Login

SAwful · 06-18-2020, 06:06 PM

06-18-2020, 05:33 PMst4rface Wrote: Barracuda may be bad now, but let's be honest - 3 or 4 seasons with this type of tanking and re-build and they will be championship team. All new players will be on 1000 TPE and their time will start. They just need to focus on new players, tanking one more season, keeping their active players and that's it. They might get one high tier player and it's game over.

As much as I don't like FHM, it's a good simtool. It's not just random. My previous player had TPE peak under 950 if I remember right and he had seasons where he had 45+ points per regular season. Of course, simtool back then was STHS. That player was beast while being 700 - 900 TPE. FHM is a bit more realistic statistics wise.

***honkerrs*** · 06-18-2020, 06:09 PM

06-18-2020, 05:33 PMst4rface Wrote: Barracuda may be bad now, but let's be honest - 3 or 4 seasons with this type of tanking and re-build and they will be championship team. All new players will be on 1000 TPE and their time will start. They just need to focus on new players, tanking one more season, keeping their active players and that's it. They might get one high tier player and it's game over.

As much as I don't like FHM, it's a good simtool. It's not just random. My previous player had TPE peak under 950 if I remember right and he had seasons where he had 45+ points per regular season. Of course, simtool back then was STHS. That player was beast while being 700 - 900 TPE. FHM is a bit more realistic statistics wise.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Chris-McZehrl · 06-19-2020, 02:29 AM

the problem with teams they are losing the most time is ... the members on this teams could lose their interest and demand a trade or leave the site. that problem was proven in the past. I also heard that some newbies (SHL Rookies) arent happy to be on a team that is just losing. To make a restart of the franchise ... then having many young talent is surely the best option but no one like it to lose 2-5 seasons in a row more games than win them and always sitting there 3-4 weeks in the time the playoffs run. rebuild a team isnt easy if you have members on the team with the goal to win games and being in playoffs. or just win maybe one game in the special case of Tampa this season. We hadnt this situation before. That Tampa will be one day back in the playoffs is 100% but the question is always how long will the take until this will happen. I saw so often teams in rebuild they rebuild again because some members of the roster wanted to be on contenders or just teams they fighting for playoffs. Losing fun because of this way was always underrated in the SHL as view.

Your McZ

***Citizen of Adraa*** · 06-19-2020, 02:35 AM

06-18-2020, 06:06 PMSAwful Wrote:
06-18-2020, 05:33 PMst4rface Wrote: Barracuda may be bad now, but let's be honest - 3 or 4 seasons with this type of tanking and re-build and they will be championship team. All new players will be on 1000 TPE and their time will start. They just need to focus on new players, tanking one more season, keeping their active players and that's it. They might get one high tier player and it's game over.

As much as I don't like FHM, it's a good simtool. It's not just random. My previous player had TPE peak under 950 if I remember right and he had seasons where he had 45+ points per regular season. Of course, simtool back then was STHS. That player was beast while being 700 - 900 TPE. FHM is a bit more realistic statistics wise.

Oh my god I love those Js predictions so much

caltroit_red_flames · 06-19-2020, 01:38 PM

> RED and McZ

Maybe if I say the same thing for the 11th time in a different way they'll understand.

> Rest of the SHL

No, stop it.

Samsung virtual assistant · 06-19-2020, 02:50 PM

An AHL team would win more than 1 game a season in the NHL.

Its dumb that a tanking team doesnt win a single game, no matter how bad they are.

What ya gonna do about it tho.

One thing is clear, we dont need an expansion if things stays like this.

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 07-22-2020, 05:38 AM

06-19-2020, 01:38 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: > RED and McZ

Maybe if I say the same thing for the 11th time in a different way they'll understand.

> Rest of the SHL

No, stop it.

Apparently the rest of the SHL seems to disagree with you, given that almost everyone seems to be in favor of changes to the salary cap and contract system right now to work on that very parity I was talking about.

And yes I will keep perennially bumping this thread as long as we haven't taken steps to adress the issue, be warned Tongue

caltroit_red_flames · 07-22-2020, 10:38 AM

07-22-2020, 05:38 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote:
06-19-2020, 01:38 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: > RED and McZ

Maybe if I say the same thing for the 11th time in a different way they'll understand.

> Rest of the SHL

No, stop it.
Apparently the rest of the SHL seems to disagree with you, given that almost everyone seems to be in favor of changes to the salary cap and contract system right now to work on that very parity I was talking about.

And yes I will keep perennially bumping this thread as long as we haven't taken steps to adress the issue, be warned

I literally posted my own nearly identical solution to Dankoa's the day before and he referenced my post

https://simulationhockey.com/showthread....pid2872173

Parity is an issue because the salary cap allows teams to amass insane amounts talent without losing it and the bad teams can't hold on to their talent. Your entire OP was about why FHM as an engine is bad. Those are not the same viewpoint.

Nobody wants STHS back, we want a functional salary cap.

***WannabeFinn*** · 07-22-2020, 11:11 AM

07-22-2020, 10:38 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
07-22-2020, 05:38 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Apparently the rest of the SHL seems to disagree with you, given that almost everyone seems to be in favor of changes to the salary cap and contract system right now to work on that very parity I was talking about.

And yes I will keep perennially bumping this thread as long as we haven't taken steps to adress the issue, be warned

I literally posted my own nearly identical solution to Dankoa's the day before and he referenced my post

https://simulationhockey.com/showthread....pid2872173

Parity is an issue because the salary cap allows teams to amass insane amounts talent without losing it and the bad teams can't hold on to their talent. Your entire OP was about why FHM as an engine is bad. Those are not the same viewpoint.

Nobody wants STHS back, we want a functional salary cap.

Bad teams can’t hold on to their talent? Nobody put a gun to these GM’s heads and made them blow their teams up via trade. I understand why they’re doing it, there’s uncertainty with expansion looming and we lost 20% of our playoff seeds when we switched from STHS to FHM. It’s just the perfect storm for teams to kick off retools/rebuilds.

There are some reasonable tweaks to be made to the salary cap, such as a 1600 tpe tier and the removal of unlimited contracts, but we really aren’t in need of wholesale changes to the salary cap.

I’m sure I’ll just get written off for saying this since my team is one of the loaded teams, but even those few changes that I mentioned above would’ve forced me to lose a couple high quality players.

caltroit_red_flames · 07-22-2020, 11:19 AM

07-22-2020, 11:11 AMWannabeFinn Wrote:
07-22-2020, 10:38 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: I literally posted my own nearly identical solution to Dankoa's the day before and he referenced my post

https://simulationhockey.com/showthread....pid2872173

Parity is an issue because the salary cap allows teams to amass insane amounts talent without losing it and the bad teams can't hold on to their talent. Your entire OP was about why FHM as an engine is bad. Those are not the same viewpoint.

Nobody wants STHS back, we want a functional salary cap.
Bad teams can’t hold on to their talent? Nobody put a gun to these GM’s heads and made them blow their teams up via trade. I understand why they’re doing it, there’s uncertainty with expansion looming and we lost 20% of our playoff seeds when we switched from STHS to FHM. It’s just the perfect storm for teams to kick off retools/rebuilds.

There are some reasonable tweaks to be made to the salary cap, such as a 1600 tpe tier and the removal of unlimited contracts, but we really aren’t in need of wholesale changes to the salary cap.

I’m sure I’ll just get written off for saying this since my team is one of the loaded teams, but even those few changes that I mentioned above would’ve forced me to lose a couple high quality players.

EDM will lose players too. Good.

I'm not talking about trades, I'm talking about the extremely apparent cycle where a bad team drafts players, those players are promised big money to stick the rebuild out. 6 seasons into the rebuild the team is getting ready to make the playoffs then the best players go to free agency cause they're tired of waiting. Rebuild starts over.

Theo Morgan and Luke Thomason are good examples of this.

I'm sorry Buffalo would be hurt by this, but you have to admit that the amount of TPE our teams have is just silly.

Nobody · 07-22-2020, 11:19 AM

07-22-2020, 10:38 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
07-22-2020, 05:38 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Apparently the rest of the SHL seems to disagree with you, given that almost everyone seems to be in favor of changes to the salary cap and contract system right now to work on that very parity I was talking about.

And yes I will keep perennially bumping this thread as long as we haven't taken steps to adress the issue, be warned

I literally posted my own nearly identical solution to Dankoa's the day before and he referenced my post

https://simulationhockey.com/showthread....pid2872173

Parity is an issue because the salary cap allows teams to amass insane amounts talent without losing it and the bad teams can't hold on to their talent. Your entire OP was about why FHM as an engine is bad. Those are not the same viewpoint.

Nobody wants STHS back, we want a functional salary cap.

I do miss STHS....

**.bojo** · 07-22-2020, 11:20 AM

Salary cap wont matter until there's a reason to ask for more than minimum. We have media bonuses out the wazoo, jobs that pay like 4x how much they used to, and people with enough money to coast all their careers.

Idk a solution. Maybe make higher tiers pay more for training.

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 07-22-2020, 11:23 AM

07-22-2020, 10:38 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
07-22-2020, 05:38 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Apparently the rest of the SHL seems to disagree with you, given that almost everyone seems to be in favor of changes to the salary cap and contract system right now to work on that very parity I was talking about.

And yes I will keep perennially bumping this thread as long as we haven't taken steps to adress the issue, be warned

I literally posted my own nearly identical solution to Dankoa's the day before and he referenced my post

https://simulationhockey.com/showthread....pid2872173

Parity is an issue because the salary cap allows teams to amass insane amounts talent without losing it and the bad teams can't hold on to their talent. Your entire OP was about why FHM as an engine is bad. Those are not the same viewpoint.

Nobody wants STHS back, we want a functional salary cap.

I do not not think FHM is bad and I also don't want STHS back, that's simply a misrepresentation.

You are somewhat correct however in that the issue is two-fold: There is the sim-based parity (high-TPE teams performing much better than they used to and low-TPE teams performing much worse) and the structural parity (through contracts, the salary cap and the update scale), which are separate things but are closely connected still. The salary cap not being an effective method to enforce parity has been an underlying issue that predates the switch to FHM, but it's effects are only now felt as strongly as they are due to the engine-switch, as FHM both rewards very high TPE-counts both on an individual level and a team level more than STHS did.

*puolivalmiste* · 07-22-2020, 11:24 AM

I say add tier or two, maybe every 250 up to 1750 to make it consistent and increase salary cap to compensate most of that. Then limit contract lenghts so 2k and 1k players are not being paid the same.

With those you can still have stacked team but rebuilding teams could either have more cap space to pay their young players/prospects higher salary or potential to offer higher salary when talking with FAs compared to contending teams (who might still be able to get people who are looking to win cups).

***WannabeFinn*** · 07-22-2020, 11:26 AM

07-22-2020, 11:19 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
07-22-2020, 11:11 AMWannabeFinn Wrote: Bad teams can’t hold on to their talent? Nobody put a gun to these GM’s heads and made them blow their teams up via trade. I understand why they’re doing it, there’s uncertainty with expansion looming and we lost 20% of our playoff seeds when we switched from STHS to FHM. It’s just the perfect storm for teams to kick off retools/rebuilds.

There are some reasonable tweaks to be made to the salary cap, such as a 1600 tpe tier and the removal of unlimited contracts, but we really aren’t in need of wholesale changes to the salary cap.

I’m sure I’ll just get written off for saying this since my team is one of the loaded teams, but even those few changes that I mentioned above would’ve forced me to lose a couple high quality players.

EDM will lose players too. Good.

I'm not talking about trades, I'm talking about the extremely apparent cycle where a bad team drafts players, those players are promised big money to stick the rebuild out. 6 seasons into the rebuild the team is getting ready to make the playoffs then the best players go to free agency cause they're tired of waiting. Rebuild starts over.

Theo Morgan and Luke Thomason are good examples of this.

I'm sorry Buffalo would be hurt by this, but you have to admit that the amount of TPE our teams have is just silly.

Theo Morgan and Luke Thomason did not go to free agency, and both LAP and SFP were good in the few seasons before they left via trade, so idk what point you’re trying to make here

You’re equating bad GMing with a lack of parity. When a team starts a rebuild, gets some nice young players, then fucks it all up by spunking their load on bad trades when their window isn’t open, and *then* they lose players in the subsequent fallout, that isn’t because we lack parity due to the salary cap. That’s the consequence of poor planning, scouting, and execution of a plan.

We are seeing a spike in teams kicking off rebuilds and retools and consolidating their assets into young players and draft picks. Why? The playoff field dropped from 10 to 8 because of a FHM feature that we can’t change. We have SHL expansion looming on the horizon and what assets are automatically exempt from expansion drafts? Young prospects and draft picks.

It’s a little bit deeper than just “wow we have a distinct gap between good and bad teams in Season 55, it must be because of the salary cap! Let’s change it to the point it’s unrecognizable!”

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us