Is CA just technicals or is it everything?

[pretzalcoatl]

Reading up on it, I see people saying both. Which is it?

[Shindigs]

It's not everything. But it's most things. The thing that only really applies to technicals is the guideline numbers of the highest/lowest possible values. And those are only guidelines, not rules. So a low CA player can still have very good mentals and physicals. But they can't have really high average technicals, they can however have fairly high values in single technicals that are key to their player role.

From a player perspective you really don't need to care about CA though, since short of cheating there's no way for you to see it anyways.

[CJ]

CA is based on almost all attributes if not all. I did so many tests when EHM1 came out and it seemed that almost all or all attributes are calculated in the CA. There are many hidden attributes you don't see in the game. There are some that doesn't change at all. Some change only a little. Technical changes the most I'd say overall.

In EHM 2007 the tech attributes were a bigger part of the CA. But not the whole thing.

[nino33]

Guidelines for lowest/highest value is from EHM07, there are no such guidelines in EHM1 (I've long thought there should be minimums/maximums myself; in EHM07 they didn't seem to be used much if at all)

The "Attribute connection to the CA" is weighted differently depending on Player Role + whether they're Irrelevant/Non-Essential/Essential/Key

Also, my understanding is that overall Attribute growth is affected by more than one variable...so "more than just CA" (growth can also be affected by player age/ice time/performance/competition level/etc)

I highly recommended CJ's efforts on the NHL as a good model/template for player editing......a brief look at the editing efforts of others since EHM1 came out has shown that frequently the game is changing the editing efforts being made (you can't just edit players any way you want/the game will change edits at startup - in a recent example a user added 35 Attribute points to a player and immediately at startup the game removed 28 of the 35); I've not seen the game adjusting CJ's efforts

This "sanity check" to ratings at startup is seemingly most flexible with some of the Mental/Staff Attributes (allowing them to be raised regardless of CA) and not flexible with Technical Attributes (reducing edits made so that Player Role and Attribute average values are considered)

[CJ]

Guidelines for lowest/highest value is from EHM07, there are no such guidelines in EHM1 (I've long thought there should be minimums/maximums myself; in EHM07 they didn't seem to be used much if at all)

The reason probably is that the fastest skater or hardest hitter is probably not in the NHL (which has the highest CA). So it shouldn't be CA related (as the best are in the NHL). Or even the super great danglers can be in other leagues but lack hockey sense, so they could have 20 in something even though their CA is not that good.

[nino33]

Guidelines for lowest/highest value is from EHM07, there are no such guidelines in EHM1 (I've long thought there should be minimums/maximums myself; in EHM07 they didn't seem to be used much if at all)

The reason probably is that the fastest skater or hardest hitter is probably not in the NHL (which has the highest CA). So it shouldn't be CA related (as the best are in the NHL). Or even the super great danglers can be in other leagues but lack hockey sense, so they could have 20 in something even though their CA is not that good.

We'll have to disagree

I believe IRL the best at everything are in the very top Leagues...if you used EHM terms on the real world, IMO the highest CA players are better at everything, there are no 100 CA players with a 20 Agility/Balance/Slapshot/Stickhandling/Stickhandling/Hitting/etc

The fact that they can't actually do it at a top level makes how good they are amongst nobodies irrelevant to me - and I just don't believe that there's actually "better/elite skill" amongst nobodies; for me the 18-20 range for Attributes is for the Top level (NHL or similiar) CA players


For "minimum guidelines" IMO for most (not all) Attributes I don't think that players should ever be in Top Amateur Leagues/Lower Pro Leagues with just one/a couple/a few as a value




I'm honestly not sure there's a reason for EHM being this way (like Riz believes what you're saying) or it's just based on EHM's coding (and propensity to turn players into "all green superstars at everything").....I suspect it's the latter (I think the propensity for such high values in EHM is why even amongst NHLers so many players have elite Attribute numbers, which IMO only diminishes the value of those who truly deserve such ratings)



That's just my view - "Different strokes for different folks"