Trying to get into it... trying to understand

[Ryanenu]

I am starting up my game as the Avalanche and there were a few things right off the bat that are making it hard to enjoy the game...

- I wanted to give a small rating boost to Kerfoot and Andrighetto to 2.0 up from 1.5 and to bring Wilson down from 3.0 stars to 2.5 because I feel like this is better match for their real life skill. However, as far as I can tell this is impossible. Kerfoot & Andrighetto are 1.5 or 2.5 there is no in between. I have spent a long time trying different ratings combinations but nothing works. I can get it to a point where changing one stat, just one tick will have them jump from 1.5 all the way to 2.5. I don't know if it has to do with scouting, the ratings, their role, or what but these players can't be a 2.0 like others can be. I can bring Wilson down from 3.0 to 2.0 just fine.

- Then in setting up my lines I was trying to put Rantanen on my top line only to figure out his best role is a 4/4 in a power forward role, all his other roles are 3/3. So what that tells me is he is not able to fill ANY role, in any tactic on the 1st line without a 1 point penalty to the team tactic? How does that make sense? Will he learn throughout the season and become a 5/5 in time in my system?

- Playing through the preseason I spent a lot of time trying to max out my tactic ratings. I thought I found the best tactic and moved players around to max out their roles wherever possible, and before each game maxed out the best counter roles without dropping my score too much, but I was at a tactics disadvantage in every game. Now of course the Avs are awful so I can understand them being at a disadvantage based on their player ratings, but shouldn’t a “good” coach be able to put in a tactic that at least some nights mitigates their rating disadvantage?

- What was most curious was that I actually won the 5v5 my Def vs their Off sometimes. Which is weird because the Avalanche are an AWFUL defensive team in real life and a pretty good offensive team. So I feel like if anything it should be flipped. I had nearly no chance on the PP and PK as I lost the tactical battle significantly in each game on both specials team phases. So now I am just starting the season and I feel like there is nothing I can do, I always loose the special team battle and my offense can’t beat their defense. I can’t “coach” my players any different, as far as I could tell this was the best tactic without going through each tactic, finding the best roles and lines for each and adding it up to figure out if there is another tactic that “technically” would net a higher score. Will this group of players ALWAYS struggle together can they not learn the tactic/roles better other than Familiarity improving? (Although I don’t think this is the problem because everyone starts unfamiliar and everyone else will improve their familiarity as well) Can they never learn to fill a different role at all or improve at a role if it is not maxed out? Then how much does changing to a counter role help or hurt? I am just so confused and the game doesn't provide feedback to help you make informed choices…

For me anyway the game starts and I am at a disadvantage and I don’t know why or what I can do to fix anything, because I’ve already maxed it out as best as possible. Then even when I do change something mid-game I don’t ever see the score on the tactics battle ever change?

I feel like system has potential but it just locks you into you playing your players a certain, rigid way and gameplay is just trying to max out a number, it never feels like your actually coaching humans nor are you able to adapt your system or approach in a way that isn't just looking at numbers and red bars. I think a system more like FM where you have a little more freedom in player selection, roles, and tactics and you are constantly trying to find different roles and instructions to match the players, opposition, and game situations, while trying to find the right players to play well together. FM always feels dynamic and you get to know players beyond the rating whereas this system you take all the humanity out and are coaching numbers.

I don’t know the game still feels very weird to me I am trying to get into it but too much takes me out of the experience.

[JeffR]

Andrighetto and Kerfoot, in the game, are in a similar situation: forwards with pretty good, but not fantastic, offensive skills combined with defensive deficiencies. Their offensive ratings are good enough for a top-6 role, but their lack of defensive skill will keep them from playing there on a typical team. They're not good candidates for a checking line, obviously, so the overall rating considers that and tends to drop them down to fourth-line level (1.5ish stars). But just about any significant change to their ratings will elevate them to top-6 status (i.e., the 2.5+ rating), since they're either becoming good enough offensively to ignore the defensive shortcomings, or good enough defensively that the weakness is gone. They skip right over the typical third-line, 2.0ish level. You can actually get them to a 2 if you start by reducing their offensive ratings by several attribute points and increasing the defensive ones by a corresponding number, which is essentially taking them out of consideration for a scoring role but making them well-rounded enough to get a lot of icetime.

As Rantanen improves, his ratings will, too. He's a better power forward than any other role right now, but his other skills are high enough that he's likely not far from hitting 4 in other roles. Unless he happens to get an unusual development pattern that sends numbers like strength up first, you'll see his other role scores increase, letting him be effective in an increasing number of roles, and then he'll starting getting 5's, most likely in power forward first. The same goes for any player: as their ratings improve (or decline), their effectiveness for roles will change.

Maxing out the tactical scores needs to be balanced with other considerations. If you've got a tactic that doesn't have a role that's ideal for a particular player, it still may make sense to give him a lot of icetime doing something that's less than optimal for him, rather than dropping him to a lower line or out of the lineup entirely. His individual performance may offset his smaller contribution to the team's system - and, conversely, a group of one-dimensional players each selected because they can get a good score in a particular role that fits the tactic isn't necessarily the best lineup for a team - the team's tactics scores may be great, but the advantage the players get from that isn't going to offset their weaknesses. Things like morale and chemistry come into play, too. Tactical scores are important, but shouldn't be the only factor you're considering.