Player decline is way too heavy in FHM 12

[HockeyEnjoyer1980]

I ran a few seasons with Tampa and was pretty surprised by how many players started losing attributes.
Here’s a list of players whose skills began to decline in the very first season:

A. Vasilevskiy — age 31, Aging = 15
J. Guentzel — age 30, Aging = 14
B. Point — age 29, Aging = 14
O. Bjorkstrand — age 30, Aging = 13
N. Paul — age 30, Aging = 13
A. Cirelli (!!!) — age 28, Aging = 12

The ages are at the start of the regular season. I’m not counting guys like Hedman or McDonagh, whose decline actually makes sense. But the players listed above really surprised me.

I’ve seen early decline before in previous FHM versions, but it usually happened only with very low Aging ratings — like 8 or 10.
The players above have perfectly reasonable Aging scores, and in older FHM versions they would’ve easily played until at least 33–34 without major drop-off.

And before you ask — yes, I set individual training for all of them, and no, it didn’t help.
And yes, this isn’t just bad luck — I simmed the first season multiple times.

I noticed this change in the big changelog:
-adjustment to player decline speed so it tends to move quicker than player development
But I’m not fully sure why this was necessary. The new training programs barely affect older players, and having played tons of seasons in FHM 10 and FHM 11, I never felt that decline was too slow or that the league was overflowing with aging players. In previous FHM versions, most players were already in serious decline by age 34–35 unless they had an Aging rating of 15 or higher.
With the new system, many of them are already falling apart by 31–32.

This change hurts the game balance quite a lot — it basically forces players to trade away their stars early and start chasing 20-year-olds from day one. It’s also going to push away people who like playing with real-life rosters instead of waiting for regens.

I understand that you, as developers, have your own vision of how the game should work — but how about a compromise?
Maybe add an option in the game settings: new decline system or old decline system?

[crusadertsar]

I'm not a fan of this also

But isn't there an option to slow down the decline? I'm pretty sure that was a thing in FM11.

If this is true than I'm a bit sad as I just transferred my Sharks save from FHM11 last night. Got attached to some of the stars who helped me win a Stanley Cup two seasons ago but now they are getting close to their 30s. The beginning of the end

[crusadertsar]

It would be great to hear what the devs think about this issue. Although it might be a non-issue for them.

I just feel like with the advances in modern sports science and fitness training we have more and more athletes playing well into their late 30s. If anything it should be the opposite.
Unless there is a small chance that all of the players that the OP saw declining had many injuries that contributed to their decline?

[lawrence97]

why don't you change the peak ages in the setup options? Put peak physical age to 26 and the other to 28/29 and you'll see less loss of attributes. But I do agree, the rate of decline is annoying. Similar in historical. I think there should only be a decline in physical ratings before 30 due to injury or lack of play. Skill attributes shouldn't decline at all, until at least 35 apart from possibly shooting range, and then not so much.

[crusadertsar]

Originally Posted by lawrence97

why don't you change the peak ages in the setup options? Put peak physical age to 26 and the other to 28/29 and you'll see less loss of attributes. But I do agree, the rate of decline is annoying. Similar in historical. I think there should only be a decline in physical ratings before 30 due to injury or lack of play. Skill attributes shouldn't decline at all, until at least 35 apart from possibly shooting range, and then not so much.

Where do you find this option? I looked everywhere in "Settings" and could not find it.

[lawrence97]

File->Setup Options right at the bottom, there is player peak age and player physical peak age

[crusadertsar]

Originally Posted by lawrence97

File->Setup Options right at the bottom, there is player peak age and player physical peak age

Awesome! Thanks

[HockeyEnjoyer1980]

Originally Posted by lawrence97

why don't you change the peak ages in the setup options? Put peak physical age to 26 and the other to 28/29 and you'll see less loss of attributes. But I do agree, the rate of decline is annoying. Similar in historical. I think there should only be a decline in physical ratings before 30 due to injury or lack of play. Skill attributes shouldn't decline at all, until at least 35 apart from possibly shooting range, and then not so much.

That’s not right. This setup will hurt player development — your young players will grow much more slowly. I wouldn’t recommend touching that option at all.

The problem still exists. In my tests I play with injuries turned off, and players still decline quickly even without injuries.

[lawrence97]

i've honestly not seen that happen, playing historical with draft age 17, they develop without any problems-. But each to their own, and i do agree that the decline rate is too harsh, i would not rather do the tinkering i do to get the game feel right for me.

[lawrence97]

This is my most current game settings-Player peak age-29, Physical age -26. Draft age-17, nhl age minimum17. All players drafted after league started

[#4BobbyOrr]

I've seen no issues with ageing in modern saves.

In historical saves players age miles faster but that's because for some reason the ageing attribute on most players is much lower than with modern day rosters. Players who are still playing who have 16+ ageing attributes in historical databses have sometimes 11 or 12.

[HockeyEnjoyer1980]

Originally Posted by #4BobbyOrr

I've seen no issues with ageing in modern saves.

if you dont see issues then look on AI teams, which players especially hurt by new decline system (they dont have access to the new training programm system to somehow compensate)

as example:

Kaprizov 5* >> 3* by age 34


Matthew 5* >> 3* by age 33



If you call this "no issues" then I dont know what is issues for you

[#4BobbyOrr]

3* players are still solid second liners. Players regress hard in their late 20s/early 30s all the time. Heatley and Huberdeau instantly come to mind as two high end talents who were 2nd liners in their early 30s.

[crusadertsar]

I don’t actually get your point anymore. By new NHL standards 34 and 33 is ****ing ancient. And 3 star ability is pretty good and realistic for that age. Do you expect 33 year old Mathews to be as good as when he is 25 or even 30?

[HockeyEnjoyer1980]

Originally Posted by crusadertsar

I don’t actually get your point anymore. By new NHL standards 34 and 33 is ****ing ancient. And 3 star ability is pretty good and realistic for that age. Do you expect 33 year old Mathews to be as good as when he is 25 or even 30?

new NHL standards? What are you talking about?
Did you just make it up and then claim it as a fact? Because I clearly see a different picture: every year the level of sports medicine and athlete preparation improves, which should have a positive impact on career longevity — especially when there are no serious underlying factors like injuries. Neither of the players mentioned had injury issues; they played full seasons from start to finish.

Either way, I do expect their skills to decline at some point, but not to the extent that is currently happening in the game.

A 5★ player should not turn into a 3★ player within a couple of years at age 33–34.

I honestly don’t understand the argument that “3★ players are still good players.” The discussion is about specific cases of franchise players on AI teams who experience massive drop-offs in a very short time, without any clear reasons for it.

According to Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/FranchiseHo...y_in_fhm_1112/
many people don’t like this system. Sure, there are those who are completely out of touch and don’t understand the problem — like you — but I still believe this shouldn’t work this way, based on realism and game balance

[Adam B]

Originally Posted by HockeyEnjoyer1980

new NHL standards? What are you talking about?
Did you just make it up and then claim it as a fact? Because I clearly see a different picture: every year the level of sports medicine and athlete preparation improves, which should have a positive impact on career longevity — especially when there are no serious underlying factors like injuries. Neither of the players mentioned had injury issues; they played full seasons from start to finish.

Either way, I do expect their skills to decline at some point, but not to the extent that is currently happening in the game.

A 5★ player should not turn into a 3★ player within a couple of years at age 33–34.

I honestly don’t understand the argument that “3★ players are still good players.” The discussion is about specific cases of franchise players on AI teams who experience massive drop-offs in a very short time, without any clear reasons for it.

According to Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/FranchiseHo...y_in_fhm_1112/
many people don’t like this system. Sure, there are those who are completely out of touch and don’t understand the problem — like you — but I still believe this shouldn’t work this way, based on realism and game balance

As it's been pointed out to you by several people, each game you run may have different things happen. You may see it in one, but you may not see it in others.

But let's break down for a moment what your getting upset about - star ratings.

Star Ratings are there to give you an overall idea of a player, and are not the be-all-end-all important piece of information. FHM uses the entire 0.5 to 5 star rating system. Most importantly, 3 stars means a player is GOOD. It's not a bad rating. It means they are a nightly contributor and can outplay their opponents. Anything higher than 3 stars means you start pushing into star players in the league.

Roughly, 3.5 to 5 star players are the stars to superstars in the league...and that's a good thing!

Back to your point - is it that you want a game filled entirely with 5 star players? As some have said, you can adjust the aging curve - and you can also adjust how the game interprets star ratings by basing it more on stats too if you prefer to skew the views you'd like to see.

However, looking at the stats the players are producing on the bottom indicates both players are still playing fairly well. A general look at their stats tells that they are still elite in some categories - so what are they declining in? If you're watching, you should be able to tell us. I'm curious to know.

[HockeyEnjoyer1980]

Originally Posted by Adam B

so what are they declining in? If you're watching, you should be able to tell us. I'm curious to know.

Dropoffs in physical skills are massive, I dont understand how you not able to see it. Load the game yourself when they 30 y.o. and make comporison.

Honestly, in FHM 12, I have no issues in my teams, thanks to new training programs, which can help bounce back some physicals.
Issue mostly hurt AI teams now, which not using training programs and their dropoffs are massive

[Adam B]

Originally Posted by HockeyEnjoyer1980

Dropoffs in physical skills are massive, I dont understand how you not able to see it. Load the game yourself when they 30 y.o. and make comporison.

Honestly, in FHM 12, I have no issues in my teams, thanks to new training programs, which can help bounce back some physicals.
Issue mostly hurt AI teams now, which not using training programs and their dropoffs are massive

Just loaded up a brand new game.

For Kaprizov versus your screenshot;

Acceleration -2
Agility - 4
Balance - 2
Stamina -2
Strength +2

So in 6 years, he got a little slower (still above average though), but got stronger and still got close to PPG average.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

[HockeyEnjoyer1980]

Originally Posted by Adam B

Just loaded up a brand new game.

For Kaprizov versus your screenshot;

Acceleration -2
Agility - 4
Balance - 2
Stamina -2
Strength +2

So in 6 years, he got a little slower (still above average though), but got stronger and still got close to PPG average.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

I really has a feeling that we play in different games or you for some reason dont want devs fix balance breaking things.

Kaprizov on the start:


summary:
-2 Acceleration
-4 Agility
-2 Balance
-5 Speed
-2 Stamina
-2 Strenght

17 points dropoff and he is only 34 years, this is VERY MASSIVE and huge. This will be meaningfull if he was 36-37(with aging value 14 more than average), but not 34 omg...
Why don't you notice the obvious?

[Adam B]

Originally Posted by HockeyEnjoyer1980

I really has a feeling that we play in different games or you for some reason dont want devs fix balance breaking things.

Kaprizov on the start:


summary:
-2 Acceleration
-4 Agility
-2 Balance
-5 Speed
-2 Stamina
-2 Strenght

17 points dropoff and he is only 34 years, this is VERY MASSIVE and huge. This will be meaningfull if he was 36-37(with aging value 14 more than average), but not 34 omg...
Why don't you notice the obvious?

My apologies for missing speed. But the strength is a +, not a minus.

However, I'm not neglecting the point, but I think you're being unrealistic in terms of aging curves. Yes, players can fight some, but I'm pretty sure (and feel free to show evidence otherwise) that most players get slower when they're in the 30s. Losing speed, stamina, agility, etc makes sense in all of those categories. It's like this for every sport.

That being said, I asked you to talk about evidence of how the drop is happening.

So let's look at some facts.

Your screenshots are from 6 years into the future. Kaprizov has dropped 17 points you say. Okay. Let's round that to 20.

Over 6 years - 12 x 6 = 72 months.

Assuming he's not dipping to start a game (and I'm pretty sure that's a reasonable assumption), and lets say he starts losing -1 stat every month, he would start his decline in November/December of 2029 at age 32. Does that seem entirely unreasonable?

How many players have their career best years at age 32 or beyond? I can't think of any off hand myself.