HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > General Fantasy Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
General Fantasy Talk Forum for fantasy leagues, mock and all time drafts, and hockey video games.

NHL 12 Development System

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2011, 09:32 PM
  #1
CandiedBacon
Seguin and Hamilton
 
CandiedBacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: EpicMealTime
Country: Canada
Posts: 355
vCash: 500
NHL 12 Development System

I am a huge Be-A-Gm Mode fan and it is typically the only mode I play. My biggest pet peeve this year was the crappy player development. It was either everyone becomes a 99 or wait 7 years for your guy to get to an 86. I've had a couple ideas for the potential system but I think this is my best one yet.

How It would work

My idea is to add another tab beside player ratings in the edit player to make a potential ratings for players under 25.

For Example,

Taylor Hall
Current Overall: 79

Speed 85
Puck Control 80
Passing 75
Agility 85
WSP 80
WSA 80
SSP 80
SSA 80
Body Checking 65
Deking 75
OAW 80
DAW 65
Poise 75

Etc. Cant remember all the ratings


Potential Overall 92
Chance of Reaching: A- <-- This would be a letter grade from A-F on there chance of reaching this potential, Also depending on how they were developed
Years to Reach : 4-5

Speed 95
Puck Control 90
Passing 85
Agility 95
WSP 95
WSA 95
SSP 85
SSA 90
Body Checking 75
Deking 90
OAW 90
DAW 80
Poise 85

I think this would make developing players and creating draft classes a much more accurate and important part of the game.

CandiedBacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2011, 09:37 PM
  #2
Fan of The Game
Registered User
 
Fan of The Game's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,231
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Fan of The Game
I really like this idea. I doubt something like this would be used but it would be a nice feature. Is it just me or does it seem like the ratings are on average too high. I remember in NHL 2000 that if you had a 80 something on your third line your team was likely a contender. Now most of my teams has a 80 something most of the time or very close to it.

Fan of The Game is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:21 PM
  #3
KesselPhaneufTML
Registered User
 
KesselPhaneufTML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Brantford, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,024
vCash: 500
Not bad idea for sure. It's way better than what they use now. I haven't played as much Be a GM in NHL 11 as I did in NHL 10 but I seem to remember in that game that pretty much every player eventually became an allstar. Like every player reached their full potential. They have to have a potential bar and a likeliness of reaching that potential, and only some of them actually make it there. That would be much better.

KesselPhaneufTML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:08 PM
  #4
#57
Registered User
 
#57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,706
vCash: 500
Development system needs to be like the EHM games. Also the ratings need to be lower.

The best players would be rated around 88-90 overall.

A 3rd line player would be around 76-77.

Best AHLers would be around 72-73.

Juniors would be between 55-70.

Potential needs to be a player absolute upside (i.e. the highest overall rating he can reach). The letter grade would determine how likely it is that this player reaches it's full upside. This would likely depends on how you treat this player. If he was rushed to the NHL, how many years of AHL development he gets, ICE TIME would be the biggest thing.

For exemple Louis Leblanc would be rated a 71, with 83 potential and a B letter grade. You give him top-line minutes in the AHL for 2-3 years and watch him climb to 78-79, i.e. a good 2nd liner. Once in the NHL, depending on his performance, he might come close to his 83.

Another exemple, let's say a lower end prospect is David Gilbert with a 67 rating right now, 81 potential and D letter grade. If you stick him on your 2nd line in the AHL and give him good PP time, and he ends up scoring steadily, then he should developp well. Call him up once in a while, etc. Otherwise, if he's stuck on the 4th line, he will likely stay as a low 70 overall player and become a career AHLer.

Also, players would downgrade if they have poor seasons or if they are not given enough ice time.

It all depends on how you handle your prospect. Of course, there could be some random surprises, i.e. Gilbert growing to a 72 even though he spent his first AHL year as a healthy scratch, or vice-versa where players downgrade.

This could be realistic.

#57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:40 PM
  #5
CandiedBacon
Seguin and Hamilton
 
CandiedBacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: EpicMealTime
Country: Canada
Posts: 355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #57 View Post
Development system needs to be like the EHM games. Also the ratings need to be lower.

The best players would be rated around 88-90 overall.

A 3rd line player would be around 76-77.

Best AHLers would be around 72-73.

Juniors would be between 55-70.

Potential needs to be a player absolute upside (i.e. the highest overall rating he can reach). The letter grade would determine how likely it is that this player reaches it's full upside. This would likely depends on how you treat this player. If he was rushed to the NHL, how many years of AHL development he gets, ICE TIME would be the biggest thing.

For exemple Louis Leblanc would be rated a 71, with 83 potential and a B letter grade. You give him top-line minutes in the AHL for 2-3 years and watch him climb to 78-79, i.e. a good 2nd liner. Once in the NHL, depending on his performance, he might come close to his 83.

Another exemple, let's say a lower end prospect is David Gilbert with a 67 rating right now, 81 potential and D letter grade. If you stick him on your 2nd line in the AHL and give him good PP time, and he ends up scoring steadily, then he should developp well. Call him up once in a while, etc. Otherwise, if he's stuck on the 4th line, he will likely stay as a low 70 overall player and become a career AHLer.

Also, players would downgrade if they have poor seasons or if they are not given enough ice time.

It all depends on how you handle your prospect. Of course, there could be some random surprises, i.e. Gilbert growing to a 72 even though he spent his first AHL year as a healthy scratch, or vice-versa where players downgrade.

This could be realistic.
Exactly what I mean by my initial post. For example the way they have Taylor Hall in the game right now he reaches what his talent should be in 3-4 years relative to the other players or sometimes even higher. However, his development doesn't stop there he goes on to become anywhere from a 97-99

CandiedBacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 11:28 PM
  #6
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
The problem with introducing any randomness to this is that people have favourite players. I'd be pretty annoyed if in my GM Schenn just happen to roll horrible virtual dice and end up nothing more than a second liner.

I agree that prospects should grow differently than they do now (Hall will never be a 99 rating player .... come on), but there shouldn't be any randomness to it. Random surprises should really only be good. People would love it if <their favourite prospect> suddenly became a 99 rating player, people would start a new 'be-a-gm' if <their favourite prospect> lost a point or two of rating.

It's the same thing with injuries having long term effects.

That said, I agree with most everything else.

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 12:27 AM
  #7
Ozamataz Buckshank
Registered User
 
Ozamataz Buckshank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMoneyMonkey View Post
The problem with introducing any randomness to this is that people have favourite players. I'd be pretty annoyed if in my GM Schenn just happen to roll horrible virtual dice and end up nothing more than a second liner.

I agree that prospects should grow differently than they do now (Hall will never be a 99 rating player .... come on), but there shouldn't be any randomness to it. Random surprises should really only be good. People would love it if <their favourite prospect> suddenly became a 99 rating player, people would start a new 'be-a-gm' if <their favourite prospect> lost a point or two of rating.

It's the same thing with injuries having long term effects.

That said, I agree with most everything else.
Having prospects that are sure things are boring - some randomness is necessary.

Ozamataz Buckshank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 09:12 AM
  #8
#57
Registered User
 
#57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,706
vCash: 500
There should be a chart that can be viewed in BAGM with every players' ratings and how they've upgraded/downgraded during the year. For exemple, if you give David Gilbert 30 minutes of ice time at the AHL level, he would grow pretty quick, and you would notice that in the chart. However, he could get fatigued, and his developpment could stale.

It would be easy to monitor your players' developpment via this chart. Think of it as your coaches giving you feedbacks about your players and you then making a decision based on what is best for his developpment.

#57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 11:51 AM
  #9
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,668
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMoneyMonkey View Post
The problem with introducing any randomness to this is that people have favourite players. I'd be pretty annoyed if in my GM Schenn just happen to roll horrible virtual dice and end up nothing more than a second liner.

I agree that prospects should grow differently than they do now (Hall will never be a 99 rating player .... come on), but there shouldn't be any randomness to it. Random surprises should really only be good. People would love it if <their favourite prospect> suddenly became a 99 rating player, people would start a new 'be-a-gm' if <their favourite prospect> lost a point or two of rating.

It's the same thing with injuries having long term effects.

That said, I agree with most everything else.
You could always manually boost the potential likeliness attribute on your favourite prospects so they always reach their potential.

CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 11:03 PM
  #10
Ozamataz Buckshank
Registered User
 
Ozamataz Buckshank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #57 View Post
There should be a chart that can be viewed in BAGM with every players' ratings and how they've upgraded/downgraded during the year. For exemple, if you give David Gilbert 30 minutes of ice time at the AHL level, he would grow pretty quick, and you would notice that in the chart. However, he could get fatigued, and his developpment could stale.

It would be easy to monitor your players' developpment via this chart. Think of it as your coaches giving you feedbacks about your players and you then making a decision based on what is best for his developpment.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you are trying to say, but you can review a players growth in each attribute throughout the course of the year.

Ozamataz Buckshank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2011, 08:05 PM
  #11
Minnich10
Rookie User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
i also agree with the best players should be 90ish because if it is 96 or 97 that means there is almost no room for improvement until you are God. which no player will ever be.

Minnich10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2012, 09:02 PM
  #12
Kiss My Rask
VGHC
 
Kiss My Rask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Wakefield, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,591
vCash: 500
I agree ratings are too high. Tired of almost all the 4th lines with all 80-82 ovr players, it's not realistic. Also the higher players shouldn't be god like in the mid to high 90s. This is ideal for me:

Superstar (Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, Stamkos, Weber, Chara, Lundqvist etc) - 88-92

First line/top pairing/#1 goalie 85-87 (Mike Richards/Brent Seabrook/Ilya Bryzgalov)

2nd line/pairing/lower tier starting goalie 82-84 (Mikhail Grabovski/Tim Gleason/Craig Anderson)

3rd line/pairing/backup goalie 79-81 (Steve Ott/Deryk Engelland/Martin Biron

4th line/reserve D/lower tier backup 75-78 (Dan Paille/John Erskine/Peter Budaj

Goons should be 73-75 overall with just good fighting (McGrattan, Orr etc not the grinders who fight a la Thornton, Prust etc)

AHL players 67-74

CHL and other minor league 60-66

Kiss My Rask is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2012, 09:18 PM
  #13
Falcon63
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #57 View Post
Development system needs to be like the EHM games. Also the ratings need to be lower.

The best players would be rated around 88-90 overall.

A 3rd line player would be around 76-77.

Best AHLers would be around 72-73.

Juniors would be between 55-70.

Potential needs to be a player absolute upside (i.e. the highest overall rating he can reach). The letter grade would determine how likely it is that this player reaches it's full upside. This would likely depends on how you treat this player. If he was rushed to the NHL, how many years of AHL development he gets, ICE TIME would be the biggest thing.

For exemple Louis Leblanc would be rated a 71, with 83 potential and a B letter grade. You give him top-line minutes in the AHL for 2-3 years and watch him climb to 78-79, i.e. a good 2nd liner. Once in the NHL, depending on his performance, he might come close to his 83.

Another exemple, let's say a lower end prospect is David Gilbert with a 67 rating right now, 81 potential and D letter grade. If you stick him on your 2nd line in the AHL and give him good PP time, and he ends up scoring steadily, then he should developp well. Call him up once in a while, etc. Otherwise, if he's stuck on the 4th line, he will likely stay as a low 70 overall player and become a career AHLer.

Also, players would downgrade if they have poor seasons or if they are not given enough ice time.

It all depends on how you handle your prospect. Of course, there could be some random surprises, i.e. Gilbert growing to a 72 even though he spent his first AHL year as a healthy scratch, or vice-versa where players downgrade.

This could be realistic.
What is this EHM you mentioned?

Falcon63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2012, 09:34 PM
  #14
Kiss My Rask
VGHC
 
Kiss My Rask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Wakefield, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,591
vCash: 500
I agree ratings are too high. Tired of almost all the 4th lines with all 80-82 ovr players, it's not realistic. Also the higher players shouldn't be god like in the mid to high 90s. This is ideal for me:

Superstar (Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, Stamkos, Weber, Chara, Lundqvist etc) - 88-92

First line/top pairing/#1 goalie 85-87 (Mike Richards/Brent Seabrook/Ilya Bryzgalov)

2nd line/pairing/lower tier starting goalie 82-84 (Mikhail Grabovski/Tim Gleason/Craig Anderson)

3rd line/pairing/backup goalie 79-81 (Steve Ott/Deryk Engelland/Martin Biron

4th line/reserve D/lower tier backup 75-78 (Dan Paille/John Erskine/Peter Budaj

Goons should be 73-75 overall with just good fighting (McGrattan, Orr etc not the grinders who fight a la Thornton, Prust etc)

AHL players 67-74

CHL and other minor league 60-66

Kiss My Rask is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 03:11 AM
  #15
plaaplaa72
Registered User
 
plaaplaa72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Helsinki
Country: Finland
Posts: 610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to plaaplaa72
By the way, overall means nothing in the game, it just shows that how good a player is at his playing style. (TWF, SNP, PLY etc. etc.)

It's all about the INDIVIDUAL stats, because your team can be 100 in offence, defence, and goaltending but still lose every game because your players might all be 90ovr tough guys who have bad offensive skills, but they have huge hitting, strenght etc. which raises their overall a lot.

And a team filled with 81 ovr George Parros's will most likely lose about 7 out of 10 times to a team filled with 75 ovr Jeremy Morins, because Jeremy Morin has way better Offensive stats than Parros has.

plaaplaa72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 09:11 AM
  #16
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaaplaa72 View Post
By the way, overall means nothing in the game, it just shows that how good a player is at his playing style. (TWF, SNP, PLY etc. etc.)

It's all about the INDIVIDUAL stats, because your team can be 100 in offence, defence, and goaltending but still lose every game because your players might all be 90ovr tough guys who have bad offensive skills, but they have huge hitting, strenght etc. which raises their overall a lot.

And a team filled with 81 ovr George Parros's will most likely lose about 7 out of 10 times to a team filled with 75 ovr Jeremy Morins, because Jeremy Morin has way better Offensive stats than Parros has.
Actually, it's worse than that when you realize how big of a role poise plays in the overall rating. For a drafted prospect, depending on how low their poise rating is, it can easily account for 10 points on a player's overall rating on its own.

Kellogs is online now   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 08:47 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.