Game Updates

No. You couldn't say the same about my view regarding your side of the argument. In the past Anders said that there was no boost to newly promoted teams. I'm inclined to believe him since he did put the code of the game together as well as had no beneficial reason to lie about it. Your view also has no supporting evidence in game either. It is based strictly off of assumption. My argument actually has some in game evidence backing it no matter if you give it any credibility or not. Some in game evidence is more substantial than an assumption that there is a hidden buff in the code for specific teams.   You are trying to make the question team confidence when it isn't about team confidence. It was about confidence on the whole. Both team and individual confidence matters. You are trying to force an argument that isn't true by redirecting the discussion. Don't try to force words in my mouth either.   He only played 3 players with low confidence. Now look at the players in question, where they played and how they played. Jason, 1st line in a defensive Dman role, likely on a stay at home line and had a good game with a 75 rating but not an impact player in the game and was a +0 for the game. Low team and player confidence doesn't eliminate the possibility that a player can have a good game. Sutter, 3rd line winger playing as a sniper and likely not playing on an offensively focused line. Possibly a poor role choice and had a bad game. The other winger on the line also had a bad game but the center on the line had a great game. The line, on the whole, had little impact on the game though. Dupej, 4th line winger in a power forward role. Had an ok game and his line didn't have much of an impact either. Of his players that didn't have built up confidence only one had a good game. Just like you. The difference is you went 1 out of 4 with a few of those players that didn't play well playing in key positions in the lineup. He went 1 of 3 playing well with the 1 being in a key position in the lineup.   You were playing with greater risk with more players in key roles still building confidence than he was. The lack of built up confidence either way means a greater chance for a bad game. Either confidence not being built up doesn't guarantee a bad game nor does it eliminate the chance of a good game. It simply opens up the possibility of results to a wider spectrum. Hence how low confidence takes the randomness that you already get and makes it go wild with results earlier in the season. What happened in your game was a proverbial perfect storm. You opened the door enough for the possibility of that happening with risky decision making and you got bit for it. Had you not made such risky decision making in terms of your lineup set up or even not made the trades at all you would have likely trounced the team like you did in the first game the two teams played.   Do you really not realize that your team's 3-0-0-5 record since you made the first trade is, in large part, due to those trades and the resulting impact of having players with low confidence in key positions in the lineup despite your team on the whole having rather high confidence? Your teams performance has been very up and down with Haulk, in a key position in the lineup, struggling with consistency since the trade for him when the player you had before and traded for Haulk was doing very well. I don't doubt that Haulk will eventually settle in but until then his lack of built up confidence is going to be a negative impact to your team.   Let us also not overlook the fact that that is actually a solid GHL team skills wise that beat you. No, not great by any stretch but still solid. There are teams above that team in the standings doing more with less talent. The manager is going a good job in general. They just aren't doing as good a job optimizing the lineup and utilizing the players that they have as they could be.   Finally, may I introduce Occam's razor. When two theories exist trying to explain the same thing the one that is more likely accurate is the one with the fewest assumptions. My theory is based on the fact that a lack of built up confidence, either team or player, has an observable negative impact and a significant one early in the season when no teams have any built up confidence. This can be reliably and repeatedly tested in game easily. Your theory is the assumption that there is a hidden code in the game that provides a boost to new teams in the GHL. This is an assumption that cannot be reliably proven in game.

It is a valid argument. You just don't believe in it thus you don't see anything too it.     Because of something called randomness. It doesn't happen every season. It happens randomly. Every once in a while a newly promoted team does it. Almost every instance, if they don't have a quality line up, they fall back into obscurity over the rest of the season.     No. It isn't and I wasn't saying that it was either. I was saying that the early season randomness is exasperated with low confidence.     No. It doesn't nullify the argument whatsoever. It actually contributes to it in a way you aren't paying any attention to. Maybe you failed to notice that you had four players in your lineup that are building confidence due to relatively recent trades for those players. Sure enough 3 of those 4 players had relatively bad games. Of which a lack of built up confidence was a contributor. That impacted the lines that they were on and sure enough one of those lines got absolutely stomped on. -3 for all players on the line. Yes, your team got massively outplayed but you aren't bothering to look into why at all. A part of why is even right in front of you staring at you in the face.

That Big Delta team is lookin' solid! 💪🏼😝🤘🏼