Inasmuch as I am slowing warming to this latest version of the FHM series (having supported all the releases in the franchise series to-date), and while I believe there is still a ton of ‘potential’ contained within the game in its present state, I cannot but find myself still feeling far less than engaged in the gameplay than I would otherwise hope.
Anyways with that as a starting premise, and with a new game engine being developed, I thought I would start this post where forum members can share their current concerns with the game and also contribute some constructive thoughts and suggestions on the possible future evolution of FHM that would hopefully make it both far more accessible and deeply immersive experience for the average player.
I am under no illusion that any of these will see the light of day, but one can always hope… and I’m also curious how the community sees the game in its current form.
I will apologize at the outset for the length of this initial post. I’ve been thinking of these points for some time now, and just so happen to have a lot of free time on my hands presently…LOL
Tactical Settings
First up, and a significant aggravation to at least this player, I would like to propose to greatly reduce the number of current variants available to the player for selection in the tactical settings screen, from the present 40 individual schemes contained within the offensive & defensive zone drop-down menus, to something a bit more manageable and hopefully also more intuitive to the average player.
Presently a Human Player (HP) coach wanting to set-up their own tactical settings for just each of their 4 even strength lines is faced with having to choose from a total of 160 (4 x 40) different schemes. To say nothing of then potentially incorporating yet an additional 32 (4 x 8) variants if one were to also include the available tactical tendencies into the mix. And this is not even addressing also having to do the same for one’s PP & PK and other strategies. Nor does this factor in the option to further drill down for an additional 21 (forwards) / 14 (defensemen) rating choices specific to each individual player rating.
Then having slogged through that process (and it can be a real slog doing so while having to flip back through the various screens to review play attributes etc.), one is potentially faced with having to set up all or part of one’s systems all over again a match or two down the road, if your player selection on any particular line(s) were to change.
Excessive complication & busy work such as this, in my opinion, does not equate to neither an elevated sense of immersion nor FUN, and instead leaves the player (or at least this player) in the end irritated both at the cumbersome process required and after all that still left largely guessing as to what any particular tactical selection or selections I’ve made may be having on the actual in game match results.
So how about instead simply reduce the available tactical selections to a more basic three choices per each of the Offensive, Neutral & Defensive zones?
As an example, in practice you would only then need to decide if either your team, and / or your individual lines and / or players are instructed to adopt; 1) an offensive posture, 2) a containment posture or 3) a defensive posture for each zone. (Think of a kind of rock, paper, scissor approach that would be implemented vis a vis your opponent within each zone.) And for those desiring a more granular level of coaching, to continue to allow that these various selections can then be further refined / tweaked via both the player and/or unit tactical tendencies’ slider adjustments, line TOI’s adjustments etc.
Player Ratings
Insofar as player ratings go, again in my opinion, there does appear that there are more than a couple instances where a few of the current role ratings can be combined into one single rating (i.e. does there really need to be a distinction between a rushing versus a mobile defenseman, or a two-way versus an up & down forward). Instead I would propose that the forward choices be reduced to just two variants per each player role category, while the defenseman be afforded just three variants per player role per category.
Building on the aforementioned changes to the tactical settings, these reduced role options, and the underlying player ratings that ultimately comprise them, would still present the HP with enough variability to make the options and choices on team building and line construction & tactics still both strategically and tactically interesting and I trust the resulting game play far more immersive.
Play Representation (Match Engine)
Lastly. one cannot help but remark that many forum posts continue to express the desire for a better on-ice representation of the actual match play.
On this I agree, however my own take on this is that this aspect of the match play would be best addressed more symbolically than through an actual 2D or 3D match engine showing individual players & puck movement etc. ( Knowing nothing about programming, I would hazard to guess that the computing power & programming required, together with the opportunity for unintended bugs or other consequences involved in accurately tracking and recording in ‘real time’ the actual position and play of each individual player, makes this I believe a highly suspect undertaking at best.)
In a past version of FHM, there was the introduction of a momentum meter. Building on that premise, if instead play on the ice could be symbolically represented in real time by simply illustrating the relative puck position on the ice surface ( example: each O-N-D zone could be further broken down into nine grid squares) & also the team then in possession through simple color coding within a grid square, then the HP would be able to relatively easily visualize how a particular line, what likely player(s) and how their current strategy is faring against their opponents line and player(s) on the ice surface, be it a positive, neutral or negative advantage.
Thus, for example, a HP controlled team that was being hemmed in their own zone for some length of time would be able to visually see that occurring (both via the on-ice puck position and team possession) as well as seeing the players/line involved without the need to get down in the weeds as it were. Combine this on screen with the current player numerical tally system that now occurs in real time, and this should be enough to give any HP Coach enough of a sense of the general flow of play to make whatever coaching adjustments they feel are warranted.
Additional features could potentially allow the HP to choose to highlight & show options such as shift / game fatigue, player ratings, next to each players name etc.
Combined I feel these few changes would help greatly streamline game play while still affording the human player the experience & enjoyment of constructing both a contending team and formulating a opponent game plan where the consequences of one’s choices are more readily apparent and much more streamlined and simpler to implement in the process.
