TruePensFan1981

[Kevin_Stevens] You're the best, Bellows!!! [/Kevin_Stevens]

The Russian teams can only be used as away teams in his rom. Frankly, I find it fitting that they can only play as away teams. After all, the super series was played on American soil.

I refuse to name active players, because... they're still active! Crosby needs to prove he can have an exceptional career - which he probably will - before I name him. Malkin is better than Crosby, but it's a shame that Malkin SUCKS at faceoffs. Nevertheless, my five: Wayne Gretzky Mario Lemieux Sergei Fedorov Bryan Trottier Steve Yzerman Despite not making my top 5, I'd like to give props to Mark Messier and Ron Francis.

Very well. But I remind you that I gave you the correct answer in our AIM discussion last night (you even said so yourself). I just didn't want to be obvious and spoil it for everybody else with my post. They can wait and let the suspense force them to pull their hair out of their heads.

It's still a terrible way to evaluate goaltenders, regardless of career totals. Brodeur and Roy were both on good teams for virtually their entire careers; therefore, they had every opportunity to pad their respective win columns. I like to evaluate goaltenders based on the quality of their play. Regardless of what methods you take, ranking goalies will always be subjective rather than definitive. I rate Fuhr ahead of Roy, but not ahead of Brodeur. I feel bad for great goalies like Fuhr. Fuhr is easily one of the greatest goalies ever, but won't get the recognition he deserves from future generations because the future generations will only be subjected to the numbers put up by overpadded goalies and goalies who were fortunate enough to have the longetivity needed to put up such numbers, and who were lucky enough to play for great teams at the end of their careers. While all goalies with great win totals played for good teams in their careers, I would have to say that the goalie who did the most with the least amount of talent in front of him would have to be Dominik Hasek from 1994-1999. Despite that, Tretiak and Brodeur are still 1 and 2 on my list. I also have Fuhr, Hasek, and Roy rounding out my list of greatest goalies ever. If I would've named any maskless goalies, I would have named Sawchuk and Hall (Hall's records are especially impressive).

That's a terribly misleading way to evaluate goaltenders. Remember, the goaltender's stats isn't entirely his own doing, but is also the byproduct of the team he is on. Guy Hebert, John Vanbiesbrouck and Bill Ranford were damn good goalies; unfortunately for them, they weren't on great teams for the bulk of their careers. Using your "ratio", you could probably argue that a friggin' BUM like Dany Sabourin is a better goalie than Josh Harding (which is a most laughable thing for anyone to believe).

Vladislav Tretiak, Martin Brodeur, Grant Fuhr, Dominik Hasek, Patrick Roy.

The original method of shooting a penalty shot was to take a slap shot from where the puck was placed by the official. And as for today's penalty shots, I wish they would make offending players serve a penalty if the shooter fails to score.

Why is NOSE unable to open this file?

I always use EC8 for the goalie crease.

She took the midnight train goin' anywheeeere!

I don't know what rom you're using, but I did these experiments with the original NHLPA '93 rom. I get a decent number of fights with 10-minute periods when the correct players are on the ice (guys like Grimson, Probert, etc). The aim of my experiment, though, was to figure out what the ratings mean, rather than finding out how often people fight. The only mystery that remains is roughness. After my conclusions, I think roughness just determines how likely you are to injure another player in a fight (or perhaps even with checks).

Does roughness determine how many punches you can take? Roughness does NOT determine how many punches you can take before losing. Both Probert and Grimson had 100 ratings for fighting, aggression, AND roughness. When their ratings were identical, Probert lost after Grimson landed 15 punches. When Probert and Grimson both had 100 for fighting and aggression, but Probert had a 0 for roughness and Grimson had a 100 for roughness, Probert once again lost after taking 15 punches from Grimson. Therefore, we can conclude that roughness does not affect a fighter’s ability to take punches. That is in the FIGHTING rating. Does 100 fighting but lower roughness mean you need more punches to win? NO. Roughness does not determine how many punches you need to win. Your FIGHTING rating determines how many punches you can take, and how many punches you need to win. Steve Smith had a 71 fighting, 100 aggression, and 46 roughness when he faced Bob Probert’s 100 fighting, 100 aggression, and 100 roughness. Probert won after landing 11 punches. Rob Brown had the SAME fighting rating as Steve Smith (71), and faced a LOWER-ROUGHNESS Bob Probert. Brown’s 71 fighting, 66 aggression, and 46 roughness lost to Bob Probert’s 100 fighting, 100 aggression, and 0 roughness after Probert landed 11 punches (the same number of punches it took him to KO 71-fighting Smith while having a perfect roughness rating). We can conclude that roughness does NOT determine how many punches you need to win, or how many punches you can take. That is determined solely by your fighting rating. What does roughness determine? I do not know. It could possibly determine how often you fight; however, I must note that Grimson DID NOT FIGHT AT ALL when he had a zero fighting, 100 aggression, and 100 roughness. If roughness does not pertain to how often a player fights, then MAYBE it determines a player’s likelihood of injuring another player DURING the fight? I noticed that Grimson was making heads bleed more frequently when his roughness rating was 100; however, this could be just coincidental. What does aggression determine? I believe we can all agree that aggression determines how likely a player is to get penalized for hooking, cross-checking, and other infractions.

I decided to experiment with fights in NHLPA '93 using Chicago and Detroit. My aim was to stage fights between Stu Grimson and Bob Probert, while changing their aggression, roughness, and fighting ratings. While my intention was to have only Grimson/Probert fights, some other players stepped in at times. Nevertheless, I noted the results (and what their ratings were). I will paste the results, and you will see my conclusions in my response to this initial post. Without further ado, here were the fighting results. ____________________________________________________________ Stu Grimson: 0 fighting, 100 aggression, 100 roughness (never fought) Bob Probert: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 100 roughness Steve Smith: 71 fighting, 100 aggression, 46 roughness ***Steve Smith lost after Bob Probert landed 11 punches*** ____________________________________________________________ Bob Probert: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 100 roughness Stu Grimson: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 100 roughness ***Bob Probert lost after Grimson landed 15 punches*** ____________________________________________________________ Bob Probert: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 100 roughness Stu Grimson: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 86 roughness Ray Sheppard: 14 fighting, 26 aggression, 86 roughness ***Ray Sheppard lost after Grimson landed 6 punches*** _____________________________________________________________ Bob Probert: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 0 roughness Stu Grimson: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 86 roughness ***Bob Probert lost after Grimson landed 15 punches*** ______________________________________________________________ Bob Probert: 100 fighting, 100 aggression, 0 roughness Rob Brown: 71 fighting, 66 aggression, 46 roughness ***Rob Brown lost after Probert landed 11 punches*** ______________________________________________________________

Wellwood was always a talented hockey player; unfortunately, his back problems made things hard for him during his stint in Toronto. He would often get back spasms (much like Tracy McGrady or Mario Lemieux). It also didn't help Wellwood to be stuck behind players like Sundin and Antropov in Toronto. Steen and Stajan doing well at times also made things difficult for Wellwood. He didn't have the best linemates, and he didn't have the best minutes, either. However, you can make a case that Wellwood's problems were brought on by himself. He had a piss-poor work ethic up to that point. In fact, his own FATHER even criticized his work ethic. Judging by his recent success in Vancouver, I'd say he's finally taking care of himself and working hard.

I loved playing Mutant League Hockey! I still have it on my Sega Genesis, as well as the rom itself for my emulator. Other than NHLPA '93 and NHL '94, Mutant League Hockey was the other game my friends and I played the most. My favorite plays in that game were "waste the goalie" and the "exploding puck". I would always make sure to shoot it at the goaltender, thus eliminating their #1 goalie. I would waste the goalie first, THEN do the "jail break" play to get my goalie-killer out of the penalty box. Ah, good times!

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.

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.

Samuel "Screech" Powers would win the Vezina as he pulls Hasek-like saves out of his ass.

First of all, f**k you. Nobody around these parts cares for ignorant trolls such as you around here. I cannot even believe that you are encouraging me to download an SNES emulator and SNES roms (both of which I've never owned before, thus being illegal activity if I were to download such things). Secondly, you cannot group me in with others who supposedly have done horrible jobs on the roms that you're talking about. After all, I have not yet released a rom to the public (I've kept all my roms to myself thus far). Furthermore, my ratings are completely different from those who have issued roms to the public thus far. The only one displaying any ignorance thus far is the troll in this particular forum: in case you cannot figure it out, it's YOU, pal! Next time, you might want to think twice before spouting off such bullshit and encouraging others to participate in illegal activity. As a writer, I fully understand the copyright laws, which is a concept that trash-talking pissants like you with pea-sized brains cannot begin to comprehend. Does my language in this post offend your lady-like sensibilities? I personally don't give a s**t. I've contributed more to the NHL '94 community behind the scenes than what you probably ever will in your soon-to-be-brief existence around here. Ignorant trolls such as you, and any trolls like you at all need to pull your heads out of your collective asses and get some friggin' lives. Heed my advice, friend: you'll thank me someday. And one last thing: what would SNES roms of NHL '94 be? Why, they'd be nothing more than what you accuse GENS roms of being: updates. You've certainly shown evidence that you're a by-product of the American education system.

Or maybe he didn't edit the lines yet? If you're building a rom and you forgot to edit the lines, then it crashes when it cycles through a lineup slot that is empty.

That would be nice to see so that SNES gamers can have something to look forward to as well; however, I have no experience with SNES roms (like I said, I don't have an emulator for it). And remember: they ARE two completely different console systems; therefore, rom-editing of the two might be completely different experiences. The people here who have experience in editing GENS roms might not have a clue how to edit SNES roms.

Off-topic? How is it off-topic when the TOPIC TITLE SAYS "Every October we all work on a new season from for '94"? And the creator of the topic did ask not only for an SNES rom, but a GENS rom as well. Care to explain to me how it's off-topic? As for my "screw SNES", you're the one who brough the SNES rom to my attention when I clearly stated that I'm making a GENS rom; therefore, screw SNES. If you like SNES, then you like SNES. I personally don't give a rat's ass about SNES. I don't bash SNES unless twerps like you bring it to my attention. Personally, I hate idiots who bash SNES for the sake of bashing it; likewise, I hate twerps who bash GENS for the sake of bashing it. Am I bashing SNES for the sake of bashing it? No; I'm bashing the thought of me editing an SNES rom (I've never edited an SNES rom, nor do I have an SNES emulator). So you can pretty much forget about me providing any SNES roms.

I loved playing this game on the Genesis when it first came out. My brother and I used to always play against one another. Playing the playoffs as Pittsburgh, I almost always seemed to end up going against the Kings in the finals (Gretzky vs. Lemieux). I enjoyed beating one Gretzky with one-punch knockouts in the fights. I still enjoy the game rom on the PC as well. Quite frankly, the NHL series was at its best before NHL '95 and its subsequent games came out.

First of all, screw SNES. I don't even have an SNES emulator, let alone SNES roms. If anybody wants roms, somebody else will have to do the SNES work. Secondly, who said I'm taking long? I'm not releasing any roms until the season begins. There's currently a lull in free agency due to the ongoing arbitration hearings. I am not completing all rosters until the players are signed. I'm not going to waste time and put unsigned players on their current (possibly soon-to-be FORMER) teams until they're officially signed somewhere. This doesn't mean that I don't have rosters created thus far; I do have rosters. I'm just not finished until more players get signed and the season approaches. In the meantime, I will continue the process of creating and rating the players who are already signed; until then, unsigned players will be left alone until an NHL club signs them.