Potential ceilings

[Elvs]

Does anyone know the definite ceilings for each potential level in NHL 17?

For a "top 6 forward", I'm nearly 100% certain that the highest overall a player can reach is 86.

I have a pretty good idea about some other potential levels too, but I'm not 100% sure of any of them. I'm also wondering if the player type matters. For instance, can a sniper with elite potential reach a higher overall than a grinder with elite potential could?

I'm leaving player morale out of the equation, obviously.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Does anyone know the definite ceilings for each potential level in NHL 17?

For a "top 6 forward", I'm nearly 100% certain that the highest overall a player can reach is 86.

I have a pretty good idea about some other potential levels too, but I'm not 100% sure of any of them. I'm also wondering if the player type matters. For instance, can a sniper with elite potential reach a higher overall than a grinder with elite potential could?

I'm leaving player morale out of the equation, obviously.

Potential?

I will admit I'm not playing NHL 17 right now, but I am playing 16 legacy and IMO, potential is irrelevant unless you're simming .

For example I have several players that have exceeded potential, but they only did because I don't sim a whole lot. I mean I usually just play the first period and score 5-10 goals and then quit and sim the rest of the game.

IMO, I have been playing this game for a while now, and I have noticed certain players reach a higher ceiling than others regardless of what their "potential" shows.

I think the "potential" stars are overrated and absolutely inaccurate.

Basically, the more you score with a player (goals assists doesn't matter) the higher the players rating will go up.

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

Potential?

I will admit I'm not playing NHL 17 right now, but I am playing 16 legacy and IMO, potential is irrelevant unless you're simming .

For example I have several players that have exceeded potential, but they only did because I don't sim a whole lot. I mean I usually just play the first period and score 5-10 goals and then quit and sim the rest of the game.

IMO, I have been playing this game for a while now, and I have noticed certain players reach a higher ceiling than others regardless of what their "potential" shows.

I think the "potential" stars are overrated and absolutely inaccurate.

Basically, the more you score with a player (goals assists doesn't matter) the higher the players rating will go up.

I find this hard to believe. I have had plenty of players have great seasons next to superstars despite their stats, and then they still turn out as maybe 80-82 overall regardless of potential. Granted this is in 17.

I miss nhl 11 where you could choose what they train, etc. Like FIFA

 

[Elvs]

The legacy edition might work differently. NHL 15 was the last game I played on xbox 360, where a players production would have an impact on overall growth.

Switched to xbox one for NHL 16 and NHL 17, and production has no impact at all. Me and my buddy played Be a GM as the Bruins on 16. Frank Vatrano started at 75 overall or so, and peaked at 79 despite scoring 40+ points every season, 50+ points several times and 60+ points a couple of times. He even had a 37 goal season.

I wish I would have stayed with 360 and the legacy editions. I hate the fact that you can't turn the moral system off in the new games. As it is now, one can only see the players actual overalls by going into player growth. But that only covers the human team. If a player bumps up on waivers, or if you want to trade for a player, there's no way to know their true overall rating.

Another dumb thing with the moral system is when a player gets injured. If you scratch a partially injured player, he will get disgrunted and may even ask for a trade. Instead, one has to dress injured players, risking even worse injuries (and it happens all the time).

EA need to get rid of this ****.

 

[ToppsSmith]

The legacy edition might work differently. NHL 15 was the last game I played on xbox 360, where a players production would have an impact on overall growth.

Switched to xbox one for NHL 16 and NHL 17, and production has no impact at all. Me and my buddy played Be a GM as the Bruins on 16. Frank Vatrano started at 75 overall or so, and peaked at 79 despite scoring 40+ points every season, 50+ points several times and 60+ points a couple of times. He even had a 37 goal season.

I wish I would have stayed with 360 and the legacy editions. I hate the fact that you can't turn the moral system off in the new games. As it is now, one can only see the players actual overalls by going into player growth. But that only covers the human team. If a player bumps up on waivers, or if you want to trade for a player, there's no way to know their true overall rating.

Another dumb thing with the moral system is when a player gets injured. If you scratch a partially injured player, he will get disgrunted and may even ask for a trade. Instead, one has to dress injured players, risking even worse injuries (and it happens all the time).

EA need to get rid of this ****.

In franchise turn off the moral either at the beginning of the GM mode or in the menu all the way to the right. It still shows with the drops, they still either rise or fall effecting the overall, but it's not really effecting how the team will go out and play. I play with out all the time as it is brutally broken.

 

[ripham23232]

Another dumb thing with the moral system is when a player gets injured. If you scratch a partially injured player, he will get disgrunted and may even ask for a trade. Instead, one has to dress injured players, risking even worse injuries (and it happens all the time).

EA need to get rid of this ****.

This was one of the fixes in yesterday's patch, according to the guys at Operation Sports.

 

[izzy]

Yeah players being completely demoralized due to one healthy scratch no matter the situation is dumb

 

[OneManArmy]

Point production or ice time has zero impact on a players overall rating. It's annoying as hell.

A 50-60 point season for a rookie and they get zero change to their overall. Ridiculous.

I don't think I had this problem in last gen. Play a player on the top line, they get good stats and they'll grow. Here, it's random. So far the highest I've ever had an elite medium potential player grow to is 85, decent 2nd liners sure, but definitely not "elite". And once they're in the NHL, zero growth, none.

 

[Not Sure]

I haven't finished a season yet, but I was wondering if that potential rating can change? There's young players who have potential of say a top 6 AHL forward, can they end up changing to a bottom 6 NHLer at some point or are they always limited to AHL potential? There's some decent high likelihood of reaching potential in my free agency list, but I don't know if they're worth taking a risk on if they are locked in at only reaching a mid/high 70s overall.

 

[Elvs]

I haven't finished a season yet, but I was wondering if that potential rating can change? There's young players who have potential of say a top 6 AHL forward, can they end up changing to a bottom 6 NHLer at some point or are they always limited to AHL potential? There's some decent high likelihood of reaching potential in my free agency list, but I don't know if they're worth taking a risk on if they are locked in at only reaching a mid/high 70s overall.

I play with Winnipeg (relocated as the Saskatoon Paladins). For me, Chase De Leo at 79 overall (without moral) is the highest I've seen someone with AHL top six potential grow to. I looked at some of the opposing teams, and found a couple of players with 82 overall. But I'm assuming that's with moral.

 

[Elvs]

The reason I started this thread is because I edit the players manually. But my overall ratings is generally lower than the default ratings, which creates a problem 3-4 seasons into franchise mode.

I've been editing players ever since NHL 06, when someone with 80 overall would actually be a complimentary top six forward or a very good 3rd liner. In the last couple of years, I've moved closer to the inflated overall ratings of EA. Next time I edit the players, I'm thinking I should mold the players with the same high ratings EA uses, just to get the best experience out of Franchise Mode.

So far, my best guess of potential ceilings:

Forwards:
Franchise = 96
Elite = 91
Top six = 86
Top nine = 83
Bottom six = 81
AHL top six = 79
AHL bottom six = 76

Defensemen:
Franchise = 96
Elite = 91
Top four = 86
Top six = 82
7th = 80
AHL top 2 = 78
AHL top 4 = 76

Goalies:
Franchise = 96
Elite = 91
Starter = 87
Fringe starter = 84
Backup = 81
AHL starter = 79
AHL backup = 76

These are just my guesses. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, please do!

 

[Hawksfan2828]

I find this hard to believe. I have had plenty of players have great seasons next to superstars despite their stats, and then they still turn out as maybe 80-82 overall regardless of potential. Granted this is in 17.

I miss nhl 11 where you could choose what they train, etc. Like FIFA

Well, like I said I play these guys and don't sim a lot.

It really doesn't matter what player it is - if your player is scoring 3+ goals a game and is smashing Gretzky records then you will be way higher than 82 or whatever.

My "be a pro" player is 99 and I'm in my 3rd NHL season and already captain.

Also, in GM mode player management plays a huge role in how successful your players are. For example I just traded Crosby and he was 97 overall just so I could ease Nolan Patrick into my top 6. Why did I do that? because Patrick will be a 90+ player (probably 97 within 2 seasons) and will be great for a long time while Crosby is 35 and will probably retire soon.

You have to play guys to make them better as well.....

 

[Hawksfan2828]

The legacy edition might work differently. NHL 15 was the last game I played on xbox 360, where a players production would have an impact on overall growth.

Switched to xbox one for NHL 16 and NHL 17, and production has no impact at all. Me and my buddy played Be a GM as the Bruins on 16. Frank Vatrano started at 75 overall or so, and peaked at 79 despite scoring 40+ points every season, 50+ points several times and 60+ points a couple of times. He even had a 37 goal season.

I wish I would have stayed with 360 and the legacy editions. I hate the fact that you can't turn the moral system off in the new games. As it is now, one can only see the players actual overalls by going into player growth. But that only covers the human team. If a player bumps up on waivers, or if you want to trade for a player, there's no way to know their true overall rating.

Another dumb thing with the moral system is when a player gets injured. If you scratch a partially injured player, he will get disgrunted and may even ask for a trade. Instead, one has to dress injured players, risking even worse injuries (and it happens all the time).

EA need to get rid of this ****.

Well my players are putting up way more than 50 points, I have 200 point players on my first line.

Sure I have plenty of players I drafted that aren't skilled enough to crack my roster and they usually fizzle out and I release them if they're not at least an 80 by 22 or 23, besides I don't have many players that are under 80 on my roster unless they have massive potential.

When I drafted Nolan Patrick he was only a 65 and now I think he's like an 80 2 years later at 20 so..

Obviosuly not all of your players are going to turn into stars, but what I have found is if you manually play with them they will.

 

[Elvs]

I just went 4-2, 4-0, 4-0, 4-1 through the playoffs to win the Stanley Cup. And in the playoffs, I only play every third game (in the regular season I play every seventh) and sim the games in between. And the games I play, I always play position lock.

Won it 5 seasons into franchise mode, when the opponents are back to having inflated overalls. Take that into account when you look at this lineup:


Petr Nemecek (77) - Nic Petan (80) - Patrik Laine (91)
Kyle Connor (84) - Adam Lowry (80) - Gustav Nyquist (83)
Matt Beleskey (77) - Chase De Leo (79) - Colin Wilson (82)
Brenden Lemieux (75) - Andrew Copp (77) - Scott Kosmachuk (75)

Josh Morrissey (82) - Aaron Ekblad (85)
Andreas Englund (79) - Justin Faulk (86)
Ryan Graves (74) - Jan Kostalek (75)

Corey Crawford (83)
Linus Ullmark (77)

*overalls are without moral.


That's the team that beat Washington in the finals with 4-1. Mark Scheifele (89), Connor Hellebuyck (84) and JC Lipon (79) missed the entire final series.

 

[Elvs]

Well my players are putting up way more than 50 points, I have 200 point players on my first line.

Sure I have plenty of players I drafted that aren't skilled enough to crack my roster and they usually fizzle out and I release them if they're not at least an 80 by 22 or 23, besides I don't have many players that are under 80 on my roster unless they have massive potential.

When I drafted Nolan Patrick he was only a 65 and now I think he's like an 80 2 years later at 20 so..

Obviosuly not all of your players are going to turn into stars, but what I have found is if you manually play with them they will.

How the hell do you have 200 point players? My offensive stars are Scheifele (89) and Laine (92) and the most they've reached is just above 70 points. Laine has yet to put up a 30 goal season even.

 

[ThorNton Apologist]

No way does his players put up 200pts from simming. He's obviously playing games or intervening most of them. 70 pts simming is borderline art Ross worthy

Edit: actually just had a pretty good season for scoring. 3rd season in. McDavid led league with 37G 61A. I had 5 20goal scorers and my leading scorer had 72 pts

 

[McNurse]

I haven't finished a season yet, but I was wondering if that potential rating can change? There's young players who have potential of say a top 6 AHL forward, can they end up changing to a bottom 6 NHLer at some point or are they always limited to AHL potential? There's some decent high likelihood of reaching potential in my free agency list, but I don't know if they're worth taking a risk on if they are locked in at only reaching a mid/high 70s overall.

I've seen AHL top six foward potentials hit 86 overall in my play through

 

[eli4spetterss0n]

No way does his players put up 200pts from simming. He's obviously playing games or intervening most of them. 70 pts simming is borderline art Ross worthy

Edit: actually just had a pretty good season for scoring. 3rd season in. McDavid led league with 37G 61A. I had 5 20goal scorers and my leading scorer had 72 pts

I'm not sure if everyone knows this, but if you turn the penalty slider all the way up, it has a pretty big effect effect on simulated games. Scoring goes up quite a bit with the slider maxed out.

 

[SuperGM17]

Potential?

I will admit I'm not playing NHL 17 right now, but I am playing 16 legacy and IMO, potential is irrelevant unless you're simming .

For example I have several players that have exceeded potential, but they only did because I don't sim a whole lot. I mean I usually just play the first period and score 5-10 goals and then quit and sim the rest of the game.

IMO, I have been playing this game for a while now, and I have noticed certain players reach a higher ceiling than others regardless of what their "potential" shows.

I think the "potential" stars are overrated and absolutely inaccurate.

Basically, the more you score with a player (goals assists doesn't matter) the higher the players rating will go up.

What you're talking about is called statistical growth, where if players have a great season and excell than they will grow, basically making it a breakthrough season for them. There are 3 types of growth! Normal, Statistical and moral. Normal lasts until they age out, statistical lasts usually for a few seasons and moral obviously fluctuates with moral levels.

 

[SuperGM17]

I just went 4-2, 4-0, 4-0, 4-1 through the playoffs to win the Stanley Cup. And in the playoffs, I only play every third game (in the regular season I play every seventh) and sim the games in between. And the games I play, I always play position lock.

Won it 5 seasons into franchise mode, when the opponents are back to having inflated overalls. Take that into account when you look at this lineup:


Petr Nemecek (77) - Nic Petan (80) - Philip Laine (91)
Kyle Connor (84) - Adam Lowry (80) - Gustav Nyquist (83)
Matt Beleskey (77) - Chase De Leo (79) - Colin Wilson (82)
Brenden Lemieux (75) - Andrew Copp (77) - Scott Kosmachuk (75)

Josh Morrissey (82) - Aaron Ekblad (85)
Andreas Englund (79) - Justin Faulk (86)
Ryan Graves (74) - Jan Kostalek (75)

Corey Crawford (83)
Linus Ullmark (77)

*overalls are without moral.


That's the team that beat Washington in the finals with 4-1. Mark Scheifele (89), Connor Hellebuyck (84) and JC Lipon (79) missed the entire final series.

Why are your overalls so low Ex. Crawford 83 and WHY IN GODS NAME IS LAINE NAMED PHILIP LOLO

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

I'm not sure if everyone knows this, but if you turn the penalty slider all the way up, it has a pretty big effect effect on simulated games. Scoring goes up quite a bit with the slider maxed out.

I max out penalties in settings, penalties in game sliders, and each individual penalty slider as well and see maybe one 100 point scorer in a year, but several 50 goal guys. Assists are impossible to get when I sim. Crosby, Mcdavid, etc all finish in the 65-80 point range while goalscorers hit the highest marks.

Ever since release, hundreds of seasons. I hate it.

 

[James Boss]

I max out penalties in settings, penalties in game sliders, and each individual penalty slider as well and see maybe one 100 point scorer in a year, but several 50 goal guys. Assists are impossible to get when I sim. Crosby, Mcdavid, etc all finish in the 65-80 point range while goalscorers hit the highest marks.

Ever since release, hundreds of seasons. I hate it.

Try to decrease interception ease for computer and turn up pass reception ease for players. Interceptions probably lead to quite a few unassisted goals and reception and passing sliders increased should result in more passing.

Also turn your strategy to a high cycling game and dump in rather than playing off the rush and shooting from the point. Computers tend to skate across the blue line and just let it go if they have a shooting lane.

 

[Elvs]

Why are your overalls so low Ex. Crawford 83 and WHY IN GODS NAME IS LAINE NAMED PHILIP LOLO

lol, it should Patrik sorry. Edited my previous post.

As for the low overalls, there's a number of reasons:

1. Those overalls are without player morale taken into the equation.

2. I edit the players manually, and my overalls and potentials are in general lower than EA's. They are closer to the overalls EA used in older games.

3. This was five seasons into Franchise Mode and Corey Crawford is declining. He still played very well as an 83 though and won me a cup as Hellebuyck was injured the entire playoffs.

4. I build my teams based on production and how they perform in games. If a player with a low overall is playing well and my team is winning, chances are good I'm re-signing that player.

 

[Nauzhror]

How does potential work in Be a Pro Mode? Is it important to savescum at the start and keep restarting till it gives you a player with high potential or something? It seems my potential and poise never go up, and started abysmally low. Stats are rising, but not potential, and I am unsure how much that actually matters due to the idea of a ceiling. Player is at start of draft year in CHL. He has 71 OVR, highest on his team by a mile, also one of the youngest players on the team. Despite that, most of the team has higher potential, and everyone on the team has higher poise.

 

[ToppsSmith]

How does potential work in Be a Pro Mode? Is it important to savescum at the start and keep restarting till it gives you a player with high potential or something? It seems my potential and poise never go up, and started abysmally low. Stats are rising, but not potential, and I am unsure how much that actually matters due to the idea of a ceiling. Player is at start of draft year in CHL. He has 71 OVR, highest on his team by a mile, also one of the youngest players on the team. Despite that, most of the team has higher potential, and everyone on the team has higher poise.

In Be a Pro not sure it really matters what your potential is. I'm considered a AHL 4th line center, yet I lead the league in points, and +\- as a 16yr old. With that mode the more you play well, the more you play so it is up to you there.