11-04-2021, 09:30 AMBy-Tor Wrote: 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 would argue that the problem right now is that GMs who put in 100% of effort (or have 100% "skill") end up with a 100% performance, whereas GM's who only have 90% end up with a 50% performance and everyone below 80% ends up with a 10% performance or lower. Relatively small differences in quality of TPE, GM skill or builds have massive impacts on the sim results, much more than they do in real life for example where both the regular seasons and the playoffs are much close and way less predictable at this point than they are here.
This is a valid counterpoint. I agree. I just don't want the equity hammer to come down too hard. I genuinely think hard work should be rewarded.
Credit to enigmatic, Merica, and tweedledunn for sigs
11-04-2021, 06:31 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Maybe the main issue with the engine itself is that it rewards relatively small gaps in roster quality or GM-knowledge with a way too big gap in results. Having a great roster and GM compared to "only" a good roster and GM should give you like a 20 point edge in the standings, not a 50 point one. It's good that quality and competence are rewarded, but the rewards are too big. You could argue that with the relatively strict cap rules we have nowadays, we have more parity in pure roster quality than ever before in the FHM era, and yet the gaps in the Standings are as big as ever. And all that just because of two factors: Different levels of GM knowledge and a different levels of willingness to embrace meta builds and/or exploits within the teams. And both two factors aren't great I would argue. For the meta builds and exploits the reasons are quite obvious and have been listed plenty of times, but I would argue that it's the same for the category of "GM skill" as well. Of course good GMing needs to be rewarded, but we are getting to a point where we run the risk of becoming a league that is just geared towards the 30 or so people in a GM positions to fight their own battles amongst themselves, whereas the hundreds or other members are just passengers with very little impact on the outcome. The kind of player you build and the effort you put into him becomes less and less important, at this point it's all about whether you have the luck to play for a GM with super deep FHM knowledge or not. And to add insult to injury, with the way FHM operates it's impossible to compete even as a great GM if you don't already have the luxury of a great roster - and building that one up and getting there is incredibly hard, whereas already having one and staying at the top isn't, as the last few years have proven.
I love this paragraph and it really puts into words how I’ve been feeling.
I think that I’ve objectively built a great roster that can compete for a long time in Tampa and a great locker room, but in Tampa we have never really been interested in going straight for the meta. I don’t really like telling my players exactly what to do because I want them to make their player that they imagined. But with the shape of the league now its pretty fucking hard to do that and feel like you have a chance against HAM, BUF, CHI, etc. I’m not mad at those teams or blaming them, they’re completely within the rules and have done so much great work figuring out the sim. It can’t be understated the insanity of what these teams have been able to accomplish. If this was an offline league, it would be fine, but this is multiplayer and I feel like the general sentiment in the league is that everyone is bored because the top teams are untouchable. There’s almost no point in paying attention if you’re not one of those teams.
11-04-2021, 08:56 AMClean Andrei Kostitsyn Wrote: wit arcketype ther woud hav be no andrei. andrei is yooneeq player. scor gols hit hard. very strong. best player.
you seek mor 'control' for solooshion
meybee beter solooshion is less control
mor chaos
11-04-2021, 09:59 AM(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 10:01 AM by trella.)
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 understand your point but here’s why I disagree. What you said certainly is true in the NHL. But that’s a professional hockey league on the biggest stage. That’s their job, their livelihood, their whole life. This is a sim league, for most its a hobby. I don’t think you can expect everyone to put in maximum time and effort, because of school, work, family, or actually going outside.
Edit: read further and agree completely with RED’s point. It should not be as punishing to have a 90% GM. In the end this is a fake league we all made up to make fun stories and have fun. It’s not fun for most of the league, when a small minority of players that have committed the most time to the league are untouchable.
11-04-2021, 10:10 AM(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 10:11 AM by Acsolap.)
And people will just end up picking the most meta archetype.
If you want to balance the league you need to fix regression. Other leagues have better balance because regression is much tougher and thus player turn over is higher and team cycles are shorter.
Take nothing away from the successful teams here they have GM's that are great at tactics, scouting, drafting and retaining players but the margin or error is huge because of how slow turn over is.
There should be no 10% tier as it's basically nothing and all tiers should be brought forward on currently regressing players to reflect the dropping of the 10% tier immediately.
Credit to Ml002, King, Wasty, Carpy, Bruins10, Rum_Ham, Turd Ferguson, Ragnar and Enigmatic for the sigs.
Honestly the ability to create any kind of player at any time is part of why I got into the SHL. I had two maxed players in ISFL who were both absolutely terrible, and there was nothing I could do about it. If we do end up making archetypes, I think its a good idea to ensure that all archetypes represent a 2100-ish player, because having 200 banked TPE in ISFL with nothing to use it on but regression and still being a bad player really stunk.
11-04-2021, 10:14 AM(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 10:18 AM by Mayuu.)
11-04-2021, 09:53 AMtrella Wrote:
11-04-2021, 06:31 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Maybe the main issue with the engine itself is that it rewards relatively small gaps in roster quality or GM-knowledge with a way too big gap in results. Having a great roster and GM compared to "only" a good roster and GM should give you like a 20 point edge in the standings, not a 50 point one. It's good that quality and competence are rewarded, but the rewards are too big. You could argue that with the relatively strict cap rules we have nowadays, we have more parity in pure roster quality than ever before in the FHM era, and yet the gaps in the Standings are as big as ever. And all that just because of two factors: Different levels of GM knowledge and a different levels of willingness to embrace meta builds and/or exploits within the teams. And both two factors aren't great I would argue. For the meta builds and exploits the reasons are quite obvious and have been listed plenty of times, but I would argue that it's the same for the category of "GM skill" as well. Of course good GMing needs to be rewarded, but we are getting to a point where we run the risk of becoming a league that is just geared towards the 30 or so people in a GM positions to fight their own battles amongst themselves, whereas the hundreds or other members are just passengers with very little impact on the outcome. The kind of player you build and the effort you put into him becomes less and less important, at this point it's all about whether you have the luck to play for a GM with super deep FHM knowledge or not. And to add insult to injury, with the way FHM operates it's impossible to compete even as a great GM if you don't already have the luxury of a great roster - and building that one up and getting there is incredibly hard, whereas already having one and staying at the top isn't, as the last few years have proven.
I love this paragraph and it really puts into words how I’ve been feeling.
I think that I’ve objectively built a great roster that can compete for a long time in Tampa and a great locker room, but in Tampa we have never really been interested in going straight for the meta. I don’t really like telling my players exactly what to do because I want them to make their player that they imagined. But with the shape of the league now its pretty fucking hard to do that and feel like you have a chance against HAM, BUF, CHI, etc. I’m not mad at those teams or blaming them, they’re completely within the rules and have done so much great work figuring out the sim. It can’t be understated the insanity of what these teams have been able to accomplish. If this was an offline league, it would be fine, but this is multiplayer and I feel like the general sentiment in the league is that everyone is bored because the top teams are untouchable. There’s almost no point in paying attention if you’re not one of those teams.
I agree with this and would say the I think the cap restrictions have actually made it even worse.
There are very few "big" trades that feels like it's shaking the league, regardless of teams. This means the ability to snag up a few players to compete for the season is near impossible. The big just keep being big and successful. And with the cap restrictions, the "meta" gets even staler since all teams look sort of similar. The main difference is how GM's and Coaches run the respective team, and how much they/scripts run sims.
I'm not even sure I'm going to recreate, even though I was sort of looking forward to it. The long-term implications of the decisions taken by HO and Management recently just looks awful and not a good time.
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.
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 understand your point but here’s why I disagree. What you said certainly is true in the NHL. But that’s a professional hockey league on the biggest stage. That’s their job, their livelihood, their whole life. This is a sim league, for most its a hobby. I don’t think you can expect everyone to put in maximum time and effort, because of school, work, family, or actually going outside.
Edit: read further and agree completely with RED’s point. It should not be as punishing to have a 90% GM. In the end this is a fake league we all made up to make fun stories and have fun. It’s not fun for most of the league, when a small minority of players that have committed the most time to the league are untouchable.
This is true. I agree with this as well.
Credit to enigmatic, Merica, and tweedledunn for sigs
I think people are missing the point of this. A meta archetype will emerge. Maybe after 2 seasons, maybe after 5. But once that is found the job of a balancing department would be to fix that. Tweak the archetypes continually until there's no longer a meta.
Trella is on point. You can build a great team with all the right parts but unless you're telling people exactly how to build their players you're not gonna have a chance to compete against the teams that do. No disrespect to those teams either, they've built dynasties, but we as a league have sacrificed the role playing of being hockey players in turn.
11-04-2021, 09:53 AMtrella Wrote: I love this paragraph and it really puts into words how I’ve been feeling.
I think that I’ve objectively built a great roster that can compete for a long time in Tampa and a great locker room, but in Tampa we have never really been interested in going straight for the meta. I don’t really like telling my players exactly what to do because I want them to make their player that they imagined. But with the shape of the league now its pretty fucking hard to do that and feel like you have a chance against HAM, BUF, CHI, etc. I’m not mad at those teams or blaming them, they’re completely within the rules and have done so much great work figuring out the sim. It can’t be understated the insanity of what these teams have been able to accomplish. If this was an offline league, it would be fine, but this is multiplayer and I feel like the general sentiment in the league is that everyone is bored because the top teams are untouchable. There’s almost no point in paying attention if you’re not one of those teams.
I agree with this and would say the I think the cap restrictions have actually made it even worse.
There are very few "big" trades that feels like it's shaking the league, regardless of teams. This means the ability to snag up a few players to compete for the season is near impossible. The big just keep being big and successful. And with the cap restrictions, the "meta" gets even staler since all teams look sort of similar. The main difference is how GM's and Coaches run the respective team, and how much they/scripts run sims.
I'm not even sure I'm going to recreate, even though I was sort of looking forward to it. The long-term implications of the decisions taken by HO and Management recently just looks awful and not a good time.
You're seeing the big teams having to field low tpe players this season. From a GM perspective the cap is absolutely working.
Credit to Ml002, King, Wasty, Carpy, Bruins10, Rum_Ham, Turd Ferguson, Ragnar and Enigmatic for the sigs.
11-04-2021, 10:28 AM(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 10:29 AM by Mayuu.)
11-04-2021, 10:21 AMAcsolap Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:14 AMMayuu Wrote: I agree with this and would say the I think the cap restrictions have actually made it even worse.
There are very few "big" trades that feels like it's shaking the league, regardless of teams. This means the ability to snag up a few players to compete for the season is near impossible. The big just keep being big and successful. And with the cap restrictions, the "meta" gets even staler since all teams look sort of similar. The main difference is how GM's and Coaches run the respective team, and how much they/scripts run sims.
I'm not even sure I'm going to recreate, even though I was sort of looking forward to it. The long-term implications of the decisions taken by HO and Management recently just looks awful and not a good time.
You're seeing the big teams having to field low tpe players this season. From a GM perspective the cap is absolutely working.
They have been for quite a while, it doesn't really matter except for player retention, to be honest. People going undrafted because teams just don't want to spend cap on a maybe prospect anymore.
All the top teams are pretty much fielding minimum contract teams with specific players staying under thresholds to not fuck up the team cap each season.
I think it was better when a team could become a contender with a couple of trades and FA moves over a couple of seasons (like NEW early FHM) instead of this "every team is strapped for cap space" so it's pretty much up to whoever sims the most or has the best script to simulate for them.
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.
This! So much this! There was a point where HAM had maybe 5 or 6 2000 TPE players? But that's no longer the case, they have 1300 TPE players, even some sub 1000 TPE players and they're still a top 5 team. Their knowledge of the sim is commendable, but I think we can all agree that TEX's TPE numbers are far greater than HAM's. HAM still swept them 4-0. I'm just hoping that we can give the players the real ability to create players in their own image.
By-Tor![[Image: DqlVneu.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DqlVneu.png)
![[Image: FVlMRDN.png]](https://i.imgur.com/FVlMRDN.png)
![[Image: q30YniK.png]](https://i.imgur.com/q30YniK.png)
![[Image: 66624_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/66624_s.gif)
![[Image: 56096_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/56096_s.gif)
![[Image: wMGKypg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/wMGKypg.png)
![[Image: rotti.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/rotti.gif)
![[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/doubtfulalpha.gif)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
![[Image: sN8N4xa.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sN8N4xa.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: snacnei.png]](https://i.imgur.com/snacnei.png)
Brady McIntyre ![[Image: ice-level.svg]](https://cards.simulationhockey.com/images/ice-level.svg)
![[Image: pppoopoo.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/pppoopoo.gif)
![[Image: 7925.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/tradingcards/7925.png)
![[Image: vo5yF0X.png]](https://i.imgur.com/vo5yF0X.png)
