Make Captains Get Boosted Leadership Stats

[Guest]

Base Stat: 40 EX
EX TPE earned/season = (#VHL games played/7) + (#VHLM games played/14) + (#VHL playoff games played/2.1) + (#VHLM Playoff games played/4.2)
Most attainable without adding TPE in 1 season would be 20 TPE (40 -> 60)

Base Stat: 40 LD
LD TPE earned/season = ((#VHL Playoff wins) * (1 if no Cup, 2 if you win the Cup)) + ((#VHLM Playoff Wins/2)*(1 if no Cup, 2 if you win the Cup))
Temporary Boost of 5 LD attributes (80 -> 81, not 80 -> 80 1/3) for Captain, 3 for Assistant
Most attainable without adding TPE in 1 season would be 24 TPE (40 -> 64)

I know captain and assistant captain are very subjective, and there is some motive to vote for a player that doesn't have the captaincy, but I think the temporary boost makes it less likely to have people rigging the votes or assignments. It takes 120 TPE to get to 99 in either stat, so if you hit max TPE for both every season, it'd take 6 seasons to get to 99 in EX and 5 seasons to get to 99 in LD. We could also have it work with regression to be reduced at the same rate as the total TPE count and have some hard caps set.

[sterling 1,997]

Leadership pointless stat

[Phil 5,119]

On 11/29/2016 at 0:19 PM, STZ said:

 

It does follow the update scale.. that's why I'm saying veterans would have a better advantage of having the captaincy as they probably have higher Leadership to start with..

 

I've had Leadership at 99 since my fourth season

[Phil 5,119]

1 hour ago, sterling said:

Leadership pointless stat

 

Just now, Phil said:

 

I've had Leadership at 99 since my fourth season

 

Oops.. I just fucking proved a sterling point. #LifeFail

[JardyB10 4,865]

I've done a little bit of testing on Leadership and Experience. The short answer is that they are...dicey, at best.

 

The thing is, the attributes are supposed to affect morale in some form or another. And morale is indeed enabled, and it changes throughout the season, particularly the team morale. I've noticed individual player morale changes VERY little, and it changes with the entire team. As in, Phil with his 99 LD and 88 EX had the same morale as COL C1 with his 40 everything (although interestingly enough, three COL CPUs randomly have 5 less MO than everyone else on the team. I see no logical reason for this). Looking at the best teams from last season, the players on their team had a morale of 42 or 43, starting from 40. The bad team's players went down to 39. Now, most players on most teams have 40 leadership, and the CPUs don't help that at all (Although I've now just been inspired to change CPU Leadership and Experience to 99), so I don't know if individual player morale would change more throughout the season if the whole team had higher LD and EX attributes?

 

Team morale is a different story. The Vikings morale last season dipped all the way to 1, while Calgary's went up to 93. But again, I don't know exactly how much the individual player attributes affected this. Furthermore, I have no idea exactly how much morale affects the performance of teams and players in general.

 

So in conclusion, the helpfulness of LD and EX is...dicey.

 

Which is why experimenting with it with ideas like this and @mpclardy's on his podcast is smart, because there's really no downside, and we can all learn from it! Now excuse me while I give all the CPUs the Leadership and Experience they deserve after nearly 50 seasons of loyal hockey playing!

[Devise 4,475]

24 minutes ago, JardyB10 said:

I've done a little bit of testing on Leadership and Experience. The short answer is that they are...dicey, at best.

 

The thing is, the attributes are supposed to affect morale in some form or another. And morale is indeed enabled, and it changes throughout the season, particularly the team morale. I've noticed individual player morale changes VERY little, and it changes with the entire team. As in, Phil with his 99 LD and 88 EX had the same morale as COL C1 with his 40 everything (although interestingly enough, three COL CPUs randomly have 5 less MO than everyone else on the team. I see no logical reason for this). Looking at the best teams from last season, the players on their team had a morale of 42 or 43, starting from 40. The bad team's players went down to 39. Now, most players on most teams have 40 leadership, and the CPUs don't help that at all (Although I've now just been inspired to change CPU Leadership and Experience to 99), so I don't know if individual player morale would change more throughout the season if the whole team had higher LD and EX attributes?

 

Team morale is a different story. The Vikings morale last season dipped all the way to 1, while Calgary's went up to 93. But again, I don't know exactly how much the individual player attributes affected this. Furthermore, I have no idea exactly how much morale affects the performance of teams and players in general.

 

So in conclusion, the helpfulness of LD and EX is...dicey.

 

Which is why experimenting with it with ideas like this and @mpclardy's on his podcast is smart, because there's really no downside, and we can all learn from it! Now excuse me while I give all the CPUs the Leadership and Experience they deserve after nearly 50 seasons of loyal hockey playing!

 

 

I know your mostly joking, but on top of this idea I really think we should start exporing CPU players getting different attributes again. Even if it isn't crazy high ones, even if we randomly assign some 30 TPE, it would allow teams to form identities based on player build/style for their CPU players and even though it wouldn't even come close to saving a struggling team, it could still be interesting. We also should be able to name CPU players. Seeing NYA LW 2 score a goal may be humorous but it always adds to the disconnect for me of what we are doing. Yeah it's a sim league, but we could come up with some funny naming schemes to replace it that I think will get people interested a bit more. 

[JardyB10 4,865]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

 

 

I know your mostly joking, but on top of this idea I really think we should start exporing CPU players getting different attributes again. Even if it isn't crazy high ones, even if we randomly assign some 30 TPE, it would allow teams to form identities based on player build/style for their CPU players and even though it wouldn't even come close to saving a struggling team, it could still be interesting. We also should be able to name CPU players. Seeing NYA LW 2 score a goal may be humorous but it always adds to the disconnect for me of what we are doing. Yeah it's a sim league, but we could come up with some funny naming schemes to replace it that I think will get people interested a bit more. 

I wasn't joking at all, all CPUs have 99 LD and EX now.

 

And I was kind of thinking stuff like that as well, because as I was changing everyone's shit to 99, I remembered the TPE we gave GMs to build their backup goalies with. Not that I forgot the backups had TPE (and GMs always have the option of adjusting that but they probably forgot and I never cared to remind them), but I forgot how much we gave them. I think it worked out to like, 230 TPE. Which seems like a lot to me! Or maybe it isn't, I don't know.

 

Anywho, as I was saying, I was also thinking of ideas such as yours, but maybe as a kind of Player Store option or something. Like, a GM could buy more TPE for his backup was my knee jerk thought, but I didn't like that idea for multiple reasons. But giving it more thought (and I don't overly love the idea of changing CPU names because it saves me some brain space when managing and changing rosters and shit), maybe we can give everyone a cheap PS option where they can rename any CPU they choose, and it sticks for X amount of seasons or something, and they're allowed to use the option X times in a season. Alternatively, they can create their own CPU with a custom name and custom amount of attributes. Or, even better/more hilarious, the created CPU still has to have a total average attributes of 40, but they can take some points out of other attributes! i.e., I take 30 points out of Defence for RIG C1, and put it in Scoring. So he has 70 Scoring and 10 Defence. Obviously we'd need to limit this in such a way that CPUs can't be made significantly more competent, but you get the idea.

[sterling 1,997]

No. They already record enough points, there's no need to buff them

[STZ 5,360]

27 minutes ago, sterling said:

No. They already record enough points, there's no need to buff them

 

Yeah, fuck them they don't donate to Jeff James!

 

#CPULivesMatter

[Advantage 2,891]

I like the changing names idea though.

[Devise 4,475]

9 minutes ago, Advantage said:

I like the changing names idea though.

 

If this happens just to make our Captain @gorlab happy the entire NY team would turn into Bullet Club members. 

 

 

[Jericho 917]

55 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

 

If this happens just to make our Captain @gorlab happy the entire NY team would turn into Bullet Club members. 

 

 

 

Young bucks!!!!!!

[scoop 3,432]

The season we allow CPU names to change is the season I stop recording career stats, just fyi.

[Molholt 2,185]

7 minutes ago, Streetlight said:

The season we allow CPU names to change is the season I stop recording career stats, just fyi.

 

Yeah this. Please don't do this.

[Advantage 2,891]

10 minutes ago, Streetlight said:

The season we allow CPU names to change is the season I stop recording career stats, just fyi.

True

[JardyB10 4,865]

7 hours ago, Streetlight said:

The season we allow CPU names to change is the season I stop recording career stats, just fyi.

 

7 hours ago, Molholt said:

 

Yeah this. Please don't do this.

As I said, I also don't love the idea because it would indeed be a headache working with pseudo-cyborgs, but is there a technical reason for this, or would it just get difficult to keep track of useless players? Genuinely curious because I'm dumb.

[Molholt 2,185]

10 minutes ago, JardyB10 said:

 

As I said, I also don't love the idea because it would indeed be a headache working with pseudo-cyborgs, but is there a technical reason for this, or would it just get difficult to keep track of useless players? Genuinely curious because I'm dumb.

 

Its very easy to distinguish real players from computers currently. If everyone was named that wouldn't be the case. 

[JardyB10 4,865]

32 minutes ago, Molholt said:

 

Its very easy to distinguish real players from computers currently. If everyone was named that wouldn't be the case. 

That would be my issue with it as well. But if that happens to be the only issue, we could always keep the team marker in front of the name, like we did when we made the odd gag player, i.e. TOR CAPTAIN PRICE. The only confusing player in the index would be Que Cumberbatch.

[Jericho 917]

2 hours ago, JardyB10 said:

That would be my issue with it as well. But if that happens to be the only issue, we could always keep the team marker in front of the name, like we did when we made the odd gag player, i.e. TOR CAPTAIN PRICE. The only confusing player in the index would be Que Cumberbatch.

 

 

NYA Senor Chang

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

20 hours ago, JardyB10 said:

Now excuse me while I give all the CPUs the Leadership and Experience they deserve after nearly 50 seasons of loyal hockey playing!

Inb4 CPU auto retirements.

[BOOM 8,753]

CPU Blue Team IMO.

[gorlab 4,321]

#CPULivesMatter