Difference between path to glory vs. sandbox mode
 

What is the difference between path to glory vs. sandbox mode?

Here's a quote from Sebastian that should help explain the different modes:

I think I understand what the difference between the Path to Glory and Sandbox NHL mode is supposed to be, but remain unclear as to what that difference is. Perhaps I could ask it this way: Say I started and operated a Sandbox NHL league. I voluntarily play every game (no simming) and refrain from becoming a commissioner. Does this precisely duplicate the experience I would have if I started out in the Path to Glory mode? Player development, generated stories, draft classes, would these all be identical? If Sandbox NHL mode can provide the identical experience, and offers up the additional options of fast-simming and editing capability, I am trying to understand why anyone would choose the Path to Glory mode? Are there any additional features in the Path to Glory mode that would distinguish it? Have I missed something?

Close, I think. You dont have GM/coach progression in Sandbox mode. And your "career" does not end. You can play on infinitely in Sandbox mode.

From Manual:
Path to Glory Mode

Path to Glory is a new addition to FHM3, providing a more streamlined game experience in a way that will demand the most of your managerial abilities, but with limited access to assistance from the computer and no editing of game data.

Sandbox Mode

Sandbox Mode is the "traditional" play mode familiar to previous FHM players. More options are available to let the computer handle some aspects of gameplay for you, and editing (by activating Commissioner mode) of much of the game's data is possible.

PtG is also the new "go to" mode for FHM, which will see the most resources allocated to.

I don't understand this. Based on the above, you have taken the Sandbox NHL mode, removed the editing capability and option to fast-sim, and called it Path to Glory. No one has identified any advantage that Path to Glory offers to offset the loss of editing and fast-sim capability-and the slow day to day pace that this mode offers is already completely available in Sandbox NHL mode. What would be the rationale for devoting future resources to the Path to Glory mode? Sorry-genuinely confused.

I think a gameplay mode devoid of editing/cheating is a very good idea http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums...ilies/thup.gif


Those that want to edit things can still use Sandbox Mode (as a "toolkit" as I've seen it described), and those that actually want to play a simulation/game can use Path to Glory


Eventually when there's an editor maybe there will be the opportunity for users to edit/create Path to Glory databases


I think focusing their resources is very wise, and I can understand how they'd want to create a simulation/game as first priority and not a toolkit (even though I'm a historical fan and would prefer all resources went there HaHa what they're doing with Path to Glory makes sense to me)


P.S. It's likely the majority of FHM players are like the majority of OOTP players, they play it "out of the box as is" without any editing

Or you could just play sandbox without cheating...

Some people edit without the thought of cheating. I remember Madden decided to do something like this year's ago. Most people were upset that they couldn't edit things to fix minor annoyance within the game. Like positions, jersey numbers, skin color etc...or even veto dumb AI roster moves. I personally don't care if I can't edit anything but that's only if I do not need to because the game does everything it's suppose to do...

A perfect example would be expansion. PTG doesn't not currently support it.

And I must say that I am also confused between the two. Outside of editing, what is the difference and in the future since PTG is the main focus how much will sandbox mode be missing?

Yup, I'm totally with you here. Makes less than no sense to devote all the resources to the game mode with the least possible options. The reason OOTP is so great is the available options, so making a mode focusing on having less of these is brutal. It's the main reason I'm out on FHM3 and will be out for the foreseeable future.

Not all the resources are going to the game mode. Are the majority? Yes, but most of the new things that have been worked in for the Path to Glory mode you will find in the Sandbox mode. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. We haven't taken away, we're adding more.

Is it me only or you too who find the word "toolkit" ugly? After all, FHM 2 was a complete "toolkit" game. If you want, name it "arcade" mode or else but not "toolkit". Playing NHL 1992 season doesn't look to me like a wrench and a hammer.

There is limited number of seasons you can play in PtG mode, while in sandbox not

I´m sorry if some people are not happy with the decision or don´t understand it but it is the way we decided on and we will continue to go it as we see the majority of player like it. I´m sorry that some people don´t want to play the game anymore for that reason but we simply can´t make everyone happy. Hopefully, in a few years, some will come back and enjoy FHM.

Sebastian, as one of the previous post mention I think almost all of us understand the main difference between PTG and Sandbox, but one of the questions above still hasn't been answered.

Say I started and operated a Sandbox NHL league. I voluntarily play every game (no simming) and refrain from becoming a commissioner. Does this precisely duplicate the experience I would have if I started out in the Path to Glory mode? Player development, generated stories, draft classes, would these all be identical? If Sandbox NHL mode can provide the identical experience, and offers up the additional options of fast-simming and editing capability, I am trying to understand why anyone would choose the Path to Glory mode? Are there any additional features in the Path to Glory mode that would distinguish it? Have I missed something?

At the moment it might be true (since you already have differences with your skills, achievements or rankings thats not 100% the same) but both modes will drift away from each other in the future. As a small example, let´s take jersey numbers. Right now you can freely assign them the same way in both modes but at some point we will change it in the PtG mode so jersey numbers get the standing they have in reality: you can only assign them before the season, player maybe get angry if they don´t get their number, maybe a rookie will change his number to open it up for a new veteran player, you will be able to retire numbers for your team, maybe the league will even retire a number (all not just by using a dropdown but placed into the context of the game, maybe combining the retirement with a promo day). In Sandbox mode it will stay the same as it is now (giving the user the possibility just to change the number at any time if he wants).

Sebastian, I would strongly encourage you and OOTP to reconsider your plans for these modes. Except for a few players who apparently can't otherwise resist the urge to cheat their own games (!), I have never heard anyone express the view that they wanted fewer options or choices in their game. As noted above, the Path to Glory mode removes several important options that are important to many/most players who play text-based sport simulations. The example that you provided of possible future development that might separate the two modes (player numbers can no longer be edited but are forced on the player by the game) involves the elimination of another option for the player. Why is this appealing? I don't think a focus on reducing player options and choices is a winning strategy for FHM.

I also agree with the comment by Dmyton above where he questions why the Sandbox NHL mode is now referred to by the belittling term "toolkit" . In fact this is the full-fledged game mode (I expect for most of us) while Path to Glory mode goes down a weird rabbit hole.

Sebastian, can you confirm to us that this focus on the Path to Glory mode, where players are essentially restricted to mimicking NHL players and league developments, is not a condition that is being required of you because of the NHL licensing agreement? Because I can't think of any other explanation. If so, I would exit this licensing agreement as fast as you can. In fact, the agreement offers zero value to your customers (teams, logos, players are all easily added/edited and have been for years) and the fees are an additional, unnecessary expense that your customers now pay for. But if it also requires you reduce the options and creativity in FHM to focus on the actual NHL game, then I, for one, am outta here.

1. The NHL has no influence in our thinking what is best for the game. But you clearly underestimate the power of a license, that gives us the possibility to legally ship the game with real logos and team names: the majority of users does not want to look for logo packs and install them, they just play and it means a lot to them, to have the logos in the game.

2. You want to play a game in a certain way, that is totally up to you and I respect that (there is no right or wrong how people want to play). But please don´t think because you like to play that way, that it is the only way or the best way to play a game.

3. We have a certain vision of the game going forward. You may not like it, but we have to make decisions what we think is the best for the game. Sandbox mode will stay in the game, people who want to do certain things with it can always use it. If bugs show up in that mode, we will try to fix them.

The term "toolkit" makes sense to me, and I don't connect it to wrenches and hammers; I work with "troubled youth" and we talk about having behaviour management tools in our toolkit, and I've been using editing tools to edit EHM for years. The term "arcade" seems a poor choice in reference to a simulation game IMO


The editing crowd (and fictional fans) may be very active on Forums, but they're a small minority. The issue seems to me to be about limited resources for development and how best to allocate them, and therefore it makes sense not to make the minority the main focus (while still doing things for them). I'm sure as time goes on all modes will improve (historical is really the only mode I care about and I'm supporting the development by purchasing yearly because I'm thinking long term in terms of results)