Hybrid Attributes: Ending the Meta

[badcolethetitan 921]

Honestly, great change. I’m excited to see how this will work in the upcoming season.

[Lemorse7 1,015]

[Moon 591]

That's alot to read lmao

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

I'm really excited to see how this goes! Thank you all for your hard work bringing something new and attempting to fix the problem.

 

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

Additionally the update scale does not appear to require changing and will operate in exactly the same way as before with 1 caveat: attributes will start at 0 and go to 99 instead of the 40-99 that the VHL has ran with for 82 seasons. This only applies to the hybrid attributes with the ones inside STHS still having a baseline of 40. The update scale for 0-70 will remain at 1 TPE per point.

 

 

Just a clarification question on this part to make sure I'm getting it: Say I add my first 5 TPE to the new Faceoffs attribute - so in STHS that will register as 42 FO (rounded down) and 41 ST right away? Or would nothing in STHS increase until you hit the 40 baseline threshold?

[Tyler 885]

Good creativity here 

[Beketov 9,025]

14 minutes ago, Moon said:

That's alot to read lmao

It was a lot to explain.

[Spartan 4,402]

7 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Just a clarification question on this part to make sure I'm getting it: Say I add my first 5 TPE to the new Faceoffs attribute - so in STHS that will register as 42 FO (rounded down) and 41 ST right away?

Correct

[JardyB10 4,865]

You guys didn’t add a meta attribute that hybrids Scoring and Defense.

[der meister 3,188]

43 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Offensive vision has a lower ratio into its stats because it is increasing two stats at the same time, especially a critical stat such as SC. This is actually the core stat that prevents people from getting 40/99 PA/SC, since you are forced into increasing PA with SC if you want to try to max SC as much as possible.

 

Similar deal here, defensive coverage increases both DF and SK, which are two more desirable attributes than DF and ST. Therefore the ratios are slightly lower in defensive coverage since we expect more people to want to increase SK and DF at the same time instead of pumping TPE into DF and ST and leaving SK alone.

 

I get what you're saying, but a point into passing only affects passing, so even though it's a .06 difference, it seems like passing on the new scale is just inefficient. It feels like hybrid passing should have a boost to PH or something to make it more desirable.

[Ricer13 2,796]

Is there punishments coming to the managers who openly abused this meta?

[Spartan 4,402]

1 minute ago, der meister said:

 

I get what you're saying, but a point into passing only affects passing, so even though it's a .06 difference, it seems like passing on the new scale is just inefficient. It feels like hybrid passing should have a boost to PH or something to make it more desirable.

We also don't want it to be too easy to increase PA to a very high number, so we're not really looking to create obvious efficiencies in player builds. PA was starting to be considered a useless stat because of the emergence of the 40/99 meta, and people trying to recall their PA stat. I think many forget that just a few seasons prior, the general rule of thumb was to keep PA within 5 or 10 points of SC. It's not a useless stat, therefore we don't want it to be too easy to max out - costs about 452 TPE just to get PA to 99 right now, I think that's efficient enough to not be putting off pass-first builds.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

2 hours ago, InstantRockstar said:

It's great to see the commishes and the BOD making a big push to eliminate something that has been a huge discussion point for a lot of people. I've been virtually neutral on the discussion, not really adding much insight for either side of the argument to keep or eliminate the meta, but this looks like a very unique and cool way to handle it. 

 

Kudos to everyone involved in the decision

 

I was also involved. I clicked that I liked some of the comments in those threads.

[Beketov 9,025]

11 minutes ago, Ricer13 said:

Is there punishments coming to the managers who openly abused this meta?

There was nothing in the rules about how GM’s were allowed to build their teams and there isn’t going to be. No rules were broken whether people liked it or not.

[Beketov 9,025]

I also meant to mention but forgot: @Gustav will be updating his build guide to align with these new attributes. I just decided to jump the gun on announcing it before he had time to do so. So that’s coming soon.

[Shindigs 1,771]

23 minutes ago, der meister said:

 

I get what you're saying, but a point into passing only affects passing, so even though it's a .06 difference, it seems like passing on the new scale is just inefficient. It feels like hybrid passing should have a boost to PH or something to make it more desirable.

As someone who is going pass first and has played around with it, the way it works out is still that getting very high passing is significantly cheaper than getting just about anything else well into the 90s. When I just saw the numbers I had the same initial reaction. But I was able to quite comfortably fit 96 passing into my peak build, whereas getting that much scoring in there just isn't happening.

Basically the most efficient way of getting 1 SC (other than Offensive Vision, that both PA and SC builds will get) has a 0.12 ratio. The most efficient way of getting PA outside of Offensive Vision is Passing, with a .36 ratio. That makes it 3 times more cost efficient than SC, which is a more helpful way of thinking about it.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Shindigs

[Beketov 9,025]

1 minute ago, Shindigs said:

As someone who is going pass first and has played around with it, the way it works out is still that getting very high passing is significantly cheaper than getting just about anything else well into the 90s. When I just saw the numbers I had the same initial reaction. But I was able to quite comfortably fit 96 passing into my peak build, whereas getting that much scoring in there just isn't happening.

Basically the most efficient way of getting 1 SC (other than Offensive Vision, that both PA and SC builds will get) has a 0.12 ratio. The most efficient way of getting PA outside of Offensive Vision is Passing, with a .36 ratio. That makes it 3 times more cost efficient than SC, which is a more helpful way of thinking about it.

I feel like a lot of this comes down to playing with the numbers. It really opens your eyes to how much more option there is. Final builds may not end up hugely different but the path to get to them can fluctuate a lot now. Playing with them will not only allow people to figure out that path but also more easily understand the balance of attributes which is important. Initially O was just testing by recreating current builds and found that was way less of a solid way to understand it than just going in and trying to decide what made the most sense within the new system.

 

Penalty Shot meta incoming.

[Shindigs 1,771]

9 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Penalty Shot meta incoming.

RIP goalies if we ever get to the shootouts!

 

But yeah, with just how much more expensive the high end of the updating scale is now. Builds will look very different indeed, even 1k TPA players will need to make a very conscious choice to hit 90+ in anything (except passing if you're so inclined). Which I love to see, this change in its final form did end up doing all three things I wished it would: Make 99 nearly impossible, Make the better attributes more expensive and kill ze meta.

 

Now we all just have to poke it repeatedly with a stick and try and break it for a few seasons!

 

Oh and how will Jagr's work now? Will it just stop that amount of depreciation from the actual "end" stat in STHS still, or will it be given a new cost and apply to the portal attribute instead?

[Enorama 2,038]

34 minutes ago, Ricer13 said:

Is there punishments coming to the managers who openly abused this meta?

 

Why would there be? It isn't abuse to stack cheap good players. Blame the players that started spamming rerolls and only wanted to build this way rather than managers who stacked players that will make their team win.

 

Or, more realistically, don't blame anyone at all. I don't think anyone "abusing" the meta, players or managers, were doing anything wrong at all. It was on us to change the way the game works so that the min/maxing isn't possible anymore.

[Beketov 9,025]

1 minute ago, Shindigs said:

Oh and how will Jagr's work now? Will it just stop that amount of depreciation from the actual "end" stat in STHS still, or will it be given a new cost and apply to the portal attribute instead?

Everything is based on the hybrid attributes. Jagr, Recall, etc. those attributes directly affect STHS but nothing we do is straight up based on STHS attributes anymore except experience which will remain at 1:1 with no update scale and only the ability to add to it if it’s given / bought.

[Daniel Janser 2,169]

Okay I just tried to rebuild my player who at the moment looks like this:

 

 

What I was able to achieve with the same TPA/E looks about this:

 

CK 58, FG 40, DI 40, SK 77, ST 76, PH 70, FO 67, PA 73, SC 61, DF 71, PS 40, LD 40

 

So the player I had is now at the same level he was when he entered the VHLE....

 

Was there any issue with the skill level in general? Because it kind of hurts to see the player you invested a considerable amount of your freetime into, cut into half. The above new values of Daniel Janser are worth 253 TPE by my count with the 'old' system...

 

Would it be something which could be considered that  1 TPE remains 1 point worth of attribute (still split with the relative ratio which was used in the spreadsheet (i.e. for example Defensive Coverage giving .5 to DF and .5 to SK)?

 

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Daniel Janser

[Daniel Janser 2,169]

6 minutes ago, Enorama said:

Or, more realistically, don't blame anyone at all. I don't think anyone "abusing" the meta, players or managers, were doing anything wrong at all. It was on us to change the way the game works so that the min/maxing isn't possible anymore.

 Yes, I think it was wrong, it just was legal. 

 

Not everything which is legal is right and not everything that is wrong is illegal (at least in my RL experience)

[Enorama 2,038]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Would it be something which could be considered that  1 TPE remains 1 point worth of attribute (still split with the relative ratio which was used in the spreadsheet (i.e. for example Defensive Coverage giving .5 to DF and .5 to SK)?

 

Yes and no. We could consider that if we reduced starting attributes on the STHS side from 40 to something like 20 or 10. 

 

The reason we can't keep the 1-point-in-portal = 1-point-in-sths with atts also still starting at 40 is that they would almost certainly still have some clearly better than others unless we made it super unbalanced. Like to make it fair you'd like need 0.12 in SC and 0.88 in something else, well if you do that with DF and SK as well, then you'd start getting some super inflated minor attributes.

 

8 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Was there any issue with the skill level in general?

 

Kind of, STHS was never built with 99s in mind. For example, McDavid has most of his attributes in the high-80s, low-90s iirc.

 

Everyone across the board will have their growth a little stunted, so your build compared to your peers' should be comfortable. If you're concerned about that, keep in mind that we were also being asked to buff goalies recently because the 20 100-point-scorers (or however many we had last season) is just ridiculous. Nerfing players a bit with the new updating system should hopefully have a similar effect.

[Beketov 9,025]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Okay I just tried to rebuild my player who at the moment looks like this:

 

 

What I was able to achieve with the same TPA/E looks about this:

 

CK 58, FG 40, DI 40, SK 77, ST 76, PH 70, FO 67, PA 73, SC 61, DF 71, PS 40, LD 40

 

So the player I had is now at the same level he was when he entered the VHLE....

 

Was there any issue with the skill level in general? Because it kind of hurts to see the player you invested a considerable amount of your freetime into, cut into half. The above new values of Daniel Janser are worth 253 TPE by my count with the 'old' system...

 

Would it be something which could be considered that  1 TPE remains 1 point worth of attribute (still split with the relative ratio which was used in the spreadsheet (i.e. for example Defensive Coverage giving .5 to DF and .5 to SK)?

 

 

A few points to touch on here. First that yes, our attributes being so high were a problem. We’ve discussed with Simon before and he has said that the engine isn’t really built to have players with max stats, let alone multiple max stats and let alone multiple of those players on a team. If you look at ratings for NHL players in STHS they are far lower.

The second point to keep in mind is that everyone is adjusted so it may look bad on paper to see only your stats but it’s important to remember that everyone is being hit the same way so It’s all relative. Comparing what you had to what you’ll have doesn’t make sense because no one will have what you had anymore. The system changed and everyone changed with it.

 

The third important thing to note is that trying to build exactly the same way may very well be very TPE inefficient now because of how things are spread out. Playing with it to find what works instead of just trying to get exactly the same can do a lot to optimizing things.

[BarzalGoat 728]

I’m very excited that penalty shot is going to get improved for the first time on most players 

[Ricer13 2,796]

29 minutes ago, Enorama said:

 

Why would there be? It isn't abuse to stack cheap good players. Blame the players that started spamming rerolls and only wanted to build this way rather than managers who stacked players that will make their team win.

 

Or, more realistically, don't blame anyone at all. I don't think anyone "abusing" the meta, players or managers, were doing anything wrong at all. It was on us to change the way the game works so that the min/maxing isn't possible anymore.

When a team is stacking up on players purely building their players in a meta way that is exactly the definition of “abusing” the meta. 
 

The only argument against punishment is that there isn’t actually a rule against it. I guess the real punishment is that everyone in the league and their fellow GMs know how these people play the game.