EHM The Blue Line

I believe Lidas has said he's going to look at re-rating players in his next big update for the 10-11 season.

We might be going a bit too far with adjusting the players attributes. 90% of the people come into this thread to post that players XY of their favourite team are underrated. By the time the next update is released every team is gonna have a bunch of Orrs and Gretzkys. One good season or one good playoff run like in Halak's case should really not be the foundation for any attribute changes, especially if said player is already 25 or older and this one good season might just be his career year. Players are better rated on their average rather than peak. This isn't really a criticism of your work Lidas and I'm not really in a position to tell you what to do but I'd suggest to be extremely careful changing player attributes. I'd only change it if a player was totally off, whether somebody deserves a 15 or 17 in passing depends too much on subjective perception.

Hi Danny...one good little run is not enough for big changes. No worries, Lidas has his shaddsheet, and his researchers in the past have been fair and pretty unbiased. Trust me he would not take your word for it on how awesome Wideman or Ryder are.

Yeah, these requests for attributes changes always come in playoffs time - like in last year and years before. Lidas takes these request adequately, don't worry

Good work on roster update. I have some things to ask though. Is it possible to change the "value" of some things like draft picks or prospects because it seems kinda easy to trade for top prospects like Hodgson, Pietrangelo or the two TOR's 1st rounders from Boston? Just curious.

A suggestion maybe, since most teams have bunch of prospects i see most of them have their potential attributes from -5 to -9, but considering how some prospects who aren't considered highly of sometimes turn out great I'm wondering how there is very little if any use of other attributes from -11 to -15 which gives more chance for some players to not make it but also some prospects to become better players than expected.

For example let's give one prospect potential attribute -6 (90-120) and other -13 (60-130). The first prospect is more safe to become better player the second player could either be worse or there is a small chance that he becomes better. This technique could be used for prospects who have higher potential in reality but there are question marks about them so instead of "limiting" his potential going safer route he could either boom or bust.

my 2c

suprvilce wrote:Good work on roster update. I have some things to ask though. Is it possible to change the "value" of some things like draft picks or prospects because it seems kinda easy to trade for top prospects like Hodgson, Pietrangelo or the two TOR's 1st rounders from Boston? Just curious.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is something that's coded into the game and not editable. That's a short-coming of the trade engine.

suprvilce wrote:A suggestion maybe, since most teams have bunch of prospects i see most of them have their potential attributes from -5 to -9, but considering how some prospects who aren't considered highly of sometimes turn out great I'm wondering how there is very little if any use of other attributes from -11 to -15 which gives more chance for some players to not make it but also some prospects to become better players than expected.

For example let's give one prospect potential attribute -6 (90-120) and other -13 (60-130). The first prospect is more safe to become better player the second player could either be worse or there is a small chance that he becomes better. This technique could be used for prospects who have higher potential in reality but there are question marks about them so instead of "limiting" his potential going safer route he could either boom or bust.

my 2c

I like this. I remember for last year's update when Lidas had us researching prospects, he had us using Hockey's Future and their grade system for PAs. We used this as a guide...

10.0A -> -10
10.0B -> -10
10.0C -> -10
10.0D -> -10/-9
9.5A -> -10
9.5B -> -10
9.5C -> -10/-9
9.5D -> -9
9.0A -> -9
9.0B -> -9
9.0C -> -9
9.0D -> -9/-8
8.5A -> -9
8.5B -> -9
8.5C -> -9/-8
8.5D -> -8
8.0A -> -8
8.0B -> -8
8.0C -> -8
8.0D -> -8/-7
7.5A -> -8
7.5B -> -8
7.5C -> -8/-7
7.5D -> -7
7.0A -> -7
7.0B -> -7
7.0C -> -7
7.0D -> -7/-6
6.5A -> -7
6.5B -> -7
6.5C -> -7/-6
6.5D -> -6
6.0A -> -6
6.0B -> -6
6.0C -> -6
6.0D -> -6/-5
5.5A -> -6
5.5B -> -6
5.5C -> -6/-5
5.5D -> -5
5.0A -> -5
5.0B -> -5
5.0C -> -5
5.0D -> -5/-4

Maybe we could used the -11 to -15 in players with C's and D's while using the the -5 to -9 on B's and some C's. Then A's could use a solid number with no variable.

bruins72 wrote: Maybe we could used the -11 to -15 in players with C's and D's while using the the -5 to -9 on B's and some C's. Then A's could use a solid number with no variable.

This is a nice thought; For years I have tried to make a good concept for prospects.

At last I got something to build around

Thanks!

bruins72 wrote: Maybe we could used the -11 to -15 in players with C's and D's while using the the -5 to -9 on B's and some C's. Then A's could use a solid number with no variable.

That's a pretty good idea.

ehmfans wrote:Hey Lidas, thanks for the great job!

I think you should review all montreal canadiens, because in the game, Subban sucks, halak sucks, Laraque is still in the team, etc...
thanks!

Laraque is still signed by the Canadiens. He will be bought out after the season has finished. There is no way to have him signed by a team and not being able to play for them in the game

Manimal wrote:

ehmfans wrote:Hey Lidas, thanks for the great job!

I think you should review all montreal canadiens, because in the game, Subban sucks, halak sucks, Laraque is still in the team, etc...
thanks!

Laraque is still signed by the Canadiens. He will be bought out after the season has finished. There is no way to have him signed by a team and not being able to play for them in the game

To build on what Manimal said... Halak doesn't 'suck', he's just not a superstar. Subban's CA isn't all that high, sure. Seriously though, who outside or Canadien fans or hardcore hockey fans knew who Subban was before the playoffs? On top of that, his PA is -7. According to the EHM Guide (which isn't perfect, but has good info), -7 equates to Potential will be between 110-140 (quite rare – a good prospect with a decent chance of being a regular NHL player). That's a pretty good rating. Maybe next year, both players will be rated higher. But as has been stated before, one strong playoff run (18 games) doesn't equate to getting a boost. Otherwise, Goligoski would've been a beast in the first update of the year. Halak had a good year in the season, so I'm sure he'll get a boost. Subban will have to prove himself over the long haul before he's boosted. At least, that's what I'd assume.

Edit: Accidentally said Halak sucked when I meant doesn't...

bruins72 wrote:I believe Lidas has said he's going to look at re-rating players in his next big update for the 10-11 season.

I think this would be ideal in order to create a more realistic game, but it would also take a ton of work. Maybe just completely rerating the NHL would be best, and even so it would take a long time I think.

After spending a lot of time with the latest DB, I do have a (rather large) list of players I think need to be looked at, for both increasing and reducing their player ratings. I have done these edits myself in my version of the DB and I think it provides a more realistic experience (ie. Keith is Norris-worthy, Stamkos scores goals-a-plenty, Langkow, Kotalik and Jokinen aren't incredibly dominant, the list goes on). Although certain teams like San Jose and Washington simply can't seem to put together a decent season every time I sim for unknown reasons. I also made certain prospects (ie. Carlson, Subban, Myers, Doughty, etc) have higher potentials and CA as I found they simply did not pan out realistically.

Anyways, I think the best option would be a complete redo of the NHL database, but simply editing all the major inaccuracies would work very well too.

I have any number of suggestions for the future databse, especially at the NHL level, but also juniors, college and Europeans...I don't want to upset protocol here, is it best to talk about these openly in a public forum where the ideas can be exchanged and commented upon. Or is it better to send private messages to Lidas and whoever else, where they are taken into consideration.

I will note that my suggestions are not "duhhh, my favorite player needs to be better because he rulez!!!11" My suggestions would be much more technical and precise, things that are often overlooked or tough to judge. Balance, work rate, defensive acumen, clutchness, anticipation, etc. in addition to current ability and potential.

So what's the best to go about this?

Excited to offer my opinions, if I'm invited.

bruins72 wrote:

suprvilce wrote:Good work on roster update. I have some things to ask though. Is it possible to change the "value" of some things like draft picks or prospects because it seems kinda easy to trade for top prospects like Hodgson, Pietrangelo or the two TOR's 1st rounders from Boston? Just curious.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is something that's coded into the game and not editable. That's a short-coming of the trade engine.

suprvilce wrote:A suggestion maybe, since most teams have bunch of prospects i see most of them have their potential attributes from -5 to -9, but considering how some prospects who aren't considered highly of sometimes turn out great I'm wondering how there is very little if any use of other attributes from -11 to -15 which gives more chance for some players to not make it but also some prospects to become better players than expected.

For example let's give one prospect potential attribute -6 (90-120) and other -13 (60-130). The first prospect is more safe to become better player the second player could either be worse or there is a small chance that he becomes better. This technique could be used for prospects who have higher potential in reality but there are question marks about them so instead of "limiting" his potential going safer route he could either boom or bust.

my 2c

I like this. I remember for last year's update when Lidas had us researching prospects, he had us using Hockey's Future and their grade system for PAs. We used this as a guide...

10.0A -> -10
10.0B -> -10
10.0C -> -10
10.0D -> -10/-9
9.5A -> -10
9.5B -> -10
9.5C -> -10/-9
9.5D -> -9
9.0A -> -9
9.0B -> -9
9.0C -> -9
9.0D -> -9/-8
8.5A -> -9
8.5B -> -9
8.5C -> -9/-8
8.5D -> -8
8.0A -> -8
8.0B -> -8
8.0C -> -8
8.0D -> -8/-7
7.5A -> -8
7.5B -> -8
7.5C -> -8/-7
7.5D -> -7
7.0A -> -7
7.0B -> -7
7.0C -> -7
7.0D -> -7/-6
6.5A -> -7
6.5B -> -7
6.5C -> -7/-6
6.5D -> -6
6.0A -> -6
6.0B -> -6
6.0C -> -6
6.0D -> -6/-5
5.5A -> -6
5.5B -> -6
5.5C -> -6/-5
5.5D -> -5
5.0A -> -5
5.0B -> -5
5.0C -> -5
5.0D -> -5/-4

Maybe we could used the -11 to -15 in players with C's and D's while using the the -5 to -9 on B's and some C's. Then A's could use a solid number with no variable.

That's a much better idea in my opinion. HF rankings are decent but they are a very rough rating. Adding some random potential players in the 2010 and 2011 drafts would really improve those drafts without making them unbalanced.

I know this is about 2.2, but it's just a heads up I guess. Now, I haven't messed with the DB in any way or anything, pre-game editor, nothing.

Now, I had a save with the Rangers I was playing, got into the 2009-2010 season, everything was going great...then it crashed. I went back to the previous save I had, played a bit, saved, and it kept working...till I didn't save for a week or two and it crashed again. Basically I made it to Nov. 10, 2009 or so and I can still play it, but if I don't save it roughly every week, it crashes.

I got tired of dealing with that one, so I changed to a Huricanes franchise (which I've wanted to do for a long time). This was a couple weeks before 2.3 of your DB came out, but I was having so much fun with my 2.2 save, I wanted to keep playing. Anyway, on that game I JUST got up to Aug 27, 2009 (last save was just after the draft), and it crashed. I tried reloading it and going again (figuring it would work like the other game, WRONG...it crashed as soon as I tried to advance. Even tried re-saving and going, no luck (and I was having SO much fun with that save). Not sure if you had any hints or suggestions (or if it means anything since it's 2.2) to fix this or if it's just a dead save now, but if you do it would be greatly appreciated.

If not, time to D/L 2.3 and have some fun with that one I guess! lol BTW, I'm not complaining about your work in any way at all Lidas, I GREATLY appreciate the countless hours of work and dedication you put into your DBs, I just really was enjoying that save and wanted to see if you knew of a way to "fix" it. Note: I had McBain, Teubert, McDonagh, and S. Johns in my defensive prospect pool...perhaps that shows some of why I was enjoying it, my defensive future was easily set lol

I am guessing, that it has nothing to do with the database. Sometimes odd things happen. Have you tried going on vacation to get past the date it crashes. That happens in EHM sometimes no matter the db,.

batdad wrote:I am guessing, that it has nothing to do with the database. Sometimes odd things happen. Have you tried going on vacation to get past the date it crashes. That happens in EHM sometimes no matter the db,.

I just tried your suggestion, but sadly it still crashed. I actually went back to my last save (post draft) and simmed back up to Aug 13th, at which point I saved it, next time I tried to sim forward, same crash as before That was my second favorite save since I started playing, my most realistic save by far, and just all-around fun...it will be missed. Thank you for the suggestion though, it was worth a shot. Perhaps this is a sign I should download 2.3 now and start over with someone else...perhaps a team I've never played before or even a team I don't like (that might be an interesting challenge).

That's odd. I've used most every version if Lidas' databases, and I've never experienced a crash. Hmmm.

coasterholic14 do you have all the game patches? I want to say one of the patches fixed a crash problem around that date.

It looks like the CHL will add four teams frm the IHL making them an 17-team league which is exactly the amount of teams in the game. My suggestion would be to put the SPHL in place of the old UHL. Just add the two most recent teams(Twin-City and Richmond) to fill the league. Voila!

I see that the "consistency" has been added to the game so that you can see it. My question is, how can i do this on the orginal rosters? I dosen't show on orginal/older roster-updates.

Something to do with running in debug mode I think or something. Why am I answering this? I dunno.

Looking at the comments on the CHL, I'm going to throw out something i've been working on/trying to figure out. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I find it quite annoying how the teams whose AHL affiliates are relegated into the ECHL constantly are releasing players as they don't have room on their roster. Would it be possible to create a dummy league or even move some into the LNAH or SPHL in order to have them in a league without roster rules? Just a thought.

I was always thinking either that or just give every NHL team an AHL level affiliate, even if it's not their affiliate in real-life, it would make the game more realistic IMO.

rfroese wrote:Looking at the comments on the CHL, I'm going to throw out something i've been working on/trying to figure out. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I find it quite annoying how the teams whose AHL affiliates are relegated into the ECHL constantly are releasing players as they don't have room on their roster. Would it be possible to create a dummy league or even move some into the LNAH or SPHL in order to have them in a league without roster rules? Just a thought.

No, we want them to be playable

dennis saikkonen is playing in finland u20 team(lidas 2.3) and he played for u18 switzerland this year so he can't play anymore in team finland