03-04-2022, 12:52 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:

03-04-2022, 12:14 PMRankle Wrote: I'm not an FHM expert, but would it be possible to have league-wide static sliders set for individual player types? So, per your example, anyone in the league running a DFD has the same sliders for that player and they dont get stuck playing as a DFD but playing towards the team sliders for a more offensive player type. If we could do something like that it could still help make things easier for GMs by taking the individual player sliders out of their control, but not force each player be at the mercy of the team sliders. Thinking along the same lines, could we have league-wide static penalty kill sliders so the penalty kill doesnt end up playing a high attack, low backcheck style like you mentioned?

Yes this is 100% possible and I would fucking love it if we did this. I think people are starting to really see the possibilities that archetypes provide. HO has made 1 really great step with this change and I expect them to continue making good steps.

Something for people to understand though, archetypes are going to take a lot of testing and iterating. PBE hasn't even finished coming up with perfect archetypes yet and there have been a lot of archetype updates. And with FHM 8 coming we'll need to re-test. My guess is that we'll jump to FHM 8 and then look at implementing archs after.

Love the suggestion!

I've been a big fan of archetypes for a while, and would love to see them implemented as a way to give more agency to players. Make it more of a league where GMs have to draft players based on their archetype and make it work to fit their strategies, rather than having anyone be able to build in any way they want. The way it runs at the moment, a team where GMs get the players to buy in to building in a unified way that will work extremely well together will inevitably result in success over a team where players are allowed to build however they want. I can only speak to Tampa, where the players have been given free reign to build how we want, but I feel like my line of reasoning here makes sense. If it is implemented it will certainly be a lot of testing to balance it right, but I think it'll be worth it 100%.