sample, they will still be way too high. Also, it's not like good teams weren't good before, a 0.740 points-percentage roughly translates to a 36-12-2 season. Is that not rewarding a good team enough? Even the 5th and 6th place teams in the league sport win-percentages of 0.683 and 0.655. In some recent SHL-seasons (S46, S48, S50), that still would have been enough to lead the entire league, and the same was almost the case for some NHL-seasons as well. Just let that sink in, right now the upper midfield is winning as much as the regular season champs regularly did a few seasons back.

Separation is just so big in the standings already. There barely is any sort of playoff race going on anymore after just 25 games. The one in the East is pretty much decided already and the one in the West is closer, but not exactly a nailbiter either as the leading team of the two is the pretty clear favourite too. This isn't just about the gap between good and shit getting bigger, but just as much about the gap between upper midfield and lower midfield.

Muerto · 04-14-2020, 08:37 PM

04-14-2020, 06:48 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
04-14-2020, 06:35 PMMuerto Wrote: I ran about 100 test seasons and the same 8 teams made the playoffs every single time

Can we see your data?

Sorry I have deleted all those game files by now

But, to give a little bit of parameters:

1. It was the test file provided for GMs to work with during the offseason
2. The teams were not accurate re: updates and new rosters
3. All other teams were autolined which created its own weirdness, no backup games required tho
4. The only variable were the lines and strats for Winnipeg, I would generally run 10 sims per, and I tried quite a few different combos so easily 100 total seasons run (Yes I am laid off so had nothing but time to kill)

But, with no other variables, in the West, it was always EDM/CGY/LAP/SFP and in east was always MAN/HAM/NEW/BUF. HAM won easily 90% of the playoffs, to the point I stopped simming playoffs because why bother, not like we ever made it in.

NOLA and CHI were always 5th

6th to 8th would often vary except TOR was always dead last. WPG's results went anywhere from 10 W's to 24 W's, a couple of times we finished above .500 but not often

The same players were on top of the leaderboard almost every season

So there really wasn't any 'surprises' ever

So what I saw indicates that what happens in any season would probably happen in every season, and much less overall randomness in standings, all things remaining equal. Caveat of course being that teams will change as updates come in and GMs can change strats and lines as they go.

Deenerys Targa-rene · 04-14-2020, 09:46 PM

04-14-2020, 01:51 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: So is it time to talk about parity in FHM yet? In my opinion the current standings present us with some pretty concerning signs and I think we should explore if these are just some opening hiccups while the teams figure out the new system and the strategies that come with it, or if it's a sign of a deeper systemic issue. I fear that the latter is the case and it feels like when this issue has been brought up in the past, it has often been brushed aside with "git gud"-style comments or statements like "well what do you expect, Toronto is a historically awful team", which I think is a very superficial way of looking at this issue as it is not just about one good or bad team. And just for the record, I'm on one of the teams who is doing really well right now...

Simply put, I would argue that the good teams are too good and the bad teams are too bad. There are currently four teams with a better win-percentage than the absolute best team in S52 and four with a worse win-percentage than the absolute worst team - with two of them not even having half of that teams win-rate. Over the last ten seasons, the very worst season a team had was one with 13 wins, or a 0.330 win percentage. Right now, four teams are set to land under that mark in just one seasons. Do we really think that we have four teams who are historically bad in just one season?

The gap between not just the best and the worst teams, but also between the above-average and below-average teams, has widened significantly. We are just about halfway through the season and the playoff races are essentially down to 2-3 teams already. Half a dozen teams are already pretty much safely into the postseason, while almost the same number is out already. Games end in blowouts way too often instead of being close.

These things are neither realistic nor are they fun for the people involved. They don't just concern a bad North Stars team but also three other squads whose season was basically already over a few days after it had started and it wouldn't surprise me if before long, two other teams will join them in the "eliminated" category while there are still double digit numbers of games to be played. We are looking at six teams, or almost 40% of the teams in the league, being out of postseason contention early. Six teams full of members who won't just have to sit through a long postseason but for whom large portions of the regular season will be meaningless as well. At the same time, how long will it be interesting for the people on the good teams if their season is just a walk through the park and if the interesting part doesn't start until the postseason? How long will it be fun to beat up on shitty teams who have no chance anyway and how long will it take for those bad teams to start bleeding members who will either go inactive or look for a way out to join a better team, which will only make matters worse in regards to parity?

The playing field that we had in STHS was definitely too level, too random and too unpredictable. But what we have now is too tilted and we should look into ways to correct that. One of the big advantages that the SHL always had over other leagues in my opinion was that with a little bit of skill and luck, it was almost always possible for your team to be somewhat competitive, that seasons were relatively close and that lots of teams were in interesting situations until very late. Many other leagues on the other hand have always had way more sharply pronounced cycles of rebuilding and contention, where teams regularly went into full-blown rebuilds and had to tank multiple seasons because it was their only chance to have a shot at being successful afterwards, which led to seasons where you knew even before the year started which two teams would win each conference and which four teams would have no chance, with maybe one conference, if any, even having something that resembles a playoff race. I always found that incredibly boring and thought that it involved way less skill than the SHLs approach, and I'm worried that we might be moving into that direction as well.

You're still here?

It's been like 10 years dude give it up

Love ya

st4rface · 04-14-2020, 09:47 PM

04-14-2020, 06:14 PMnotorioustig Wrote:
04-14-2020, 06:03 PMst4rface Wrote: Forgot to mention that users who are GMs for teams who have 4 wins in 30 games, have no rights to talk.

Lmao ml will forget more about sim leagues than you'll ever know

ofc

RainDelay · 04-14-2020, 09:55 PM

04-14-2020, 03:25 PMnotorioustig Wrote:
04-14-2020, 02:59 PMst4rface Wrote: STHS is much better than FHM.

April's Clown of the Month is the most hotly contested one in awhile

So many great contestants, I just don’t know who to choose!

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us