Subject: Questions & Answers

A dutch manager asked me if it was normal that his first goalie only gained 3% of chemistry in two weeks time.

I also checked my own goalie and mine only got 2%. My goalie does not play friendlies, only league games.

So is it normal that in such case the increase in chemistry is that slow? anyone know?

I think it has been always that slow. My goalie who plays 3 friendlys in 1 week doesnt get any chemistry.

Normal league game 2-3 chemistry and friendlies 1-2 chemistry??

But chemistry drops about 1 grade in days he doesnt play?

and a second goalie without icetime during the game drops in chemistry, right?

Yes

thank you!

how we could figure out which tactic is more preferable for my team? ok with defensive and attacking tactics all is clear but how we make team to get best tactic for example breaking up play?

everything will be explained in the guide when the time comes

I see only two possibilities how this could work...

1st possibility: In general if my team got better defense than my opponents offense I play defensive and if I got better offense than his defense, I play offensive. What if my team got both weaker offense and defense than my opponent, doesn't make a difference any longer which tactic I play, does it?

2nd possibility: If my defensemen are much better than my forwards I have a small advantage playing defensive compared to playing offensive minded tactics. How's that supposed to work? If I had a team of great forwards and equally great defensemen would I have to play the normal tactic all the time?

C'mon Vlady, you know it, as long as you just comprare line strength instead of simulating on ice hockey no such thing like tactics will exist. The developers don't have the guts it takes to improve the engine. The new features are just a bit of tweaking here and there.

I don't mean to badmouth ppm. But the game engine will still be weak. By capping the shot efficiency you will surely have less strange results. But with the current game engine ppm will never be a hockey simulation. You could apply your engine to basketball and nobody would notice any difference and say:"Oh, darn, this is like hockey here."

I tried to make a few suggestions in this thread on how a new game engine could work with a couple more attributes just a few days ago. Nobody except of canucks357 replied. It's like people would think "oh, well, not bad maybe, but we made such suggestions in the past and they never gonna do something like that, just wasting time to talk about it."

You know what, I noticed something... people that are close to the ppm team, moderators, members of the support team etc. are always very talkactive when it comes to present new features and defending the game. But when people suggest what could be done to actually improve it you guys suddenly become very silent.

If i may...ppm is not only a Game its also a business machine...you cant Just throw ideas like that.

That's why many people who had high spirit with this game, felt as if they effort is unnoticed, or maybe felt disrespect when no one reacted.
I'm one of those who is thinking that you are wasting time, and it's pretty frustrating to get into this position.
Anyway, g' luck with your "missionary work" there.

I'm as outspoken about PPM as the next person, but i will tell you that while we may not always agree with PPM on some things, they do work incredibly hard to create this game.

Furthermore, if you know anything about programming, it's never as simple to change something as it first appears. This game engine is far more developed than many others I have played. It's not perfect by a long-shot, but the PPM team are working to improve it all the time.

Fact is, this is a game, not a simulator. And as a game, you should always remember to HAVE FUN.

I have a dream ... that some day we have a real game simulation, an engine similar to what they created in EHM but with much less variables and attributes so that the server load is not too heavy. The amount of time and effort put into patching the engine over and over again is probably about the same as creating a new one. Naive yes, foolish no way!

EHM was great, but was far from perfect. Of course, the EHM people did have more money to drop on programmers when they built it.