Change in potential

[Rumplebeanskin]

Simmed a season of GM last night as the Canes. Didn't alter anything, just simmed through without any line adjustments, no player movement or anything like that. Not sure what the stats or ice time were for my prospects, but the following screen shot is from the start of the season.



4 yellow stars for Rask, Murphy and Lindholm. Yellow stars across the board really.

By seasons end, with no attention paid to them:



Only Boychuk retained his yellow potential, everyone else regressed to red. Interesting to see. Didn't poke around long enough to try and guess a reason for it, but just thought it was good to see that potential does alter and a prospect isn't just nailed on to succeed.

[VR46]

Re: Change in potential

I saw the same thing in a simmed test franchise.. nearly every top prospect ended up with red potential, and their trade value dropped to nearly zero.

It seems to be a bug.. I don't see a way to prevent it when they're spending a development year in the CHL, unless the game thinks we should keep 60 rated players on the pro roster..

The other odd thing is that when they're displayed in a list mixed with over 26 grey potential players, it will show the older guys as yellow medium potential and then most the young prospects as red..

The good news is that progression isn't ridiculously broken this year... it's far from good, but it doesn't ruin the mode as far as I've seen.

[Rumplebeanskin]

Re: Change in potential

The more I think about it, the more I don't mind this. The players who are most likely to fluctuate in their potential are 18/19 year olds I would think, who are more likely to be variable in where they end up in terms of ability.

The only person in my screenshots that didn't become red was Boychuck at 23/24. I don't have a picture for Bowman who was 24/25 to see if he changed or not. The rest of the players are 22 or under, Zach Dalpe may just be an outlier, or just had a bad season.

I don't think this should happen to all players, not by any means, just that I see this as a believable explanation. Doesn't make too much sense why they would start off as yellow though, just start them as red?

[TommyWizard]

Re: Change in potential

Happening to all my players now, even created a goalie to test it, 4 and a half green and even after a good season was red. Few seasons later and he's sat at 82 because of it.

Its kind of frustrating, trying to shut up the blooming scout and then drafting someone good only for them to be a dud after a year even if they lead the AHL in scoring.

Maybe I just suck or its a bug, I mean for only one player to keep his yellow star status (which was green) and the rest to turn red even after winning the stanley cup is a bit odd in my eyes.

[Rumplebeanskin]

Re: Change in potential

You're right, that is pretty bizarre, and not cool. It certainly doesn't fit with my speculation about why they turn to red.

I do like that potential can change, but not if its always random, and always a decrease

[GlennN]

Re: Change in potential

This is a huge concern to me. I'm about to start a BeAGM and I love to build up a team over years, get kids in the draft and by trade and watch them develop. If progression doesn't work, that's a deal breaker for me. Has anyone simmed years into the future to see if the change in the potential actually means there is stunted development? I want a random element, and I love the idea of having busts that never develop, but many players do have to get way better with experience.

[Rumplebeanskin]

Re: Change in potential

I wouldn't become too alarmed just yet. This was just after 1 season where I played no games and no attention to anything on my team. It may have corrected in year 2 or 3, and those players just had a rough season. I know others have reported the drop to red stars, but again, this doesn't mean all players are busts, they can still develop to be superstars, they are just less likely to do so I suppose.

I'd be interested to see this over 3/4/5 years, with drafted players not out of the box players, and maybe a few different teams.

[VR46]

Re: Change in potential

My test beagm is into the 3rd year and there's a troubling number of top prospects who have busted.. Morgan Rielly has 5.5 red stars and is stuck at 77ovr, his trade value is a sliver. Sean Monahan is much worse, 5.5 red stars and 60 ovr. I also drafted Roland Mckeown and he went to red right away and has been stuck at 55 for 2 seasons.

On the flip side, Aaron Ekblad jumped from 58 to 76 in one season.. but now his development is red too.. So we'll see what happens from here.

Looking through the league, about 80% of prospects are red, and I don't see any pattern with the players who have kept yellow stars.

[Moose24x]

Re: Change in potential

My test beagm is into the 3rd year and there's a troubling number of top prospects who have busted.. Morgan Rielly has 5.5 red stars and is stuck at 77ovr, his trade value is a sliver. Sean Monahan is much worse, 5.5 red stars and 60 ovr. I also drafted Roland Mckeown and he went to red right away and has been stuck at 55 for 2 seasons.

On the flip side, Aaron Ekblad jumped from 58 to 76 in one season.. but now his development is red too.. So we'll see what happens from here.

Looking through the league, about 80% of prospects are red, and I don't see any pattern with the players who have kept yellow stars.

This is a massive goddam problem. How could EA mess this up so badly. Sean Monahan, first of all, isn't even a 60 today, if we were going to rate players in real life. The fact that he has red potential and hasn't improved in year 3 of your GM is extremely upsetting. Honestly, the rosters for this game are such a GIGANTIC mess that I haven't even come close to starting a GM yet. I'm still 2/3 of the way through editing the league, and I've decided that I want to go back to the beginning and tone down everyone's checking power while turning up the average aggressiveness to create better results so I'm still probably 5 days from actually playing more than the odd "play now" to keep myself sane. The actual game plays really nicely this year, and just needs a lot of tweaking to attributes and sliders to get there. The ROSTERS though, are in such a horrendous state that I haven't done much of anything but edit and create since getting the game.

[TommyWizard]

Re: Change in potential

The other worrying thing further to my post, that same season we won the cup, I kept an eye on player progression and I noted that (Played as Minnesota)

Parise dropped 1 rating level - No biggie
Nathan Gerbe (77 in FA) - dropped 3 at the age of 27... Third line minutes. How?
Spurgeon turned red and halted at 79. Rating dropped 2 from previous year.

Its frustrating, and it makes trades non existant for me. Why should I risk someone who has 4 green stars for them to play 5 games and turn red?
If it's not broken and someone has the answer I would love to hear it because right now the biggest drawing factor to the franchise games is gone for me...

[D-MAC©®]

Re: Change in potential

I'm wondering if we're putting too much into overalls like we do with all EA games.
When you play those players do you feeling the change?
Do individual rating decrease enough to really notice?
What ratings dropped?
-Skills, shooting, skating,physical, intangibles,or senses

This is just one of those things we asked for(too much progression), but aren't happy with the outcome.
Why are we so surprised?

I'm subscribed to see how this pans out.

[VR46]

Re: Change in potential

I'm wondering if we're putting too much into overalls like we do with all EA games.
When you play those players do you feeling the change?
Do individual rating decrease enough to really notice?
What ratings dropped?
-Skills, shooting, skating,physical, intangibles,or senses

This is just one of those things we asked for(too much progression), but aren't happy with the outcome.
Why are we so surprised?

I'm subscribed to see how this pans out.

There's no mystery to the overall rating.. if it's 60, he's bad..

If a top prospect tops out at 78, he's a serviceable low line NHL player... If 90% of top prospects top out at 78, then we need to redefine the term top prospect.

There is a problem here.

[KomicJ]

Re: Change in potential

I'm wondering if we're putting too much into overalls like we do with all EA games.
When you play those players do you feeling the change?
Do individual rating decrease enough to really notice?
What ratings dropped?
-Skills, shooting, skating,physical, intangibles,or senses

This is just one of those things we asked for(too much progression), but aren't happy with the outcome.
Why are we so surprised?

I'm subscribed to see how this pans out.

Even if I agree with the premise that overall don't always reflect the true talent of a player, it does lead to many important problems in my opinion, main ones being trade value and market value...especially with teams under CPU control. Low overalls means tons of players won't be renewed, or never given a chance to play in the NHL.

I'm not far enough in my BAGM franchise, but this would be a deal breaker for me (that and the starter/backup problem for goaltenders). If these happen to be commun, and don't get fixed with a patch in the upcoming weeks, this game is going right back to the retailer, and just like Madden, will be on my blacklist for years to come...

[Moose24x]

Re: Change in potential

Even if I agree with the premise that overall don't always reflect the true talent of a player, it does lead to many important problems in my opinion, main ones being trade value and market value...especially with teams under CPU control. Low overalls means tons of players won't be renewed, or never given a chance to play in the NHL.

I'm not far enough in my BAGM franchise, but this would be a deal breaker for me (that and the starter/backup problem for goaltenders). If these happen to be commun, and don't get fixed with a patch in the upcoming weeks, this game is going right back to the retailer, and just like Madden, will be on my blacklist for years to come...

Not only does it destroy trade value, but if a guy like Barkov is still a 73, 3 years into a BaGM, he'll be playing on the fourth line, if he's dressing in the NHL at all. It makes no sense for Barkov to be on the fourth line; he'll have better attributes in "skill" areas and a low overall rating, due to lack of potential progress. Playing on the fourth line, with other low overall players that have grinder attributes, he'll never produce like he should. Now, if the game could recognize that even though player A is rated 76 overall, he has a grinder/checker skill set and keep him on the fourth line, while acknowledging that player B, who is rated 73, has a top-six/skilled players skill set and dress that player in the top six where they can utilize their passing, speed, etc. despite having an overall rating that's dragged down by other attribute areas like strength, checking, defense, etc. then it wouldn't be as big of an issue. But since the game pretty much generates the lines for the 29 non-user controlled teams in a GM by simply going in order of the overall ratings, it's a problem.

[D-MAC©®]

Re: Change in potential

There's no mystery to the overall rating.. if it's 60, he's bad..

If a top prospect tops out at 78, he's a serviceable low line NHL player... If 90% of top prospects top out at 78, then we need to redefine the term top prospect.

There is a problem here.

But not every prospect is a Crosby, or Stamkos.
Until they play a season(or a few) no one will know how these rookies careers will pan out.

Even if I agree with the premise that overall don't always reflect the true talent of a player, it does lead to many important problems in my opinion, main ones being trade value and market value...especially with teams under CPU control. Low overalls means tons of players won't be renewed, or never given a chance to play in the NHL.

I'm not far enough in my BAGM franchise, but this would be a deal breaker for me (that and the starter/backup problem for goaltenders). If these happen to be commun, and don't get fixed with a patch in the upcoming weeks, this game is going right back to the retailer, and just like Madden, will be on my blacklist for years to come...

But a bunch of high overall player will also flood the free agent market since no team can afford to keep a bunch of stars on their team.

Not only does it destroy trade value, but if a guy like Barkov is still a 73, 3 years into a BaGM, he'll be playing on the fourth line, if he's dressing in the NHL at all. It makes no sense for Barkov to be on the fourth line; he'll have better attributes in "skill" areas and a low overall rating, due to lack of potential progress. Playing on the fourth line, with other low overall players that have grinder attributes, he'll never produce like he should. Now, if the game could recognize that even though player A is rated 76 overall, he has a grinder/checker skill set and keep him on the fourth line, while acknowledging that player B, who is rated 73, has a top-six/skilled players skill set and dress that player in the top six where they can utilize their passing, speed, etc. despite having an overall rating that's dragged down by other attribute areas like strength, checking, defense, etc. then it wouldn't be as big of an issue. But since the game pretty much generates the lines for the 29 non-user controlled teams in a GM by simply going in order of the overall ratings, it's a problem.

Barkov hasn't even proved himself in the pros yet, give him time before you start calling him the next Ovechkin.