Have we Exhausted V1?

[diamond_ace 3,112]

20 minutes ago, Fire Hakstol said:

Absolutely no to making endurance a stat that needs TPE IMO. If we are going to continue (rightly) to embrace that the VHL is based on the 6F 4D 1G roster, then endurance should not be an issue for anyone.

 

Takeaways and giveaways would be nice, but not if we have to change everything just for those stats.

I don't think it's necessarily an either or. It's entirely possible (and was kind of generally where the discussion was leading until the last few posts) to switch to a new version with TA/GA without also making endurance require TPE. I want TA/GA. I'm also pretty well on board with you that I don't want to update endurance because it kind of goes against who we are as a league. There are ways to do both, we just have to see if it can be balanced properly.

[Devise 4,475]

1 hour ago, diamond_ace said:

I don't think it's necessarily an either or. It's entirely possible (and was kind of generally where the discussion was leading until the last few posts) to switch to a new version with TA/GA without also making endurance require TPE. I want TA/GA. I'm also pretty well on board with you that I don't want to update endurance because it kind of goes against who we are as a league. There are ways to do both, we just have to see if it can be balanced properly.

 

But I think your kind of missing the point. It almost is an either or. In all our tests, which were more than just a World Cup with V2 I assure, I've seen Will and Sterling both post test sims of regular seasons from previous VHL years we always get bad results. Even when we mess with it. 

 

STHS V2 is formatted to work with NHL players. NHL teams don't run 6/4/1. They deal with injuries, and stats are in general different. The durability and endurance aspect is a huge reason why the sim works in the NHL format, because it requires more players on rosters. I'm not saying we should go hard that route, only that if we wanted V2 I don't think it's just a matter of tweaking scoring settings. As we've tried that before. It sucks that V2 is a bit more on the realistic side, but that is just how it is. I don't really know if there is much in the way of other settings we can tweak to get other results with the way we have rosters/players structured presently. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Devise

[diamond_ace 3,112]

22 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

But I think your kind of missing the point. It almost is an either or. In all our tests, which were more than just a World Cup with V2 I assure, I've seen Will and Sterling both post test sims of regular seasons from previous VHL years we always get bad results. Even when we mess with it. 

 

STHS V2 is formatted to work with NHL players. NHL teams don't run 6/4/1. They deal with injuries, and stats are in general different. The durability and endurance aspect is a huge reason why the sim works in the NHL format, because it requires more players on rosters. I'm not saying we should go hard that route, only that if we wanted V2 I don't think it's just a matter of tweaking scoring settings. As we've tried that before. It sucks that V2 is a bit more on the realistic side, but that is just how it is. I don't really know if there is much in the way of other settings we can tweak to get other results with the way we have rosters/players structured presently. 

Well according to them, the issue was with proportion of scoring, not with endurance. You raised endurance as a possible way to combat it - definitely not an either or.

[Devise 4,475]

17 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

Well according to them, the issue was with proportion of scoring, not with endurance. You raised endurance as a possible way to combat it - definitely not an either or.

 

I'm not saying the issue is "exclusively" endurance. But the argument that the sim is designed for NHL players would factor in endurance, yes. As I stated, the scoring stats and shot totals end up getting completely messed up from what we are used to yes. But endurance, as well as our roster sizes likely both play pretty big factors in that. STHS simply wasn't designed for the type of league we run. Again it may not be an either or, specific to endurance, but it's likely an either or specific to larger changes that people don't want to do.

 

This isn't just a matter of tweaking a scoring setting or changing some attributes on players blanket. Those things were tried in test sims, and we still got bad results. That was a while ago now, who knows, maybe STHS has seen more updates or optimization since then. I'm sure we can run another test. I'm only pointing out that there is  a chance it could be an either or situation in terms of changes that people (including myself) aren't willing to accommodate. It's why this hasn't happened yet, it's just not a simple fix unfortunately. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Devise

[diamond_ace 3,112]

10 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

I'm not saying the issue is "exclusively" endurance. But the argument that the sim is designed for NHL players would factor in endurance, yes. As I stated, the scoring stats and shot totals end up getting completely messed up from what we are used to yes. But endurance, as well as our roster sizes likely both play pretty big factors in that. STHS simply wasn't designed for the type of league we run. Again it may not be an either or, specific to endurance, but it's likely an either or specific to larger changes that people don't want to do.

 

This isn't just a matter of tweaking a scoring setting or changing some attributes on players blanket. Those things were tried in test sims, and we still got bad results. That was a while ago now, who knows, maybe STHS has seen more updates or optimization since then. I'm sure we can run another test. I'm only pointing out that there is  a chance it could be an either or situation in terms of changes that people (including myself) aren't willing to accommodate. It's why this hasn't happened yet, it's just not a simple fix unfortunately. 

Never said it was a simple fix. What I did say was that it has nothing to do with endurance. I'm finding it interesting that when the people who actually do the test sims spoke up in the thread, endurance wasn't even mentioned. In fact, no one said shit about endurance until you did. Now I'm not saying you're intentionally tying the endurance lead balloon to an issue you want to sink, but both Blues commented in the thread prior to you, and neither of them said a word about endurance until they were replying to your comment (seriously, I ctrl-f'ed "endurance" on the first page - not a single mention until your comment). Whether you're trying to or not, you're equating the two in people's minds, and it's a false equivalence. So not only isn't the issue "exclusively" endurance, I'm not convinced it's even partially endurance.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Switch to v2, allow members to create a second 'filler' player that gets up to 50 TPE a season (TPE earned applies to both players) to fill out the rosters enough to make it work. Boom.

Edited September 27, 2018 by .sniffuM

[Devise 4,475]

31 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

Never said it was a simple fix. What I did say was that it has nothing to do with endurance. I'm finding it interesting that when the people who actually do the test sims spoke up in the thread, endurance wasn't even mentioned. In fact, no one said shit about endurance until you did. Now I'm not saying you're intentionally tying the endurance lead balloon to an issue you want to sink, but both Blues commented in the thread prior to you, and neither of them said a word about endurance until they were replying to your comment (seriously, I ctrl-f'ed "endurance" on the first page - not a single mention until your comment). Whether you're trying to or not, you're equating the two in people's minds, and it's a false equivalence. So not only isn't the issue "exclusively" endurance, I'm not convinced it's even partially endurance.

 

Because your making this specifically about endurance and not seeing that I was connecting endurance to our roster sizes and with STHS being more designed for NHL, endurance is one of those aspects. I'm absolutely sure changing endurance stats wouldn't magically give us better results either. Only that it's one of the things that plays a role in the idea that STHS is designed from the ground up for NHL style player and we've always done it differently. The consequence as the sim upgraded has been an inability to adapt a newer sim version to our own on repeated attempts. 

 

For some reason your making it like my arguments are entirely in favor of replacing endurance, and that because I see a connection between the 99 endurance stats we run and our lower roster numbers to the contrast of traditional STHS with NHL roster, that all my arguments are pursuant to an argument that is "change endurance that is all we need to do." 

 

Even consider our roster sizes for example. The 6/4/1 balance we try to maintain and have for very long due to our affinity for it. It allows just enough players to contribute/be stars and just a little bit of depth that the curve works for us. Whenever we've added more players to rosters than that, traditionally 3rd line players or deeper really struggle. Even in set in lines. Because we have no endurance. 99 endurance means that whenever someone subs out and is "tired" since the sim doesn't play you every minute even if you set it that way. You'll still only play 30+ minutes in most non OT games. But it'll steal minutes from third line players from first ones. Because when someone subs and the sim determines that a replacement isn't fit, it will grab the next available player who is the best. Ergo the higher end players will always play more minutes. 

 

Again I'm not advocating that this is what we should do, switch it to be more realistic. SHL does some of that if I'm not mistaken anyways. Only that to imply endurance isn't connected at all? Come on. It's the very essence of how we get away with our roster sizes and there is a reason we turn it off and even then default everyone to 99 to avoid issues. I bet you even if we didn't turn it on and changed the stats from 99 to even 40 you'd notice a difference in sim results. Also Will did state in his responses that players here have high attributes relative to NHL ratings. Bringing up the idea that STHS is designed for an NHL player rating system. NHL player ratings for STHS are also notable in that players have different amounts of endurance. That is all. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Devise

[diamond_ace 3,112]

10 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

Because your making this specifically about endurance and not seeing that I was connecting endurance to our roster sizes and with STHS being more designed for NHL, endurance is one of those aspects. I'm absolutely sure changing endurance stats wouldn't magically give us better results either. Only that it's one of the things that plays a role in the idea that STHS is designed from the ground up for NHL style player and we've always done it differently. The consequence as the sim upgraded has been an inability to adapt a newer sim version to our own on repeated attempts. 

 

For some reason your making it like my arguments are entirely in favor of replacing endurance, and that because I see a connection between the 99 endurance stats we run and our lower roster numbers to the contrast of traditional STHS with NHL roster, that all my arguments are pursuant to an argument that is "change endurance that is all we need to do." 

 

Even consider our roster sizes for example. The 6/4/1 balance we try to maintain and have for very long due to our affinity for it. It allows just enough players to contribute/be stars and just a little bit of depth that the curve works for us. Whenever we've added more players to rosters than that, traditionally 3rd line players or deeper really struggle. Even in set in lines. Because we have no endurance. 99 endurance means that whenever someone subs out and is "tired" since the sim doesn't play you every minute even if you set it that way. You'll still only play 30+ minutes in most non OT games. But it'll steal minutes from third line players from first ones. Because when someone subs and the sim determines that a replacement isn't fit, it will grab the next available player who is the best. Ergo the higher end players will always play more minutes. 

 

Again I'm not advocating that this is what we should do, switch it to be more realistic. SHL does some of that if I'm not mistaken anyways. Only that to imply endurance isn't connected at all? Come on. It's the very essence of how we get away with our roster sizes and there is a reason we turn it off and even then default everyone to 99 to avoid issues. I bet you even if we didn't turn it on and changed the stats from 99 to even 40 you'd notice a difference in sim results. Also Will did state in his responses that players here have high attributes relative to NHL ratings. Bringing up the idea that STHS is designed for an NHL player rating system. NHL player ratings for STHS are also notable in that players have different amounts of endurance. That is all. 

I know what you're saying, connecting endurance to roster sizes. I'm not missing that. I'm thinking you might be missing part of my point, but let's just simplify this whole thing rather than saying we're each missing the other's point.

 

What I'm saying is if we change the sim version, it is entirely possible we could come to some sort of conclusion via sliders and changing percentages etc. That conclusion may or may not have anything to do with changing the endurance. Yes, our rosters are smaller, and I haven't worked with V2, but let's let them keep testing it out (preferably in a way that the rest of us can see what the scores look like - I'm not convinced the majority of people are going to care if the scoring is up) before we assume that anything pertaining to endurance would need to be changed.

[Victor 10,940]

A separate point for old fucks such as myself in here - we might have exhausted all V1 options personally but like half of the current member base is on their first players. They haven't exhausted anything and I would hate for us to take away the V1 experience in pursuit of some (probably) unrealistic ideals. I mean test away, but I'm pretty sure V1 still offers the best balance of enjoyment for all positions compared to other versions.

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

8 hours ago, Victor said:

A separate point for old fucks such as myself in here - we might have exhausted all V1 options personally but like half of the current member base is on their first players. They haven't exhausted anything and I would hate for us to take away the V1 experience in pursuit of some (probably) unrealistic ideals. I mean test away, but I'm pretty sure V1 still offers the best balance of enjoyment for all positions compared to other versions.

This . V2 killed my shl player in his third season and was the main reason i moved here. V1 is a much more fun experience.

[Beketov 9,025]

Alright, in case anyone was curious, I ran some initial tests. Again, sorry for having such shitty indexes but we can't quite figure that out. A few points to make here before I post these:

 

1. This is based off of last season's database, set up as a new season. So rosters might not be exactly the same but at least they stand the same between the two tests.

2. Obviously these contain no line changes or anything else of the sort.

3. This initial test involved changing absolutely no sliders or any other settings other than switching from V1 to V2. Sliders will be adjusted in fewer tests.

 

Now then, let's get to the indexes.

 

V1 Index

V2 Index

 

A few things of note here. Well first, it's a shame for me that we didn't have Shepherd on the Bears the entire season, holy shit I played well. Anyway, moving on from that. Obviously scoring is completely off the rails in V2. The V1 test had ridiculously high scoring but still was within relatively regular levels. However even with that high scoring it wasn't even close to V2 scoring. The 213 point scoring lead under V1 would have been 27th (675 led the league) in V2 scoring. The highest scoring team in V1 was the Bears with 358 Goals For (League average 234). In V2 the wranglers led the league with a mind-boggling 1333 (League average 687).

 

So yeah, not that anyone figured we'd be able to do this with just changing the version but clearly V2 has some major scoring issues with our current league set up.

 

So, let's change some sliders shall we? Slider changes I made were reducing goals to minimum and cutting the shots in half.

 

V2 Index - New Sliders

 

Okay, so definitely better but still very high scoring. 422 points led the league and V1's leader would have been 14th. The wranglers once again led the league with 916 GF (League average 472) which is still a good chunk above double the highest scoring team under V1.

 

I don't have time right now to mess with attributes but it's definitely not something that can be handled with Sliders alone. The main problem being that scoring numbers are simply FAR too high with league leaders scoring on over 50% of their shots in V2.

[Victor 10,940]

Hahaha that is so bad. That's worse than what I was talking about when I said prior tests showed deep V2 flaws. I suspect given the season was so high scoring even on v1 (few good goalies), that completely throws out v2.

[Beketov 9,025]

10 minutes ago, Victor said:

Hahaha that is so bad. That's worse than what I was talking about when I said prior tests showed deep V2 flaws. I suspect given the season was so high scoring even on v1 (few good goalies), that completely throws out v2.

Guaranteed yes. Even the control sim with V1 has very high scoring so we can really only compare the V2 tests to the control, not more regular seasons, but even then it’s ridiculous. I think what it mostly boils down to is shooting percentages just being through the roof. No amount of tuning shots is gonna help if people are simply scoring on half the shots they take.

[Tagger 2,722]

I think my favourite part of that index is the penalty minutes, Kiaskov spending 20 mins + per game in the penalty box yet still having at least 140+ points 

[Victor 10,940]

2 fights per game lol.

 

But at least we've got takeaways and giveaways!

[Beaviss 4,957]

@Beketov any way of turning up the goalie sliders in v2?

[Victor 10,940]

Actually wait, I don't see any problems here

[hedgehog337 3,483]

5 minutes ago, Victor said:

Actually wait, I don't see any problems here

 

 We have our new hero, @solas gonna break Scotty record with this engine.

[Tyler 885]

Quebec fell off both sims compared to their real result

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

i say we switch to V2 and just run with it. 

[Beketov 9,025]

2 hours ago, Beaviss said:

@Beketov any way of turning up the goalie sliders in v2?

Slider wise, no. I’d need to check to get what can actually be affected but it’s just like goals, shots, penalties, fights, etc. I don’t believe saves is an option.

 

As @Will pointed out the only real system I think that could get us regular numbers would be re-workin attributes somehow. I don’t see sliders coming even remotely close.

[Will 4,660]

42 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Slider wise, no. I’d need to check to get what can actually be affected but it’s just like goals, shots, penalties, fights, etc. I don’t believe saves is an option.

 

As @Will pointed out the only real system I think that could get us regular numbers would be re-workin attributes somehow. I don’t see sliders coming even remotely close.

 

Yup, my experience with the testing was that sliders do very little on V2 - you can set goals and shots to 1 and you will still get those kinds of results. This was very frustrating at first but like I said, after some digging on the STHS forum I found out that the player attributes are weighted much much more heavily than the sliders in V2. 

[Beaviss 4,957]

5 minutes ago, Will said:

 

Yup, my experience with the testing was that sliders do very little on V2 - you can set goals and shots to 1 and you will still get those kinds of results. This was very frustrating at first but like I said, after some digging on the STHS forum I found out that the player attributes are weighted much much more heavily than the sliders in V2. 

 

We should have another discussion about the increased tpe Scale again.

For a couple reasons.

 

The VHL meta is known and after your first - third player it could get stale. Even I'm finding it stale and I'm about to start my third player.

 

More player variety. The amount of stats added in v2 makes making different players actually viable. You can actually see how good players are other than goals and points etc. So you can actually be noticed if your a defensive forward and makes those players more valuable.

 

I could go on but I'm done pooping so I'm stopping here. @Beketov

 

 

[Devise 4,475]

Haha yeah, as people can see very similar to the tests that we ran in Blue seasons and seasons ago. I know we hadn't released a lot of this publicly much but still the same old whacked scoring and fighting. To be fair all our players are at 40 fighting, which I think might be high in terms of attributes or like, middling. I don't know if every NHL player in their stats for example for STHS has 40 fighting. I think some may even have like, 0 or near it. The scale is meant to go from 0-99, us defaulting to 40 has always been something that messes with things I believe. 

 

@Beketov When you have the time could you humor me? Take that exact set up you have in terms of rosters/players/adjusted sliders, and then add bottom level NHL players to their rosters, or even older VHL players. Just like fill up the 3rd/4th lines and the D slots. I know I had a debate about it somewhere with Jason, maybe even this thread, but I'm just curious if micro managing the minutes more realistically has an influence at all, and having more realistic rosters. I still maintain STHS and most hockey engines are all designed from the ground up to feature regular roster sizes, since that is how it normally works in most real leagues. 

 

Like a lot of people shit on STHS during these moments as if it's the engines fault. When in reality I think it's more like we are motherfucking DOS asking why something very specific to us that we prefer can't integrate correctly with Windows 10. But with the results we are getting, it's hard to see anyway to balance this in a way that allows us to leverage the new sim. 

 

Are there any other sims out there besides STHS? Could like a Hockey manager game application even be a substitute for us? 

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Devise

[Enorama 2,038]

9 minutes ago, Devise said:

us defaulting to 40 has always been something that messes with things I believe. 

 

Maybe this could be a way of fixing scoring too. Too many guys have 99 scoring, which would likely be assigned to nobody/next to nobody in an NHL db.