Franchise Hockey Manager 4 - Part 2

[Big McLargehuge]

Previous thread.

Click to read more...

 

[brentdog]

I'm not sure what more I could do to satisfy people like you...

People like me? Classy that, Nino.

Well, I can think of one thing: how about not turning a debate on prospect development into a wider assault on FHM2 and OOTP like some kind of rabid pro-EHM fanboy?

Or did I misunderstand all this nonsense:

not everyone agrees that OOTPD is as great as you two; for example, while OOTP posts "we're #1" with the current version of their game http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...we-re-1-a.html when you actually look at the metacritic link while it is true they are tied for #1 out of 193 based on 8 reviewer reviews, among users they're tied for #183 out of 193 based on 173 user reviews! I'm really stunned/surprised they'd even reference it (it's embarrassingly bad)

As for player development, clearly you like it to be linear and predictable. Good for you that EHM provides that in spades - just look for guys with high determination and a good PA and you'll be golden.

Now, since real sport isn't actually like that, I prefer a game with some degree - note some degree, not consistent or unrealistic amounts - of randomisation of development within it.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

As for player development, clearly you like it to be linear and predictable. Good for you that EHM provides that in spades - just look for guys with high determination and a good PA and you'll be golden.

Now, since real sport isn't actually like that, I prefer a game with some degree - note some degree, not consistent or unrealistic amounts - of randomisation of development within it.

This issue is precisely why I struggle to remain interested in EHM unless there's a fresh database every season.

Now, OOTP's development model doesn't translate well to FHM, IMO, because in baseball player development is far more subject to the whims of chance than in hockey. Having said that, the whole fun of playing a management sim for me is to feel like I have made a difference in the way players progress by my actions, and the longer I play EHM the less I feel like that's the case.

YMMV.

 

[Nino33]

Actually brentdog I spoke up because you were saying things that were false...when Habsfan18 spoke positively about FHM but stated an opinion you didn't like ("The main things FHM must work on, are more realistic player paths and career development, and AI handling of players") you started incorrectly talking about what EHM couldn't do

I think you should allow other people to have differing opinions than yours

In my first post in this discussion I said "I think the FHM system for Attributes is potentially more robust than that of EHM (and if all is working as intended significantly more robust)"

I think you should learn to see when people are not being negative/attacking


I don't list off all the things that EHM has that FHM doesn't, all the FHM faults/bugs, etc - it's the FHM "supporters" that seem to think that it's beneficial to attack the opinions of others that don't agree with them & attack EHM

If I'm "attacking" at all, it's not FHM, it's the approach of the "supporters"


Maybe you don't realize how well known OOTP/FHM is for the advertising/PR approach and fanboy attacks

I believe the OOTP/FHM fanboys care far more about being rude/attacking online than the game they supposedly support, and I don't understand it...

 

[Nino33]

Now, OOTP's development model doesn't translate well to FHM, IMO, because in baseball player development is far more subject to the whims of chance than in hockey.

I personally am not at all convinced that FHM even uses the "OOTP development model" (I don't think it does)

The FHM development team said multiple times that there was very little that they could take from OOTP, they wanted to do their own game, hockey is to different from baseball to enable the use of OOTP coding, etc

The "supporters" of FHM are very wrong when they speak of what EHM does/how it works, and I'm not at all convinced they know any more about FHM (especially those that weren't even around in the initial years of FHM development)


P.S. And I'm using the word "supporters" because though the names have changed, the arguments/behaviours are the same (it was different people last year, and different the year before that, but same arguments/behaviours)

 

[Nino33]

This issue is precisely why I struggle to remain interested in EHM unless there's a fresh database every season.

There is a fresh database every season (there even was in the many years that development had ceased; there's been a fresh database every year since 2004)

The TBL Roster team is working on the 2016-17 database now & EHM is still being updated/improved upon, so it's expected that nearer the start of the IRL NHL season the ability to start in 2016 will be added to EHM (just like the 2015 start date was added last year)

 

[brentdog]

Actually brentdog I spoke up because you were saying things that were false...when Habsfan18 spoke positively about FHM but stated an opinion you didn't like ("The main things FHM must work on, are more realistic player paths and career development, and AI handling of players") you started incorrectly talking about what EHM couldn't do

I said that the player development in EHM is hard coded in - and it is, because a player in EHM cannot ever exceed his initially created potential ability - and that there was more variation in potential in FHM2, which is also true.

I have provided details, which are available online if you care to look for them, of how player development in the Football Manager stable of games works, as well as evidence of players occasionally outperforming their potential in FHM2.

All you've come up with is some vague stuff about how you'd done some 'testing' and didn't believe this, instead referring to it as a widely held but misinformed opinion.

You've then followed up with general attacks on FHM2 and indeed OOTP.

There's only one fanboy supporter who's intolerant of others opinions here and that's not me.

 

[Nino33]

If I'm "attacking" at all, it's not FHM, it's the approach of the "supporters"

You just don't get it do you...

You can easily see the bad reputation OOTP/FHM supporters have online if you care to look for them...

 

[Nino33]

I said that the player development in EHM is hard coded in - and it is, because a player in EHM cannot ever exceed his initially created potential ability - and that there was more variation in potential in FHM2, which is also true.

Actually if Attributes still develop then it doesn't matter if the CA and PA match, development is still occuring (that's why I'm not sure you understood)

And I actually said "I think the FHM system for Attributes is potentially more robust than that of EHM (and if all is working as intended significantly more robust)" - so painting me as attacking/minimizing FHM is a lie

I have provided details, which are available online if you care to look for them, of how player development in the Football Manager stable of games works, as well as evidence of players occasionally outperforming their potential in FHM2

Yeah, not sure why you keep referencing FM (jealous of it's success?); I don't care how FM works/never played it, but I do know that what you said about EHM and how it works conflicts with what Riz told me

I don't understand how you think a game (FM) that has so many sales and so many people working on it and a couple decades of yearly development can just be ported over to a rebooted EHM - just like almost nothing from OOTP could be ported over to FHM - were you not around in 2012 and 2013? Is this why you don't know these things?)

All you've come up with is some vague stuff about how you'd done some 'testing' and didn't believe this, instead referring to it as a widely held but misinformed opinion

That "vague stuff" just done in the last couple months is more than I've seen on OOTP and FHM combined in 4 years...I figure you either don't like data and facts and/or don't bother trying to understand it (which is your right, but then don't speak authoritatively about what you don't understand)

You've then followed up with general attacks on FHM2 and indeed OOTP.

No, the "attacks" (if you want to call them that) were on the OOTP/FHM supporters, not the games themselves; since my position was the "supporters" are a problem I supported my position

After the disastrous failure of the initial release my biggest concerns about FHM were #1 it wouldn't get the chance/time to continuously improve, which so far happily does not seem to be the case! & #2 the FHM supporters will so damage the potential market that the game won't sell enough (like getting the FHM Forum shut down last year at TBL because they refused to follow the TBL Guidelines and felt they had a right to be rude/offensive)...I still worry about the damage the supporters are doing/will do

It's this concern that makes me bring up how poor the user ratings are on metacritic (a current example is you have OOTP vets telling users they should blame Steam for current bugs in OOTP & that they shouldn't trust the game until it's been out for 6 months, you should expect a buggy game! http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boa...te-8-hotfix-version-17-10-67-available-9.html)

The two guys that were posting publicly about FHM just like you last year disappeared publicly after the FHM Forum at TBL was shut down (I'm guessing the developers explained how they'd hurt the game, and I suspect you'll end up in the same situation if you stay on the path you're on; the developers stopped hyping the game/responding negatively back in late 2013/early 2014 IIRC - you don't see them posting and speaking like they did in the first couple years that's for sure...again, were you not around in 2012 and 2013? Is this why you don't know these things?)

There's only one fanboy supporter who's intolerant of others opinions here and that's not me.

Actually I said "I wish FHM all the best" & "I think the FHM system for Attributes is potentially more robust than that of EHM (and if all is working as intended significantly more robust)" & "I'm glad you like it/are happy" & "I've posted more about problems/issues in EHM than anyone" & "I've bought every version of FHM at full price. I also bought OOTP twice to support the company/support FHM development (though I've never played OOTP/have no interest in baseball)"

 

[The Feckless Puck]

There is a fresh database every season (there even was in the many years that development had ceased; there's been a fresh database every year since 2004)

The TBL Roster team is working on the 2016-17 database now & EHM is still being updated/improved upon, so it's expected that nearer the start of the IRL NHL season the ability to start in 2016 will be added to EHM (just like the 2015 start date was added last year)

I've been using TBL rosters for years now. There is nothing I appreciate more than the dedicated work of roster builders.

The problem for me is that the game engine doesn't do enough with that fresh database to keep the gameplay fresh over multiple saves. EHM requires a fresh database to keep its shelf life, in other words. My enthusiasm for playing EHM is at its peak when a new database is released, but it wanes steadily over the year between releases until I stop playing altogether.

OOTP has been far better at giving me more variety in my various saves between roster updates. The element of chance is largely the reason. There really isn't much of an element of chance in EHM unless, for example, the database doesn't have a record for one of your prospects and the game assigns him random values. That's why I always do a lot of scouting of NCAA players because often the game will randomly generate gems. But after a couple of runs through the database it almost doesn't matter if you scout because you figure out who all the busts and booms are, at least at the NHL level. Diminishing returns.

Now, having said all of that, I don't know if FHM is going to be able to walk that tightrope - I bought v1 and it was so terrible that I didn't even consider buying FHM2. I'm guardedly interested in FHM3 but I'm not going to be an early adopter - prefer to wait and see how big a step forward it is.

 

[Nino33]

Your example of Kevin Roy and how "he has essentially far outstripped his in-game potential to become a 4.5* superstar along the lines of Pat Kane" & "This is repeated across our league with 4 or 5 players - Mark Friedman, Taylor Cammarata, Connor Hurley - who have all gone on to outstrip their potential and become legitimate superstars across the course of 3 seasons"

If you haven't, you might want to confirm with Sebastian/Jeff that this is what they want (Kane's a #1 overall pick who's a PPG player and won multiple awards...the last similar player IRL that even came close would be Jamie Benn in 2007, then maybe Zetterberg in 1999 and Datsyuk in 1998 - do Sebastian/Jeff want it to be happening 4-5 times over 3 years where essentially unknowns become superstars? seems like that's happening a lot more than IRL...but maybe it's intended? I like the idea, but I wouldn't want 4-5 extra superstars created every 3 years when IRL it seems to occur less than that over a decade or more)

Also, when FHM was first in development/first came out I recall Jeff saying that surprises like Zetterberg/Datsyuk don't really happen anymore...

 

[Nino33]

The problem for me is that the game engine doesn't do enough with that fresh database to keep the gameplay fresh over multiple saves. EHM requires a fresh database to keep its shelf life, in other words. My enthusiasm for playing EHM is at its peak when a new database is released, but it wanes steadily over the year between releases until I stop playing altogether.

Fair comment/I can understand that



Maybe it'll get a little better, because the understanding of editing has improved in recent years [more young players now have more variable potentials that make them possible NHLers.....when I first discovered EHM they were still having tons of players retire on day 1 to create regens & giving players from small countries high PAs (neither of which I ever liked myself; and thus the regen hunting/familiarity) and not enough NHL draftees with a PA that potentially got them in the NHL (probably the biggest issue) + the new underdatabase concept should help too http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16779 - it's been getting better in recent years, and combined with the much improved regen system it should improve playability!

BUT...we'll see! Someone pointed out a potential Ovechkin regen, and I spoke with Riz about it and he agreed some further tweaking might be needed (and my extensive testing has shown a lot more that needs tweaking too! HaHa) - but the new regen/newgen system is actually much better than I honestly thought it was!

I test to validate what Riz says too! HaHa

 

[brentdog]

Actually if Attributes still develop then it doesn't matter if the CA and PA match, development is still occuring (that's why I'm not sure you understood)

Yet you have provided no proof that development still occurs when Current Ability is reached. It's your opinion - and an opinion which flies in the face of eatablished wisdom about EHM player development, as well as information which is readily available online about how development works in SI games.

Yeah, not sure why you keep referencing FM (jealous of it's success?); I don't care how FM works/never played it, but I do know that what you said about EHM and how it works conflicts with what Riz told me

I don't understand how you think a game (FM) that has so many sales and so many people working on it and a couple decades of yearly development can just be ported over to a rebooted EHM - just like almost nothing from OOTP could be ported over to FHM - were you not around in 2012 and 2013? Is this why you don't know these things?)

I've played Football Manager for many years and love the game. It is a phenomenon all of it's own, the best-selling, most recognised sports management game available - and rightly so. I'm not at all 'jealous' of it's success.

One flaw it does have though is player development and how it's hard coded in. It's perhaps more noticeable in football, when players can advance through divisions and skill levels... in real life you can see players from lower divisions step up to the challenge in the next one and become better players overall as a result, yet FM doesn't really allow for this because, as I say, a player can never be more than his Potential Ability destines him to be.

Since it was bought out by SI EHM has used this same player development model of PA/CA. It was heavily updated for the re-release to stop people being able to look for the next 6'9" guy out of Trencin and thus automatically draft the next Big Z. In doing so they inevitably borrowed heavily from the FM model of player re-gens and development, because this was the obvious thing for them to do.

As for not understanding how a game like FM could now provide the template for EHM... well, if you've never played FM, I'm not surprised you can't see the many and obvious similarities between the two games in pretty much every aspect.

Now, let me be clear: despite not being a fan of this model, player development isn't the reason I now play more FHM2 than EHM. There are other aspects of the game which drove me away. I'm not going to list them though, as for me this is a specific discussion about a specific point.

For some reason you have chosen to widen this into a larger 'debate' on FHM, OOTP, me, Daximus and seemingly anyone who writes something positive about FHM2 in comparison to EHM, but I guess that's your prerogative.

That "vague stuff" just done in the last couple months is more than I've seen on OOTP and FHM combined in 4 years...I figure you either don't like data and facts and/or don't bother trying to understand it (which is your right, but then don't speak authoritatively about what you don't understand)

I like proof and data as much as the next man. It's more that your own testing, done on your own computer, to support your own opinion - which flies in the face of published information about player development in SI games - is hardly an empirically verifiable study. What about that don't you understand?

No, the "attacks" (if you want to call them that) were on the OOTP/FHM supporters, not the games themselves; since my position was the "supporters" are a problem I supported my position

After the disastrous failure of the initial release my biggest concerns about FHM were #1 it wouldn't get the chance/time to continuously improve, which so far happily does not seem to be the case! & #2 the FHM supporters will so damage the potential market that the game won't sell enough (like getting the FHM Forum shut down last year at TBL because they refused to follow the TBL Guidelines and felt they had a right to be rude/offensive)...I still worry about the damage the supporters are doing/will do

Pointing out the differences in player development between the two games is neither being rude nor offensive. Are there areas of improvement for FHM2? Sure. Re-gens and where they come from, that players will too readily accept lowball contract offers, an occasionally odd trade AI etc. etc. Does player development need vast improvement? Not so much, in my opinion.

So sure, I drew comparisons with development in EHM. What else was I supposed to draw comparison to? Call of Duty?

I have not been rude. I have not referenced any other aspects of EHM. I have not condescendingly referred to 'people like you', as you did to me and Daximus, or referenced scores on meta-critic in a general attack on FHM and OOTP, or talked about two guys on the blueline forum from two years ago as if they were somehow relevant.

To be frank, you need to have more confidence in EHM than rush to its defence every time it's mentioned in the FHM forum and accuse guys like me of being something they're not.

Actually I said "I wish FHM all the best" & "I think the FHM system for Attributes is potentially more robust than that of EHM (and if all is working as intended significantly more robust)" & "I'm glad you like it/are happy" & "I've posted more about problems/issues in EHM than anyone" & "I've bought every version of FHM at full price. I also bought OOTP twice to support the company/support FHM development (though I've never played OOTP/have no interest in baseball)"

Mmmm. I'm far from convinced this is your true opinion. Throwing in the occasional "I wish them all the best" doesn't change the general tone and thrust of your responses to me and Daximus.

And game ownership counts for nothing. I own both EHM and numerous versions of FM. What matters is how player development works and so far I've provided much more coherent reasoning and evidence than you have.

 

[brentdog]

Your example of Kevin Roy and how "he has essentially far outstripped his in-game potential to become a 4.5* superstar along the lines of Pat Kane" & "This is repeated across our league with 4 or 5 players - Mark Friedman, Taylor Cammarata, Connor Hurley - who have all gone on to outstrip their potential and become legitimate superstars across the course of 3 seasons"

If you haven't, you might want to confirm with Sebastian/Jeff that this is what they want (Kane's a #1 overall pick who's a PPG player and won multiple awards...the last similar player IRL that even came close would be Jamie Benn in 2007, then maybe Zetterberg in 1999 and Datsyuk in 1998 - do Sebastian/Jeff want it to be happening 4-5 times over 3 years where essentially unknowns become superstars? seems like that's happening a lot more than IRL...but maybe it's intended? I like the idea, but I wouldn't want 4-5 extra superstars created every 3 years when IRL it seems to occur less than that over a decade or more)

Also, when FHM was first in development/first came out I recall Jeff saying that surprises like Zetterberg/Datsyuk don't really happen anymore...

To clarify: superstars might have been too strong a description on my part, but guys like Camaratta and Friedman have outdeveloped themselves to become legitimate 1st line / pairing players. For example, Camaratta is on course to potentially win the Calder in our league this year. They're not necessarily future hall of famers like Pavel Datsyuk but still excellent players.

And that still very much happens in the NHL. In recent years alone you've got Vatanen taken in the 4th round, Mrazek in the 5th, Palat in the 7th, Panarin not even getting drafted in 2010 etc. etc.

 

[brentdog]

I've been using TBL rosters for years now. There is nothing I appreciate more than the dedicated work of roster builders.

The problem for me is that the game engine doesn't do enough with that fresh database to keep the gameplay fresh over multiple saves. EHM requires a fresh database to keep its shelf life, in other words. My enthusiasm for playing EHM is at its peak when a new database is released, but it wanes steadily over the year between releases until I stop playing altogether.

For me the TBL roster from a year or so ago really highlights this. It's the one where Sean Day was still riding high on his exceptional status and no matter what happens, if you draft him in that update he turns into a beast.

As we all know, since then his stock has fallen considerably to the extent he was taken in the 3rd round this year.

To me that sums up how the development in EHM doesn't allow for enough variation. High determination + high potential ALWAYS = legit superstar.

 

[Nino33]

Yet you have provided no proof that development still occurs when Current Ability is reached. It's your opinion - and an opinion which flies in the face of eatablished wisdom about EHM player development, as well as information which is readily available online about how development works in SI games.

Actually I did, you just didn't look at it...I did check just now, and yes Attributes in EHM can still grow/decrease when CA/PA match (so not my opinion, fact); you have no idea what you're talking about regarding EHM development

which flies in the face of eatablished wisdom about EHM player development, as well as information which is readily available online about how development works in SI games.

I have been heavily involved in EHM for 6 years, never heard of you; your "established wisdom" is actually complete ignorance

Since it was bought out by SI EHM has used this same player development model of PA/CA. It was heavily updated for the re-release to stop people being able to look for the next 6'9" guy out of Trencin and thus automatically draft the next Big Z. In doing so they inevitably borrowed heavily from the FM model of player re-gens and development, because this was the obvious thing for them to do.

But that's not what Riz said to me, and since he's the actual developer, I don't care what you say about EHM (nor should anyone else)

As for not understanding how a game like FM could now provide the template for EHM... well, if you've never played FM, I'm not surprised you can't see the many and obvious similarities between the two games in pretty much every aspect.

I find the direct contact with Riz works better (and both testing and Riz don't agree with your claims)

For some reason you have chosen to widen this into a larger 'debate' on FHM, OOTP, me, Daximus and seemingly anyone who writes something positive about FHM2 in comparison to EHM, but I guess that's your prerogative.

Your lack of understanding is by your own choice, I said that my problem is the OOTP/FHM "supporters" and their attacking/offensive behaviour (and I was saying that long before you even knew FHM existed)

I like proof and data as much as the next man. It's more that your own testing, done on your own computer, to support your own opinion - which flies in the face of published information about player development in SI games - is hardly an empirically verifiable study. What about that don't you understand?

Almost all the publicly available information on EHM comes from my testing or from Riz via me

My testing is the very definition of empirically verifiable! Your lack of understanding of what you're talking about is astounding



Your lack of understanding that Sebastian/Jeff said from the beginning that FHM is NOT going to be like OOTP and does NOT take coding from OOTP is astounding

I was actually quite happy with the idea that FHM was not from the OOTPD stable, as OOTP after 17 versions still has unfixed basic AI issues and nonworking features from past years and I was hopeful years ago that FHM wouldn't be like that

FHM is so far behind EHM it's barely more complete than the EHM freeware game, and if they're going to be like OOTP and never fix basic issues and always promote yearly features that likely won't actually work as intended for years if ever, I'll happily have nothing to do with FHM

talked about two guys on the blueline forum from two years ago as if they were somehow relevant.

The two guys were last year, regarding FHM2 (maybe you can't understand the obvious, but the damage obviously connects to why every available site regarding FHM2 is dead, and the number of players is miniscule)

To be frank, you need to have more confidence in EHM than rush to its defence every time it's mentioned in the FHM forum and accuse guys like me of being something they're not.

I stand up for truth and against ignorance and lies (you only think I'm defending EHM because you're just a fanboy and have never actually looked at my testing/feedback regarding EHM)

And game ownership counts for nothing.

Fine, I'll discontinue my support "for development" and when asked I'll recommend others do the same




Your level of ignorance about things is astounding; you don't know what you're talking about regarding researching, testing, EHM or FHM

I see your FHM profile says you're from the UK, and Sabastian is looking for a UK researcher...maybe you should volunteer so you can learn something and not be so ignorant

That's what I'm going to go back to doing now regarding EHM, back to doing something useful/helpful for the EHM community - I'm done with you

 

[Nino33]

To clarify: superstars might have been too strong a description on my part

For me the TBL roster from a year or so ago really highlights this. It's the one where Sean Day was still riding high on his exceptional status and no matter what happens, if you draft him in that update he turns into a beast.

As we all know, since then his stock has fallen considerably to the extent he was taken in the 3rd round this year.

All 3 TBL databases last year had him as a -8 (130-160), which is from "below average fringe" to the start of "good" - I guess you saying "he turns into a beast" is just more of your exaggeration?

And he could have been given a -14 (or -15) and had an even greater chance of falling (which is a researcher issue, and has nothing to do with the game)

Again, your posted falsehoods and ignorance of things is astounding

 

[The Feckless Puck]

I was actually quite happy with the idea that FHM was not from the OOTPD stable, as OOTP after 17 versions still has unfixed basic AI issues and nonworking features from past years and I was hopeful years ago that FHM wouldn't be like that

Say what you want about OOTP17's shortcomings, but it is a better and more immersive game by a country mile than either FHM or EHM, and the evolution of it in the past 10 years has been significant.

Now, I get that EHM suffered greatly when SI dropped development of it after EHM07 but from a gameplay perspective the current EHM is nearly identical to EHM07. This is likely the point where you'll tell me how different the game engines are, and I can appreciate that - I'm guessing that current EHM is a fork from the newest FM codebase or something like that, rather than a development of old code - but as someone who doesn't dig into the guts of the game as a hobby and simply plays for enjoyment, the current EHM is not far distanced from its 10-year-old ancestor (and, in a couple of functional and quality traits, actually a step back).

I'm not a fanboy of any platform - I'm a consumer that wants to enjoy himself and get full value for my money. FHM hasn't provided that yet. EHM does, but only so long as I get a fresh database every few months. OOTP provides the best bang for my buck, as it doesn't really matter if the starting DB is 100% accurate or not.

FHM is so far behind EHM it's barely more complete than the EHM freeware game, and if they're going to be like OOTP and never fix basic issues and always promote yearly features that likely won't actually work as intended for years if ever, I'll happily have nothing to do with FHM

I think we're already well aware of your lack of interest in FHM and its developers...

 

[Nino33]

Say what you want about OOTP17's shortcomings, but it is a better and more immersive game by a country mile than either FHM or EHM, and the evolution of it in the past 10 years has been significant.

I'm not saying anything, it's those that play/support OOTP as much as you that are saying it, as this thread shows http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boa...e-8-hotfix-version-17-10-67-available-12.html
And the thoughts/feelings expressed are not new, they're there every year...

This year they're actually getting discussed more than ever by OOTP vets, and their only expressed reasoning of why things that are broken year-after-year have to stay that way is fixing them might result in a potential lose of sales because there's nothing "new and shiny" to grab the attention of their fanbase - you won't see any of this PR/sales focus over gameplay on SI about EHM (or anywhere else), so in this far more important area (to me) EHM is many country miles ahead of OOTP

I'm guessing that current EHM is a fork from the newest FM codebase or something like that, rather than a development of old code

Actually it's not, as Riz never stopped working on EHM07 on his own time (it stuns me that you think a game as complicated as FM, with a staff of 100 and yearly development, can have any part just ported over)

Not sure why fans of OOTPD repeatedly think there's such experts on how game development occurs, and so willingly offer their view on how things work on other games & don't listen to their own developer (Sebastian) say it can't be done with OOTP/FHM

but as someone who doesn't dig into the guts of the game as a hobby and simply plays for enjoyment, the current EHM is not far distanced from its 10-year-old ancestor (and, in a couple of functional and quality traits, actually a step back).

And as someone who actually does the editing/testing, it's significantly different (especially the Player Role system/player development & the fact that more-and-more of what was once hardcoded isn't anymore will allow for the "full editing" that so many EHM fans wanted)

And personally I'm 110% OK with EHM looking mostly the same, and focusing on bug fixes/gameplay improvements and making everything editable over introducing "new features" - it's what I've been promoting as the best way ever since EHM:EA was released (the game was good enough already that a community kept it alive for almost a decade after it ceased official development, I think the PR approach and "new features" approach is the wrong way to go until everything that does exist works optimally...basically the opposite of the OOTPD approach)

OOTP provides the best bang for my buck, as it doesn't really matter if the starting DB is 100% accurate or not.

That's great for you, useless for those that have no interest in baseball like myself (and there's as many people or more complaining on the OOTP site about the ongoing OOTP issues as there are OOTP fanboys defending OOTP; I'm not expressing my opinion on OOTP, I'm expressing what actual fans/purchasers of the game are saying and have been saying every year for years about OOTP).

And if you do any online research on OOTP you'll see the complaints about fanboys and a sales/PR approach with yearly features that don't work and sometimes never do go back over a decade

The baseball board games I played as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s were statistically accurate, so most of what OOTP does is not "new" but rather putting into computer form what a board game and house rules/pen and paper could already do decades ago...so much of what impresses OOTP fans means nothing to me and is not "impressive" (baseball is by far the easiest sport to simulate! it's true now and it was true long before computers) - and given I lost all interest in baseball by the mid80s I simply have no connection to what you're saying about OOTP as I've absolutely no interest in baseball

I'm not a fanboy of any platform - I'm a consumer that wants to enjoy himself and get full value for my money.....I think we're already well aware of your lack of interest in FHM and its developers

My feelings are actually the same as yours, I too want to get full value for my money, and after close to $200 I've gotten no value (and am even told the financial support counts for nothing)

You think we're different on FHM, but by your own admission "I bought v1 and it was so terrible that I didn't even consider buying FHM2" so the only difference I see is I continued to support FHM development when you didn't (whatever you think about my feelings regarding FHM and the developers, I don't understand how you think your way was better)





I've sometimes been told I worry/stress about to much, I care to much about stuff I shouldn't and/or don't need to...and I openly admit this is something I'm still trying to get better at (and I need to from a health perspective)

To just "let things go" and "not care/respond" is a challenge for me, it's something I'm working on; I envy the ability of people like Manimal and CJ and Riz and their ability to do so & as well I've noticed Sebastian's improvement in doing so over the last couple years too - so I'm really gonna try (again) to just let this go and move on

 

[Natey]

The following link is good for about 24 hours and then I'll re-post if requested.
https://discord.gg/MCG9s

Server is up and running with a few different chat rooms to start, including hockey simulators.

 

[brentdog]

I'm done with you

Nino, you are one very angry man.

Nowhere have I said that FHM has the exact same progression model as OOTP. I simply said that they come from different game stables, with different thematic approaches - one more 'hard-coded' and the other more fluid.

I say again, once Potential Ability matches with Current Ability in SI games, player progression is nigh-on impossible. Once this ceiling is reached, if progression does occur in one attribute it is usually at the expense of another. So, for example, you can train a winger who has hit his potential ceiling in stickhandling and he might increase there, but it will be at the expense of, say, the checking attribute. Moreover, because stickhandling is more valuable to a winger, it will need a greater loss in checking, because ultimately his weight of attributes must add up to his 'current ability'.

It's a perfectly reasonable development model. Just different to FHM2. Not better or worse, but different. I happen to prefer the way FHM2 goes about things, which is my personal preference, which I opined to the poster a while back and has caused this volcanic reaction from you.

I thought it was a pretty harmless view to express - I can't really understand why this has riled you so much and caused you to keep blurting on about truth and justice like you're some human rights lawyer at the Hague or something.

And ignoring everything else, if I take your claims at gospel - which clearly I don't, but that's by the by - then what on earth it the point of potential and current ability in EHM? It opens up EHM to exactly the same things you try to level at FHM2 and it's development model - if it's flawed / unrealistic for players in FHM to out-develop themselves, why is this somehow a good thing for EHM?

I'm glad that you love EHM so much - I still occasionally play it myself, have a healthy respect for Riz in basically keeping the game alive on his own, and whilst I consider it flawed in many ways, would never denigrate it in the way you have FHM and OOTP - but this need to stomp on FHM2, OOTP and anyone who says anything remotely positive about FHM in comparison to EHM is frankly unbecoming.

 

[brentdog]

All 3 TBL databases last year had him as a -8 (130-160), which is from "below average fringe" to the start of "good" - I guess you saying "he turns into a beast" is just more of your exaggeration?

And he could have been given a -14 (or -15) and had an even greater chance of falling (which is a researcher issue, and has nothing to do with the game)

Again, your posted falsehoods and ignorance of things is astounding

You keep calling me a liar with no evidence whatsoever, yet you're the one accusing me of being rude and aggressive?

It is not ignorance. It is not falsehoods. It is what happened.

Yes, in every single game I played on EHM using that database - variously with the Sabres, Wild, Oilers and Bruins (this is back when I thought EHM was the shizzle, before all the problems with the game started to rear their head to me) - Sean Day turned into an absolute monster. Each time it was with differing deveopment models - with the Sabres I left him in the CHL, with the Wild he went into the AHL, the Oilers straight onto my third pairing. Bruins I forget but was probably a mix of all three.

Maybe I lucked out each time, but if enough randomisation had been built in, then across 4 saves you'd expect one of them to not turn in to an All-star defender.

 

[brentdog]

Actually I did, you just didn't look at it...I did check just now, and yes Attributes in EHM can still grow/decrease when CA/PA match (so not my opinion, fact); you have no idea what you're talking about regarding EHM development

*sigh* I do know what I'm talking about. I'd suggest you watch the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCdYVPFQJ6k

Notice the similarities with EHM by any chance?

http://footballmanager.wikia.com/wiki/Potential_Ability

Also, note the key phrase in this article: It dictates the maximum that a person's Current Ability attribute can ever rise to, and therefore how good they can possibly become.

This is the very definition of a players future level being 'hard coded' in.

Finally, this on how different attributes cost differing amounts of current ability points:

https://community.sigames.com/topic/308816-current-ability-cost-of-of-attributes-position-breakdown/

You're honestly telling me that none of the above applies to EHM?

 

[brentdog]

I have been heavily involved in EHM for 6 years, never heard of you; your "established wisdom" is actually complete ignorance

Well, I take my cue from your own ehmtheblueline wiki:

http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/wiki/index.php?title=Attributes:_Players#Current_and_Potential_Ability

I mean, it contains doozies like 'Potential Ability (PA) The highest ability a player can reach in his career.' This is the very definition of 'hard-coded' potential.

It then expands on this in the 'Calculation of Attributes', explaining how current ability is assigned across the defensive and offensive attributes, as well as the relative cost for each attribute.

Pretty much exactly the same as in Football Manager, which is what I've said all along...

But I guess this isn't the conventional wisdom, right? Or if it is, it's now been superseded by your 'testing'?

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Actually it's not, as Riz never stopped working on EHM07 on his own time (it stuns me that you think a game as complicated as FM, with a staff of 100 and yearly development, can have any part just ported over)

Not sure why fans of OOTPD repeatedly think there's such experts on how game development occurs, and so willingly offer their view on how things work on other games & don't listen to their own developer (Sebastian) say it can't be done with OOTP/FHM

Well, I don't know if you're referring to me with the second paragraph above, but I started my professional career out of college working for a PC game developer as a tester and (later) a designer, so I am actually quite familiar with game development, engineering, and so forth.

It's a common practice for development teams under the same roof to fork a new game over from an older codebase to save time and resources versus programming from scratch. FHM1 clearly was a fork off of an early version of OOTP; however, I wasn't sure if EHM1 was a fork off of FM's revised codebase from a period later than 2007. In a rather roundabout and somewhat insulting manner, you cleared that up for me. Thanks.

I have all the respect in the world for Riz for keeping EHM alive basically on his own. That said, the same issues I had with the EHM series back in 2007 seem to crop up with EHM1, and I don't think they'll change without some fundamental changes to how the game engine works with its associated data.

You think we're different on FHM, but by your own admission "I bought v1 and it was so terrible that I didn't even consider buying FHM2" so the only difference I see is I continued to support FHM development when you didn't (whatever you think about my feelings regarding FHM and the developers, I don't understand how you think your way was better)

The difference I see is that while you may have continued to support FHM past the point that I did, once you stopped you did a pretty significant about-face to the point where you are taking the nuclear option with anyone who is discussing the topic. I sympathize with your worry and stress issues - I deal with those myself - but I do take issue when people become confrontational with me unnecessarily. Not everyone is trying to troll or attack you, and I certainly am not.

Like I said, I've been on the other side of the equation in terms of developing PC games so I'm not an idiot when it comes to the truism that consumer support via actual purchases is what funds development. But I've also been a part of one or two premature rollouts, and the mistakes made (and learned from) have stuck with me over the years. FHM was rolled out in a state that I would categorize as "early alpha" rather than a release candidate. FHM2, from what I have read, is at best "early beta." My history as a game developer informs my status as a consumer, but it does not preclude me from making a judgment call when the price tag for a given product is worthy of a release candidate, but the product itself does not deliver on that investment. If the only way FHM can survive is by rushing out prerelease or beta versions of their software at a fifty-buck price point, then perhaps they deserve to go out of business. The market will have spoken.