Login

***honkerrs*** · 05-22-2023, 09:07 AM

05-21-2023, 04:19 PMaleks Wrote: So my question is how are war rooms supposed to get better? How are GMs supposed to get better? You can't test sim, so are you supposed to experiment with what you can in pre/reg season and risk fucking your season up? I'm sure lots of GMs are ready to listen if people are willing to dispense wisdom on tactical/line construction stuff

GMing comes down to basically 3 things you have to be good at....scouting, trading, and tactics.

1) Scouting you can't really teach and if you really need help on how to talk to another human being you probably shouldn't be a GM
2) Trading. If you really need someone to tell you by now that anything after the first couple picks in the 2nd in the 20 team era are almost completely useless then I don't know what to say. Too many GMs are giving away retention or saving people from cap hell for pennies. If your excuse is "well someone else would do it", then it's probably not a great idea, esp for a useless pick. I'd rather lose a player in FA then give retention and help another team to get a useless pick....esp for the teams who can't even scout well. Maybe the solution here is to get rid of retention contracts would be a start. But the rest you can't really stop stupid sadly
3) Tactics. People will claim theres a meta but its really just a copy cat league, just like the NHL. I truly believe theres a lot more metas to be discovered , just no one has found it yet or has the guts to try things (mostly cause we can't test but even then people didn't really). I really like there is no testing now but until FHM gets rid of being able to see teams tactics , people just gonna copy as we've seen already. Maybe to inspire teams more , HO can allow GMs and their team the ability to fully re design their TPE builds once or twice each season. It's either that or people get builds assigned randomly to them each off season and GMs have to figure out how to make it work. No, not archetypes, those would just create a meta too (and good luck finding a balancing committee) please no one suggest this for the 100th time...

Luke's right though, there are far too many teams tanking and then tanking with bad decisions on top of it. Maybe a way to incentivize making playoffs would help too...NHL teams are incentivized cause they make a lot of money if they do make it in...here we got nothing

scudmuffin19 · 05-22-2023, 12:24 PM

no

***boom*** · 05-22-2023, 01:11 PM

05-22-2023, 09:07 AMhonkerrs Wrote: 2) Trading. If you really need someone to tell you by now that anything after the first couple picks in the 2nd in the 20 team era are almost completely useless then I don't know what to say. Too many GMs are giving away retention or saving people from cap hell for pennies. If your excuse is "well someone else would do it", then it's probably not a great idea, esp for a useless pick. I'd rather lose a player in FA then give retention and help another team to get a useless pick....esp for the teams who can't even scout well. Maybe the solution here is to get rid of retention contracts would be a start. But the rest you can't really stop stupid sadly

okay so since this is pretty clearly directed at us imma respond to it and explain our process a little

We lost five players this offseason (O'Byrne, Pale, ASM, Makela and Izzy, leaving out Chevy because that was to bring up a prospect) and got jack squat in return. It was obvious that we were going to have to blow it up and Winter was also going to leave for nothing. Since we don't have our own 1st until S74, we can't just straight-up tank the roster, so the trade (which to be clear, no one else offered) was the only opportunity to get something for losing a third of the roster to FA and retirement. Especially as someone who just got back to managing, charging in to be a hard-ass doesn't help with building relationships with other GMs and the spectre of the player just signing elsewhere and leaving us with nothing was still on the table the whole time. We have a decent roster and only a handful of prospects right now, so it's not like we were going to use that money the next few seasons anyway. This spendthrift-ness also enabled us to get an 1100 TPE player and an extra flier on a prospect for literally nothing, so it's all coming out in the wash anyway.

Also, we got an active at 54 this draft, so 2nd round picks probably mean more than you think.

Quote:3) Tactics. People will claim theres a meta but its really just a copy cat league, just like the NHL. I truly believe theres a lot more metas to be discovered , just no one has found it yet or has the guts to try things (mostly cause we can't test but even then people didn't really). I really like there is no testing now but until FHM gets rid of being able to see teams tactics , people just gonna copy as we've seen already. Maybe to inspire teams more , HO can allow GMs and their team the ability to fully re design their TPE builds once or twice each season. It's either that or people get builds assigned randomly to them each off season and GMs have to figure out how to make it work. No, not archetypes, those would just create a meta too (and good luck finding a balancing committee) please no one suggest this for the 100th time...

Luke's right though, there are far too many teams tanking and then tanking with bad decisions on top of it. Maybe a way to incentivize making playoffs would help too...NHL teams are incentivized cause they make a lot of money if they do make it in...here we got nothing

I'm not a fan of the TPE adjustments that often because it's just not realistic. Players don't completely change their playing style in real life, Ovechkin doesn't become a defensive mastermind in the middle of the year for no reason. The updaters and fileworkers would also probably riot in the streets at the amount of extra work they'd have to do.

Playoff bonus pools could be interesting - say, $500,000 to each player for getting in and escalating with progress - to give teams some accomplishment for making it in.

***aleks*** · 05-22-2023, 02:05 PM

05-22-2023, 09:07 AMhonkerrs Wrote: GMing comes down to basically 3 things you have to be good at....scouting, trading, and tactics.

1) Scouting you can't really teach and if you really need help on how to talk to another human being you probably shouldn't be a GM
2) Trading. If you really need someone to tell you by now that anything after the first couple picks in the 2nd in the 20 team era are almost completely useless then I don't know what to say. Too many GMs are giving away retention or saving people from cap hell for pennies. If your excuse is "well someone else would do it", then it's probably not a great idea, esp for a useless pick. I'd rather lose a player in FA then give retention and help another team to get a useless pick....esp for the teams who can't even scout well. Maybe the solution here is to get rid of retention contracts would be a start. But the rest you can't really stop stupid sadly
3) Tactics. People will claim theres a meta but its really just a copy cat league, just like the NHL. I truly believe theres a lot more metas to be discovered , just no one has found it yet or has the guts to try things (mostly cause we can't test but even then people didn't really). I really like there is no testing now but until FHM gets rid of being able to see teams tactics , people just gonna copy as we've seen already. Maybe to inspire teams more , HO can allow GMs and their team the ability to fully re design their TPE builds once or twice each season. It's either that or people get builds assigned randomly to them each off season and GMs have to figure out how to make it work. No, not archetypes, those would just create a meta too (and good luck finding a balancing committee) please no one suggest this for the 100th time...

Luke's right though, there are far too many teams tanking and then tanking with bad decisions on top of it. Maybe a way to incentivize making playoffs would help too...NHL teams are incentivized cause they make a lot of money if they do make it in...here we got nothing

I think everybody knows that these are 3 key factors to gming but this did not answer my question whatsoever

adamantium · 05-22-2023, 03:58 PM

SHL needs an ownership class that can hire and fire GMs at will for performing below or above expectation

we need hockey posadism

sigs by me bitch

***luke*** · 05-22-2023, 04:27 PM

05-22-2023, 02:05 PMaleks Wrote: I think everybody knows that these are 3 key factors to gming but this did not answer my question whatsoever

Just be good Smile

Once I step down Alek I’ll run a boot camp just for you

spooked · 05-22-2023, 04:27 PM

05-21-2023, 05:06 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: Hard agree. I have been of the opinion for a long time that access to knowledge and resources is one of our biggest problems. Hell, I was GMing in Nevada for four or five seasons before I learned stuff that was apparently common knowledge to a lot of other people. I think that we have/had a cool opportunity here in the early seasons of FHM8 that we will never have again, to tinker and find things that will work before everybody inevitably gets locked back into some hard meta that you can't succeed without.

But things are already settling into that. We have a league where most teams run all-offense all the time tactics, maximizing sliders that say "too much will pull you out of position" or "this setting will make you less effective defensively" - the majority of teams are just trying to out-score the other team at the expense of defense, so it's entirely unsurprising to me that we're seeing fifty-four goals in a four-game sim night (that is not an exaggeration, that happened once this season). It's just really hard to experiment with anything else when the majority of the league has already decided we're doing the goals goals goals goals 24/7 thing again.

I will put this out there - I am a pretty open book when it comes to my FHM knowledge. If you're nice to me and we talk a decent amount, I'm not keeping any secrets from you. I just try not to go aggressively critiquing my friends' lines and telling them how to do their jobs. At the same time, though, I don't know everything - I know a few things that have worked relatively well for me on the teams I've had a hand in coaching, but I think/hope/pray that there are so many other options. I want people to figure out things that I don't know, I want there to be more viable options than us all getting railroaded into the same old meta all over again.

The only like statistical approach you can really take to figure out what is good is to look at what teams that are outperforming their TPE consistently do, and then try to replicate/tweak towards that. PHI was the best example like 3-4 seasons ago when I looked into it a bit more, and really, if you are playing more defensive as a lower TPE team you are still going to lose, so it's better to try to score a bunch of goals against the EVEN lower TPE teams because the performance gap in our league is so large you aren't going to "steal" any games by playing defensive anyways if your players on average are even like 200 TPE lower. The TPE performance gap has pretty much invalidated defensive tactics in most matchups during the regular season (and all our awards and all stars are based on points, so you might as well try to go full offense anyways since goaltending is chaos), but in truly balanced games not sure if there is any advantage to not being on full rambo offense.

***aleks*** · 05-22-2023, 04:29 PM

05-22-2023, 04:27 PMluke Wrote: Just be good

Once I step down Alek I’ll run a boot camp just for you

I'd prefer a Philadelphia Forge bootcamp

spooked · 05-22-2023, 04:36 PM

05-22-2023, 01:11 PMboom Wrote: Playoff bonus pools could be interesting - say, $500,000 to each player for getting in and escalating with progress - to give teams some accomplishment for making it in.

I really like this. It would probably be better to have playoff qualification outright pay a nice penny, and then maybe extend lottery picks to losers of the first round at a lower odds so teams are not only costing their players cash by missing, but they aren't a given for a top 4 pick either. I think tanking should be a bit more disincentivized, primarily through less-guarantee on draft pick odds might be nice... And if you pay for playoff qualification and round wins in an actually nice amount, it does help support the middle of the pack a bit more as they continue to get reasonable pick odds to move up in the draft, while also getting a little bit of a pay bump for not tanking full on and keeping the league a bit more balanced. I think you might be giving a lot of money to cup winners, but cash is one thing we can give top teams without really upsetting the balance too much, so it's probably worth it to reward middle pack teams more for at least trying to make the playoffs instead of full tanking. Even if you move back as a full-tanking team, there have consistently been really strong players available in the top 10~ for a while now, but you don't get the guarantee of a super high value pick you can try to sell to accelerate your full-tank rebuild anymore.

Qualification: 1M?
Round Win: 500K?

Losers of Round 1 get some balls in the lottery to move up at a low rate?

***luke*** · 05-22-2023, 05:03 PM

05-22-2023, 04:36 PMspooked Wrote: I really like this. It would probably be better to have playoff qualification outright pay a nice penny, and then maybe extend lottery picks to losers of the first round at a lower odds so teams are not only costing their players cash by missing, but they aren't a given for a top 4 pick either. I think tanking should be a bit more disincentivized, primarily through less-guarantee on draft pick odds might be nice... And if you pay for playoff qualification and round wins in an actually nice amount, it does help support the middle of the pack a bit more as they continue to get reasonable pick odds to move up in the draft, while also getting a little bit of a pay bump for not tanking full on and keeping the league a bit more balanced. I think you might be giving a lot of money to cup winners, but cash is one thing we can give top teams without really upsetting the balance too much, so it's probably worth it to reward middle pack teams more for at least trying to make the playoffs instead of full tanking. Even if you move back as a full-tanking team, there have consistently been really strong players available in the top 10~ for a while now, but you don't get the guarantee of a super high value pick you can try to sell to accelerate your full-tank rebuild anymore.

Qualification: 1M?
Round Win: 500K?

Losers of Round 1 get some balls in the lottery to move up at a low rate?

Rich get richer effect for players. Basically Salary + 1 mil for any team in contention. Making teams that arent in the playoffs less desirable. Would create more of an imbalance

***boom*** · 05-22-2023, 05:39 PM

05-22-2023, 05:03 PMluke Wrote: Rich get richer effect for players. Basically Salary + 1 mil for any team in contention. Making teams that arent in the playoffs less desirable. Would create more of an imbalance

It’s essentially just a few extra weeks worth of Chirper, it won’t destabilize the economy.

***luke*** · 05-22-2023, 05:46 PM

05-22-2023, 05:39 PMboom Wrote: It’s essentially just a few extra weeks worth of Chirper, it won’t destabilize the economy.

its not about destablizing the economy. But as a GM, if you are a playoff contender, and lets say you have a player at the minimum of 5mil, but wants 6 mil, the playoff team has the advantage of offering since they will make the playoffs they will get 500k anyway, you can offer 5.5 mil instead, so you can impact less on the cap with the same amount of money involved. So lets say 3 players did this, you save 1.5 mil on the cap. Which saves a lot when you have a lot of cap space tied up when you are contending.

Of course this only works when a player wants more than the minimum, but there is plenty of people who do

Bfine · 05-22-2023, 08:15 PM

05-22-2023, 04:36 PMspooked Wrote: Losers of Round 1 get some balls in the lottery to move up at a low rate?

Honestly you had me until here. Paying the playoff teams and round winners could have merit (I do understand Luke’s points and there may be validity) but giving every first rounded team balls could be a disaster. It works in the J due to 2 teams missing, 4 losing in the first round due to byes, and the fact J player cycles are shorter. If you gave every first rounded SHL team balls you could have 10 win teams picking 11th or 12th which goes back to Luke’s point of “the rich get richer”. I’m fine with deincentivizing tanking but not at the cost of potentially crippling a franchise to give a top 10 team 1 OA.

spooked · 05-22-2023, 09:55 PM

05-22-2023, 08:15 PMBfine Wrote: Honestly you had me until here. Paying the playoff teams and round winners could have merit (I do understand Luke’s points and there may be validity) but giving every first rounded team balls could be a disaster. It works in the J due to 2 teams missing, 4 losing in the first round due to byes, and the fact J player cycles are shorter. If you gave every first rounded SHL team balls you could have 10 win teams picking 11th or 12th which goes back to Luke’s point of “the rich get richer”. I’m fine with deincentivizing tanking but not at the cost of potentially crippling a franchise to give a top 10 team 1 OA.

A 10 win team who finished in last place would not pick 11th or 12th. We only roll balls for the top 3 picks, so at worst you pick 4th still I think if I remember the rule book correctly. It would function the same way as the NHL basically does, though they now have 10 spot move up limit.

efiug · 05-23-2023, 04:39 AM

parody has improved.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us