Bring (back?) coaches to the VHL

[studentized 166]

 

Another suggestion I thought I'd pitch but since I don't like to do anything for free, I'm writing it up here for some TPE. I'm not sure about the history of coaches in the VHL and if they have existed in the past, but it seems like an interesting route to explore.

 

Coaches have editable attributes like players do: https://vhlportal.com/VHL/70/Coaches.php

 

These provide stat boosts to players for games. 

 

Coach effects can be completely turned off as a league setting (which I assume we have done since we have no pro coaches), but if enabled, everything I've found suggests they would have an effect on player ratings in sim engine 1.1. Again, like my last suggestion I have no idea how large an effect it would have but it would just give another dimension to play with. Some testing out prior to making any change should be done.

 

How I could see it work:

1. Coaches are managed by GMs. 

2. All GMs get the SAME fixed amount of TPE to spend on their coach, allocating it however they like. Maybe even use the same update scale.

3. Coach stats can only be updated in off-season (just to try to prevent someone over using it to win a matchup every game). Maybe this part is dumb. 

Would be curious if anyone has played around with coaches before in STHS (VHL or otherwise). No idea if their effect is even worth the overhead they'd bring, but its something else that could add a bit of change to what we've been used to.

[Banackock 8,049]

So basically AGM’s just more buffed? I think I brought this idea or something close to it up once upon a time and it got shut down. Looking/thinking back, I see why: 

 

I feel like there’s too much maintenance, work etc for very little reward to the entire community and it effects a small group of players. I just don’t see it as something the league needs or something that would strongly benefit the league and would be more of a pain in the ass/burn out thing than anything else. 
 

Similar to my idea of VHL teams etc having owners, making money matter more and having values on VHL organizations. Similar to like Franchise mode on NHL... the idea sounds sweet and would probably be amazing fun, but when you’re weighing every side, is the work worth what’s being offered? For that idea, probably not. It might add lots for some, and some for some, but for most it may be whatever and for the league as a whole and for those who run it, it’ll just be more work than a good thing.

 

Awesome stuff though man on these suggestions. I love seeing this stuff and being part of good conversations to make the league a better place!   @studentized

[Beaviss 4,957]

I had a suggestion awhile ago that players could sign up to be a coach just like a player and then teams could sign them etc. Some people might have some fun with it and it could be fun to see the coach vs GM dynamic in the game.

[Banackock 8,049]

But with that said... I’m NEVER against these ideas. I just feel like it’s a bigger system than it seems and would take a lot of work and the care and attention wouldn’t quite be there from those that it would need to be. 

[Peace 1,532]

If @Beketov and @Devise would update the pro coaches option on STHS... this might just be a good idea! 

I assume it could be easily updated with a bit of coding rework, just like the ratings file? 

[ThePerfectNut 563]

I really like those coach ideas. It really depends if the GMs feels likes it's a burden for them. 

[Devise 4,475]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

If @Beketov and @Devise would update the pro coaches option on STHS... this might just be a good idea! 

I assume it could be easily updated with a bit of coding rework, just like the ratings file? 

 

That is something my research hasn't covered yet with STHS. Does anybody have any information on what coaches actually do in STHS? 

[Rayzor_7 741]

1 minute ago, Devise said:

 

That is something my research hasn't covered yet with STHS. Does anybody have any information on what coaches actually do in STHS? 

Simply based on the manual:
PH - Physical Style - How good the coach is on creating physical strategy.
DF - Defense Style - How good the coach is on creating defense strategy.
OF - Offense Style - How good the coach is on creating offense strategy.
PD - Player Discipline - How good the coach is on player discipline.
EX - Experience - Experience of the coach.
LP - Leadership - Leadership of the coach.
PO - Potential - Potential to become better.

 

League Setting:

Coaches - the influence the coach has on a team (default is 50)

 

It would definitely need a testing to see what it changes and how it affects the GM's set strategy. Simply; it seems to slightly adjust or boost strategy based on coach skill and discipline.

[Devise 4,475]

So it's like a separate player with it's own attributes ergo some coaches would be better than others? 

 

It's a neat concept, balancing it would be hard. I guess GM's could get a percentage of TPE based on their weekly earnings to add to the GM's attributes. Would coaches stick with teams even after turnover? Would be tough to do that if a specific GM builds their coach a specific way and then a new person takes over and doesn't like how heavy they are in one area.

 

Again, intriguing, lots of details to work out. I'd be curious to see how people would like it done and if it'd work though. 

[Doomsday 4,130]

Make coach a position, like with a player. The coach has a career arc where earning TPE can improve their attributes and make them a better coach. They would need a separate TPE scale and would have a longer than eight season career. Maybe the TPE they earn for their player could also be applied to the coach? Just thinking out loud. 

[Devise 4,475]

3 minutes ago, Doomsday said:

Make coach a position, like with a player. The coach has a career arc where earning TPE can improve their attributes and make them a better coach. They would need a separate TPE scale and would have a longer than eight season career. Maybe the TPE they earn for their player could also be applied to the coach? Just thinking out loud. 

 

What happens if we don't have 12 active coaches, one for every team? What happens if one coach is more active than the others? Again the point here is your taking away something that GM's already don't have to worry about and adding a burden. The only way this works is if no team gets an advantage out the gate with this. Once we are off and running, fine those swings come from the decisions people make. But similar to GM's all it takes is one to slip and suddenly one team and it's members are at a disadvantage which can lead to problems. 

 

I'm presuming if this was a role the coach, not the GM, would be responsible for sending in all lines as well. So that takes away something GM's already get the freedom to do on top of that. 

[Victor 10,942]

18 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

That is something my research hasn't covered yet with STHS. Does anybody have any information on what coaches actually do in STHS? 

Not much based on when they were implemented here circa S20.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Don't really see why. We're primarily a player sim league, not a GM league. I'd think we want all teams to be (relatively) the same from a sim engine standpoint.

 

Line ups and strategies are one thing, but once you start adding other stats and multipliers in there, I think it starts to stray from the main focus of the league.

[Doomsday 4,130]

8 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

What happens if we don't have 12 active coaches, one for every team? What happens if one coach is more active than the others? Again the point here is your taking away something that GM's already don't have to worry about and adding a burden. The only way this works is if no team gets an advantage out the gate with this. Once we are off and running, fine those swings come from the decisions people make. But similar to GM's all it takes is one to slip and suddenly one team and it's members are at a disadvantage which can lead to problems. 

 

I'm presuming if this was a role the coach, not the GM, would be responsible for sending in all lines as well. So that takes away something GM's already get the freedom to do on top of that. 

 

If it has a negligible effect, then there's already nothing to worry about. I like the idea of strategy and tactics meaning something, but if the coaches add nothing, then there's no need to complicate a working formula. 

[Jubis 1,348]

I'll coach 

[studentized 166]

Yeah I totally see the maintenance vs reward payoff, which is why I'd vote to keep it simple (I.e every team gets the same tpe to apply to coach stats, but can spend it on different attributes. I'd also minimize the times they can update coach stats to maybe just once per season so that its not a burden to simmers.)

 

As far as what they do: the higher the coach tpe, the higher the game boost to related player stats. The global league setting can also be used to limit how much of an effect they can have.