EHM The Blue Line

Hey! I'm using the latest version of EHM 1, which seems to have altered draft picks in some rather unusual ways that I haven't seen covered in the manner I need.

I love delving into the mechanics of games, and have been trying to glean differences in AI choice vs. scout recommendations, AI Choice and scout recommendations vs. CA and PA levels, but...

One thing I'm not certain about, however, is the general "minimum CA" required in order for a player to develop properly? I keep getting players with CA values of 10-15, and PA's of 180+, but, I know those people won't develop into NHL superstars.

Generally speaking, there don't seem to really be any players above 100 CA, but, there are plenty of players 18-19 with values of 90-95.

Also, because goalies take so long to develop, will a goalie with a 90 CA and 190 PA be more likely to develop into a superstar than a right winger?

Thanks!

(Pittsburgh Penguins; NHL)

Ferretferret wrote:Hey! I'm using the latest version of EHM 1, which seems to have altered draft picks in some rather unusual ways that I haven't seen covered in the manner I need.

I'm not sure what you mean...
If you played EHM07, EHM1 is much improved, with much more realistic development (so you won't have so many teenagers in the NHL)

Ferretferret wrote:One thing I'm not certain about, however, is the general "minimum CA" required in order for a player to develop properly? I keep getting players with CA values of 10-15, and PA's of 180+, but, I know those people won't develop into NHL superstars.

How old are these players? Bantam age players have very low CAs (CA can make a huge jump in a single year for younger teenagers); how do you know/how are you sure they won't develop?

Ferretferret wrote:Generally speaking, there don't seem to really be any players above 100 CA, but, there are plenty of players 18-19 with values of 90-95.

That sounds pretty correct/normal

FYI there's a known issue with excess talent being generated/will be fixed in the next update http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showp ... tcount=615

nino33 wrote:

Ferretferret wrote:Hey! I'm using the latest version of EHM 1, which seems to have altered draft picks in some rather unusual ways that I haven't seen covered in the manner I need.

I'm not sure what you mean...
If you played EHM07, EHM1 is much improved, with much more realistic development (so you won't have so many teenagers in the NHL)

Ferretferret wrote:One thing I'm not certain about, however, is the general "minimum CA" required in order for a player to develop properly? I keep getting players with CA values of 10-15, and PA's of 180+, but, I know those people won't develop into NHL superstars.

How old are these players? Bantam age players have very low CAs (CA can make a huge jump in a single year for younger teenagers); how do you know/how are you sure they won't develop?

Ferretferret wrote:Generally speaking, there don't seem to really be any players above 100 CA, but, there are plenty of players 18-19 with values of 90-95.

That sounds pretty correct/normal
It's
FYI there's a known issue with excess talent being generated/will be fixed in the next update http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showp ... tcount=615

Nah, the ones at 13-20 never really seem to develop above 40 during their careers. Or, at least, that's where they still are at around 23. It really sucks to draft someone, only for them to develop into someone well below AHL 2 standards. (May have been a fluke, but, I'm not sure)

And, yeah, I was referencing the talent pool change in the initial part of my post. XD Any word on whether or not that'll be fixed with the next update, retroactively on current save files?

But, like, is there any chance of a player with a CA of 90 or so actually developing into the 180 PA he has?

Ferretferret wrote:Nah, the ones at 13-20 never really seem to develop above 40 during their careers. Or, at least, that's where they still are at around 23. It really sucks to draft someone, only for them to develop into someone well below AHL 2 standards. (May have been a fluke, but, I'm not sure)

I'm not sure why you're drafting somebody with the visible Attributes of a below 40 CA player (such a player isn't good enough for Major Junior)...

Ferretferret wrote:And, yeah, I was referencing the talent pool change in the initial part of my post. XD Any word on whether or not that'll be fixed with the next update, retroactively on current save files?

Sorry, I have no idea

Ferretferret wrote:But, like, is there any chance of a player with a CA of 90 or so actually developing into the 180 PA he has?

Most Major Junior players have less than 100 CAs (so your answer is "yes" & while a 180 PA isn't typical, developing into an NHLer from a CA of 90 or so is the norm)

Ferretferret wrote:But, like, is there any chance of a player with a CA of 90 or so actually developing into the 180 PA he has?

There can't be many over 100 CA prospects (one year from draft year). They might be NHL ready after they've been drafted (18 yo). Those are only a handful per year.