I have a few things that I would like to see to make the game even better than it already is (in my opinion, of course ):
- Have players with a certain talent level not have any (technical) stats below 5/6 or so. Right now the whole range of 1-20 gets used and that just looks weird, because it creates NHL-players with some horrendous values. Players with the skill to be considered for the NHL, even if they eventually don't make it, don't really have skills that are so atrocious that they make ECHL-players look like Gretzky. Make it so that players from -6 or -7 potential upwards have a minimum level in techical skills, while players below that can get stats below that as well. That way you still use the whole range, but at a better split.
Now onto my most important point:
- It's great to have player-roles to guide the development of players and ending up with more coherent players whose skillsets match similar values, but I think there might be one rather big flaw in the system, if I understand it correcty. Right now there are multiple levels of importance a stat can have, depending on the role the player has. This means that the player will be created along the lines of the stats he needs the most to properly fulfill his role. Afterwards, development will also see him improve in areas that are important to that role. This means the strengths get stronger and the weaknesses stay the same. This basically puts everything on its head. Using goalscorers as an example, you end up with players with 17-20 in wrist and slap shots, getting open, etc. while having 1 to 5s in all defensive categories and often even stick-handling or passing. Basically, every goalscorer with a modicum of talent is exceptionally great at goalscoring, but completely useless in every other way. But in reality the difference between a great goalscorer and a good goalscorer does not lie in one being average defensively and the other being horrendous at it, but in one being great at all the skills needed to score goals, and the other being "merely" very good at it. Where the great ones sit at 17-20, the good to very good ones might only range from 15-17. That's where there difference should come from, not from the less-relevant stats being worse.
The same thing applies to may of the roles, like playmakers who are basically always weak and have a muffin of a shot, or defensive defensemen who are amazing at all defensive attributes but completely devoid of everything else (not just bad or average, but downright atrocious). This also means that there aren't all that many allrounders in the game. You have the elite-players, and then you have high-end offense or high-end defense, but hardly anyone who is decent to good all around, or even very good all around.
One way to fix that issue would be to create the players somewhat contrary to their role, so that their stats that won't develop much will already be at an acceptable level, while those stats that tend to explode have the room to grow. That way you also have a difference between the great and the good players, because there is just less ability left to push the important stats right to the maximum if you don't have high-end potential ability. This would look rather weird when playing junior leagues though, as players would get reported as goalscorer even though their goalscoring isn't quite as good compared to other stats yet, so an alternative solution might be preferable.
On the trading-front:
- Teams should make less prospect for prospect trades. In reality, prospects generally tend to get traded either as part of a package for someone established, or if it looks like the team won't be able to sign them. Teams trading prospect against prospect doesn't really happen, unless you reach the "player is getting up there in age and can't be considered a prospect much longer" stage, in other words, a trade that switches two prospecs who couldn't cut it so far to give them a fresh start elsewhere.
- There is also the issue of weird values assigned to players, not just from other teams but also from your own assistant GM. I had a 23 year old defenseman who I just had to send over waivers, just like San Jose had a center of similar age who they needed to send over waivers as well. Both had a good pedigree and scouting reports. The Sharks had a need for defense, I had a need for a big center. Yet when I set up the trade, my assistant GM told me that it would be a horrendous trade and how we shouldn't give up a future franchise player, while San Jose said that the trade was lopsided against them. Not only does it not make any sense to consider a 23 year old who just had passed waivers and hadn't developed much as a future franchise player, but the whole thing didn't really take the circumstances into account. I didn't have a roster spot available for my defensman, and that was unlikely to change in the future. I did however have a need for a big center with some potential, yet my assistant GM didn't take that into account at all. With the possibility of a backlash from the owners, making such a trade anyway (if the other team agrees to it) isn't really worthwile, even if it makes perfect sense when looking at the roster. I also saw Toronto having three franchise goalies (Andersen on a long-term contract, the other two at age 22/23 as backup / on the farm) while not being interested in trading any of them because of how skilled they were. It would be nice if the depth-chart and needs would be taken into account a bit more, as it makes little sense that a team sits on its hands waiting until they lose a player like that due to waivers, when they could trade one of them for a big package that helps them improve in weaker areas. Granted, you don't want teams to throw talent away just because they currently have too much at that position, but maybe there is a sweet-spot to find, where they don't just accept everything but do acknowledge that if they don't do something they will lose players for free.
EHM Wishlist thread
in General Questions for Eastside Hockey Manager
Posted · Edited by Nils
I have a few things that I would like to see to make the game even better than it already is (in my opinion, of course
):
- Have players with a certain talent level not have any (technical) stats below 5/6 or so. Right now the whole range of 1-20 gets used and that just looks weird, because it creates NHL-players with some horrendous values. Players with the skill to be considered for the NHL, even if they eventually don't make it, don't really have skills that are so atrocious that they make ECHL-players look like Gretzky. Make it so that players from -6 or -7 potential upwards have a minimum level in techical skills, while players below that can get stats below that as well. That way you still use the whole range, but at a better split.
Now onto my most important point:
- It's great to have player-roles to guide the development of players and ending up with more coherent players whose skillsets match similar values, but I think there might be one rather big flaw in the system, if I understand it correcty. Right now there are multiple levels of importance a stat can have, depending on the role the player has. This means that the player will be created along the lines of the stats he needs the most to properly fulfill his role. Afterwards, development will also see him improve in areas that are important to that role. This means the strengths get stronger and the weaknesses stay the same. This basically puts everything on its head. Using goalscorers as an example, you end up with players with 17-20 in wrist and slap shots, getting open, etc. while having 1 to 5s in all defensive categories and often even stick-handling or passing. Basically, every goalscorer with a modicum of talent is exceptionally great at goalscoring, but completely useless in every other way. But in reality the difference between a great goalscorer and a good goalscorer does not lie in one being average defensively and the other being horrendous at it, but in one being great at all the skills needed to score goals, and the other being "merely" very good at it. Where the great ones sit at 17-20, the good to very good ones might only range from 15-17. That's where there difference should come from, not from the less-relevant stats being worse.
The same thing applies to may of the roles, like playmakers who are basically always weak and have a muffin of a shot, or defensive defensemen who are amazing at all defensive attributes but completely devoid of everything else (not just bad or average, but downright atrocious). This also means that there aren't all that many allrounders in the game. You have the elite-players, and then you have high-end offense or high-end defense, but hardly anyone who is decent to good all around, or even very good all around.
One way to fix that issue would be to create the players somewhat contrary to their role, so that their stats that won't develop much will already be at an acceptable level, while those stats that tend to explode have the room to grow. That way you also have a difference between the great and the good players, because there is just less ability left to push the important stats right to the maximum if you don't have high-end potential ability. This would look rather weird when playing junior leagues though, as players would get reported as goalscorer even though their goalscoring isn't quite as good compared to other stats yet, so an alternative solution might be preferable.
On the trading-front:
- Teams should make less prospect for prospect trades. In reality, prospects generally tend to get traded either as part of a package for someone established, or if it looks like the team won't be able to sign them. Teams trading prospect against prospect doesn't really happen, unless you reach the "player is getting up there in age and can't be considered a prospect much longer" stage, in other words, a trade that switches two prospecs who couldn't cut it so far to give them a fresh start elsewhere.
- There is also the issue of weird values assigned to players, not just from other teams but also from your own assistant GM. I had a 23 year old defenseman who I just had to send over waivers, just like San Jose had a center of similar age who they needed to send over waivers as well. Both had a good pedigree and scouting reports. The Sharks had a need for defense, I had a need for a big center. Yet when I set up the trade, my assistant GM told me that it would be a horrendous trade and how we shouldn't give up a future franchise player, while San Jose said that the trade was lopsided against them. Not only does it not make any sense to consider a 23 year old who just had passed waivers and hadn't developed much as a future franchise player, but the whole thing didn't really take the circumstances into account. I didn't have a roster spot available for my defensman, and that was unlikely to change in the future. I did however have a need for a big center with some potential, yet my assistant GM didn't take that into account at all. With the possibility of a backlash from the owners, making such a trade anyway (if the other team agrees to it) isn't really worthwile, even if it makes perfect sense when looking at the roster. I also saw Toronto having three franchise goalies (Andersen on a long-term contract, the other two at age 22/23 as backup / on the farm) while not being interested in trading any of them because of how skilled they were. It would be nice if the depth-chart and needs would be taken into account a bit more, as it makes little sense that a team sits on its hands waiting until they lose a player like that due to waivers, when they could trade one of them for a big package that helps them improve in weaker areas. Granted, you don't want teams to throw talent away just because they currently have too much at that position, but maybe there is a sweet-spot to find, where they don't just accept everything but do acknowledge that if they don't do something they will lose players for free.