Epic fail - game is too easy!

[zagardlenie]

Are the creators aware of the fact that the most important factor in the game, which is the results of the managed team, are mostly dependent on the Tactical Advantage? And how does one gain Tactical Advantage? In a very simple way. All one has to do is select a suitable Offence Tactic and Defence Tactic. The creators are guiding the players by the hand using the Suitability, indicated by dots. All the player does is select a system with the largest amount of dots – a challenge fit for a four year old. Later in the pregame screen You have introduced Countering Roles mini game. The player would have to be a total idiot to have difficulty setting a few red or yellow roles. Half a minute before each game is all it takes to gain 10-20 points of tactical advantage against every opponent. This is mad. I understand that other players are so lazy that they do not bother with all those potions and mindlessly use the SimGame option. How can You offer such easy solutions to the players? Because of that, playing in the GM+Head Coach mode is no challenge at all.

My two attempts:

1. Washington Capitals: 21 GP, 19-2-0, I stopped playing
2. Colorado Avalanche: 30 GP, 21-7-2, only 61 lost goals, the least in the whole league

In the Colorado Avalanche play through I even edited the Head Coaches in the league and raised their Tactics, Ingame Tactics and Evaluate Abilities attributes up to 19-20. It didn’t do much. I still can achieve a sufficient Tactical Advantage which is 90% of winning a match. Right now I am second in the whole league right after the Washington Capitals. In my match against the Caps, the strongest team in the league (I edited the attributes of Barry Trotz up to 20), I gained the tactical advantage in a trivial way, without assigning all possible red and yellow roles: WAS OFF vs COL DEF 54-60, COL OFF vs WAS DEF 60-53, WAS PP vs COL PK 25-39, excluding COL PP vs WAS PK 30-34. This is ridiculous!

Your game is a hockey manager, it does not look anything like most games and as such it should be directed at a niche group of enthusiasts, so why it does not offer a serious challenge? Was it made for people who get excited with Sidney Crosby getting 150 points in a season, or getting 5 Stanley Cups in a row? All signs seem to indicate it. For me this game is a FANTASY Hockey Manager. Playing something so unrealistic is a total waste of time. I used to hope that Your manager would be less ridiculous than the rival, EHM.

[krpotter]

As a long time FHM player, I can't say I agree with you here. Rather than getting into a pointless argument, I have a few suggestions to bring up the challenge level of the game for you.

Give it more than half a season per game. Give it a go for at least five. Regardless of how well you assign tactics and player roles, you won't always have players who can live up to their positions/roles. Especially when the cap starts to get in your way.

Turn on fog of war and challenge mode. Start as a totally unknown GM, don't add any additional points to your profile (earn them as you go through the game), and work for whichever team in whichever league will take you.

If you can win your league five times in a row with all of this in place, you are a better man than I, and should be the one developing the game. Haha.

Cheers!

[zagardlenie]

"Play when you're drunk", "Use joystick, not mouse", bla bla, sorry.

[Tangerino]

Originally Posted by zagardlenie

"Play when you're drunk", "Use joystick, not mouse", bla bla, sorry.

I mean buddy gave you a few good ideas to make the game a little more challenging and instead of potentially trying it you are gonna be a cuck.. have fun going through life with the expectations that everything is made for your exact needs.. instead of responding like a prick you could have said "hey pal thanks for the advice but I'd rather be a miserable prick my whole life and complain about everything cry cry cry.." baby back bitch.

Also if you want complete realism how about you get off your lazy ass and manage an actual hockey team? Gonna come up with excuses?
Its a ****ing video game.. .

[zagardlenie]

Moralizing advice, haha, are you (Tangerino) American boy or FHM fanboy? Get a life.

"...buddy gave you a few good ideas to make the game a little more challenging" - I did something more: I raised Head Coaches attributes, make only fair trades - in my opinion, etc... I know this game very well, I played FHM 3 a lot more - problem with difficulty level was the same.

"...don't add any additional points to your profile" - come on... (krpotter).

[krpotter]

Forget it.

[zagardlenie]

krpotter, You are trying to defend gameplay, ok, butt You don't tell me that my mini guide about Tactical Advantage not work with game mechanics.

[maikgianino]

Originally Posted by krpotter

As a long time FHM player, I can't say I agree with you here. Rather than getting into a pointless argument, I have a few suggestions to bring up the challenge level of the game for you.

Give it more than half a season per game. Give it a go for at least five. Regardless of how well you assign tactics and player roles, you won't always have players who can live up to their positions/roles. Especially when the cap starts to get in your way.

Turn on fog of war and challenge mode. Start as a totally unknown GM, don't add any additional points to your profile (earn them as you go through the game), and work for whichever team in whichever league will take you.

If you can win your league five times in a row with all of this in place, you are a better man than I, and should be the one developing the game. Haha.

Cheers!

I'm not going to defend the guy who started the thread because obviously wants to have a fight but I must say that the comments to "counter" his theory are yet missing in this thread.

This comment confirms that what he said is not very far from reality though. If your argument is "put everything very difficult" means that probably this guy was speaking with the truth.

I have to be very honest, I didn't want to touch the pre game tactical advantage because I been always afraid that the game turns into a very easy challenge so I play with the tactics as they are even though since I got used to most mechanichs in the game I'm getting playoffs every season with every team I play.

I'm not saying "I agree with zagardlenie" but I would like to read a comment that actually counters his theory not something that actually confirms what is he saying.

Maybe is my bad English or maybe not but I understood your comment as "I do agree with you, better try this to make it challenging".

Would be a nice discussion if you guys stop fighting about pointless arguments and focus in game mechanics. I said once in other thread that the "Player Roles" are my least favorite feature of the game.

[JeffR]

Let's keep it polite, guys. There's no need for name-calling. I haven't banned someone from the forum in a long time, and would rather not break that streak.

You're wildly overestimating the influence of the tactical scores on winning a game. Getting a tactical advantage isn't "90% of winning a match" or anywhere close to it. It provides a bonus to the players, but it's an incremental one - getting it consistently won't turn the least talented team in a league into a champion. Additionally, if all you're doing is min/maxing the tactical scores relative to your opponent without reference to whether the roles make sense for the players and/or lines, you may actually be making the team worse - if you've got three players with shooting-oriented roles on a line, for example, that's not going to turn out well in the long run because no one's trying to set up plays.

The tactical system is only one aspect of building and maintaining a winning team, and is much less significant than the roster-building aspects.

[Gerry58]

Originally Posted by zagardlenie

Are the creators aware of the fact that the most important factor in the game, which is the results of the managed team, are mostly dependent on the Tactical Advantage? And how does one gain Tactical Advantage? In a very simple way. All one has to do is select a suitable Offence Tactic and Defence Tactic. The creators are guiding the players by the hand using the Suitability, indicated by dots. All the player does is select a system with the largest amount of dots – a challenge fit for a four year old. Later in the pregame screen You have introduced Countering Roles mini game. The player would have to be a total idiot to have difficulty setting a few red or yellow roles. Half a minute before each game is all it takes to gain 10-20 points of tactical advantage against every opponent. This is mad. I understand that other players are so lazy that they do not bother with all those potions and mindlessly use the SimGame option. How can You offer such easy solutions to the players? Because of that, playing in the GM+Head Coach mode is no challenge at all.

My two attempts:

1. Washington Capitals: 21 GP, 19-2-0, I stopped playing
2. Colorado Avalanche: 30 GP, 21-7-2, only 61 lost goals, the least in the whole league

In the Colorado Avalanche play through I even edited the Head Coaches in the league and raised their Tactics, Ingame Tactics and Evaluate Abilities attributes up to 19-20. It didn’t do much. I still can achieve a sufficient Tactical Advantage which is 90% of winning a match. Right now I am second in the whole league right after the Washington Capitals. In my match against the Caps, the strongest team in the league (I edited the attributes of Barry Trotz up to 20), I gained the tactical advantage in a trivial way, without assigning all possible red and yellow roles: WAS OFF vs COL DEF 54-60, COL OFF vs WAS DEF 60-53, WAS PP vs COL PK 25-39, excluding COL PP vs WAS PK 30-34. This is ridiculous!

Your game is a hockey manager, it does not look anything like most games and as such it should be directed at a niche group of enthusiasts, so why it does not offer a serious challenge? Was it made for people who get excited with Sidney Crosby getting 150 points in a season, or getting 5 Stanley Cups in a row? All signs seem to indicate it. For me this game is a FANTASY Hockey Manager. Playing something so unrealistic is a total waste of time. I used to hope that Your manager would be less ridiculous than the rival, EHM.

Washington and Colorado are very good teams in real life too, so what?

[zagardlenie]

Originally Posted by JeffR

Getting a tactical advantage isn't "90% of winning a match" or anywhere close to it.

So, what percentage is it? It is even possible to measure?

Originally Posted by JeffR

The tactical system is only one aspect of building and maintaining a winning team, and is much less significant than the roster-building aspects.

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)

(I appreciated all the hard work You put into this game, but I'm disappointed. I started the thread for better FHM 5.)

Originally Posted by Gerry58

Washington and Colorado are very good teams in real life too, so what?

I am not writing about my spectacular season with Caps or Colorado Avalanche. I am writing about how easily we can gain Tactical Advantage against every opponent.

Colorado very good team in real life? Since January 2018? Colorado clinches final playoff berth in last game, and made the playoffs for first time since 2013/14. Never mind. Look at Avalanche roster in FHM database. They are bad/average team with average/good potential - not to dominate in first season.

(I genuinely apologise for my terrible English.)

[krpotter]

Originally Posted by maikgianino

I'm not going to defend the guy who started the thread because obviously wants to have a fight but I must say that the comments to "counter" his theory are yet missing in this thread.

This comment confirms that what he said is not very far from reality though. If your argument is "put everything very difficult" means that probably this guy was speaking with the truth.

I have to be very honest, I didn't want to touch the pre game tactical advantage because I been always afraid that the game turns into a very easy challenge so I play with the tactics as they are even though since I got used to most mechanichs in the game I'm getting playoffs every season with every team I play.

I'm not saying "I agree with zagardlenie" but I would like to read a comment that actually counters his theory not something that actually confirms what is he saying.

Maybe is my bad English or maybe not but I understood your comment as "I do agree with you, better try this to make it challenging".

Would be a nice discussion if you guys stop fighting about pointless arguments and focus in game mechanics. I said once in other thread that the "Player Roles" are my least favorite feature of the game.

You're absolutely right. Playing the game standard has an average level of challenge. Sometimes I play a game where I want my Flames to win seven Stanley Cups in row, other times I want to suffer my way through the Swedish minor system before working my way up the big boy league.

A good game offers the user a variety of opportunities to increase and decrease the challenge. If the game had only hardcore mode, that wouldn't be fun. If it only had easy mode, that also wouldn't be fun. FHM lets you customize it to your tastes, you just have to be willing to put in the time to play with the settings.

[croatian]

i dont find it too easy. sometimes I overachieved with bad teams, sometimes I underachieved it with rosters which were predicted to challenge for title...sure, if you are playing with likes of Bern in NLA or SKA in KHL which basically have "blank cheque" when it comes to money, then yes, it is possible to create almost unbeatable team.

[maikgianino]

I enjoy the game a lot.
Let me share a short story. Lost my job in December, I'm still unemployed so I can't spend money before thinking twice. With that said, took lot of time to read reviews of EHM and FHM, aside EHM seems to be more popular on Internet and somehow some people says that FHM is bad, decided to get both. EHM first and like 2 weeks later bought FHM and after playing both I liked more FHM.

Many factors make the game more interesting and FUN TO PLAY than the other one.
So thank you Jeff and the rest team behind the game and also Adam that helped me a lot!

Much love guys, we can make FHM a better game that already is!

[JeffR]

Tangerino, Mancandy, I've deleted the last few posts between the two of you. If you continue, you'll be gone from the forum. Last warning. This isn't /pol/.

[JeffR]

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.

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.

[zagardlenie]

JeffR,

You are very diplomatic. Let me recap what I have written: in Your game, in the first season, the player begins as a rookie trainer, with very low attributes, right? And yet in a very trivial way he gets tactical advantage over Barry Trotz, Peter Laviolette, John Cooper and all other. This is absurd. What was the target age in your assumptions? Don’t tell me…

I was alarmed when I noticed an issue with the improperly displayed “momentum” indicator and wrote about it on the forum. I thought: “what is wrong with those people that so many days have passed since the update patch (which started problem with momentum) and nobody but me has noticed this error?” I mean, the momentum indicator is essential in the course of every game, is it not? Every player must react to its changes, at least by adjusting the “Tempo” or “Offensive Risk-Taking”. But who cares about that… Then I realised that most people playing FHM is simply lazy. There are many players who do not even bother to look at the tactics screen because they do not feel like tweaking a solutions that at first look seem complicated but in reality are quite simple. And since they do not comprehend tactics, they also do not follow the course of a game and do not react accordingly.

By the way, the problem with momentum was not fixed yet, which is silly… It only strengthens me in my belief that the whole tactics mechanic in the game is fake. This game’s only purpose is to complete a decked out roster in a trivial and underdeveloped transfer system and outplay everyone in the league in the SIM mode.

Maybe in a few years this game will be better developed.

(In my opinion, You should resign from the Countering Roles system and the numerical values for each tactic – more should be left as unknown to players, more dependent on the hockey players’ current skill (= streaks) and disposition. Furthermore, no dots and Suitability indicator. Instead of a Countering Roles there should be a new system based on the mentality of distinct lines, eg. defensive mode – when the player wants to shutdown the opponent’s line, etc. Also, you should consider removing the attributes from Head Coaches (including the one controlled by the player) because this system is not objective. Each coach should be unpredictable.)