HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > EA Sports NHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
EA Sports NHL Discussion forum for EA Sports NHL video games.

NHL 13 player growth

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-05-2013, 12:23 AM
  #226
western redmen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
They usually had low overalls though, so most of those weren't guaranteed to be quality NHL'ers, although they were generally good bottom 6/spare bets. Not too different from what happens IRL.
And some turn to 90+players, seriously...I may as well trade all my picks and just grab prospects that are top 10 talent in UFA

western redmen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 12:32 AM
  #227
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 新香
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by western redmen View Post
And some turn to 90+players, seriously...I may as well trade all my picks and just grab prospects that are top 10 talent in UFA
I ran about three dynasties I think, one that lasted 20 seasons. I usually signed the best UFA prospects at the start of every season and I have to say only three or four went on to be players in their high 80's/low 90's/ I've had probably a dozen who were good bottom 6 players or 1b/backup goalies. I honestly didn't experience anything out of the ordinary in that respect.

VinnyC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 01:36 AM
  #228
n00bxQb
Registered User
 
n00bxQb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
The other thing is OVR doesn't necessarily mean much when it comes to performance. I find people get way too caught up in OVR (especially in GMC leagues).

For example, I have Nashville in a sim league and was negotiating a trade to acquire a younger center since I had Joe Thornton, Legwand, and Gaustad all nearing retirement. I offered Gaustad as part of the trade, and the guy laughed in my face, calling him a salary dump because he was 76 OVR and $3.25M

In the prior 3 seasons, Gaustad was my 3rd line center, put up 15-20 goals each year, 30-35 points each year, consistently over 60% in the faceoff circle, 150+ hits/year, and usually +10 to +15 ... Cap dump

I gladly kept Gaustad, who went on to have a career year (22 goals, 46 points) and a WCF appearance, while he missed the playoffs for the Nth year in a row ... and got a young center from someone else who is now my #1C in season 9 (while the guy I traded him is a 3rd liner)

On the flip side, my dad had Nick Foligno on his team for many seasons, was anywhere from 82 OVR to 85 OVR in any given season, and he struggled to put up 30 points despite getting Top 6 minutes (in many cases, 1st line) before he finally gave up on him. Because of his high OVR, he ended up getting a substantial amount back ... and the team that acquired Foligno has him on the block 1.5 seasons later because he still isn't producing despite being on his top line.

n00bxQb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 10:05 AM
  #229
HoseEmDown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,036
vCash: 500
I wish the computer didnt look at OVR cause whenever I get an injury on my AHL team they decide to put the career AHL guy I don't own in the lineup. I've tried to sign a few just to trade them and get them off the team but never have any value.

HoseEmDown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 10:57 AM
  #230
SaNcAlandariel
Registered User
 
SaNcAlandariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bxQb View Post
The other thing is OVR doesn't necessarily mean much when it comes to performance. I find people get way too caught up in OVR (especially in GMC leagues).

For example, I have Nashville in a sim league and was negotiating a trade to acquire a younger center since I had Joe Thornton, Legwand, and Gaustad all nearing retirement. I offered Gaustad as part of the trade, and the guy laughed in my face, calling him a salary dump because he was 76 OVR and $3.25M

In the prior 3 seasons, Gaustad was my 3rd line center, put up 15-20 goals each year, 30-35 points each year, consistently over 60% in the faceoff circle, 150+ hits/year, and usually +10 to +15 ... Cap dump

I gladly kept Gaustad, who went on to have a career year (22 goals, 46 points) and a WCF appearance, while he missed the playoffs for the Nth year in a row ... and got a young center from someone else who is now my #1C in season 9 (while the guy I traded him is a 3rd liner)

On the flip side, my dad had Nick Foligno on his team for many seasons, was anywhere from 82 OVR to 85 OVR in any given season, and he struggled to put up 30 points despite getting Top 6 minutes (in many cases, 1st line) before he finally gave up on him. Because of his high OVR, he ended up getting a substantial amount back ... and the team that acquired Foligno has him on the block 1.5 seasons later because he still isn't producing despite being on his top line.
I tend to completely ignore overall and instead focus on a few attributes. Speed, acceleration, endurance, passing, and faceoffs (for centers). Shot accuracy and power are on the secondary tier of importance for me, along with checking. Although the checking attribute is useless unless the skater has 80+ speed. I'm looking at you Riley Emmerson.

SaNcAlandariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:24 AM
  #231
Pierce Hawthorne
Formerly Avsare1
 
Pierce Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Caverns of Draconis
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,765
vCash: 500
Seems like Offline and Online player progression are basically the exact same now, at least for prospects they are.

Simed a season of Online GMC and Offline BAGM and in both Yakupov went from a 63 to a 74, Schwatrz a 65 to 76, Galcheyuk a 62 to 66, Scheifle a 70 to 80, Rielly a 56 or whatever to a 74.

Seems like the progression systems are the same now.

Pierce Hawthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 11:17 AM
  #232
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bxQb View Post
The other thing is OVR doesn't necessarily mean much when it comes to performance. I find people get way too caught up in OVR (especially in GMC leagues).

For example, I have Nashville in a sim league and was negotiating a trade to acquire a younger center since I had Joe Thornton, Legwand, and Gaustad all nearing retirement. I offered Gaustad as part of the trade, and the guy laughed in my face, calling him a salary dump because he was 76 OVR and $3.25M

In the prior 3 seasons, Gaustad was my 3rd line center, put up 15-20 goals each year, 30-35 points each year, consistently over 60% in the faceoff circle, 150+ hits/year, and usually +10 to +15 ... Cap dump

I gladly kept Gaustad, who went on to have a career year (22 goals, 46 points) and a WCF appearance, while he missed the playoffs for the Nth year in a row ... and got a young center from someone else who is now my #1C in season 9 (while the guy I traded him is a 3rd liner)

On the flip side, my dad had Nick Foligno on his team for many seasons, was anywhere from 82 OVR to 85 OVR in any given season, and he struggled to put up 30 points despite getting Top 6 minutes (in many cases, 1st line) before he finally gave up on him. Because of his high OVR, he ended up getting a substantial amount back ... and the team that acquired Foligno has him on the block 1.5 seasons later because he still isn't producing despite being on his top line.
So much of this is bang on, and because of it I have player development almost down to a science now. When looking at players, I always consider:

1) Attributes
2) Stats

Some players, even if they have good attributes will not produce, and it might be due to a combination of factors like their position, player type height/weight and a specific combination of attributes. I remember back in NHL 12, I drafted what I thought would be a great steal of a player in the 5th round (had great offensive potential). He grew as I had projected him, and by the time he was 23-24 he came into my NHL lineup as an 85 overall player. The problem was, he couldn't score more than 30-35 points, and this had been going on since the AHL. No matter how many minutes he got, PP time, he could never score more than that.

What I found strange is that his attributes were not significantly different than two of my other players who managed to score 100+ points. What was even stranger is how different these players were despite having very similar attributes.

Player A (LW, PLY): Career high 35 pts at both AHL/NHL level
Player B (LW, PLY): 2x Art Ross winner, career high 100+ points. Consistent 30+ goal scorer with a career high of 42 goals (good for Rocket Richard runner up)
Player C (C, PLY): Career high 100 points. Career high in goals - 15. Best season was a 12 goals, 88 assist campaign. Won the Conn Smythe with a 1 goal, 29 assist performance.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 01:39 PM
  #233
Neilio
Navi-X, Google it
 
Neilio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoseEmDown View Post
I wish the computer didnt look at OVR cause whenever I get an injury on my AHL team they decide to put the career AHL guy I don't own in the lineup. I've tried to sign a few just to trade them and get them off the team but never have any value.
I'm having trouble with this too. I guess I started my BAGM a little too hastily, because you can't control your AHL teams roster moves unless its your property. I'm on year 4 and there are 3 defencemen that still get plugged into the lineup every two games.

After reading this thread I think I'm going to start a new BAGM.

A couple of questions first. It used to be that you had to sign all of your draft picks right away or you would lose them. Now that there is the CHL, if you don't sign them after the draft, do they go right back to Junior, or do you have to assign them there? Because I haven't noticed how to do that.

Second, as far as the GM tracker goes, when you're assigning points for the Assistant Coach/Medical staff etc, what is the best route to go? I was getting tons of injuries, and boosted up my medical staff to the second from highest level, and now I have someone getting injured every other game. Serious injuries. Like a third of my lineup at all times.
Should I focus on the Assistant coach to improve prospects?

Neilio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 02:50 PM
  #234
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,668
vCash: 500
I noticed Bogosian on the Jets jumped up to 87 after my first year (4.5 star potential) and dipped down to 85 after 2nd year with 2 months of injury.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:03 PM
  #235
Dfnswnschmpnshps
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
You're looking at things too simplistically. Overall doesn't tell the whole picture. If your player put up 60 points in the NHL while being 82 overall already, that tells me his offensive attributes (OA, SSP, SSA, WSP, WSA) are probably already high. Whatever improvements he may have gained in these already high attributes were probably too small to make a noticeable improvement in the OVR rating. I would also hazard a guess that it's the players' defensive ratings that are holding them back from the OVR improvement.
I agree with this. A perfect example I had was Hunter Shinkaruk. The first year I played him in the NHL, his overall was around an 80. For his first 3 years he produced at nearly a PPG pace. However, his overall only went up to 84. Reason being, his offensive attributes ( shooting, passing, awareness, etc ) were all maxed out ( or high 90s )

His D attributes never really increased, which explained why his overall didn't jump. I've learned to focus more on specific attributes for player types that overall. For example, I had Shinkaruk higher on the depth chart than a forward that was rated 88. Why, because the other players overall was inflated by his defensive abilities. When I was looking for a first line scorer, Shinkaruk is the clear choice. You just have to look past the overall, its not the most important factor

Dfnswnschmpnshps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:14 PM
  #236
Dfnswnschmpnshps
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petes2424 View Post
I've yet to see anyone's POTENTIAL change (for the better) as it did in 2012. That random German def defenseman who all of a sudden was a 76 B prospect after two years not signed
I know I just posted about Shinkaruk, but he works in this situation too...

In my most recent BAGM, Shinkaruk was drafted by Boston as a 4 star prospect. After the first season ( pretty sure he would have been in the OHL ) his potential increased to 4.5

Not a big increase... but thats the only one I've noticed.


Last edited by Dfnswnschmpnshps: 02-07-2013 at 05:18 PM. Reason: Worse quote
Dfnswnschmpnshps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 01:17 AM
  #237
zukezuchegno
Registered User
 
zukezuchegno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 83
vCash: 500
i have a draft coming up in my GMC with the 3rd pick who should i draft that can start 2nd/3rd line on my team (Blue Jackets) making an impact

can the player have different ratings or always the same?

zukezuchegno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 01:35 AM
  #238
western redmen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Maybe somebody else should expirment with this, I think player with too high of a defensive awareness dont get as much points as they should. I lowered datsyuk's from 93 to 82, he got over 100 pts

western redmen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 07:45 AM
  #239
holyprime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 203
vCash: 500
I was just completely fed up with Nino's development so i saved right before the year change (15-16 Season).

He won the Calder Cup with 8g 13a in the playoffs (and 11g 21a during the season) on a stacked AHL team (bc of all these ridicoulous AHL signings you cant control). Really picked it up in the end of the year.

Ofc i also had an eye on my 3 top prospects (Bärtschi, Reinhart and Seguin), here's what happened:


First simulation
Nino from 69 to 72 OVR
Reinhart from 86 to 89 OVR (Calder and Norris Winner)
Bärtschi from 86 to 89 OVR (Richard Trophy with 53 goals)
Seguin from 87 to 87 OVR (he missed half the season with injuries)

Second time
Nino from 69 to 70
Reinhart from 86 to 88
Bärtschi from 86 to 87
Seguin from 87 to 86

Third time
Nino from 69 to 71
Reinhart from 86 to 88
Bärtschi from 86 to 89
Seguin from 87 to 87

Fourth time
Nino from 69 to 72
Reinhart from 86 to 88
Bärtschi from 86 to 88
Seguin from 87 to 87

I took that.

There wasnt a single game to be played, yet the outcome was always different. I wont go too far into the details, but that was because progress in the attributes was random at best.

In one sim Nino improved his Shot from 81 to 89, in another he went from 81 to 78. Same with most other attributes (except the physical ones) with every player. Heck, the Rocket Richard Winner "improved" his shot during a 53 goals regular season with 21s% from 99 accuracy to 96 accuracy in one sim.

Anyone has the same weirdness happening at years end?


At least i figured out how to max out the development of my "problem children". just sim the years end until you get the maximum he can jump over the year. Only thing there's to figure out is, if they actually have to play good, or if that doesnt matter at all.

holyprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 01:11 PM
  #240
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfnswnschmpnshps View Post
I know I just posted about Shinkaruk, but he works in this situation too...

In my most recent BAGM, Shinkaruk was drafted by Boston as a 4 star prospect. After the first season ( pretty sure he would have been in the OHL ) his potential increased to 4.5

Not a big increase... but thats the only one I've noticed.
Did you check his potential right after he was drafted, or are you basing your assessment based on what his listed potential was when scouting him. From my experience, potential doesn't change at all however, I have noticed that if you don't scout a player well enough, his listed potential in the scouting menu may be off +/- 0.5 star.

Quote:
Originally Posted by western redmen View Post
Maybe somebody else should expirment with this, I think player with too high of a defensive awareness dont get as much points as they should. I lowered datsyuk's from 93 to 82, he got over 100 pts
Interesting...So what you're hypothesizing is that defensive awareness (and on the flip side offensive awareness) also acts as a sort of behaviour modifier for the player?

Quote:
Originally Posted by holyprime View Post
<snip>

At least i figured out how to max out the development of my "problem children". just sim the years end until you get the maximum he can jump over the year. Only thing there's to figure out is, if they actually have to play good, or if that doesnt matter at all.
My theory is that how well they play does have an impact. A very simplified way to look at it would be this:

Shooting abilities increase depending on how many goals the player scores, shooting percentage etc.... So let's say in your example, Nino's stats could changed based on an equation similar to this:

SSA + StatInc * PotentialMod + randomNum
SSP + StatInc * Potential Mod + randomNum
WSA + StatInc * Potential Mod + randomNum
WSP + StatInc * Potential Mod + randomNum

So the StatInc would just be the baseline amount that particular attribute is set to increase depending on the player's performance, where they played (AHL vs. NHL), ice-time and a whole host of other variables we will never be able to quantify. Then you multiply that by some sort of modifier due to player's potential, so the higher a player's potential, the larger the baseline amount is increased. Finally you add randomness to the system through some sort of random number generator with a range of -10 to 10 or something like that. So in your example, the following scenarios could have unfolded:

StatInc = 3
PotentialMod = 1.25 (assuming Nino is a 4-star prospect? 4.5 star would be 1.375, 5 Star would be 1.5 etc...)

So in scenario 1:

randomNum = 4; 81 + 3*1.25 + 4 ~= 89

In scenario 2:

randomNum = -7; 81 + 3*1.25 - 7 ~= 78

So even a player has a really good year, since the random number can be a negative modifier to the attribute increase in the off-season, it may impact the player enough such that it doesn't look like he's improving.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 06:55 PM
  #241
western redmen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
Did you check his potential right after he was drafted, or are you basing your assessment based on what his listed potential was when scouting him. From my experience, potential doesn't change at all however, I have noticed that if you don't scout a player well enough, his listed potential in the scouting menu may be off +/- 0.5 star.



Interesting...So what you're hypothesizing is that defensive awareness (and on the flip side offensive awareness) also acts as a sort of behaviour modifier for the player?



My theory is that how well they play does have an impact. A very simplified way to look at it would be this:

Shooting abilities increase depending on how many goals the player scores, shooting percentage etc.... So let's say in your example, Nino's stats could changed based on an equation similar to this:

SSA + StatInc * PotentialMod + randomNum
SSP + StatInc * Potential Mod + randomNum
WSA + StatInc * Potential Mod + randomNum
WSP + StatInc * Potential Mod + randomNum

So the StatInc would just be the baseline amount that particular attribute is set to increase depending on the player's performance, where they played (AHL vs. NHL), ice-time and a whole host of other variables we will never be able to quantify. Then you multiply that by some sort of modifier due to player's potential, so the higher a player's potential, the larger the baseline amount is increased. Finally you add randomness to the system through some sort of random number generator with a range of -10 to 10 or something like that. So in your example, the following scenarios could have unfolded:

StatInc = 3
PotentialMod = 1.25 (assuming Nino is a 4-star prospect? 4.5 star would be 1.375, 5 Star would be 1.5 etc...)

So in scenario 1:

randomNum = 4; 81 + 3*1.25 + 4 ~= 89

In scenario 2:

randomNum = -7; 81 + 3*1.25 - 7 ~= 78

So even a player has a really good year, since the random number can be a negative modifier to the attribute increase in the off-season, it may impact the player enough such that it doesn't look like he's improving.
Yea, it worked in nhl 11 with seguin and it worked with datsyuk in 13. Maybe it's just me though

western redmen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 09:40 PM
  #242
Dfnswnschmpnshps
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
Did you check his potential right after he was drafted, or are you basing your assessment based on what his listed potential was when scouting him. From my experience, potential doesn't change at all however, I have noticed that if you don't scout a player well enough, his listed potential in the scouting menu may be off +/- 0.5 star.
He was rated as a 4 star in the draft. From previous simulations, I saw that he was a 4.5 player. I checked his rating post draft and it was indeed a 4, so I didn't try and trade for him. Next off season, he was a 4.5

Dfnswnschmpnshps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 10:46 PM
  #243
Benny FTW
[yt]M6PbdJiAK84[/yt]
 
Benny FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,769
vCash: 50
It seems like i cannot get any prospect drafted as 60 overall or below to become an NHLer.

Benny FTW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 10:49 PM
  #244
Benny FTW
[yt]M6PbdJiAK84[/yt]
 
Benny FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,769
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
Interesting...So what you're hypothesizing is that defensive awareness (and on the flip side offensive awareness) also acts as a sort of behaviour modifier for the player?
I had an 87 overall TWF 2nd line LW with 99 DFA, 95 stick checking and 95 shot blocking put up 70 pts on a defensive team while on the 1st line but 2nd PP unit.

Benny FTW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 03:56 PM
  #245
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfnswnschmpnshps View Post
He was rated as a 4 star in the draft. From previous simulations, I saw that he was a 4.5 player. I checked his rating post draft and it was indeed a 4, so I didn't try and trade for him. Next off season, he was a 4.5
Interesting. If that's the case I'll pay closer attention to it. It would also mean that 4th round picks and beyond are not completely useless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny FTW View Post
It seems like i cannot get any prospect drafted as 60 overall or below to become an NHLer.
Which makes sense. I think the massive jump in overall that you see with certain prospects (Huberdeau, Gaunce etc.) is the exception rather than the norm. Typically prospects should be going up 1-3 overall points every offseason so if you draft an 18 year old that's 60 OVR and he goes up only 1 points every season, then it looks like he'll max out around 69-74 (with the overall boost at around 25 years old). Unlike 12 where a drafted player's overall wasn't that important only his potential, it seems like in 13 you definitely need to be taking BPA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny FTW View Post
I had an 87 overall TWF 2nd line LW with 99 DFA, 95 stick checking and 95 shot blocking put up 70 pts on a defensive team while on the 1st line but 2nd PP unit.
Yeah, I think it's definitely the combination of ratings that determines how a player performs. Like in the example I posted a few posts up, similarly rated players can put up very different point totals when you consider which combination of attributes they have, their player type, the team strategies, and their height/weight. It could just be for his particular example that lowering the Defensive Awareness of those players created the right set of attributes for that player to put up massive point totals.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 06:06 PM
  #246
Malakian#13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: capo beach california
Posts: 3,013
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Malakian#13
It's all about bob voros.

Malakian#13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 08:43 PM
  #247
nicholas89alex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
what do you guys think of this for a potential system? for fowards 6 roles going from star (92-99overall) first line (88-92) 2nd line (83-87) 3rd line (78-82 still with the checking scoring option) 4th line (70-77) or bust (below 70 overall). in each role they get a %that they will reach that level. for example Nathan mackinon would have 25% star 45% first line 20% 2nd line and 10% bust. so drafting him you have a 90% shot at a top 6 forward and a ten% shot at a bust. for someone like joey hishon from Colorado who is a boom or bust prospect he would have 25%1st line 25% 2nd line 50% bust while a third line grinder would have 5% 2nd line 50% 3rd line 20% fourth line 25%bust. and these percentages would be visable during the draft which I think would lead to interesting questions such as the safe pick or the high upside guy? defenseman would have 5 roles star (92+) top 2 (86-91) top 4 (82-85) top 6 ( 77-81) and bust (below 75) and I think you get the idea for goalies. I also think there needs to be an eta that is based off their most likely role. so for mackinon his most likely role is 1st line so overall of 88. he would reach that after probably 2 years so his eta as a first line player would be 2015. however since his eta is as a first line player he would already be a 78 overall at his draft so he would increase 10 points in the next 2 years. for a player whose eta was 5 years from the draft their overall would be lower that year but would increase at a similar rate or the overall would be similar and they would increase slower until they reach their role. I like this because youll know why your 1st round pick isn't growing fast or if theyre not growing at all than they busted.

nicholas89alex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:09 PM
  #248
samsquanch9*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,909
vCash: 500
I drafted Aaron Eklbad first overall and he was a 78 with 5 green stars. The next year he was an 89 overall.

samsquanch9* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 11:19 PM
  #249
n00bxQb
Registered User
 
n00bxQb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas89alex View Post
what do you guys think of this for a potential system? for fowards 6 roles going from star (92-99overall) first line (88-92) 2nd line (83-87) 3rd line (78-82 still with the checking scoring option) 4th line (70-77) or bust (below 70 overall). in each role they get a %that they will reach that level. for example Nathan mackinon would have 25% star 45% first line 20% 2nd line and 10% bust. so drafting him you have a 90% shot at a top 6 forward and a ten% shot at a bust. for someone like joey hishon from Colorado who is a boom or bust prospect he would have 25%1st line 25% 2nd line 50% bust while a third line grinder would have 5% 2nd line 50% 3rd line 20% fourth line 25%bust. and these percentages would be visable during the draft which I think would lead to interesting questions such as the safe pick or the high upside guy? defenseman would have 5 roles star (92+) top 2 (86-91) top 4 (82-85) top 6 ( 77-81) and bust (below 75) and I think you get the idea for goalies. I also think there needs to be an eta that is based off their most likely role. so for mackinon his most likely role is 1st line so overall of 88. he would reach that after probably 2 years so his eta as a first line player would be 2015. however since his eta is as a first line player he would already be a 78 overall at his draft so he would increase 10 points in the next 2 years. for a player whose eta was 5 years from the draft their overall would be lower that year but would increase at a similar rate or the overall would be similar and they would increase slower until they reach their role. I like this because youll know why your 1st round pick isn't growing fast or if theyre not growing at all than they busted.
The number of players over 90 OVR would be ridiculous, so no. Personally, I feel they should just get rid of the overall rating altogether and focus more on roles instead.

If they keep the OVR system, they need to tweak it for sure. For forwards, overall should weight it more on offense than it currently does (defensive awareness is the highest-weighted attribute for a forward's overall and stick checking isn't far behind) as well as balance it more for non-offensive attributes (too many attributes have no or minimal effect on OVR) and for dmen, it needs to be more balanced (overall relies almost exclusively on defensive awareness, stick checking, and strength). It's why you see all-star dmen like Brian Campbell and Erik Karlsson with such low overall ratings and "roles."

After they've tweaked it, it should be something along the lines of:

95-99 = Generational talent
90-94 = Superstar
85-89 = 1st line/top pair/elite goaltender
80-84 = 2nd line/2nd pair/starting goaltender
75-79 = 3rd line/3rd pair/backup goaltender
70-74 = 4th line/depth forward/depth dman/depth goaltender

This is almost what they have now when you start, but of course, it's nowhere like that several years in.

Right now, once you're a few seasons in, almost every 3.5 star or higher guy is 80 or higher, which is ludicrous given the number of 3.5 star guys. Even some of the 3-star guys are hitting 80 and up. So you end up with the same problem you had in years past, which is what they "tried" to get rid of this year; too many guys with similar overalls and not enough difference between the top tier guys and the bottom tier guys.

Player development is in need of some heavy tweaking, too. For one, you should be able to develop a player how you want to. I like how they've tied development to player type, but they should give you the option of changing the player type and development shouldn't stop at age 25. Players adapt their games all the time and the ones who don't often find themselves out of the NHL before they retire. Development, as is, is a complete train-wreck for the most part. Some attributes skyrocket, others barely change at all. There needs to be a better balance, but still a weighted system for various player types. And, one thing that definitely needs to go is tying stars to an overall range.

n00bxQb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 01:09 PM
  #250
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bxQb View Post
Right now, once you're a few seasons in, almost every 3.5 star or higher guy is 80 or higher, which is ludicrous given the number of 3.5 star guys. Even some of the 3-star guys are hitting 80 and up. So you end up with the same problem you had in years past, which is what they "tried" to get rid of this year; too many guys with similar overalls and not enough difference between the top tier guys and the bottom tier guys.

Player development is in need of some heavy tweaking, too. For one, you should be able to develop a player how you want to. I like how they've tied development to player type, but they should give you the option of changing the player type and development shouldn't stop at age 25. Players adapt their games all the time and the ones who don't often find themselves out of the NHL before they retire. Development, as is, is a complete train-wreck for the most part. Some attributes skyrocket, others barely change at all. There needs to be a better balance, but still a weighted system for various player types. And, one thing that definitely needs to go is tying stars to an overall range.
That is really disappointing to hear. However, I will say this, last year's development system was actually quite good, and to avoid the problem of having too many players with high overalls in later years of BeAGM only required some minor tweaks. There were three main problems with player development:

1. Poise attribute + Player Overall
2. Starting potential
3. random potential change

It's well documented the poise attribute had a ridiculous effect on the overall rating, and we all know the overall rating determines who plays and who doesn't (at least for the CPU). Most regular NHLers start the game at 75+ poise, stars are 85, and superstars at 90. The problem was that most prospects coming out of the draft hada poise <70 which means they were automatically handicapped by as many as 7 OVR points (I seem to recall that it's +2 OVR @ 70 POI, +3 OVR @ 75 POI & +2 OVR @ 85 POI). Since poise went up only about 1-2 points a season, it meant it was virtually impossible for prospects to replicate the poise rating of existing NHLers.

Potential worked well in NHL 12, the problem was that the starting potential for most veteran players was out of whack. Most veteran players over 25 were given a C even if they were well into their late 30s. Very few players had a C- let alone a D. At worst, these players stay stagnant if they do not get enough ice-time, but in most cases they just keep improving. This combined with the poise attribute made it pretty much impossible for any drafted player to crack the NHL lineup in their draft year. NHL players had a significantly better overall rating because of poise and in subsequent years, the high potential given to the majority of veteran players keeps increasing the threshold for a player who wants to break into the NHL.

The final issue is something that couldn't be tweaked in NHL 12. Essentially, due to random potential changes it seems that you were just as likely to obtain a star player in the later rounds than in the first round. The only tweak you could do here is restrict your own assistant coach rating to reduce the likelihood of a low potential player to suddenly become a high potential player.

For the last BeAGM I was able to play in 12, I had tweaked down the poise rating of all NHLers by 10 points, and brought down their potential rating to an average C- if they were over 27. Right off the bat this brought every player's overall down 3-5 points which meant 4th liners were now 70-76 OVR, 3rd Liners 77-80 OVR, 2nd liners 81-84 OVR, and 1st liners 85-89 OVR. You also saw divergent development paths, for example Datsyuk continued to put up good numbers and stay healthy so he kept the same overall, whereas Zetterberg wasn't as fortunate and began to decline rapidly within a couple of years. Without the modified potential, both would have kept improving beyond 90 OVR until they reached ~36 y/o and their attributes dropped off a cliff. I only got around 5 seasons completed in that run, but even then there was no noticeable attribute inflation. I only wish I had thought of that at the start of NHL 12 and not the very end.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.