Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

[Mutilated]

Hey!

I have simulated a couple of seasons with different teams just to check something out, and it was the same every year, with every team.

The points the players get each season are extremely low! Very unrealistic!

Latest simulation i did the only players that got more than a point per game were the Sedins. Crosby, Stamkos, Tavares, Toews, Kane, Thornton etc all got around 50-65 points in 82 games. Stamkos only had 20 goals.

And as you all know, when a player doesnt do well in the game, then his ratings drop (have no idea why EA made it this way. Also very unrealistic).
This means that even though players have amazing potential they dont get any better if the have a bad season. I have seen Seguin down as low as 82 because of this stupid thing.

Anyway to fix so the players get more points? Lower the ratings on every goalie to 65-70? I want to see 90-100 points for Stamkos/Crosby etc after a season, not 60.

[stevematic]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

I think it's just random. I've had top lines where each player is 88+ and the most points scored is <75. I've done everything with strategies from completely offensive to defensive and it doesn't seem to change a thing.

[Mutilated]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

I think it's just random. I've had top lines where each player is 88+ and the most points scored is <75. I've done everything with strategies from completely offensive to defensive and it doesn't seem to change a thing.

There's gotta be something i can do about it.

Simulated several years and no differance in points. Players just got worse and worse for each year. Players with 4 and ½ gold stars like Landeskog, Hall and Seguin dropped 1 rating each year because of the stats. Really frustrating.

[DaRK]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

What line are you playing them on? And who are the teammates?

[stevematic]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

There's gotta be something i can do about it.

Simulated several years and no differance in points. Players just got worse and worse for each year. Players with 4 and ½ gold stars like Landeskog, Hall and Seguin dropped 1 rating each year because of the stats. Really frustrating.

You'd be doing me a favour if you can figure it out because it's made me not want to play the game anymore. It makes no sense that I've got a an elite playmaker paired with an elite sniper and neither of them can averaged a point per game.

[Mutilated]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

DaRK: It's for every team. Not only the one i'm controlling. No player for any team get more than 65 points, except for the Sedins as i mentioned.

For instance:

Neal (87), Crosby (95), Iginla (87)
Ryan (87), Getzlaf (89), Perry (88)
Sharp (87), Toews (90), Kane (88)

You get the idea. In real life all those lines would be amazing, but in the game they suck. Average 50-65 points per season.

stevematic: Yeah i completely understand you man. It's not fun at all when it's this unrealistic.

[CaptainSuperman]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

I dunno what to tell ya. I'm halfway through my season and Backstrom is leading the league with around 60 points already, and D. Sedin just a few points behind

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

Hey!

I have simulated a couple of seasons with different teams just to check something out, and it was the same every year, with every team.

The points the players get each season are extremely low! Very unrealistic!

Latest simulation i did the only players that got more than a point per game were the Sedins. Crosby, Stamkos, Tavares, Toews, Kane, Thornton etc all got around 50-65 points in 82 games. Stamkos only had 20 goals.

And as you all know, when a player doesnt do well in the game, then his ratings drop (have no idea why EA made it this way. Also very unrealistic).
This means that even though players have amazing potential they dont get any better if the have a bad season. I have seen Seguin down as low as 82 because of this stupid thing.

Anyway to fix so the players get more points? Lower the ratings on every goalie to 65-70? I want to see 90-100 points for Stamkos/Crosby etc after a season, not 60.

I actually think this is very realistic. A player's ratings should drop if he is playing like crap. The ratings are supposed to tell you how good a player is. I'd much rather have this year's Ovechkin than the past few years' Ovechkin.

And potential is exactly that, potential. He could be good, or he could flop. Potential is just a guess. Just look at Daigle.

[Mutilated]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

I dunno what to tell ya. I'm halfway through my season and Backstrom is leading the league with around 60 points already, and D. Sedin just a few points behind

Really? Wow, thats strange.


Anyone know if sliders does anything to simulation? I mean, does it matter if slap shot accuracy is at 0 or 5? Will it do anything to the simulation?

[Cycloniac]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

Really? Wow, thats strange.


Anyone know if sliders does anything to simulation? I mean, does it matter if slap shot accuracy is at 0 or 5? Will it do anything to the simulation?

Sliders have absolutely no effect on simulation.

As for your problem, I've never had this problem with NHL 13. I've had an issue where my team went extremely cold and ended up last in goals per game, but that's about it.

What rosters are you using? Did you install the patch?

[Cossin75]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

Just a guess but maybe.. try one on "rookie" and one on "superstar" and i think you'll see a major difference in league leaders..

[clarkkent70]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

I agree with the OP and most that the simulation is very unrealistic and more so the development. If Crosby or Stamkos or whoever in real life had a bad season for scoring stats, would that mean that next season he would really not be able to pass the puck as well, or shoot as well, or skate as well? Remember in real life they are passing and shooting and skating all the time in games, and in practices. So perhaps they wouldn't improve as much, but they certainly wouldn't become someone lower. The way this game develops players is unrealistic. There's no way that Crosby would drop to the skill level of a third or fourth line player, just because he only managed 35 goals and 40 assists.

I can give numerous examples from my GM mode. Yakupov was on my second line in his first season on the Oilers. He went up from 78 to 87. Because I had more than 3 players in the high 80's I had to keep Yakupov on the second line. In his first season he got 37 goals and 80 points in 80 games, that made him climb up 9 points overall. In the second season he got 19 goals and 62 points in 71 games due to an injury. Guess what? He went down to 84. Next season because of his lower overall rating he only got 38 points, and went down to 81. This is unrealistic to me.

I have the Oilers who have Hall, Nuge, Eberle, Yak...all the highest potential prospects, and despite performance none are growing up past 88. I realize it's potential so it's possible to not go up, or maybe you could be the new star. But with four of them you'd think one would rise in the game to the same as Toews did or whoever else.

Nuge has 144 goals and 475 points in 478 career games
Toews has 229 goals 608 points in 685 games

So why is he 90, but Nuge actually went from 87 to 88, then down to 87 then up to 88 again. He made more points than D. Sedin in all of those same seasons. Why would Nuge go down but Sedin stays at 90?

In the season where Yakupov went from 87 down to 84 he played 71 games and got 62 points. That same season D. Sedin played 79 games and got 63 points. So why didn't Sedin go down as well? Why did Yak go down at all, when anyone who got 62 points in a shortened season he would be considered a star?

Yes there are things wrong with simulation and development. These few scenarios I referred to here are just examples. It's the same thing for every one on my team. I have four players who are 4 1/2 stars potential and NONE are reaching the same level as other players. Even H. Sedin has less potential and he reached the higher level of 89, again with less points (69, 68, 56 points in his last 3 seasons), and none of those seem to make him go down.

[Cycloniac]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

I agree with the OP and most that the simulation is very unrealistic and more so the development. If Crosby or Stamkos or whoever in real life had a bad season for scoring stats, would that mean that next season he would really not be able to pass the puck as well, or shoot as well, or skate as well? Remember in real life they are passing and shooting and skating all the time in games, and in practices. So perhaps they wouldn't improve as much, but they certainly wouldn't become someone lower. The way this game develops players is unrealistic. There's no way that Crosby would drop to the skill level of a third or fourth line player, just because he only managed 35 goals and 40 assists.

I can give numerous examples from my GM mode. Yakupov was on my second line in his first season on the Oilers. He went up from 78 to 87. Because I had more than 3 players in the high 80's I had to keep Yakupov on the second line. In his first season he got 37 goals and 80 points in 80 games, that made him climb up 9 points overall. In the second season he got 19 goals and 62 points in 71 games due to an injury. Guess what? He went down to 84. Next season because of his lower overall rating he only got 38 points, and went down to 81. This is unrealistic to me.

I have the Oilers who have Hall, Nuge, Eberle, Yak...all the highest potential prospects, and despite performance none are growing up past 88. I realize it's potential so it's possible to not go up, or maybe you could be the new star. But with four of them you'd think one would rise in the game to the same as Toews did or whoever else.

Nuge has 144 goals and 475 points in 478 career games
Toews has 229 goals 608 points in 685 games

So why is he 90, but Nuge actually went from 87 to 88, then down to 87 then up to 88 again. He made more points than D. Sedin in all of those same seasons. Why would Nuge go down but Sedin stays at 90?

In the season where Yakupov went from 87 down to 84 he played 71 games and got 62 points. That same season D. Sedin played 79 games and got 63 points. So why didn't Sedin go down as well? Why did Yak go down at all, when anyone who got 62 points in a shortened season he would be considered a star?

Yes there are things wrong with simulation and development. These few scenarios I referred to here are just examples. It's the same thing for every one on my team. I have four players who are 4 1/2 stars potential and NONE are reaching the same level as other players. Even H. Sedin has less potential and he reached the higher level of 89, again with less points (69, 68, 56 points in his last 3 seasons), and none of those seem to make him go down.

I'll respond to this with a real-life example: Alex Ovechkin.

Alex Ovechkin, for quite a few seasons was in the debate for being the best player in the league. He was a perenial 100 point scorer, missing the mark only once between 2006 and 2010. Now let's say he had an OVR of around the 94 range during this period.

However, as most hockey fans know, Ovie has underperformed in recent years, dropping from 109 points to 85 points in the 2011 season. He had the second-worst season of his NHL career, scoring just 65 points last season. It is only fair that his OVR should decrease from a 94 to a 90. If he continues with his bounce-back season, then his rating should increase to an 82.

The sole purpose of player ratings in sports games is to replicate the performance of those players in real-life. If a player gets hurt in real-life, sometimes it is harder for him to recover. Just look at Maxim Afinogenov. If his career hadn't been affected by injury plagued seasons, maybe he could have had more seasons like he did in 2006, scoring 73 points in 77 games.

While I understand your situation with the ratings dropping for Yakupov, I don't think that the potential system is as horrible as your making it out to be. There's an element to appreciate about it nonetheless.

For me, Yakupov is around a 90, Huberdeau's close, Etem's in the mid 80s, after 3 seasons. In fact, Huberdeau's probably the best young player in my BAGM now. Progression does happen as it should in many cases. If it's such an issue for you then edit the potential ratings.

[DaRK]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

Huberdeau is so good in BAGM. He leads my team in assists whenever I have him.

EA is trying to make you only have three first liners, which is justified in a way. Also, the lower line you are, the less time you're getting on the ice, which means the less time the player has to produce. Not to mention that a player is going to perform better when paired with players at his skill level.

[mcavner]

Re: Why can't they score? (Be a GM sim)

If game designers would just unlock everything and let people change what wasn't working right based on whatever reality the customer was living in then everyone could be happy.

Seriously. One simple move solves 50% of the issues customers have with programming. Just unlock it. Everyone has different expectations and no one should be able to decide how another person enjoys their game.

Think the progression is messed up? Well if it's unlocked - boom! You fixed it.
This guy is a RWer and not a C? Well if it's unlocked - boom! You fixed it.
The salary is wrong? Well if it's unlocked - boom! You fixed it.
Three of your draft picks have the same generic head? Well if it's unlocked - boom! You fixed it.
Goalie was traded to another team two years ago and is still wearing the wrong colour pads? Well if it's unlocked - boom! You fixed it.
Half the teams in the league have goofy lines because the computer can't manage the roster properly? Well if it's unlocked - boom! You fixed it.
Bunch of all-stars in the minors because AI can't manage the cap properly? Well if it's unlocked boom! You fixed it.

And in the process you have a better game, happier customers, internet isn't abuzz with constant complaints, and maybe, just maybe, EA doesn't get a hat trick re: worst company.

Offline everything should be editable and available. Everything. Don't tell people how to enjoy their game. Best way to please them is to give them control of their experience. You put the salt on the table, not in their food.