Login

***WannabeFinn*** · 01-06-2024, 03:36 PM

I’m quite happy with the combination of changes we have made over the last while. Parity is at an all time high. Personally I am not that eager to change much.

ImShiny · 01-06-2024, 07:45 PM

Please don’t bring it back. Keep it banned forever and ever

***Frenchie*** · 01-06-2024, 08:31 PM

Unless i'm drastically missing a point, but my read on the current state is that unpredictability ≠ parity and the latter isn't a product of simplifying down the GM aspect of the league, and has way more to do with the increased RNG that comes from diminished control. Granted my time has been short so I may be missing things here, I strongly believe there is a middle ground to strike between unpredictability (parity if you will) and some level of control over the outcome, which I sadly feel isn't really the case and leads to increased disappointment, frustration and increasingly ridiculous scoring over the seasons. Furthermore, its been raised before, but the possibilities it would unlock for more unique and specific player builds would make the league a whole lot interesting with the ability to enable success for more marginal roles and builds that currently can't fit in a one-size fits all approach and the offense go brrrrr meta.

While the variety of winners can be fun, I don't think its happening for reasons I deem fun or reasonable, but that's just my opinion. +1 on the idea, i've been annoying about it for a while now.

caltroit_red_flames · 01-07-2024, 02:15 PM

@luke and @RomanesEuntDomus 100% correct. People asking for this back either aren't in management positions now, weren't back then, or have too much time to commit to testing.

*JURT* · 01-07-2024, 04:34 PM

01-07-2024, 02:15 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: have too much time to commit to testing high treason.

FTFY. I was in a management position back then and welcomed the change with open arms because I couldn't indeed keep up in testing with other teams with more tools and manpower. Testing is now banned, so I don't see how this could be an issue now.

Kalakar · 01-07-2024, 04:48 PM

01-07-2024, 04:34 PMJURT Wrote: FTFY. I was in a management position back then and welcomed the change with open arms because I couldn't indeed keep up in testing with other teams with more tools and manpower. Testing is now banned, so I don't see how this could be an issue now.

Because it has been proven time and time again that once someone finds something to give them an edge over other teams, people just copy them and it becomes the meta.

*JURT* · 01-07-2024, 04:58 PM

01-06-2024, 03:36 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: I’m quite happy with the combination of changes we have made over the last while. Parity is at an all time high. Personally I am not that eager to change much.

Parity should be a by-product of roster management rules, update scales, roughly equal sim knowledge, and other stuff like that; not randomness due to a lack of control over the sim. The famous STHS "meme teams" that went on Cup runs with the old sim engine were not a sign of parity.

For example, the rule was good when it was implemented, because teams with significantly lower roster quality were winning through extensive testing and coaching wasn't a game of who could get a better read of their roster and determine by themselves the best way to use their players, but rather who could run the most tests and let the engine tell them the best way to set their lines and tactics. Now that this isn't possible, I'm not sure if the restricted tactics options leading to more playoffs upsets is actually a sign of balance in the league or if we just settled to go back to sim randomness playing a huge part in the results.

In other words, what I'm arguing should or shouldn't have influence on game results (and parity) is:

Very Good: GMs figuring out the best way to get the most out of all their players (on their own, not through testing)
Good: GMs being able to build a competitive roster easily
Some of it is good: Sim randomness
Illegal: GMs with more tools, knowledge and manpower testing to figure out the best way to use their roster through brutish work instead of clever thinking

***Citizen of Adraa*** · 01-07-2024, 05:02 PM

01-07-2024, 04:58 PMJURT Wrote: Parity should be a by-product of roster management rules, update scales, roughly equal sim knowledge, and other stuff like that; not randomness due to a lack of control over the sim. The famous STHS "meme teams" that went on Cup runs with the old sim engine were not a sign of parity.

For example, the rule was good when it was implemented, because teams with significantly lower roster quality were winning through extensive testing and coaching wasn't a game of who could get a better read of their roster and determine by themselves the best way to use their players, but rather who could run the most tests and let the engine tell them the best way to set their lines and tactics. Now that this isn't possible, I'm not sure if the restricted tactics options leading to more playoffs upsets is actually a sign of balance in the league or if we just settled to go back to sim randomness playing a huge part in the results.

In other words, what I'm arguing should or shouldn't have influence on game results (and parity) is:

Very Good: GMs figuring out the best way to get the most out of all their players (on their own, not through testing)

Good: GMs being able to build a competitive roster easily

Some of it is good: Sim randomness

Illegal: GMs with more tools, knowledge and manpower testing to figure out the best way to use their roster through brutish work instead of clever thinking

That's what I miss about the deeper sim control myself. There is so little min-max that you can do with the current setup that it's frankly completely pointless and actually, actively hurts build diversity by locking down archetypes that can slot into preexisting lines, and the ones that cannot. I have poked HO about this a little bit, and I do agree with the argument I was given: it's a very net-neutral change, and therefore if there isn't a lot of good will for it, there isn't much of a point to change away from the current setup, and I think that while I would love this to be implemented, it's a position I can agree with.

*JURT* · 01-07-2024, 05:07 PM

01-07-2024, 04:48 PMKalakar Wrote: Because it has been proven time and time again that once someone finds something to give them an edge over other teams, people just copy them and it becomes the meta.

I believe it'd be much harder to find a meta where every unit/player tactics would still work when applied to another team with completely different lines, whereas a global meta is already something that will work best for most or the meta team so it makes sense that it might also work best for most other teams when they copy it.

Like, if lots of aggressiveness and little backchecking mostly works for a whole team, it's likely to work for another whole team. But a very aggressive 1st line and backchecking 2nd might work for one team because that fits the players they have, but could be terrible for another team. Of course then they might try to build their rosters similarly too, but then if it's no different than what we have now and people are just copying each other all the time, why not at least give some complexity to determine what the meta should be by enabling a lot more of possible combinations?

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 01-07-2024, 06:21 PM

Come on, let's not act like everything is just random now, that's definitely not the case. We haven't gone from too much parity to too much randomness, the last few Cups have still been won exclusively by teams in the Top-5 and we've regularly seen the best of the best go up against each other in the last couple of rounds. This current season is the first one in ages where there is an actual chance at a real upset by a middle-tier team.

*CptSquall* · 01-07-2024, 07:22 PM

Time for my obligatory “sees the merit in both sides” post.

Personally as someone who loves to fiddle with tactics. (Whole reason I ever bought FHM). I am firmly in the camp of seeing such units brought back provided any worries could be worked out.
I believe with the options available, different teams would, not could, would have different groups to run. Many teams may look at who wins year after year and try to emulate that style the way NHL teams do IRL but it doesn’t always work due to player makeup.

However, we have to look at the fact that a large amount of the league simply builds their players largely by what their GMs say is best. Meaning that the diversity of options is largely rendered mute.

Add to that the fact that, yes the top 5 or so teams tend to be the likely winners as they are usually deep teams with high average TPE.

As others have stated, the simplification process of our tactics has done the two big things we aimed at. Simplifying so that more GMs have an easier time of things, and allowing enough randomness through this simple system to open up the competition more.

As RED just stated, it’s not as random as STHS used to be. (Something I lothed about that system) where we are at right now is chugging along just fine and, as much as I’d like to the contrary, changing is not really all that necessary.

scudmuffin19 · 01-08-2024, 05:51 PM

enable goalie brawls

***luke*** · 01-08-2024, 07:42 PM

01-07-2024, 04:58 PMJURT Wrote: Parity should be a by-product of roster management rules, update scales, roughly equal sim knowledge, and other stuff like that; not randomness due to a lack of control over the sim. The famous STHS "meme teams" that went on Cup runs with the old sim engine were not a sign of parity.

For example, the rule was good when it was implemented, because teams with significantly lower roster quality were winning through extensive testing and coaching wasn't a game of who could get a better read of their roster and determine by themselves the best way to use their players, but rather who could run the most tests and let the engine tell them the best way to set their lines and tactics. Now that this isn't possible, I'm not sure if the restricted tactics options leading to more playoffs upsets is actually a sign of balance in the league or if we just settled to go back to sim randomness playing a huge part in the results.

In other words, what I'm arguing should or shouldn't have influence on game results (and parity) is:

Very Good: GMs figuring out the best way to get the most out of all their players (on their own, not through testing)

Good: GMs being able to build a competitive roster easily

Some of it is good: Sim randomness

Illegal: GMs with more tools, knowledge and manpower testing to figure out the best way to use their roster through brutish work instead of clever thinking

Quote:Parity should be a by-product of roster management rules, update scales, roughly equal sim knowledge, and other stuff like that; not randomness due to a lack of control over the sim.

For the most part it is. Great GMs have the good teams for most of the time. So they have the most shots at the cup. because in FHM is heavily favored to the top 8 teams.
Update scale right now is in probably the best situation it can be. Gets people decent/good quickly. Lets players who reach 2k use everything.

roughly equal sim knowledge. This part is always something thats hard to quantify with coaches and stuff. but I can garuntee that most GMs/Coaches copy from existing meta's that were already established. plus not being able to test sim, its risky to diverge from the tactics. Which is something that kinda sucks, but thats always been the case. in STHS, in FHM. People will just copy from teams that are already good/established. And they will build their teams like the established teams. I would love if that wouldnt be the case. But when we are all trying to win, we are a copycat league. And teams that try something different and struggled will feel that effect.

The thought of it sounds great. but when you put it into actual place, I dont think it will benefit much. Ive seen time and time again through GMing for most of the past 5 years. We copy good teams. find who is successful and copy it to the best we can.

Parity is in a good position right now. we have a top 8/10 teams that are always in a good spot competitively who have a decent chance at the cup. Of course there are favorites as FHM still favorites the high TPE teams. My opinion is that we need to do more to lower the average TPE of a team. So that its more equalish. and that rebuilding teams can be a bit easier to go into a contender. because there isnt 20 good gms.

The best teams right now, the highest average applied TPE is 1500. If that can get lowered to like 1400 or 1450 it would help with the curve a bit. THe majority of teams are in the 1100-1300 range. With a couple teams peaking at 1400+. and then the teams that have people retained and stuff being at 1500+.

now there are a couple ways to do that. Tighter cap, harder regression, etc.

But things are working right now. things are good. I wouldnt want to do too much to change that.

***sve7en*** · 01-08-2024, 09:30 PM

01-08-2024, 07:42 PMluke Wrote: The best teams right now, the highest average applied TPE is 1500. If that can get lowered to like 1400 or 1450 it would help with the curve a bit. THe majority of teams are in the 1100-1300 range. With a couple teams peaking at 1400+. and then the teams that have people retained and stuff being at 1500+.

now there are a couple ways to do that. Tighter cap, harder regression, etc.

But things are working right now. things are good. I wouldnt want to do too much to change that.

Forever dreaming about a league capped at 1600/1800/et applied tpe

***WannabeFinn*** · 01-08-2024, 10:12 PM

01-08-2024, 09:30 PMsve7en Wrote: Forever dreaming about a league capped at 1600/1800/et applied tpe

I’ll let you be the one to tell a peaking player 5 tpe short of 2K that the milestone is no longer attainable and now they owe us almost 400 tpe to be compliant without even being in regression lol

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us