EHM The Blue Line

Hi. If I am in the EHM Editor, and I change their wristshot, checking, and stickhandling for example, do I need to change their CA accordingly? Will it mess up the game if I don't? Does it adjust automatically? Or does it not matter?

The game readjusts players attributes if they're not met with the CA. It will not mess up the game. Is it a player with a filled attributes or is it a player with a lot of zeroes, or both?

The Player Role will have an impact too, as each Player Role has Key, Essential, Non-Essential and Irrelevant Attributes

CJ wrote:The game readjusts players attributes if they're not met with the CA. It will not mess up the game. Is it a player with a filled attributes or is it a player with a lot of zeroes, or both?

Can you elaborate a little on this? Will CA readjust to match attributes or will attributes readjust to match CA? I.e. if I give a player 200 CA and 1 in all attributes, will the attributes rise to meet CA or will CA lower to meet the attributes?

zbguy wrote:

CJ wrote:The game readjusts players attributes if they're not met with the CA. It will not mess up the game. Is it a player with a filled attributes or is it a player with a lot of zeroes, or both?

Can you elaborate a little on this? Will CA readjust to match attributes or will attributes readjust to match CA? I.e. if I give a player 200 CA and 1 in all attributes, will the attributes rise to meet CA or will CA lower to meet the attributes?

The game never changes the CA. Only the attributes if they're too high or too low for a player for the particular CA.

If a player has a ZERO in an attribute (in the editor, not in the game! no one has a zero ingame). That means it's "random". (The scale is 1-20 otherwise)
If a player has a "player role" given. That will determine what he's good/bad at.
Defensive Defenseman player role will have better attributes in positioning, pokecheck and checking for example. Even if they have zeroes in all attributes.

I think there are guides or something, somewhere in this forum about these things.

To elaborate on the point Nino was making. If a player is over budget he will lose attributes in the "Irrelevant" section first. For example if you alter the values of a player with the winger:all around role to be above budget the game won't keep the ratios of abilites you input and lower all attributes across the line accordingly to maintain the same ratios, it will completely tank the Irrelevant attributes (Slapshot, Deking, Deflection, Stickhandling) first, and then more on to tanking the "non-essential" if it's still over budget. This is what causes those young low CA prospects to have a 1 in essentially everything and then a 12 in their key attributes. I made a post over in the scouting sticky on the values of each attribute in relation to CA if you want to know how much you need to reduce a certain attribute by when increasing another to still stay at the budget. Also keep in mind there are a bunch of impossible players in the db who have more attributes than they could at their CA, so just because you stay on the budget the player has in the db doesn't necessarily mean he will end up with the exact values you input in-game.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you only input certain values and leave others at 0 the game won't "respect" the budget. It will randomize the remaining attributes set to 0 within the possible ranges of the attribute based on the player's role and if that makes it over budget it will tank the values you set to be able to afford the values it randomized. It's a very illogical way for it to work, but it's how it works.

For example, say you want a power forward who can actually skate. The game doesn't really generate those itself barring extremely unlikely randomization. So you decide to set the acceleration and speed of all power forward prospects in the game to a reasonable NHL value minimum of 12. Over the course of their development it's unlikely that this grows beyond 13 or at best 14 due to how little skating power forwards get in EHM. You'd assume the game would respect this and use the left over attribute points once those 12 are given to Acceleration and Speed to fill out the rest of the player. This isn't true, the game will just randomize all other attributes and "run out" of attributes by the time it gets to acceleration and speed, causing it to ignore your manually input value and just give whatever is left over to Accelration and Speed due to them not being Key/Core attributes for Power Forwards, because that role sucks in EHM. The way you'd actually have to go about creating that player is by giving a much lower than usual set value to all the key and core attributes for that player first, then set the Acceleration and Speed to 12. This way the player won't end up over budget and he will actually get the skating you set for him in the db. Which means if you want a player to be a good skater as a power forward you don't achieve it by setting his skating high, you achieve it by setting his Deflection/Hitting/Balance/Stamina/Strength/Wristshot lower than usual. Which is such a backwards way of needing to do things. If you set every single CA tied attribute of that prospect and he comes in under budget the game will then scale him up in a way that makes sense. So for the aformentioned power forward if you set all his technicals to like 2 and his skating and mentals to more reasonable values the "left over" points would then be spread among those technicals set to 2 until he was up to the budget given by his CA, creating a reasonable well-balanced player. This means you need to do a tonne of needless work compared to if the CA system worked the opposite way around and respected input values over randomized ones.

Sadly an automated behavior was added for this year's db where an attempt was made to stop those 1s in a lot of attributes players from generating from young prospects with 0s in all attributes which assumed this worked in the opposite way of what it does, and it's actually made the problem worse as a result. Sure players don't have 1s in much of anything anymore. But now one of the skating attributes on Power Forwards is forced to be CA/10 which means 4-5 in most young prospects. And that means it won't grow to acceptable NHL levels ever. So rather than the old systems where there was a risk of Power Forwards being so awfully slow they were useless, we now have a system where it is guaranteed that they are too slow to be useful.

Hope that helps shed some light on how altering attributes in the editor works/doesn't work.

Further details that may be helpful too in regards to editing CA/Attributes and Attribute distribution....


[quote="Shindigs - from the "Scouting and you; the basics" thread viewtopic.php?f=17&t=17816"]
If you want some more background to why most the Defensive/Physical roles in EHM are bad a large part of it is rooted in the finer details of how Current Ability works; This is the basic breakdown:
Full Cost: Checking, Deflection, Deking, Fighting, Hitting, Off the Puck, Passing, Pokecheck, Positioning, Slapshot, Stickhandling and Wristshot.
Half Cost: Agility, Natural Fitness, Stamina and Strength.
1/5 Cost: Acceleration, Balance, Speed, Anticipation, Bravery, Creativity, Decisions, Leadership, Teamwork and Work Rate.
Free Attributes: Adaptability(Hidden), Aggression, Agitation(Hidden), Ambition(Hidden), Determination, Faceoffs, Important Matches(Hidden), Loyalty(Hidden), Pass Tendency(Hidden), Pressure(Hidden), Professionalism(Hidden), Sportsmanship(Hidden) and Temperament(Hidden).[/quote] The testing I did previously (2016) viewtopic.php?f=110&t=14804&start=25 showed for skaters the following Attributes never change, they always maintain the same initial value – Aggression, Flair, Consistency, Dirtiness, Pass Tendency, Injury Proneness, Agitation and Adaptability. Also for skaters the following Attributes are always rated as “1” and never change/grow – One On Ones, Blocker, Glove, Rebound, Recovery and Reflexes.

For goalies, the following Attributes never change, they always maintain the same initial value – Aggression, Flair, Consistency, Dirtiness, Pass Tendency, Injury Proneness, Agitation and Adaptability. Also, for goalies the following Attributes are always rated as “1” and never change/grow – Hitting, Checking, Creativity, Deflections, Deking, Faceoffs, Getting Open, Slapshot and Wristshot.


From some testing done in 2015 (the first year the new EHM was out)...

• For skaters Ambition, Loyalty, Pressure, Professionalism, Sportsmanship and Temperament are somewhat more likely to change (but still don’t change much).
• For goalies Ambition, Loyalty, Pressure, Professionalism, Sportsmanship and Temperament are somewhat more likely to change (but still don’t change much). Fighting is usually a low rating and unlikely to change/doesn’t change much.
• For both skaters & goalies Determination rarely change/changes very little.

P.S. I suspect age also plays a part in the development of some Attributes (some Attributes can be set high and/or will develop when players are young, others can not); IIRC some (all?) skating Attributes are like this

Shindigs wrote:Sadly an automated behavior was added for this year's db where an attempt was made to stop those 1s in a lot of attributes players from generating from young prospects with 0s in all attributes which assumed this worked in the opposite way of what it does, and it's actually made the problem worse as a result. Sure players don't have 1s in much of anything anymore. But now one of the skating attributes on Power Forwards is forced to be CA/10 which means 4-5 in most young prospects. And that means it won't grow to acceptable NHL levels ever. So rather than the old systems where there was a risk of Power Forwards being so awfully slow they were useless, we now have a system where it is guaranteed that they are too slow to be useful.

What is the automated behaviour you're referring to? Is this something that has been introduced in a game patch?

When you import from spreadsheet with 0s in all attributes on a player there is a formula that automates certain attributes to certain values. I'm not sure where/how it's implemented I just know that Alessandro ran the Goalie formulas past me so I helped give the values for those, but apparently they were also added to skaters. Look at Riley Sutter in the db if you want to see an example; He will have all attributes at 0 except a few that are all set to 5 IIRC since his starting CA is in the 50s. I've been adding a few hundred WHL prospects in the last month and the same thing happens to them when you import them unless you manually set their attributes to stop the behaviour, creating a lot of extra work.

Also been noticing really weird behavior where when you import either draft history or player rights (haven't found which exactly yet) from spreadsheet roughly 200-400 random player/non-players who weren't in the spreadsheet you imported will have their DoB wiped, which also creates a tonne of work. Not sure if I've accidentally toyed with the wrong settings to cause that bug myself, but it's happened both times I've had to import history+rights.

Shindigs wrote:When you import from spreadsheet with 0s in all attributes on a player there is a formula that automates certain attributes to certain values. I'm not sure where/how it's implemented

I think what you noticed is what the new EHM has been like since day 1

Shindigs wrote:When you import from spreadsheet with 0s in all attributes on a player there is a formula that automates certain attributes to certain values.

It sounds like you a referring to importing data from a spreadsheet into the database via the EHM Editor (this is the only way in which spreadsheets can be imported into the database). In which case, I can confirm categorically that this is not the case as I am the author of the Editor. If a player or non-player's attribute is set as zero in the spreadsheet then it will appear in the database as a zero. If something is appearing with a value in the database where it was set as zero/blank in the spreadsheet then it is a bug with the Editor.

Shindigs wrote:Look at Riley Sutter in the db if you want to see an example; He will have all attributes at 0 except a few that are all set to 5 IIRC since his starting CA is in the 50s. I've been adding a few hundred WHL prospects in the last month and the same thing happens to them when you import them unless you manually set their attributes to stop the behaviour, creating a lot of extra work.

It sounds like you might be confusing (1) importing data into the database using spreadsheets and (2) starting a new game using your database - but I'm not really clear from your post. In the case of number 1 (importing data), as I mentioned above, the Editor will not modify the attributes. If you are referring to number 2, it is correct that the game will automatically generate attributes when starting a new game for any attribute set to zero. As Nino says, this has always been the case ever since EHM 2004. A player/non-player cannot have a zero attribute. Instead, the game will randomly generate one based on Current Ability and Player Role. The value will remain zero in the database; it's just that the saved game will have the randomly-generated attribute.

If you are in fact referring to a spreadsheet being imported into the database then please send a copy of a sample spreadsheet and I will take a look.

Shindigs wrote:Also been noticing really weird behavior where when you import either draft history or player rights (haven't found which exactly yet) from spreadsheet roughly 200-400 random player/non-players who weren't in the spreadsheet you imported will have their DoB wiped, which also creates a tonne of work. Not sure if I've accidentally toyed with the wrong settings to cause that bug myself, but it's happened both times I've had to import history+rights.

This probably belongs in the Editor thread, but if you can upload a copy of your database and a sample spreadsheet then I will take a look. There was a bug in an old version of the Editor (v0.2.5 released on 21 January 2018) that resulted in DOBs being overwritten when importing spreadsheets but this was fixed with the release of version 0.2.6 released on 24 January 2018. If you are running version 0.2.5 rather than 0.2.6 then this might explain things.

Shindigs wrote:If a player is over budget he will lose attributes in the "Irrelevant" section first. For example if you alter the values of a player with the winger:all around role to be above budget the game won't keep the ratios of abilites you input and lower all attributes across the line accordingly to maintain the same ratios, it will completely tank the Irrelevant attributes (Slapshot, Deking, Deflection, Stickhandling) first, and then more on to tanking the "non-essential" if it's still over budget.

The only Irrelevant Attribute a winger:all around has is Fighting.
Deking is Non-Essential.
Slapshot, Deflection and Stickhandling are all regular/normal Attributes (they're also among the group of Attributes that are always lowest when a player starts out because they're most connected to growth/development).

Also, I just gave a few 100 CA 13 year old players a 20 in every Attribute using the 74DB, and looked at what the game did with them...and the first example I looked at was Gretzky as a Centre: Playmaker (finesse) and he did not have his Irrelevant Attribute (Strength) completely tank (it was reduced from a 20 to a 12).

Shindigs wrote:Another thing to keep in mind is that if you only input certain values and leave others at 0 the game won't "respect" the budget. It will randomize the remaining attributes set to 0 within the possible ranges of the attribute based on the player's role and if that makes it over budget it will tank the values you set to be able to afford the values it randomized. It's a very illogical way for it to work, but it's how it works.

What's this "budget" you're talking about? It sounds like EHM05 thinking

Technical/Non-Technical Attributes were used to describe editing EHM07 (not the new EHM...the new EHM doesn't have Technical/Non-Technical Attributes like EHM07 did)

The information on Player Roles, Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes, the average Attribute value by CA chart. and what Attributes grow/develop (and by how much and when) has been available since the summer of 2016 (or earlier) and overall seems pretty logical to me

Shindigs wrote:For example, say you want a power forward who can actually skate. The game doesn't really generate those itself barring extremely unlikely randomization. So you decide to set the acceleration and speed of all power forward prospects in the game to a reasonable NHL value minimum of 12. Over the course of their development it's unlikely that this grows beyond 13 or at best 14 due to how little skating power forwards get in EHM. You'd assume the game would respect this and use the left over attribute points once those 12 are given to Acceleration and Speed to fill out the rest of the player. This isn't true, the game will just randomize all other attributes and "run out" of attributes by the time it gets to acceleration and speed, causing it to ignore your manually input value and just give whatever is left over to Accelration and Speed due to them not being Key/Core attributes for Power Forwards, because that role sucks in EHM. The way you'd actually have to go about creating that player is by giving a much lower than usual set value to all the key and core attributes for that player first, then set the Acceleration and Speed to 12. This way the player won't end up over budget and he will actually get the skating you set for him in the db. Which means if you want a player to be a good skater as a power forward you don't achieve it by setting his skating high, you achieve it by setting his Deflection/Hitting/Balance/Stamina/Strength/Wristshot lower than usual. Which is such a backwards way of needing to do things. If you set every single CA tied attribute of that prospect and he comes in under budget the game will then scale him up in a way that makes sense. So for the aformentioned power forward if you set all his technicals to like 2 and his skating and mentals to more reasonable values the "left over" points would then be spread among those technicals set to 2 until he was up to the budget given by his CA, creating a reasonable well-balanced player. This means you need to do a tonne of needless work compared to if the CA system worked the opposite way around and respected input values over randomized ones.

I think you're not factoring in that the skating Attributes are among those most affected by development/age (Skating Attributes are set and develop differently than they did in EHM07...they develop more than they did in EHM07).

I think if you think "you achieve it by setting his Deflection/Hitting/Balance/Stamina/Strength/Wristshot lower than usual" than the usual you're setting it to is unusually high (likely due to not understanding the known knowledge about Player Roles/average Attribute values/how and why Attributes develop very well).

The game does respect inputted values when you consider the CA, player age, Player Role and Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes.

While far from perfect, this system is much better than the previous systems of EHM.
I don't think EHM was ever intended to be a sandbox game with exceptional AI so a human user could enter whatever they wanted and the game would "fix things" (maybe when 1.5 is released the built-in editor will?...seems unlikely to me)

Shindigs wrote:Sadly an automated behavior was added for this year's db where an attempt was made to stop those 1s in a lot of attributes players from generating from young prospects with 0s in all attributes which assumed this worked in the opposite way of what it does, and it's actually made the problem worse as a result. Sure players don't have 1s in much of anything anymore. But now one of the skating attributes on Power Forwards is forced to be CA/10 which means 4-5 in most young prospects. And that means it won't grow to acceptable NHL levels ever. So rather than the old systems where there was a risk of Power Forwards being so awfully slow they were useless, we now have a system where it is guaranteed that they are too slow to be useful.

What's CA/10 refer to? CA/10 was used in EHM05, EHM07 researchers were warned that EHM07 was different and CA/10 no longer applied (and yet some never understood), and the new EHM is completely different than EHM07

archibalduk wrote:

Shindigs wrote:When you import from spreadsheet with 0s in all attributes on a player there is a formula that automates certain attributes to certain values.

It sounds like you a referring to importing data from a spreadsheet into the database via the EHM Editor (this is the only way in which spreadsheets can be imported into the database). In which case, I can confirm categorically that this is not the case as I am the author of the Editor. If a player or non-player's attribute is set as zero in the spreadsheet then it will appear in the database as a zero. If something is appearing with a value in the database where it was set as zero/blank in the spreadsheet then it is a bug with the Editor.

Ask Alessandro, as I said I have no idea how/where this implements. I just know last summer/fall he was talking about making some form of automation that will give players with all 0s attributes based on a ratio to their CA; And that's what I'm seeing in game too. So whatever it was it seems to work. And I'm talking about when you open the player in the editor he will have the values filled in. Not after a game starts, if you export the research sheet the same attributes are there too, and I had it happen to players who I added via spreadsheet who had 0 in all attributes, so whatever is doing it isn't manual. Since I didn't do it but it still happened.

archibalduk wrote:

Shindigs wrote:Look at Riley Sutter in the db if you want to see an example; He will have all attributes at 0 except a few that are all set to 5 IIRC since his starting CA is in the 50s. I've been adding a few hundred WHL prospects in the last month and the same thing happens to them when you import them unless you manually set their attributes to stop the behaviour, creating a lot of extra work.

It sounds like you might be confusing (1) importing data into the database using spreadsheets and (2) starting a new game using your database - but I'm not really clear from your post. In the case of number 1 (importing data), as I mentioned above, the Editor will not modify the attributes. If you are referring to number 2, it is correct that the game will automatically generate attributes when starting a new game for any attribute set to zero. As Nino says, this has always been the case ever since EHM 2004. A player/non-player cannot have a zero attribute. Instead, the game will randomly generate one based on Current Ability and Player Role. The value will remain zero in the database; it's just that the saved game will have the randomly-generated attribute.

If you are in fact referring to a spreadsheet being imported into the database then please send a copy of a sample spreadsheet and I will take a look.

Option 1, but I've since already given set attributes to all the affected players so the spreadsheet in that version isn't around. I'm currently tuning an update to automated goalie attributes in young prospects to make them "look" more like current NHL goalies at their peak, but I'll recreate it again once I'm done with that and send the sheet.

archibalduk wrote:

Shindigs wrote:Also been noticing really weird behavior where when you import either draft history or player rights (haven't found which exactly yet) from spreadsheet roughly 200-400 random player/non-players who weren't in the spreadsheet you imported will have their DoB wiped, which also creates a tonne of work. Not sure if I've accidentally toyed with the wrong settings to cause that bug myself, but it's happened both times I've had to import history+rights.

This probably belongs in the Editor thread, but if you can upload a copy of your database and a sample spreadsheet then I will take a look. There was a bug in an old version of the Editor (v0.2.5 released on 21 January 2018) that resulted in DOBs being overwritten when importing spreadsheets but this was fixed with the release of version 0.2.6 released on 24 January 2018. If you are running version 0.2.5 rather than 0.2.6 then this might explain things.

I really need to get better at looking for updates, any chance of adding auto-update/update reminder to the editor when a new version is out? Cause I just keep forgetting to check and have stuff like this/all players turning into player/coaches happening because of it. I'm actually still on 0.2.4 so I'm super behind. Thanks for letting me know, will save a lot of time.

nino33 wrote:

Shindigs wrote:If a player is over budget he will lose attributes in the "Irrelevant" section first. For example if you alter the values of a player with the winger:all around role to be above budget the game won't keep the ratios of abilites you input and lower all attributes across the line accordingly to maintain the same ratios, it will completely tank the Irrelevant attributes (Slapshot, Deking, Deflection, Stickhandling) first, and then more on to tanking the "non-essential" if it's still over budget.

The only Irrelevant Attribute a winger:all around has is Fighting.
Deking is Non-Essential.
Slapshot, Deflection and Stickhandling are all regular/normal Attributes (they're also among the group of Attributes that are always lowest when a player starts out because they're most connected to growth/development).

Also, I just gave a few 100 CA 13 year old players a 20 in every Attribute using the 74DB, and looked at what the game did with them...and the first example I looked at was Gretzky as a Centre: Playmaker (finesse) and he did not have his Irrelevant Attribute (Strength) completely tank (it was reduced from a 20 to a 12).

Yes, a value dropping from 20 to 12 certainly isn't a big difference, good point! Also unless you give all the other values that statement is pretty much pointless, if you set all attributes to 20 did the game reduce them all in such a way that the key attributes ended up the highest? It being 12 serves no purpose if you don't state the relative value of the other attributes.
Let's look at two over-budgeted all around centers. The first would be "on budget" and get true 10 (50) in all attributes if his fighting was only set to 1. But even those 9 measly attribute points over budget started to scale him down in the exact same pattern as we see on the 42 CA player who is obviously nowhere near being able to fit those 10 in everything under "budget".

So you see why I consider the attributes to be of another role that that pdf says? Because the game treats them that way. Now I should point out that which attributes get scaled like this and which end up growing more/less based on role isn't 100% consistent. For our all around center here he will gain acceleration and speed as if it was a key attribute, at a rate higher than most roles in the game. However he will gain more stickhandling than pokecheck, despite losing more stickhandling than pokecheck when over budget. His hitting was also kept mostly intact, but generally won't grow much at all; The exception to this is that if you put a value high enough compared to all the other ones the game tends to start treating it as a priority attribute in growth. If you were to make that 42 CA all around have much lower technicals all around, but with 12 in hitting he would actually gain more hitting than normal while also having a higher starting value than normal. I'm personally not a huge fan of that since it promotes even more lopsided players by making them way too good at the stuff they are good at while almost completely ignoring what they are bad at. Now mind you this tends to create more powerful players, but that's sort of the issue. When something like a winger:sniper gets 17+ in all his skating/offense that matters by like 140ish CA, what's the point in having a scorer with much more than that? It gives some pretty harsh diminishing returns for PA on certain roles, while making it so others rely on extremely high PA to even become as useful as that 140 CA Sniper.

nino33 wrote:

Shindigs wrote:Another thing to keep in mind is that if you only input certain values and leave others at 0 the game won't "respect" the budget. It will randomize the remaining attributes set to 0 within the possible ranges of the attribute based on the player's role and if that makes it over budget it will tank the values you set to be able to afford the values it randomized. It's a very illogical way for it to work, but it's how it works.

What's this "budget" you're talking about? It sounds like EHM05 thinking

Technical/Non-Technical Attributes were used to describe editing EHM07 (not the new EHM...the new EHM doesn't have Technical/Non-Technical Attributes like EHM07 did)

The information on Player Roles, Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes, the average Attribute value by CA chart. and what Attributes grow/develop (and by how much and when) has been available since the summer of 2016 (or earlier) and overall seems pretty logical to me

As I mentioned above, budget as in a player with X CA can only have Y Attribute points in total. Each point in the attributes with * next to them in the image above are priced at roughly 1/2 value (so 2 Natural Fitness has the same "cost" as 1 Hitting towards the "budget") and the ones with ** next to them are priced at roughly 1/5 value (so 5 Anticipation has the same "cost" as 1 Slapshot towards the "budget". It makes absolutely no distinction on if an attribute is key/essential/non-essential/irrelevant when pricing these. And it's the same exact thing for goalies, all their technicals cost 1 point, the * stuff costs 1/2 and the ** costs 1/5. A Goalie with 92 CA has a budget of 129 if you assume fighting is always set to 1, which gives him a 10 in every single attribute that isn't fighting; A skater with 92 CA has a budget of 150 (still with fighting at 1), which also gives him 10 in every single attribute that isn't fighting. If the total amount of attributes at 92 CA exceeds 129 or 150 for the Goalie or Skater he will be scaled down until he is "on budget" according to the image above if he happens to be an all around center.

nino33 wrote:

Shindigs wrote:For example, say you want a power forward who can actually skate. The game doesn't really generate those itself barring extremely unlikely randomization. So you decide to set the acceleration and speed of all power forward prospects in the game to a reasonable NHL value minimum of 12. Over the course of their development it's unlikely that this grows beyond 13 or at best 14 due to how little skating power forwards get in EHM. You'd assume the game would respect this and use the left over attribute points once those 12 are given to Acceleration and Speed to fill out the rest of the player. This isn't true, the game will just randomize all other attributes and "run out" of attributes by the time it gets to acceleration and speed, causing it to ignore your manually input value and just give whatever is left over to Accelration and Speed due to them not being Key/Core attributes for Power Forwards, because that role sucks in EHM. The way you'd actually have to go about creating that player is by giving a much lower than usual set value to all the key and core attributes for that player first, then set the Acceleration and Speed to 12. This way the player won't end up over budget and he will actually get the skating you set for him in the db. Which means if you want a player to be a good skater as a power forward you don't achieve it by setting his skating high, you achieve it by setting his Deflection/Hitting/Balance/Stamina/Strength/Wristshot lower than usual. Which is such a backwards way of needing to do things. If you set every single CA tied attribute of that prospect and he comes in under budget the game will then scale him up in a way that makes sense. So for the aformentioned power forward if you set all his technicals to like 2 and his skating and mentals to more reasonable values the "left over" points would then be spread among those technicals set to 2 until he was up to the budget given by his CA, creating a reasonable well-balanced player. This means you need to do a tonne of needless work compared to if the CA system worked the opposite way around and respected input values over randomized ones.

I think you're not factoring in that the skating Attributes are among those most affected by development/age (Skating Attributes are set and develop differently than they did in EHM07...they develop more than they did in EHM07).

I think if you think "you achieve it by setting his Deflection/Hitting/Balance/Stamina/Strength/Wristshot lower than usual" than the usual you're setting it to is unusually high (likely due to not understanding the known knowledge about Player Roles/average Attribute values/how and why Attributes develop very well).

The game does respect inputted values when you consider the CA, player age, Player Role and Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes.

While far from perfect, this system is much better than the previous systems of EHM.
I don't think EHM was ever intended to be a sandbox game with exceptional AI so a human user could enter whatever they wanted and the game would "fix things" (maybe when 1.5 is released the built-in editor will?...seems unlikely to me)

Do me a favor, setup a save with 10 or 100 or 1000 power forwards who start with 30-40 CA and have -9 or -15 as PA in the db, run that save as many times as you feel is needed to have a big enough sample size and come back and see if you still think that's how it works (hint: you won't). I assume you base your "knowledge" on how attributes grow on that huge study you did on the CHL a few years ago? The problem is different roles grow in different ways and IIRC you lumped all forwards together in the same pile when you compiled the results of that study/test or w/e you want to call it. This has lead to you assuming you know how something works, when it doesn't work that way at all. The CHL has a fairly high % of Sniper and Playmaker role forwards with a smattering of all around and a much smaller population of power forward/grinder/Defensive forwards. The 3 most commonly occuring roles happen to be the 3 roles with the highest acceleration and speed growth in the game on the forward side. And it's lead you to believe the average skating growth is really high for all forwards because you had a sample that happens to have the fastest roles be over-represented. That doesn't mean power forwards gain a lot of skating, it just means that those 3 roles pulled up the average. Power forwards only gain about 1-2 (maybe 3 if you're lucky) acceleration and speed over the course of their career. And with the values they usually generate with this means you won't get power forwards with 12+ in acceleration and speed more than very, very rarely.

Here's Riley Sutter after I went in and manually taught him how to skate:

He's young and undrafted and he's got a bunch of growing left to do. If it worked like you think, with that acceleration and speed at that CA/Age he would become insanely fast at his peak right?

Wrong!

That sure is some massive growth in his acceleration and speed if I do say so myself-.-' Note that I have had to go in and set all his technicals really low, because if I hadn't the game would have just randomized the technicals within the normal ranges, which in the case of Power Forwards would make him look about as ridiculous as our next player.

So let's also look at what happens when we give another power forward who starts with very low CA 15 acceleration and skating:

When we launch that game this is what NKF looks like:

Granted that's a lot more acceleration and speed than he'd get if we didn't input those values. But we input 15 and he got 13, it didn't respect our input values although they are possible values. Not to mention the lowest value we could possibly set it to if we want him to be either a 16/16 or 17/17 skater. The fact that he's 3 years younger doesn't actually matter, he will still only gain as much skating as a power forward will gain in the 6 years it takes to develop. The only real difference is that Sutter will be finished at ~24 because he starts as an 18 year old and NKF will finish at 21 because he starts as a 15 year old.

If the point you were trying to make was that we gave him 15 and the game interprets that as us wanting him to have 15 at his peak, thus dropping it by 1-2 points so that he will grow into a 15/15 eventually, then I see what you're trying to say. And for a power forward specifically that would be correct. However if we did the same thing for a sniper/playmaker he would just end up with 20/20 speed at his peak because of their insane skating growth. So that's not a consistent behaviour, just a coincidence.

And just a suggestion, maybe make sure you know how something works before calling someone else out on being wrong about how it works? You've already done it in the scouting thread and now you're doing it here too. It doesn't exactly cast you in a good light.

nino33 wrote:

Shindigs wrote:Sadly an automated behavior was added for this year's db where an attempt was made to stop those 1s in a lot of attributes players from generating from young prospects with 0s in all attributes which assumed this worked in the opposite way of what it does, and it's actually made the problem worse as a result. Sure players don't have 1s in much of anything anymore. But now one of the skating attributes on Power Forwards is forced to be CA/10 which means 4-5 in most young prospects. And that means it won't grow to acceptable NHL levels ever. So rather than the old systems where there was a risk of Power Forwards being so awfully slow they were useless, we now have a system where it is guaranteed that they are too slow to be useful.

What's CA/10 refer to? CA/10 was used in EHM05, EHM07 researchers were warned that EHM07 was different and CA/10 no longer applied (and yet some never understood), and the new EHM is completely different than EHM07

Yeah, it doesn't work. But you can find a tonne of players in the db who have the attributes that would become 1s (like they did on NKF above) set to CA/10 in the db. It's only on players who have no attributes but those set and I'm 99% sure it happened to a player I added who had 0s in everything. But with my memory the way it is me being 99% sure doesn't necessarily mean much.

Sorry for the potential double post but the wall of text needed to reply to both of you at once was getting really hard to get an overview of as I was typing it.

Shindigs wrote: Ask Alessandro, as I said I have no idea how/where this implements. I just know last summer/fall he was talking about making some form of automation that will give players with all 0s attributes based on a ratio to their CA; And that's what I'm seeing in game too. So whatever it was it seems to work. And I'm talking about when you open the player in the editor he will have the values filled in. Not after a game starts, if you export the research sheet the same attributes are there too, and I had it happen to players who I added via spreadsheet who had 0 in all attributes, so whatever is doing it isn't manual. Since I didn't do it but it still happened.

What you're noticing is what EHM has always done (at least as far back as EHM04).
There's difference from EHM07 to the new EHM due to Player Roles and tweaked Attribute development, but what you're noticing has always been happening (over multiple versions of EHM).

When the new EHM came out this was explained by me to both you and Alessandro (you and I had conflict over it, I gave up/let it be); like you, Alessandro clearly didn't understand (I base this view on CJ's Attributes weren't being changed, Alessandro's were). Also, over the years Alessandro would incorrectly reference EHM05/EHM07 editing guidelines.....and you're repeating the same incorrect things

Maybe it's the hyperbole that both you and Alessandro like that caused your confusion, I have no idea what Alessandro actually said to you, but Alessandro didn't add any automation to anything! Nothing you're noticing actually connects to whatever Alessandro explained/said, it's not "new" (he is wrong about the automation & wrong about the editing guidelines you mention)

Again I offer the testing I've done and the guidelines from Riz that I've provided publicly as sources for how EHM works if you're interested.
If not, and you want to keep doing things your way anyways that's obviously your right to do so

I post what I do not to look for conflict, and not even to convince you if you want to keep believing whatever you want, but I post this for others that may look for editing information so they won't misunderstand/be misled

nino33 wrote:

Shindigs wrote: Ask Alessandro, as I said I have no idea how/where this implements. I just know last summer/fall he was talking about making some form of automation that will give players with all 0s attributes based on a ratio to their CA; And that's what I'm seeing in game too. So whatever it was it seems to work. And I'm talking about when you open the player in the editor he will have the values filled in. Not after a game starts, if you export the research sheet the same attributes are there too, and I had it happen to players who I added via spreadsheet who had 0 in all attributes, so whatever is doing it isn't manual. Since I didn't do it but it still happened.

What you're noticing is what EHM has always done (at least as far back as EHM04).
There's difference from EHM07 to the new EHM due to Player Roles and tweaked Attribute development, but what you're noticing has always been happening (over multiple versions of EHM).

When the new EHM came out this was explained by me to both you and Alessandro (you and I had conflict over it, I gave up/let it be); like you, Alessandro clearly didn't understand (I base this view on CJ's Attributes weren't being changed, Alessandro's were). Also, over the years Alessandro would incorrectly reference EHM05/EHM07 editing guidelines.....and you're repeating the same incorrect things

Maybe it's the hyperbole that both you and Alessandro like that caused your confusion, I have no idea what Alessandro actually said to you, but Alessandro didn't add any automation to anything! Nothing you're noticing actually connects to whatever Alessandro explained/said, it's not "new" (he is wrong about the automation & wrong about the editing guidelines you mention)

Again I offer the testing I've done and the guidelines from Riz that I've provided publicly as sources for how EHM works if you're interested.
If not, and you want to keep doing things your way anyways that's obviously your right to do so

I post what I do not to look for conflict, and not even to convince you if you want to keep believing whatever you want, but I post this for others that may look for editing information so they won't misunderstand/be misled

Just to clarify, you mean that the game sets specific attributes to CA/10 in the db on players with all 0s in the actual db. Not in a started game, in the db. Because if it does that it's an issue as it makes young low ca players of certain roles guaranteed failures at the NHL level and it would boggle my mind if something that bad has stayed in the game for over a decade. But I think we're probably misunderstanding eachother as usual.

Shindigs wrote: Just to clarify, you mean that the game sets specific attributes to CA/10 in the db on players with all 0s in the actual db. Not in a started game, in the db. Because if it does that it's an issue as it makes young low ca players of certain roles guaranteed failures at the NHL level and it would boggle my mind if something that bad has stayed in the game for over a decade. But I think we're probably misunderstanding eachother as usual.

I mean CA/10 doesn't exist. I mean don't use it
It's from before I even discover EHM (it's from more than a decade ago...EHM04 I think, maybe EHM05?)

Shindigs wrote:And I'm talking about when you open the player in the editor he will have the values filled in. Not after a game starts, if you export the research sheet the same attributes are there too, and I had it happen to players who I added via spreadsheet who had 0 in all attributes, so whatever is doing it isn't manual. Since I didn't do it but it still happened.

Shindigs wrote:Option 1, but I've since already given set attributes to all the affected players so the spreadsheet in that version isn't around. I'm currently tuning an update to automated goalie attributes in young prospects to make them "look" more like current NHL goalies at their peak, but I'll recreate it again once I'm done with that and send the sheet.

I don't really know what else to say so this will be my last post on this: I have written every single line of code in the Editor. The Editor does not apply any sort of automation when creating players/importing attributes. If you enter a zero/blank in a spreadsheet then it will appear as zero in the database (and a blank will be a zero in the case of a newly created person or it will just leave the existing attribute unmodified in the case of an existing person).

As I say, if you have a spreadsheet which is resulting in numbers appearing in the database which you did not enter in the spreadsheet then you need to report this as a bug in the Editor Thread. I am very doubtful there is such an issue (but you never know) given the extent to which attribute editing has been used in the Editor for quite some time now.

Just to be clear: There is no automation in the Editor and there is no automation in the TBL Rosters. Yes, CJ did prepare a draft spreadsheet to help calculate some ratings, but this has been used little if at all to my knowledge.

There are a fair few things you're saying that are very inaccurate as Nino says. The whole CA/10 thing is completely wrong. That hasn't existed since EHM 2005. Whilst I cannot share the guide which SI gave to its database researchers back in 2006/2007, I will quote a small section of it which relates to this very point (this related to EHM 2007 research):

Past researchers will remember that the game used to divide the overall Current Ability by 10, and then modified individual technical attributes up or down if the average of all of them was significantly higher or lower than the player’s CA/10. The math has been revised for NHL:EHM to allow better representation of players at the highest and lowest ends of the rating scale.

EHM 1 has moved on further, specifically with the introduction of Player Roles. There are plenty of threads/posts from Nino which provides some insight into this (based on his own testing and his discussions with Riz).

Shindigs wrote:Let's look at two over-budgeted all around centers.

Some background on the all around Player Role (and editing in general)...

A few months after the new EHM was released (back in 2015) it was clear that "all around" was a weak Player Role (I remember Manimal and I talking about it).
I use the Player Roles in conjunction with Offensive/Defensive Player Role and the unchanging/permanent Attributes "as a group" & then I look at Attributes (considering Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant/Regular Attributes along with player age)

Your comments (including your next quote) shows, you don't understand what Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes are (and how average Attribute value for CA works) so you aren't understanding when you look at things...

Shindigs wrote:The first would be "on budget" and get true 10 (50) in all attributes if his fighting was only set to 1. But even those 9 measly attribute points over budget started to scale him down in the exact same pattern as we see on the 42 CA player who is obviously nowhere near being able to fit those 10 in everything under "budget".

There's no "average" you're aiming for on every individual Attribute
An all around forward has Fighting as his Irrelevant Attribute viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16777 so what's happening makes total sense (and clearly shows you don't understand)

Shindigs wrote:So you see why I consider the attributes to be of another role that that pdf says? Because the game treats them that way.

The PDF doesn't mention the Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes.....it doesn't tell you anything about how to edit Attributes/what weight or value to give them, so no I don't see (that's why I worked to get the OK from Riz to publicly post the Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes that were first posted in 2016)

Shindigs wrote:Now I should point out that which attributes get scaled like this and which end up growing more/less based on role isn't 100% consistent. For our all around center here he will gain acceleration and speed as if it was a key attribute, at a rate higher than most roles in the game.

I've said this before too (in particular the skating Attributes develop more in the new EHM than in EHM07 - these are the "under the hood things" that few understood when they said the new EHM and EHM07 were the same game)

EHM07 used to regularly produce "same style superplayers" for all higher CAs so the Player Role system is better but far from perfect.
I don't edit so that players get such high Attributes myself, but many others do (I feel the some way about Offensive/defensive Role)

Shindigs wrote:Now mind you this tends to create more powerful players, but that's sort of the issue. When something like a winger:sniper gets 17+ in all his skating/offense that matters by like 140ish CA, what's the point in having a scorer with much more than that? It gives some pretty harsh diminishing returns for PA on certain roles, while making it so others rely on extremely high PA to even become as useful as that 140 CA Sniper.

I agree/have been saying similar things since EHM07
Editing can reduce the affect (but most people like the high Attributes...it used to be much, much worse in EHM07)

Shindigs wrote:Do me a favor, setup a save with 10 or 100 or 1000 power forwards who start with 30-40 CA and have -9 or -15 as PA in the db, run that save as many times as you feel is needed to have a big enough sample size and come back and see if you still think that's how it works (hint: you won't).

Why are you using a 30-40 CA?

Recently I tested many hundreds of future NHL players in the 74DB (age 1-13 at startup, starting with a 0 CA) and the range they came out as was 45-61 (which I suspect may still be to low).
I also have the recommendations Riz gave me last year (we've had multiple email discussions about the topic)

A 30-40 start would be appropriate for a player with a PA of 100 or less

Shindigs wrote:I assume you base your "knowledge" on how attributes grow on that huge study you did on the CHL a few years ago?

No, that's just one of many things that's been used over the years (just because I stopped posting everything I've done doesn't mean I've stopped doing things). Most of my knowledge is based on what Riz has said that has been verified by testing (and I haven't stopped learning/testing/communicating with Riz and other editors)

Shindigs wrote:The problem is different roles grow in different ways and IIRC you lumped all forwards together in the same pile when you compiled the results of that study/test or w/e you want to call it. This has lead to you assuming you know how something works, when it doesn't work that way at all.

No, I simply grouped players in spreadsheets for ease of viewing (basic excel functionality lets anyone sort the data however they want); it wasn't meant to show details on Player Role and Attribute development (the tests I did using the entire database did that)

I didn't really compile "results" I just provided the data and summarized what Attributes never changed, what Attributes rarely changed/didn't change much and what Attributes changed "normally" (which was the point for me.....the data for viewing was for anyone interested in validating things for themselves or looking further into things)

I looked at Attributes and Player Roles individually in the threads that show Forward testing, Defensemen testing and Goaltender testing (an entire database of players/Player Roles); then I passed the test results onto Riz and he tweaked EHM accordingly (so what you're just now noticing I looked into in detail in 2016)

And I've done lots of work since then too, but I don't spend the time posting things like I once did