Have we Exhausted V1?

[.sniffuM 1,741]

1 hour ago, Devise said:

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

 

Franchise Hockey Manager has made some forward steps but isn't there yet imo. They have a lot more attributes, which go 1-20, wouldn't allow for our current playoff system (for an 8 team league they can do 2 teams, 3 teams, 4 teams, 6 teams, 8 teams, 8 teams reseeding, and something called FHL playoffs [4 teams]), and the game generally doesn't have the type of polish necessary for what we need, plus it can crash from time to time. If people reeeeeeeeeeally want me to put in the effort to test sim with it I can but that starts with me figuring out how I'd convert VHL attributes from STHS to FHM so I'd certainly need some more hockey savvy people to help.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

For reference in case there is interest in exploring FHM, here are attributes in the game.

 

Hidden Attributes

 

Spoiler

 

Injury Proneness

Prone Head

Prone Torso

Prone Arms

Prone Legs (I know none of these would matter but for posterity's sake I put them in)

Big Games

Consistency

Adaptability

Greed

Loyalty

Ambition

Sportsmanship

Aging

Pass/Shoot Tendency (higher is more shot tendency)

Coachability

Mood

Intelligence

Controversy

Handle Failure

Handle Success

Handle Critics

 

 

Mental Attributes

 

Spoiler

Aggression

Bravery

Determination

Teamplayer

Leadership

Professionalism

Temperament

Mental Toughness (goalie attribute)

Goalie Stamina

 

Offense Attributes

 

Spoiler

Offensive Potential (1-1000, wouldn't be used by us)

Screening

Getting Open

Passing

Puckhandling

Shooting Accuracy

Shooting Range

Offensive Read

 

Defense Attributes

 

Spoiler

Defensive Potential (1-1000, wouldn't be used by us)

Checking

Hitting

Positioning

Stickchecking

Shot Blocking

Faceoffs

Defensive Read

 

Physical Attributes (Not used by goalies)

 

Spoiler

Acceleration

Agility

Balance

Speed

Stamina

Strength

Fighting

 

Goalie Attributes

 

Spoiler

Goalie Potential (1-1000, wouldn't be used by us)

Blocker

Glove

Passing

Poke Check

Positioning

Rebound

Recovery

Puckhandling

Low Shots

Reflexes

Skating

 

There are also 1-20 position ratings for G, LD, RD, LW, RW, and C. It also appears as if attributes actually go 1-40 rather than 1-20, but anything over 20 is god tier, and I've never seen higher than a 22 in a regular game although I only have like 30 hours into the entire series.

Edited October 21, 2018 by .sniffuM

[Peace 1,518]

I have tons of experience in FHM, as I'm one of the rare few who preferred it over Eastside Hockey Manager. 

However, I'm not sure if there is anyway to use the portal with FHM. You'd have to do everything manually unless you started an online league, but then you're simulating more of a general manager experience rather than an individual experience. There's no direct way, as far as I know, to use FHM on a player-to-player basis. I don't think it would work with VHL, unless someone was really devoted and added in every single free agent, updated every single player update, etc, etc. 

[Victor 10,829]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

I have tons of experience in FHM, as I'm one of the rare few who preferred it over Eastside Hockey Manager. 

However, I'm not sure if there is anyway to use the portal with FHM. You'd have to do everything manually unless you started an online league, but then you're simulating more of a general manager experience rather than an individual experience. There's no direct way, as far as I know, to use FHM on a player-to-player basis. I don't think it would work with VHL, unless someone was really devoted and added in every single free agent, updated every single player update, etc, etc. 

I mean about 5 seasons ago that's what we did with STHS. And for the first many season it was literally one person.

 

Would be a step back at this point though.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

@Will @Beketov for V2 back to my suggestion of archetypes kinda like the SHL tbh. Certain caps set, you can only hit so high for primaries and secondaries. Then strengths and weaknesses as well. Also you could change the update scale yet again or you can just make goalies easier to get their attributes up. Maybe start them like 50 across the board or something to help keep up with this.

[Beketov 8,939]

8 minutes ago, Trifecta said:

@Will @Beketov for V2 back to my suggestion of archetypes kinda like the SHL tbh. Certain caps set, you can only hit so high for primaries and secondaries. Then strengths and weaknesses as well. Also you could change the update scale yet again or you can just make goalies easier to get their attributes up. Maybe start them like 50 across the board or something to help keep up with this.

My question will remain: is a major change like that worth it? From what I understand V2 doesn’t add much except a few select attributes. Do we force a complete re-work of how the VHL functions for the sake of a couple of stats?

 

There’s an argument to be made both ways but personally I think no. Those stats mean very little to me, I hardly deem them worthy of an overhaul of that scale. As far as archetypes specifically are concerned I have the same annoyance with them that I always have. I hate the idea that someone who works their ass off simply has artificial limitations put into them from the get-go. In addition, no matter how hard we try to balance things STHS remains STHS. There will always be stats that over-value the others which means there will always be archetypes that are better. I to k you’d find that after a season or two everyone would use the exact same ones and we’d be in the same position we are now so far as builds are concerned but with people more artificially limited in what they can do.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

IMO, somebody should create a league run on FHM or something for shits and giggles. Make all VHL tasks able to be carried over to there.

 

I don't really know how it would work, and I don't know if you could add players after you started a save, but I'd love to go into it.

[omgitshim 899]

I wouldn't mind seeing at least a test with one of the newer engines that expand upon the defensive stats and may be more realistic. If something like having 99s in stats becomes an issue one way or another, you could possibly tinker with the scale a bit and cap everyone at like 90-95 or something that doesn't break the sim in half. I wouldn't rush into changes or anything but if the newer versions can provide a better overall experience, it would be worth exploring our options, even if it might require some outside the box thinking.

[Beketov 8,939]

6 hours ago, omgitshim said:

I wouldn't mind seeing at least a test with one of the newer engines that expand upon the defensive stats and may be more realistic. If something like having 99s in stats becomes an issue one way or another, you could possibly tinker with the scale a bit and cap everyone at like 90-95 or something that doesn't break the sim in half. I wouldn't rush into changes or anything but if the newer versions can provide a better overall experience, it would be worth exploring our options, even if it might require some outside the box thinking.

You just saw the test, it was massively failed? If there’s a way to do that second part without manually editing all the players I’ll try it but right now I don’t have time to manually edit 100 players.

 

Also any messing with the scale will need to be done all around, not just at the high end. Otherwise players in their 6th and 7th seasons for example, who really SHOULD be better, will have basically the same stats as rookies. We should not get any closer to that then where we already are.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

19 hours ago, Beketov said:

My question will remain: is a major change like that worth it? From what I understand V2 doesn’t add much except a few select attributes. Do we force a complete re-work of how the VHL functions for the sake of a couple of stats?

 

There’s an argument to be made both ways but personally I think no. Those stats mean very little to me, I hardly deem them worthy of an overhaul of that scale. As far as archetypes specifically are concerned I have the same annoyance with them that I always have. I hate the idea that someone who works their ass off simply has artificial limitations put into them from the get-go. In addition, no matter how hard we try to balance things STHS remains STHS. There will always be stats that over-value the others which means there will always be archetypes that are better. I to k you’d find that after a season or two everyone would use the exact same ones and we’d be in the same position we are now so far as builds are concerned but with people more artificially limited in what they can do.

 

The thing is it opens up opportunities though tbh. You don't see everyone in hockey being able to be great at everything. You don't see anyone in any sport being great at everything. Sure LeBron is awesome, but he has is limitations. Same with Brady and so on and so forth with sports.

[Baozi 1,658]

If its the attys that are a problem, can't you just roll back everything attribute wise by a certain % and do the same to the update scale?

[Beketov 8,939]

30 minutes ago, Trifecta said:

 

The thing is it opens up opportunities though tbh. You don't see everyone in hockey being able to be great at everything. You don't see anyone in any sport being great at everything. Sure LeBron is awesome, but he has is limitations. Same with Brady and so on and so forth with sports.

Yes, those guys have limitations but they are natural limitations they have learned to live with. I know your argument will be that we’ll learn to live with them as well which is true BUT these guys didn’t pick their limitations, we would. That means when one comes out as obviously better than the others (which one will for sure) then everyone will just use that one. So all those opportunities go out the window.

 

There’s also the fact that our engine definitely rates certain things higher. For example a passer archetype would be tough because it rates scoring simply higher in the formula. I have roughly even assist and goal numbers while having 97 scoring and 40 passing.

 

20 minutes ago, tfong said:

If its the attys that are a problem, can't you just roll back everything attribute wise by a certain % and do the same to the update scale?

Probably could but it would have to be a pretty hefty percent to keep the same scale. Up to 70 is still 1 TPE so even if we started people at 0 you’re adding 70 TPE per attribute to get to the sameengine breaking levels. In the grand scheme of things that’s not much to still likely have the same problem.

 

We also have to question at what point we lose the league’s identity of sorts for the sake of 2 statistics.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

Yes, those guys have limitations but they are natural limitations they have learned to live with. I know your argument will be that we’ll learn to live with them as well which is true BUT these guys didn’t pick their limitations, we would. That means when one comes out as obviously better than the others (which one will for sure) then everyone will just use that one. So all those opportunities go out the window.

 

There’s also the fact that our engine definitely rates certain things higher. For example a passer archetype would be tough because it rates scoring simply higher in the formula. I have roughly even assist and goal numbers while having 97 scoring and 40 passing.

 

i get what you are saying, but do you think that everyone in the SHL or SBA or even EFL runs with the same archetypes? Far from it. People like different positions and try for different archetypes. It all depends on how much effort is being applied to the updates to even be good and if the person knows how to build properly. You may see a handful doing the same thing but at the same time others will want to run with something else. This would take more research but maybe V2 engine makes passing a little more valuable and such tbh. It would take some tinkering and all but I am certain things would be more interesting for sure. It opens up more things in the record books and stuff but with archetypes, limitations and stuff, it would also help with the high scoring that V2 puts in place.

[Beketov 8,939]

17 minutes ago, Trifecta said:

it would also help with the high scoring that V2 puts in place.

This is the main issue though: I don’t think it would. Unless you’re talking ridiculously strict limits. Anyone with scoring in the 90’s is likely to score insane amounts so far as I can tell.

 

If there’s a way to easily mass edit the players and we can really play around with the numbers maybe we can try but I don’t think having scoring go up to 90+ at all will work with V2 based on the kind of scoring numbers these tests show. At that point I feel like it’s artificially limiting too much for the sake of 2 statistics.

[Enorama 2,030]

15 hours ago, DollarAndADream said:

IMO, somebody should create a league run on FHM or something for shits and giggles. Make all VHL tasks able to be carried over to there.

 

I don't really know how it would work, and I don't know if you could add players after you started a save, but I'd love to go into it.

 

EHM has a third-party editor where you could edit prospects into the database. You need a full roster to play though and you can't edit icetime to the same extent that you can on STHS.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

44 minutes ago, Beketov said:

This is the main issue though: I don’t think it would. Unless you’re talking ridiculously strict limits. Anyone with scoring in the 90’s is likely to score insane amounts so far as I can tell.

 

If there’s a way to easily mass edit the players and we can really play around with the numbers maybe we can try but I don’t think having scoring go up to 90+ at all will work with V2 based on the kind of scoring numbers these tests show. At that point I feel like it’s artificially limiting too much for the sake of 2 statistics.

 

That's the thing. Make 90 be the cap. If someone wants to hit the max cap of 99, put in a really harsh update scale of like 25 per one from 90>99 but make it also where it has to be purchased as well. That way people can still achieve it but they really have to work their asses off to enjoy it.

[Baozi 1,658]

4 hours ago, Beketov said:

Yes, those guys have limitations but they are natural limitations they have learned to live with. I know your argument will be that we’ll learn to live with them as well which is true BUT these guys didn’t pick their limitations, we would. That means when one comes out as obviously better than the others (which one will for sure) then everyone will just use that one. So all those opportunities go out the window.

 

There’s also the fact that our engine definitely rates certain things higher. For example a passer archetype would be tough because it rates scoring simply higher in the formula. I have roughly even assist and goal numbers while having 97 scoring and 40 passing.

 

Probably could but it would have to be a pretty hefty percent to keep the same scale. Up to 70 is still 1 TPE so even if we started people at 0 you’re adding 70 TPE per attribute to get to the sameengine breaking levels. In the grand scheme of things that’s not much to still likely have the same problem.

 

We also have to question at what point we lose the league’s identity of sorts for the sake of 2 statistics.

 

Well for the up to 70, you'd just lower the "up to part" by an equal % i mean. It would just mean fewer attys would ever reach 90. Which in itself would just be a super big achievement.

[Beketov 8,939]

5 minutes ago, tfong said:

 

Well for the up to 70, you'd just lower the "up to part" by an equal % i mean. It would just mean fewer attys would ever reach 90. Which in itself would just be a super big achievement.

@Will is there a way to mass modify so all attributes drop by a certain percent so we can actually test this or will it involve manually editing every player?

[Quik 4,113]

10 minutes ago, Beketov said:

@Will is there a way to mass modify so all attributes drop by a certain percent so we can actually test this or will it involve manually editing every player?

I would assume it's the same as just regressing? Just change the percentage to like 15-30% on all attributes, and go with that?

 

I wouldn't mind seeing v2 if that's a possibility, then if it works, we could look into changing the update scale to start skaters off at 20, with a scale looking something like:

 

20-40 = 1 (20 / 20)

40-50 = 2 (20 / 40)

50-60 = 3 (30 / 70)

60-70 = 4 (40 / 110)

70-80 = 5 (50 / 160)

80-85 = 6 (30 / 190)

85-90 = 8 (40 / 230)

90-95 = 12 (60 / 290)

95-99 = 15 (60 / 350)

 

The current scale costs 185 to hit 99, so the equivalent would become 85, which I think might be easier on the engine? My only thing is how would it affect lower end skaters and goalies? You'd still have some people trying to break things, with 99 scoring, but it'd be difficult to get other meaningful attributes updated if they focus solely on scoring (I wouldn't mind tossing in a couple players with 99 scoring and everything else at like 35, to see how that affects the sim).