Subject: I.1

It seems that everyone that agrees with Opivy and likes the new system are all people that are doing well and haven't seen the situations the rest of us have. I don't think that is a coincidence. If you weren't doing as well you wouldn't be as thrilled as you are now. And you can claim that you have toyed around with several things and figured out what works best for you, which may be the case but I seriously doubt it. When you are doing well, you have no reason to try several different things. And even if you have, you haven't tried anything the rest of us haven't. I'm not saying the game is pure luck or anything like that. I'm just saying that the game hasn't given you guys anything that doesn't make sense to you. When you don't know the "variables" like Opivy suggested then you are paper rock scissors in the dark. Which means you are only guessing instead of having actual estimated ideas.

This isn't about winning and losing, so much as it is information and how it's obtained. I would be having as much fun with only 1 win to my name instead of one loss, because I like trying to figure this stuff out.

As others pointed out, trying to figure this out is time consuming and difficult, just think how much work some teams put in during the accelerated beta to figure out what we knew about the old system.

It's the same everywhere else, when faced with a difficult problem at work, I like trying to figure out a solution, and keep pushing and poking until I do, so that is just a personal thing for me. I am seeing that others don't enjoy it that way, and that's what i'm trying to learn.

I'm not saying I know a solution to the problem, i'm just trying to get a gauge and an understanding on where people are coming from.

don't care if im winning. i like more options even if it isnt clear the end result of the options. fact is there's more variables and i like it that way. "figuring out" whats going on behind the scenes has never been in my plans. i dont do testing and never have. the way i train my players has never changed and isnt going to, nor has the way i play my games and use my tactics. this is when i was losing in II.1 or winning in I.1.

Knowing all the numbers and being the best at finding a formula to exploit it is just boring - from management sim to management sim i see the same guys in the same areas of each game based on their ability to run the numbers. It just becomes a login, update your spreadsheet and logout game - where is the fun in that? The losing, the problems, the frustration and the wins that come from scrapping away are what make it fun to me. If the hardest thing I had to do every day for a game was to figure out whether guy A is trying to counter-strategize me or to do the opposite and pick a tactic that I will never pick a counter to then I don't really want to play that game any longer.

The point isn't that you are winning, the point is that you aren't getting the losses that are confusing others. Because you are winning, nothing seems "odd" to you guys.

So what you are saying is that you would rather have a game that gives you completely random results no matter how you set things up? If thats the case, then why bother even logging on. I have always felt the idea was to build a team in a certain way and use certain tactics and strategies to outplay your opponent. If those tactics and strategies have no rhyme or reason to them anymore then you are just basically crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. Please explain to me how that isn't boring.

I'm not going to go into details because I personally have always been in the "if you figure something out keep it to yourself" camp, but I looked at the tactics this year and made some decisions based on how I was building my players, and yes so far it's worked. Based on my own knowledge of hockey and the descriptions of the strategies, etc.

I think playing a tactic that fits your style has become more important than counter-tactics, for one. And honestly I always hated the "ring of tactics." I shouldn't win because I played defensive against offense, unless my team has a strong defense.

I'm not saying the Ring of Tactics has gone away, but i think you won't have as many games where team A beat team B and it's primarily by guessing tactics.

That's just my opinion, based on my results i've had so far. I'm not looking at statistical break downs of 5000 games or waiting for the Devs to tell me if i'm right or not, which seems to be the trend among some (not here in USA) managers

Learn how to sum things up you monkeys. My eyes hurt now.

Summary:

Some people don't know whats going on with new ME. Some are patient, others are not. Some will quit, others will not.

Move along, nothing to see....

You still see shot differences when you play the tactic wheel, strengths very more and it seems that the tactic has LESS affect now than before but not hugely. For the most part the stronger team wins, most games and leagues are playing out the same.

To each their own but the whining (in other threads) is getting pathetic, they will tweak it and make it better with each iteration, they will not get it perfect each time but the fact that they're moving forward and adding in folds and nuances only speaks to a better game - quitting because you have a bad month in something you've done for years is stupid, if you've just drifted away from the game then I understand.

Anyhow 2c

One of the complaints I have is the shooting, passing, technique/penalty system is still whackadoo. I see guys with tech at 1/2 agg and have very few penalties than guys with tech considerably higher than agg. I see guys with absolutely horrible shooting racking up 25% or higher avg and guys with very high shooting getting in the single digits! The same can be said for forwards with high passing getting few assists and guys that have never looked at passing getting assists all the time. Granted, none of that is new at all, but they said it was being changed. I see no change in that regard.

I do like the way they've gotten away from the tactics wheel as primary consideration. I think myself, and perhaps others, are frustrated over not seeing any clear indication of what the other factors are. Coming in a system where some attributes mean very little like I pointed out in first paragraph it makes it hard to think you can trust an attribute system.

As I've said in other forums, one of the problems is sample size. If you could sim out 500 of each game you'll begin to see patterns. But don't look for patterns in 1 game or even 38 games with tons of variables across an entire season. That's why I don't look into the games I do lose to "weaker" opponents. I just go about my business and have fun making changes on a whim. Flyers, whether it be the old system or the new I've seen plenty of results, both wins and losses. The wins offer the same perspective as the losses in terms of decision-making. I guess I'll just remove myself from the conversation since I dont have anything constructive to add but not all of us wants answers or explanations. I'd prefer things to be complicated.

I agree with you completely here - I am tired of my stud with huge shooting never scoring or setting up my center who has almost no shooting - that part is a bit messed up, from what I can tell the only thing that seems to factor in is the overall team strengths.

I don't know guys if you noticed but Miami Rage is no GM-inactive team

I saw his soccer team had folded up. Hockey go too I guess?
that sucks.