OOTP goes HOCKEY!!!!

[fatum91]

Really looking forward to the development of this game!

[Michael Farkas]

Just want to share my excitement for the project and look forward to being a part of its advancement!

[thehab31]

Originally Posted by RchW

I completely agree. Most Canadians don't appreciate the significance of hockey in those countries.

while i agree to an extent, i think the real hockey fans know that you guys love your hockey just as much as we do.if changing the languages helps sales,then i think its a must......we cant have this game fail,too many broken hearts

[Alessandro]

Originally Posted by Javs

Is there a plan...

- To add Midget/Bantam AAA,AA feeder leagues to the WHL, OHL, QMJHL, USHL, NAHL... ect?

- To add the Canadian Jr.A circuit? (BCHL, AJHL, SJHL, ect...) If there is a plan to add this, I would like to propose the ability to add not only the country the league plays in, but also the province. This will allow to the ability to include the "foreigner" limit for these leagues. (limit players from outside the leagues province).

I am willing to assist in researching and I do have experience researching with EHM.

Look who's back

[Javs]

Originally Posted by Alessandro

Look who's back

I never go too far

[joefromchicago]

What about different all-star game formats? The NHL has tried just about every different format imaginable. The previous year's Stanley Cup champs vs. stars from the other teams; division vs. division; Americans vs. Canadians; North Americans vs. the rest of the world; conference vs. conference. One format it never tried, though, was league vs. league. Will there be options to adopt various formats for the all-star game?

[Hoiles]

As hockey isn't stat-based like baseball, I suggest the scouting reports be very in-depth, and descriptive in words, and also include a quick description of the player's role on the team. For example, "playmaking-centre", "two-way forward", "grinding forward", "stay at home defenceman", "PP defenceman" and you could search for players based on role. It would be a lot more convenient (and realistic IMO) than filtering based on 5 ratings like in EHM.

[speels]

I hope that the trading engine is a little more realistic than EHM's. I mean, let's say a team is super high on a player and sees him as the future of the team. I want to be actually able to trade for that player if what I offer is fair or will help the team get to where they want.

As an example, Brayden Schenn was LA's future and they were not entertaining any offers for him, that is until Mike Richards became available as he helps them now, when they are getting closer to being a championship team. In EHM this would never happen.

Sorry, just thorwing out ideas.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

Originally Posted by speels

As an example, Brayden Schenn was LA's future and they were not entertaining any offers for him, that is until Mike Richards became available as he helps them now, when they are getting closer to being a championship team. In EHM this would never happen.

You are right, this would go to the mindset of the Kings at the time. They were building for the future when they held onto Schenn, but they are in Win Now mode so Richards is more valuable to them this season. I have not played much OOTP lately but I certainly remember the teams having different mentalities in how they went about their trading, so I can see this happening in WTHM also

Although Win This Week Mode would probably be a good plan for the Kings right now

[Malte Schwarz]

Originally Posted by Muppetus Galacticus

You are right, this would go to the mindset of the Kings at the time. They were building for the future when they held onto Schenn, but they are in Win Now mode so Richards is more valuable to them this season. I have not played much OOTP lately but I certainly remember the teams having different mentalities in how they went about their trading, so I can see this happening in WTHM also

Although Win This Week Mode would probably be a good plan for the Kings right now

The AI is a very complex issue and it will need a lot of testing and adapting. At the moment i can say that the AI will act differently wheter or not the team is in contention (or rebuilding).

[Malte Schwarz]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

What about different all-star game formats? The NHL has tried just about every different format imaginable. The previous year's Stanley Cup champs vs. stars from the other teams; division vs. division; Americans vs. Canadians; North Americans vs. the rest of the world; conference vs. conference. One format it never tried, though, was league vs. league. Will there be options to adopt various formats for the all-star game?

Yes, it will be possible to change the allstar game format. We will define the format in the league rules and all rules are editable.

[GlennN]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

As hockey isn't stat-based like baseball, I suggest the scouting reports be very in-depth, and descriptive in words, and also include a quick description of the player's role on the team. For example, "playmaking-centre", "two-way forward", "grinding forward", "stay at home defenceman", "PP defenceman" and you could search for players based on role. It would be a lot more convenient (and realistic IMO) than filtering based on 5 ratings like in EHM.

Actually, I kind of feel opposite. While I agree hockey is not stat-based, it is skills-based. I want to know the skills my player brings to the table. From looking at those skills (offensive and defensive awareness, puck control, strength/balance, checking, speed, passing, shooting, etc) I'll decide his role. I don't need the game to tell me that. Since players rarely fit into a neat compartment, giving them a label can just confuse things.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

As hockey isn't stat-based like baseball, I suggest the scouting reports be very in-depth, and descriptive in words, and also include a quick description of the player's role on the team. For example, "playmaking-centre", "two-way forward", "grinding forward", "stay at home defenceman", "PP defenceman" and you could search for players based on role. It would be a lot more convenient (and realistic IMO) than filtering based on 5 ratings like in EHM.

A players role on a team isn't and shouldn't be defined in that way. It is very easy to use stats to see what roles a player would be suited to. Hockey stats have come a long way in recent years.

[erikthered]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A players role on a team isn't and shouldn't be defined in that way. It is very easy to use stats to see what roles a player would be suited to. Hockey stats have come a long way in recent years.

Originally Posted by GlennN

Actually, I kind of feel opposite. While I agree hockey is not stat-based, it is skills-based. I want to know the skills my player brings to the table. From looking at those skills (offensive and defensive awareness, puck control, strength/balance, checking, speed, passing, shooting, etc) I'll decide his role. I don't need the game to tell me that. Since players rarely fit into a neat compartment, giving them a label can just confuse things.

The way I see it, if I was watching a practice, I'd be able to judge for myself what a player's individual skills are relative to the league. I'd be able to tell if he is fast, and might even give him a numerical or letter grade for each skill. Based on his skill set, I would then pick a positional role. (In real life, we often see coaches try to shoehorn players into a role that doesn't fit their skills and strengths, and it often doesn't work.) Unfortunately, we can't watch players in practice in a game (unless that is being added...), so I think it's important to have some kind of relative grading (1-20, 1-99, A-F, etc.) for each skill area.

[dsvitak]

The skill system doesn't have to be that extreme.

In baseball, if an outfielder has a good arm, it is a "+" arm. A player with a Carl Furillo type arm would be a "++" arm.

Mookie Wilson would have a "-" arm.

There are only four grades. Minus, no grade, plus, and plus plus.

All are in relation to the other players, and are just that, an evaluation.

But, they tell you a lot about the player.

A baseball player with plus plus speed, batting eye, plus power, average hitting, and average fielding? Rickey Henderson.

A player with plus plus in every category? Willie Mays.

This hockey game can be like this as well. Who really knows if a skater is 72 or a 74? Are these numbers even meaningful?

[erikthered]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

The skill system doesn't have to be that extreme.

In baseball, if an outfielder has a good arm, it is a "+" arm. A player with a Carl Furillo type arm would be a "++" arm.

Mookie Wilson would have a "-" arm.

There are only four grades. Minus, no grade, plus, and plus plus.

All are in relation to the other players, and are just that, an evaluation.

But, they tell you a lot about the player.

A baseball player with plus plus speed, batting eye, plus power, average hitting, and average fielding? Rickey Henderson.

A player with plus plus in every category? Willie Mays.

This hockey game can be like this as well. Who really knows if a skater is 72 or a 74? Are these numbers even meaningful?

Right, but I imagine that this engine will need to involve a numerical value to identify his maximum abilities. The in-game display doesn't necessarily have to show exactly what number he is. For instance, if the engine uses a 1-99 system, 1-20 could be displayed as F, 21-40 could be D, etc. To me, a 72 vs. a 74 is completely negligible, but I would think that somehow the engine is going to use a numerical value for their abilities. It can either be shown in game true to number or as a grade--perhaps even as an option in the preferences (not entirely dissimilar to the 'fog of war' setting in the SI games that can be turned on or off to hide attributes of unscouted players). Showing only the vague grade (a 45 and a 58 would both be Cs for instance) would be a more difficult setting, while the numerical display would be easier to compare.

[Abyss]

I love my OOTP 12 but I still play EHM 2007....

I'm really excited about this project!!!

[wildfire]

You last visited: 06-06-2007 at 07:26 AM

that's how excited I am about this, I actually logged in!

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by GlennN

Actually, I kind of feel opposite. While I agree hockey is not stat-based, it is skills-based. I want to know the skills my player brings to the table. From looking at those skills (offensive and defensive awareness, puck control, strength/balance, checking, speed, passing, shooting, etc) I'll decide his role. I don't need the game to tell me that. Since players rarely fit into a neat compartment, giving them a label can just confuse things.

If you'd like to sort by multiple skills then obviously the game should do that and will, I was suggesting to add another category for a streamlined search. Just from my experience with EHM, there were tons of skill categories and at times I thought it was unclear what to look for.

For example, if you needed a penalty killer you might look for someone with high positioning and/or checking (and another category too), but it would be unclear if you'd want someone who's slightly above average in both skills, or very high in just one. In the end you might have this huge list that's not very pleasant to sort through.

Just as a comparison, OOTP allows you to search for either "starting pitchers", "middle relievers" or "closers" which is convenient, although you're obviously not obligated to put them in those roles.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A players role on a team isn't and shouldn't be defined in that way. It is very easy to use stats to see what roles a player would be suited to. Hockey stats have come a long way in recent years.

Hockey stats have come along way, but still are overly dependent on team factors, like ice-time, linemates or coaches' playing style. Also what happens if you're using a historical database with limited stats, or are starting a new fictional league with no stats? Again, if you want to use stats I assume you'll be able to, but don't see anything wrong with having another option.