Subject: Questions & Answers

why this ratio shouldn't be important? Actually it is, Vlady already announced that players with low shooting comparing to their primary and secondary attributes will be penalized. and that's right I think. what kind of player is one with 200/100/100 and 50 shooting? that's not realistic...

The guy who basicly only passes the puck? In real life hockey you have defenders that their primary offansive task isnt shooting.

I disagree. You can have a really great offensive player, but if they can't finish it, they're always going to be less effective. The ability to be offensive and the ability to be a scorer are not always the same.

"The ability to be offensive and the ability to be a scorer are not always the same"

yes and that's why there shouldn't be any ratio between offensive skills and shooting

Wrong.

To be a scorer you NEED to be an offensive player. But you can be offensive, without being a scorer.

This is why the shooting attribute is so important.

In real hockey "playing defensively" does exist. it even exist several ways to do it. example: some coaches say: " today we let one forward who makes forechecking", that means if the puck is on the left side so the left winger have to forecheck and to put under pressure the opponent defender, if the puck is on the right side so the right wing have to do it.timing is really important here. other coaches let the center forecheck. that is something like defensively forechecking and if a team does not play forechecking so they definitively playing defensively. But its hard to find a clear difference between playing defensively and Counterattacks. because if a team is playing defensively so counterattacks are nearly the only way to score. this two tactic options belong automaticly together. So if a tactic option has to be delete on PPM its defensive OR counterattacks. its hard to play one without the other. the same problem is to play offensive or aktive forechecking. its nearly impossibly to refuse one of these and play the other in real hockey.

But dont waste your time with real hockey and PPM-Game engine. these are right now two different things.

PPM will never truly be like a real game... computer games are always going to be based on logic and numbers. People need to stop assuming that PPM will ever be like the real game, and accept what it is. The fact is, PPM is the best hockey manager game there is... they are always working hard to make the game better for us all and doing a very good job at it.

Of course they should be less effective. But this example player (200/100/100, 50 shooting) should have the same S% as any player with shooting 50 against the same goalie. His S% should be fine against let's say 80-40-40 goalie, but he should score s**t against 300-150-150 goalie.

Agree with Taloncarde. I have a weaker team and when I win or just take the game to overtime against a stronger squad I tend to believe it was because of my coaching skill and some very important decisions before the game, not because of luck, even if it's naive to think so. I change lines every couple days depending on my opponents' strength to surprise the opponent. At the end of the day, no matter how you setup your lines and tactics there is
no lottery. The better team does have a big advantage and league standings in every single league show it.

There are a few issues with some of the facilities though. The medical center should have more value (e.g. factor in the medical center into the career longetivity calculation). Also, I don't like the scaling of training and facilities... if you have a weaker team you loose more often, so you have less money and can't afford bettertraining, regeneration facility and sports academy and you end up with worse development of your players resulting in a vicious cycle.

So player 200/100/100 with 50 shooting should be weaker when comes to scoring than player 100/50/50 with 50 shooting? That's nonsense!
They should have the same probability to score, but 200/100/100 player should shoot from less difficult positions coz he have more other offensive skills, so he should have be a much better scorer than 100/50/50 one.
If this is not the case, than why training players in offensive skills?

I'm not a hockey expert, and I don't know much about hockey tactics. I just wanted to point out that in PPM soccer you have much more tactical options... You can set players across whole pitch, add them their duties (off or def), put a whole bunch of different line-ups, play a variety of tactics (from 10-0-0 till 0-0-10), not to mention playing on offside, delaying play, long balls, etc..
So, all in all, in PPM soccer you can really tactically outsmart your opponents, not just to believe that the fairy tale will look onto you (if you are weaker opponent by the mean that you possess a weaker players all-around)

Offensive skills are needed to produce more chances to shoot. So 200-100-100 player should score more, because he shoots more than 100-50-50 player (both shooting 50), but their S% should be quite equal (against the same goalie).

What about the thing that better player will do better tricks to fool a defenceman, a thus he will be than in rather batter position to shoot than a worse player?
Not to mention about receiving better pass from a better player.

No, not weaker. You can't really compare those 2 guys, because the 200-100-100 guy is always going to get more scoring chances. More scoring chances with equal scoring chance will always make the 200-100-100 guy the one with more goals.

Think of it this way...

The 100-50-50 guy with 50 shooting might be a top line sniper at the college hockey level. The 200-100-100 guy with 50 shooting is more like a 2nd line guy playmaker in the NHL.

The higher offense makes him a much more skilled player, but his 50 shooting is very low for the level of hockey he plays.

In theory, yes, the s% should be similar. But the 100-50-50 guy might get 2 goals off 6 shots in a game, the 200 guy might put 3 times the amount of shots, and therefor one would assume he'd get 3 times more goals.

But, if a manager trained the shooting of that 200-100-100 guy, his shooting % would be greatly increased, because he'd be a far better scorer.