FHM 11

[KnightAttack]

I watched the first live on Twitch (or was it the second?) and it was mentionned there were changes regarding scouting (or just scouting reports?), but there wasn't much details (or, if there was, I missed them). Also mentionned the revamped scouting reports on the Website.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it appears to have been the reports that were changed, as opposed to scouting as a whole.

There was also some minor tweaking done to Scouting as well. You can see the full list on our official forums (but I'm not sure if I can link it here, but you can find it easy enough) of all the changes made for FHM8.

 

[ThePuckStopsHere]

So I am stuck below cap floor… NOT ONE free agent is eligible for an NHL contract. Waivers and call ups don’t count against the cap till the next day. What the hell do I do now?

 

[KnightAttack]

So I am stuck below cap floor… NOT ONE free agent is eligible for an NHL contract. Waivers and call ups don’t count against the cap till the next day. What the hell do I do now?

You probably need to adjust some contracts manually. Just edit the contracts in Commissioner Mode and then make sure to hit "Recalc".

 

[Captain34]

If you weren't aware, 8 is now available! (Released yesterday). - Sorry for my late reply - I've been in the hospital. You should be finding it just about everywhere you could want to buy it (or if not, soon!).

Great game! Thank you.

 

[alko]

Its time for new Thread.

 

[Paul4587]

Has any work been done on FHM8 to overhaul special teams tactics and AI decision making on who to use, especially on the PP?

That was probably my biggest gripe with FHM7 is having to dictate what set positions players played on the PP when in reality a good PP is going to have a lot of movement and rotating - using four forwards would mean the forward in the defensive slot would never produce to the level the other 3 forwards did. And also seeing AI coaches opt to use fringe NHLers on the top unit over elite NHLers because the fringe player was assigned an offensive role and the elite NHLer had a defensive or two way role.

 

[KnightAttack]

Has any work been done on FHM8 to overhaul special teams tactics and AI decision making on who to use, especially on the PP?

That was probably my biggest gripe with FHM7 is having to dictate what set positions players played on the PP when in reality a good PP is going to have a lot of movement and rotating - using four forwards would mean the forward in the defensive slot would never produce to the level the other 3 forwards did. And also seeing AI coaches opt to use fringe NHLers on the top unit over elite NHLers because the fringe player was assigned an offensive role and the elite NHLer had a defensive or two way role.

It's on the list to get done for an upcoming update (but not the next one).

 

[Green Snow Storm]

What about trade difficulty, what differentiates harder from much harder or much much harder? Looking to use the most realistic setting.

 

[Paul4587]

It's on the list to get done for an upcoming update (but not the next one).

Are we talking for an FHM8 update or will it be in 9?

 

[KaraLupin]

This needs it’s own thread, the FHM4 one is a touch out of date.

Out of the Park Developments Announces Franchise Hockey Manager 6

Comes out October 11. I highly recommend to anyone interested in hockey sims to buy this game. FHM5 was the most fun I’ve had playing a hockey game in a long time.

Wanna change your thread title to FHM 8? People might now know..

 

[Paul4587]

Wanna change your thread title to FHM 8? People might now know..

Pretty sure only Mods can do that, I can only edit the post.

 

[KnightAttack]

What about trade difficulty, what differentiates harder from much harder or much much harder? Looking to use the most realistic setting.

I think it's pretty good as a base myself, but I understand why people feel differently. I think the best way is to play around with it a bit and see what you like best. It does get noticeably harder the higher you turn it up though.

Are we talking for an FHM8 update or will it be in 9?

The plan right now is 8. It's hopeful to be before the end of the year, but I don't want to guarantee that because other things can come up or it doesn't test quite as well as we hoped.

 

[Section Netherlands]

How is this game if you want to play in a European league? I played the fifth version but I found that it was not really suited for non-american leagues at that time. Any difference now?

 

[KnightAttack]

How is this game if you want to play in a European league? I played the fifth version but I found that it was not really suited for non-american leagues at that time. Any difference now?

Improvements have been made but what are you specifically referring to?

 

[GettingYourMoms]

Improvements have been made but what are you specifically referring to?

how about prospect development, it seemed that in fhm7 they did not develop at all, new good players were practically non existent later in game and majority of top prospects were busts.

 

[KnightAttack]

how about prospect development, it seemed that in fhm7 they did not develop at all, new good players were practically non existent later in game and majority of top prospects were busts.

Just curious were you doing your own training? Or are you talking league in general?

Everything has been tightened up, but I don't recall seeing that many issues posted with people saying that previously (although I can't remember everything off the top of my head). A lot of development comes down to situations and how players adapt though.

 

[alko]

how about prospect development, it seemed that in fhm7 they did not develop at all, new good players were practically non existent later in game and majority of top prospects were busts.

I disagree. With a little notice. There was a short period in the game (it seems not only in my game), where the talent level was really low. But after some seasons it jumped back and there were very good players to see, sometimes generational talents.

 

[Archijerej]

I've bought the game recently and just started to manage the Habs' 2020-21 season.

My question concerns player rankings and attributes. Are they generated randomly based on some kind of player profile? Are they scouted? I've found some really odd ones just in the first 10 minutes:

Price - Positioning 13. Isn't positioning the foundation of Price's game?

Victor Mete - 4 star potential. Really? A #1 defenceman? I don't seem to recall even the most optimistic predictions ever mentioning that. Puckhandling 17, one point less than Nicklas Backstrom. Shooting range 15? His muffin shot has a legendary status among the Habs fans.

Josh Brook's potential at 4,5 stars? Wow! We have hoped he could be a top-4 defenceman in the NHL, but one of the best in the world? Who made such a bold prediction after an underwhelming AHL debut season?

I'm sure I will be having lots of fun, but it kind of feels like I'm managing some different and unknown team.

 

[KnightAttack]

I've bought the game recently and just started to manage the Habs' 2020-21 season.

My question concerns player rankings and attributes. Are they generated randomly based on some kind of player profile? Are they scouted? I've found some really odd ones just in the first 10 minutes:

Price - Positioning 13. Isn't positioning the foundation of Price's game?

Victor Mete - 4 star potential. Really? A #1 defenceman? I don't seem to recall even the most optimistic predictions ever mentioning that. Puckhandling 17, one point less than Nicklas Backstrom. Shooting range 15? His muffin shot has a legendary status among the Habs fans.

Josh Brook's potential at 4,5 stars? Wow! We have hoped he could be a top-4 defenceman in the NHL, but one of the best in the world? Who made such a bold prediction after an underwhelming AHL debut season?

I'm sure I will be having lots of fun, but it kind of feels like I'm managing some different and unknown team.

Scouting is a thing that most people could spend all day arguing on. Not that that's a bad thing!

But there's always going to be disagreements on some things.

Re: Potential. Potential is just that: Potential. Just because they *could* get that high doesn't mean they actually will.

Just curious, what build are you on? Because I just loaded a new standard game and nothing I'm seeing is close to what you're seeing. So I'm going to need some more details.

 

[Archijerej]

Scouting is a thing that most people could spend all day arguing on. Not that that's a bad thing!

But there's always going to be disagreements on some things.

Re: Potential. Potential is just that: Potential. Just because they *could* get that high doesn't mean they actually will.

Just curious, what build are you on? Because I just loaded a new standard game and nothing I'm seeing is close to what you're seeing. So I'm going to need some more details.

Version: 7.5 Build 145

 

[KnightAttack]

Version: 7.5 Build 145

Oh, okay, you just got 7, not 8.

Well, let me start off while I'm currently waiting for a 7 game to load that all 3 received ratings changes in 8. Both the defensemen are now 2.5 potential and Price received a ratings bump to 15 in that category.

As for 7 - looking back at the game, Brook was a little high, but there was hope there for him playing to a higher trajectory than what he was at. Same with Mete (although this game I just loaded has him showing at 3.0 C). However both are only 1.5 stars and realistically are unlikely to hit their top potential either. We rate and re-rate players throughout the year, but scouting is one of those things that's it's still really hard to know exactly where a player may fall from ages 15-23. We do what we can with our team members, some of the beta testers who contribute as well as EP to put our best evaluations forward. Of course, we're always open to hearing why you think a player should be, although we may not always agree.

And as always, you're free to change their ratings if you're in Commissioner Mode (or you can see the changes in 8 when/if you choose to buy it as well).

 

[Archijerej]

We do what we can with our team members, some of the beta testers who contribute as well as EP to put our best evaluations forward. Of course, we're always open to hearing why you think a player should be, although we may not always agree.

Understandable.

May I suggest putting a greater emphasis on this aspect, as it's one of the most important ones for a sport management game? If done wrong, it can kill the feeling of immersion for a lot of potential players.

Disagreements are fine. I never expect player profiles to match exactly with my opinion of them. That said, if they're clearly off the mark, then it definitely needs work. Nick Suzuki with 17 acceleration and speed and "speedy forward" as his most suitable tactical role? You can't but feel those things are randomly generated.

As for 7 - looking back at the game, Brook was a little high, but there was hope there for him playing to a higher trajectory than what he was at.

Yes, but why? A #1D was absolutely the most optimistic prediction and the game was released already after his 2019-20 AHL season. I'm assuming that I've bought the latest version of FHM7, so there has been an even greater sample size to evaluate the player at pro level.

But I guess when it comes to potential, it's better to project higher and have a player not reaching it, than the other way aroung. As long as such principle is applied consistently, I'd be fine with it. But why then, for example, not give Suzuki a 4-star potential (#1C)? He's at 3,5 in my game.

Well, let me start off while I'm currently waiting for a 7 game to load that all 3 received ratings changes in 8. Both the defensemen are now 2.5 potential and Price received a ratings bump to 15 in that category.

I'm glad it was addressed.

And as always, you're free to change their ratings if you're in Commissioner Mode

I would rather not do that.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Archijerej]

As for 7 - looking back at the game, Brook was a little high, but there was hope there for him playing to a higher trajectory than what he was at. Same with Mete (although this game I just loaded has him showing at 3.0 C).

Just a quick question. What might be the reason for the difference in attributes between my version and yours? Should I update mine? Could you tell me what exactly I should do?

Thanks.

 

[KnightAttack]

Understandable.

May I suggest putting a greater emphasis on this aspect, as it's one of the most important ones for a sport management game? If done wrong, it can kill the feeling of immersion for a lot of potential players.

Disagreements are fine. I never expect player profiles to match exactly with my opinion of them. That said, if they're clearly off the mark, then it definitely needs work. Nick Suzuki with 17 acceleration and speed and "speedy forward" as his most suitable tactical role? You can't but feel those things are randomly generated.


Yes, but why? A #1D was absolutely the most optimistic prediction and the game was released already after his 2019-20 AHL season. I'm assuming that I've bought the latest version of FHM7, so there has been an even greater sample size to evaluate the player at pro level.

But I guess when it comes to potential, it's better to project higher and have a player not reaching it, than the other way aroung. As long as such principle is applied consistently, I'd be fine with it. But why then, for example, not give Suzuki a 4-star potential (#1C)? He's at 3,5 in my game.

Thanks for your reply.

We feel our ratings for the most part are in a great spot. Again, you're putting maybe a little too much emphasis on the Potential versus where the player actually is at. I believe (without looking) Brook is around a 1.5 star talent player. He was also a former second round pick, only having 1 season in the AHL and as a defensive defenseman put up a respectable 13 points. I understand what you're saying, but you're also coming skewed with a Canadiens-fan perspective and having the hindsight of an entire year. He probably would have been better suited at 3.5 (or maybe 3), but in all likelihood unless you're throwing a ton of points on him, he'll likely max out at most at 2.5 current ability/potential (and it does go down!)

As for Suzuki, Loading up my game, he's best rated as a Counterattacking Forward, but part of that may be my coaching style as well. Why do you think 17 out of 20 for Speed and Acceleration is bad by the way?

Just a quick question. What might be the reason for the difference in attributes between my version and yours? Should I update mine? Could you tell me what exactly I should do?

Thanks.

But to address your question; Suzuki in FHM7 in the Last Roster update (not the beginning of the year because I'm not looking at that) had 4 star potential at the end - but he's currently at 3. In 8, around the league he's seen a potential of 5, but I see him as a 4.5

Now, before I go into much more let me just point out here; Stars do not equal out of 100.

Here's a copy/paste of something I wrote a while ago:

The star ratings are relative to the league you're currently employed in (or the NHL if you're unemployed), so the same player will have different star ratings from different perspectives (e.g., an NHL team may see him as 1-star, where he might be 3-star in the ECHL.) Typically, think of it like this:
0.5 - Below level - Don't start this player unless you have to.
1 - Emergency Call up - Start this player when you have to.
1.5 - 13th man/7th Defenseman. - Good to have around and will play some - can play better than expected.
2.0 - Depth - A league-ready player who will contribute when the matchup is right.
2.5 - Bottom 6 forward/low pairing D - Can contribute when necessary.
3.0 - League ready players. Will contribute nightly.
3.5 - 5.0 - Top league players.
Please note though: It's also good to note (Current) Ability vs Potential. A Five star potential with a one star current ability is much better suited for a lower level than playing on your 4th line.
Potential is just the maximum star rating he's expected to reach in the future; he may or may not actually reach it (and there's a small chance he could exceed it as well.)

A guy like Suzuki will likely hit his targets and may even surpass especially if you add training bonuses to him versus a guy like Brook.


So to answer your last question; You could be on opening rosters, my Scouting may not be perfect (as I said, Mete was a C versus an A so there can be errors) or you could have changed the weight of how stars are calculated and put more a focus on points (or something like that).

So hopefully that answers some of your questions. Maybe it raised a few more too.

 

[Archijerej]

Brook is around a 1.5 star talent player. He was also a former second round pick, only having 1 season in the AHL and as a defensive defenseman put up a respectable 13 points. I understand what you're saying, but you're also coming skewed with a Canadiens-fan perspective and having the hindsight of an entire year. He probably would have been better suited at 3.5 (or maybe 3), but in all likelihood unless you're throwing a ton of points on him, he'll likely max out at most at 2.5 current ability/potential (and it does go down!)

1,5 star for current ability is fine.

My concern was with potential. If the game places a hard ceiling on a player's development based on his maximum potential (which would be logical), then it certainly makes sense to give to young players more potential then they probably deserve, in order to allow for unexpected development stories, which happen frequently in hockey. Like you said, most of them won't reach that potential anyway, so no harm done. As I indicated in my previous post, I'm perfectly fine with this principle, provided it is beeing applied consistently. If you have Victor Mete and Josh Brook (who's an offensive defenceman, btw) ranked at 4-star potential and Suzuki at 3,5 (or a relatively low potential given to prospects like Norlinder, Harris and Fairbrother), then the principle is not applied consistently.

I don't think I'm speaking with hindsight. The game starts at the start of 2020-21 season, so I'm assuming it was released several months later. The version I'm playing was later still. There was the whole of 2019-20 season sample size, as well as most (I'm assuming) of 2020-21.

As for Suzuki, Loading up my game, he's best rated as a Counterattacking Forward, but part of that may be my coaching style as well. Why do you think 17 out of 20 for Speed and Acceleration is bad by the way?

Skating was the main issue with Suzuki when he was drafted. Since then, he has improved significantly. His technique is fine, he should have solid balance and agility ratings, however in terms of top speed and acceleration he's probably an NHL average at best. He outsmarts his opponents, not outraces them.

For reference, see his last goal against Calgary. He caught Gudbranson (a towering, sluggish defenceman) flatfooted at the blueline. Still, the opponent forced him to the outside and Suzuki had to bank it off Markstrom's pad from below the goal line.

2.5 - Bottom 6 forward/low pairing D - Can contribute when necessary.
3.0 - League ready players. Will contribute nightly.

Thanks for clarification. I thought it was much more staightforward:

5 stars - the stars of the league. A handful of best players at their respective positions
4 stars - #1D, first-line forward, very good starting goaltender
3 stars - top-3D, top-6 forward, starting goaltender
2 stars - bottom-3D, bottom-6 forward, backup goalie
1 star - #6-8D, #12-14F, #3G

Seems like the person responsible for scouting the Habs didn't understand the system, or I've found another oddity. If 2,5 is a low pairing D, then how come Jeff Petry is at 3 stars, a minimum possible increase from 2,5 (half a star)? In "my" system I thought him to be a top-3 D (a #2/3D), which would have been fine (well, the Habs fans think he's a #1D, so they would be unhappy anyway).

So to answer your last question; You could be on opening rosters, my Scouting may not be perfect (as I said, Mete was a C versus an A so there can be errors) or you could have changed the weight of how stars are calculated and put more a focus on points (or something like that).

This must be the reason. I didn't tinker with any options, but I did select opening night rosters and an early start. But why does it affect player rankings?