Quote:
Originally Posted by duari91
I am going to have to disagree on this one.
The player rating system in EHM was a huge set back IMO. It destroyed the simulation aspect/attributes of the players, and turned it into a rating farm. No longer did people pay attention to the attributes/stats of the players, but the ratings they received in their respective league.
|
Yeah this was a major difficulty with EHM. It was all too easy to sign players with an average rating of 7.00+ from a league of a similar quality as yours and know they'll play okay. Another criticism is that the ratings seemed skewed in favour of offensive performance (but then the game was somewhat skewed in this way in general, IMO).
I think a rating system would be useful in FHM. It's difficult to evaluate the performance of your players without going through the text commentary and stats for every single game with a tooth comb trying to figure out which players did well and badly. This would suck the fun out for me.
This has been discussed previously by others in previous threads, but I'm the fan of the idea of there being a rough rating for players. Perhaps your head coach / assistant coach could rate the players' performances each game. The accuracy of the rating would depend on the coach's relevant attributes - and even the very best coaches should be susceptible to being inaccurate. So the rating would become a very rough rating to get an idea of how a player performed relative to the other players in that particular game rather than it being an accurate benchmark by which to grade every other player in the league, let alone in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duari91
Coaches and GM's do NOT have a "rating system" to go off of in real life. If someone says they do, they are liars.
|
As mentioned by Skadhauge, the Pens can be seen using a simple rating system in the HBO 24/7 fly-on-the-wall documentary. It didn't appear to be anything scientific; it seemed it was more a way of roughly evaluating how well a player performed each game. My guess is that if a player was getting a lot of low ratings, they'd consider moving them to their farm team / switching lines, etc. I'm sure it wasn't a decisive rating, just more of a tool to help evaluate players' performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duari91
If you wan't an enforcer, find a guy with a generous hit count. If you wan't a goal scorer, find a guy who...scores goals. It's actually really that simple. As for the concern of player "luck", there is an easy way to determine this. Give the player a 10-15 game tryout on your roster. 1 or 2 games is two small of a sample size to determine if the player is at his proper form.
Read stats and attributes, don't be lazy. It is a simulator after all.
|
I don't think you can necessarily rely on stats like that to determine how good a player is. Hockey isn't like baseball where stats are highly indicative of a player's ability. If it were that easy, we could input all of the NHL player stats and generate appropriate in game ratings for them. But we can't and hence we need researchers to manually rate players' abilities.
I do agree that stats can help, but I don't think they paint anywhere near a full or accurate picture.