I sure would like to see this testing-discussion outsourced into a separate thread then because it is a crucial discussion to have imho.
It's important that we base this decision on a robust set of data and to be completely honest, these examples have me somewhat worried. We've been told that extensive testing has been done but then the main example that was shown to prove how broken this is turns out to just be a singular 50 game sim with things normalizing a lot more in a larger 800-game sample. Still inflated I would argue, but not nearly as gamebreaking as we were led to believe with that 50-game screenshot. Now I don't wanna accuse anyone of doing this on purpose, but it shows that there are many different options but also pitfalls when it comes to testing and analyzing the data. I don't think you can conclude from that 800-game sample that STHS is broken beyond redemption like so many seem to be so quick to believe. So I would like to see as much testing as possible - only one 40 PA-player in the entire league, one per team, 3 or 5 per team, the whole league build that way, the differences between 40 and 80 PA and so on, then have the league take a look at it and try and poke holes in it.
To some extent it feels like while this should be an open-ended, data-driven process, the decision has actually already been made by the people who want the switch regardless, whether STHS is still feasible or not, and now the data is being selected to support the conclusions that have already been drawn. I hope I'm wrong about that though and having as much of the data and testing out in the open would be very helpful in countering those assumptions.
11-28-2019, 10:44 AM(This post was last modified: 11-28-2019, 12:03 PM by Otrebor13.)
I'm 100% on board with any decision that makes the SHL the best possible league moving forward.
That being said, I'm seeing a lot more testing and data coming out that's showing STHS can still be used and the numbers people are getting aren't ridiculously out of whack. Normalizing the numbers makes it so the stats really aren't that out of proportion to what we're used to seeing.
I'd also like to point out that the discussion we're having with the possible move to FHM has people saying that the update scale will be harsher and having people get to 18/19/20 in certain attributes will be extremely difficult, but why don't we apply that same logic to our current attributes/update scale? I'm in a GM league that uses NHL players, and only the NHLers who get 40-50+ goals and 90+ points see 90+ in certain attributes. If everyone is so willing to go to FHM and not have maxed builds, why don't we give that a try with STHS and the current state of the league for the time being? If we start seeing that the league is being broken and things start getting out of hand, then we can make a move from STHS to FHM. For the time being though, I don't see why we should really make a drastic change if there are so many people willing not to max out their attributes? Let's give it a try with our current league and see where it goes.
2.1 looks the most promising and if PA is actually a stat that could be useful, this could potentially be a solution.
11-28-2019, 10:44 AMOtrebor13 Wrote: I'm 100% on board with any decision that makes the SHL the best possible league moving forward.
That being said, I'm seeing a lot more testing and data coming out that's showing STHS can still be used and the numbers people are getting aren't ridiculously out of whack. Normalizing the numbers makes it so the stats really aren't that out of proportion to what we're used to seeing.
I'd also like to point out that the discussion we're having with the possible move to FHM has people saying that the update scale will be harsher and having people get to 18/19/20 in certain attributes will be extremely difficult, but why don't we apply that same logic to our current attributes/update scale? I'm in a GM league that uses NHL players, and only the NHLers who get 40-50+ goals and 90+ points see 90+ in certain attributes. If everyone is so willing to go to FHM and not have maxed builds, why don't we give that a try with STHS and the current state of the league for the time being? If we start seeing that the league is being broken and things start getting out of hand, then we can make a move from STHS to FHM. For the time being though, I don't see why we should really make a drastic change if there are so many people willing not to max out their attributes? Let's give it a try with our current league and see where it goes.
2.1 looks the most promising and if PA is actually a stat that could be useful, this could potentially be a solution.
Where are you seeing that? All I've seen is more evidence that it's game breaking.
Different caps and an update scale are a band aid, the best build will always be whatever has the highest scoring and the lowest passing. It's a fundamental flaw in the sim's decision making formula.
Not sure if this has been mentioned and don't really wanna read through 10 pages but from what I've seen it looks like playing players out of position has a big effect on their performances, if that's the case it could hurt SMJHL teams who often have a lot of forwards out of position to try giving more ice time to actives.
11-28-2019, 10:44 AMOtrebor13 Wrote: I'm 100% on board with any decision that makes the SHL the best possible league moving forward.
That being said, I'm seeing a lot more testing and data coming out that's showing STHS can still be used and the numbers people are getting aren't ridiculously out of whack. Normalizing the numbers makes it so the stats really aren't that out of proportion to what we're used to seeing.
I'd also like to point out that the discussion we're having with the possible move to FHM has people saying that the update scale will be harsher and having people get to 18/19/20 in certain attributes will be extremely difficult, but why don't we apply that same logic to our current attributes/update scale? I'm in a GM league that uses NHL players, and only the NHLers who get 40-50+ goals and 90+ points see 90+ in certain attributes. If everyone is so willing to go to FHM and not have maxed builds, why don't we give that a try with STHS and the current state of the league for the time being? If we start seeing that the league is being broken and things start getting out of hand, then we can make a move from STHS to FHM. For the time being though, I don't see why we should really make a drastic change if there are so many people willing not to max out their attributes? Let's give it a try with our current league and see where it goes.
2.1 looks the most promising and if PA is actually a stat that could be useful, this could potentially be a solution.
Where are you seeing that? All I've seen is more evidence that it's game breaking.
Different caps and an update scale are a band aid, the best build will always be whatever has the highest scoring and the lowest passing. It's a fundamental flaw in the sim's decision making formula.
On the previous page there's Aaron's test sim (When prorated to a 50 game season, Phelps has 59 points, which would have put him at 3rd highest last season). Tomen's sim responding to Aaron's shows Phelps at 66 points, which is 2nd. So while I see that scoring builds are better, they don't always happen to get 80+ points a season.
Also, Loki has been one of the league's best players for the past few seasons now, and he has 99 PA, 99 SC, 90 DF. So just some additional evidence that shows that a player that has a somewhat different build is still outproducing everybody else.
Again, I will reiterate: I am on board with whatever decision is taken for the betterment of the SHL, but I want to present counter arguments to switching just so we can be sure that switching is the right move and that we are certain there are lots of issues here and FHM is fool proof.
11-28-2019, 12:56 PMBDonini Wrote: Not sure if this has been mentioned and don't really wanna read through 10 pages but from what I've seen it looks like playing players out of position has a big effect on their performances, if that's the case it could hurt SMJHL teams who often have a lot of forwards out of position to try giving more ice time to actives.
Even with development off players will get better in their "off-positions", the thought was that we could set players to the max rating in their primary position, then a reasonable rate at other forward positions for forwards and D positions for D. As they play in those off-positions they improve at it and it doesn't take super long to improve. We do have the option to put primary positions at 20 and other F/D position(s) at 19 if we wanted to, then the impact would be basically 0. Though I do like the idea of players getting better on their off-wing or at C over time if they haven't played it before.
Your point is well heard though, we don't want to scare teams off from playing active players in their off-side, so it might just be a matter of picking a reasonable starting point for those off sides, or negate it almost completely from the start.
11-28-2019, 12:49 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: Where are you seeing that? All I've seen is more evidence that it's game breaking.
Different caps and an update scale are a band aid, the best build will always be whatever has the highest scoring and the lowest passing. It's a fundamental flaw in the sim's decision making formula.
On the previous page there's Aaron's test sim (When prorated to a 50 game season, Phelps has 59 points, which would have put him at 3rd highest last season). Tomen's sim responding to Aaron's shows Phelps at 66 points, which is 2nd. So while I see that scoring builds are better, they don't always happen to get 80+ points a season.
Also, Loki has been one of the league's best players for the past few seasons now, and he has 99 PA, 99 SC, 90 DF. So just some additional evidence that shows that a player that has a somewhat different build is still outproducing everybody else.
Again, I will reiterate: I am on board with whatever decision is taken for the betterment of the SHL, but I want to present counter arguments to switching just so we can be sure that switching is the right move and that we are certain there are lots of issues here and FHM is fool proof.
There has been a significant amount of testing on 2.1 and if we were to stay on STHS it's the only option that's close to workable on STHS, but there are still concerns. STHS isn't really meant for players manipulating builds, it's meant to be the development system for players in itself. There hasn't been a great solution presented yet and we've had a ton of people testing it. Not to say there won't be one figured out, but none of it looks great right now. Part of the issue is that people want the SHL to be a place where you can build the kind of player you envision and the only solutions that come close require severe restrictions on not just the players builds, but the number of certain builds each team can have.
11-28-2019, 03:59 PM(This post was last modified: 11-28-2019, 04:05 PM by Tomen.)
11-28-2019, 09:41 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I sure would like to see this testing-discussion outsourced into a separate thread then because it is a crucial discussion to have imho.
It's important that we base this decision on a robust set of data and to be completely honest, these examples have me somewhat worried. We've been told that extensive testing has been done but then the main example that was shown to prove how broken this is turns out to just be a singular 50 game sim with things normalizing a lot more in a larger 800-game sample. Still inflated I would argue, but not nearly as gamebreaking as we were led to believe with that 50-game screenshot. Now I don't wanna accuse anyone of doing this on purpose, but it shows that there are many different options but also pitfalls when it comes to testing and analyzing the data. I don't think you can conclude from that 800-game sample that STHS is broken beyond redemption like so many seem to be so quick to believe. So I would like to see as much testing as possible - only one 40 PA-player in the entire league, one per team, 3 or 5 per team, the whole league build that way, the differences between 40 and 80 PA and so on, then have the league take a look at it and try and poke holes in it.
To some extent it feels like while this should be an open-ended, data-driven process, the decision has actually already been made by the people who want the switch regardless, whether STHS is still feasible or not, and now the data is being selected to support the conclusions that have already been drawn. I hope I'm wrong about that though and having as much of the data and testing out in the open would be very helpful in countering those assumptions.
I have only done 1 testsim before on a setting of only 3 players being set to 40PA and 99 SC. I feel fairly confident in saying that I have simmed a total of about 5k+ games on whole teams being played with the same build. My main concern wasn't just a few players having a broken build. My main concern was the majority of a team or rather the whole team ( that is actually getting playing time) having a broken build. Coz Hammy had I think a total of 8 players with 40 Passing maybe even more( Owens,Johnson,Michaud,Phelps,Garrett,SLM,Jazz,Miller,Fouquette,Anazbif,?
Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)
11-28-2019, 12:56 PMBDonini Wrote: Not sure if this has been mentioned and don't really wanna read through 10 pages but from what I've seen it looks like playing players out of position has a big effect on their performances, if that's the case it could hurt SMJHL teams who often have a lot of forwards out of position to try giving more ice time to actives.
Even with development off players will get better in their "off-positions", the thought was that we could set players to the max rating in their primary position, then a reasonable rate at other forward positions for forwards and D positions for D. As they play in those off-positions they improve at it and it doesn't take super long to improve. We do have the option to put primary positions at 20 and other F/D position(s) at 19 if we wanted to, then the impact would be basically 0. Though I do like the idea of players getting better on their off-wing or at C over time if they haven't played it before.
Your point is well heard though, we don't want to scare teams off from playing active players in their off-side, so it might just be a matter of picking a reasonable starting point for those off sides, or negate it almost completely from the start.
Oh ok so the rating is adjustable? Less of a concern then.
This might not make much sense in terms of realism but a suggestion for that would be to have their "off-positions" set to 19 for the juniors and then have the growth over time system for the SHL. My main concern with positions really is that since the active player pool in the J is much smaller it's harder for teams to end up with a perfect 3-4 C, 3-4 LW, 3-4 RW and then we can end up with situations where teams are at a disadvantage and active players are harming their teams. Since it's adjustable though I'm sure we'll be able to find a workaround for it when the time comes.
What happens if a lot of people retire and recreate when the switch happens? (Quite few might call it a day and start fresh in the new sim) Can the junior teams handle large group of active players joining up at once? What happens to the young players already in juniors?
In Football Managers you can usually find tactics that just work better than others, they take advantage of the game mechanics etc and in result you can do well with a team that is not perhaps expected to do so - is there potential for similar stuff in FHM? Some tactical combination brings you the results and there is not much the other team can do?
Those GM´s and coaches who play the game obviously have advantage early on, but could be equally game breaking if fairly soon after moving to FHM every single team plays with the same tactical ideas. Aggressive hockey with active forechecking for example = build towards playing that = every player start to look the same.
11-28-2019, 05:12 PMjRuutu Wrote: What happens if a lot of people retire and recreate when the switch happens? (Quite few might call it a day and start fresh in the new sim) Can the junior teams handle large group of active players joining up at once? What happens to the young players already in juniors?
The same will likely happen if they decide to stay on STHS. A lot of people who have suboptimal builds, will just retire and recreate as the meta build. If we switch the engine, people will most likely get to reapply most or all of their tpe, so there isn't that big of a reason to recreate.
Mathias Seger #15 | Player page | Update page Sigs by Donini, RainDelay, Fever and OrbitingDeath
11-28-2019, 05:12 PMjRuutu Wrote: What happens if a lot of people retire and recreate when the switch happens? (Quite few might call it a day and start fresh in the new sim) Can the junior teams handle large group of active players joining up at once? What happens to the young players already in juniors?
That'd certainly be a problem, but a lot of people like myself will be happy to finish out their careers with FHM. What I see happening is simply players being called up earlier than they usually are now. Teams will have 3rd lines around 500-700 TPE, maybe some teams with second lines like that as well. I don't see that as a big problem. It's something to think about, but like I said a lot of people will stick it out another season at least with their players since they have to redistribute to the FHM attributes.
11-28-2019, 05:12 PMjRuutu Wrote: In Football Managers you can usually find tactics that just work better than others, they take advantage of the game mechanics etc and in result you can do well with a team that is not perhaps expected to do so - is there potential for similar stuff in FHM? Some tactical combination brings you the results and there is not much the other team can do?
Those GM´s and coaches who play the game obviously have advantage early on, but could be equally game breaking if fairly soon after moving to FHM every single team plays with the same tactical ideas. Aggressive hockey with active forechecking for example = build towards playing that = every player start to look the same.
Based on testing so far and those who are experienced with FHM this isn't likely to happen. There are definitely going to be some better tactics, but when teams require multiple player types to be successful you can't expect GMs to give all lines the same tactics. If they do they're gonna have a bad time. Teams need to have penalty killers and defensive players to be successful. Think of it like baseball. You can't have all power hitters otherwise you'll just get a bunch of solo home runs. You need your lead batter to get on base, someone else to get them into scoring position and a third person to get a 3 run home run. You can't have all snipers otherwise nobody is going to play defense or distribute the puck.
11-28-2019, 05:12 PMjRuutu Wrote: What happens if a lot of people retire and recreate when the switch happens? (Quite few might call it a day and start fresh in the new sim) Can the junior teams handle large group of active players joining up at once? What happens to the young players already in juniors?
That'd certainly be a problem, but a lot of people like myself will be happy to finish out their careers with FHM. What I see happening is simply players being called up earlier than they usually are now. Teams will have 3rd lines around 500-700 TPE, maybe some teams with second lines like that as well. I don't see that as a big problem. It's something to think about, but like I said a lot of people will stick it out another season at least with their players since they have to redistribute to the FHM attributes.
11-28-2019, 05:12 PMjRuutu Wrote: In Football Managers you can usually find tactics that just work better than others, they take advantage of the game mechanics etc and in result you can do well with a team that is not perhaps expected to do so - is there potential for similar stuff in FHM? Some tactical combination brings you the results and there is not much the other team can do?
Those GM´s and coaches who play the game obviously have advantage early on, but could be equally game breaking if fairly soon after moving to FHM every single team plays with the same tactical ideas. Aggressive hockey with active forechecking for example = build towards playing that = every player start to look the same.
Based on testing so far and those who are experienced with FHM this isn't likely to happen. There are definitely going to be some better tactics, but when teams require multiple player types to be successful you can't expect GMs to give all lines the same tactics. If they do they're gonna have a bad time. Teams need to have penalty killers and defensive players to be successful. Think of it like baseball. You can't have all power hitters otherwise you'll just get a bunch of solo home runs. You need your lead batter to get on base, someone else to get them into scoring position and a third person to get a 3 run home run. You can't have all snipers otherwise nobody is going to play defense or distribute the puck.
The funny thing about sim leagues is people are always looking for an edge, but when they can't find one themselves they copy the best thing they see. It happens in FHM GM leagues I'm in too, but the nice thing about FHM is these strategies never last. A lot of the tactics in FHM have tactics that counter them to a certain extent, teams that set one strategy and leave it never stay great for a long time because others find the proper counter strategy and with 16 teams the chances of picking a strategy that counters most of the league is pretty low. Yes sometimes one strat works better than others, but from season to season you can't just set it and forget it.
11-28-2019, 09:41 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I sure would like to see this testing-discussion outsourced into a separate thread then because it is a crucial discussion to have imho.
It's important that we base this decision on a robust set of data and to be completely honest, these examples have me somewhat worried. We've been told that extensive testing has been done but then the main example that was shown to prove how broken this is turns out to just be a singular 50 game sim with things normalizing a lot more in a larger 800-game sample. Still inflated I would argue, but not nearly as gamebreaking as we were led to believe with that 50-game screenshot. Now I don't wanna accuse anyone of doing this on purpose, but it shows that there are many different options but also pitfalls when it comes to testing and analyzing the data. I don't think you can conclude from that 800-game sample that STHS is broken beyond redemption like so many seem to be so quick to believe. So I would like to see as much testing as possible - only one 40 PA-player in the entire league, one per team, 3 or 5 per team, the whole league build that way, the differences between 40 and 80 PA and so on, then have the league take a look at it and try and poke holes in it.
To some extent it feels like while this should be an open-ended, data-driven process, the decision has actually already been made by the people who want the switch regardless, whether STHS is still feasible or not, and now the data is being selected to support the conclusions that have already been drawn. I hope I'm wrong about that though and having as much of the data and testing out in the open would be very helpful in countering those assumptions.
I have only done 1 testsim before on a setting of only 3 players being set to 40PA and 99 SC. I feel fairly confident in saying that I have simmed a total of about 5k+ games on whole teams being played with the same build. My main concern wasn't just a few players having a broken build. My main concern was the majority of a team or rather the whole team ( that is actually getting playing time) having a broken build. Coz Hammy had I think a total of 8 players with 40 Passing maybe even more( Owens,Johnson,Michaud,Phelps,Garrett,SLM,Jazz,Miller,Fouquette,Anazbif,?
I'm not a hundred percent sure I understand... So you did one 50-game test sime with the 3 players, the one you posted the screenshot of, and then about 5k+ games where an entire team was built that way or the league was, or a mixture of those things? Any way we can see the results of that, maybe a dedicated thread for all the various amounts of test-simming?
RomanesEuntDomus![[Image: Otrebor13.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Otrebor13.gif)
![[Image: 7MO9RpC.png]](http://i.imgur.com/7MO9RpC.png)
![[Image: gdppv5N.png]](http://i.imgur.com/gdppv5N.png)
![[Image: 5PYmCAe.png]](https://i.imgur.com/5PYmCAe.png)
![[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/doubtfulalpha.gif)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
![[Image: vHNIXVO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/vHNIXVO.png)
![[Image: 639861613880541184.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/639861613880541184.png)
Cal Juice ![[Image: RyzkmSj.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RyzkmSj.png)
![[Image: Eo2nBCt.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Eo2nBCt.png)
Tomas Zadina ![[Image: tkMQzhf.png]](https://i.imgur.com/tkMQzhf.png)
Brady McIntyre ![[Image: ice-level.svg]](https://cards.simulationhockey.com/images/ice-level.svg)
![[Image: selm.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/selm.gif)
![[Image: sig.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/sig.gif)
![[Image: DrunkenTeddy.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/DrunkenTeddy.gif)
![[Image: Tqabyfh.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Tqabyfh.png)
| ![[Image: sXDU6JX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sXDU6JX.png)
![[Image: KSelich.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/KSelich.gif)
![[Image: vhY18i8.png]](http://i.imgur.com/vhY18i8.png)
![[Image: Raptors.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/323061921261551616/626488103170998304/Raptors.png)
![[Image: gs89eGV.png]](http://i.imgur.com/gs89eGV.png)
![[Image: eE2UQZC.png]](https://i.imgur.com/eE2UQZC.png)
![[Image: outlaws2.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/images/smilies/outlaws2.png)
![[Image: switzerland2.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/images/smilies/switzerland2.png)
![[Image: monarchs.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/images/smilies/monarchs.png)
Mathias Seger #15 | ![[Image: Segi.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Segi.gif)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/477951418158809089/912414697985277972/unknown.png)
| ![[Image: specterspp.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/537644128066994197/593600679130431523/specterspp.png)
![[Image: spectersupdate.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/537644128066994197/593594692164255784/spectersupdate.png)
![[Image: cainbanner_35.jpg]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/763788165953355846/879485847517429760/cainbanner_35.jpg)
