Sign in to follow this  
bradu

roughness rating?

Recommended Posts

anyone know what the 'roughness' rating is? How does it affect gameplay? I'm also curious if anyone knows more about the aggression rating...I know it has to do with how often a player takes penalties, but do you think 2 fighters with the same fight rating, if one of them has a higher aggression is he more likely to be the one to fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know what this does as well, since I hack '94. I'd guess aggression accounts for something different than roughness. I'd sure like to know what. It would help make more accurate ratings. Unless all it has to do with is fighting and they just left it in the 94 stats...odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aggressiveness probably has more to do with how well they chase the puck (and guys with the puck). roughness, i'm not sure about.. maybe something to do with fighting (i play 94, so I don' tknow!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accidentally used 'roughness' and 'aggressiveness' synonymously above, didn't mean to. I'm pretty sure that aggressiveness has to do with how likely a guy is to take a penalty. Not positive, but that was my understanding. Not sure if it has any effect if penalties are turned off.

Roughness, on the other hand, I really don't know about.

aggressiveness probably has more to do with how well they chase the puck (and guys with the puck). roughness, i'm not sure about.. maybe something to do with fighting (i play 94, so I don' tknow!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...I wish someone could figure out exactly what they both do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, I believe roughness and aggression pertain to fighting. Remember, NHL 94 has the same gameplay engine as NHLPA 93; it's basically NHLPA 93 with the fights removed from the game (but everything else left intact).

If I am correct about these attributes, then roughness determines how often a player will try to get into a fight. I believe aggression is how likely a player is to be penalized for his illegal hits, hooks, and any other infractions.

I believe the player's fighting ability is in the player's handedness. For instance, RIGHTY/100 would be a right-handed shooter with a 100 fighting rating. This player would need the fewest punches to win a fight, and can take more punches than other fighters. Aggression and roughness just determine how often a player fights (when other fighters are on the ice, of course) and how often a player is penalized for his actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggressiveness is how often a player takes a penalty.

Roughness is not present in NHL94.

What I do not understand is why Aggressiveness has a POSITIVE affect on Overall Rating when going on the PK is not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggressiveness is how often a player takes a penalty.

Roughness is not present in NHL94.

What I do not understand is why Aggressiveness has a POSITIVE affect on Overall Rating when going on the PK is not a good thing.

I can't speak for the SNES version; however, I do have the GENS version of the games. Roughness and aggression are both in NHL '94 (according to NOSE). Although both aggression and roughness show up for NHL '94 in NOSE, roughness is NOT displayed when you go to TEAM ROSTER and view the ratings for them during gameplay of NHL '94.

In NHL '94, changing a player's aggression rating does NOT affect their overall rating in GENS. Likewise, changing the roughness rating also has no effect on the overall rating.

Changing a player's roughness rating does not affect his overall rating in the GENS version of NHLPA '93, either. Aggression also does not affect the player's overall rating in NHLPA '93 on GENS.

One huge difference between the two games, however, is the fact that speed WILL affect a goaltender's overall rating in NHLPA '93; however, it does NOT affect a goaltender's rating in NHL '94.

Edited by TruePensFan1981

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious because I've seen a 'checking' rating but not a 'roughness' rating. Are they the same thing? I was never more effective at checking with higher rated checking players so I always assumed it had to do with how well the CPU could check with those players. For the player I'm controlling nobody checks better than Roenick but Fleury is a close 2nd. With Roenick I don't even need momentum to lay someone out.

I agree with TruePensFan about aggression, it seems to make a player more likely to fight if a 71 or higher fighter is on the ice. I've seen 14-rated fighters with high agg get in lots of fights, and 42-rated fighters with low agg get in less fights. And most of you probably know a 0 fighter will never fight (which can be a good thing), and a fight won't happen unless at least one of the players has 71 or higher fighting.

Changing a player's roughness rating does not affect his overall rating in the GENS version of NHLPA '93, either. Aggression also does not affect the player's overall rating in NHLPA '93 on GENS.

This is correct. The overall rating in '93 is an average of the first 9 attributes, the last one being endurance. So aggressiveness, checking, and fighting don't count. I have a spreadsheet with attributes for every player in the game and used this formula to double check my entry work, and the OVR for every player came out right. Well, I should say it was sometimes off by 1 point, higher or lower. They may have used real numbers for the attributes when calculating the OVR, ie 66.7 instead of 66, so that could explain the small difference.

I tried '94 a little and the rating system is a little weird. I wonder if they used the same formula from '93, then ranked players by OVR, then used a multiplier to get Lemieux and Bourque to 99, and used the same multiplier to bump up every player's OVR proportionally. Just a thought but I really don't know. I got the feeling they wanted one forward and one defenseman at 99, no matter what they had to do to achieve that, short of making them perfect cartoonish players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone figured this out in I think their first and only post on the forum:

There is no Roughness rating. That attribute is actually related to passing, the "pass bias." Players with a high value in that attribute tend to have lots of assists in the real NHL season before the game was made. Gretzky, Oates, and Lemieux all have 6 in that attribute.

Whether or not the attribute actually affects gameplay, I'm not sure. I guess it might increase the chance the player passes.

As for checking, it's based primarily on weight, and maybe somewhat on speed. Fleury should actually be able to check better than Roenick because he's lighter and just as fast. There's a bug in the game that makes lighter players better checkers (they got the comparison backwards).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh funny, I didn't know that about light players. I'll have to start using them more. So does the checking rating mean anything at all? Anything to do with how the CPU checks?

Edit: Don Sweeney could be the missing link I've been waiting for! Boston keeps looking better and better.

Edited by Klimanen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh funny, I didn't know that about light players. I'll have to start using them more. So does the checking rating mean anything at all? Anything to do with how the CPU checks?

Edit: Don Sweeney could be the missing link I've been waiting for! Boston keeps looking better and better.

Don Sweeney is a beast, often gets drafted in the first round in GDL (Gens Draft League).

You're right, the checking rating affects how often players check under AI control. Whenever you're playing with or against Boston, and Bourque is on the ice, just watch him.. I think he's the only player in the game with 99 checking, and he goes around and pulverizes everyone, it's hilarious. (the CPU seems immune to the weight bug problem?)

Check out the weight bug fix thread where I posted some ROMs with the weight bug fixed, so the heavy guys can check properly. I also incorporated the checking rating into the checking effectiveness, so guys with high checking ratings relative their weight check more effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggression is how hard the guy attacks the play(checking and aggression work together),roughness is how tough the guy is ,he will take n give checks and be hard to get off the puck no matter what his weight is,example-messier will take out a light guy with a good hit even tho he is 220-228,kinda like a logger and a banker sort of thing.

Edited by hokkeefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

roughness is how tough the guy is

Read the rest of the replies ;)

Roughness doesn't exist. It's actually the pass bias attribute. "Roughness" was just a guess at what it did so that it could have a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a spreadsheet with attributes for every player in the game and used this formula to double check my entry work, and the OVR for every player came out right. Well, I should say it was sometimes off by 1 point, higher or lower. They may have used real numbers for the attributes when calculating the OVR, ie 66.7 instead of 66, so that could explain the small difference.

I tried '94 a little and the rating system is a little weird. I wonder if they used the same formula from '93, then ranked players by OVR, then used a multiplier to get Lemieux and Bourque to 99, and used the same multiplier to bump up every player's OVR proportionally. Just a thought but I really don't know. I got the feeling they wanted one forward and one defenseman at 99, no matter what they had to do to achieve that, short of making them perfect cartoonish players.

The games use integers for pretty much everything. floating point (real) math was expensive and slow back then. They might multiply things, and then divide, and then discard remainders, introducing some variation compared to what you'd get using decimals.

The overall formula in Genesis 94 was something like..

Using the base ratings out of 0-6 (0=25, 1=26-34?...5=81-98, 6=99-108.. something like that)..

overall = 2*agility + 3*speed + 1*shot power + 2*shot accuracy.. etc.. I can't remember the exact values.

Check the spreadsheet on http://blitz94.com/downloads and you can see how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the weight bug fix thread where I posted some ROMs with the weight bug fixed, so the heavy guys can check properly. I also incorporated the checking rating into the checking effectiveness, so guys with high checking ratings relative their weight check more effectively.

Awesome, thanks for making that fix! It always bothered me that a lot of guys were slow and useless in the game, maybe with good shot power but no accuracy. With checking corrected I'm sure the game has more depth. I can't wait to play with the Pens again.

The games use integers for pretty much everything. floating point (real) math was expensive and slow back then. They might multiply things, and then divide, and then discard remainders, introducing some variation compared to what you'd get using decimals.

The overall formula in Genesis 94 was something like..

Using the base ratings out of 0-6 (0=25, 1=26-34?...5=81-98, 6=99-108.. something like that)..

overall = 2*agility + 3*speed + 1*shot power + 2*shot accuracy.. etc.. I can't remember the exact values.

Check the spreadsheet on http://blitz94.com/downloads and you can see how it works.

Oh that is interesting. A weighted overall rating has to be better. Really how could you weigh everything equally and come out with a meaningful number in '93? Nice step up for '94.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh that is interesting. A weighted overall rating has to be better. Really how could you weigh everything equally and come out with a meaningful number in '93? Nice step up for '94.

It's better, but not perfect. Shot power only weighted 1 is surely the biggest error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah shot power is important. Doesn't it affect wrist shots as well? I can't ever score with Gretzky in '93. I swear LA is better without him on the first line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah shot power is important. Doesn't it affect wrist shots as well? I can't ever score with Gretzky in '93. I swear LA is better without him on the first line.

Yeah, I don't see why it wouldn't affect wrist shots.

With the weight bug fix, Gretzky definitely isn't a sure first liner.. but with it, you need him badly for his checking power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the weight bug fix, Gretzky definitely isn't a sure first liner.. but with it, you need him badly for his checking power

True true. Can't forget about the little guys with big hearts :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this