Login

ACapitalChicago · 07-29-2020, 02:27 PM

Great work as always Fiddler

S66 Damian Littleton

||

||

|

|

KlusteR · 07-29-2020, 02:44 PM

07-29-2020, 01:47 PMPremierBromanov Wrote:
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

If your GMs and coaches force you into a role you're not suited for, then we've hit peak realism Biggrin

I personally don't mind being restricted in some categories where I know I'm never gonna be great, like Puckhandling and Poke Check. I think everyone has those attributes in mind where you're just wondering "why would I put points in that?" But then again, that might simply be me. I truly appreciated your article, and I think that the solution you proposed is elegant and serves the intended purpose, I'm just trying to move the conversation along to where GMs won't even be tempted to circumvent said rules, don't mind me Wink

PremierBromanov · 07-29-2020, 02:54 PM

07-29-2020, 01:54 PMteztify Wrote: 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.

I didn't mean to imply this was a fix meant to be implemented tomorrow, or even next season. I recognize that that we're working with the best we can with minimal overhead. I only meant to point out that player agency has been limited since the start of FHM and this should be an area of focus in the coming months/years.

regarding the last bit, I don't think it's so easy as to be able to assemble a game-breaker, or even a marginally good strategy like all-agitator is perceived to be. It also requires there to be 12 forwards that want to have the possibility of being deployed as an agitator (if its one of their 2-5 roles, depending on how many we would want them to have, assuming this fix were real). That's a massive amount of buy-in and requires a massive amount of coordination through seasons and seasons of drafting. That, i think, is entirely different from any given GM flipping a few switches to all-agitator.

and even still, if tests prove that agitator is OP or something like that, this "limit one" rule does not have to go away either. The purpose of this proposal is to give players their agency back, not to replace measures meant to stop GMs from gaming the system.

LordBirdman · 07-30-2020, 10:00 AM

I like the idea but understand the challenges it poses around enforcement.

My suggestion would randomized audits of teams after the fact with strict penalties.

PremierBromanov · 07-30-2020, 10:44 AM

07-30-2020, 10:00 AMLordBirdman Wrote: I like the idea but understand the challenges it poses around enforcement.

My suggestion would randomized audits of teams after the fact with strict penalties.

a bounty, even

***frithjofr*** · 07-30-2020, 02:08 PM

07-29-2020, 10:22 AMPremierBromanov Wrote: 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.

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'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.

I've trimmed down your original post because there are some of the things that I want to address.

As the coach of the New Orleans Specters, when I was brought on for FHM it was very important for me that players have agency. When I created my first (and still only) played Darnell Johnson, I imagined him being a clean, clinical, non-nonsense defenseman. Clutch poke check, great positioning, laying out in front of pucks. That's who I always wanted to be, and that's who I built to be in FHM. That player agency, that fantasy is what I love about the SHL. I've often compared it to D&D for hockey nerds, and I think that's a good comparison. Build your player as you would your D&D adventurer.

When I took over in my first season I specifically went out and talked to each member of my team and asked them a simple question: What type of player do you want to be? And together we worked on making them a build that suited their player type. We used a better understanding of the way the sim engine works and which stats it prioritizes in the second FHM season to review each and every player's build one on one and make sure they were given the best chance possible to succeed in the role they wanted to play in.

A lot of my players, probably about half, told me they wanted to play as whatever the team needed, and that was very helpful for me to achieve my vision of the team. But, still, even with those players who were willing to hand over full control, I still made sure the broad strokes of what they wanted to do were represented. For at least one player on the team, we still have a plan in progress. One of our younger players who is still actively building up, we've got a multi-season plan in place to build them up first as a defensive forward, into a two way, and then allow them to grow into the role as an offensive forward later on. But they were very understanding in that, for FHM, each forward needs a strong physical and defensive base first.

I try not to play my players out of role or out of position, but it does happen from time to time. I try to keep my players informed on what roles they're playing, what line/units they're on, and what kind of time they're going to be getting. Sometimes it's easier than others to keep everyone informed. In the playoffs, for example, things are so volatile and liable to change between every game, and sometimes multiple times between games that it's hard to keep up.

And yes, even with the agitators. The team was informed what we were going to be doing and why. We saw the potential power of the build and informed a member of HO, who said it was a known thing but that they didn't think it would work that well. We were challenged by this person to "feel free to prove [them] wrong". We asked if it would be reviewed and fixed if it proved as strong as it seemed, and they said yes. So from the very beginning, for us, the intention was to get it fixed and banned. We were not the first team to run it. Chicago ran all goons the first day of pre-season, and that's what tipped us off. Whether they did it as a joke or what, who knows. But with a little testing we found the strength inherent in the scheme and wanted to do the right thing. When we tried to, we were rebuffed, and that led to the unfortunate circumstances of the first match day.

Edit:

Also, I'd recommend checking out the Player Roles section of the FHM6 online manual. Players could select a major role that the team then has to play within. Not the most elegant solution, but it could work.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us