EHM The Blue Line

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.

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.

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.

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.

Throwing lots of smilies and winks doesn't make what you say less snarky.

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.

selne wrote:

grits207 wrote:I don't think getting Kopitar would make the game boring at all. If somebody manages to get Kopitar or any other talented player then good for them. I have been trying all game to get a legit 1st line player but it is tough because of the rules. If I somehow find a deal that is within the rules, makes atleast a bit of sense for the other team and gives me a star player then I will be more than happy.

IRL you don't see young first line centers being traded that often. Teams prefer centers to wingers at the draft because they know how important that position is. And EHM knows that.

Teams also tend to draft centers because that's what many of the more talented youngsters play. Then they convert them to wing if needed. The Bruins do this. If you look at their prospect list, the vast majority of their forwards are natural centers and then during their development they convert them to wing.

grits207 wrote: I don't think getting Kopitar would make the game boring at all. If somebody manages to get Kopitar or any other talented player then good for them. I have been trying all game to get a legit 1st line player but it is tough because of the rules. If I somehow find a deal that is within the rules, makes atleast a bit of sense for the other team and gives me a star player then I will be more than happy.

Exactly. You're not going to be able to go out there and just get any superstar you want so easily with these rules. When you can only offer up to 2 players out (and receive up to 2 players in), you're going to have to give up some talent to get talent.

bruins72 wrote:

selne wrote:

grits207 wrote:I don't think getting Kopitar would make the game boring at all. If somebody manages to get Kopitar or any other talented player then good for them. I have been trying all game to get a legit 1st line player but it is tough because of the rules. If I somehow find a deal that is within the rules, makes atleast a bit of sense for the other team and gives me a star player then I will be more than happy.

IRL you don't see young first line centers being traded that often. Teams prefer centers to wingers at the draft because they know how important that position is. And EHM knows that.

Teams also tend to draft centers because that's what many of the more talented youngsters play. Then they convert them to wing if needed. The Bruins do this. If you look at their prospect list, the vast majority of their forwards are natural centers and then during their development they convert them to wing.

I am really not fan of converting players' positions. I never play player on his secondary position unless it's 'accomplished'. I know this is a bit off topic, just wanted to say my opinion. I don't like it, both ingame and in real life. This morning I was going through Islanders site and saw they listed Tavares as a top LW in their depth chart, and I thought, why the Lindros did you draft him then? He's a center for god's sake!

Anyway, my Shot Against Average is lowest in the league, under 24.00 which I think is fairly good, but man, do I allow too many goals? It must be goalie's fault, since I really don't allow too many shots. Both Backstrom's and Mason's stats are mediocre.

Also, when did last happen that 3rd line guy is leading team stats? Yes, Tuomo Ruutu, who is playing 3rd line + 2nd PP and yet he managed to score 7+7 in 9 games. Way to go man!

And last thing, Ference is officially the odd man out. I played with 7 Dmen since half through Season 1, and continued doing it, but Ference is alone on 4th pairing and only playing on 2nd PK unit. Time for Wisniewski to take his spot, and let Ference be our bench warmer. And because of that, Hilbert is now back in game playing 4th line.

gibson41 wrote: I am really not fan of converting players' positions. I never play player on his secondary position unless it's 'accomplished'. I know this is a bit off topic, just wanted to say my opinion. I don't like it, both ingame and in real life. This morning I was going through Islanders site and saw they listed Tavares as a top LW in their depth chart, and I thought, why the f*** did you draft him then? He's a center for god's sake!

I don't really do this in EHM because it doesn't seem to work out so well in most cases but it's very effective in real life. Some players skills are just better suited to playing the wing even if they start out as a center. Look at Phil Kessel.

gibson41 wrote: Anyway, my Shot Against Average is lowest in the league, under 24.00 which I think is fairly good, but man, do I allow too many goals? It must be goalie's fault, since I really don't allow too many shots. Both Backstrom's and Mason's stats are mediocre.

Is it possible that your goalies aren't allowing many rebounds? That's something that can keep your shots against down. It could also be your defense collecting the rebounds so your opponents aren't getting second or third chances at shots. That's a good thing. If you're allowing a lot of goals, it would seem that your opponents are getting quality chances when they do get their shots. Are they getting many odd-man rushes? What about Give-Aways? You may want to go with more conservative tactics.

gibson41 wrote: Also, when did last happen that 3rd line guy is leading team stats? Yes, Tuomo Ruutu, who is playing 3rd line + 2nd PP and yet he managed to score 7+7 in 9 games. Way to go man!

Seriously? Nice! I haven't been able to get much out of him (compared to other players on his lines) in either season. I'm definitely looking to replace him at some point. Who do you have him playing with?

gibson41 wrote: And last thing, Ference is officially the odd man out. I played with 7 Dmen since half through Season 1, and continued doing it, but Ference is alone on 4th pairing and only playing on 2nd PK unit. Time for Wisniewski to take his spot, and let Ference be our bench warmer. And because of that, Hilbert is now back in game playing 4th line.

Wisniewski has been pretty good for me in both seasons. He had 44 points in season 1 and was a runner-up for the Calder trophy. He was injured a bit in my second season but in the 26 games he's played so far he's got 15 points and is a +10. Ferrence has been riding the pine all season in my game. He's been the odd man out and I'd have no regrets if I traded him. He was a sub-par player in season 1 (he played all 82 games and had a 6.88 average rating). Montador wasn't great in season 1 but he's done well in the 8 games he's played when Wisniewski was injured. If Montador's strength was better, he'd find a regular spot in my line-up. He's already a good hitter and checker.

bruins72 wrote:Is it possible that your goalies aren't allowing many rebounds? That's something that can keep your shots against down. It could also be your defense collecting the rebounds so your opponents aren't getting second or third chances at shots. That's a good thing. If you're allowing a lot of goals, it would seem that your opponents are getting quality chances when they do get their shots. Are they getting many odd-man rushes? What about Give-Aways? You may want to go with more conservative tactics.

Now that I think about it, maybe adventurous passing of certain players might cause odd-man rushes, I have to look at it next few games.

bruins72 wrote: Seriously? Nice! I haven't been able to get much out of him (compared to other players on his lines) in either season. I'm definitely looking to replace him at some point. Who do you have him playing with?

Ruutu plays on 3rd line as a RW, with Battaglia on LW and Pahlsson centering. This is supposed to be my checking line, that is often matched to opponent's 1st line.

bruins72 wrote:Wisniewski has been pretty good for me in both seasons. He had 44 points in season 1 and was a runner-up for the Calder trophy. He was injured a bit in my second season but in the 26 games he's played so far he's got 15 points and is a +10. Ferrence has been riding the pine all season in my game. He's been the odd man out and I'd have no regrets if I traded him. He was a sub-par player in season 1 (he played all 82 games and had a 6.88 average rating). Montador wasn't great in season 1 but he's done well in the 8 games he's played when Wisniewski was injured. If Montador's strength was better, he'd find a regular spot in my line-up. He's already a good hitter and checker.

You definitely squeezed Wisniewski's potential out, because he is just 0+10 in 89 games he played for me so far, with avg rating in 6.50 in second season atm. I wanted to use Montador more often, but his weak physical attributes hold him back on the bench.

gibson41 wrote: Ruutu plays on 3rd line as a RW, with Battaglia on LW and Pahlsson centering. This is supposed to be my checking line, that is often matched to opponent's 1st line.

How are Battaglia and Pahlsson doing on that line? Are they producing anywhere near what Ruutuu is? Or is he putting up most of his points on the PP?

gibson41 wrote: You definitely squeezed Wisniewski's potential out, because he is just 0+10 in 89 games he played for me so far, with avg rating in 6.50 in second season atm. I wanted to use Montador more often, but his weak physical attributes hold him back on the bench.

Yeah, that's Montador's weak area, his physical attributes. He's not the greatest skater and even his strength and stamina aren't the greatest. I'm 34 games into season 2 and I've managed to get his stamina to 16 and his strength to 15. If I didn't have better defensemen, I could use him as a 5-6 defenseman probably at best. Even with poor skating, he'd be pretty good if his strength was higher.

bruins72 wrote:How are Battaglia and Pahlsson doing on that line? Are they producing anywhere near what Ruutuu is? Or is he putting up most of his points on the PP?

Battaglia (7+5) - Pahlsson (4+9) - Ruutu (8+9)
Out of his 17 points, four are PPp (3+1).

bruins72 wrote:Yeah, that's Montador's weak area, his physical attributes. He's not the greatest skater and even his strength and stamina aren't the greatest. I'm 34 games into season 2 and I've managed to get his stamina to 16 and his strength to 15. If I didn't have better defensemen, I could use him as a 5-6 defenseman probably at best. Even with poor skating, he'd be pretty good if his strength was higher.

I didn't have enough patience with Montador and let him go after Season 1. It's a shame, he didn't have bad technical attributes at all.

It looks to me like you're whole checking line is pretty effective, offensively at least. Are they doing a good job at shutting down the oppositions top line?

Montador's technical attributes got even better going into season 2. For me he's got a 16 in checking, 17 in hitting, and 17 in positioning. That's pretty solid!

Oh and I kept delaying that Kopitar deal while I looked at other deals. I hope I didn't mess up too bad because the Roster Freeze came in December and that canceled the deal. I'll have to try the deal again after the holiday and hope it still flies.

bruins72 wrote:It looks to me like you're whole checking line is pretty effective, offensively at least. Are they doing a good job at shutting down the oppositions top line?

Montador's technical attributes got even better going into season 2. For me he's got a 16 in checking, 17 in hitting, and 17 in positioning. That's pretty solid!

Oh and I kept delaying that Kopitar deal while I looked at other deals. I hope I didn't mess up too bad because the Roster Freeze came in December and that canceled the deal. I'll have to try the deal again after the holiday and hope it still flies.

I hope they are doing good job defenisvely. Pahlsson is worst with +9, Battaglia and Ruutu are both +12.

Now it seems your Montador is reliable PK guy, I just checked mine Montador playing for Flames, and his physical attributes improved rapidly...hmm I just hope he doesn't take revenge on my team when I will play Calgary.

I checked Kopitar, and his technical attributes aren't that much green and impressive, but he's much better skater than Toews. How about trading for Handzus instead? I mean...that guy has great both physical and technical attributes, is defensively responsible, great on face-offs and can rack up some points. If I had that Kopitar offer on table, I would try to negotiate for Handzus. I would like him better.

I like Handzus and I've used him in a few challenges in the past. He's on a list of players I don't use anymore because I've used them too many times. It's kind of like how I don't use Marleau anymore. Plus, I'm trying to stay at least somewhat young. I don't want to trade for anyone over 30 years old (Chara was the one exception).

bruins72 wrote:I like Handzus and I've used him in a few challenges in the past. He's on a list of players I don't use anymore because I've used them too many times. It's kind of like how I don't use Marleau anymore. Plus, I'm trying to stay at least somewhat young. I don't want to trade for anyone over 30 years old (Chara was the one exception).

I see.

Okay, there's clearly something wrong with my top line Doan-Toews-Selanne. Each of them is under 8 +/-, and that's alarming. They are allowing too many goals, suckers. I'll have to change my tactics a bit for them I guess.

Has Selanne's physical attributes dropped off in your game? I'm actually finding the second season harder because his play has dropped off.

His attributes indeed dropped off, but I spotted that they risen a bit since then. At the moment they are: 14-16-16-15-13-12 and he's playing and producing very similar to last year. I have to note that I was unable to squeeze the maximum out of him last season. His current avg. rating is 8.44.

Seriously, what's up with Ruutu? Averaging 15 minutes per game, and he's 11+10 in 16 games.

Anyway, we are owning 11th page of this discussion thread, man.

It's discussion about our experiences in the challenge, so it's all good!

I'm fairly confident that I got the best out of Tkachuk in season 1. I have no regrets there. In season 2 he's got physical attributes of 13, 17, 18, 15, 13, and 18. It's that 13 in stamina that kills me. Of course I wish he were a bit faster but I wouldn't mind his skating if his stamina was better. I've had to put him on the 2nd line for most of the season and I've also had to keep him on General practice. It's a big adjustment going from using him and Selanne as my big scorers to now using them as second tier guys.

Have you started scouting the next draft yet? It's looking really poor.

I never played Tkachuk on 1st line. I think he saw some PK action in Season 1, so that's why I never wanted him to play on 1st line. Combined with PP, that would kill him. This is something I don't understand. AI always puts Sedins, Gaborik, Hossa and such on their PK, and I wonder how can they take so much icetime? That's ridiculous. And his attributes are not decreasing yet. Stamina is at 15, overally he's still pretty fast.

So far I used 4-5 scouts on youth generally, I scout draft only once a year, I assign them in February-March.

One more game and I am done with 1st 20 game segment. I am gonna have to do some adjustments because, seriously, how can a 90-goals-in-19-games team be so awful at PP (11.5%) ? If they have no trouble scoring on even strength, then why it's so hard for them to find the net when they have a man advantage? And on the other side, 81.5% PK is not satisfying. I'll have to do some tweaks there too.

gibson41 wrote:I never played Tkachuk on 1st line. I think he saw some PK action in Season 1, so that's why I never wanted him to play on 1st line. Combined with PP, that would kill him. This is something I don't understand. AI always puts Sedins, Gaborik, Hossa and such on their PK, and I wonder how can they take so much icetime? That's ridiculous. And his attributes are not decreasing yet. Stamina is at 15, overally he's still pretty fast.

I don't understand that either. If I have players that are both offensively and defensively gifted, I'll often only play them on the PP and not the PK. It's just too much icetime to put them on the 1st line, 1st PP, and 1st PK. I do notice that computer controlled teams end up with a lot more long-term injuries. Maybe this is the result of too much ice time?

gibson41 wrote:So far I used 4-5 scouts on youth generally, I scout draft only once a year, I assign them in February-March.

Ah. I do my draft scouting all year long. I like to get multiple reports on players scouted at different times. That way you end up with less "false readings". Sometimes I scout might just happen to see a player on a bad day or a good day. If you have several scouting trips to base your decision on, you're more likely to be accurate.

This draft is pretty bad though. I'm not even impressed with the early 1st round players.

gibson41 wrote:One more game and I am done with 1st 20 game segment. I am gonna have to do some adjustments because, seriously, how can a 90-goals-in-19-games team be so awful at PP (11.5%) ? If they have no trouble scoring on even strength, then why it's so hard for them to find the net when they have a man advantage? And on the other side, 81.5% PK is not satisfying. I'll have to do some tweaks there too.

I'm always having trouble with my PK. My PP does pretty well though. Make sure to have your offensive face-offs set for a Point Shot. Also, give the Funnel tactic a try.

OUCH! Wisniewski just went out for 5 months with a broken leg (thigh). Well I guess now it's Montador's time to jump into the lineup.

bruins72 wrote:I don't understand that either. If I have players that are both offensively and defensively gifted, I'll often only play them on the PP and not the PK. It's just too much icetime to put them on the 1st line, 1st PP, and 1st PK. I do notice that computer controlled teams end up with a lot more long-term injuries. Maybe this is the result of too much ice time?

Yeah, they deserve that. I hate getting those SH goals...then I look at the scorer, and I am like...what the hell was HE doing there?

bruins72 wrote:Ah. I do my draft scouting all year long. I like to get multiple reports on players scouted at different times. That way you end up with less "false readings". Sometimes I scout might just happen to see a player on a bad day or a good day. If you have several scouting trips to base your decision on, you're more likely to be accurate.

This draft is pretty bad though. I'm not even impressed with the early 1st round players.

Hm, well since they are scouting youth generally, it should feature guys from upcoming draft as well. But you got an interesting point. I will see, don't feel like relocating my scouts now.

bruins72 wrote:I'm always having trouble with my PK. My PP does pretty well though. Make sure to have your offensive face-offs set for a Point Shot. Also, give the Funnel tactic a try.

I was struggling with PP in Season 1, until I switched to Umbrella tactic (thanks to your blog! ), and I went from 14% to 18% very fast. I want to use either Umbrella or Diamond, since it allows me to use 4 forwards. With such a balanced scoring, it would be waste to use just three forwards, some would come short then...like red hot Ruutu. And if I included him, I would have to take another good player out...you know what I mean. I will try to tweak sliders maybe a bit. Hopefully it will work.

I talked about balanced scoring...it really is. Last year at the same stage my team scored 71 goals. Year later, I scored 95 goals. But top scorer in first 20 games improved by just one goal! Top assist-man improved by one assist as well. And top points-man improved by 3 points only. I really like it.

Okay, enough of EHM today, I did first segment, now it's time to go watch some TV.

Anyone else have ESPN America? They are showing the Winnipeg Jets tomorrow. It is a play-off game versus the Red Wings from 1996. It is on at 11.00 CET and re-playing at 05.00 CET

bruins72 wrote:

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.

Throwing lots of smilies and winks doesn't make what you say less snarky..

.. 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.

That's something else.

You got pretty emotional on this one, Bruins72. I'm not sure what you mean by 'snarky', if it means 'derisive' then you got the wrong impression and i'm sorry if i said something inappropriate. I would be glad if people would help me to find better tactics to make a Stephen Weiss even better player with weak linemates, because i know there is still much to learn about EHM for me.

I use smilies because words can sometimes be mistaken, and sometimes i just dont't know how to express correctly in english.

bruins72 wrote: 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..

.. 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

You could test it with little effort by yourself. Those players that you showed in the screenshots.. just edit their weight only with an editor. For example you could set it to 180 pounds. And then simulate a couple weeks. I hope their performances will surprise you.

.. and sorry that i posted into the challenges section, it was not smart.

selne wrote: That's something else.

You got pretty emotional on this one, Bruins72. I'm not sure what you mean by 'snarky', if it means 'derisive' then you got the wrong impression and i'm sorry if i said something inappropriate. I would be glad if people would help me to find better tactics to make a Stephen Weiss even better player with weak linemates, because i know there is still much to learn about EHM for me.

I use smilies because words can sometimes be mistaken, and sometimes i just dont't know how to express correctly in english.

Yes, I did get a little emotional on this because your initial post came across as an attack. The tone of the message very combative and accusatory. Maybe it just came across that way in he translation? I don't know. I've wasted enough time on this though.

Since my Kopitar deal fell through (roster freeze in December killed the deal and they weren't interested after that) I had to find another deal. I made my second trade of the season.

I sent Kyle Chipchura and Andy Hilbert to the Sabres for Derek Roy.

Roy had struggled for the Sabres this season, scoring on 10 points in 32 games with a 6.81 average rating. I think Roy will make a great second (or maybe 1st) line center for us. This allows me to move Pahlsson down to the checking line. I'm also putting Roy on the PP, which allows me to put Pahlsson on the PK. Overall, this move should strengthen my team.

bruins72 wrote:Since my Kopitar deal fell through (roster freeze in December killed the deal and they weren't interested after that) I had to find another deal. I made my second trade of the season.

I sent Kyle Chipchura and Andy Hilbert to the Sabres for Derek Roy.

Roy had struggled for the Sabres this season, scoring on 10 points in 32 games with a 6.81 average rating. I think Roy will make a great second (or maybe 1st) line center for us. This allows me to move Pahlsson down to the checking line. I'm also putting Roy on the PP, which allows me to put Pahlsson on the PK. Overall, this move should strengthen my team.

Derek Roy...nice. I lead a few talkings with Sabres when I was searching for my veteran center, and one of the possibilities were Roy and Hecht. Unfortunately, they were not interested in players I was willing to give up.

I've used him once or twice in the past. He's a good reliable offensive player. I would've rather to have gotten somebody I wasn't as familiar with but my team was beginning to show signs of weakness and I felt that I had to make a move.