The Official TBL Practice Thread

[Unknown User]

So, every other attribute aside... What is the best skating coach? Technical, general, or conditioning?

[KevT90]

conditioning

[radiskull]

Ok, guys, I was trying to understand the player development system in this game and was running a few tests.
To start this post — I came from this background:
1. I'm a former game-designer and I love to research game mechanics
2. I'm an old fan of Football Manager series
3. I'm from russian FM fans community where we used to research game mechanics to clear a huge amounts of superstitions and myths among the players.
So, I'm interested in game factors which actually affect player development in EHM also.
I would note right away: if you don't want to know how this game really works on the inside then skip this post.

So, here is the test setup:
1. Modified database. I've picked Flyers team and modified 5 young players (Akeson, Alderson, Cousins, Manning, Mathers) to be exactly the same. Current ability = 140, Potential ability = 200, age = 20. Date of birth, attributes, hidden attributes, personalities, reputation — all the same. Injury proneness = 1, tendency to pass = 10. 3 of them are forwards (positions are the same for them, 19-19-20 for LW-C-RW), 2 of them are defenders (positions are the same for them, 19-20 for LD-RD). They are our test dummies.
2. Personnel. Head coach and all assistants also were made equal in every area. Attributes, personality, rep, so on. First their attributes were set to 13 across the board. CA=140, PA=140.
3. After initial setup for a test the game runs on vacation with full sim from 7 September 2014 to 28 June 2015. Head coach uses default tactic and roster+lines that I've set up for current test run. When it finishes I assess the results. One test run takes a little more than an hour.
I'm using EHM Assistant to monitor CA and PA during the test run.

I won't bother you with the details on each run. I've made 6 test runs so far and had somewhat disappointing results. I'll tell you about my findings.

1. Practice schedules interact really strange with player condition.
Players on schedules with (2 intensive, 4 medium, 1 none), (3 intensive, 3 medium, 1 none), (3 intensive, 2 medium, 1 light, 1 none), (4 intensive, 2 medium, 1 none) and similar have their condition plummeted down to <10% as season goes if you don't change their schedule.
However!
Guys on All Intensive schedule (all 7 areas on intensive) are comfortable with 100% condition throughout the season. Same thing with General schedule (all 7 areas on medium) and combination (2 intensive, 2 medium, 2 light, 1 none).
Well, I think that there's something wrong.
I'm asking for your assistance here. Do you see such behaviour? It can be a local bug, I don't know.


2. Player development is not affected by these factors:

2.1. Average rating (had a guy with 5.7 who developed better skills than guy with 7.0; but in every test I have not seen any correlation between rating or goals/assists and attribute/CA development)

2.2 Injuries (a guy had 1 month injury and turned out exactly the same as healthy ones; and, again, in every test there is no visible correlation between injuries and CA/attributes; maybe one really long-term injury would hurt but I didn't encounter these)

2.3 Personnel distribution between practice areas. Had pretty much the same results (or exactly the same) with "everybody coaches everything", "2 coaches per practice area" and even "use only 1 coach for everything, other 5 are not used at all".

2.4. This one will hurt many of you, guys. Development is not affected by the amount of game practice and skill of opposition. Had a run where guys were played in this way:
- 20 ATOI in NHL
- 6 ATOI in NHL
- no games whatsoever (based in NHL team)
- full season in AHL
- full season in ECHL
And guess what? In the end they all had the SAME ATTRIBUTES (maybe couple of guys had +- 1 attribute point). Different teams, different coaches, hence different practice schedules, different playing time, different ratings and production. And same development in the end. I'm disappointed. However, in Football Manager (especially in early versions and EHM is kind of near them in development stage) this was the case too. Playing time meant nothing for development.

2.5. Player condition. He can be at 14% all season and still develop like his twin bro at 100%.

2.6. Team performance. Flyers in these runs have been in the last place, in the middle and in the second round of play-offs. No correlation with development.


Bright side.

3. Coach attributes seem to have an impact but really really minor. "All 20 attributes" coach may give you 1-2 extra attribute points per player compared to "all 13 attributes" coach. But there are opposite examples, so I'm not really sure. I want to do a couple more tests in this area, for example with "all 1 attributes coaches".

4. Attribute development seems to be affected by practice schedule. In general, "light" areas improve little less than "intensive" areas. Well, that's how it should be, so it's a relief. But! This impact is also minor compared to 2 hidden Player Role attributes. Mainly all player development is guided by them, so it's virtually impossible to retrain a stay-at-home D to a great offensive D by the means of practice schedule.
And another but. Every schedule different from All Areas On Intensive produces slightly worse results. So there is really no point using something other than All Intensive. Especially when it doesn't affect player condition. And I haven't seen any increase in injuries from this schedule.


Random observations.

For 20 year old guys with "all 15" hidden personality attributes you can expect from +8 to +15 Current Ability in 10 months. That means approximately third of attributes will get +2 and others will get +1 in general. Of course, there are random fluctuations in CA.
Also I saw increases in all mental attributes, including Determination, Flair and Aggression. I guess it's the last update in action.
Some Current Ability performances in the team show extremely repeating patterns. For example, Mason in every test run goes down from 142 to 136 Current Ability but at the same time increases in some skills. Many players throughout season have jumps in their CA up and down. Del Zotto could go to 140 then to 138 and finish with 136. B. Schenn could stay at 140 then jump to 144 then finish at 138. So, mechanics of Current Ability are really not clear. I thought that player performance affects this but haven't seen any evidence. Also CA numbers often does not correlate with attribute values. I saw a test dummy with 6 less CA who had attributes better than the other test dummy.
Also there was a notable pattern when in the first week of simulation the same two of my test dummies went exactly to 144 and 142 CA at the same time every test run. Strange.


And important note. Throughout these tests I had a feeling that overall player development was kinda hardcoded, because in different starting circumstances results were generally comparable or even the same. As if at the moment of a new game creation some random seed was created which affects development. Because I can't explain Mason and 144-142 test dummies situation that happened in every test run. Keep in mind that this could be the case and I was stuck with somewhat predetermined outcomes. But still that would mean that in your save game you have predetermined patterns of player development and you cannot do much to change this too.

So, the conclusion that I made for myself regarding best practices for player development:
- set practice schedule to All Intensive and don't really care about coaches, ratings and playing time for your prospects.

I hope to see your research on that too. I kind of want to be proven wrong. But knowing how development was (and still is) in Football Manager I think the majority of my observations are correct.

Next points of research should include hidden personality attributes of players, because in FM the main factor in player development besides practice schedules was player's Professionalism and, to a lesser extent, Ambition.

[nino33]

I was trying to understand the player development system in this game and was running a few tests.....I love to research game mechanics.....I'm interested in game factors which actually affect player development in EHM

I too love to understand the game mechanics (and I've done a lot of research/testing with EHM over the years) - I'm glad you're looking into the EHM:EA game mechanics!

1. Modified database. I've picked Flyers team and modified 5 young players (Akeson, Alderson, Cousins, Manning, Mathers) to be exactly the same. Current ability = 140, Potential ability = 200, age = 20. Date of birth, attributes, hidden attributes, personalities, reputation — all the same. Injury proneness = 1, tendency to pass = 10. 3 of them are forwards (positions are the same for them, 19-19-20 for LW-C-RW), 2 of them are defenders (positions are the same for them, 19-20 for LD-RD). They are our test dummies.

Did you determine Player Roles? or if not, did you determine the Player Roles the game selected?
Did you check the Attributes in game? the game can/does change Attributes so things may not have been what you edited them to be...

Another thought I have is 140 is an extremely high CA for a 20 year old, and that may be affecting things adversely (FYI in EHM:EA a 140 CA player should have their Technical attributes average out to about 13)

And for testing/comparison I myself wouldn't use 19-19-20 for forward positions, as there's a difference between centers and wingers (and pretty much no player is a 19-20 in all F positions)

2.2 Injuries (a guy had 1 month injury and turned out exactly the same as healthy ones; and, again, in every test there is no visible correlation between injuries and CA/attributes; maybe one really long-term injury would hurt but I didn't encounter these)

Hmmm...didn't you set the Injury Proneness Attribute to the lowest setting (1) and you got very few injuries? Seems like a significant correlation to me

Many players throughout season have jumps in their CA up and down. Del Zotto could go to 140 then to 138 and finish with 136. B. Schenn could stay at 140 then jump to 144 then finish at 138. So, mechanics of Current Ability are really not clear. I thought that player performance affects this but haven't seen any evidence. Also CA numbers often does not correlate with attribute values. I saw a test dummy with 6 less CA who had attributes better than the other test dummy.

With EHM07 I did some significant testing (multiple tests of 10-12 seasons with over 100 players) and saw the CA fluctuate up/down as well http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... rs+of+data

ALSO keep in mind (as the EHM07 Saved Game Editor showed) there are graduations of the same Attribute value, so to players with the same value in-game don't necessarily have the same exact value http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... ame+values



AND another factor with CA/Attribute development is not all Attributes develop, some that do develop only do so a small amount, and the "weighting" for what develops (Physical/Mental/Technical) will be affected by Player Role

Some testing I did last year (results shared in our researcher forum) that showed that amongst the visible/in-game attributes it seems Aggression, Bravery, Flair, Work Rate (and Creativity with Goaltenders) are all permanent/unchanging attributes. Among the hidden Atts, Dirtiness, Pass Tendency, Fighting, Injury Proneness, Agitation and Adaptability show as permanent/unchanging attributes.

There's also this older post talking about the development of Mental Attributes http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... of+testing

1. Practice schedules interact really strange with player condition.Players on schedules with (2 intensive, 4 medium, 1 none), (3 intensive, 3 medium, 1 none), (3 intensive, 2 medium, 1 light, 1 none), (4 intensive, 2 medium, 1 none) and similar have their condition plummeted down to <10% as season goes if you don't change their schedule.However!Guys on All Intensive schedule (all 7 areas on intensive) are comfortable with 100% condition throughout the season. Same thing with General schedule (all 7 areas on medium) and combination (2 intensive, 2 medium, 2 light, 1 none).Well, I think that there's something wrong.I'm asking for your assistance here. Do you see such behaviour?

I think you should post this in the SI bugs forum http://community.sigames.com/forumdispl ... rly-Access

[radiskull]

Did you determine Player Roles? or if not, did you determine the Player Roles the game selected?
Did you check the Attributes in game? the game can/does change Attributes so things may not have been what you edited them to be...

If you mean 2 attributes for Defensive role and Attacking role then yes. For forwards I went with 15 def 20 att and for defenders the opposite 20-15. In game roles for all forwards are Utility Forward. For defenders I don't remember.
Yes, I'm aware that game scales attributes according to CA. And every attribute got downgraded to 13 except Determination, Flair and Aggression if I recall correctly. They stayed at 14. But for every player regardless of position and role in game attributes are the same.

Another thought I have is 140 is an extremely high CA for a 20 year old, and that may be affecting things adversely (FYI in EHM:EA a 140 CA player should have their Technical attributes average out to about 13)

I thought so too. My reasoning for such CA was to make test dummies capable of playing at NHL level and not fail miserably. I'm pretty sure that absolute CA value affects speed of development. For example, I watched Laughton (vanilla version) on some tests. He has 100 CA, 157 PA at the start and generally improved more than test dummies (like 20 CA per 10 months). Two runs in a row he made +24 CA.

And for testing/comparison I myself wouldn't use 19-19-20 for forward positions, as there's a difference between centers and wingers (and pretty much no player is a 19-20 in all F positions)

Yes, it does not reflect reality but it gets the job done — every test dummy is in the same starting conditions.

Hmmm...didn't you set the Injury Proneness Attribute to the lowest setting (1) and you got very few injuries? Seems like a significant correlation to me

That correlation is obvious, yes. I mean another thing, even if player had some injuries his development did not suffer compared to his twin who had none injuries. And sometimes "injured" guy can outperform "healthy" one. But it would be interesting to run a couple tests with 20 in injury proneness for everybody.)

ALSO keep in mind (as the EHM07 Saved Game Editor showed) there are graduations of the same Attribute value, so to players with the same value in-game don't necessarily have the same exact value

Yep, in Football Manager that is also the case.

AND another factor with CA/Attribute development is not all Attributes develop, some that do develop only do so a small amount, and the "weighting" for what develops (Physical/Mental/Technical) will be affected by Player Role

Some testing I did last year (results shared in our researcher forum) that showed that amongst the visible/in-game attributes it seems Aggression, Bravery, Flair, Work Rate (and Creativity with Goaltenders) are all permanent/unchanging attributes.

In my tests I saw every mental attribute increasing, even Aggression, Determination, Flair etc. And at the same rate with many other attributes (technical and physical) — +1 each after test run with All Intensive schedule. It's strange because I thought too that there are permanent atts.

[nino33]

Did you determine Player Roles? or if not, did you determine the Player Roles the game selected?Did you check the Attributes in game? the game can/does change Attributes so things may not have been what you edited them to be...

If you mean 2 attributes for Defensive role and Attacking role then yes. For forwards I went with 15 def 20 att and for defenders the opposite 20-15. In game roles for all forwards are Utility Forward. For defenders I don't remember.

I meant the brand new "Player Roles" that are part of EHM:EA.....if you're not aware of them, you might want to take a look at the Player Roles PDF doc that's been added to the EHM Updater download http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... +roles+pdf

AND another factor with CA/Attribute development is not all Attributes develop, some that do develop only do so a small amount, and the "weighting" for what develops (Physical/Mental/Technical) will be affected by Player Role

Some testing I did last year (results shared in our researcher forum) that showed that amongst the visible/in-game attributes it seems Aggression, Bravery, Flair, Work Rate (and Creativity with Goaltenders) are all permanent/unchanging attributes.

In my tests I saw every mental attribute increasing, even Aggression, Determination, Flair etc. And at the same rate with many other attributes (technical and physical) — +1 each after test run with All Intensive schedule. It's strange because I thought too that there are permanent atts.

Very interesting! and good to know! thanks for sharing

[Obalobex]

1. Practice schedules interact really strange with player condition.
Players on schedules with (2 intensive, 4 medium, 1 none), (3 intensive, 3 medium, 1 none), (3 intensive, 2 medium, 1 light, 1 none), (4 intensive, 2 medium, 1 none) and similar have their condition plummeted down to <10% as season goes if you don't change their schedule.
However!
Guys on All Intensive schedule (all 7 areas on intensive) are comfortable with 100% condition throughout the season. Same thing with General schedule (all 7 areas on medium) and combination (2 intensive, 2 medium, 2 light, 1 none).
Well, I think that there's something wrong.
I'm asking for your assistance here. Do you see such behaviour? It can be a local bug, I don't know.

this is my experience as well. i almost wonder if the practice schedule is a set of ratios for determining fatigue (so light:light:light... is the same as intense:intense:intense...) but they forgot to apply that to stat gain as well

[batdad]

Interesting point radiskull. Because what I have noticed.

GUys on the all intense thing from Aug 12-training camp have their condition INCREASE for me by 1-2 points every 2-3 days and eventually get up into the mid to high 90s as though they are working out. This is vastly different than what i Had in EHM 2007 where condition would go down as practiced in summer.

Guys on goalie practice--4 intense, one none ,one medium--have their condition DROP by 1-2 points every 2-3 days. Have to rest them to get their stuff back up.


I do not play around with the other schedules during the summer, and just use the ALL INTENSE one for the skaters, so could not say what happens with tthem.

ANd during the season...I have a pretty strict pattern on how I Train guys, and do not really notice that anything is changing. other than the skills I want to improve slowly improving...much slower than in EHM 2007.

[stagbeetle59]

Wondering if anybody can help me with this fairly weird problem. Basically, my goalies are never fully fit. I can get them up to about 90% but no more than that, even if I end up resting them. I use the same set-up for both the Canucks and for Utica and the same thing seems to happen. It's really annoying because it seems like the only way to get my players to improve.

My training set up is as follows:

Conditioning - Intensive
Skating - Intensive
Tactical - Intensive
Shooting - None
New Position - None
Offensive Skills - None
Defensive Skills - None
Goaltending - Intensive

The strange thing is that the outskaters have a corresponding set up but they're fully fit all the time.

EDIT: Sorted it now, had to put my goalies on intensive for defensive and offensive skills as well. Guess they'll be well-rounded then!

[hockey17jp]

I feel like a noob, but how do I change the practice intensity? I can't seem to find the option.

[Tasku]

I feel like a noob, but how do I change the practice intensity? I can't seem to find the option.

You have to edit the individual practice templates. Go to the Practice screen and click on the Schedule tab to show details of individual templates. Pick any of the templates ("General", "Fitness" and such). At the bottom part of your screen will be available the option to adjust intensity of all the different areas of that individual practice regime.

[Asher413]

Does anyone know if you still have to use goaltending training to train positioning?

[Knoeppel]

I don´t know if my game has broken or what is the problem...
I started a game with Red wings and managed to get Connor McDavid the first season..... After 4 seasons he has played 322 games and done 366 points... but his stats hasn´t gone up one bit.. not one bit.... So i got sick of it and checked in the save game editor... he has been standing still in ca for all this time... at 130...

Well i tought.. this i maybe because i did the "all intensive" training on my guys.. (reports suggesting the intensive setting is bugged)

So i started a game with the Sharks and tried an "all medium" training schedule...... and picked a couple of players to follow.. with the help of the excel sheet that is avalible here...
After three seasons Tomas Hertl has gone down from i think it was 130-140 in ca to 115.... he has dropped about 2 in every category... and most notably he has dropped about 2 in avery vategory even in the mental stats... I have played him in the 2 and 3 line.. and have given him time in the second pp.
Some guys have gone up very little, but most of them has been standning still in development....

So... is my game broken?
Or is the training so bugged you cant play the game?
Or am i doing something really wrong my self?

Ps.. in both saves i have upgraded the staff to be as good as it can be from the start....

[Manimal]

What was McDavids PA in that save?

[Knoeppel]

Well he has -10 in the Db. So thats in the range of 170-200.. If the new game is the same as the old..
In my save he has a PA of 196... wich he seems to never reach....

[CeeBee]

I think player development is kinda busted among other things like centers being naff and the draft lottery being goofy. I imagine it's all being worked on. At least I hope so.

[deknegt]

Well he has -10 in the Db. So thats in the range of 170-200.. If the new game is the same as the old..
In my save he has a PA of 196... wich he seems to never reach....

How long has that save been going?
I ask since Nino has done some long-term testing (16 seasons), and he notes that whilst players hit their peaks, they hit them significantly later than in EHM07 and IRL. Somewhere close to 27-30 they really peak as players.

[lemming3k]

Mine definitely take a while to hit their peak and my goaltenders don't even seem to go up - but AI players jump massively. I saw a goaltender in two years go from all red to practically 99 in every key area, and he wasn't the only one.

[deknegt]

Mine definitely take a while to hit their peak and my goaltenders don't even seem to go up - but AI players jump massively. I saw a goaltender in two years go from all red to practically 99 in every key area, and he wasn't the only one.

Personally I tend to find that Goalies take the longest to really get anywhere good, and sometimes your best bet is to give them gametime despite not being #1 material... Then again, I agree that progression could be changed a bit in future patches, whilst there shouldn't be teens in the NHL barring generational talents, and even up till 22-23 only great talents, it does seem that it takes the better part of their 20ties to reach some semblance of NHL level.

For the sake of giving suggestions to people that aren't knowledged with past EHM games, or this one. There is one training system that does bear fruits during off-season. The ''infamous'' Hell Practice.
In EHM07 it was ridiculously effective, and it would have players reach their peaks really fast, but it still has some use in EHM:EA, albeit it's not as ultra-effective anymore.

The gist is that you create one (or two) practice schedules, named Hell and Hell-G (or whatever you want to call em). And in said schedules you put all the training to intensive. For the skater one you put Goalkeeping to none, and for the goalie one you drop Offense to light.

So the idea is that players get put through hell for 4-5 months a year when they're not playing games, because there aren't any games you don't need to be afraid of them being exhausted. So they get put through the wringer, and because they're in an ultra-intensive training scheme their skills should improve drastically from the end of the season to the start of the next. The only thing you need to watch out for, is injuries of course. Players can get injured through practices, and with everything at intensive the odds are generally higher... Personally I start that training regime after the last game of the year, and all the way up till one-week before Pre-Season. Then until pre-season exhibitions start I put them on a rest schedule so they recuperate to 100% before they start getting match practice.

[Kobrakay]

It is not just a matter of players developing slower. I can handle that as it does not happen with every player as I have Drouin, Hall, Yakupov, Vasilevsky, etc who had gigantic jumps in stats in a few seasons (although some cases are just mind blowing, like McDavid who doesn't seem to get better at all, despite playing top minutes and being rather successful point wise despite the C scoring problems in this game). The thing I cant understand are the instances where players downgrade at a rate of 1/2 points IN EVERY CATEGORY per year. It is not that uncommon either. I have yet to find a pattern as to why this happens but I have it happening in young, top line, high scoring, high rated players (some with high CA and PA!).

In another thread (about feedback from the simulation) I told the story of Nikita Kucherov in my TBL save and I just checked and the same is happening again (even after I hammered all his stats back up with the editor). Please note that this should not be a simple problem like not adjusting the CA of a player after using the editor to change his values (as I have a ton of experience with both FM and EHM editors and some of the players where this is happening were not adjusted by me or anybody else).

[Knoeppel]

How long has that save been going?
I ask since Nino has done some long-term testing (16 seasons), and he notes that whilst players hit their peaks, they hit them significantly later than in EHM07 and IRL. Somewhere close to 27-30 they really peak as players.

Well the save is about 5 seasons in, so not very long for testing.. But i find it odd that a player that scores more than 1 point per game doesn´t go up in CA and attributes....
I also find it very odd that Hertl in my Sharks save go down in CA with 30, since he played OK for me... He should have been the one standing still and not Mcdavid in the Detroit save...

[lemming3k]

Mine definitely take a while to hit their peak and my goaltenders don't even seem to go up - but AI players jump massively. I saw a goaltender in two years go from all red to practically 99 in every key area, and he wasn't the only one.

Personally I tend to find that Goalies take the longest to really get anywhere good, and sometimes your best bet is to give them gametime despite not being #1 material... Then again, I agree that progression could be changed a bit in future patches, whilst there shouldn't be teens in the NHL barring generational talents, and even up till 22-23 only great talents, it does seem that it takes the better part of their 20ties to reach some semblance of NHL level.

Indeed it seems a bit slow, at least for Human player dev. Goalies is almost what I would expect, slow progress peaking mid-late 20s and staying good for a decade or so, but they just never reach their potential for me, pretty static from 21-35 then they retire(too early). The goalkeeper jump I saw was amazing, the guy was a 7th rounder for a reason, but by 20 he's almost maxed out! That's not goaltender dev at all.
I seem to have better luck letting the AI develop them and then trading picks for them than drafting anyone myself, especially in net.

I always have good coaches and an intense schedule in the relevant areas, and try to give players Ice time, either in NHL or lower leagues depending on what they can handle. Tbh I like the idea of all intense schedules in the summer, but I'm partly too lazy to re-assign people to other schedules constantly and partly user to that crippling players (used to FM).

[smokey]

2.4. This one will hurt many of you, guys. Development is not affected by the amount of game practice and skill of opposition. Had a run where guys were played in this way:
- 20 ATOI in NHL
- 6 ATOI in NHL
- no games whatsoever (based in NHL team)
- full season in AHL
- full season in ECHL
And guess what? In the end they all had the SAME ATTRIBUTES (maybe couple of guys had +- 1 attribute point). Different teams, different coaches, hence different practice schedules, different playing time, different ratings and production. And same development in the end. I'm disappointed. However, in Football Manager (especially in early versions and EHM is kind of near them in development stage) this was the case too. Playing time meant nothing for development.

I think you need to conduct longer test runs. Just a bunch of games, even a full season might not bring much change in attributes, since most development takes place during the off-season/over many seasons. At least in EHM. So no, you wont see a big swing in attributes during the season.

Next points of research should include hidden personality attributes of players, because in FM the main factor in player development besides practice schedules was player's Professionalism and, to a lesser extent, Ambition.

I believe these are in the game for a purpose.

I've had an idea of doing similar testing, as I've been at this game since the very first freeware versions. Thanks for laying out a blueprint to follow. First I thought I should redo the entire league, but maybe just having the same starting conditions should be enough to see how much a difference one might expect over an entire career.

[jeppe951]

So after the updates is this still a thing? Can you put all attributes on intensive practice?

[Don Roshi]

Could it be a case of each of the options in practice to concentrate a certain percentage to training. Like could all training set to intensive be the same as everything at medium?

Whether that's the case or not - wouldn't it be more beneficial to have players work on certain areas more than others. There's only so much PA to go around, and I would rather "spend" a majority of those points in the more important attributes for each player in question.

p.s. I'm fairly new to hockey in general (been following the Blue Jackets for about a year) but at what ages to players start to decline in EHM? I'm used to Football Manager players to decline mid 30s. I expect the better players to last longer, but I wouldn't mind a heads up to when the physical attributes are likely to go down.