Ultimate Hockey Sim (Development Halted)

[CeeBee]

Great Ideas! We are going to test this as much as possible, hopefully we get a fit!

As for the the fighting, aggression, agitation...This portion sort of has me stumped. Maybe I should include a new category in tribute for these sub attributes. After all, those 3 things are huge in hockey. Maybe something like a "Toughness" attribute? Then have fighting, aggression, and agitation as a sub attribute. What are your thoughts on that?

Good ideas but I'm wondering where hitting fits in? Generally tough guys are also the bigger hitters.

[UHS_2010]

Hitting would typically fit in with strength as a sub category. Unless there is another category you guys can think of.

[Ogilthorpe]

That looks very interesting.

It would be helpful to see the list of attribute categories/sub-categories that you have come up with so far.

I'm very curious to see what the list of attribute categories/sub-categories looks like for goalies, coaches, scouts, trainers and AI GM's.

[archibalduk]

I like the idea of sub-attributes. It's a fresh new approach and I think it could potentially be a lot of fun.

As with Ogilthorpe, I would really like to see the list of attributes and sub-attributes that you have come up with thus far. I'm sure there are plenty of us here (such as myself) who would really like to give some feedback/suggestions on this.

As for the scale, I don't know whether 1-10 is enough. Maybe, maybe not... We had this sort of discussion in the DHM Forum. To large a scale is unworkable but too small a scale is going to mean an insufficient gap between the best and worst players.

[philou21]

I remember we discussed that in Dabo thread. For me, a scale of 20 is the best.

[UHS_2010]

I like the idea of sub-attributes. It's a fresh new approach and I think it could potentially be a lot of fun.

As with Ogilthorpe, I would really like to see the list of attributes and sub-attributes that you have come up with thus far. I'm sure there are plenty of us here (such as myself) who would really like to give some feedback/suggestions on this.

As for the scale, I don't know whether 1-10 is enough. Maybe, maybe not... We had this sort of discussion in the DHM Forum. To large a scale is unworkable but too small a scale is going to mean an insufficient gap between the best and worst players.

This is correct. We decided to use scale 1-10 as a reference, but the end result is still unknown. We are contemplating the 1-20, or 1-100 scale. The 1-100 scale may give you a more accurate reading on a players ability, but is sometimes confusing. The 1-20 scale may not give an equally accurate rating, but is much less confusing in my eyes.

As soon as we figure out the player attributes, we will be ready to release information on staff (coaching, scouting...). I am really excited to release information on player development, and player scouting. We believe that it will be the difference maker in the game.

[poeb05]

I think the toughness attribute would be welcome with the subs like UHS said. Your idea is right on in the way to add hitting fighting, etc. Backchecking and forechecking should be added to a physical attribute of sorts.....since its not a hitting or fighting way. Does the scale always have to be 1-10, 1-20, or 1-100? can it be like 1-30 or 40....little more accurate but not too confusing, i think.

[archibalduk]

I think anything more than 1-25 is too difficult to manage. For example, on a 1-50 range, what is the difference between one player with 35 for faceoffs and another player with 33 or 34?

[dave1927p]

I'm not a fan of change but looks interesting. I actually hated the EHM interface at first. lol

How about putting the numbers actually in the bar graphs and colour coating them so we can tell them apart easier. (colour coating like 9-10 = green; 7-8 = light green,...etc). Looking at it fast, it's hard to see a difference between an 8 and 9 or 9 and 10. Visually it might just help with that problem, preserve some space at the same time and hopefully not make it any more cluttered.



i use 1-99 in EHM and like it alot more then 1-20. I'd prefer 1-25 over 1-20 though. I guess it's a personel preference for things like that because some people would prefer not looking at the attributes at all.


Just out of curiousity, i never really liked drafting a player in EHM (after not scouting his attributes), then seeing his attributes instantly after i drafted him and pretty much knowing that he won't make it as the star i thought he would just seconds before i choose him. Any solutions to that at all?

[bruins72]

Would these sub-attributes appear under only one attribute or could the same sub-attribute appear under multiple attributes? For example, you mention hitting going under strength but it could also work under toughness. Defensive positioning could work under checking. I like these main attributes as a quick look at what type of player you're looking at but I don't see them as the be all end all. For example, I'd rather have 30 or more individual attributes that make up a player but we don't actually see them in the game. Instead, we see these attribute categories.

As for the attribute ranges, I agree that 1-10 is far too small a range. I believe the old freeware EHM used 1-100 and when the SI EHMs came out, I was upset at first that 1-20 was the default (was it even available in the first version?). Then I became used to 1-20 and found that it really worked for me. I'd be open to 1-25 though.

[UHS_2010]

@dave1927p-The different color graph bars is a good idea, just like the EHM style with the green, yellow, orange, red. I'll see what I can do to add this in.

I think for now we are going to go wit ha 1-20 attribute system. In a later build of the game, I might figure out how to add in a 1-99 attribute system.

As for the prospects question...A prospect must be scouted if you want to see his attributes. However, a players performance in a certain league can give him a good enough reputation to draft blindly (not sure why you wouldnt want to scout him though). For instance, Just by looking at Sidney Crosby's pre NHL stats, you can tell he will be a successful hockey player.

@bruins72- I would like to try and have the sub attributes appear under only one main attribute. It would make it much to confusing to program a players talent if he has more than 1 of the same attribute in different areas. However, this doesnt eliminate the possibility of having a lot of attributes overall. I am considering just creating an attributes page, where I can extend the main attributes to 16, having up to 2 sub attributes per category. That is technically 32 attributes that you can visually see from scouting reports. I am heavily considering creating 20 instead of 16, that way we have 40 overall attributes.

Thoughts?

[visualdarkness]

I really like the sub-attributes, it's simply a faster interface. 20 and 40 sounds just right.

As for scouting I would really appreciate a "blind mode" where you can't see the attributes but get some feedback in combination with the stats.

[OliverBeckham]

I really prefer the old EHM numbers instead of bar charts.

[joehelmer]

I think it might be good to have a option where players are able to switch between bars or numbers as every player prefer different things.

[UHS_2010]

I am planning on having 2 options for the attributes system. However, the first release will only include 1 option. The goal for that is to minimize confusion as much as possible. Especially now that my friend has gone back to work, and is not able to help me on the game. Im looking for another programmer to help me make more progress.

[42jeff]

Generally tough guys are also the bigger hitters.

Not all the time. Cheechoo...Kronwall...Marchant...Stuart

They're all threats to cream unsuspecting forwards against the boards but not very prone to fighting. Maybe make hitting it's own attribute with subs of "Power" and "Timing". You can have those big hammers that tend to miss...as well as the little hammers that hit often but aren't very effective.

[23qwerty]

Generally tough guys are also the bigger hitters.

Not all the time. Cheechoo...Kronwall...Marchant...Stuart

They're all threats to cream unsuspecting forwards against the boards but not very prone to fighting. Maybe make hitting it's own attribute with subs of "Power" and "Timing". You can have those big hammers that tend to miss...as well as the little hammers that hit often but aren't very effective.

And that is exactly why he said generally.

[dave1927p]

Not all the time. Cheechoo...Kronwall...Marchant...Stuart

They're all threats to cream unsuspecting forwards against the boards but not very prone to fighting. Maybe make hitting it's own attribute with subs of "Power" and "Timing". You can have those big hammers that tend to miss...as well as the little hammers that hit often but aren't very effective.

And that is exactly why he said generally.

Tough guys? Just to be clear, Does that mean "fighters" are generally better hitters? I completely disagree. Look at the list of most hits and see how many "tough guys" there are...not that many. That's probably because most of the top fighters can't skate worth a #%@ versus other NHLers. colton orr doesn't get many hits - the very odd time he might throw a solid one but its unusual.

[UHS_2010]

progress update time everyone! I had hinted before that I had lost my last programmer (he went back to work). While that was true, I have found a new replacement. We are currently building the attributes system, and having some great success.

A playable demo is not far away...

Thanks to everyone for hanging in there.

[Ogilthorpe]

Great news, looking forward to trying the demo!

[Tasku]

Ditto!

[Saapas]

That's awesome!

[UHS_2010]

Update time! A lot has happened in the time since my last post. I am considering switching engines to make the development process more coder friendly. I have a list of programs im testing, and should make a decision soon. As far as game development progress...so far i have been working on polishing the interface, and most importantly, creating a realistic simulation equation. My goal is to successfully create the ability to sim 1 full season, with all the included features of the game...The game will then be released to the public as a 1 season demo. After this point I will continue my efforts to create an endless sim.

Thanks for everyones help thus far!

[YZG]

Update time! A lot has happened in the time since my last post. I am considering switching engines to make the development process more coder friendly. I have a list of programs im testing, and should make a decision soon. As far as game development progress...so far i have been working on polishing the interface, and most importantly, creating a realistic simulation equation. My goal is to successfully create the ability to sim 1 full season, with all the included features of the game...The game will then be released to the public as a 1 season demo. After this point I will continue my efforts to create an endless sim.

Thanks for everyones help thus far!

How far do you consider yourself from the beta 1-season demo? Anyways, it's nice to see this project soundly grows. Good work!

- YZG

[Ogilthorpe]

Thanks for the update!



Any chance there are some new screenshots to share with us?