Erik Karlsson Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yakupov only gets 2 overall better for me each year.. even when I put the stars to green and even if I edit him to like 72 he's only 78 after 3 years... Cory Schneider stops growing at 27... so I gave him 5 star potential and edited him a bit and he went down 2 overall after one season then got white stars :/ Some prospects like Morgan Rielly and Gaunce get super good and the rest suck. Kesler went down 2 overall after one season too wtf he's 28 not 34. I don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I had Sven Baertschi end up at 84 overall after 1 season. It's very unpredictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versace Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yea it is pretty messed up. It depends on how you develop them but theyre prime should be like 24-28 and they should start to decline at age 34. They shouldn't just shoot up they should go up gradually like 5 overall a year for guys like Yakupov and they should have real life prospect ratings like Gaunce being that good? Hell nah. Make him 4 stars and max out at 86. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James van Riemsdyk Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Gaunce got to 85 for me in 3 years, he went from 56 to 73 to 85 from playing in the juniors to my third line. Now he resides on my second line but he's listed as a first liner. it's so unpredictable. Cory Schneider just stops growing at 84 for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsasaki Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Hodgson and Ennis went up 3 overall over 3 years or something for me. And Martin went up 7 in that time. So you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayingBurke Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I believe it is how you play them. If you play a player on the first line, and the produce a lot of points, they will increase, depending on their potential. However, if they have a poor season, they can drop. Or, if you were to put Kesler on the 4th line, of course he would drop because he would not be getting the ice time nor points which he should be getting to max his potential. I think that is how the system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayStation Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I believe it is how you play them. If you play a player on the first line, and the produce a lot of points, they will increase, depending on their potential. However, if they have a poor season, they can drop. Or, if you were to put Kesler on the 4th line, of course he would drop because he would not be getting the ice time nor points which he should be getting to max his potential. I think that is how the system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 The new system is far superior to the old system, IMO. The days where high potential players are guaranteed superstars are finally over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 It's annoying though, played Yak on first line everything, only grew to 68 and other guys who played on the freakin second line did better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MashedBananas Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Gustav Nyquist shot up to an 89 on mine, and I got him for a bag of pucks, and Hamhuis shot up to a 90, and won the Norris twice. But Bieksa and Burrows both significantly dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 After 4 seasons in my Be a Pro file, former 1st Overall pick Nathan Mackinnon (who I edited to 70 OVR and 4.5 star potential) was only 72 overall. I really don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 After 4 seasons in my Be a Pro file, former 1st Overall pick Nathan Mackinnon (who I edited to 70 OVR and 4.5 star potential) was only 72 overall. I really don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franksedin Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I like the system. Not everyone reaches their potential. I was watching the 07 world junior replay yesterday and not all those guys, who are usually considered top prospects, have made it to the NHL or have been top players. You win some and you lose some...drafting and young players are always a gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chayne Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I think the system is far better. I think what needs to be remembered is the rating system is different. For example Schroeder is not going to be a 2nd or 1st line guy in real life. He is 3rd line at best and in this system that can be anywhere from 76 to 80. He is a great fit. I agree that some of the prospects need adjustments but overall the fact that some don't live up to expectation is great. Look at some of this 1st rnd draft picks that Vancouver has traded. Patrick White, Steve Bernier, Howden never mind the countless other drafts pick who haven't panned out. Where's Andrew Sarauer, Alexandre Vincent, Sergei Shirokov, Patrick McNally and the countless other fails or no names? To get a superstar is hard,takes some great development and a lot of luck. I personally like the idea that a prospect is a huge chance in the game but a lot of 3rd and 4th liners may appear for a year or two then bow out. So I guess it's not perfect but getting better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsasaki Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 For example Schroeder is not going to be a 2nd or 1st line guy in real life. He is 3rd line at best and in this system that can be anywhere from 76 to 80. He is a great fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chayne Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I got him to 84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Anything special you did? Also what did you get Jensen to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsasaki Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Anything special you did? Also what did you get Jensen to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarchandSucks Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Granlund went from 67 to 90 for me in 2 years. Seth Jones went 67 to 88. Its all about where you play them. Play the prospects on the top lines and they'll significantly grow. Some guys just turn out to be busts. I had Grigorenko and he only ended up as a 80 after 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Granlund went from 67 to 90 for me in 2 years. Seth Jones went 67 to 88. Its all about where you play them. Play the prospects on the top lines and they'll significantly grow. Some guys just turn out to be busts. I had Grigorenko and he only ended up as a 80 after 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.