Focussing on CGY for a bit:
Calgary
J Iginla 92
M Kiprusoff 89
R Regehr 88
J Bouwmeester 85
O Jokinen 84
Interesting observations:
- Iginla is tied for the THIRD highest OVR wiht datsyuk at 92, and only behind crosby 93, ovechkin 94
- Regehr is WAY too high. With an OVR of 88, the only dmen better than him is chara at 89!!! Bouwmeester is at 85...
- Kipper tied with vokoun, N. Backstrom, lundqvist, fleury at 89 OVR, is the only behind miller 91, and luongo 90 for goalies
I still think they need to utilize the 95-99 range a bit better, giving those values to the best of the best. It gives more room for the AHL OV and the junior OV. Looking at this, it feels like the CHL values are going to go around 50-60...
ea continues to be AWFUL at instituting a ratings system.
there is still no significant difference between grinders and superstars. the top end ratings for defensemen are a joke. how are there NO dmen rated over 90? why is 90+ reserved only for forwards and goalies? why have a scale based 1-100 when they never use the top few ratings? why have a scale based 1-100 when they never use the lower end ratings?
i don't even need to get into personal ratings issues just because the system itself is so broken. as i stated before, it effects every mode because there is no difference between elite players and everyone else. it particularly effects GM mode because it can be so unrealistic to try and build a team. i am not sure how it will effect HUT, but i assume it will make team building different due to poor ratings.
sorry for the rant.
The Following User Says Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
ea continues to be AWFUL at instituting a ratings system.
there is still no significant difference between grinders and superstars. the top end ratings for defensemen are a joke. how are there NO dmen rated over 90? why is 90+ reserved only for forwards and goalies? why have a scale based 1-100 when they never use the top few ratings? why have a scale based 1-100 when they never use the lower end ratings?
i don't even need to get into personal ratings issues just because the system itself is so broken. as i stated before, it effects every mode because there is no difference between elite players and everyone else. it particularly effects GM mode because it can be so unrealistic to try and build a team. i am not sure how it will effect HUT, but i assume it will make team building different due to poor ratings.
sorry for the rant.
It's because average Joe's like you and me would be on the lower end of the scale. I'd be a 16/100 based on real life skillz.
But I agree that I haven't found a usefulness to the player type classification, other than it making coloured green/yellow/red bars for line combos!
It's because average Joe's like you and me would be on the lower end of the scale. I'd be a 16/100 based on real life skillz.
But I agree that I haven't found a usefulness to the player type classification, other than it making coloured green/yellow/red bars for line combos!
i assume they got pressure from people that felt insulted by the low ratings they used to use. nhl 94 is still a great example of how big the scale used to be: http://nhl94.com/html/teamprofile.php?team=OTT
the senators highest player was only a 61! and guys went all the way down to the 30's and 40's!
the player type is actually the most frustrating. i say that, because it allows EA to use it as a cop out. they have been parroting the talking point a lot this year about how your overall rating is based on the top rating someone can have for the player type. that sounds great as a b.s. way to differentiate between guys like crosby and ovechkin, but it doesn't hold up in general. goalies and D really don't have the widely varying types. and if they truly were using it, mike green would have to be a 99 OFD because of how he plays. but instead they still just deflect criticism and go on putting out these awful ratings.
i apologize again for the rant. this is something that has bothered be for a long time and it never changes.
i assume they got pressure from people that felt insulted by the low ratings they used to use. nhl 94 is still a great example of how big the scale used to be: http://nhl94.com/html/teamprofile.php?team=OTT
.
Focussing on CGY for a bit:
Calgary
J Iginla 92
M Kiprusoff 89
R Regehr 88
J Bouwmeester 85
O Jokinen 84
There will be massive edits to the stats before I start Be a GM. I don't know HOW Regehr ended up with an 88 (Higher than Duncan Keith)...even if he is quite good.
Ratings for sports games are never going to be perfect, and the reason for this is simple. The things that make a player great in NHL 10 are often very different from the things that make a player great in real life. In real life the thing that separates the greats from everyone else are things like vision and hockey sense, things that the person holding the controller has all the control over, it's not something that ratings can affect. So because of that the best players in the game need to be the fastest, have the best shooting/passing, best puck control, etc. even when they don't in real life. Iginla is faster than most players in the game in NHL 10, even faster than a guy like Lombardi I believe, and while this isn't true to life it is the only way to make star players actually be star players. It's a problem with every sports game and it's never going to change.
BTW people need to start realizing the the overall is an average, and not necessarily indicative of how good a player is. Regehr will be slowish and have crappy offensive skills, but because of high ratings in stupid stuff that doesn't matter he has a high overall. Toughness for example has the same weight as speed does when it comes to calculating overall, just like shot blocking and passing have the same weight, or defensive awareness and wrist shot accuracy. These things obviously don't have the same importance in the game, but they do when it comes to overall, and it's been like this for 4 years. So don't be waiting for massive edits to start be a gm, because they won't be coming.
That team was pretty bad so I don't get your point. In today's NHL there will not be a team with only 14 wins ALL SEASON.
it was simply an example of how low they used to rate people. yes i realize the senators were bad, thats why i used them as i figured they would have lots of poorly rated players. if you want a better example, look at any other team. look at the wings on there. they have forwards ranging from 95 to 45.
ea continues to be AWFUL at instituting a ratings system.
there is still no significant difference between grinders and superstars. the top end ratings for defensemen are a joke. how are there NO dmen rated over 90? why is 90+ reserved only for forwards and goalies? why have a scale based 1-100 when they never use the top few ratings? why have a scale based 1-100 when they never use the lower end ratings?
i don't even need to get into personal ratings issues just because the system itself is so broken. as i stated before, it effects every mode because there is no difference between elite players and everyone else. it particularly effects GM mode because it can be so unrealistic to try and build a team. i am not sure how it will effect HUT, but i assume it will make team building different due to poor ratings.
sorry for the rant.
Sorry dobbles, but I disagree here. You can tell the difference between two guys with even the same ratings. Everyone gets so caught up on the OVR rating and not enough on the other ratings. Using the above list as an example, I guarantee you, you will score more with Tavares who is rated an 83 than you would with Langenbrunner who is rated an 85.
I don't agree with the scale they use, basically 65-92, but that is because of the ego's of the NHLPA as a whole. It would make the difference between players a lot better if they could use the whole scale for sure, but with this year, at least we will see guys lower than 65 and be able to watch them grow into something.
For the record, I loved using the Sens that year. Norm McIver was Bobby Orr like, haha. I always lit it up with him. I remember for some reason I always called him Uncle Norm, even though he is clearly not my uncle, nor did I try to pass him off as that, more just a taunt to my buddies when I would score with him. Everytime someone new played against me, we always had to explain that he wasn't really my uncle.
Back then we had strange nicknames for a lot of players. Daniel Alfredsson is still known simply as Buck to me and a few buddies. We were making rookies after the game came out, this is pre-internet and we were just using the paper, and it didn't have first names so he was Buck Alfredsson.
I would like to take the rating system out of EHM 2007 and put it in EA NHL series. Never had a complaint on the formulas for EHM, very well done and great variables.
The Following User Says Thank You to Finny61 For This Useful Post:
Hey Dobbles, at least you won't have to worry about Chelios' rating this year!
I get the rating argument, but more often than not ratings are not a proper reflection of the player. With the new trade system it isn't 100% ratings based either, so they matter even less there.
I would like to take the rating system out of EHM 2007 and put it in EA NHL series. Never had a complaint on the formulas for EHM, very well done and great variables.
I've been saying for years that the EA team should buy the license for EHM 2007 and incorporate that system for Be a GM and Be a Pro. EA's gameplay + EHM's sim engine = epic win.
I have even emailed them telling them this, as well as commenting on their boards, but they just don't listen!
Seriously, that game would be the best thing ever.
