EHM The Blue Line

So, here in Europe, the play-offs are in full flight. This always makes me think ahead to next season(I like to be one step ahead) and the next major update(I'm still working on fixing the WHL).

How can we make these roster updates even better? Is there anything special you want to see done?
I am talking strictly editing here, none of those patches and tools Archi is working on (so far, they've given me a lot more work to do, but it is good for the game)

Are there any members out there that wants to help out? And with what?
I have already set some of my researchers to work(calculating CA, keeping transfer lists and such), but more guys are welcome to join. Once I am done with version4.2 then I will start to work on 5.0

Let us know!

Hello,

I am here to help

nothing. everytime you update i get addicted again.

Manimal wrote:I am talking strictly editing here, none of those patches and tools Archi is working on (so far, they've given me a lot more work to do, but it is good for the game)

I completely know what you mean! However, I think we have now addressed all of the work that the custom start date required. We now have the correct date joined data, updated Player Info (well, very soon anyway) and we have a lot of the player histories updated. Hopefully now there won't be so much "catch up" work required in order to keep the rosters up to date.

I'm not really sure what to suggest in terms of what could be updated for v5.0 (other than the usual trade updates and maybe CA/PA updates where appropriate), but I don't think it's worth your time individually updating the player/competition histories. I am happy to continue working on keeping these up to date. However, I will see if it can be done in a way that is less disruptive to your normal roster updating (as you know, you couldn't add/delete/rename players/teams/leagues whilst we were doing the history updates). Having up to date rosters is far more important than updating histories IMO.

If I can get all of my patch/tool work done, then I'd be interested in taking a look at the British leagues (both playable and non-playable). I noticed that a lot of the smaller teams' rosters are missing players. I'm not expert enough on the British leagues to update individual attributes, but I could do CA/PA as well as basic information (dob, nationality, contract details, etc). Maybe I could work with somebody like Calv to ensure things are correct. But I will get back to you at a much later date once I've finished my patches/tools (probably in the summer) - assuming you want help/research for the UK.

I think for version 5.0, there should be some work done on the future NHL drafts. As it is set right now, the potential rating is perfect but it seems the young prospects (15 to 17 at the age of start-up) never properly develop. I figure that could be because of so many randomized (0) attributes, and the game not properly assigning the attributes for high potential prospects with randomized attributes.

If we want to preserve the randomness from one game world to the next, maybe the best way would be to have an external tool that assigns attributes for selected prospects according to a "style" the researchers would assign. As an exemple :

Hunter Shinkaruk has a potential of -8, but all his attributes are 0. Since he is a highly touted prospect, he is added to the "prospects adjustment" list where he is listed as a sniper. The tool then assigns "sniper" attributes to Shinkaruk that goes into the ranges of a -8 prospect, which I guess would be between 11 and 17 in the main shooting attributes.

Maybe there are other ways to go around for solving the problem, but this is a suggestion. I think working on this area would be very positive to get the first few years in the game right in junior leagues and for rebuilding NHL teams.

A tool might be a bit elaborate, but I quite like the idea of assigning prospects a rough style/template. Maybe it could simply be a case of assigning a -1 to -15 PA along with setting a couple of attributes according to style and skill. Even with setting a couple of attributes, the PA will keep things relatively random for each game.

archibalduk wrote:A tool might be a bit elaborate, but I quite like the idea of assigning prospects a rough style/template. Maybe it could simply be a case of assigning a -1 to -15 PA along with setting a couple of attributes according to style and skill. Even with setting a couple of attributes, the PA will keep things relatively random for each game.

This is pretty much how I am working on the WHL now. I have the CA/PA and a few attributes set plus the off/def role which, together with CA, will set the random attributes

Not sure if this is roster/5.0 enhancement, but I think the Kings need to be re-done.

Each time I start a new season, Kings are ALWAYS first in the league. Kopitar is always rookie of the year, Quick is always goalie of the year. Right now, Kings are league leading 121 points right before playoffs (second highest is myself with 107).

Not sure if you guys are Kings fans , but they seem to be way out of whack with the rest of the teams.

just a suggestion, i am wondering if possible, when it comes to the pre season top 10 players, i.e 1-10 best right wing players, would it be possible to put on brackets what there ages are next to there names ?
i think this would be good so then it gives the gm what the age ranges are, and give the gm a kinda guide to what age group to work towards. anyhow thats my suggestion Stupot11

Stupot11 wrote:just a suggestion, i am wondering if possible, when it comes to the pre season top 10 players, i.e 1-10 best right wing players, would it be possible to put on brackets what there ages are next to there names ?
i think this would be good so then it gives the gm what the age ranges are, and give the gm a kinda guide to what age group to work towards. anyhow thats my suggestion Stupot11

That's a game programming thing, not a DB update.

squadz wrote:Not sure if this is roster/5.0 enhancement, but I think the Kings need to be re-done.

Each time I start a new season, Kings are ALWAYS first in the league. Kopitar is always rookie of the year, Quick is always goalie of the year. Right now, Kings are league leading 121 points right before playoffs (second highest is myself with 107).

Not sure if you guys are Kings fans , but they seem to be way out of whack with the rest of the teams.

Also for some reason the Red Wings end up last in the league within 3 seasons for me, without fail. I know they are an older team but they also have a good system and always seem to replenish as needed. I dunno why, but 2/3 season Pronger and Salo are traded before the first season starts. I know we can't make teams keep players but I always have Philly and Vancouver trading away major players before the season is underway.

I agree with some of the other comments...there really is nothing to complain about...the fact we have updated rosters at all for a now 6 year old game is simply amazing!!

Having said that, I think the future NHL (and possibly CHL) drafts could use some work.

Thanks again to everyone who contributes to keeping this game alive and kicking

The only thing i'd suggest is having two versions of the database next time: one version the same as v4.2 but the other version does not update any trades that happen during the real life season. Vancouver traded for Sami Pahlsson just before the playoffs; I don't really want to start the EHM season with him. The same goes for the Jeff Carter trade and many others. I think it's better to start the season with the same rosters that the actual teams did, but that's just my opinion =)

bobmcgoo wrote:The only thing i'd suggest is having two versions of the database next time: one version the same as v4.2 but the other version does not update any trades that happen during the real life season. Vancouver traded for Sami Pahlsson just before the playoffs; I don't really want to start the EHM season with him. The same goes for the Jeff Carter trade and many others. I think it's better to start the season with the same rosters that the actual teams did, but that's just my opinion =)

Too much work. I barely have the time to fix one version.

NCAA teams would be something I'd like to update at some point, but it's such a huge task.

Also, I often find that the Offensive/Defensive Role for many players is too extreme. I have found this most noticeable in the Canadian Hockey League. Too many guys have 20 for Offensive Role. Either that or they are left blank. I think this is one major way to control scoring.

squadz wrote:Not sure if this is roster/5.0 enhancement, but I think the Kings need to be re-done.

Each time I start a new season, Kings are ALWAYS first in the league. Kopitar is always rookie of the year, Quick is always goalie of the year. Right now, Kings are league leading 121 points right before playoffs (second highest is myself with 107).

Not sure if you guys are Kings fans , but they seem to be way out of whack with the rest of the teams.

For me, it always seems to be the Sabres who are extremely dominant through the regular season. Might just be the way it works out, not really sure.

bobmcgoo wrote:The only thing i'd suggest is having two versions of the database next time: one version the same as v4.2 but the other version does not update any trades that happen during the real life season. Vancouver traded for Sami Pahlsson just before the playoffs; I don't really want to start the EHM season with him. The same goes for the Jeff Carter trade and many others. I think it's better to start the season with the same rosters that the actual teams did, but that's just my opinion =)

I've been thinking the same

bobmcgoo wrote:The only thing i'd suggest is having two versions of the database next time: one version the same as v4.2 but the other version does not update any trades that happen during the real life season. Vancouver traded for Sami Pahlsson just before the playoffs; I don't really want to start the EHM season with him. The same goes for the Jeff Carter trade and many others. I think it's better to start the season with the same rosters that the actual teams did, but that's just my opinion =)

Jypfan92 wrote:I've been thinking the same

Manimal wrote:Too much work.

I too prefer databases that have the rosters as they were at the start of a given year.....maybe the multi-user editor Archi's working on will make this feasable in the future.....

AdamOates wrote: Also, I often find that the Offensive/Defensive Role for many players is too extreme. I have found this most noticeable in the Canadian Hockey League. Too many guys have 20 for Offensive Role. Either that or they are left blank. I think this is one major way to control scoring.

I think this is a very good idea. I really do think the roles make a difference. I think the higher potential prospects/players should have higher roles but if a guy isn't expected to amount to much, I think that using lower role values can help shape that.

I think Manimal has been working on this....from the chat I had with him last week or so anyway. (off/def roles)

bobmcgoo wrote:The only thing i'd suggest is having two versions of the database next time: one version the same as v4.2 but the other version does not update any trades that happen during the real life season. Vancouver traded for Sami Pahlsson just before the playoffs; I don't really want to start the EHM season with him. The same goes for the Jeff Carter trade and many others. I think it's better to start the season with the same rosters that the actual teams did, but that's just my opinion =)

Jypfan92 wrote:I've been thinking the same

Manimal wrote:Too much work.

nino33 wrote:I too prefer databases that have the rosters as they were at the start of a given year.....maybe the multi-user editor Archi's working on will make this feasable in the future.....

No, I'm afraid a multi-user editor wouldn't make this feasible. The list of contractual changes would get larger and larger by the day (making the multi-user editor / converter slower and slower because for each change it will have to search for the correct players through all 45,000+ database entries plus something like 3,000+ team entries). Also, you're going to end up with multiple contractual changes for players. It would end up a huge mess.

I see why having two versions of the DB would be attractive, but I agree with Manimal - it's just too much work. Keeping just the current database up to date is a perpetual full time job.

1-It would be fun if teams could change adress in a season. Per example, with the new updates, the blue jackets have financial problem. I wish if they could go to quebec or seattle,...
2-In this game, when a player has a non-trade clause, we can't trade him. In real life the player give you a list of team (depending on his clause).
Thanks.
I LOVE YOU MANIMAL.

If you don't want to work at this point, you could put two versions. The first one, with only north americans cahnge and the second with europeanand north americans.
Personnallly, it don't really care about the change in Europa.

kadri43 wrote:1-It would be fun if teams could change adress in a season. Per example, with the new updates, the blue jackets have financial problem. I wish if they could go to quebec or seattle,...
2-In this game, when a player has a non-trade clause, we can't trade him. In real life the player give you a list of team (depending on his clause).
Thanks.
I LOVE YOU MANIMAL.

Are you friends with MgSports by any chance?!!!

His ideas are better