Nobody won the Stanley Cup in the first season of the Nashville challenge. I think one person won it in the second season. Then a few won it in the third. As I've said, we've made quite a bit of effort to make these challenges more difficult.selne wrote: No, the sky is still there!
You just win too much, and i think it can't be fun. Many guys won the Stanley right in their first season in the challenges, because every team had it's star player. Arnott in the last Nashville challenge, now there is Tkachuk, Doan.
As for having Tkachuk in this challenge, he's really good in the first season but he's on a rapid decline from there. In season two he's not as good. Then by season three I'm expecting him to be worse. His physical attributes keep dropping because of his age. He retires after season 3 and when we made the database we made it so that he would have a No Trade clause in his contract which takes away a major player from the team and prevents you from getting any return on your asset. We did the same thing with Selanne except that he retires a year sooner.
Throwing lots of smilies and winks doesn't make what you say less snarky.selne wrote:The last time i played EHM i had only players with less than 190 lbs and 150 potential on my roster. That was really challenging, to make tactics that work for the small and skinny players in the game. My star player was Stephen Weiss with 70 points in the first season. That was fun, because i didn't won a Stanley Cup in the first seasons. When i read about people trading for guys like Chara.. I just think it can't be fun to always win.
As for limiting the size of your players, that really doesn't have an effect on the game. It's the strength attribute that makes a difference more than the weight. And Weiss is quite a talented player. It's no big surprise that you were able to get 70 points with him. I'm sure many people could get more than that out of him. I used him a while back when I played a game using the Panthers and he was quite effective. Size really doesn't matter in this case.
As for potential, I tend to stay out of the editor, so I don't really know what each player's potential is. I guess that makes the game a little tougher for me. I have to rely on my scouts and what I see of the players. If I know what every player's potential is, I would think that would make it a lot easier to know who is good and how good they can get rather than wasting my time developing a player that will never quite be good enough. I think I'll stick to playing blind and just relying on my scouts and my own analysis rather than checking potential though.
As for Chara, having him doesn't guarantee wins. He's a very effective player and he will be the core of your defense but he surely doesn't mean you'll win all the time. As for trading for him, we limit our trades to just 2 per season and we also limit the number of players per side in a trade. To get Chara I had to give up a young center (Sam Gagner) that every team wanted to get their hands on. Actually, I had to give up Gagner and Anton Stralman (a young offensive defenseman) to get Chara and Mark Stuart but I consider Stralman for Stuart canceling each other out. That's not exploiting the game's AI. That's giving up a strength in one area to gain it in another. Gagner was the only other potential offensive (1st or 2nd line) center in my system. It's not like I was trading away a bunch of garbage to get Chara.
And to get back to my original deal for Kopitar in which you compared him to a game-breaker like Marleau or Thornton, I've made a screen shot showing the stats for Kopitar, Marleau, Thornton, and Jokinen. You can see, that Kopitar clearly isn't in the same category.
Comparison Screenshot
Because we don't play the same way as you, we're all wrong? I really didn't find anything constructive in what you've said. Forgive me for being rude but since you've don't participate in the challenges, I take your opinion with a grain of salt.