Quote:
Originally Posted by zagardlenie
So, what percentage is it? It is even possible to measure?
|
It'd be difficult to put a precise number on it, since it the effect happens at the level of individual players, and would depend on context - the potential effect would, for example, be bigger at lower levels, since the amount it adds to the ratings would be larger as a percentage of the original player ratings, since those would be lower in weaker leagues.
Quote:
My roster is bad/average, compared to NHL top teams. In Line 1 only Nathan MacKinnon adds max of 5 pts to the team's tactical effectiveness. In First Line I have J.T. Compher: he adds only 3 points. In Line 2 (players on this line will add max of 4 pts) I have Nail Yakupov (only 3/3), Tyson Jost (3/3) and Alexander Kerfoot (3/3).
If my roster is bordering to bad or average and despite that I win games and am successful in first season, so... the key significance is Tactical system (especially banal Countering Roles system and Tactical Advantage). It's clear to me. In this case, it is not "much less significant", as You are writing.
NHL Team vs. Michigan Wolverines = Yes, roster is significant, but NHL Team vs. Colorado Avalanche = significant is Tactical system, ergo my observation.
By the way:
1. It is in order that with bad/avarage roster I can easily gain Tactical Advantage against every opponent?
2. It is okey that my bad/avarage team keep pace in Presidents' Throphy race in first season every time I start new game? (in FHM 3 and 4)
|
At the NHL level, it's not that surprising if you're micromanaging the tactics very carefully. The talent gap between teams in the modern NHL is not that huge. The worst team in the league still wins about 35-40% of the time; Buffalo, the worst team in the league this year, was 7-5 against the three teams in its division that finished with 100+ points. The difference between teams is narrow enough that careful management can tip the balance - it's not like the differences you'll see in some lower-level leagues or older seasons, where the worst teams really don't belong in the same league as the best ones. So, if you do a very good job with the tactics and don't have bad luck with things like injuries, you should be able to significantly improve on the team's actual performance.
And only considering your team's record in the first half-season or so isn't really looking at the whole picture. If you have a great first year, your owner is going to expect similar (or better) results in the future, and you may have difficulty keeping the roster together.