EHM The Blue Line

I agree with Axwel; the key to creating a truly great game is to get the fans to provide feedback and then actually listen to it! I like your approach Dabo!

I'm really impressed that you're sticking with this. Obviously there is hell of a lot to do but just seeing the screenshots is making really look forward to the first version already!!

My two cents:
1) I know it's stealing, but I would start off using all of the attributes from EHM and then modifying as you see fit. EHM was so successful that I think you'd be a onto a winner if you used EHM as your starting point

2) I love the new coloured graph. Looks great! Could you just colour the bits inside the graph? I think it'd make the player's ability clearer. Something roughly like this:



3) I'm not sure about the Player Types. I don't think it's feasible to really categorise each player. I think the only thing it'd be useful for is when you get a scout report (e.g. the scout reports that Player X is a sniper, etc).

By the way, let me know if there is any way in which I/we can help. I can't help with programming but I'm very happy to help in any other way I can (and that's including making users aware of your game/project on the main page of TBL, etc).

archibalduk wrote:3) I'm not sure about the Player Types. I don't think it's feasible to really categorise each player. I think the only thing it'd be useful for is when you get a scout report (e.g. the scout reports that Player X is a sniper, etc).

I think it's better like this, it's not necessary to categorise each players, it could be more complicated than usefull when you try to make your team, I prefer when it's wrote in the scout report not on the player himself. Let this like EHM.

Djungelurban wrote:I think there should be an "agitation" stat aswell, which basically is a player's ability to provoke other players (ehum... Steve Ott)...

Agressiveness as the same role in my opinion. The agitation is more a bunch of stats together I think.

Djungelurban wrote:I think there should be an "agitation" stat aswell, which basically is a player's ability to provoke other players (ehum... Steve Ott)...

It's one of the hidden attributes. I stole some of NHL:EHM's hidden attributes

archibalduk wrote:I agree with Axwel; the key to creating a truly great game is to get the fans to provide feedback and then actually listen to it! I like your approach Dabo!

I believe it will benefit both you and me by doing it this way, that is how I see it.

archibalduk wrote:My two cents:
1) I know it's stealing, but I would start off using all of the attributes from EHM and then modifying as you see fit. EHM was so successful that I think you'd be a onto a winner if you used EHM as your starting point

Found a post about that some time back, I will use some of them.

archibalduk wrote:2) I love the new coloured graph. Looks great! Could you just colour the bits inside the graph? I think it'd make the player's ability clearer. Something roughly like this:

I could shade the ability area to make it stand out more, but not only have that area colored I am afraid.

archibalduk wrote:3) I'm not sure about the Player Types. I don't think it's feasible to really categorise each player. I think the only thing it'd be useful for is when you get a scout report (e.g. the scout reports that Player X is a sniper, etc).

Actually I was thinking the same about the scouting part, will probably do that.

archibalduk wrote:By the way, let me know if there is any way in which I/we can help. I can't help with programming but I'm very happy to help in any other way I can (and that's including making users aware of your game/project on the main page of TBL, etc).

When the time comes I am sure you can, thank you.

philou21 wrote:

Djungelurban wrote:I think there should be an "agitation" stat aswell, which basically is a player's ability to provoke other players (ehum... Steve Ott)...

Agressiveness as the same role in my opinion. The agitation is more a bunch of stats together I think.

Actually, they are exact opposites. Aggressiveness would determine how you respond to agitation. Someone with low aggression would be able to keep a cool head while someone with high might get pissy and end up taking a dumb penalty.

If you want a player to agitate a little bit he need to be agressive no?

You can be aggressive without being an agitator.

philou21 wrote:If you want a player to agitate a little bit he need to be agressive no?

It all depends on your definition of "aggression". Agitation and aggression ought to be separate attributes because there's no point in duplicating functions. However, it's likely that a player who is an agitator is likely to have a high level of aggression too.

Agitators: Guys like Avery, Burrows, Ott...aggressive verbally, not so much physically except against smaller not physically strong players necessarily.

Aggressive: Guys like Ladd, Byfuglien, Dustin Brown, and the tough guys in the league.


Agitation means getting under skin and annoying. You do not have to be aggressive to do that necessarily. Just yappy. Aggression is how you get after it. Mean physical and not necessarily yappy.

You can be an agitator and agressive, but you do not have to be both. Same for the other way around. Aaron Asham is aggressive and an agitator. Ryan Kesler too. Someone like Darcy Hordichuk though...just aggressive. Someone like Steve Ott...just an agitator.

Mmmmm well yeah, you're all right. It's depends more on the player himself.

Aaron Asham is aggressive and an agitator.

You'd say so? Personally, I think he's relatively tame.

Now Scott Hartnell, on the other hand...

Asham too. He yaps alot. And gets at it. And yeah, Hartnell is a do it all kind of guy....when he wants to be.

dabo wrote:I guess I have anticipation instead of vision to tell how well a player reads the play etc.

Ah, okay, I should have picked up on that.

What's your take on the attribute "discipline" in the whole aggression and agitation discussion? Would it be fair to say that a player with low discipline would be more likely to respond "bad" to agitation? Or should discipline be more in terms of how likely a player is to take bad penalties etc?

Mmmmm I didn't think about that one! It's sure a discipline player would be calm when the game becomes agitated and avoid taking bad penalties.

Some more possible player types could be:

Energy Forward, Checking Forward, Goal-Scoring rather then sniper, Antagonistic for the agitators,offensive forward, two-way
forward, Rugged Defense man

Just a few suggestions,
I liked on EHM on the scouting page how it listed the type of player and what his project role was, and where he was expected to play right now and what his potential impact might be down the road after your scouts and coaches have seen him play.

Man, this sounds good. I'm sure you can create something cool, it's great that you're here asking for opinions and all. Perhaps i could help with player and team data when it's time for it?

This is all really impressive Dabo. Most of what I could say has already been said.

I like the player types chart. In EHM I'm always looking for a specific types of player to fill holes in my lineup and the types chart would be a really easy way of seeing if a player would fit into the role I need.

Agitating players are a big part of the game today, so I think that needs to be represented in the player form either in the attributes or charts.

If you need any help with anything be sure to let us know. This seems like a big project for one person to tackle so I'm sure a lot of us would be willing to lend a hand where we can.

I was just thinking more about the Player Types. They need to be determined by player tendencies as well - actually they would probably be very important factors in most of them.

For example:
A defensive forward would need to be high on the defense end of a defense/offense scale.
Regardless of how high his positioning, shot blocking etc. attributes are if he doesn't want to play defense then he won't be much of a defensive forward.

pass/shoot tendency would be important for the offensive types, especially snipers and playmakers.

Tendencies should also play into the attribute chart as well. For example a low passing tendencies should result in a lower passing rating. Even if a player passes really well if he doesn't pass very often it's not very useful.

I don't see any tendency attributes there so I assume you have them hidden like EHM? If so I might suggest unhiding them in some way - the player chart would work well in this capacity.

goof1016 wrote:Just a few suggestions,
I liked on EHM on the scouting page how it listed the type of player and what his project role was, and where he was expected to play right now and what his potential impact might be down the road after your scouts and coaches have seen him play.

Yeah, I want that too.

empach wrote:If you need any help with anything be sure to let us know. This seems like a big project for one person to tackle so I'm sure a lot of us would be willing to lend a hand where we can.

Animal wrote:Man, this sounds good. I'm sure you can create something cool, it's great that you're here asking for opinions and all. Perhaps i could help with player and team data when it's time for it?

I am sure you people can help with the database including first- and last names for a bunch of countries (I have some already).

empach wrote:I was just thinking more about the Player Types. They need to be determined by player tendencies as well - actually they would probably be very important factors in most of them.

For example:
A defensive forward would need to be high on the defense end of a defense/offense scale.
Regardless of how high his positioning, shot blocking etc. attributes are if he doesn't want to play defense then he won't be much of a defensive forward.

pass/shoot tendency would be important for the offensive types, especially snipers and playmakers.

Tendencies should also play into the attribute chart as well. For example a low passing tendencies should result in a lower passing rating. Even if a player passes really well if he doesn't pass very often it's not very useful.

I don't see any tendency attributes there so I assume you have them hidden like EHM? If so I might suggest unhiding them in some way - the player chart would work well in this capacity.

empach wrote:Agitating players are a big part of the game today, so I think that needs to be represented in the player form either in the attributes or charts.

The thing is there is not room to show everything, also I like the fact that some attributes and tendencies are only visible once you have scouted a player. For example, more than 8 categories in the radar chart doesn't look very good when the chart is as small as I have shown you. Perhaps I can have two radar charts in the player report, one for player types and one for additional stuff. But I am gonna have to test this, I don't want to overuse the radar chart.

However good point that tendencies should play a part in determining whether a player is a good sniper, playmaker etc. or not.

archibalduk wrote:2) I love the new coloured graph. Looks great! Could you just colour the bits inside the graph? I think it'd make the player's ability clearer

Since I wasn't able to do exactly like you wanted I have been trying other ways of making the ability area clearer. Which one do you guys prefer? I added the default one (top left) as a reference.



Personally I like the bottom middle one. For the solid and diagonal stripes versions, I could make them lighter, right now I am using black with alpha 48.

dabo wrote:I am sure you people can help with the database including first- and last names for a bunch of countries (I have some already).

I think you should take all the names from EHM atleast. And also, I suggest that you wouldn't categorize names according to countries, but according to languages. That's how you would easily avoid wrong languages in wrong regions.

P.S. I prefer the second (top middle) image.

Like A9L3E said, second, top middle is the one which looks better in my eyes

Yep, top middle looks better, though it'd look even better if it was little bit darker.

A9L3E wrote:I think you should take all the names from EHM atleast. And also, I suggest that you wouldn't categorize names according to countries, but according to languages. That's how you would easily avoid wrong languages in wrong regions.

Right now the format of a name in the database is the following:

Nation
State (or region, you get the idea)
Name
Frequency

A rough example:

Nation : Canada
State : Quebec
Name : Francois
Frequency : 30 (on a scale from 1-100)

Nation : Canada
State : Manitoba
Name : Francois
Frequency : 3

This is just made up, but this is basically the idea. Then if you don't enter any state, the frequency of a name will be applied for the entire country. So countries other than Canada and USA will not use this, although you could since there are provinces in other countries as well. Ahh well, I may use it for other countries in the future.

Suggestions/comments are welcome.

empach wrote:

dabo wrote: The thing is there is not room to show everything, also I like the fact that some attributes and tendencies are only visible once you have scouted a player. For example, more than 8 categories in the radar chart doesn't look very good when the chart is as small as I have shown you. Perhaps I can have two radar charts in the player report, one for player types and one for additional stuff. But I am gonna have to test this, I don't want to overuse the radar chart.

Yeah I can understand how there isn't room to show everything.
I really do think that a players tendencies need to be displayed, but I think if the chart attributes, especially the player types, account for them that would probably be good.

The tendencies can be shown in the scouting report, after all, if you don't scout a player how will you notice his tendencies? Would this be satisfactory?