NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

[Simple Mathematics]

Hey everyone. I have been busy over the past half year keeping a spreadsheet of my Revamped Rosters ratings for NHL 17. Since there is no roster sharing this year, I thought the best option would be to start with a Revamped Rosters LITE option, which would be accurate ratings within EA's ratings scale (basically 78+ overalls for NHL players). Since everyone would have to input the ratings themselves, I figured this would be much quicker for everyone so they can get to playing the game sooner rather than later.

So I am conducting a poll here to gauge the interest level of everyone to see if you guys would like me to put my Revamped LITE ratings on a Google Sheet so you can update your own rosters this year based off of my ratings. Options are described in detail below:

Yes - bring on Revamped Rosters LITE: answer this option if you would be interested in inputting your own rosters based off of EA's ratings scale (basically 78+ overall for an NHL player). This option would be quicker for you as it would be much less editing on your part. You could sort of pick how in-depth you want to go.

No - give me Revamped Rosters FULL instead: answer this option if you would be interested in inputting your own rosters based off of the traditional Revamped Rosters with ratings more spread out to better separate the superstars from the scrubs (basically 64+ overall for NHL players). This option would take much longer as you would have to do extensive editing across the board. Also, remember that you would have to edit the entire CHL, free agents, etc. in addition to just the NHL.

No - I do NOT want to do the rosters myself: answer this option if you do not want to take the time out of your day to input ratings yourself.

[Brogias]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I say post both

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I say post both

I would, but I do like having somewhat of a life. Doing one set of accurate rosters takes forever, doing 2 of them might cause insanity.

[Hurst31]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I'd rather have the separation to be honest. I know it is and would be very time consuming to input everything, but the game just always seem to play a whole lot better when there isn't a ton of players in the low to mid 80's range and yet the best players are only mid to high 90's

[ChubbyD]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I am not a GM player, only play now to have some fun and get sliders where I think they're good, and then play a full playoff with updated playoff rosters. So I would choose a mid-range option - I want the separation of a the FULL version, but I don't need the depth of the AHL/CHL/etc., only the NHL playoff rosters.

I hope that made some sense...

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

If you guys really want the full revamped rosters, I have to stress the amount of time it will take. Especially if you have a job. It will take months, maybe even a half a year or more to complete these. Trust me.

[Brogias]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I'd be satisfied with just NHL and AHL revamped for play now, season, playoff mode. Not doing CHL would save everyone time it just wouldn't work in BeAGM mode

[BearishRiggs]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I'd be interested in the full revamp for just NHL/AHL. In my experience I really only managed to get a couple of years max out of the rosters in GM Mode before player progression started messing with things. So having that much greater player separation for the purposes of play now, season mode, without having to worry about the other leagues is ideal for me.

I did a LOT of editing myself this year, trying to create separation, but I didn't do extensive enough research (mostly relied on point totals, iffy with things like skating/defensive ability) to be as accurate or in-depth as the Revamped rosters were in the past. Having a spreadsheet to reference would be fantastic.

[bruins2012]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I'm down. Created an account just to get these rosters. EA's are poop.

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I would like to get more votes in here. Help spread the word guys. I don't think a lot of people are looking in the rosters section these days since roster sharing is no longer allowed.

[bruins2012]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I would like to get more votes in here. Help spread the word guys. I don't think a lot of people are looking in the rosters section these days since roster sharing is no longer allowed.

"Build it and they will come."

[bruins2012]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

2 questions; what is a rough timeline when the rosters may be ready. And if the rosters don't get made, any chance you could post the formula or ratings and range for each tier of players?

[oosterbe]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

I personally like to have rosters which make more sense than the logic "Crosby's skating needs to be 91 instead of 93." It just doesn't make any sense, because there is no difference at all. What I suggest is to make only 5 different skill levels on each skill. Those levels needs to big enough so one could see on his bare eyes instead of numeral differences, differences needs to be tested with special slider set which is made to match with rosters. This special slider set + used with special rosters = Balances and makes more variety to the gameplay

For example


1. Weak 36 (all players with weak ability in certain skill have this number)
2. Basic 52 (all players with basic ability in certain skill have this number)
3. Good 68 (all players with good ability in certain skill have this number)
4. Star 84 (all players with star ability in certain skill have this number)
5. Super Star.99 (all players with super star ability in certain skill have this number)

I am not saying in every skill the scale starts from 36 and ends to 99- if there is problem in some area in the gameplay which need to be balanced via roster editing, it's possible that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER have 99 in certain skill.

For example (this is not tested thing yet) if you will like to have only some players who are BIG HITTERS and most of the players just push the opponent out of the puck you could make it by maxing the hitting power and assistance sliders from the game but making the scale of hitting like this:

1. Weak 36 (all players with weak ability in certain skill have this number)
2. Basic 46 (all players with basic ability in certain skill have this number)
3. Good 56 (all players with good ability in certain skill have this number)
4. Star 66 (all players with star ability in certain skill have this number)
5. Super Star 99 (all players with super star ability in certain skill have this)

So the scale of the abilities needs to be very different in different areas instead of being always the same. Making only five skill levels makes it easier and faster to do and understand. So if a player is a superstar in certain skill, so he is, he is not a "93 level superstar" or "95 level superstar" anymore. He is a superstar in certain skill because he immediately bumps out of the rest when you take a control on him in the game.

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

^^I cannot lump so many players into the same rating. That goes against what the revamped rosters are. These are supposed to reflect the real-life abilities of all players. For example, I would consider both Patrick Kane and Jamie Benn superstar level at passing. However, I think Kane deserves a bit of a higher score than Benn.

If you look at or past projects, you will know that we have done a ton of testing with this. This is not my first rodeo.

Also, I cannot make guys 36 overall. I would love to, but I can't because of the CPU generated rookies in Franchise Mode. These rosters are going to be able to be used in Franchise Mode, so I can't ignore that.

When you actually play a franchise/BaGM mode for multiple years, you will notice that the talent level decreases a bit overall. Many CPU generated rookies reach a peak overall in the 70's. So yes, you will see an increase in player overalls over a bit of time, it is not as drastic as you may think. But if I made 4th line players 36 overall, they would all be replaced with the rookies from the first draft after 1 year.

[bruins2012]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters LITE - Is There Interest?

^^I cannot lump so many players into the same rating. That goes against what the revamped rosters are. These are supposed to reflect the real-life abilities of all players. For example, I would consider both Patrick Kane and Jamie Benn superstar level at passing. However, I think Kane deserves a bit of a higher score than Benn.

If you look at or past projects, you will know that we have done a ton of testing with this. This is not my first rodeo.

Also, I cannot make guys 36 overall. I would love to, but I can't because of the CPU generated rookies in Franchise Mode. These rosters are going to be able to be used in Franchise Mode, so I can't ignore that.

When you actually play a franchise/BaGM mode for multiple years, you will notice that the talent level decreases a bit overall. Many CPU generated rookies reach a peak overall in the 70's. So yes, you will see an increase in player overalls over a bit of time, it is not as drastic as you may think. But if I made 4th line players 36 overall, they would all be replaced with the rookies from the first draft after 1 year.

Have to agree. I live in Asia and went home last week to Maine and picked up nhl 16 and all the players are basically the same....even bums on the 4th lines have ratings in the 80's. Makes no sense.

For example why would Stoner and someone like Fowler be so similar Ina Lloyd their rating??