2006/07: Updated Unfaking Database v6+ (Continuation by CJ)

[CJ]

Guys, you can download v6.0. It doesn't have the scoring realism patch.

[nino33]

Guys, you can download v6.0. It doesn't have the scoring realism patch.

Will you continue to maintain a non-patched version of the UUDB beyond 6.0?
I don't use the patch myself, and prefer to reduce scoring via CA/Attribute editing (i.e. I think the overrated talent pool is the primary reason for the excess scoring)

[jhart05]

Guys, you can download v6.0. It doesn't have the scoring realism patch.

Will you continue to maintain a non-patched version of the UUDB beyond 6.0?
I don't use the patch myself, and prefer to reduce scoring via CA/Attribute editing (i.e. I think the overrated talent pool is the primary reason for the excess scoring)

Nino, Cj, and everyone ...

Using Archie's new EHM 2007 Updater v2.0.2.
http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... 10&t=11154

I've placed both v6.0 and v6.1 into an excel spreadsheet.

Found the differences and can basically "un-patch" v6.1 while keeping CJ's 50 to 100 updated players from v6.0 to v6.1.

Shouldn't be too hard at all. Will probably have this tonight. CJ, if you want to send me a PM with your email, I'll send it over to you.

I am noticing a few dupicate players. Is there anything we want to do with those? They look to be all from non-North American leagues.

[CJ]

Shouldn't be too hard at all. Will probably have this tonight. CJ, if you want to send me a PM with your email, I'll send it over to you.

I am noticing a few dupicate players. Is there anything we want to do with those? They look to be all from non-North American leagues.

You can use http://www.zippyshare.com/ if you want to upload something. Then post the link here.

[CJ]

Guys, you can download v6.0. It doesn't have the scoring realism patch.

Will you continue to maintain a non-patched version of the UUDB beyond 6.0?
I don't use the patch myself, and prefer to reduce scoring via CA/Attribute editing (i.e. I think the overrated talent pool is the primary reason for the excess scoring)

Well I don't know. I don't really like the original as there will tons of players who'll score over 100 points. But there's the 6.0 version who will be available for everyone who want's a non-patched version. Now as I'm doing the 98/99 DB i've reduced the CA a lot. 130 CA is really good in that DB. But still when I tested a season in NHL (non-patched) they all scored way too many goals (even though I have the GK's at better CA). In your DB that's not an issue as they scored a lot more back then.

[jhart05]

I think it's best to continue with one "un-patched" DB, then let the user decide what to do. Just to keep things consistant.

Then players like CJ and me, can run the patch to fix the scoring issue. And players like nino can apply their changes how they see fit. While those who want the original high scoring can have that as well.

6.0 is missing about changes to about 40 players. They are good changes and effect a few pretty well-known NHL players, Stamkos, Doughty, Peverley.

I'll have that available tonight. CJ, I don't mean to take over your work, I'm not even the best guy to do that. I don't know enough about NHL players to even begin to rate players. Would you be willing to continue your great work on the non-patched version?

[CJ]

Would you be willing to continue your great work on the non-patched version?

Yes probably, but not right now. My focus is 100% on the 98/99 database at the moment. I can't confuse my mind with two databases.

[jhart05]

Would you be willing to continue your great work on the non-patched version?

Yes probably, but not right now. My focus is 100% on the 98/99 database at the moment. I can't confuse my mind with two databases.

No problem.

I'll start with update 6.0. Add in the 40 or so changes you made in 6.1, so I guess we'll have a 6.2 "un-patched" version. I also found some "_out of range" issues. I don't think they have much effect on the game, but figured I might as well fix those while I'm doing this.

(Man, that new program that Archie created is a great tool.)

Then I'll post it up somewhere. If you could grab that and use that one when you eventually get back to this, we'll be all good from here on out.

Sound cool?

Thanks!!

[nino33]

I think it's best to continue with one "un-patched" DB, then let the user decide what to do.

I agree

Would you be willing to continue your great work on the non-patched version?

Yes probably

Awesome!

I'll start with update 6.0. Add in the 40 or so changes you made in 6.1, so I guess we'll have a 6.2 "un-patched" version.

Awesome!

Man, that new program that Archie created is a great tool

Yes it is!

[jhart05]

Nino, sent you a PM.

Let me know what you think.

[archibalduk]

Just to clarify - there were two versions of the Realism Patch. One adjusted weights and the other didn't. I imagine CJ applied the one that didn't affect weights. At the time, we left the weight adjustment as an optional extra because adjusting weights might not be to everybody's taste.

[jhart05]

Just to clarify - there were two versions of the Realism Patch. One adjusted weights and the other didn't. I imagine CJ applied the one that didn't affect weights. At the time, we left the weight adjustment as an optional extra because adjusting weights might not be to everybody's taste.

Yes.

Another note:

I've decided to do a little more work on this than I originally wanted to.

Hope to have something next weekend.

[nino33]

Hope to have something next weekend.

Once released I can work on NHL Staff & Major Junior rosters

[batdad]

Couple things of note to mention here....

1. Please never update the rosters of the teams here. This is the game rosters as they were at the first day of EHM. Players do not move on to new teams. Example...Fitzpatrick on Vancouver etc. This is what attracted me to this DB at this time....the original start...with new players for the drafts added in to it. So now we can move along and draft Patrick Kane, Steven Stamkos, Seguin, Reinhart etc as time moves on.

2. Some of the younger players--not just Sam, but guys like Huberdeau are with their junior teams at a really young age.

3. Lots of missing players from the database in various years of the draft. No Dalton Thrower for example in this db.

4. Lots of players need adjustments to their ratings...Chris Tanev is nowhere near good enough to play in the show. Not even good enough to draft, and I am betting he is not going to develop late in the game.

5. College coaches, minor league coaches, junior coaches---all need to be made a bit better. They are not developing guys except for famous ones like Jackie Parker and Red Berenson. And their help...sucks.


Just things that i see as I play. Not a criticisim of anyone. Will continue to post things here.

[nino33]

Hope to have something next weekend.

Once released I can work on NHL Staff & Major Junior rosters

Please never update the rosters of the teams here. This is the game rosters as they were at the first day of EHM

OOPS! My mistake/wrong thread!...I'm hoping to work on NHL Staff & Major Junior Rosters for the 1998-99 database that CJ's been working on (not the UUDB that he and jhart05 have been working on!)

[bobmcgoo]

Well I don't know. I don't really like the original as there will tons of players who'll score over 100 points. But there's the 6.0 version who will be available for everyone who want's a non-patched version. Now as I'm doing the 98/99 DB i've reduced the CA a lot. 130 CA is really good in that DB. But still when I tested a season in NHL (non-patched) they all scored way too many goals (even though I have the GK's at better CA). In your DB that's not an issue as they scored a lot more back then.

just for everyone's information, scoring levels for the patched version (6.1) are very good, at least after the low-scoring first year that happens with every database. i "played" every game but i only simmed two full seasons, but the second year alone is pretty accurate and things should stay stable in the following seasons.

Will you continue to maintain a non-patched version of the UUDB beyond 6.0?
I don't use the patch myself, and prefer to reduce scoring via CA/Attribute editing (i.e. I think the overrated talent pool is the primary reason for the excess scoring)

i'd be very interested to know if you've got any good results with this, Nino? it looks like a good idea to experiment with in the future to me.

[nino33]

Will you continue to maintain a non-patched version of the UUDB beyond 6.0?I don't use the patch myself, and prefer to reduce scoring via CA/Attribute editing (i.e. I think the overrated talent pool is the primary reason for the excess scoring)

i'd be very interested to know if you've got any good results with this, Nino? it looks like a good idea to experiment with in the future to me.

I've never spent the testing time needed to be sure of "good" results, but I've noticed real/promising differences/improvements (I've always been focused on roster editing...always so much to do!)

As I recall the time I did spend on this I was focused on individual players (for example, I was able to produce top goaltenders/teams with an average under 2.00); I never tried to achieve any league wide goalscoring levels

Since discovering EHM I've always thought players were overrated in EHM based on my understanding of the game, but because of my focus on roster editing the last 15 months (since first releasing the 1974 database) I've never pursued/tested potential further improvements

[jhart05]

Couple things of note to mention here....

1. Please never update the rosters of the teams here. This is the game rosters as they were at the first day of EHM. Players do not move on to new teams. Example...Fitzpatrick on Vancouver etc. This is what attracted me to this DB at this time....the original start...with new players for the drafts added in to it. So now we can move along and draft Patrick Kane, Steven Stamkos, Seguin, Reinhart etc as time moves on.

2. Some of the younger players--not just Sam, but guys like Huberdeau are with their junior teams at a really young age.

3. Lots of missing players from the database in various years of the draft. No Dalton Thrower for example in this db.

4. Lots of players need adjustments to their ratings...Chris Tanev is nowhere near good enough to play in the show. Not even good enough to draft, and I am betting he is not going to develop late in the game.

5. College coaches, minor league coaches, junior coaches---all need to be made a bit better. They are not developing guys except for famous ones like Jackie Parker and Red Berenson. And their help...sucks.


Just things that i see as I play. Not a criticisim of anyone. Will continue to post things here.

I don't know if this is directed towards me or not, but here's that I'm thinking.

1. This is a hockey GM sim game. That starts on August 15, xxxx. Rosters should be as of that day. The game player should be the one to determine if he wants to make any trades his team did in real life. That's how all sports games of this style should be.

2, 3, 4. I really don't know enough about many individual players to be able to rate them on my own. All I plan to do is take the latest TBL DB either 2012-13 or 2013-14, use Archi's new program to get my excel files, then compare the two. See which ratings look way off, adjust those. Adjust some players that I do know something about. Add any missing players in the 2006-07 DB, that are in the current DB. Also, I'm only looking at players that are in the NHL, AHL, or ECHL on the current DB. No time or desire to look into anything else. No idea who Dalton Thrower or Chris Tanev are. I'm just good with excel and found a relatively quick/easy way using Archi's program to give the 2006-07 DB a look-thru.

5. If you would like to help with the coaches, I could send you over the excel file and the file needed to upload the new ratings into the game. Or for that matter, anyone out there who would like to help with this part, let me know and I'll send you the excel files. Otherwise about all I'd have time to do here is the same for the players above. Basically compare ratings and adjust the major differences.

[nino33]

Add any missing players in the 2006-07 DB, that are in the current DB.

When I started on the 1974 database years ago I read about the efforts of others to use really young players (younger than Bantam) and how the really young players retired before they were even old enough for Major Junior...I was able to overcome this by creating Leagues for these players to start in

If you're going to have really young players in the current database I think you'll need to create "minor hockey teams/leagues" - for example, the 1974 database has the Mite Minor Hockey League (upper age 4), the Tyke Minor Hockey League (upper age 6), the Novice Minor Hockey League (upper age 9), the Atom Minor Hockey League (upper age 11) and the PeeWee Minor Hockey League (upper age 13). Each League has a handful of teams.

[jhart05]

Add any missing players in the 2006-07 DB, that are in the current DB.

When I started on the 1974 database years ago I read about the efforts of others to use really young players (younger than Bantam) and how the really young players retired before they were even old enough for Major Junior...I was able to overcome this by creating Leagues for these players to start in

If you're going to have really young players in the current database I think you'll need to create "minor hockey teams/leagues" - for example, the 1974 database has the Mite Minor Hockey League (upper age 4), the Tyke Minor Hockey League (upper age 6), the Novice Minor Hockey League (upper age 9), the Atom Minor Hockey League (upper age 11) and the PeeWee Minor Hockey League (upper age 13). Each League has a handful of teams.

I'll think about it, but that's probably more than I have time for.

I like this game, but I also like to play PC Replay Baseball, Fast Break College and Pro Basketball, Second and Ten Football, and I'm giving OOTP Baseball one more chance.

[nino33]

that's probably more than I have time for.

Totally understandable!
Now that I think about it, you really wouldn't need the same number of minor hockey leagues for a 2006 start date, as potential 2014 NHL draftees like Sam Reinhart would be 11 at start-up...maybe just PeeWee (working on the current/2014 rosters while also thinking about the 2006 rosters and the 1998 rosters is confusing me!)

[batdad]

YEAH..No worries if you do not have a ton of time. These were just things I noticed about the db as I played it. Figured it should be documented.

Chris Tanev -- Is a VAncouver Canuck dman.
Dalton THrower--Captain of VAncouver Giants and is a 2nd round pick of Montreal.

I was just using them as examples of who is missing.

Also...good on point #1. That is what i was hoping for, as that was the original idea of the UUDB. Just add in players and where they played back in 2006-07 as time went on, and to update ratings as players aged.

[jhart05]

I haven't forgotten about this. Just waiting for the new 2013-14 ratings. Archie is going to send me an excel file with the new ratings when it's ready.


Batdad, I was thinking more about your suggestion about lower level coaches and development. I could make an across the board bump in ratings. For example just bump up each coach by a 2 points for each rating. Something like that. Would that do anything? With Archie's new program it's not very hard to do.

Anyone with a bit more experience have any ideas or tips on this matter? Good or bad. Any help would be appreciated. Maybe I should only bump up certain ratings? I'm not really sure what the best logic would be for this.

I do know there are a couple of NHL coaches I'm bumping up. Mike Yeo and Dan Bylsma being two that stand out to me right away.

Thanks.

[batdad]

I would love to go through all the coaches on all the teams and evaluate them. Across the board will not work. I think if you look at individuals in the game .... they have come a long long way in some cases from where they were. And some have gone the other way. For example PAUL COFFEY is rated very well in the game, but he does not have a coaching job in real life at any high level.

An example the other way....Peter Chiarelli.s player perception rating is quite low for what it should be. Guys like Dallas Eakins do not even have any kind of rating for personnel.

It could be extended right through to scouts. In my game, Thomas Gradin is 12-14 in his scouting ratings. I think he has proven to be somewhat better than that, and there are guys who are rated way way too high as well.

The personnel ratings really need to be looked at on an individual basis somewhere to have things proper.

I am not that worried about it...need to get the actual ratings done for the players first.

Like I said would love to....just do not have the time to offer to do that.

[Primis]

So, where did this end up? I know at one point the UUDB had absolutely *no* forwards with Con. above 7, and I wasn't down with that at all. Was that addressed?