Login

grok · 08-12-2020, 02:48 PM

Following this up on some really good conversation initiated by @SFresh3, this is a suggestion I've been tossing around some discord servers.

With the introduction of FHM, we have a ton of new player build and player role options. A user can build their player as a sniper, a dangler, a gritty two-way forward, a power play quarterback, and more. The tactical roles system in FHM gives even more control over a player's build and performance. Choosing a tactical role gives on-ice bonuses to the skill's tagged stats, and slightly changes how the player approaches each game. Tactical role also drives a player's game ratings, giving an accurate picture of how the player performed compared to their role's expectations.

However, there is a problem. Players have zero control over their tactical deployment, including their tactical role. Team management has complete control over whether your elite goal-scoring talent is used as a sniper or as a two-way forward. Your power play quarterback offensive defenseman could be played as a stay-at-home or crease-clearing defenseman. Individual users have nearly no control over the deployment of the player they built.

Thus, the plan: Allow users to choose a tactical role group for their player, and require GMs to deploy that player in a tactical role within that role group.

Let me break this down a bit more. Each tactical role is part of a tactical role group. For example, the Goal Scorer group includes three tactical roles--Perimeter Shooter, Sniper, and Garbage Collector. In the world of this plan, a user could choose, at creation, to make their player a Goal Scorer. If they do, their GM can only play them in one of the three Goal Scorer tactical roles. For defensemen, if a user chooses to make their player a Two-Way Defenseman, the player can only be used as a Two-Way Defenseman or a Mobile Defenseman.

The major advantage of this plan is giving users more agency over how their player is utilized. A user creating a two-way forward might be really bummed out to have their player deployed as a Shadow, negatively impacting their site experience. This type of plan would improve the "build your own SHL career" experience that we advertise so heavily in recruiting.

The major disadvantage of this plan is enforcement. Keeping track of every single player and making sure they're being played in their correct role is a big ask. Fortunately, there are two answers to this. First, players will have a vested interest in their player being used in the role they requested. Opening an anonymous complaint method for HO to receive notification of improperly deployed players solves back. Second, if I have learned one thing on this site, it's that GMs love to tattle on each other. Even if the GM and player are working in cahoots, the second another GM notices there will be fifteen DMs to head office and a thunderdome thread.

A secondary disadvantage is changing role throughout your career. I believe allowing players to change role groups in the offseason similar to position changes (a nominal fee in the neighborhood of 500k-1m, once per season, first one is free) would resolve that issue easily.

Ultimately, I think it adds a lot of value to the site if we take extra efforts to allow users more agency over their experience. Giving them more control over their player's on-ice performance would make a big difference in making the site experience closer to what we advertise.

**The__Y-man__100** · 08-12-2020, 02:52 PM

I think this is a very well thought out idea

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

ckroyal92 · 08-12-2020, 02:53 PM

If I were a GM, I certainly wouldn't be thrilled about having my options limited strategically, but as a player, I'd definitely like a better answer than "roles don't matter".

ml002 · 08-12-2020, 02:54 PM

I like it. Avoids GMs purposely playing all agitators

Credit to Copenhagen, Wasty, FlappyGiraffe, InciteHysteria, and caltroit_red_flames
[Image: MM4nqx6.png]

***sve7en*** · 08-12-2020, 02:59 PM

I still hold some of the concerns I did at the start.

There's twice as many role groups for forwards as there are defensemen, meaning you're either massively limited in options if you're a defenseman and excessively pidgeonholed as a forward.
Enforcement of this would be miserable.
It punished people who want to be responsible and balanced players.
It limits GM and player creativity in a way that doesn't align with the idea that restrictions breed interesting gameplay

This is meant to protect players from bad GMs, and protect the league from GMs looking to cheese, but I question if the first is that bad of an issue that needs fixing and the current role limits solve the latter better. GMs that I know already work with players to get them in spots that they want to be within reason.

Muerto · 08-12-2020, 03:03 PM

I support this idea, as a GM I already try to utilize players in the role they want and guide them to a build that supports that decision, even if the meta of the game suggests they'd be better suited in another role. I do see that as a player starts hitting regression, maybe they would start transitioning to say, a more defensive role, or wouldn't be as effective in their initial role. Perhaps another option is that they have to be utilized in whatever role they have the best ratings in?

Samsung virtual assistant · 08-12-2020, 03:06 PM

I like the idea that the player gets more say in how their player plays.

PremierBromanov · 08-12-2020, 03:25 PM

I like this idea, but I feel the role groups are too narrow. For instance, I'm building a two-way forward who is pass first. If I want to be that player, I'm locked in to only a few different roles. I cannot be deployed in different roles, like Gretzky's Office, or aggressive forechecker, or Speedy forward, or whatever strategy might suit a specific game or a specific build. One of the things I really like about FHM is the ability to deploy players to not-their-best role in order to better suit a composition.

It would be great to have some measure of agency over this, but I feel the specific groups they have set up are too narrow.

***Wally*** · 08-12-2020, 04:33 PM

I actually like the idea of a role being signed into a contract. Meaning a commitment of a role is designated within that contract for the length determined. Player can assert control if desired... otherwise they give the GM the ability to choose, regardless the player has to sign on to agree on that role.

SFresh3 · 08-12-2020, 04:34 PM

There was an idea thrown out on that thread about choosing 3-5 different roles, similar to back in STHS "strengths". This would allow the player to have roles from a couple different groupings, giving the GM some flexibility, but still give the user some direction they want their player to be used in.

***Chevy*** · 08-12-2020, 04:47 PM

08-12-2020, 02:59 PMsve7en Wrote: I still hold some of the concerns I did at the start.

There's twice as many role groups for forwards as there are defensemen, meaning you're either massively limited in options if you're a defenseman and excessively pidgeonholed as a forward.

Enforcement of this would be miserable.

It punished people who want to be responsible and balanced players.

It limits GM and player creativity in a way that doesn't align with the idea that restrictions breed interesting gameplay

This is meant to protect players from bad GMs, and protect the league from GMs looking to cheese, but I question if the first is that bad of an issue that needs fixing and the current role limits solve the latter better. GMs that I know already work with players to get them in spots that they want to be within reason.

I really have to side with what @sve7en is saying here.

Upon player creation, you get to select in the player build utility what type of player you want to build (the tactical roles are options). Deep down, and I may be talking out of my ass in the views of some, is that the issue here in what roles players are being used in is the unforunate byproduct of 80% or better of the players being built to run in the STHS era and ways of thinking....where you could stick a bunch of playmakers on a line and have it be successful, or go all snipers or mix them up, but just like in the builds of that era, everything became cookie cutter and it all came down to whomever could get the most TPE rostered to win.

The one thing that I absolutely love about FHM is that even lower teams can be competitive because there are so many more options, and those options allow a team and a player to be truly dynamic in this game.

Using one of the jets as an example: Commander Shepard.
An STHS veteran like many converted to FHM. Originally, a goal scoring type winger...but through his TPE gain and spending if you look at the attached image there is SO MUCH that he can do. Sure, his original role may not be the shadow role that he has been in....but on the team that different role has been an excellent addition to his line...and from his stats he's one of the best performing players we have.

Like @Muerto, as a GM I'm more than happy to work with every user on my team and in the prospect pool advance their vision of what they want their player to be. In fact, its one of the first questions I ask them whenever someone asks for build help. I would though, hate to see FHM limited as a GM and as a player (in what I can select and use) and turned into a new...flashier Simon T.

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)

charlieconway · 08-12-2020, 04:58 PM

Do this, but have 3 or 5 roles set in every player's page, loosely chosen rather than picked by group.

So, for instance, as a D I could go with "Point Shooter", "Quarterback", and "Two-way Defenseman"
A forward could go with "Perimeter Shooter", "Sniper", "Screener", "Power Forward", "Counterattacking Forward"

For extra specialization, you could make certain roles exclusive. A Defenseman cannot have both "Rushing Defenceman" and "Stay-at-Home Defenseman". A forward cannot have both "Sniper" and "Playmaker". Etc.

TnlAstatine · 08-12-2020, 05:02 PM

I think there should definitely be a push and pull between gm(coaches) and players, its like in real life when you are trying to teach your superstar to play more defense (lookin at your mcdavid and drai)

Muerto · 08-12-2020, 05:08 PM

08-12-2020, 05:02 PMTnlAstatine Wrote: I think there should definitely be a push and pull between gm(coaches) and players, its like in real life when you are trying to teach your superstar to play more defense (lookin at your mcdavid and drai)

Ouch too soon

TnlAstatine · 08-12-2020, 05:58 PM

08-12-2020, 05:08 PMMuerto Wrote:
08-12-2020, 05:02 PMTnlAstatine Wrote: I think there should definitely be a push and pull between gm(coaches) and players, its like in real life when you are trying to teach your superstar to play more defense (lookin at your mcdavid and drai)

Ouch too soon

bro my heart weeps

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us