Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
koekefix

Traits

Question

Hi,

 

What are the effects of negative traits in a game? For instance nervous or lazy?

 

Just curious, because I have seen teams with amazing OVR players but traits that are really bad. Yet, these teams play amazing and it seems like traits really don't matter. I'm always looking for players with good traits but it seems like that it doesn't matter.

 

Are there numbers that we can see about the effects of bad traits? Because I'm currently in disbelief and think it's more RNG. And I'm absolutely not a fan of RNG.

 

Thanks.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Too many nervous players will destroy your team's winner's instinct and hurt confidence. I'm not exactly sure what lazy actually does, but I've been using lazy players as backup/scratched players and they don't get as upset.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As Matt said, I'm not entirely sure what effect nervous and lazy have on games, but from my experience:

 

Nervous and lazy players tend to be inconsistent/streaky when it comes to putting up numbers.

 

Lazy players develop much slower than say, an ambitious or purposeful player.

 

And as said above, nervous players kill your winner's instinct.

 

To be honest with you, I tend to try and avoid players that have bad traits, but I will put the occasional lazy or arrogant or anonymous player in my lineup, because too many green traits I find kill your confidence, winner's instinct, and results, regardless of player ability (believe me, I've had a full team of heroic players, and it does not work, period).


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for the reactions so far. I tend to believe it's that way in theory as well. But I've been playing this game for over 2 years and Ive seen it otherwise.

 

That's why I would like to see numbers and stats about this. As I believe RNG is really affecting this game too much and traits are not that important as we think.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To add on lazy will also lose skill due to age much sooner. Lazy is only going to impact their growth potential and how soon they decline.

 

Anonymous won't hurt you pretty much at all team performance wise unless you make them captain or assistant.

 

Arrogant players will hurt team chemistry if you have too many on the team. In theory anyways.

 

Nervous will have a higher chance at a bad game the higher the pressure of the game. This said non key positions this trait doesn't matter much at all. For example 3rd/4th line wingers and 3rd pairing Dmen that otherwise aren't playing key special teams roles you want to be much more focused on the player talent fitting what you need in those specific small roles and the salary said player is asking for than if they are nervous or heroic.

 

Finally tough simply determines the standard frequency of penalties and major penalties taken.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for the reactions so far. I tend to believe it's that way in theory as well. But I've been playing this game for over 2 years and Ive seen it otherwise.

 

That's why I would like to see numbers and stats about this. As I believe RNG is really affecting this game too much and traits are not that important as we think.

 

Traits should not be playing a key major role along the same magnitude as talent and they most definitely aren't. That said do I think it is too small a role? Again no. I just think you are over emphasizing the relevance of them and maybe even the relevance they should have.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And yet I believe nervous is not that big of a deal if I see the stats so far. That's why I'm interested in numbers and percentages generated by the game engine. I would like to know the backbone of this and have some direct intel.

 

In my opinion it's too much RNG due to the traits not being that important. I have seen and experienced this in different ways and I'm absolutely not a fan of RNG, for me it's a game-killer. You can have some and every game will have some but not a lot.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And yet I believe nervous is not that big of a deal if I see the stats so far. That's why I'm interested in numbers and percentages generated by the game engine. I would like to know the backbone of this and have some direct intel.

 

In my opinion it's too much RNG due to the traits not being that important. I have seen and experienced this in different ways and I'm absolutely not a fan of RNG, for me it's a game-killer. You can have some and every game will have some but not a lot.

 

I hate to break it to you but all sports management sims are complete RNG. Real life sports is the same. Replacing RNG with human error and other things of course. Having better players with "better" traits only stacks the odds in your favor. It doesn't guarantee the win and there will always be the chance of a loss.

 

As for nervous it depends upon what kind of magnitude you put big deal at. Before I go on let me make one thing clear. Traits should not be a major determining factor either in game or for a manager outside of a few key players. They are to be seen as and should be a minor modifier to the way the games play out. To me that is how it seems at the moment. Back to nervous. For example sake lets just say nervous players have a 25% chance at a bad game in the biggest games. Anxious 20%, Stable 15%, Determined 10% and Heroic 5%.  That would mean that for a nervous goalie to have a bad game in a big game would require the equivalent of flipping 3 coins and all 3 landing on tails. That all said we don't know how it is set in game. Thus speculation is pretty much guess work via shots in the dark and thus very unreliable at the best of times. Talent is much more important as it should be.

 

So what are you so up in arms about? Is it that you lost in the Biscuit playoffs because you thought you had the better team? Well you did have the better team in the same way that the Rangers had the better team over Ottawa or Anaheim had the better team over Nashville last playoffs. They still lost. Better teams lose to worse teams pretty much all of the time. Your team lost in a bit of an upset but your team actually wasn't significantly better that you should have thought the series an automatic win. Far from it. In fact I was seeing that series as 60/40 in your favor. Even the Protons shouldn't see the series against them as an automatic win in the finals. That said I do give them at least 75/25 edge. Yes you have the 2nd best team in Biscuit at the time of typing this however the gap between you and the 8th best team is not that significant. Protons on the other hand... Well that will still be another season or two however unless they find a few more tricks it looks like it will be a bit of a hard crash as most of their key players are 33+. You need to come to terms with the fact that you can't have the always winning dominant team, that you will lose to worse teams some times including in the playoffs and that every team will have regular tough stretches to go along with the highs. If you can't handle the losing that inevitably comes with being a manager of a team (good or bad losses) as well as the success then the problem is you not the game. I think everyone but the Protons have been through that in the GHL a this point. Heck the Trojans had a bad losing streak during the entire last quarter of the season and I had them as a playoff team to start the season. I'm not saying this game is perfect. It isn't and the traits may have a bit too small an impact however they shouldn't have a massive impact on the same level as player talent.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I should add, I've never found anything negative coming from too many arrogant players -- until this season when I ignored the trait completely. It wasn't visible anywhere, I had great team chemistry, winner's instinct, and confidence even though I was winning an average of 3/10 games. I tried everything and eventually decided to get rid of a few of my arrogant players. My luck turned around and a number of games I was winning doubled.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 -- I have seen teams with amazing OVR players but traits that are really bad. Yet, these teams play amazing and it seems like traits really don't matter. --

Amazing players ARE indeed amazing players, whatever their traits might be. And they should, most often, perform like amazing players. After all, we're talking about traits, not skills or attributes.

 

Basically, if you have two guys with the exact same skill ratings, one with the worst traits, and the other with the best possible, they can still both perform according to their skill ratings, i.e. at an equal level.

Yes, over a long period of time, say 10+ seasons, the one with the better traits should end up with slightly better stats. (Assuming there's a totally equal environment for both players, which is never the case).

In my opinion, the one with the worse traits should still be able to regularly match, and occasionally exceed the "better" player's performance. And this is pretty much how it feels to be right now.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Traits should not be playing a key major role along the same magnitude as talent and they most definitely aren't. That said do I think it is too small a role? Again no. I just think you are over emphasizing the relevance of them and maybe even the relevance they should have.

 

So the traits are fine and don't have a small role.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying this game is perfect. It isn't and the traits may have a bit too small an impact however they shouldn't have a massive impact on the same level as player talent.

 

 

Less then 2 hours later the traits have a bit too small of an impact. I can't follow your explanation on this one. How much I like your replies of 10 pages, which I honestly appreciate, you are talking against yourself on this one. 

 

 

 

I hate to break it to you but all sports management sims are complete RNG. Real life sports is the same. Replacing RNG with human error and other things of course. Having better players with "better" traits only stacks the odds in your favor. It doesn't guarantee the win and there will always be the chance of a loss.

 

I tend to disagree. Sports games in general have some RNG but it shouldn't dominate the game as this takes a lot of fun away. What's the point of skills, tactics and traits if its complete RNG? If I want to play some RNG game, I will play Hearthstone.

 

 

 

Thus speculation is pretty much guess work via shots in the dark and thus very unreliable at the best of times. Talent is much more important as it should be.

 

I agree. That's why it would be nice to get some feedback about stats and numbers in general. Right now it's just guessing and trying things out without knowing the consequences. I don't want to know everything but some extra feedback woud be welcome. I like stats and numbers, what can I say?

 

 

So what are you so up in arms about? Is it that you lost in the Biscuit playoffs because you thought you had the better team? Well you did have the better team in the same way that the Rangers had the better team over Ottawa or Anaheim had the better team over Nashville last playoffs. They still lost. Better teams lose to worse teams pretty much all of the time. Your team lost in a bit of an upset but your team actually wasn't significantly better that you should have thought the series an automatic win. Far from it. In fact I was seeing that series as 60/40 in your favor. Even the Protons shouldn't see the series against them as an automatic win in the finals. That said I do give them at least 75/25 edge.

 

 

More like 90/10 if you ask me. I'm sure bouncer wil win it and he deserves it after this season. I'm not mad about the results, just dissapointed. I just wanted some feedback about the traits and work on my bad points. So to work on that I wanted some clarifications. Especially after this terrible season I had.

 

 

 

You need to come to terms with the fact that you can't have the always winning dominant team, that you will lose to worse teams some times including in the playoffs and that every team will have regular tough stretches to go along with the highs. If you can't handle the losing that inevitably comes with being a manager of a team (good or bad losses) as well as the success then the problem is you not the game.

 

I'm completely fine with that. As I said I just want to understand some aspects better and work on them. No need to be personal here if you can't handle the criticism. We are all here to learn the game better and help each other.

 

 

Amazing players ARE indeed amazing players, whatever their traits might be. And they should, most often, perform like amazing players. After all, we're talking about traits, not skills or attributes.

 

I can't completely agree on this one. There are a lot of pro players that have enormous talent but due to their character (traits) they thrown away their career and can't handle the pressure or don't have the right mindset. So I believe it's a combination of both. You can have a player with an amazing mindset but lacks talent, still he could play on a top team/line. That's how it goes in real life as well. In general I still believe traits should play a bigger role as of now.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So the traits are fine and don't have a small role.

 

Less then 2 hours later the traits have a bit too small of an impact. I can't follow your explanation on this one. How much I like your replies of 10 pages, which I honestly appreciate, you are talking against yourself on this one. 

 

 

First one I said I think they are fine. That is my current opinion on the matter. Second I said they may (not they are but they may) be having less of an impact than intended. That isn't my opinion and rather is me saying that my opinion may be wrong on the matter. I didn't contradict myself however it appears that I didn't make what I said totally clear either. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Sports management games where you have no direct control of the players is all numbers run thus in a loose sense it is all RNG. That is what I meant by that. Yes tactics have a major say as does talent but even those have numbers behind them determining things. RNG impact in sports management games can vary wildly. From seemingly completely random (bad RNG impact on game) to ones that are actually rather predictable and are believable.

 

As for the rest I would be disappointed too in your position. You had the better team and lost. It is really disappointing when that happens. As for your struggles it is more the fact that the talent gap between your team and most of the other playoff capable teams isn't as big as it used to be just last year. As a result the games are going to be closer than your used to. It isn't that your team struggled, ok it did offensively more than it should have but the bigger, more relevant picture is you don't have that comfort margin that you had even just last year.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am curious about traits as well, but part of me also likes the mystery and having to figure it out.  I'm torn 50/50 on whether or not I'd like Anders to tell us what the hell is going on :lol: but on second thought, I'm leaning towards the mystery/having to figure it out.

 

From personal experience, below are my thoughts on each trait.  Some might agree, some might disagree, but it is what I have seen with my team.

 

EGO - haven't noticed much in terms of in game results for specific players, but Ego affects Teamwork as a whole.  My team performs MUCH better when my Teamwork bar is green (and Teamwork/Confidence is more important than Winner Instinct - at least for my team, maybe not for others).

 

DIRTY - I prefer Tough/Agitator players, but that's partly because of my preference in real life (I love players like Wayne Simmonds, Lucic, Gudas, Marchand, etc).  I have noticed that my Tough players perform better, but also take more penalties, so it's a double-edged sword - but that could all depend on your tactics as well.  On the flip side, taking more penalties cost me a few games this year, but I'll take my chances.

 

LEADERSHIP - I don't care about this at all, other than picking captains.

 

BIG GAMES - I have noticed a "slight" upgrade in performance from Determined to Nervous players.  i.e. Assuming the players are similar, I would probably take an 80 OVR Determined player over an 81 OVR Nervous players, but maybe not an 82 OVR Nervous player.  I'd rather have the skill when it is multiple notches higher.  Big Games is more noticeable for team's Winner Instinct... but I still haven't figured out when Winner Instinct is that important.

 

AMBITION - Here is where I may disagree with most.  Two of my players who improve the most are Lazy - more-so than my Ambitious and Enthusiastic players.  So I am either getting extremely lucky with my Lazy players, or completely screwed with my Ambitious players.  Right now I don't value this trait at all, other than the thought that it might change in a future release.


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am curious about traits as well, but part of me also likes the mystery and having to figure it out.  I'm torn 50/50 on whether or not I'd like Anders to tell us what the hell is going on :lol: but on second thought, I'm leaning towards the mystery/having to figure it out.

 

From personal experience, below are my thoughts on each trait.  Some might agree, some might disagree, but it is what I have seen with my team.

 

EGO - haven't noticed much in terms of in game results for specific players, but Ego affects Teamwork as a whole.  My team performs MUCH better when my Teamwork bar is green (and Teamwork/Confidence is more important than Winner Instinct - at least for my team, maybe not for others).

 

DIRTY - I prefer Tough/Agitator players, but that's partly because of my preference in real life (I love players like Wayne Simmonds, Lucic, Gudas, Marchand, etc).  I have noticed that my Tough players perform better, but also take more penalties, so it's a double-edged sword - but that could all depend on your tactics as well.  On the flip side, taking more penalties cost me a few games this year, but I'll take my chances.

 

LEADERSHIP - I don't care about this at all, other than picking captains.

 

BIG GAMES - I have noticed a "slight" upgrade in performance from Determined to Nervous players.  i.e. Assuming the players are similar, I would probably take an 80 OVR Determined player over an 81 OVR Nervous players, but maybe not an 82 OVR Nervous player.  I'd rather have the skill when it is multiple notches higher.  Big Games is more noticeable for team's Winner Instinct... but I still haven't figured out when Winner Instinct is that important.

 

AMBITION - Here is where I may disagree with most.  Two of my players who improve the most are Lazy - more-so than my Ambitious and Enthusiastic players.  So I am either getting extremely lucky with my Lazy players, or completely screwed with my Ambitious players.  Right now I don't value this trait at all, other than the thought that it might change in a future release.

 

Ambition is a modifier to another talent that is now hidden that used to be visible. That talent was an indication of how good the player could be. Potential. A player with great potential but is lazy will still grow exceptionally fast. A player that doesn't have a lot of potential at all but is ambitious won't grow much at all. What you want to look for in terms of ambition is for what players are growing first then look at their ambition.

 

As for winner instinct it becomes more evident and impactful in closer leagues. Teams with higher team winner instinct will more often than not find ways to win close games. Again though that requires close games and relative parity between teams. I have never had an overly talented team offensively (defensively is another story though) yet I am regularly at the top of the standings in my league. Why? I play the odds of keeping games as close as possible and then winning those close games. If you want to see the impact of winner instinct look at all of the games that your team played where the difference was 2 or fewer goals. That said my team wins games in OT like nobody's business but can't win in a shootout to save their lives.

 

Finally dirty is about manager preference and statistical certainty. Even on the lowest aggression level your team will take penalties. It is an inevitability. So why not pick up a few players lower talented players that have the tendency to take penalties and play them on your lower lines and eat up as many PIMs as they can? Also some managers just want aggressive teams like the "Big, Bad Bruins" of old however be mindful that your team doesn't turn into the undisciplined Jets that regularly burn themselves with too many PP goals against.

 

The rest I think you have spot on although I don't really see the need for Anders to give specifics. That said somewhere in this forum is a record where he did say something along the lines that it goes on a number scale system in that not all lazy players are the same lazy. Basically think of it as a 0-10 system with 0 being most lazy for example and 1 being lazy but not as lazy and so forth.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As for winner instinct it becomes more evident and impactful in closer leagues. Teams with higher team winner instinct will more often than not find ways to win close games. Again though that requires close games and relative parity between teams. I have never had an overly talented team offensively (defensively is another story though) yet I am regularly at the top of the standings in my league. Why? I play the odds of keeping games as close as possible and then winning those close games. If you want to see the impact of winner instinct look at all of the games that your team played where the difference was 2 or fewer goals. That said my team wins games in OT like nobody's business but can't win in a shootout to save their lives.

 

My team was 10-6 in games decided by two or fewer goals (excluding OT/SO).  4-2 in games decided by 1 goal (excluding OT/SO).  In shootouts we were 1-4.  Compared to my overall record, my Strong winner's instinct didn't really help me in the closer games, so the jury is still out on it's supposed impact (at least in my mind).  In games decided by 5 or more goals I was 17-0.  But you have much more experience with this game than I, so I'll take your word for it.

 

Finally dirty is about manager preference and statistical certainty. Even on the lowest aggression level your team will take penalties. It is an inevitability. So why not pick up a few players lower talented players that have the tendency to take penalties and play them on your lower lines and eat up as many PIMs as they can? Also some managers just want aggressive teams like the "Big, Bad Bruins" of old however be mindful that your team doesn't turn into the undisciplined Jets that regularly burn themselves with too many PP goals against.

 

I am from Boston and the team I grew up watching was the "Big Bad Bruins".  Of course I want my team to play like that! :)

That being said, my top point scorer over the past two seasons was "Tough".  He is only a 79 OVR and I have a few players in the 80's with better offensive abilities.  I have also noticed a few other players who are Tough/Agitator getting better game results than the Gentle dudes.  Again, I could be making false assumptions based on my own team's results... but I'm OK with that until I realize otherwise.

 

When I lose, I'll just blame the refs like Canadiens fans...

 

I don't really see the need for Anders to give specifics.

 

Agreed.  Like I said, I'm very curious about all of this, but think it's better left to be figured out on our own. 


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That being said, my top point scorer over the past two seasons was "Tough".  He is only a 79 OVR and I have a few players in the 80's with better offensive abilities.  I have also noticed a few other players who are Tough/Agitator getting better game results than the Gentle dudes.  Again, I could be making false assumptions based on my own team's results... but I'm OK with that until I realize otherwise.

 

Odd, major-underdog, upsets in Season 11.  SHL Tomahawks over GHL Trojans.  GHL finals and semi-finals with Marauders beating Vandals/Protons.

 

What do the Marauders and Tomahawks goalies have in common?  They are both TOUGH.  I think I'm onto something... (goes out and signs all tough players regardless of skills...)


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think the short playoff series make the RNG look much worse than it actually is. Basically any team on the same league level can pull off two wins against any other team. If we had best of 5 or 7 - series, we would see better teams come out on top more often.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That is true, one slip-up at home can cost you the series. That just is to harsh.

 

Nervous players pulling of wonders during the PO, is at least strange. They should have even more influence than in the regular season.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Nervous players pulling of wonders during the PO, is at least strange. They should have even more influence than in the regular season.

We simply don't know what nervous etc. actually do and how those traits affect gameplay/match engine. Maybe they already have a bigger impact during playoffs, but all the mistakes and whatnot might not reflect directly to the scoreboard. Even if we did know exactly how everything was supposed to work, the sample size we have, especially in Biscuit, would be way too small to conclusively determine whether everything is working the way it should.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My team was 10-6 in games decided by two or fewer goals (excluding OT/SO).  4-2 in games decided by 1 goal (excluding OT/SO).  In shootouts we were 1-4.  Compared to my overall record, my Strong winner's instinct didn't really help me in the closer games, so the jury is still out on it's supposed impact (at least in my mind).  In games decided by 5 or more goals I was 17-0.  But you have much more experience with this game than I, so I'll take your word for it.

 

 

And what about the opposing teams winner instinct and overall talent level? You can't just look at partial data and end up with a solid conclusion.

 

You guys are also glossing over the fact that the Marauders best players outplayed the Protons best players in the second game. I think the biggest contributor to the Marauders winning the cup is the lack of depth scoring that is going on in this patch as the two teams that had the most offensive depth, the Protons and Vandals, couldn't effectively use it to their advantage. Without that advantage it more or less became whose best players outplayed whose. Also another major factor was the starting goalie for the Protons not having full confidence. To be frank Arttur Kaila did not have a particularly good playoffs. In fact game 1 of the series he had a pretty bad game and cost the Protons the game despite the Protons otherwise completely outplaying the Marauders. I have no doubt that the lower confidence of Kaila played a role in that outcome. I also like how nobody is mentioning that they also beat me 2-1 in the first round even though Hanrahan had 2 very bad games against me.

 

Marauders congratulations on winning the cup. Against all odds you managed to win going though the best teams in the Vandals and Protons. It was fun to watch. Mostly. The first round wasn't so fun.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And what about the opposing teams winner instinct and overall talent level? You can't just look at partial data and end up with a solid conclusion.

 

rainsilent, you are right.  I was simply providing data without actually digging deep into it.  I hope no one thinks I am trying to prove solid conclusions with my data.  That's why I add comments like "(in my own mind)" and stated you probably know much more than I do.  Still, I like to provide facts where I can and offer opinions on certain subjects, even if they aren't solid facts.  If others have facts to either support or reject my data, then great.

 

While I'm at it, I don't actually think that the goalies being Tough were the main factor for the upsets.  I hope everyone was able to see the sarcastic humor in my comment.

 

Also another major factor was the starting goalie for the Protons not having full confidence. To be frank Arttur Kaila did not have a particularly good playoffs. In fact game 1 of the series he had a pretty bad game and cost the Protons the game despite the Protons otherwise completely outplaying the Marauders. I have no doubt that the lower confidence of Kaila played a role in that outcome.

 

I actually made this comment to bouncer a few weeks ago.  This doesn't really relate to the "traits" topic, but I have noticed (with both my team and a few others) that teams perform a bit worse immediately after trades.  Teams appear to "slip up" for a week or two after a trade, then get back to form.  This probably has something to do with the player's confidence not being full, or possibly another factor - and could support my opinion in my original post that a team's Confidence & Teamwork are more important than Winner Instinct.  Again, this is mere opinion based on observations and not solid fact to say that is how the game is coded.  Probably a discussion for another thread.


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I actually made this comment to bouncer a few weeks ago.  This doesn't really relate to the "traits" topic, but I have noticed (with both my team and a few others) that teams perform a bit worse immediately after trades.  Teams appear to "slip up" for a week or two after a trade, then get back to form.  This probably has something to do with the player's confidence not being full, or possibly another factor - and could support my opinion in my original post that a team's Confidence & Teamwork are more important than Winner Instinct.  Again, this is mere opinion based on observations and not solid fact to say that is how the game is coded.  Probably a discussion for another thread.

 

Teams do slip up a bit and it is all due to the confidence of the new player. How big the slip is all dependent on the position of the new player in the lineup. The bigger the role the bigger the slip up. This happens in reality too. A lot of real NHL GMs complain that the trade deadline is too late in the season because teams don't "get back to normal" until near the end of the regular season. Thus a number of GMs every season push for a change to the date of the trade deadline to push it up at least a few weeks.

 

Confidence is one of the biggest impacts to how a team plays in the game. The first quarter of a season is extremely wild in terms of results because every team has yet to develop the confidence.

 

Also just because I have gone over more data with my team in terms of game trends doesn't mean that I am right when I notice something. There is a such thing as statistical oddities and outliers and if I happen to be going through such it will skew my view on whatever it is. Just know that I do try to do my homework and learn as much as I can. I encourage everyone else to do the same. The more you know the better you will be.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@rainsilent:

 

I was one of the first to congratulate Marauders with the cup and if he beats the best 3 teams, he deserves it. Hanrahan didn't do it by himself, but he was the best man for sure.

 

Don't forget Hanrahan robbed a game against you as well. I think the previous patch had some flaws regarding scoring as well.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

One key thing I noticed very much related to this topic is Marauders actually have two of their team traits only in the BLUE.  If that doesn't put a death nail in the need to have your team's confidence and winning instinct high to win important and tough games, I don't know what else would....  

 

Kind of brings me back that overall ability and tactics (and certainly those of the opponents) play an over sized variable in the results than getting three nice green bars, which I have to show off with my 12th place medal, ha.  I do think there is luck/RNG behind the scenes, but I am ok with that assuming we do have some ability to modify those.  I believe we do, but with so many managers being at quite advanced abilities and understanding at this point (plus the somewhat exaggerated skill level of the league right now (IMHO)), I think luck is going to be more of a deciding factor when so many other variables are equal.  Not complaining, but showing how the GHL specifically has evolved to this by this point in the engine.  I think the faster worlds, many seasons ahead of us, have also expressed this concern at the higher levels in each world.  


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well, the team traits are calculated mostly from players traits, so it is exactly the point koekefix meant. The fact the all 3 teams Portland beat in the playoffs have better confidence and winner instinct (especially the winner instinct by quite some margin) and same or similar team work. Also skill-wise Portland was no better and the last 5 games with bad faceoff skills they were overshooted by a lot and spend more time defending themselves.

But that is hockey and they deserved it. They just played really well and it worked, perhaps also good tactics was the reason. I wish them the cup.

 

I agree with rainsilent that Kaila's confidence played role. I also noticed that after trades, the team performance is decreasing. And not only if you trade key position player who cause this with the confidence reset. For example after I traded fro Council who I used only as 3rd line center, my scoring decreased significantly and in 12 games I suffered same number of losses as in the first 48 games. And Council was one of the best players with (almost) point per game production. Of course this is small sample and it might not mean anything, but I noticed something similar before. My guess would be that small decrease of team work and team confidence might hurt the performance, so you would have lower scoring and in my case once the winning streak was over, the team was playing worse then before (during the streak before the trade). And with many GHL teams being very close to each other in quality, that can easily make 2-1 games into 1-2. Most of the seasons before, I did minimum trades and the few were mostly in the beginning of the season. This season I made 4 trades in last 20 games of regular season and the team results got much worse. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create a GM profile or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create a GM profile

Sign up for a GM profile in our community. It's free & easy!

Create a GM profile

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...