Player Ability Ratings

[ArtVandelay]

The one thing that always bugs me about all simulation games is the inability to have a Gretzky or Babe Ruth type player. For example, in EHM 2007, Alex Ovechkin or Sid Crosby are considered like PA and CA 200 with several skill attributes set to about 20. Really, unless one of those guys is going to get 92 goals or 165 assists or 215 points, they should be more like a 170 or 180 OA with skill attributed maxing at 17 or 18 in their best categories. 19 and 20 should be rarified air and 200 PA/CA once in a lifetime.

Granted, this could be remedied in EHM 2007 with a roster update, but the tools don't exist to do a mass downgrade of every player so it's a major project. I want to see room left for true legendary greatness - Bobby Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux. We may not have another player so far above the competition again for a long time, but the game, to be realistic needs to account for it - in my opinion.

In a game that I've been half-baked working on for a few years, my concept was to have a max of 10 for each attribute but have the abilty for certain players to go to 15 or 20 if they were truly legendary in a given area. For example, Crosby might be a perfect 10 in passing. But Gretzky would be greater-than-perfect 20. Lemieux a 15 (maybe 20). No one else should be more than 10. That's it. Simply reserved for those kinds of legends.

Could something like this be managed when rating the players for this game?

And, I need to say thank you for seeming to really stick with it and be realistic about what you're doing here. It's refreshing and making me really hopeful.

[SeanSmash13]

I think the appearance of attributes needs to be standardized.. Like a 13 for an attribute means the same thing for every player with that 13 attribute. In EHM you have regens who have a CA of 40 or 50 something but look Pro-Ready.. meanwhile a player you drafted in the "07" draft who has 90 or 100 for CA still isn't looking as good as the regens. And the same idea for 2 players.. one who's 130 and another who's say 145 in CA but the 130 looks as good or better. I dunno, just a personal pet peeve of mine, but others may like it.

[BTerran]

I definitely agree with this idea. It's a common problem in sports games, a maximum rating is handed out to star players when it really should be reserved for a once in a generation type of talent. A player like Gretzky should set the bar for what the maximum is, while a player like Sidney Crosby should have noticeably inferior ratings.

[empach]

An alternate argument could be that those players are the exception to the rule and shouldn't skew the ratings scales; that the scales should represent the standard range of player abilities.

I'm not a fan of say locking 99% of the players in the game to a max of 15 on a scale of 20 for all the standard attributes. I'd be more willing to give a generational player, a Gretzky, a special attribute rating. A 25 for example or maybe a * or something. Or perhaps the generational players should be more dependent on certain mental attributes such as creativity, anticipation, vision. I'd be more willing to skew specific attributes ranges than the whole set.

Dabo talked of building new players based off templates rather than regens. Perhaps we could create a generational template that sets specific attributes automatically to max or overmax if we go that route. You'd need different variants of this template for different types of players like playmakers or snipers and the likeliness of the game generating one of these templates would have to be set very low.

I do think that having generational players is a good idea, but I'm not sure what the best method to create and represent them in the game would be. I think we need to consider who these players would be and what made them so great.

[bruins72]

I do think metal attributes can be a big factor on separating really good players and excellent players. That being said, a "generational talent" is an interesting idea. You'd really have to limit it though. I would make it so that you've only really got 1 playing at their peak at one time. How old are new players when they're spawned? 14 or 15 in North America, 16 in Europe? Maybe the next "Generational Talent" spawns when the current one reaches 30 years old? Or maybe a little older? So maybe make it that when the existing one is reaching their mid-30's the new one is just drafted and entering the league. Each "Generational" talent could be allowed 3 attributes to go above 20. Which attributes they were would depend on the player template. You might get a setup man that has extraordinary passing, anticipation, and creativity. Another guy might have acceleration, speed, and getting open. That sort of thing. Of course, every player in the DB would have to have a "Generational Talent" hidden attribute. Every player but "the man" would have a 0 while your "Generational Talent" would have a 1.

Speaking of player templates and player abilities, I'd like to see a way of making sure if we've got stats that don't change over the player's career, like some mental stats, that they start out set at an appropriate level based on the player's PA. For example, a setup man should not be spawned with a 5 anticipation and 7 creativity is he's got a 150 PA. He'll never be that good. It's a waste.

[dabo]

I was thinking a generational player should be created once every 20 years tops.

[BTerran]

An alternate argument could be that those players are the exception to the rule and shouldn't skew the ratings scales; that the scales should represent the standard range of player abilities.

I'm not a fan of say locking 99% of the players in the game to a max of 15 on a scale of 20 for all the standard attributes. I'd be more willing to give a generational player, a Gretzky, a special attribute rating. A 25 for example or maybe a * or something. Or perhaps the generational players should be more dependent on certain mental attributes such as creativity, anticipation, vision. I'd be more willing to skew specific attributes ranges than the whole set.

I think, as far as this part of the argument goes, the difference is kind of in your head. If we reserve 15-20 of an attribute to a player who is a generational talent (at very least in that category), then yes, 99.9% of players will be 1-15. If we say that 20-25 of an attribute of a player is the generational level, then all we're really changing is the scale from 1-20 to 1-25. If we make it 1-20 and then *, then the rating really goes from 1-21. There's no "overmax."

Also, I don't things have to be as rigid as you seem to be suggesting. A player can be a generational talent in one category and still not necessarily a superstar. What I mean is he could have a 16 rating in one category - which in this case would be extremely rare - but his other numbers are not impressive. Additionally, you could have players who start off looking like a generational talent, but turn out to be not as impressive. It'd be a fluid process. You wouldn't look at a guy and immediately know he's a Wayne Gretzky, because even Gretzky wouldn't have all max ratings in every category.

All I'm suggesting is to build a system that allows guys like Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, etc. It would be rare to find someone like that, but it should still be a possibility. Right now sports games don't really allow for that, which I think is unrealistic.

I was thinking a generational player should be created once every 20 years tops.

Yeah, I agree, maybe 20-30 years, but I wouldn't prevent the system from making 2 generational talents within a five year span. It seems like they often come in twos or threes and rivalries crop up and then when they're gone, there's nothing quite like them for another 20-30 years.

[bruins72]

Every 20 years would go along with what I was saying about the next generational talent spawning as a teenager when the current generational is 30-ish. Maybe bump it up to 35?

[bruins72]

Also, I don't things have to be as rigid as you seem to be suggesting. A player can be a generational talent in one category and still not necessarily a superstar. What I mean is he could have a 16 rating in one category - which in this case would be extremely rare - but his other numbers are not impressive. Additionally, you could have players who start off looking like a generational talent, but turn out to be not as impressive. It'd be a fluid process. You wouldn't look at a guy and immediately know he's a Wayne Gretzky, because even Gretzky wouldn't have all max ratings in every category.

All I'm suggesting is to build a system that allows guys like Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, etc. It would be rare to find someone like that, but it should still be a possibility. Right now sports games don't really allow for that, which I think is unrealistic.

Good point! I hate seeing the top guys have 20 in just about every category just because they have a high CA/PA. It would be better that they have certain attributes that go above 20 while others stay just decent or maybe even low.

[ArtVandelay]

Love where this is going. Before we agree to something like an every 20 years or so rule, I want to throw out my idea on who I consider to be generational players so we can think about how often they should pop up.

Here's my list along with the years in professional hockey (includes WHA) (I know folks will disagree, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere):

Maurice Richard: 1942-60
-I think he was generational because of his intensity, speed, leadership, and accuracy - he was unmatched in those areas until...

Gordie Howe: 1946-80
-He was generational for his toughness, agility, leadership, intensity, accuracy, 2-way play, and longevity

Bobby Orr: 1966-79
-Generational because of his speed, puckhandling, passing, vision, shooting, and ability to take over a game

Wayne Gretzky: 1978-99
-Generational because of his instincts/anticipation, intelligence, vision, pinpoint accuracy (passing and shooting), quick release

Mario Lemieux: 1984-06
-Generational because of his puckhandling, accuracy, vision, instincts/anticipation, quick release, agility

So...
2 came along in the 1940s
20 years later came Orr
12 years after that came Gretzky
6 more years until Lemieux

Now, I think we're still waiting for the next one - 26 years after Lemieux's rookie seasons.

[BTerran]

Gordie Howe: 1946-80
-He was generational for his toughness, agility, leadership, intensity, accuracy, 2-way play, and longevity

I agree with basically everything you said, but I wanted to highlight Howe because he brings up another good point. In a lot of sports games, they try and arrange it so that basically everyone is retired by the age of 45 at the latest. I think that's a mistake. We've seen players like Howe and Chelios who play significantly past that mark. I think that maybe 1% of the players out there never want to retire and they should continue to play until no team will sign him due to their regressed attributes (though they may continue to play in the minors for a year or two before finally giving up).

It's not always superstars that want to play forever, sometimes it's just regular players (though they're less likely to succeed in their goal of making it into their late 40s).

[empach]

Also, I don't things have to be as rigid as you seem to be suggesting.

Don't worry about it, even while I was writing that post I was rethinking some of what I said. Just trying to get some brainstorming going. I am definitely on board with some kind of generational player creation.



Ok so ArtVandelay listed some players that he thinks would be generational players that I think we can all agree with, anyone want to add anyone else? Maybe some borderline ones as it would probably help with developing templates and identifying traits that truly make players great, and help to establish the timeline for spawning.

Reoccurring attributes from ArtVandelay's list include: intensity, speed, leadership, accuracy, agility, quick release, puckhandling, vision, instincts/anticipation. The other ones he listed are important too but a few of these seem to reoccur regardless of the type of player we're talking about.

One thing I might suggest when inserting attributes for players in the db and having the ai create new players is to be careful how many players get really high (17-20) ratings in the mental attributes listed above. If those attributes are some of the ones that help set the really great players apart then it might be worthwhile to make it so only players that are really good in those areas get them. While ideally is how we've probably been doing it anyway but maybe we should put greater emphasis on it.



As for when they show up I'm ok with whatever timespan but I would like to see it be possible for more than one to spawn in a given time frame. What if every 10, 15, or 20 years we have the computer pick a random number between 1-6 to see if a generational player will spawn. If it's 6 then a new player is spawned, otherwise no new generational player is created. Or if we wanted the possibility of two to appear in the same time frame then 5 would be one player and 6 would be 2. And then I'd probably do another random number to possibly stagger the second player's creation by a year or two.
With this system it could be possible for too many to be playing but we could code for that too with a check to skip the random number if 3 or more are currently active.

[bruins72]

Ok so ArtVandelay listed some players that he thinks would be generational players that I think we can all agree with, anyone want to add anyone else? Maybe some borderline ones as it would probably help with developing templates and identifying traits that truly make players great, and help to establish the timeline for spawning.

Honestly, I'd be reluctant to suggest anyone beyond these guys because anyone else could actually be properly done within the regular parameters. Bourque, Coffey, Yzerman, Oates, Hull, and Mogilny are a few that spring to mind. They were all great but I really can't see ranking them beyond the 1-20 range.

[empach]

Honestly, I'd be reluctant to suggest anyone beyond these guys because anyone else could actually be properly done within the regular parameters. Bourque, Coffey, Yzerman, Oates, Hull, and Mogilny are a few that spring to mind. They were all great but I really can't see ranking them beyond the 1-20 range.

I see your point, but if nothing else I think we should have a goalie in there to base a template off. Hasek perhaps?

I realize there may not be anymore real generational players, but I'm thinking more in terms of developing templates for player creation.

[bruins72]

Hmmmm... good point. I guess you'd almost have to go with Hasek (or maybe Roy?) for a goalie because I don't know how fairly you could use goalies from the pre-mask era. Then again, I don't know if I'd want a goalie any better than what the system currently allows.

[Animal]

I really don't think it'd be a good idea to have "super players" like Gretzky or Lemieux in the game. 'Cause man I can tell you there won't be another one. There won't be "New Gretzky" or "New Lemieux" anymore. Those days are over. Hockey is a totally different game now. There are no bad players in the NHL anymore. So one player can't dominate the game nowadays like Gretzky did, no matter how good he is.

[ArtVandelay]

I really don't think it'd be a good idea to have "super players" like Gretzky or Lemieux in the game. 'Cause man I can tell you there won't be another one. There won't be "New Gretzky" or "New Lemieux" anymore. Those days are over. Hockey is a totally different game now. There are no bad players in the NHL anymore. So one player can't dominate the game nowadays like Gretzky did, no matter how good he is.

Of course, no one thought anyone would dominate the way Gretzky did before he actually came along.

No one thought Orr would revolutionize the defenseman's role before he came along.

Also, I CAN imagine a defenseman coming along and putting up 40 goals and 120 points like Orr and Coffey did. It will take a generational player though. Who have been the best defensemen over the past several years?

Lidstrom
Leetch
Bourque

There are certainly others, but these guys work for my case. Someone else made this point already but, these guys are/were GREAT players. As good as it's been over the past 15-20 years, right? None of them are Bobby Orr. Sorry. And, if someone like Orr came around again, he'd remind us that generational players can come around every now and again.

Also, I think a healthy Lemieux in his prime would STILL dominate today and possibly score 70-90 goals with 90-120 assists. There, I said it.

[empach]

I really don't think it'd be a good idea to have "super players" like Gretzky or Lemieux in the game. 'Cause man I can tell you there won't be another one. There won't be "New Gretzky" or "New Lemieux" anymore. Those days are over. Hockey is a totally different game now. There are no bad players in the NHL anymore. So one player can't dominate the game nowadays like Gretzky did, no matter how good he is.

An easy solution is have an option to turn off generational or super players in the game options.

[dabo]

Those days are over. Hockey is a totally different game now. There are no bad players in the NHL anymore. So one player can't dominate the game nowadays like Gretzky did, no matter how good he is.

I kind of agree with you, don't think anyone new will stand out as much as they did.

[Animal]

An easy solution is have an option to turn off generational or super players in the game options.

I don't think that's necessary. I can deal with this feature, as long as it doesn't unbalance the game. I just can't see it'd be realistic in near future.

[laskey 16]

I also think this whole 'generational talent' idea is pretty dumb, for reasons already covered.

[archibalduk]

Briefly, my two cents:

I like the proposal of having a 1-25 attribute range with the 21-25 range being reserved solely for generational players. If we were to do the same with a 1-20 range then it'd be too restrictive in that 99.99% of players (i.e. all of the non-generational players) would be limited to just the 1-15 range. 1-25 would give a little more breathing space.

The new player templates sounds like a good idea. So that when a new player is created his attributes/CA/PA would be influenced by a template. Perhaps each template could be weighted with a probability/likelihood rating? So when the game is creating a new player it randomly picks a template but the weighting makes it more likely that certain templates will be chosen. This would ensure generational players only crop up once every 30 years or whatnot.

Also, the generational player template could be removed/toned-down if users didn't want generational players in their game.

The only drawback with templates is that it could completely skew the game. If it is based on randomly picking a template each time a new player needs to be created then it is possible that an unrealistically large number of very good or very bad players could be created. I suppose at least the principle behind EHM's player regen system (i.e. a new player is created based on the CA/PA of a player who has just retired) will ensure that the balance within the hockey world is maintained - obviously the actual implementation of this by EHM perhaps hasn't been 100% successful

[A9L3E]

The only drawback with templates is that it could completely skew the game. If it is based on randomly picking a template each time a new player needs to be created then it is possible that an unrealistically large number of very good or very bad players could be created. I suppose at least the principle behind EHM's player regen system (i.e. a new player is created based on the CA/PA of a player who has just retired) will ensure that the balance within the hockey world is maintained - obviously the actual implementation of this by EHM perhaps hasn't been 100% successful

It's true what you say Archi, but if the game has thousands of players in the database, it's very unlikely that some day there wouldn't be any good players in the world. Sure the average ability of active players can change but I don't think it's gonna rise or fall dramatically.

[dabo]

I like the proposal of having a 1-25 attribute range with the 21-25 range being reserved solely for generational players. If we were to do the same with a 1-20 range then it'd be too restrictive in that 99.99% of players (i.e. all of the non-generational players) would be limited to just the 1-15 range. 1-25 would give a little more breathing space.

So when using the 1-100 range generational players would also use the 101-125 range.

The only drawback with templates is that it could completely skew the game. If it is based on randomly picking a template each time a new player needs to be created then it is possible that an unrealistically large number of very good or very bad players could be created. I suppose at least the principle behind EHM's player regen system (i.e. a new player is created based on the CA/PA of a player who has just retired) will ensure that the balance within the hockey world is maintained - obviously the actual implementation of this by EHM perhaps hasn't been 100% successful

I guess we could keep track of the quality of players who are retiring and have that in mind when creating new ones. While I like the idea of varying quality from year to year we do need some limitations.

Would be nice if countries like Denmark or Norway could have a chance of producing great players since I think that is starting to happen irl.

[CeeBee]

The only drawback with templates is that it could completely skew the game. If it is based on randomly picking a template each time a new player needs to be created then it is possible that an unrealistically large number of very good or very bad players could be created. I suppose at least the principle behind EHM's player regen system (i.e. a new player is created based on the CA/PA of a player who has just retired) will ensure that the balance within the hockey world is maintained - obviously the actual implementation of this by EHM perhaps hasn't been 100% successful

It's true what you say Archi, but if the game has thousands of players in the database, it's very unlikely that some day there wouldn't be any good players in the world. Sure the average ability of active players can change but I don't think it's gonna rise or fall dramatically.

I'd sure hate to see a league full of average players..... no bums or superstars