EHM The Blue Line

What is your take on the rating statistic? I am thinking of removing it or use it for hidden purposes only since I don't think it is very realistic to have it visible. I mean, it is not like you can find average rating statistics at nhl.com.

Alternatively ratings can be kept for your own players only and the opposition you just played.

dabo wrote:What is your take on the rating statistic? I am thinking of removing it or use it for hidden purposes only since I don't think it is very realistic to have it visible. I mean, it is not like you can find average rating statistics at nhl.com.

Alternatively ratings can be kept for your own players only and the opposition you just played.

Personally, I was never a fan of the average rating, for this very reason. I wouldn't mind seeing us stick to only the real hockey stats.

dabo wrote:What is your take on the rating statistic? I am thinking of removing it or use it for hidden purposes only since I don't think it is very realistic to have it visible. I mean, it is not like you can find average rating statistics at nhl.com.

Alternatively ratings can be kept for your own players only and the opposition you just played.

At first I thought you meant to get rid of the whole rating system, but then I realised what you meant and I can support that. Its more realistic, your coaching staff give you ratings on how your players played and maybe how the opposing team player's played. Although I'm not sure does anyone do that? Rate the opposition. Maybe if you had a scout following the league you play he could provide you with some ratings. Or the assistant coaches bring in some numebers about the opposition before the game

Have you ever seen the HBO special following the Pens and the Caps?

After one of the games the Coach and the GM of Pittsburgh get together and they discuss the player performance out of 5 for that game. Whos to say they don't have someone average those scores together for the year as well?

So actually, i do think its realistic but maybe it should be based on the coaching staffs opinion, not the actual game telling you.

The coaches attributes - perhaps "Judging player ability/performance - would base how accurate their ratings of that players performance is. So in this case, i guess that the real ratings would be hidden but the coaches evaluation of the player would be shown like the ratings in EHM.

Is this entirely realistic? Maybe, maybe not, but sometimes you need to go in that direction for somethings abit to make the game experience better and more enjoyable. Like what happens when you have a defensive d-man who doesn't make big hits or put up too many points - do you just go by his attributes and assume he is doing okay? Or do you have to look stat by stat and compare it to the leagues and your teams? I can see all that being somewhat difficult and frustrating at times.

Also me personally i don't disect all the players stats, just the major ones on most cases. So getting rid of it would take away alot for me.

EDIT: But let me add that you have scouts watching other games they judge other players too. Isn't that what pro scouts are for? They judge current NHL players on the other teams and give them ratings... that leads me to another request : PRO Scouts and Amateur Scouts (along with Head scouts for each)

I agree with Dave about the ratings. I could play with or without them but I think they may be of help to less knowledgeable players so if anything one should be able to play with or without them.

Make it optional, but don't get rid of it.

I think that some kind of general evaluation from every game should be available. It it really hard to get "general feel" of players when you can't really "watch" games. At least some kind of written evaluation (Horrible, Poor, neutral, good, excellent,...) should be available, since normally you get a feel of every players performance just by watching a game.

Personally I think it is a "lazy" statistic just like playing with no hidden attributes; I would find it much more interesting if in case you want to find out how a certain player is doing, scout him and read the media (not always accurate, but if a player is praised in the media it could be worth scouting him).

I do see a purpose to have it in the game as hidden and use it for other stuff, and as I wrote earlier, perhaps for your own players and scouted ones.

Watching a game IRL or even on TV you can get a feel for how a players are playing. Stats don't really say everything and a rating number at least gives you some idea. Not everybody has the time or patience to play the game in real time and a rating makes it quicker and easier to play.

I think the rating system is good because, unlike real GM's or Coaches, we can't see the whole game, we don't see how they do in practice, or how the lines gel together. The only thing we have is numbers: The Ratings.

You could tone it down a bit, like giving a rating from 1-5 and have averages without the decimal points, so that you can't see that Player A has rating 3.43 and Player B has 3.46 -- thus Player B is better. Something like that, maybe? Have them both show as AVR of 3, no decimals. "Both are doing OK".

dave1927p wrote:Have you ever seen the HBO special following the Pens and the Caps?

After one of the games the Coach and the GM of Pittsburgh get together and they discuss the player performance out of 5 for that game. Whos to say they don't have someone average those scores together for the year as well?

So actually, i do think its realistic but maybe it should be based on the coaching staffs opinion, not the actual game telling you.

The coaches attributes - perhaps "Judging player ability/performance - would base how accurate their ratings of that players performance is. So in this case, i guess that the real ratings would be hidden but the coaches evaluation of the player would be shown like the ratings in EHM.

Is this entirely realistic? Maybe, maybe not, but sometimes you need to go in that direction for somethings abit to make the game experience better and more enjoyable. Like what happens when you have a defensive d-man who doesn't make big hits or put up too many points - do you just go by his attributes and assume he is doing okay? Or do you have to look stat by stat and compare it to the leagues and your teams? I can see all that being somewhat difficult and frustrating at times.

Also me personally i don't disect all the players stats, just the major ones on most cases. So getting rid of it would take away alot for me.

EDIT: But let me add that you have scouts watching other games they judge other players too. Isn't that what pro scouts are for? They judge current NHL players on the other teams and give them ratings... that leads me to another request : PRO Scouts and Amateur Scouts (along with Head scouts for each)

Peter Chiarelli was interviewed on one of Boston's sports talk stations sometime around when that NHL 24/7 was on HBO and the hosts asked him if the he did anything like that. He said that he (and I think the coaching staff) went through after every game and gave each player a 1-5 rating for the game and they tracked it over the season. So in that regard, I do think that a rating works for your own team. And I do think it's appropriate that the GM and Coach's Judging Ability/Performance would factor into this. A player could be doing little things that don't show up on the scoresheet and they might miss it if they're not looking for it. I don't think we should be able to see these game ratings for players on other teams though.

I'd keep them. Like they are now. They are a good indicator and I don't think they are unrealistic. Well, maybe they are a bit, but as other say, we can't watch whole games and so on and thus we need something to sum things up.
Let it stay!

Tough to evaluate defensive players on their play without the average rating stat. To give an example..Willie Mitchell has been a pretty darn good dman in his life, but he does not show up on stats sheets for much..

A typical game for him would be:

G 0 A 0 +/- +1 shots: 0 hits: 2 takeaway 1, turnover 1, blocked shots 1 PIM 2. Just makes simple plays that never get noticed and smart plays all the time.

yet he is one of the best and steadiest dmen in the game. (And those who want to argue need to look at the Kings record with and without him and his stabilizing play this season)

bruins72 wrote:

dave1927p wrote:Have you ever seen the HBO special following the Pens and the Caps?

After one of the games the Coach and the GM of Pittsburgh get together and they discuss the player performance out of 5 for that game. Whos to say they don't have someone average those scores together for the year as well?

So actually, i do think its realistic but maybe it should be based on the coaching staffs opinion, not the actual game telling you.

The coaches attributes - perhaps "Judging player ability/performance - would base how accurate their ratings of that players performance is. So in this case, i guess that the real ratings would be hidden but the coaches evaluation of the player would be shown like the ratings in EHM.

Is this entirely realistic? Maybe, maybe not, but sometimes you need to go in that direction for somethings abit to make the game experience better and more enjoyable. Like what happens when you have a defensive d-man who doesn't make big hits or put up too many points - do you just go by his attributes and assume he is doing okay? Or do you have to look stat by stat and compare it to the leagues and your teams? I can see all that being somewhat difficult and frustrating at times.

Also me personally i don't disect all the players stats, just the major ones on most cases. So getting rid of it would take away alot for me.

EDIT: But let me add that you have scouts watching other games they judge other players too. Isn't that what pro scouts are for? They judge current NHL players on the other teams and give them ratings... that leads me to another request : PRO Scouts and Amateur Scouts (along with Head scouts for each)

Peter Chiarelli was interviewed on one of Boston's sports talk stations sometime around when that NHL 24/7 was on HBO and the hosts asked him if the he did anything like that. He said that he (and I think the coaching staff) went through after every game and gave each player a 1-5 rating for the game and they tracked it over the season. So in that regard, I do think that a rating works for your own team. And I do think it's appropriate that the GM and Coach's Judging Ability/Performance would factor into this. A player could be doing little things that don't show up on the scoresheet and they might miss it if they're not looking for it. I don't think we should be able to see these game ratings for players on other teams though.

yes, if it were up to me, that is how i'd do it. Then have your pro scouts go around the league to get other players ratings for those games.
That way you'll also misjudge players more often...like being a real GM and it adds an extra layer of depth to the game.
I think making it hidden altogether without having another system in place would be a big mistake.

It sounds like the best solution would be to have the average rating system be "Backroom Advice". Something like Football Manager's backroom advice meetings would be a good compromise.

As we see above, there's probably many teams who have an internal system for rating performances. However, it's definitely not realistic to have a public statistic telling you exactly how well any given player in the world is performing. I agree with dabo that it lets things get a bit lazy. I'll even admit that I'm extremely guilty - I don't even bother with 98% of the stats in the game. Just look at the average rating . However, I think a game should encourage more participation than that.

Personally, I like the way EHM and FM currently show the average ratings. I understand it would be more realistic without the rating, but the difficulty with playing a text sim is that we can't watch the entirety of every game - and even the games we do watch we only see numbers floating across the screen. I think the only way of allowing us to evaluate players is for some sort of average rating system. Merely looking at stats isn't really going to give us that much of a picture (as per Batdad's example).

Bob McKenzie said something interesting on "On the Record" , he said something in the lines of "the team trading the player are the ones who know him best."

...

I'll even admit that I'm extremely guilty - I don't even bother with 98% of the stats in the game. Just look at the average rating . However, I think a game should encourage more participation than that.

encourage maybe, but not force...

Player rating's as a public stat might be somewhat new but they are out there.
http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/feature/?ID=10467

CeeBee wrote:Player rating's as a public stat might be somewhat new but they are out there.
http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/feature/?ID=10467

yes, but in the case of the game who says that was it is? The game, the coach, the scouts, you the gm... and Is it completely accurate like in EHM or based on those judging stats.

Baseball is a game is all pure stats and by looking at them it can tell you all you need to know. Like said above it's far different for hockey.


Also there are some people who don't want to go through all the different stats all the time. I'm probably one of them. Especially in EHM because it can feel like a chore to get to them and isn't worth it for me at least. A decision on this part is very important as it can isolate and make some users less interested. It also makes the game easier for new comers not to your game, but to hockey and the NHL in general. The learning curve is already steep enough for these types of games. Some type of ratings help drastically with that.

B. Stinson wrote:It sounds like the best solution would be to have the average rating system be "Backroom Advice". Something like Football Manager's backroom advice meetings would be a good compromise.

As we see above, there's probably many teams who have an internal system for rating performances. However, it's definitely not realistic to have a public statistic telling you exactly how well any given player in the world is performing. I agree with dabo that it lets things get a bit lazy. I'll even admit that I'm extremely guilty - I don't even bother with 98% of the stats in the game. Just look at the average rating . However, I think a game should encourage more participation than that.

Looks like we are the only ones who see it this way. I am happy to leave it in since everyone seems to really want it but in the future I will most likely add the way Stinson writes as an option. The idea of my favourite swedish team having an average rating available for all players playing in for example czech republic does not sound verly likely at all. But for users who don't want to put in that much effort when playing I can see it being useful.

Well you need some sort of rating system (from what I read that's what you plan to do anyway) because a lot of things like trade value, development or morale depend on it. If that's the case you can just as well leave the decision to the user and make it optional to enable/disable via the preferences screen or whatever you wanna call it.

I'd be careful with abandoning ratings or simplifying them, in real life we have the advantage to make up our mind about a player by watching him play without having to rely on stats since stats don't always tell the whole story, but it's different in game. As for the backroom advice thing in FM, well, FM still has player ratings, in addition to that.

dabo wrote:

B. Stinson wrote:It sounds like the best solution would be to have the average rating system be "Backroom Advice". Something like Football Manager's backroom advice meetings would be a good compromise.

As we see above, there's probably many teams who have an internal system for rating performances. However, it's definitely not realistic to have a public statistic telling you exactly how well any given player in the world is performing. I agree with dabo that it lets things get a bit lazy. I'll even admit that I'm extremely guilty - I don't even bother with 98% of the stats in the game. Just look at the average rating . However, I think a game should encourage more participation than that.

Looks like we are the only ones who see it this way. I am happy to leave it in since everyone seems to really want it but in the future I will most likely add the way Stinson writes as an option. The idea of my favourite swedish team having an average rating available for all players playing in for example czech republic does not sound verly likely at all. But for users who don't want to put in that much effort when playing I can see it being useful.

Another idea is some kind of fog of war here. Depending team's scouting in particular league/team players avg rating would be seen differently: invisible if scouting in area is limited/none - only vague written value for mediocre scouting - more specific numerical value for good extensive scouting on area.

Danny wrote:Well you need some sort of rating system (from what I read that's what you plan to do anyway) because a lot of things like trade value, development or morale depend on it.

Perhaps I should have written remove them from the gui when I wrote remove earlier. I never meant to remove them completely since, as you write, they are needed for other stuff.

Danny wrote:I'd be careful with abandoning ratings or simplifying them, in real life we have the advantage to make up our mind about a player by watching him play without having to rely on stats since stats don't always tell the whole story, but it's different in game. As for the backroom advice thing in FM, well, FM still has player ratings, in addition to that.

I would not say a real-life GM watches every player he wants in person, they have scouts/Ass. GMs for that and that is what we could use in the game as well. But of course, I see the problem in determining how a players is doing by just watching a dot move on the screen.

But since we will leave ratings visible, perhaps we could from now on discuss how we could make the optional mode fun/realistic. Hiding ratings completely or do it jatahati's way etc.

(If I can remember how, I will move this discussion to its own thread.)

I'd definitely go the optional route. Have one where it's like EHM and have the other based on scouting. Could even have a third option that removes them entirely.

A few have mentioned that IRL coaches/GMs get together after each game and rate players 1-5. The way to do it in a game such as this would be to have the GM (us players) able select one or more staff members to get the ratings from. Up to us how to use the numbers. The staff's ratings should all be roughly similar but not necessarily the same due to bias based on preferred style of play and players he likes/dislikes.

As for making it optional, I believe the system I laid out makes it so - you can just not select any staff members to get ratings from and leave it at that.