Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffR
We've been working on some ways to add more flexibility to the role selection. It was even more rigid than it is now at one point, which definitely wasn't my intention with the original design, for the exact reasons you elaborated on.
Bear in mind that some of the systems are more historical in nature, since their eras won't work properly without those sort of tactics - and Herb Brooks, for all his Soviet inspiration, also had no problem giving a decent amount of ice time to guys like Nick Fotiu, Basil McRae and Randy McKay (when McKay was still a 200+ PIM guy.) I considered restricting tactics to specific years, but in the end figured people would rather have the flexibility to choose an anachronistic system if they want it. It's made it a little trickier to keep the AI from making odd choices, though.
I think the editor view of injury proneness ratings is broken at the moment (in addition to the historical IP's also being wrong in the database), so that's probably the reason you're seeing the odd numbers. Lupul's definitely at the very high end of the scale.
|
Thanks for the answer. I restructured the post to be more clear but you were too fast for me
I don't have a problem with enforcers being an option, to be honest. You certainly outline very well why it should be. My problem was that one of my three guys were restricted to enforcer or goon as the only option. I see the case for it as an option, but not as a requisite.
I do think that the option to give roles to lines like I outlined would be a way to increase the flexibility of the system within the confines of the overall system. The choices for each line could be made restricted by the tactic used as well, to make sure that some of the older systems don't go with unrealistic line distributions. Just an idea.
You might also notice that I added some feedback about the PP roles on the original post. I could add that positioning isn't exactly clear. Let's say I use a 1-3-1 system. That means I have one guy on the point, one on each board, one in the high slot and one net front presence.
It makes sense that if you make someone a 'screener', he is the net front presence regardless of position. Does the other D-man spot then slide into his position? What if you want someone to take the faceoffs but then take position on one of the boards?
PP setup would definitely benefit from having a more graphic overview. Say you choose 1-3-1, you then get to see shirts spread out over a zone so that you know where you put who. Then you could give roles depending on that. Perhaps you want the guy in the high slot to act like a second screen, or you could put him as a sniper. Who takes faceoffs could be designated as an option instead. It would make things
very much clearer.
I've checked the PK tactics, but I don't really have any feedback on that. Which is probably a good thing, can't think of how it could work better.
Edit: Just want to reiterate how much I like the system. A good example would be Gardiner. Not the best player in general (even though I did improve him a bit), but you can put him as a mobile D-man, that he is supremely suited for, on both role options and get very good results from him. Exactly as it should be.