Subject: National team Q&A

I can't comment too much right now but I have a program which essentially uses Ketch and I's theories on how pucks are calculated. It calculates lines with the intention of maximizing pucks... Essentially it spits out the lines that will get me the most pucks in a game.

When we get closer to the date for picking players I'm going to throw all the players submitted into the program, and see what lines it gives us. Those players will be selected.

The Strippers are probably the team with the least amount of pucks and they won the cup.

But they have the goalie with the most amount of pucks, don't they?

only since recently

Anyways, i don't think the amount of pucks should be a #1 priority. I prefer line chemistry and trying to figure out what type of players fit with which tactics.

I got an Idea if anyone cares to read

all the teams I know play there best players on the top line, 2nd best on 2nd etc. why don't we get a group of deticated shutdown specialists to play on our top line to counter other team best scorers. 2nd line is still 2nd best players. And 3rd line is our best players/scores to play against the other teams 3rd best player, and sense their on the 3rd line they still can be on PP. This would only work on perfect line number (4 line team vs 4 line team, 3 on 3 etc.)

Have you tried it with your team? give me some feedback please.

Line chemistry is just a bonus on their skills, it's been hinted at by the creators, and shown mathematically

Line chemistry also just goes up on its own regardless of who plays with who.

Also.. You did win the cup, and at 56 stars, you are one of the teams with the most stars/pucks in Canada.

i was not talking about "line chemistry" as it showes on our line up page but line chemistry as having a good passer/scorer/power fwd on each line and having a offensive dman matched with a stay at home dman. This is just an example, maybe you prefer having a high tech line and another shut down line.

Yeah I don't think the game engine is that robust. Basically I'm going a little different in my direction to try things out. I'm sticking to the only indicator we have from the game engine as to what constitutes a good player/line/team: pucks/stars.

Think of it as a scientific approach. When I do X, I get Y every time. Whereas I view 4:3:2 and things such as having a "shutdown line" has a little more mystic, and untestable by scientific process.

Agreed re: shutdown line. There is no indication that one line is ever matched up against another; having a shutdown unit that plays against the opposing team's worst scoring unit all game makes little sense. I'm a firm believer in creating balance on the 5 on 5 lines and stacking power-play and penalty-kill units.

re: 2:1:1 vs 4:3:2 and the pucks/stars debate - the highest primary attribute likely influences the pucks/stars, but, if the game engine is anything similar to a stratomatic game (and as a descendant of that design, I assume it is), any individual attribute probably influences the outcome of a given play.

For example, offense pucks/stars vs. defense pucks/stars probably creates a random offensive/defensive play (e.g. 1 on 1 rush) with a probability factor involved which is influenced by a random supplementary attribute (e.g. if tec off is > 5 more than tec def then 60% probability of scoring chance, then if shot off is > 5 more than goa def then 60% probability of goal, etc.). The effect of the supplementary attribute is probably asymptotal.

Essentially, my argument is that primary attributes determine the plays which occur and the supplementary (including the secondary) attributes dictate how those plays turn out.

Do you think that the supplementary attributes that are required to dictate how it turns out are related to the secondaries? Or could they even be non-secondary attributes?

Personally I would think they would be the secondaries (and I think that's what you think as well). This is an insight I have not heard. I like that...

I don't think it's limited to the secondaries; any attribute could be the key attribute on the play.

Wingers still have to pass. Centres still need to be aggressive. Defensemen still need to be able to skate and use their sticks (technique). Forwards need to be able to chip in defensively and vice versa. And all skaters need to shoot.

Therefore, secondaries have a dual role: they dictate the cap of the primary attribute and they are used randomly to dictate the probability of a given play's outcome. Again, the probability of that play beginning is connected to the offensive vs defensive pucks/stars.

Sounds like a reasonable way for the game to work to me.

And this is exacly why I don't base myself on 2-1-1 and 4-3-2 or 5-2-1.