TheRussianRocket. Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 . * No offense to anyone* People take a game way too seriously...disregard my previous remarks if you can't understand STHS can't be perfect...don't want people whining and arguing (a general say - not pointing at anyone) more than they have already and especially don't want to be stuck in the middle of it... Sorry if you guys don't like his rating; I can't do anything about it and nor can you on other ratings that aren't deserving..."give and take". If you can't let that sink in, again, I won't be talking about this topic anymore as I don't want to be stuck with people who can't get simple logic and who take this way too seriously. Good day, and again, disregard my previous remarks - sorry.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Chris Stewart is a young player who put together some good seasons in STHS, so he developed. I was actually straight pissed about Stewart's rerate. Scores 29, SC goes up 1 Scores 18, I assume that if 29 goals = +1 SC 18 will mean -something SC, instead he gets +2 ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well Zucker and Etem are terrible IRL compared to the ratings they has in STHS too...don't want to start an arguement, but just making a logical statement that they can't get everything down perfect - Either that be Cheechoo's shooting, your 2 prospects skating, Stewarts shooting, and a list of others - and it evens out... Etem and Zucker have produced very well in the system, and have been rewarded accordingly during re-rates. Cheechoo was a pity party, 14 ahl goals doesn't make a first line sniper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well Zucker and Etem are terrible IRL compared to the ratings they has in STHS too...don't want to start an arguement, but just making a logical statement that they can't get everything down perfect - Either that be Cheechoo's shooting, your 2 prospects skating, Stewarts shooting, and a list of others - and it evens out... We're going into our third year in the league, Zucker and Etem put together good rookie seasons in the AHL and had development. It's not the same as an old fart like Cheechoo suddenly jumping up 20 points in SC. Live feed of VC (in drag, I guess): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AriGold Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I was actually straight pissed about Stewart's rerate. Scores 29, SC goes up 1 Scores 18, I assume that if 29 goals = +1 SC 18 will mean -something SC, instead he gets +2 ??? Well when it comes to this there is nothing we can do. 3 or 4 different people re-rating so it will never be the same. Different people have different views, at least it was within 1 or 2 point instead of 8-10 points difference for the attribute. Edit: Also 29 goals he should have gone up much more then 1 point, so it was wrong in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Breaking the Blues Clues gif thing to chime in here. The default rosters from day 1, probably dated back to 2006/07. With progressive updates till date. Many players are completely forgotten and not touched, Cheechoo is the case. Either that, the original roster creator didn't do his homework. I know some guys who still think of Cheechoo as a prolific goal scorer. When we did re-rates at the start of the season, we did every active NHLer and bunch of prospects. At the time Cheechoo wasn't in the NHL... simply because he wasn't an NHL caliber player. He sits in the free-agent list and has a glaring 89 SC rating which should of been re-rated from day 1. But too expect us to re-rate every free-agent would be been foolish. We were under the assumption of most of these guys suck anyways, and likely won't be signed or their ratings aren't incredibly way off base. When I was in Bunny's STHS, I tried to find hidden gems like Cheechoo, but he re-rated the player before I signed him. Some untouched players have horrible ratings from the default roster pack. Cheechoo falls into that category. Too leave Cheechoo's rating at 89 is absolutely absurd, because when I think 89 scoring, I think of a 30-35 goal scorer in the NHL. Not a 10-25 goal scorer in the AHL. This is not a case of comparing ratings to other players. Virtually every player in this game has been re-rated at one point, and Cheechoo hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Virtually every player in this game has been re-rated at one point, and Cheechoo hasn't. Actually, looking at the rating sheet for thefirst season, cheechoo had a scoring rating of 55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Actually, looking at the rating sheet for thefirst season, cheechoo had a scoring rating of 55 RollingRock already admitted he brought it back up, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Romo Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 WHO IS ROLLING ROCK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nail Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 WHO IS ROLLING ROCK? Insom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Actually, looking at the rating sheet for thefirst season, cheechoo had a scoring rating of 55 In that case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 RollingRock already admitted he brought it back up, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Can we just lower the ridiculous rating and move on? Sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Can we just lower the ridiculous rating and move on? Sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS* Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 I would also like to get all ratings as close as possible to what they should be but it takes time GM's want the season to get started so we only do what's necessary for this to happen (If we were to rate every player in the system it would probably take months and if we go through each attribute with a fine tooth comb it would even take longer) I know 1 person doing ratings is ideal it just can't happen as that would take even longer to complete that is why there is a collective few doing them I have been approached by a GM/AGM to help adjust ratings by attribute instead of doing 1 player and then all the attributes associated with him (ex: scroll through all players on the spreadsheet and only adjust Faceoffs) and then move on to another category This would be the most accurate way of doing ratings and I like this idea but it also takes time to complete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Here's what I think would be fair if you guys choose to lower the ratings: 1) Lower the ratings on Cheechoo's scoring. 2) Give Nail/TRR a chance to look at the ratings. 3) Give Nail/TRR a chance to either nullify the contract, or renegotiate the contract based on the new ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I would also like to get all ratings as close as possible to what they should be but it takes time GM's want the season to get started so we only do what's necessary for this to happen (If we were to rate every player in the system it would probably take months and if we go through each attribute with a fine tooth comb it would even take longer) I know 1 person doing ratings is ideal it just can't happen as that would take even longer to complete that is why there is a collective few doing them I have been approached by a GM/AGM to help adjust ratings by attribute instead of doing 1 player and then all the attributes associated with him (ex: scroll through all players on the spreadsheet and only adjust Faceoffs) and then move on to another category This would be the most accurate way of doing ratings and I like this idea but it also takes time to complete Could easily work on a master spreadsheet that does all the work for you. If any excel experts are here, hit me up and we'll work on something. I was testing it out, basically for hits: I felt if you average a hit per game, it deserves a +2 rating. So the formula was like IF hits = 1 per game then +2 too CK. If you averaged 1.5 hits per game, +4. 2 hits per game +6. 3 or more +6. For the AHL it would be reduced in half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nail Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 How "major" would this rerate be though? Or would it be pretty minor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I'm all in for adjusting ratings if its for every player. If it's one guy (Cheechoo in this case) only, then I wouldn't want it simply cause its unfair to put the spotlight on our one player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmen81 Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 How "major" would this rerate be though? Or would it be pretty minor? I would hope it would be as realistic as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.