Defense 'Condition' Hits

Defensemen that play on their regular shifts and then special teams keep taking a pounding, even in the first games of the season, that their health doesn't recover by the next game. They then get ground down lower and lower for each game.

NHL D-men should be able to play most every game 25 minutes or so with regularity even when also playing special teams, especially with high stamina. Duncan Keith averaged like 25ish minutes a game last year and he rightfully is ranked with a 20 stamina. If he plays that much in EHM, which he does, he falls into the low 80% range and it spirals down from there. There are players that averaged in the high 28s last year and played near every game. (Karlsson, Suter and Doughty all played 28 or so)

The system has to not play the same defensive pairing so much on special teams and/or players (especially one with high stamina) need to not take such large health hits from standard playtimes.

In EHM05 and EHM07 you could exploit icetime significantly.....EHM1 is trying to improve on this (and has improved)

Yes there's tweaking that still needs to be done!

Some of it is from Riz/SI, some from TBL/the database.....but some (a lot?) is users readjusting their expectations, reframing their thinking

NHL D-men should be able to play most every game 25 minutes or so with regularity even when also playing special teams

Last year of the top 180 D in the NHL by ATOI http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&report=skatersummary&season=20152016&gameType=2&sort=timeOnIcePerGame&aggregate=0&pos=D

- 14 average over 25:00 (6 over 26:00 and 3 of the 6 over 28:00)

- once you get past "the starting 60" (30 teams x 1st pairing D) D #61 has an ATOI of 21:52

- at the midpoint of the 2nd pairing D #91 has a 20:23 ATOI & at D #120 you get an ATOI of 19:06

Looking at the same thing from 2014-15 http://www.nhl.com/stats/player? http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&report=skatersummary&season=20142015&gameType=2&sort=timeOnIcePerGame&aggregate=0&pos=D

- 12 average over 25:00 (6 over 26:00 and 2 of the 6 over 28:00)

- once you get past "the starting 60" (30 teams x 1st pairing D) D #61 has an ATOI of 21:50

- at the midpoint of the 2nd pairing D #91 has a 20:42 ATOI & at D #120 you get an ATOI of 19:29

I quoted the top three in the link I gave, (the portion in parens is a link) All over 28 minutes. And yes those are the elite defense of which Keith is one of and with a 20 stamina he should be able to play similar to his NHL numbers. I wasn't saying that third liners were playing that much. But my examlpe and comment was not about third liners it was about top defensemen being at 70% after playing the first ten games. As I said players who are also playing special teams so that's your top pairing...

And I'd love to see people in EHM playing the times that you listed that would be fine with me, thanks for the research. It's just that EHM defensemen never have played to those numbers and that is the longstanding issue since EHM 2007. So as I said, the system needs to more evenly alot playoff and penalty kill time and/or not overplay the top line. Thanks for helping me point out that it's an issue.

Also:

Some of it is from Riz/SI, some from TBL/the database.....but some (a lot?) is users readjusting their expectations, reframing their thinking

I expect the players to play liek real NHL players as this is a simulation not fantasy hockey or video game hockey. I expect a guy with a 20 stamina to act like he has 20 stamina. That's the standard, otherwise the stats are useless and that's not good.

I wasn't saying that third liners were playing that much. But my examlpe and comment was not about third liners it was about top defensemen being at 70% after playing the first ten games. As I said players who are also playing special teams so that's your top pairing...

I read "NHL D" and 25:00 and showed you that a dozen guys out of 180 play the minutes you're describing

Now you bring up 3rd liners, not sure why (I showed you most 1st liners don't meet your criteria!)

I honestly thought you were talking about "NHL D" and not the top dozen guys in the world

It's just that EHM defensemen never have played to those numbers and that is the longstanding issue since EHM 2007.

We had "fixed" many things by 2012 (are you aware of the realism patch? the editing we'd done?)

Then EHM1 fixed even more (and has been improved/tweaked each update)

There's a lot that's different "under the hood"

Are you aware of all of this?

I'm not 100% convinced it's not possible for a dozen D league wide to average 25:00 (IIRC it was this spring when I was in the WHL EHM1 online league)

FYI you certainly can't practice (overpractice) your players like you could in EHM07

My current test save is with the 1998 DB, and on November 6th 2003 I have 10 D over 25:00 (but no one over 26:00)

Norstrom. Jovanovski, Numminen, Weinrich, Aucoin, Hatcher, Ohlund, Desjardins, Timonen, and Zhitnik have all played between 9 and 16 games (Avg 13.6) and all have 100% Condition right now.....

Are you saying there should 2-3 at 28 minutes and a couple at 26 minutes?

Or are you saying if the teams were human controlled instead of AI the results would be different and the player's Condition would be much lower?

Or.....?

Yet you can easily play your goalie 82 straight games and he will start them all at 100% condition. I know goalies are different, but that's crazy.

Yet you can easily play your goalie 82 straight games and he will start them all at 100% condition. I know goalies are different, but that's crazy.

Minstrel, are you talking about your own players?

I had similar problems, but I found that easing up a bit with the practice, and tinkering up a bit with schedule and resting helps immensely.

I don't like that either! Is that still happening in 1.2?

Certainly is

With goalies, it is rare that the condition itself drops too low between games in itself like with skaters. However, goalies do get easily jaded if they play too many games during the season which is a bit different than their physical condition and means more of a long term exhaustion.

What about our goalie coach giving us a hint?

Interesting, it doesn't appear to translate into either declining performance or more injuries though, I habitually play my starting goalie in 100% of games and he is just as good/fit/injury free at the back end of the season/playoffs as at the beginning.

With goalies, it is rare that the condition itself drops too low between games in itself like with skaters. However, goalies do get easily jaded if they play too many games during the season which is a bit different than their physical condition and means more of a long term exhaustion.

IMO goalies with a lower Natural Fitness shouldn't be able to play as many games.....

- if a goalie has 18-20 in Natural Fitness leave things as they are

- A Natural Fitness of 15-17 should cause a goaltender to have problems after say 60-65GP

- if a goalie has a Natural Fitness of 12-14 than the problems should occur at 50-55GP (the "problems" would be a Condition that decreases more/takes longer to recover, like with the players)

For the issue of leagues that don't play so many games, either limit this improvement initially to those leagues that play a similar amount of games OR scale the differences for lower GP (my understanding is the vast majority of players play NHL, where this add a lot to realism IMO)

For the issue of leagues that don't play so many games, either limit this improvement initially to those leagues that play a similar amount of games OR scale the differences for lower GP (my understanding is the vast majority of players play NHL, where this add a lot to realism IMO)

Well, I think you're talking only with an NHL POV, to be honest.

In smaller leagues, goalies can go and play literally every single game of the season. Most of them are NHL leftovers (with all the due respect), therefore their natural fitness should be much inferior to their NHL counterparts, just as most of their "athletic" ratings, so I think that there should be something more to be considered. I also think that after all, something also depends on coaches preference. Some coaches notoriously like to run their goalies as much sa they can, other coaches like to do 1 game for goalie A and 1 game for goalie B. Goalie coach opinion should be relevant too. I think that goalie coach should be a separate role in the game, and it should have a greater importance and impact on the team's decision and on goalies processes and progress.

I think you missed the point...I'm talking about goaltenders being able to play every game in EHM with no physical consequences...it was this way in EHM05 and EHM07 too).....it doesn't matter what League

The reason why the NHL was mentioned is almost everyone play the NHL (and most play only the NHL)

Also I wrote "if a goalie has a Natural Fitness of 12-14 than the problems should occur at 50-55GP (the "problems" would be a Condition that decreases more/takes longer to recover, like with the players)" - wouldn't this essentially cover your concern? A guy with a 15-16 Natural Fitness can play all the games in the KHL but not the NHL

Well, I think you're talking only with an NHL POV, to be honest.

As always, I was interested in what the data says.....and it doesn't support you at all

Recent IRL KHL stats...

- in 2015-16 in the KHL 0 goalies played in all the games (and only 8 goalies played in at least 75% of their team's games)

- in 2014-15 in the KHL 1 goalie played in all the games (and only 8 goalies played in at least 75% of their team's games)

- in 2014-15 in the KHL 0 goalie played in all the games (and only 10 goalies played in at least 75% of their team's games)

Recent IRL SHL stats.....

- in 2015-16 in the SHL 0 goalies played in all the games (and only 3 goalies played in at least 75% of their team's games)

- in 2014-15 in the SHL 0 goalies played in all the games (and only 4 goalies played in at least 75% of their team's games)

- in 2014-15 in the SHL 0 goalie played in all the games (and only 3 goalies played in at least 75% of their team's games)

There's no real evidence in EHM that goaltenders are affected physically by how much they play.....that's a problem

As always, I was interested in what the data says.....and it doesn't support you at all

I talked about SMALLER LEAGUES. I mean the likes of UK, Italy, Belarus, Poland, etc. Definitely not SHL/KHL. In the KHL there is a usual custom of giving goalies 1 game each, for example. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

There's no real evidence in EHM that goaltenders are affected physically by how much they play.....that's a problem

Of course. The old NHL games (EA) had the goalies going "zzzz" after some consecutive games, I think it was quite realistic.

I talked about SMALLER LEAGUES. I mean the likes of UK, Italy, Belarus, Poland, etc. Definitely not SHL/KHL. In the KHL there is a usual custom of giving goalies 1 game each, for example. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

Of course. The old NHL games (EA) had the goalies going "zzzz" after some consecutive games, I think it was quite realistic.

I think there definitely is a performance hit if you overplay your starter.

It may not show up in the "condition" stat but it is my opinion that it shows up in on ice performance with both save-% and GAA going south at the end of season if the poor fellow is overworked. Giving starts to your backup negates this decline.

I wrote "if a goalie has a Natural Fitness of 12-14 than the problems should occur at 50-55GP (the "problems" would be a Condition that decreases more/takes longer to recover, like with the players)".....so if my suggested effect starts at 50-55 GP, and these smaller leagues play less than 50-55 games, they'd not even be considered for what I'm proposing as a solution!

I finally see your point better. I agree with you, although I do not think that everything should be up to one parameter (nat fitness). In the end, I think that the speed of the game, the quality of the shoots, and the kind of traffic in front of the net are of big importance to consider while determining the number of games played. A lot of Russian young goalies say that it's more tiring to play in the NA rinks, even if the number of games, the number of shots, and the quality of the game is comparable. The different North American style, and the small rink surface, I think should be "heard" also in this respect. And we should not forget about the coaches preference. As I said numerous times, Russian coaches tend to alternate goalies allegedly more than the coaches in North America (and I used the word "allegedly").

I don't recall that, but then I stopped playing NHL EA in about 1997

I think it was present in NHL 97 too.

I think there definitely is a performance hit if you overplay your starter.

It may not show up in the "condition" stat but it is my opinion that it shows up in on ice performance with both save-% and GAA going south at the end of season if the poor fellow is overworked.

Have played your goalie every game many times to see the results?

Because it doesn't seem that way at all, and I'd say the "goalie can play all the time, affects nothing" issue is one of the most mentioned issues I've seen over the years (with very few people disputing it.....Batdad was one, saying it increased injury potential)

Ever run any tests? compiled any data?

Have played your goalie every game many times to see the results?

Because it doesn't seem that way at all, and I'd say the "goalie can play all the time, affects nothing" issue is one of the most mentioned issues I've seen over the years (with very few people disputing it.....Batdad was one, saying it increased injury potential)

I only have anecdotal data. The season I had a really crap backup and had to let my starter do 65-70 regular season games he definitely played a lot worse at the end of the season and in the play-off than he did both the year before and the year after when I had good backups that took the load off.

The issue here however when adjusting goalies fitness etc. is that they still need to be able to last a 7 game playoff series without having to play your back for like Game 3 and 6 which is what was happening in '07 before it was adjusted. True they should be able to play every game all season but it would be equally unrealistic to have them sitting out playoff games when not injured.

It's also true that in the playoffs motivation gives players that extra gear that they may miss in the reg. season...

The issue here however when adjusting goalies fitness etc. is that they still need to be able to last a 7 game playoff series without having to play your back for like Game 3 and 6 which is what was happening in '07 before it was adjusted. True they should be able to play every game all season but it would be equally unrealistic to have them sitting out playoff games when not injured.

Go back and read what I proposed.....if you were not overplaying your goalie you'd have nothing to worry about in the playoffs [because he wouldn't have hit "the wall" (for lack of a better term) due to overplaying].....and some rare goaltenders could play more than others/play most every game (and they'd likely have a 20 Natural Fitness)

To have a problem in the playoffs you would have had to severely overplay a goaltender with a lower Natural Fitness, and then when you saw the results (lower condition/performance) you'd have to have had kept playing him (ignoring the "warning signs") so he never recovers - and then you'd have a problem in the playoffs

It's also true that in the playoffs motivation gives players that extra gear that they may miss in the reg. season...

Natural Fitness relates to how well a player recovers their Condition BETWEEN games...it's the one that matters (along with Condition, which connects to the ingame performance)

Have the Condition be affected by games played for sure (and if more of the things you're mentioning can be included to in the coding, awesome)

Have Condition "not recover normally" when a goalie has exceeded the standards I posted regarding Natural Fitness earlier...

Goalies with a lower Natural Fitness shouldn't be able to play as many games.....

- if a goalie has 18-20 in Natural Fitness leave things as they are

- A Natural Fitness of 15-17 should cause a goaltender to have problems after say 60-65GP

- if a goalie has a Natural Fitness of 12-14 than the problems should occur at 50-55GP (the "problems" would be a Condition that decreases more/takes longer to recover, like with the players)

As I'm suggesting leave those with a 18-20 Natural Fitness "as they are" there will still be goalies that can play all the games (or almost all the games) in the regular season & playoffs without any issues at all (maybe only those with 19-20 instead of 18-20...or maybe even only 20)

I think people are going to think the games unrealistic when a goaltender can play 82 GP and always have 100% condition (I think it's very unrealistic)

I don't think anyone's going to think/know of "jadedness" as it's not an Attribute

And if you don't overplay your goalie (which you'd notice, because with my suggestion his Condition wouldn't stay at 100% all of the time like it does now), if you don't overplay your goalie you'd have no problems! And those with high Natural Fitness wouldn't have any concerns in the playoffs

That's why I'm planning on linking the jadedness better with the max condition a player can recover to and maybe add a note about being exhausted when the jadedness has reached such levels.

I kind of like it when not every little detail is presented as a number for us to rely on instead of using our own judgement...

Having said that, making a "weary" player end up with a max. condition of 95 and a "fresh" one with 100 sounds like a sensible idea to help out.

Since I've been involved in EHM I'm pretty sure there's been much more anecdotal evidence saying there's no effect overplaying a goaltender

My suggestion I believe wasn't fully understood (because the concerns raised couldn't/wouldn't happen with what I suggested)

With my suggestion the only way you could have a problem in the playoffs is if you had a goaltender, and in the regular season when his Condition started dropping below 100% and was still below 100% at the next game, you keep playing him anyhow...and as his Condition plummets to 90% and 80% and 70% and 60% and you keep playing him anyway...that's the only way you could have a problem in the playoffs with what I'm suggesting)

27 NHL goaltenders in 8.2 have a Natural Fitness of 15 or greater, so with what I suggested you'd have to play those goalies over 65 games to have an issue with any of those 27 goalies (and 4 of those goalies are rated 18+ and would be "immune" from any effects with what I suggested)

IRL only 6 NHL goalies played 65+ games in the NHL in 2015-16 (10 played 60+), in 2014-15 it was again 6 (12 played 60+), and in 2013-14 it was only 1 (8 played 60+)

From one of my tests (that I had yearly saves in June)

- Season 1 EHM produced 9 goalies who played 65+ games (20 played 60+)

- Season 2 EHM produced 9 goalies who played 65+ games (20 played 60+)

- Season 3 EHM produced 8 goalies who played 65+ games (18 played 60+)

- Season 4 EHM produced 8 goalies who played 65+ games (19 played 60+)

The AI by itself overplays their goalies compared to IRL data

And in case it wasn't understood, I wasn't suggesting anything for the playoffs...I was talking about the regular season, and what shape your goaltender would be in going into the playoffs!....if you didn't overplay him and continue to when his Condition fell, then your goaltender would be 100% normal and ready to go in the playoffs (and again, with my suggestion 27 NHL goalies in TBL 8.2 could play 65 games before any significant effect even started on their Condition (that would only continue/get worse if you kept playing him!)

There are some serious issues with TOI for defensive pairings in the latest update.

My best two D men are always being used too much. If I put them as DP-1 they play for 30+ minutes, even as high as 40 minutes.

I've put them as DP-2 instead of DP-1 but they are still overused for 25-30 minutes each game(more than any other defender). Removed them from PK lines (so now other defenders should be getting far more usage) has made no difference. Switching tactics to Defensive usage "Equal" does nothing. I'm having to drop them almost every 2nd game or leave them on "resting" practice to have any chance of recovering their condition between games.

My last game had my best D man as DP-2, PP-2, and ES-2. He was on no other lines and he still played more than any other defender, even those on DP-1,PP-1,PK-1 and ES-1! He even manged 8 minutes more than his DP-2, PP-2, and ES-2 line partner. How can a pairing not be sent out as a pair for 33% of the time? (0 PIM before anyone says it was a forced change).

I believe the game is creating its own DP-4 and using it at will which is skewing the ice times and messing up condition.

EDIT - next two games, same setup and my best D-man gets 30+ minutes, and 32+ minutes. Defensive partner - 13 Minutes and 21 minutes! Not being able to use your best D-men and tactics/lines being ignored is pretty game-breaking.

There are some serious issues with TOI for defensive pairings in the latest update.

My best two D men are always being used too much. If I put them as DP-1 they play for 30+ minutes, even as high as 40 minutes.

I've put them as DP-2 instead of DP-1 but they are still overused for 25-30 minutes each game(more than any other defender). Removed them from PK lines (so now other defenders should be getting far more usage) has made no difference. Switching tactics to Defensive usage "Equal" does nothing. I'm having to drop them almost every 2nd game or leave them on "resting" practice to have any chance of recovering their condition between games.

My last game had my best D man as DP-2, PP-2, and ES-2. He was on no other lines and he still played more than any other defender, even those on DP-1,PP-1,PK-1 and ES-1! He even manged 8 minutes more than his DP-2, PP-2, and ES-2 line partner. How can a pairing not be sent out as a pair for 33% of the time? (0 PIM before anyone says it was a forced change).

I believe the game is creating its own DP-4 and using it at will which is skewing the ice times and messing up condition.

EDIT - next two games, same setup and my best D-man gets 30+ minutes, and 32+ minutes. Defensive partner - 13 Minutes and 21 minutes! Not being able to use your best D-men and tactics/lines being ignored is pretty game-breaking.

The only times that I've seen (AI) coaches do this is when there's a mismatch in quality between the players. I once had a D that I liked and wanted to give ice-time but my coach had him on the bench and played the best defender almost 30 minutes instead. Currently my best defender gets 23-24 minutes and the worst 16-18 depending on the amount of PKs and PPs in the game. I have (ATM) a very balanced defensive corps. You should look into getting better defenders, then your coach will likely play your top one less.

PS. I'd be nice if our AI coach could talk to us and explain his decisions...

The only times that I've seen (AI) coaches do this is when there's a mismatch in quality between the players. I once had a D that I liked and wanted to give ice-time but my coach had him on the bench and played the best defender almost 30 minutes instead. Currently my best defender gets 23-24 minutes and the worst 16-18 depending on the amount of PKs and PPs in the game. I have (ATM) a very balanced defensive corps. You should look into getting better defenders, then your coach will likely play your top one less.

PS. I'd be nice if our AI coach could talk to us and explain his decisions...

But there will always be a drop in quality between your top 2 D and 3-4 and 5-6 pairings unless you have an amazing 3rd line or very poor 1st. Coaches really shouldn't be ignoring lines to play the best D so much.

I'd also like to think my 6 D are pretty good, probably unrealistically good.

Roman Josi - 5 stars

Erik Karlsson - 5 stars

Morgan Rielly - 4 stars with 5 potential

Ian Cole - 4 stars

Danny DeKeyser - 4 stars

Simon Despres - 3 stars with 4/5 potential

Seems to me if the user is in control via GM Options of the tactics (including icetime), lineup and lines & the user doesn't match lines.....I can't see how the above example could/should ever happen.

In such cases we don't need our AI coach to talk to us and explain his decisions...we need our AI coach to do as he's told! And most definitely Coaches shouldn't be ignoring lines to play the best D so much...they should do as they're told!

The detailed level of tactics are a significant draw for me...but at least some areas don't work very well, and are well identified, and should be fixed ASAP

Seems to me if the user is in control via GM Options of the tactics (including icetime), lineup and lines & the user doesn't match lines.....I can't see how the above example could/should ever happen.

In such cases we don't need our AI coach to talk to us and explain his decisions...we need our AI coach to do as he's told! And most definitely Coaches shouldn't be ignoring lines to play the best D so much...they should do as they're told!

The problem is that the coaches do exactly as their told if you have them set to follow your lines and tactics. They do NOT make in game changes to react to injuries or penalties like they do if you don't control lines.

If (for example) you have options set to let your coach handle lines and get your 2nd centre injured (or he gets a Match penalty or whatever) then your head coach will rearrange your lineup to match the new situation. If you have the options set to let YOU handle the lines your coach will NOT make any such change but instead will drop down your first line centre and he will play BOTH first and second line centre (as well as both PP and PK lines too).

Forcing the Head Coach to follow your lines slavishly will produce way more stupid things (like 30 minutes ice time to your first line players) than you will ever see if you let the coach react to the current situation and move things around as he sees fit.

If you want to set lines and tactics then you also have to coach the game yourself for it to work properly ATM.

I guess I need "proof" Ivan

At this point we're just exchanging opinions and anecdotal evidence....

As I recall over the years most of the anecdotal evidence (like above) seems to indicate people were looking closely at the results, and injuries/penalties are not being mentioned.....I suspect (my opinion) that if people check even closer for such things (see if injuries/penalties could have caused such significant issues), they'll often see the needed "proof" that the problem is the game, and not injuries/penalties

I guess I need "proof" Ivan

At this point we're just exchanging opinions and anecdotal evidence....

As I recall over the years most of the anecdotal evidence (like above) seems to indicate people were looking closely at the results, and injuries/penalties are not being mentioned.....I suspect (my opinion) that if people check even closer for such things (see if injuries/penalties could have caused such significant issues), they'll often see the needed "proof" that the problem is the game, and not injuries/penalties

I watch my games (roughly half of them) and I've seen it with my own eyes hundreds of times. I'm not the only one either, there are posts both here and on TBL saying the same thing. I don't normally force the coach to use my line selection but sometimes I have to (like when he insists on playing a winger that haven't won a single face off in his entire career as centre).

The drawback to setting the lines yourself but not coaching the game is exactly that - that the coach cannot but follow your instructions and cannot rearrange things in case of injuries or penalties or fatigue issues.

I watch my games (roughly half of them) and I've seen it with my own eyes hundreds of times. I'm not the only one either, there are posts both here and on TBL saying the same thing. I don't normally force the coach to use my line selection but sometimes I have to (like when he insists on playing a winger that haven't won a single face off in his entire career as centre).

Riz - please fix this

I've always said the basic functioning of the game needs to be the #1 priority IMO.

Head Coaches that can't properly manage injuries/penalties in ways that are even close to realistic is basic functioning to me.

IMO such things (basic game functionality) should take priority over every UI fix, extra feature, extra league, etc

Thanks for the clarification Ivan!

Riz - please fix this

I've always said the basic functioning of the game needs to be the #1 priority IMO.

Head Coaches that can't properly manage injuries/penalties in ways that are even close to realistic is basic functioning to me.

IMO such things (basic game functionality) should take priority over every UI fix, extra feature, extra league, etc

This should be fixed at the root. The most realistic (mirroring real life) would be if you could give instructions to your coach without having to completely take over his job.

It's very easy to tell him to play a certain guy on PP1 but it's currently impossible to tell the coach NOT to play the same guy on any PK-line. I'd like to be able to exclude players from PP or PK and to instruct the coach to favour certain players in certain game situations (tight game last five minutes, game already decided last five minutes etc). This would make it easy to have your up and coming young players get PP and PK practice when games are already decided and make sure that your best guys get the job if the game is in balance.

The way that Jim Gindin has done it with Front Office Football is very close to perfect. There is a game plan screen where you can set up different player selections (and tactics) for different game scenarios.

This should be fixed at the root. The most realistic (mirroring real life) would be if you could give instructions to your coach without having to completely take over his job.

It's very easy to tell him to play a certain guy on PP1 but it's currently impossible to tell the coach NOT to play the same guy on any PK-line. I'd like to be able to exclude players from PP or PK and to instruct the coach to favour certain players in certain game situations (tight game last five minutes, game already decided last five minutes etc). This would make it easy to have your up and coming young players get PP and PK practice when games are already decided and make sure that your best guys get the job if the game is in balance.

The way that Jim Gindin has done it with Front Office Football is very close to perfect. There is a game plan screen where you can set up different player selections (and tactics) for different game scenarios.

Or just make the coaches AI work as it should, because the issues we're talking about here IMO are not subtleties, they're basic - so whatever you're referencing with Front Office Football (never seen/played it), the basic decisions that almost all coaches would make needs to be coded right into the game

Just ask yourself in penalty/injury situations what would the average coach do, and code that into the game (again, the complexity of the coaching decisions were talking about is basic)

Also, on coaches (and IMO more complex than the icetime issue), I've long asked "do coaching Attributes actually work"?

I'm talking about the hidden ones, that give the coach/team a playing style and the team management a style too (the Attacking, Directness, Free Roles, PK, PP, Tactics and Physical Attributes).....but alas I've never gotten any answer/feedback in 6 years

For example the hidden Staff Attribute "Physical" apparently indicates how much a Coach likes to use physical players/tactics.....With the 1998 DB it caught my attention because Scotty Bowman had an 18, which is double or more what he should've been IMO (the Red Wings were not a physical team, Bowman NEVER promoted physical tactics and always an offensive/skill team with a few good grinders (from 1976-1998).....I look at the 8.2 Head Coaches as they appear ingame (I added no players/staff, then used the EHM Assistant to export everything, so no variables/everything's an actual value).....15 of the NHL Head Coaches ended up with a Physical rating of 14-17, and only 3 were below 10 (the 30 Head Coaches average 13 for Physical.....for me 13-15 would be the highest I'd go in 99% of cases) - and with this I wonder if this is affecting the (excess) number of power plays that are occurring in EHM

Coding AI is anything but basic :-)

It would be much easier and achieve the same effect (and involve you - the player) if you were able to sit down and have a chat with your coach and consider the "game plan" as the result. It wouldn't have to be elaborate - list the 10 players you'd most like to do PK, the 10 guys you'd most like to do PP, the top 6 face off guys, a list of players you don't wan't on PK, starter/backup ratio etc.

Or - A series of radio buttons or check boxes with each player. Available for PK - 1.Yes! 2. Only if necessary 3. You're fired if you try. Available for Face-offs 1.Yes! 2. Only if you have no other 3. No, Never. A slider for Starter/Backup from 50% (two starters) to 90% (play starter max).

There are several ways of doing it and it actually mimics what happens in real life when the coaching staff and the GM sits down and discusses how to utilize the player material for the upcoming season. It would also be possible to have the coaches come back with requests and complaints if you make really odd settings and as such help increase the immersion factor of the game.

Do have a look at Front Office Football - there's a free demo. The way it's handled there is really good.

Great ideas Ivan!

But many users don't want to put that kind of effort in (they don't use the tactics available now!) and they want their Coach to "Coach" and they will GM (they would rightly say this is a GM game, not a Coach and GM game; when I do get a chance to play EHM, I myself prefer to be the Head Coach/GM and I enjoy the micromanaging)

So the Coach AI on "using players effectively" (including icetime, and responding to ingame penalties/injuries) has to be reasonable...not necessarily great, but it needs to be much better than it is now IMO

The Coaching AI is better with the latest upgrade, there's better handling of late game scenarios and a few more things. The problem with what you're saying is that it's bloody hard to code AI to work anywhere near human-like, what we think of as obvious is often impossible for a machine to understand.

About the winger taking face-offs I talked about earlier - he's listed as LW/C and his face-off tech ability is pretty high and by looking at the lineup it makes sense to move the centre up a line to play LW and to let this guy move down and play C. I understand why the AI coach did it as it looks good "on paper" but in reality it turns out horrendously bad as despite his skill number he can't win a single face-off and it hurts the team bad. This is dead easy for a human to recognize but how do you code an AI-bot to do it?

It makes sense to have the human "assist" the coach in the areas where developing and coding an AI is the most difficult. You get a better and more lifelike result for a tenth of the effort. Effort saved can then be put into developing areas of the game where the ROI is much greater.

Forgive me if I'm misreading but this seems to have gone off on a tangent a bit.

This issue is a pretty fundamental flaw in the AI placing the wrong pairings on the ice, creating it's own pairings, and overusing certain players because of it. It's completely ignoring tactics and lines that have been set when it doesn't need to ignore them as there have been no penalties or injuries to cause any selection issues.

I know writing this kind of code is hard to get right, and don't get me wrong I'm glad we have a hockey game; but I'm not sure this issue should ever make it into a release as it doesn't take long to spot the problem and I'm certain it wasn't there in earlier versions. Resolving it is of course a longer matter.

I've noticed one or two other bugs creeping back in as well, like the game reaching a shootout selection stage but then ending as it was already won in OT. That was definitely resolved a couple of patches ago. On the plus side, it looks like the RFA qualifying offers not being registered has been fixed.

So the Coach AI on "using players effectively" (including icetime, and responding to ingame penalties/injuries) has to be reasonable...not necessarily great, but it needs to be much better than it is now IMO

About the winger taking face-offs I talked about earlier - he's listed as LW/C and his face-off tech ability is pretty high and by looking at the lineup it makes sense to move the centre up a line to play LW and to let this guy move down and play C. I understand why the AI coach did it as it looks good "on paper" but in reality it turns out horrendously bad as despite his skill number he can't win a single face-off and it hurts the team bad. This is dead easy for a human to recognize but how do you code an AI-bot to do it?

If you're saying his Faceoff Attribute was reasonable, then IMO what you're describing is not a problem/concern (the coach made a reasonable decision, the player didn't perform as expected)

If "skill number" refers to something else than Faceoffs

- maybe the player shouldn't have been given a dual position

- maybe the player should be given the dual position, but a better Faceoffs Attribute

But at first glance your situation doesn't seem the same to me as other concerns I see (like the icetime one) where there is absolutely no possible reasonable explanation for playing a D 40 minutes in a 60 minute game

Yes, attribute is the word I couldn't find, I must be getting old and senile...

The problem is not that the coach played this guy as C - it's that he continued to do it game after game after game even when it was obvious that he couldn't handle it. Obvious to a human that is.