Poll/Thoughts about rebalancing attribute costs.

[Daniel Janser 2,112]

50 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Nothing wrong with helping people out, but I think there is a fine line between doing a new user a solid by informing them about everything and ruining the experience, not just for them, but for the league as a whole when more and more start using the meta build.

 

I agree in principle with your statement. I wish to bring up the point that there is a thin line in my opinion. @Ricer13 for example told me as soon as I was drafted, that my passing was too high for a meta build (I was following Gustav's build advice for a two-way winger at the time, where passing is higher than scoring), but he also made it abundantly clear that he will never, ever ask me to go for such a build (and I would not have done it anyway). He just wanted to give me all the information in case that I want to be that super efficient top scoring winger (which I do not want to). Just to be clear, I bring Ricer up as a GOOD example for giving the relevant data is it is known and accepted at the moment, but leaving the build choices up to the player. I come more of an RPG background rather then sports simulations and therefore I chose the type of player I wanted to be and started distributing points accordingly (until I have found Gustav's guide, which gave me some directions to take where to spend points first ideally. Then I was angry at myself for having 'wasted' ten points into leadership, but took it as an RPG trait and convinced myself that this attribute makes me scoring GWG).

 

Now, if someone asks me in the Hounds' locker room where to invest points, I tell them that apparently, DI, Fighting and LD will not do much for you (unless you are going for a brawler goon enforcer build). I am up front that the four attributes that do most for your skater are the big four and that passing unfortunately is not as efficient as one would think coming from games like the NHL series.

 

I would also like to avoid that GM/AGM dare not to give advise anymore, for fear of facing repercussions because 'they asked player xyz to go for a meta build'.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Daniel Janser

[Shindigs 1,771]

22 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I agree in principle with your statement. I wish to bring up the point that there is a thin line in my opinion. @Ricer13 for example told me as soon as I was drafted, that my passing was too high for a meta build (I was following Gustav's build advice for a two-way winger at the time, where passing is higher than scoring), but he also made it abundantly clear that he will never, ever ask me to go for such a build (and I would not have done it anyway). He just wanted to give me all the information in case that I want to be that super efficient top scoring winger (which I do not want to). Just to be clear, I bring Ricer up as a GOOD example for giving the relevant data is it is known and accepted at the moment, but leaving the build choices up to the player. I come more of an RPG background rather then sports simulations and therefore I chose the type of player I wanted to be and started distributing points accordingly (until I have found Gustav's guide, which gave me some directions to take where to spend points first ideally. Then I was angry at myself for having 'wasted' ten points into leadership, but took it as an RPG trait and convinced myself that this attribute makes me scoring GWG).

 

Now, if someone asks me in the Hounds' locker room where to invest points, I tell them that apparently, DI, Fighting and LD will not do much for you (unless you are going for a brawler goon enforcer build). I am up front that the four attributes that do most for your skater are the big four and that passing unfortunately is not as efficient as one would think coming from games like the NHL series.

 

I would also like to avoid that GM/AGM dare not to give advise anymore, for fear of facing repercussions because 'they asked player xyz to go for a meta build'.

Yeah, you don't really want to end up in a "big brother is watching police state" type of situation. I'm usually more of a fan of the carrot over the stick. But when it comes to stuff like giving advice to new players it's always hard. Like we just had a bunch of new players arrive in the Miami locker room. I went about as minimal as I could and simply pointed out that spreading stats doesn't really work very well in STHS. Upping things to around 70 one at a time in the M makes more sense. While also pointing out that Def is a lot more important to forwards than you might realize. But I left it at that, just enough to stop making the two most common mistakes. But without trying to push them into any "choice" attribute. Because defense isn't a choice in this game, so that is pretty much vital information.

 

But you also have the players who want/need more guidance, so putting rules in place that mean you're not allowed to help those people will probably do more harm than good. It really is a balancing act.

[jRuutu 2,426]

I'm not saying you should prevent GM's or coaches from telling people what attributes are ''good and bad''. For example, putting points to fighting is bad if you don't want to be a fighter. That is fine.  I'm saying we should look at comments like: ''spreading stats doesn't really work very well in STHS'' or ''passing is not as efficient...'' , and any other type of comparison of builds to meta build as a violation against spirit of the game.  A team doesn't randomly and out of the blue get 6 to 8 similar forwards without the GM's and coaches having a say on it. Perhaps the moderators and league should turn their eyes from bad words to something like that.

 

Isn't the point of M to keep people around? Promote the role playing side. Create a positive LR experience. Tell them about the community side. Why is telling all the ''secrets'' about the ''game'' considered to be somehow helping with retention? Why is subtly trashing the ''game'' somehow considered to be ok by the league?

 

What is the point in putting so much effort in promoting the place if you let GM's, coaches, and experienced users completely undermine that effort by having those users telling the new users: ''yea it's not all that, if you want to do well you need to update this and ignore that completely. We of course don't want you to do that. You can do whatever you want, *smileyface* and a *wink*. ''

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by jRuutu

[Shindigs 1,771]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

I'm not saying you should prevent GM's or coaches from telling people what attributes are ''good and bad''. For example, putting points to fighting is bad if you don't want to be a fighter. That is fine.  I'm saying we should look at comments like: ''spreading stats doesn't really work very well in STHS'' or ''passing is not as efficient...'' , and any other type of comparison of builds to meta build as a violation against spirit of the game.  A team doesn't randomly and out of the blue get 6 to 8 similar forwards without the GM's and coaches having a say on it. Perhaps the moderators and league should turn theirs eyes from bad words to something like that.

 

Isn't the point of M to keep people around? Promote the role playing side. Create a positive LR experience. Tell them about the community side. Why is telling all the ''secrets'' about the ''game'' considered to be somehow helping with retention? Why is subtly trashing the ''game'' somehow considered to be ok by the league?

 

What is the point in putting so much effort in promoting the place if you let GM's, coaches, and experienced users completely undermine that effort by having those users telling the new users: ''yea it's not all that, if you want to do well you need to update this and ignore that completely. We of course don't want you to do that. You can do whatever you want, *smileyface* and a *wink*. ''

 

 

 

Yeah the problem is more that it's very hard to find where the line in the sand is, right? How much talking about how good scoring is (because it is) is too much etc? I get the point you're making and I agree that people shouldn't be pushed into playing something they may not actually want to do. Because it's what you "should" do "for the team". But on the flip side if they don't let them know about that, they are basically making their players make uninformed decisions. The problem is more that the informed decision is so polarizing that there is very little room for interpretation. The issue at the core isn't telling new players what is good, it's that something is so good that once you know about it, you see no reason to consider any other option.

[Daniel Janser 2,112]

10 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

I'm not saying you should prevent GM's or coaches from telling people what attributes are ''good and bad''. For example, putting points to fighting is bad if you don't want to be a fighter. That is fine.  I'm saying we should look at comments like: ''spreading stats doesn't really work very well in STHS'' or ''passing is not as efficient...'' , and any other type of comparison of builds to meta build as a violation against spirit of the game.  A team doesn't randomly and out of the blue get 6 to 8 similar forwards without the GM's and coaches having a say on it. Perhaps the moderators and league should turn their eyes from bad words to something like that.

 

Isn't the point of M to keep people around? Promote the role playing side. Create a positive LR experience. Tell them about the community side. Why is telling all the ''secrets'' about the ''game'' considered to be somehow helping with retention? Why is subtly trashing the ''game'' somehow considered to be ok by the league?

 

What is the point in putting so much effort in promoting the place if you let GM's, coaches, and experienced users completely undermine that effort by having those users telling the new users: ''yea it's not all that, if you want to do well you need to update this and ignore that completely. We of course don't want you to do that. You can do whatever you want, *smileyface* and a *wink*. ''

 

 

 

 

Well, I would argue that this would result that rookies are left clueless, about how efficient 99/99 builds are. Should we leave them in the dark, while the veteran players have their tenth rebuild, scoring like a man/woman possessed and leave the unsuspecting new players in the dust? To me,l to withhold crucial information is tantamount to lying. I cannot see that retention is helped if we do not tell them what is common knowledge amongst veteran players and let them invest in 'useless' attributes and deny them the chance to compete on the same level (if they so wish)... at the end of the day, the more cunning amongst them well get behind the worst kept secret on the planet, and either fall to the 'dark side' and join the meta, quit (because they are disappointed about us withholding crucial information) or they play on as if they never heard of a meta and play their player as they want it for their own pleasure.

 

I would have an alternative proposition and this is regarding salary cap: why not double the 'normal' salary for players who have 95+ on more than two attributes and triple for those with 95+ on more than three etc (or any other appropriate multiplier, I am making this up on the fly). There is a reason why even Toronto IRL (who basically print money) cannot afford to employ McJesus, Crosby, Ovechkin, Josi and Subban along with Matthews etc. In VHL as far as I have seen, a player with say 70 on all the meaningful stats (CK, ST, PH, PA, DF, SC, SK) has the same paycheck as a metabuild with the same amount of TPE, but not as much influence on the game or the scoreboard. So in this sim league it is financially sustainable to have a team full of the equivalent of a McDavid clone (yes including D-men, because lets be honest, since meta includes defence to be maxed, there is no distinction anymore between a meta forward and a meta defender imo). And I do not think that this as intended... 

[jRuutu 2,426]

9 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

Yeah the problem is more that it's very hard to find where the line in the sand is, right? How much talking about how good scoring is (because it is) is too much etc? I get the point you're making and I agree that people shouldn't be pushed into playing something they may not actually want to do. Because it's what you "should" do "for the team". But on the flip side if they don't let them know about that, they are basically making their players make uninformed decisions. The problem is more that the informed decision is so polarizing that there is very little room for interpretation. The issue at the core isn't telling new players what is good, it's that something is so good that once you know about it, you see no reason to consider any other option.

The way you share that information makes the line easy to see. For example, if a GM in the M talks about scoring while encouraging the new user to ignore passing - that's not cool. That is not the way to do it. I don't fully buy the passing is terrible thinking either. I have personally scored the most goals in VHL with 95 passing and 95 in scoring.  That was back in S78.  In S67 I had 86 in passing while scoring the most points in the league.  Back in S61, I was 6th in M points with 40 scoring and 40 passing. Those are just my experiences. You can absolutely have some success with something else than the meta.  Especially now when so many VHL teams are bruuuutal. It's terrible that new users are ''gently'' pushed towards the high scoring/low passing builds just because some think it's the only way to make things happen.

 

There are no uninformed decisions when you roleplay. That is your player. Your player might look completely different than most players. That should be the point of this league.  It's terrible that this league nowadays is a excel league where everything is tested and ironed out.

 

There is only going to be one winner each season. You chose to go with ''optimal'' route with your player and you more than likely lost. You did not roleplay. You did not choose build or idea that you think is fun. You followed others. So much lost potential.

 

 

[jRuutu 2,426]

4 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

 

Well, I would argue that this would result that rookies are left clueless, about how efficient 99/99 builds are. Should we leave them in the dark, while the veteran players have their tenth rebuild, scoring like a man/woman possessed and leave the unsuspecting new players in the dust? To me,l to withhold crucial information is tantamount to lying. I cannot see that retention is helped if we do not tell them what is common knowledge amongst veteran players and let them invest in 'useless' attributes and deny them the chance to compete on the same level (if they so wish)... at the end of the day, the more cunning amongst them well get behind the worst kept secret on the planet, and either fall to the 'dark side' and join the meta, quit (because they are disappointed about us withholding crucial information) or they play on as if they never heard of a meta and play their player as they want it for their own pleasure.

 

I would have an alternative proposition and this is regarding salary cap: why not double the 'normal' salary for players who have 95+ on more than two attributes and triple for those with 95+ on more than three etc (or any other appropriate multiplier, I am making this up on the fly). There is a reason why even Toronto IRL (who basically print money) cannot afford to employ McJesus, Crosby, Ovechkin, Josi and Subban along with Matthews etc. In VHL as far as I have seen, a player with say 70 on all the meaningful stats (CK, ST, PH, PA, DF, SC, SK) has the same paycheck as a metabuild with the same amount of TPE, but not as much influence on the game or the scoreboard. So in this sim league it is financially sustainable to have a team full of the equivalent of a McDavid clone (yes including D-men, because lets be honest, since meta includes defence to be maxed, there is no distinction anymore between a meta forward and a meta defender imo). And I do not think that this as intended... 

Rookies should absolutely be left in the dark. You should instead encourage them to roleplay and build the players they want. If and when they hopefully earn a lot of TPE - their players will be great anyways. If you come into a league like this and you don't have any idea what you are doing, not even a real player you would like to use as an example when building your player - you are not going to make it. Why are we so worried about users like that? Encourage them to roleplay instead. Encourage them to learn about the sport. Tell them about the community. They will be fine.  Telling users like that about the meta and that way hoping they stick around is not helping anyone. If the new users are not earning close to 12 capped a week - they are never going to compete. There will be too much competition when they reach their so called prime seasons.  Telling them that the meta is the way to fight back is not helping anyone. You just told a new user the easiest way to the stars and they lost, is that encouraging them to stick around? I doubt it.

 

A lot more focus should be given to the roleplay side in general. That is my point.

 

 

[Shindigs 1,771]

5 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

 

Well, I would argue that this would result that rookies are left clueless, about how efficient 99/99 builds are. Should we leave them in the dark, while the veteran players have their tenth rebuild, scoring like a man/woman possessed and leave the unsuspecting new players in the dust? To me,l to withhold crucial information is tantamount to lying. I cannot see that retention is helped if we do not tell them what is common knowledge amongst veteran players and let them invest in 'useless' attributes and deny them the chance to compete on the same level (if they so wish)... at the end of the day, the more cunning amongst them well get behind the worst kept secret on the planet, and either fall to the 'dark side' and join the meta, quit (because they are disappointed about us withholding crucial information) or they play on as if they never heard of a meta and play their player as they want it for their own pleasure.

 

I would have an alternative proposition and this is regarding salary cap: why not double the 'normal' salary for players who have 95+ on more than two attributes and triple for those with 95+ on more than three etc (or any other appropriate multiplier, I am making this up on the fly). There is a reason why even Toronto IRL (who basically print money) cannot afford to employ McJesus, Crosby, Ovechkin, Josi and Subban along with Matthews etc. In VHL as far as I have seen, a player with say 70 on all the meaningful stats (CK, ST, PH, PA, DF, SC, SK) has the same paycheck as a metabuild with the same amount of TPE, but not as much influence on the game or the scoreboard. So in this sim league it is financially sustainable to have a team full of the equivalent of a McDavid clone (yes including D-men, because lets be honest, since meta includes defence to be maxed, there is no distinction anymore between a meta forward and a meta defender imo). And I do not think that this as intended... 

I actually love that cap suggestion. VHL GMs who actually have to do capology studies need to weigh in. But overall I just find that a very neat solution to one side of the problem. The big issue I see is that you will end up in a situation with meta forwards who can't be employed because no one has the cap. So they will effectively be forced into free agency until the meta shifts to a spread that allows everyone a spot. So it fixes the issue of GMs stacking meta forwards, which is nice. But it doesn't change the number of meta forwards that will still get made in the hopes that the GM picks yours. Which would essentially mean that only max earner meta forwards would get actual contracts. The others would basically get stuck in free agency. At least that is the immediate concern I have. IRL this is fixed by those "not quite good enough" goal scorers going the KHL/SHL/NLA etc. But we don't have that in the VHL. So those players would get stuck in limbo, and that's not really acceptable.

 

6 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

There is only going to be one winner each season. You chose to go with ''optimal'' route with your player and you more than likely lost. You did not roleplay. You did not choose build or idea that you think is fun. You followed others. So much lost potential.

I agree with this, which is why I'm not building meta. But when you have VHL GMs going on record as saying they will stop drafting players who aren't going to go the meta build. Because they are sick and tired to losing to those that go full meta teams. Then that is very problematic.

 

@Daniel Janser's cap idea solves the GM side of that problem. But it doesn't solve the player side of it, so the question is if some kind of solution can be found that is both appealing to role players, min/maxers and gm's alike. Without needing to rely on the players to make the "correct" spread of roles to make it a zero sum game where everyone has a place to be. It's not an easy problem to solve.

[jRuutu 2,426]

4 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

I actually love that cap suggestion. VHL GMs who actually have to do capology studies need to weigh in. But overall I just find that a very neat solution to one side of the problem. The big issue I see is that you will end up in a situation with meta forwards who can't be employed because no one has the cap. So they will effectively be forced into free agency until the meta shifts to a spread that allows everyone a spot. So it fixes the issue of GMs stacking meta forwards, which is nice. But it doesn't change the number of meta forwards that will still get made in the hopes that the GM picks yours. Which would essentially mean that only max earner meta forwards would get actual contracts. The others would basically get stuck in free agency. At least that is the immediate concern I have. IRL this is fixed by those "not quite good enough" goal scorers going the KHL/SHL/NLA etc. But we don't have that in the VHL. So those players would get stuck in limbo, and that's not really acceptable.

 

I agree with this, which is why I'm not building meta. But when you have VHL GMs going on record as saying they will stop drafting players who aren't going to go the meta build. Because they are sick and tired to losing to those that go full meta teams. Then that is very problematic.

 

@Daniel Janser's cap idea solves the GM side of that problem. But it doesn't solve the player side of it, so the question is if some kind of solution can be found that is both appealing to role players, min/maxers and gm's alike. Without needing to rely on the players to make the "correct" spread of roles to make it a zero sum game where everyone has a place to be. It's not an easy problem to solve.

I agree completely. That is problematic and that is wrong. Get the moderators and league involved, those GM's should be fired. They are not up to the job anymore. GM's who actively build teams with the meta idea should be fired. They are not what a GM should be.

 

What comes to players being worried about getting drafted if they do something different with their builds. You are so lucky. What an opportunity. Next time around you won't even get into that situation even if you tried. The GM's will recognize your TPE earning ability and pick you up even you have 40 in passing and 40 in scoring.

Edited December 14, 2021 by jRuutu

[hedgehog337 3,480]

4 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

If and when they hopefully earn a lot of TPE - their players will be great anyways.

 

I don't think this is how it works in this league. S75 draft Riga can tell you a lot about that.

[jRuutu 2,426]

19 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

I don't think this is how it works in this league. S75 draft Riga can tell you a lot about that.

nvm, you said draft. Oopsies

 

The way I have built my players, I have always had a decent prime. I have even won individual awards.  Not many but some.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by jRuutu

[Ricer13 2,774]

5 hours ago, Shindigs said:

Yeah, that (and removing choice) are my two biggest gripes with it. That's why I went with making it prohibitively expensive to make one in the first place. So that doing so becomes a choice and an investment, rather than just "what you do". There are obviously a lot of people who really love making meta forwards and being the goal scorer. Those people should still very much have access to that power fantasy. Not just for their sake, but because the league does need those elite scorers. Just not 8-10 of them per team. But if there are no scorers, there are no outlets to the playmakers and defensive players.

 

Another idea that I was kind of floating around in my head which has some aspects of the 20 difference "rule". Is, what if you had the same with scoring and Def. This would be kind of a pain to implement as it would be possible to sidestep it with some "creative" build orders. But if your player has, say, over 70 scoring then a 20 gap for scoring and def comes into effect. So if you want 99 scoring then you only get to max out def at 79. That way, again, you still get to max out the most overpowered attribute. But there is an opportunity cost to doing so. Then you can actually make a defensive forward, or a playmaking defensively sound center or what have you. Because now those roles do actually have access to at least something that the scoring build does not.

 

Forwards that you might actually descibe as 99/99 scoring/defense IRL are basically limited to... Maybe Barkov and Bergeron? But I wouldn't call either 99 scoring. Just high 90s. So making that a non-represented archetype to benefit others and give them some kind of upside over a meta forward is also an interesting approach to me. It still doesn't get to the "No attribute should be able to reach 99" stance that I personally have. But I know I'm in a minority with that opinion, so it makes no sense for me to assume that part of my idea would get any traction.

The “20” rule isn’t a horrible idea but I would almost rather just see a new starting point for passing. Rather than 40 be the starting point just start passing at 75. People can then decide if they want to become a scorer or playmaker beyond that but at-least it’s set outside of the “meta” calculation. Some consider even 70/99 meta as it gives similar results. If the passing were to start at 75 the remaining attribute costs would have to increase slightly to offset the cost of passing starting at 75.

[hedgehog337 3,480]

11 hours ago, Ricer13 said:

I think the idea of preventing all scoring teams is probably the smarter way to go about it. You could have a minimum requirement of passing players or even checkers on your roster. Even a minimum of one of each of those types of builds are enough to balance it out. The only issue that arises is if there are no checkers or even passers being made because of the wide spread knowledge of “meta” builds. 

 

There is a bigger issue with that. An easy loophole is possible here; just grab some inactive 300 TPE checker/passer and put him to the third line in a meta team and run it with no much harm done. The idea looks cool, just this one gonna be iffy. 

[Daniel Janser 2,112]

4 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

There is a bigger issue with that. An easy loophole is possible here; just grab some inactive 300 TPE checker/passer and put him to the third line in a meta team and run it with no much harm done. The idea looks cool, just this one gonna be iffy. 

I see your concern and it is a valid one. It could be addressed though if there was a function in the VHL which allows to 'force retire' inactive players. I do not know whether this exists or not, but if it did, the league had to force retire these players a season before the new rules (whatever they may be) are in force...

[Daniel Janser 2,112]

49 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

I actually love that cap suggestion. VHL GMs who actually have to do capology studies need to weigh in. But overall I just find that a very neat solution to one side of the problem. The big issue I see is that you will end up in a situation with meta forwards who can't be employed because no one has the cap. So they will effectively be forced into free agency until the meta shifts to a spread that allows everyone a spot. So it fixes the issue of GMs stacking meta forwards, which is nice. But it doesn't change the number of meta forwards that will still get made in the hopes that the GM picks yours. Which would essentially mean that only max earner meta forwards would get actual contracts. The others would basically get stuck in free agency. At least that is the immediate concern I have. IRL this is fixed by those "not quite good enough" goal scorers going the KHL/SHL/NLA etc. But we don't have that in the VHL. So those players would get stuck in limbo, and that's not really acceptable.

 

I agree with this, which is why I'm not building meta. But when you have VHL GMs going on record as saying they will stop drafting players who aren't going to go the meta build. Because they are sick and tired to losing to those that go full meta teams. Then that is very problematic.

 

@Daniel Janser's cap idea solves the GM side of that problem. But it doesn't solve the player side of it, so the question is if some kind of solution can be found that is both appealing to role players, min/maxers and gm's alike. Without needing to rely on the players to make the "correct" spread of roles to make it a zero sum game where everyone has a place to be. It's not an easy problem to solve.

 

As a flanking proposal to the cap suggestion, I would offer a one time only, free attribute reroll (or position change) to those players who had a team before and were dismissed and not picked up again due to the above mentioned change of rules. This would take a lot of admin, but it is what I could think of in a jiffy. Mind you I am a relatively new player myself and am under no illusion whatsoever that I know it all (and/or better than the veterans of dozens of seasons)... I try to give some input to something, which seems to bother a decent amount of people and try to offer possible solutions (which may actually make the problem worse, who knows)...

[Spartan 4,274]

59 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

I agree completely. That is problematic and that is wrong. Get the moderators and league involved, those GM's should be fired. They are not up to the job anymore. GM's who actively build teams with the meta idea should be fired. They are not what a GM should be.

 

What comes to players being worried about getting drafted if they do something different with their builds. You are so lucky. What an opportunity. Next time around you won't even get into that situation even if you tried. The GM's will recognize your TPE earning ability and pick you up even you have 40 in passing and 40 in scoring.

Why are we firing GM's when it is the responsibility of staff and the BOG to come up with rules to address league issues? Our current structure and 81 seasons of using STHS have brought us to this point. GM's are simply using the tools at their disposal to build their teams in accordance with the rules. We never had a team openly embrace the meta to the extent that occurred in S80, but the meta was known and folks catered to it. As someone said, you can find many examples since S70 of teams pursuing a meta inclined team comp. The issue has only flared because of what happened last season. At that point, it's no longer on us as GM's to be upholding an unwritten rule, it's on the people who influence and make rules to find a solution.

 

Also every single active player has been drafted and rostered. There is 0 instance of anything different occurring. There are no active FA's left in any league, every active prospect will get drafted. I don't know where this fear of not getting drafted is coming from, but it's completely unbased and is simply not true. A vocal anti-meta player went 2oa and got traded for another first round pick plus more. There are plenty of teams who roster non-meta players, and who will select them in the draft because as you said, players at high tpe *should* end up playing to that skill level. Do they? Not always, but that's more a byproduct of bad sim luck than getting neglected by a GM.

[Greg_Di 1,003]

A solution to fix this (don't know how practical) is have users select a "build" when they create. If they select a power forward for example then certain attributes should be capped so that it fits the "build" that they chose(SC at 75, CK at 95 .etc), if they select a playmaker then have SC capped at 70 and PA at 95. Lots of the EA games such as NHL and Fifa do this as well as the 2K NBA series. Playmaker builds cannot have maxed out scoring and so on

So basically each "build" has capped attributes, this would then defeat the META build and have some sort of variation in the league based on player builds instead of everyone running the same META build.

[Ricer13 2,774]

35 minutes ago, Greg_Di said:

A solution to fix this (don't know how practical) is have users select a "build" when they create. If they select a power forward for example then certain attributes should be capped so that it fits the "build" that they chose(SC at 75, CK at 95 .etc), if they select a playmaker then have SC capped at 70 and PA at 95. Lots of the EA games such as NHL and Fifa do this as well as the 2K NBA series. Playmaker builds cannot have maxed out scoring and so on

So basically each "build" has capped attributes, this would then defeat the META build and have some sort of variation in the league based on player builds instead of everyone running the same META build.

I think this is a really cool idea but what if everyone just chooses a scoring build?

[Shindigs 1,771]

31 minutes ago, Greg_Di said:

A solution to fix this (don't know how practical) is have users select a "build" when they create. If they select a power forward for example then certain attributes should be capped so that it fits the "build" that they chose(SC at 75, CK at 95 .etc), if they select a playmaker then have SC capped at 70 and PA at 95. Lots of the EA games such as NHL and Fifa do this as well as the 2K NBA series. Playmaker builds cannot have maxed out scoring and so on

So basically each "build" has capped attributes, this would then defeat the META build and have some sort of variation in the league based on player builds instead of everyone running the same META build.

But one of those builds will be closest to the meta build, then everyone picks that. Though at that point it's a balancing issue of the builds. Which means you can massage some numbers to remedy it. @Spartan actually mentioned this exact solution in his podcast earlier. I would certainly not be opposed to a solutions along the lines of that, as it is in essence a more structured version of something I mentioned briefly before.

 

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

Why are we firing GM's when it is the responsibility of staff and the BOG to come up with rules to address league issues? Our current structure and 81 seasons of using STHS have brought us to this point. GM's are simply using the tools at their disposal to build their teams in accordance with the rules. We never had a team openly embrace the meta to the extent that occurred in S80, but the meta was known and folks catered to it. As someone said, you can find many examples since S70 of teams pursuing a meta inclined team comp. The issue has only flared because of what happened last season. At that point, it's no longer on us as GM's to be upholding an unwritten rule, it's on the people who influence and make rules to find a solution.

This. VHL GMs job is to compete, VHLM GMs job is to introduce players to the league in the best way possible. When you compete you do not care about unwritten rules. Anyone who has ever competed at a high level at anything is aware that most of what goes on at the highest level, is trying to abuse loopholes in the rules in such a way that it's just acceptable enough that the rules don't get changed. That's basically what high level competition is about, who can do the most unintended things within the rules without getting slapped by the ruling body for it. You don't need to like it, but that is effectively universal in all competition. If some of that stuff is harmful to the experience, then the ruling body has to do *something*. Not the competitors, because it simply isn't their responsibility.

 

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

Also every single active player has been drafted and rostered. There is 0 instance of anything different occurring. There are no active FA's left in any league, every active prospect will get drafted. I don't know where this fear of not getting drafted is coming from, but it's completely unbased and is simply not true. A vocal anti-meta player went 2oa and got traded for another first round pick plus more. There are plenty of teams who roster non-meta players, and who will select them in the draft because as you said, players at high tpe *should* end up playing to that skill level. Do they? Not always, but that's more a byproduct of bad sim luck than getting neglected by a GM.

Ofc, it's a closed system so everyone goes somewhere. But a lot of us are competitive people and do want to go for the highest draft rank we can, for one reason or another. So when ideas of anyone who isn't a meta player dropping in spite of everything else start being mentioned. Then you could see the cause of concern, right? I know that at the end of your career it doesn't matter who did or didn't draft you or when. It's what you do once you go pro that matters. But until you have a draft of two under your belt it's had to detach yourself to that degree and look at the bigger picture.

[Spartan 4,274]

59 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

Ofc, it's a closed system so everyone goes somewhere. But a lot of us are competitive people and do want to go for the highest draft rank we can, for one reason or another. So when ideas of anyone who isn't a meta player dropping in spite of everything else start being mentioned. Then you could see the cause of concern, right? I know that at the end of your career it doesn't matter who did or didn't draft you or when. It's what you do once you go pro that matters. But until you have a draft of two under your belt it's had to detach yourself to that degree and look at the bigger picture.

I mean everyone would love to be a top pick. At a level every person cares about their draft pedigree as well. When you roleplay hockey, anyone can be a first overall pick right? But the first two HOF inductees from the S72 draft class were second round picks. I had a player be named MVP after being picked 11th overall. As you said, it doesn't matter where you get picked in the grand scheme of things, it's just a stress point before it happens. People will get drafted for more than their build. Do not worry, as long as you aren't intentionally memeing your build away, you will have a respectable career. I get the cause for concern, but hopefully this has assuaged it a bit.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Spartan

[Shindigs 1,771]

20 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I mean everyone would love to be a top pick. At a level every person cares about their draft pedigree as well. When you roleplay hockey, anyone can be a first overall pick right? But the first two HOF inductees from the S72 draft class were second round picks. I had a player be named MVP after being picked 11th overall. As you said, it doesn't matter where you get picked in the grand scheme of things, it's just a stress point before it happens. People will get drafted for more than their build. Do not worry, as long as you aren't intentionally memeing your build away, you will have a respectable career. I get the cause for concern, but hopefully this has assuaged it a bit.

Yeah, that's all fair enough. And I do love an underdog story. Personally I'm usually a lot more impressed with draft steals who prove everyone wrong. Than with high picks doing high pick things. But still, when it's your first draft you wanna make it special. Though if we're being real. Everyone knows being picked 69th overall is the real flex move.