All general EHM-related discussion goes here. It's the place to chat about gameplay, online gameplay or concepts NOT related to specific topics. Claim bragging rights and impress the community by posting your records! CLICK HERE to purchase your copy of EHM 1.
Forum rules Data Editing Forum: Editing the game, databases or saved games. Home of the EHM Editor and the EHM Assistant.
Game Add-ons Forum: Database projects, graphics and sounds. Any discussion which does not relate to editing databases or saved games.
Rosters Forum: Discussion relating to all database and roster projects for Eastside Hockey Manager.
Technical Support: Difficulties, crashes and errors when installing or running the game (and nothing else). Any issues relating to the TBL Rosters must be posted in the TBL Rosters forum. Questions about how to install add-ons must be posted in the Game Add-ons Forum.
General EHM Chat: Anything relating to Eastside Hockey Manager 2004 / 2005 / 2007 / 1 which does not fall within any of the other forums.
Please carry out a forum search before you start a new thread.
Anyone else thinks the salaries have been overdone? Average backup goalies asking for 5-6 million per season, good backup/possible starter asking for 11 million.
naff 4th liners wanting 9.7 million?????
A guy with less than 30 NHL games wanting 5.2 million?
What the hell happened here? For the first time ever SI has broken the game
Everyone wants five years. Nobody wants 4 or 6 or more or less. Everyone wants to earn more than Sidney Crosby. Someone please say it's just me that this has not happened to the game I love so much. Thank god I have the last version backed up, however my saved game is screwed as I have already saved it in the new version.
Last patch has been nice....all relevant ratings for almost all players went down 1,2 or even (rarely) 3 points from one day to another (during the season) - f.e. OEL 25y in his prime , positioning went from 18 to 16, passing from 20 to 17 and so on....dunno if it´s the patch, just wanted to mention it, maybe it happened to others too
I'm not this far into the game, but I will try and check this weekend what happens with the new build in UFA.
I do that too, however I have it set to save every two weeks, my game was loaded just before the playoffs and saved again July 1st, so all rolling autosaves are already from 15.7
Duranium wrote:Last patch has been nice....all relevant ratings for almost all players went down 1,2 or even (rarely) 3 points from one day to another (during the season) - f.e. OEL 25y in his prime , positioning went from 18 to 16, passing from 20 to 17 and so on....dunno if it´s the patch, just wanted to mention it, maybe it happened to others too
Well I guess if it's all stats for all players then fair enough, but I hope it's not selective, would be a bit unfair if you've acquired someone good only for SI to screw them.
Older players always demand long contracts, and they don't seem to demand less with age - Stats starting to fall off but still 10 mil a year for 4 years? No thanks!
I patched up my game last night and my save was just before the draft. So I simmed to 2nd july (2018). Didn't have the same problem.
Don't know which new changes apply to old saves and how they might affect. I started a new game with latest patch, but still in early stages.
Older players always demand long contracts, and they don't seem to demand less with age - Stats starting to fall off but still 10 mil a year for 4 years? No thanks!
I have actually seen few contracts over 5m. The FA- pool is also thinner than in 2007 - much less star players become UFA. They wan't longer contracts (that's good) so no more one or two year contracts with different teams. I've seen many 35+ players accept short term contracts with less money. Patrick Sharp for example signed with Penguins for 3m for one year as a 36 year old. Then again Thomas Vanek got 2x8m+ from San Jose, but that's the free agent frenzy and that's how it should be.
Younger players actually accept far less than market value. Boucher and Pulkkinen both scored 30 goals for me last season and wanted just north of 2m for four years and Turris (image above) scored 60+ points last season.
Duranium wrote:Last patch has been nice....all relevant ratings for almost all players went down 1,2 or even (rarely) 3 points from one day to another (during the season) - f.e. OEL 25y in his prime , positioning went from 18 to 16, passing from 20 to 17 and so on....dunno if it´s the patch, just wanted to mention it, maybe it happened to others too
Well I guess if it's all stats for all players then fair enough, but I hope it's not selective, would be a bit unfair if you've acquired someone good only for SI to screw them.
FYI - it's a known/planned/intended change, and applies to all players (mentioned in the change log too)
OP: How did you end up with a $269M player budget?
Tupe's posting has the more conventional $80M or so budget with the more normal demands. I'm thinking the problem centers around that.
I have noticed the attribute changes. Not thrilled.
BrooklynIslander wrote:I have noticed the attribute changes. Not thrilled.
Not sure how helpful “not thrilled” is as feedback…is there some reasoning behind your feelings?
IMO the Attribute adjustment was necessary for a number of reasons, including to ensure differentiation of Player Roles and avoid “superplayers” (unrealistically high Attribute ratings in to many areas); testing showed these concerns clearly
BrooklynIslander wrote:I have noticed the attribute changes. Not thrilled.
Not sure how helpful “not thrilled” is as feedback…is there some reasoning behind your feelings?
IMO the Attribute adjustment was necessary for a number of reasons, including to ensure differentiation of Player Roles and avoid “superplayers” (unrealistically high Attribute ratings in to many areas); testing showed these concerns clearly
That's fine and understood if you are starting a new game or are relatively new into a saved game. In my saved game that's currently in 2035/36, it's not as welcoming; especially when my "superplayer" is a player I drafted in the 2nd round, before I was using the assistant and should be entering the prime of his career at this point, not seeing a reduction. If injuries or something related to the game caused it, it's perfectly fine. That it was something that occurred because of an update, is harder to swallow. (thankfully, there is the assistant but it feels dirty to change these back).
Last edited by BrooklynIslander on Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BrooklynIslander wrote:OP: How did you end up with a $269M player budget?
Tupe's posting has the more conventional $80M or so budget with the more normal demands. I'm thinking the problem centers around that.
I have noticed the attribute changes. Not thrilled.
Man you have accidentally solved the mystery. I was hex editing to change the 69 million cap to 71.4 for the 2015/2016 season. Since there are several 69000000 entries I just added a extra 2 to the value whislt I found the correct one. Once I found the right one I changed all previously edited back to 69, but I missed some teams.
Harding now want's some more realistic numbers than 11.3 million and as you can see the team budget is back to it's original value. Now you know guys. Small budget teams can actually get players cheaper. That's what I learned from this mistake. I'd always thought they would have to pay more to entice them to a non traditional hockey market.
Last edited by mpronger on Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BrooklynIslander wrote:thankfully, there is the assistant but it feels dirty to change these back).
Not sure how well it'll actually work either, unless you change the players CA (and maybe Player Role?) as well
I did some testing last weekend (testing looking at dozens of players over years and entering every Attribute), and one of the first things I noticed was the game was changing actual database Attributes at start-up!.....there's definitely some "logic" behind what range an Attribute can be in (based on things like CA and Player Role)
BrooklynIslander wrote:I have noticed the attribute changes. Not thrilled.
Not sure how helpful “not thrilled” is as feedback…is there some reasoning behind your feelings?
IMO the Attribute adjustment was necessary for a number of reasons, including to ensure differentiation of Player Roles and avoid “superplayers” (unrealistically high Attribute ratings in to many areas); testing showed these concerns clearly
That's fine and understood if you are starting a new game or are relatively new into a saved game. In my saved game that's currently in 2035/36, it's not as welcoming; especially when my "superplayer" is a player I drafted in the 2nd round, before I was using the assistant and should be entering the prime of his career at this point, not seeing a reduction. If injuries or something related to the game caused it, it's perfectly fine. That it was something that occurred because of an update, is harder to swallow. (thankfully, there is the assistant but it feels dirty to change these back).
You should also remember the fact that we're still in Early Access mode, which means tweaking and changes will happen. The game is not "ready" yet.
nino33 wrote:Not sure how well it'll actually work either, unless you change the players CA (and maybe Player Role?) as well
I did some testing last weekend (testing looking at dozens of players over years and entering every Attribute), and one of the first things I noticed was the game was changing actual database Attributes at start-up!.....there's definitely some "logic" behind what range an Attribute can be in (based on things like CA and Player Role)
I'll give it a shot, haven't simmed enough games since using it after the update to know if its helped but my initial thought is that you are probably right.
Tasku wrote:
You should also remember the fact that we're still in Early Access mode, which means tweaking and changes will happen. The game is not "ready" yet.
BrooklynIslander wrote:thankfully, there is the assistant but it feels dirty to change these back).
Not sure how well it'll actually work either, unless you change the players CA (and maybe Player Role?) as well
I did some testing last weekend (testing looking at dozens of players over years and entering every Attribute), and one of the first things I noticed was the game was changing actual database Attributes at start-up!.....there's definitely some "logic" behind what range an Attribute can be in (based on things like CA and Player Role)
I have been wondering about this actually. Do we know what values are "primitive" and what values are "derived" from them? Does the game take CA as given and then assign player attributes or does it take player attributes and then figure out CA?
Neat. I actually started a new game post-patch and I like the new, slightly lower, attributes. It makes great players really stand out and, in my opinion, defines player roles a bit more.
Duranium wrote:Last patch has been nice....all relevant ratings for almost all players went down 1,2 or even (rarely) 3 points from one day to another (during the season) - f.e. OEL 25y in his prime , positioning went from 18 to 16, passing from 20 to 17 and so on....dunno if it´s the patch, just wanted to mention it, maybe it happened to others too
Well I guess if it's all stats for all players then fair enough, but I hope it's not selective, would be a bit unfair if you've acquired someone good only for SI to screw them.
FYI - it's a known/planned/intended change, and applies to all players (mentioned in the change log too)
Fair enough, like I say if it's across the board then it won't really have any effect. Can't say I've noticed it, but not that many superstar players in my game since the development is slow, especially for my own players. Maybe a few stats have dropped in non-key areas, but I could be imagining it.
The salaries in my game are usually a bit lower than I expect, for example my star defender Ryan Murray is in the prime of his career and signed a long term 2.1 million dollar deal, but 38 year old Jay Bouwmeester just signed a one year 10.5 million dollar contract with the San Jose Sharks!
Can someone explain to me how to sign a free agent with their cap hit being lower than their actual salary? I can't see any way to do it, their cap hit is their salary + signing bonus divided by contract length right? So the hit can never be lower than their salary for a UFA?(obviously there can be trades where teams retain the cap, but then is that even in this game?).
I've found a team with several players they signed counting less against the cap and I want to know if this is a bug or is there some way I can do this too?
lemming3k wrote:Can someone explain to me how to sign a free agent with their cap hit being lower than their actual salary? I can't see any way to do it, their cap hit is their salary + signing bonus divided by contract length right? So the hit can never be lower than their salary for a UFA?
Isn't it because salary amounts can vary for different years in a contract? i.e. a two year contract of $2 million the first year and $4 million the second year would result in a $3 million cap hit for both years (and in year 1 the salary would be lower than the cap hit)
lemming3k wrote:Can someone explain to me how to sign a free agent with their cap hit being lower than their actual salary? I can't see any way to do it, their cap hit is their salary + signing bonus divided by contract length right? So the hit can never be lower than their salary for a UFA?
Isn't it because salary amounts can vary for different years in a contract? i.e. a two year contract of $2 million the first year and $4 million the second year would result in a $3 million cap hit for both years (and in year 1 the salary would be lower than the cap hit)
I thought that, but what if it's a one year contract, or the cap hit is lower than either year? Like you say, a 2 mil and 4 mil 2 year would be 3 mil hit per year (plus signing bonus) - what I've seen is 11 mil + 10 mill = 10 mil cap hit. Or single year contracts of 11 mil with a 10 mil cap hit.
I can post some screenshots tonight but the math seems way off.
](./images/smilies/wallbash.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Now you know guys. Small budget teams can actually get players cheaper. That's what I learned from this mistake. I'd always thought they would have to pay more to entice them to a non traditional hockey market.
