Project jRuutu (Amount of Players per Team)

[Beketov 9,095]

19 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

So couldn't we just adjust current attributes and update scale? You'd do some math or something with the old update scale, and convert the amount of TPE you spent in that attribute to TPE spent in that attribute with the new scale.

 

So if you spent 10 tpe to get scoring from 40 --> 50, and the new update would be 2 tpe per point from 40 --> 50 you'd have 45 scoring after that.

We’re looking into it and testing but it’s not as simple a simple just a harsh update scale. For example, if we allow attributes higher than 90, irregardless of how hard they are to get, it’ll create godlike players so a cap may also be required. Like i said, we’re looking into methods. I just wanted to point out that simply having players get tired won’t fix the issue when they score on every second shot they take.

 

33 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

There are ways to make sure that doesn't happen....

That don’t involve micromanaging every team? I don’t like the idea of telling GM’s the exact amount of each position they need to have. Takes a lot of potential strategy and building out of the job.

[Beaviss 4,958]

5 minutes ago, Beketov said:

We’re looking into it and testing but it’s not as simple a simple just a harsh update scale. For example, if we allow attributes higher than 90, irregardless of how hard they are to get, it’ll create godlike players so a cap may also be required. Like i said, we’re looking into methods. I just wanted to point out that simply having players get tired won’t fix the issue when they score on every second shot they take.

 

That don’t involve micromanaging every team? I don’t like the idea of telling GM’s the exact amount of each position they need to have. Takes a lot of potential strategy and building out of the job.

 

I agree but saying that third liners have to play 20% of the game at least isn't a massive deal imo.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

If teams actually agree to add the players but some GM’s have already flat out said they’d continue to have 2 lines so because they can win with that.

 

Well, I'm not opposed to that. btw, there is the last season Helsinki that managed to make the finals with three lines. didn't win cause of Stopko, but they def were legit.

[Esso2264 774]

what if the 8 years career started when you hit the VHL instead of when you get drafted? if you stay in the VHLM 3 seasons its because you're a slow earner and you're not at the cap anyway.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Esso2264

[rjfryman 1,120]

 

 

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

1. V3 is just the sim version, we already use that. You’re thinking the engine which is V2.

2. Fatigue and Injuries alone would most certainly not fix our stat issues with V2 without any further changes. We’re talking top players scoring over 450 points a season with 50% shooting percentages. Even if they are playing half their current minutes it’s safe to assume we’d still have players will over 200 points a season. Attributes are simply too high for V2 right now, period. Fatigue won’t fix that.

35 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

So couldn't we just adjust current attributes and update scale? You'd do some math or something with the old update scale, and convert the amount of TPE you spent in that attribute to TPE spent in that attribute with the new scale.

 

So if you spent 10 tpe to get scoring from 40 --> 50, and the new update would be 2 tpe per point from 40 --> 50 you'd have 45 scoring after that.

 

So what would be an appropriate TPE scale look like in order to make it so that points would be normal to what we are seeing? Also, could it look like instead of starting off at 40 everything we start off at 20 or some ridiculously low number and have scaling start lower? 

[Enorama 2,039]

22 minutes ago, Beketov said:

irregardless

 

[Nykonax 1,566]

25 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I just wanted to point out that simply having players get tired won’t fix the issue when they score on every second shot they take. 

Seems like part of that issue is goalies then. Goalies in the VHL don't have the same TPE levels as the forwards, so it makes sense that they wouldn't be as good. So with the new update scale they'd need to have a less harsher one, or a cap that isn't as hard.

 

28 minutes ago, Beketov said:

it’ll create godlike players so a cap may also be required

You could also use this cap and add "archetypes" to the VHL. It would add some more flavor and thinking to the build, instead of just everyone having the main attributes capped out. Could have a playmaker archetype, with a scoring cap of 70. Or take it in another direction and have strengths/weaknesses, which would use a harsher/easier update scale if its a strength or weakness

[Beketov 9,095]

2 hours ago, Nykonax said:

Seems like part of that issue is goalies then. Goalies in the VHL don't have the same TPE levels as the forwards, so it makes sense that they wouldn't be as good. So with the new update scale they'd need to have a less harsher one, or a cap that isn't as hard.

 

You could also use this cap and add "archetypes" to the VHL. It would add some more flavor and thinking to the build, instead of just everyone having the main attributes capped out. Could have a playmaker archetype, with a scoring cap of 70. Or take it in another direction and have strengths/weaknesses, which would use a harsher/easier update scale if its a strength or weakness

It’s not a goalie thing. The creator of the engine has flat out told us the engine isn’t built to have attributes in the 90’s; let alone multiple of them. Why he allows it I have no idea but that’s the way it is. Attributes have less effect than sliders in V1 so we can have things normal for us. But in V2 sliders have very little effect compared to attributes so attributes as high as ours, no matter the goalies, doesn’t end well.

 

As for archetypes; personally I hate them because everyone will just flock to the same ones anyway. They only make sense on paper, not in practice. Scoring, Skating, Puck Handling, Defense: those are the attributes that matter for basically every build. There’s little point to capping scoring at 70 for a playmaker because adding more to passing and won’t get you any more assists than adding nothing to it and maxing scoring. It makes no sense but that’s how it operates. People will just build the same but with random caps; I’d rather just have a flat cap on everything.

 

Either way it’s being discussed and tested but I don’t think V2 has any real weight toward this discussion.

[Beaviss 4,958]

47 minutes ago, Beketov said:

It’s not a goalie thing. The creator of the engine has flat out told us the engine isn’t built to have attributes in the 90’s; let alone multiple of them. Why he allows it I have no idea but that’s the way it is. Attributes have less effect than sliders in V1 so we can have things normal for us. But in V2 sliders have very little effect compared to attributes so attributes as high as ours, no matter the goalies, doesn’t end well.

 

As for archetypes; personally I hate them because everyone will just flock to the same ones anyway. They only make sense on paper, not in practice. Scoring, Skating, Puck Handling, Defense: those are the attributes that matter for basically every build. There’s little point to capping scoring at 70 for a playmaker because adding more to passing and won’t get you any more assists than adding nothing to it and maxing scoring. It makes no sense but that’s how it operates. People will just build the same but with random caps; I’d rather just have a flat cap on everything.

 

Either way it’s being discussed and tested but I don’t think V2 has any real weight toward this discussion.

 

Lowering icetime might help the extreme scoring 

[Beketov 9,095]

29 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

Lowering icetime might help the extreme scoring 

As I said though, it wouldn’t be that extreme. Even if we looked at a really extreme example and said top guys would lose half their ice time (a whole other issue) that means they are shooting 50% as much as they were before. That’s great but they are still scoring on 50% of those shots. Their shooting percentage isn’t likely to go down from less ice time. So at best with 50% less ice time they’d have half as many points but that’s still well over 200. Ice time alone will not normalize those stats so there’s no way in my mind that an argument for this could have anything to do with V2, they simply aren’t related enough.

[omgitshim 903]

I voted for 6-4-1 but after reading through the thread, I think I'm leaning more towards the 9-4-1 group now instead. One thing to remember though is realism or not, 90% of the people here are here because they want to see their player perform and get stats. Requiring every team to have 3 unique lines with 20-25% playtime minimum each isn't hard to do, and even if someone wants to buck the system and only sign 6 players, well now you have a full line of bots playing 12-15 minutes a game (maybe even make bots worse than they are now to really discourage that). I wouldn't be opposed at all to adding fatigue to the game to help limit minutes (hell adding Endurance as an update stat for skaters would probably be a good thing given how it's a bit easy to max out now), and if we end up somehow getting a hard cap to minutes that's significantly lower than now, you can always fiddle with the sliders a bit to boost scoring a bit (sorry goalies). It's definitely a HELL NO to injuries though, having your player not play because of RNG is one of the quickest ways to get people to quit, period.

 

For those who want longer careers to counteract getting stuck in the 2nd or 3rd string, remember that means that the players ahead of you are going to play an extra year too, so you are really just delaying yourself even longer. I don't think there's too much reason to increase past the current 8 (though I do think that those 8 shouldn't start until you actually make it out of the VHLM).

 

Switching to the updated engine would still need a lot of testing regardless from what it sounds like. I don't think it would be unreasonable to adjust the scale to hard cap all stats at 90 or 80 or whatever is necessary so that the engine doesn't implode upon itself, but it would still take a lot of time to find that sweet spot value and corresponding update scale/range so that it feels similar to what we have now. Most people like offense, so increased scoring overall is good within reason (especially if it's spread out over more players), but obviously 400 point seasons and 50% shooting percentage is too outrageous.

[Beaviss 4,958]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

As I said though, it wouldn’t be that extreme. Even if we looked at a really extreme example and said top guys would lose half their ice time (a whole other issue) that means they are shooting 50% as much as they were before. That’s great but they are still scoring on 50% of those shots. Their shooting percentage isn’t likely to go down from less ice time. So at best with 50% less ice time they’d have half as many points but that’s still well over 200. Ice time alone will not normalize those stats so there’s no way in my mind that an argument for this could have anything to do with V2, they simply aren’t related enough.

 

A combination of lower icetime mixed with stat reduction we could get a wider window though.

[DollarAndADream 3,357]

I think more players required per team would definitely create a new era. New players would never be able to break any records, because they would never be getting top minutes right away like a lot of the record holders did.

 

I'm not sure about the career lengths either if we go with 9 or 12 forwards. You wouldn't be able to crack the top 6 until like year 2-4, but at the same time it's hard to really figure that out because guys retire and some guys are active enough to crack the top line in year 2.

 

There's a lot of pros and cons to this. For me, I have the SHL to go to for my 'full lineup' needs. Although if the VHL keeps growing like it has, then we'd have to have more players per team, which is fine with me.

[omgitshim 903]

On a side note, we can always just dub a new "modern era" for record purposes if it's significant enough that the current records are untouchable (and I mean some of the first gen records haven't been touched anyway as is).

[eaglesfan036 4,605]

First off, I disagree with having a formal of more than 6f 4d 1g in the first place. But nothing is currently stopping a team from running 9fs as long as they fit in the salary cap.

 

Requiring teams to have a certain number of players is super dumb, too many rules are dumb. If we want more players on teams just raise the salary cap so GMs have more flexibility to do so. 

[Beketov 9,095]

7 hours ago, eaglesfan036 said:

 

Requiring teams to have a certain number of players is super dumb, too many rules are dumb. If we want more players on teams just raise the salary cap so GMs have more flexibility to do so. 

While I agree that the micromanaging of rosters is super dumb it’s not as easy as just raising the cap. Teams have proven for 64 seasons that 2 lines can win effectively so why would they run a depth line with extra cap when they could just get higher paid players to make their two lines better?

 

I guarantee if we raised the cap significantly enough to achieve fuller teams without any kind of roster minimum (which I do hate) we would see teams just using that money for better players instead of more players.

 

One solution that’s been discussed would be to tier the cap so that it increases but only say half of it can be used on prime contracts. So teams get more money but they have to spend a certain portion on rookies or they’ll run out of money faster than they already do. Not sure that would fix all the problems but it is an option.

[Esso2264 774]

36 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Teams have proven for 64 seasons that 2 lines can win effectively

did they have that many players available?

[Beketov 9,095]

18 minutes ago, Esso2264 said:

did they have that many players available?

No but when your players don’t get tired which one is more likely to win: 100% ice time split between your 10 best players evenly or 100% ice time split 3 ways between your 10 best players and 5 rookies. It’s simply logic; having your top players play less will have negative results.

 

Its possible using endurance could fix this mind you, we would need to test that.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

This is a whole lot of discussion trying to fix something that isn't broken. Discussion itself isn't a bad thing, but it seems like we're just creating new problems in order to solve one problem - needing more teams in the VHL.

 

I'm also going to throw it out there that we don't need to continue recruiting at the pace we have been. There is zero harm in slowing down a little bit and allowing league numbers to stabilize. 

[FacePuncher 1,343]

is this a Finnish Project Runway spinoff?

[jRuutu 2,474]

23 hours ago, flyersfan1453 said:

This is a whole lot of discussion trying to fix something that isn't broken. Discussion itself isn't a bad thing, but it seems like we're just creating new problems in order to solve one problem - needing more teams in the VHL.

 

I'm also going to throw it out there that we don't need to continue recruiting at the pace we have been. There is zero harm in slowing down a little bit and allowing league numbers to stabilize. 

To you and everybody who are against/not sure about moving towards deeper line system: What are your thoughts on the ´GMs are allowed to have 2 players´?

 

In my opinion and in general, kinda silly to let them have 2 players in the league and then at same time be worried about players becoming unhappy about ice time. What about the ice time those GM players are taking away? Both in VHLM and in VHL?

 

Not completely crazy thing to say that if even half of the GM´s have 2 players, good chance someone is now playing on the 2nd line instead of 1st line because the GM player is on the first line/pair = Creating new problems.

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by jRuutu

[jRuutu 2,474]

On 4/6/2019 at 1:32 PM, Esso2264 said:

did they have that many players available?

No they did not.

[Beketov 9,095]

11 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

To you and everybody who are against/not sure about moving towards deeper line system: What are your thoughts on the ´GMs are allowed to have 2 players´?

 

In my opinion and in general, kinda silly to let them have 2 players in the league and then at same time be worried about players becoming unhappy about ice time. What about the ice time those GM players are taking away? Both in VHLM and in VHL?

 

Not completely crazy thing to say that if even half of the GM´s have 2 players, good chance someone is now playing on the 2nd line instead of 1st line because the GM player is on the first line/pair = Creating new problems.

 

 

 

FWIW @Will and I tried to eliminate them when we eliminated PP2 altogether but ultimately they make GM transitions a million times easier. It does make a problem like this slightly worse (though at the end of the day we’re talking 1 player per team) but not significantly.

 

I still don’t love them and they do complicate other matters but they offer GM’s more freedom to enjoy their careers without being necessarily on their own team and they make changes easier. Of the solutions suggested it was the one most people agreed with.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

25 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

To you and everybody who are against/not sure about moving towards deeper line system: What are your thoughts on the ´GMs are allowed to have 2 players´?

 

In my opinion and in general, kinda silly to let them have 2 players in the league and then at same time be worried about players becoming unhappy about ice time. What about the ice time those GM players are taking away? Both in VHLM and in VHL?

 

Not completely crazy thing to say that if even half of the GM´s have 2 players, good chance someone is now playing on the 2nd line instead of 1st line because the GM player is on the first line/pair = Creating new problems.

 

 

 

 

I don't really like them. Yes, they help make GM transitions easier, but you're still going to run into the same issue as the original PP2 where it's a ton of work for a member. I would like to see it as more of a "temporary" player 2, where you're not required to retire your current non-GM player once you become GM, but you cannot create another non-GM player until you're done GMing.

[jRuutu 2,474]

22 minutes ago, Beketov said:

FWIW @Will and I tried to eliminate them when we eliminated PP2 altogether but ultimately they make GM transitions a million times easier. It does make a problem like this slightly worse (though at the end of the day we’re talking 1 player per team) but not significantly.

 

I still don’t love them and they do complicate other matters but they offer GM’s more freedom to enjoy their careers without being necessarily on their own team and they make changes easier. Of the solutions suggested it was the one most people agreed with.

100% First things that should be removed is the 2nd players for GMs when it looks like there is not enough space for normal players. Terrible look for the league. Creates unfair advantage and takes valuable prime time opportunities away in a way that would get you banned in basically every other league - one user having 2 players.

 

I kinda understand the reasoning for GM´s, but then again - nobody is forcing them to be a GM, be a normal user and move around. Removing the 2nd player for GM´s could potentially even save you from having to do a expansion as often.

 

12 minutes ago, flyersfan1453 said:

 

I don't really like them. Yes, they help make GM transitions easier, but you're still going to run into the same issue as the original PP2 where it's a ton of work for a member. I would like to see it as more of a "temporary" player 2, where you're not required to retire your current non-GM player once you become GM, but you cannot create another non-GM player until you're done GMing.

I would like it to be removed completely. There is very little VHL gains from the 2nd player system in any way right now. There is enough normal players coming in, give them a chance and you will get a real picture of what the real state of the league is.