Login

spooked · 04-29-2023, 10:58 PM

04-28-2023, 03:06 PMSymmetrik Wrote: I think the point is that even if you allow the sliders, players don't really end up with more because they ultimately with 95% of the time say "whatever is best for the team", so it goes back to the GM anyway and it's ultimately just a tool for GMs to make their team better rather than giving players more options to build differently.

I feel like picking the enforcer role for an article like this is also a weak position to start this conversation from - the enforcer is largely phased out in the NHL as well. The NHL's PIM leader had 150 in 80 games. Players picking up 200+ PIMs in the SHL in 66 games isn't representative of the game of hockey today. 50 of those 150 for the NHL's leader were from misconducts as well. The leader in PIMs for the NHL for a player who didn't take a misconduct/game misconduct is only 81 in 66 games. People have realized that players who rack up a ton of PIMs pretty much always put their team at a disadvantage.

I guess, but if someone just says to me "Whatever is best" with no other info, I am going to ask them what they see their player doing and try to match that to the role I give them and how their set up works. At least in a perfect world where I can get ahold of them.

Also (not just to you Symm, but general discussion in here also) I am not sure how many people in the SHL right now are being set to the enforcer/agitator roles in the lines, so there isn't really a sample to pull from in our league for that kind of thing either tbh. Like 90%+ of the league probably has like an aggression and fighting less than 10 and a bravery below 14? I think I have seen agitator a single time lately, on a third pair D I believe? Without the real ability for people to remove TPE from their build easily, I don't think people would want to risk months of updates and PTs on a player to get to the SHL and not even have it function, and literally be just stuck with that TPE gone until regression. Seems like opportunity cost of risking that is way too high.

***luke*** · 05-02-2023, 07:51 PM

Code:
The breakdown of Panda’s enforcing antics throughout their SHL career is as follows:

S65: 30 PIMs

S64: 32 PIMs

S63: 156 PIMs

S62: 201 PIMs

S61: 226 PIMs

S60: 178 PIMs

S59: 39 PIMs (in 22 games with Manhattan)

S58: 7 PIMs (in 4 games with Toronto)

As you can see, Juni Panda made almost 800 of those 869 total penalty minutes in just 4 seasons, with the first 2 being shortened for GP, and the final two simply dropping off the map to 30 and 32 PIMs. So what happened to Panda between S63 and season 64? His team, deployment, and ice time didn’t seem to change. The noticeable factor, as far as I could isolate, was this: the tactics restriction that came into play for S64. Individual sliders and player tactics were abolished as options for GMs, to help combat the FHM sim knowledge gap for GMs and hopefully increase parity (personally, I think both desired effects have indeed happened since then, so a net positive). However, this is when we see the first initial wave of PIMs, hits, and fights taking a massive dive in frequency. Panda would be retired by the time FHM8 was implemented in S66, which I have already demonstrated to be the lowest hitting and fighting era in SHL history by far.

I can give a bit of an incite onto this. What happened was that since Manhattan was going to be bad anyway, they just embraced Juni's role and maxed out his aggression sliders and stuff, causing his hits and pims go to the roof. Because they were bad it was like of like "fuck it, why not let him hit everything". So when that you can't adjust individual tactics in order to make FHM more palettable to GM's, so that we tried to boost GM's applicated, it kinda went away because you couldnt influence the individual player a lot

I think this is a very telling article though. In order to help GM's to simplify the tactics process of FHM, in order to try to boost parity and palatability of becoming a GM, the ones who want to be more individual and more custom is diminished. Now, coming from a GM who GMed almost every season of FHM(minus a couple seasons of being co-commish then nothing at all), its always a hard mix. Because you want to help your players build the player you want, whether thats someone like Artemis who wants to score and thats his only objective, so someone like Z0rem who wanted to be more defensivly responsible and have a lot of shots blocked, etc,etc. Its always on the GM's to try to help facilitate that. But we also want to win, and if one person who wants to be an enforcer, and wants to rack up a lot of PIMs drag down the team, I also have an obligation to the other 17 players on my team to try everything we can legally to win. Which we saw in STHS as well, do the meta build, build so that we can win.

As long as the objective for 95% of the league is to win the challenge up, then the individual who want to go to the far ends of their player build will suffer. I think taht paired with the simplification of tactics, allowing teams to more or less copy tactics easier, so its a lot easier to duplicate success. Take a look at Winnipeg this season, I would like to say about 30 games in, they were doing ok, I think 5th in the league. But then they just completely copied Philadelphia's tactics, their roles, their global tactics, etc. And they finished 2nd in the league. Could it be a coincidence? sure it could be, but it probably helped. But when most teams just row 3 dangles, 2-3 two way forwards, 3 power forwards, and the rest as Gretzkies office, then the indiduval gets sacrificed more... but anything to win games. If you win a challenge cup who cares if you didnt play exactly how you wanted. Or, what if 15/18 players just didnt carewhat roles they were, they just told their gm's "whatever it takes to win". Or GM's with a large friend group, and they just want to win a cup and dominate and dont care about individual stats.

Its always going to be an impossible task of burning both ends of the candle, hoping we still have enough wax. Just come thoughts as GM

spooked · 05-02-2023, 08:42 PM

The fact that GMs are responsible to 17 other players when it comes to lineup decisions is probably one of the bigger reasons to remove some player control from their hands. One counter example to the "enforcer" idea, is that I have probably 4-5 players on my team who would all do "best" as a dangler, but I can only run 3, so one or two of them will always have to play another role. If you want to be a power forward, but your team already has 3, your GM may stick you on two-way instead... Etc. There are a lot of issues like that coming up now, especially because the most fun thing you can be basically right now is a high-scoring forward, since objectively nothing else in the sim is really able to live. Defensive scoring is heavily reliant to team scoring, or powerplay minutes. Defensive "type" players/tactics are objectively ineffective (and entirely unused really) and all forward players can get 15s in their defensive stats and be sufficiently good defensively really without committing too much TPE away from offensive stats. I feel like the league right now is stuck in an engine application, and paired update scale system that can work at creating a fairly balanced league, but I don't really think it is one where players can "do what they want" at all, nor is it an application where there is any variety really that we can point to. The stats we have available are also just a downgrade to STHS as well, so it can be even harder to find out what is happening sometimes or how a player is "different". it always kind of felt a bit same-y in STHS, but from a player perspective I enjoyed my time in that ecosystem a lot more, not that I was here when it broke, but we threw out a lot of the things I enjoyed when we moved to FHM in part because of FHM, but also in part because of reasons I do not know.

juniped · 05-04-2023, 05:10 PM

Bring back Enforcers but also somehow make me not a negative impact to my team!

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us