Login

PremierBromanov · 07-29-2020, 10:22 AM

This week started out with some fresh drama, as the SHL is wont to do. The New Orleans Spectres and the Edmontom Blizzard employed "questionable" tactics that drew the ire of many users in the SHL. While I have argued that the tactics are fine from a GM perspective, the larger issue I've come to recognize is one of player agency.

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. Astute users will notice that many roles have large overlaps, and thus a player can be built to be suited for multiple roles. Maybe you're a scoring forward with good skating ability. Well that opens up many of the scoring archetypes. Or maybe you want to be a two-way forward. Many of the overlaps here align with Counter-Attacking forward, or shadow, or agitator.

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 we see Exhibit A: The full agitator forward line-up. Again I will say, this is no big deal from a tactics standpoint. This is what tactics are for. You create a (less than) elegant solution to try to be the best team you can be. If you look at it purely as a game to be played, its fine. But as a simulation, as a fantasy, it's all wrong.

So we have our ruling. One agitator, crease clearer, goon, per team. This rule is completely beside the point. It doesn't give players any agency regarding their player role, it just stops GMs from employing "dirty" tactics that MAYBE affect your overall idea of the SHL fantasy, but does nothing to stop your power forward from being deployed as a goon if that's not what you want. And really, no player is going to say "I'm not going to play that role" because it's selfish. No one wants to say "My goals are more important that the team". But, those goals are treated as moot. Or at least they can be. And who wants to play for a team that isn't trying to win? It's a double-edged sword here.

So what's the solution?

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.

GMs cannot deploy a player in a role they have not selected. Like, im not sending the softest goal-scorer I have out as a goon. But, they do have 5/4 options per player. We are limiting choices at game time, but opening up a new landscape of drafting and team-building strategy. Now things aren't just in terms of TPE or build, but now player roles play a big role in the fantasy of not just the individual, but of the whole organization and league. Drafting becomes a deeper mechanic in the league, rather than just looking at discord activity or TPE, you have to be mindful of their roles. Trading too becomes deeper. You will see more 1:1 trades, more tweaking of teams and a less stagnant trade scene. If Mike Izzy wants to hit as many dudes as possible, he can do that and you can't deploy him as a playmaking forward. Do you want that on your team? if not, don't draft him or trade for him. Simple as.

I can see some users wanting this to not be permanent, or to maybe want to add more roles as your player progresses. This is, i think, a separate issue but one worth discussing anyway. I think if we have the ability to switch positions and reassign TPE, we should be able to pay to replace a role.

I think this will be great for new users as well, since the fantasy element of picking a player archetype will be enforced by the GMs. More player agency, more important choices.

1080 words, grade it

Muerto · 07-29-2020, 10:27 AM

Absolutely agree on player choosing their role(s), not the GM

MCP_ · 07-29-2020, 11:53 AM

Great piece fidds

Long live the Fitted Hockey Network

StamkosFan · 07-29-2020, 11:58 AM

I like the idea of the player choosing a role and a secondary role

Snoopdogg · 07-29-2020, 11:59 AM

I like this idea

PremierBromanov · 07-29-2020, 12:01 PM

07-29-2020, 11:58 AMStamkosFan Wrote: I like the idea of the player choosing a role and a secondary role

just the 2?

StamkosFan · 07-29-2020, 12:02 PM

07-29-2020, 12:01 PMPremierBromanov Wrote:
07-29-2020, 11:58 AMStamkosFan Wrote: I like the idea of the player choosing a role and a secondary role
just the 2?

Yep, probably would be more like real life

dankoa · 07-29-2020, 12:04 PM

As you pointed out yesterday, there are 240 skaters in the league currently and I'm not really sure where the facility to check each of these player's in sim role against a player page on what would have to be a daily basis is going to come from

PremierBromanov · 07-29-2020, 12:22 PM

07-29-2020, 12:04 PMdankoa Wrote: As you pointed out yesterday, there are 240 skaters in the league currently and I'm not really sure where the facility to check each of these player's in sim role against a player page on what would have to be a daily basis is going to come from

well thats the big hole in the idea isnt it?
There are probably a plethora of ways we could accomplish this, but I think the obvious answer is, no matter what, it's a separate job that needs doing. I'm not that familiar with FHM, so i dont know if there's a good way to limit this in-game.
One possibility is to keep a ledger of roles daily, which i know is a pain in the ass, but is something that can be reviewed weekly after the games have been simmed. Infractions are dealt with. So, cheating would be possible, but carry heavy penalties. Like an updater combs through players' pages, a lines-updater would comb through the ledger to verify the lines are legal. This necessitates, of course, a job to list the lines of the day. perhaps an additional responsibility of the simmer (with extra pay).

PremierBromanov · 07-29-2020, 12:24 PM

07-29-2020, 12:02 PMStamkosFan Wrote:
07-29-2020, 12:01 PMPremierBromanov Wrote: just the 2?
Yep, probably would be more like real life

i dont know if I'm keen on that in regards to player choice, but it makes sense in regards to the over-head we're looking at with this idea.

caltroit_red_flames · 07-29-2020, 12:50 PM

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea. Once we're finished with the index there a lot of things we can choose from to work on. I'm sure that'll be one of the things we consider.

KlusteR · 07-29-2020, 01:26 PM

We had the Strength / Weakness before... It was 3/1 when there weren't many attributes, but not why make it 5/2 with FHM? 5 Strengths, which should complement the type of player you're trying to be, and are the only attributes you can spend above 17 on, and two weaknesses, which are not in your future intents with the player at all, that would cost double TPE and capped at 13.

There's room for a brainstorm here, for sure. Thanks Fiddles for pointing it out.

PremierBromanov · 07-29-2020, 01:47 PM

07-29-2020, 01:26 PMKlusteR Wrote: We had the Strength / Weakness before... It was 3/1 when there weren't many attributes, but not why make it 5/2 with FHM? 5 Strengths, which should complement the type of player you're trying to be, and are the only attributes you can spend above 17 on, and two weaknesses, which are not in your future intents with the player at all, that would cost double TPE and capped at 13.

There's room for a brainstorm here, for sure. Thanks Fiddles for pointing it out.

I dont think anyone wants that kind of restriction on their player. Maybe I'm wrong. Plus, doesn't stop GMs from deploying you in any role they want, regardless of your strengths

teztify · 07-29-2020, 01:54 PM

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.

***WannabeFinn*** · 07-29-2020, 02:00 PM

HO implemented a temporary measure, of course they missed the key problem. They need more time for that.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us