TruePensFan1981

I've been working on a 2008-09 rom for months. CHRISTMAS? There's a snail's pace if ever I've seen one.

Smoz, great job! I applied your steps with a hex editor, and it works like a charm. It's fun to finally have players like Joe Thornton, Mario Lemieux, Eric Lindros, Jaromir Jagr, Alexander Ovechkin, and other strong puck-carriers be difficult to knock off the puck now. Now I don't have to make bruisers like Komisarek, Chara, Orpik, Phaneuf, and Ovechkin 172 lbs! However, I will experiment and decide whether or not I still want to change the weights of the goaltenders. In my NHL 09 rom, I made all goaltenders identical in weight (so that their lateral movement may be determined solely by their speed and agility ratings). I have no conclusive proof -- just a hunch -- that weight affects a goalie's performance in NHL '94. One thing that would be great: I would love it if any of us could figure out a way to make SPEED affect a goaltender's overall rating. I thought it was comical that it affects the rating in '93 but not in '94. EA's formula for a goalie's overall rating is just terrible for NHL '94.

I'm glad you discovered this NOW, rather than when the next NHL season began. I have been building an NHL 09 rom for quite a while, and created my own formula for what a player's weight should be (in accordance with his checking rating). Knowing that you fixed the problem now, I feel I can soon put the players' weights back to normal and apply whatever changes are necessary to fix the weight bug.

I'd love to see NOSE somehow make graphic works (player cards, banner colors, team logos, etc.) very easy for ANYBODY to edit. It would certainly eliminate the need for everybody to ask Wboy or anybody else how to edit roms to their liking. However, I'm not going to hold my breath and expect Wboy to figure out how to make that possible. I mean, I might as well be asking any random person on the street to tell me how to cure cancer or AIDS! That's the thing about technology: we always ask for more than we can actually get!

I stopped editing NHL '95 a long time ago because season mode was somehow disabled after I edited rosters.

I remember that, as well; unfortunately, facts and logic don't pertain to Wags. He doesn't care if Jrodimus was just quoting another member. Wags will post bullshit when he feels like posting bullshit. It's the way of the troll. It appears that's his only "skill" in life, really. So sad.

EA Sports had always done a terrible job of rating players. Personally, I rated LaFontaine a 94 overall for NHL '94. My gripe with NHL '94 isn't with LaFontaine's rating being off by just a few measly points, but the fact that they make virtually all second-liners and third-liners worthless. Doing so robs the game of the balance it deserves, and gives players no incentives to turn line changes on. The goalies suffer even moreso with EA's terrible formula for overall ratings. Due to their horrible formula, almost all goaltenders are underrated (a good portion of them severely underrated). Bad formula + a bad job of rating goalies = unbelievably bad overall ratings (Hebert, Hasek, Vanbiesbrouck, etc.).

I was rummaging through my OHL archives the other night, and I happened to find these photos:

That's a good one, really. There's a small fraction of the fan base who actually know what they're talking about and actually comprehend the game; unfortunately, it's a VERY small percentage of the entire fan base (that can be said for all organizations, though). Like I said before, only 10% -- IF even that -- of all hockey fans even have the slightest clue what they're talking about. Furthermore, my opinion of complete tools like you matters so little to you, that you got offended and decided to defend yourself and the mindless masses known as "Penguins fans". Fact: there's very few Pens fans who are intelligent about the game of hockey; furthermore, there's VERY FEW hockey fans in ANY organization that are intelligent when it comes to hockey! I never questioned the loyalty of Pens fans; I merely pointed out the glaring stupidity of the general populace of that fanbase (the random Penguins fan is much dumber than the random fan of most teams, if not all). You brought this on yourself, bub. Trash-talking tool that you are, you're the one who clearly tried to start a Lemieux/Gretzky war, which has NOTHING to do with this topic whatsoever. I've seen your type on the internet for years. I can see trolls coming from a mile away. It was clear what your intentions were with your post, as all trolls are alike. I merely blew out the match which you were holding before you could light the fire. Now, do you have ANYTHING to say which ACTUALLY PERTAINS TO THE TOPIC THAT I CREATED? If not, then you might as well just stop posting and quite while you're still waaaaaaaaaaaaay behind. I would appreciate that you don't even bother responding to this topic again unless what you post pertains ONLY TO THE TOPIC I CREATED. I will not waste my time arguing with a complete fool like you. This is the last post in regards to your idiocy. If you post anything that pertains to your trolling and my calling you out for trolling, then you just prove what a troll you are. Hmm, quite the conundrum for you! So, my good friend, I recommend that you take the following course of action: just go hide in a corner with your tail between your legs, and accuse some poor NHL '94 gamer of cheating. It's what you do best!

Of which has nothing to do with this particular topic. I'd thank you to not try to start any flaming homer wars between Lemieux and Gretzky fans. After all, such wars are pointless. Secondly, anybody with a brain would concede that Lemieux himself had more physical talents than Gretzky (many players did and still do). Regardless of Lemieux's greatness (best hockey player ever, in my opinion), it doesn't take anything away from Gretzky's greatness as well. Those two were in a league of their own. I'm tired of pathetic and insecure fans who try to belittle Gretzky's greatness just to make Lemieux look better, and vice-versa. Don't even bother getting defensive, for I see right through you. I will tell you this: the belief that many Penguins fans are moronic homers is NOT a misconception. Quite frankly, Penguins fans are some of the dumbest fans I've ever seen; however, being a homer is something you can attribute to the general populace of ALL fan bases in hockey. The problem with hockey fans is that 99% of them think they know everything, but only 10% (IF even that) have the slightest clue what they're talking about. In the meantime, I'd appreciate if you try to start your Lemieux/Gretzky wars elsewhere. Why don't you go back to doing what you do best, and accuse your fellow gamers of cheating, yes?

It has been brought to my attention that the general feeling among NHL '94 forum users is that Wayne Gretzky had a weak and flaccid shot. Why? Because EA Sports -- an EXTREMELY mistake-prone company that doesn't know the first thing about hockey -- rated him lowly on shot power? Is that why? YIKES. If EA is the reason some people around here think Gretzky didn't have a hard shot, then you are sorely mistaken. Back in his heyday, Gretzky had a howitzer of a slap shot! Yeah, he had uncanny precision/accuracy on his slap shot; however, he also had excellent velocity (which is apparently overlooked by the casual fan). Anybody who thinks Gretzky didn't have a great shot obviously never saw Wayne Gretzky in his prime. Heck, they probably never saw Wayne Gretzky AT ALL! Even at the end of his career, Gretzky still had a pretty darn good slap shot. He just didn't use it as much (if I had the hip problems he had, I wouldn't wind up much either!). Watch some Gretzky highlights when he was a New York Ranger, and you'll see him going against John Vanbiesbrouck (Florida Panthers) and just RIPPING it over Beezer's shoulder. Beezer didn't have a prayer, and that shot was only a SHADOW OF WHAT IT ONCE WAS! From time to time, Gretzky would still rip a few slappers like that at the end of his career. Another thing to keep in mind: Gretzky in his prime shot with wooden sticks that are even heavier than TODAY'S GOALIE STICKS! I know that for a fact. In fact, I used those same sticks when I was younger (I used Titan). Most of all, Gretzky's goal numbers declined at the end of his career because his SKATING declined. He was still a good skater, but not the skater he once was. He didn't have the shiftiness that he had earlier in his career. His one-on-one game, which used to be great, was mediocre in his final years. He was still the best at seeing the game, however, and creating plays purely with his vision and tape-to-tape passing. People who think Gretzky didn't have a great shot are probably the ones who either never saw Gretzky play, or they only saw highlights of him shooting half-assed backhands into the net after embarrassing everybody (including the goalie) with his shiftiness. Or perhaps you watched a bunch of his bank shots off the goalies from behind the net (Gretzky's office). Before you get any thoughts of insinuating that Gretzky didn't have a great shot, or a great one-on-one game, do yourself a favor: watch footage of Gretzky in his prime (you know, the days where he was more inclined to shoot the puck instead of being so pass-happy all the time). Sure, he didn't have Mario's size or reach, but he still made people miss him with relative ease. Gretzky in his prime wasn't the fastest skater in the league, but he was the best skater with the puck. He could draw you in and then whip a no-look pass to an open man, or he could beat you himself with a subtle change of direction before shooting the puck (an art that was also mastered by Lemieux and Jagr, as well). Once again, do yourselves a favor: watch footage of Gretzky in his prime. He didn't have a Brett Hull or Ilya Kovalchuk slapper, but it was still a great shot nonetheless (both velocity and accuracy-wise). You will be amazed and enlightened. And here's some food for thought: imagine if Gretzky had Mario's size, strength, and reach!

To win the game, of course! I suggest that you first nuke Las Vegas and Seattle! HUZZAH!

Clock's GIF skills are so crisp, he could probably make an NHL '94 GIF of Marchment delivering his patented knee-to-knee hits (with the victim being Chuck Norris).

I am a writer; however, I don't limit myself to just writing. Here are some things I do on the side... I am a Jedi I have a pneumatic spud cannon (nobody messes with a guy who's armed with a spud cannon) Around Easter time, I put the eyes in the chocolate easter bunnies (and collect commission when they're sold) I'm also a maximum-level wizard of NHL '94 who wields a can of whoopass.

I know I'm not in this league; however, I do enjoy reading some of these topics from time to time. 90 hits? Quite interesting! I don't know what my personal best would be (never decided to count until recently); however, I'd say 90 hits is definitely possible if there's plenty of play stoppages (goals and whatnot). I was able to get 72 against the New York Rangers when I played as the Detroit Red Wings in an unedited NHL '94 rom. It was a 5-0 Red Wings victory. My lineup was: Konstantinov Lidstrom Fedorov Yzerman Ciccarelli

Nice topic. Keep in mind that not all players who were in the NHL in 1993-94 or 1994-95 were in NHL '94. For instance, Joe Sacco was one of the original Anaheim Mighty Ducks (prior to that, he played for the Toronto Maple Leafs). Despite being one of the original Ducks, he is not on Anaheim or on Toronto in NHL '94 (in fact, he's not in NHL '94 at all). I'm sure there are several other players that NHL '94 forgot to put into their game.

Just curious: did it say "HAT TRICK!" when Moog scored? It did when I scored with Tom Barrasso.

I don't know if this is common knowledge or not among NHL '94 gamers; however, I've known about it all these years because I experienced it very quickly: When I was a kid, I remember scoring a goal with my goaltender in NHL '94 to win 10-0; however, the player stats said my goalie allowed one goal (even though I had a shutout victory). I just had a random thought about that glitch tonight, and I began to wonder if that is something that can easily be fixed via hex editing, or if source code would be needed to address that (assuming it can be fixed at all).

It's nice that you provided a rom with 2008 playoff rosters; unfortunately, you didn't do much real work at all. It appears all you did was re-name the players that were in the NHLPA '93 game and make sure they shoot with the proper hands. In observing the original rom and your 2008 playoffs rom, I've come across the fact that players' weights are totally wrong, because you kept the weights that belonged to the original players in the original rom. Furthermore, look at these overall ratings (the player listed on the top is in the original rom, the player below is from your rom). Tom Barrasso: 67 overall Marc-Andre Fleury: 67 overall Mario Lemieux: 91 overall Sidney Crosby: 91 overall Jeremy Roenick: 95 overall Robert Lang: 95 overall Ed Belfour: 95 overall Nikolai Khabibulin: 95 overall While I appreciate the fact that you provided a rom with updated playoff rosters for NHLPA '93 with 2008 rosters; I find it very highly unethical that you didn't have the decency to alter the original weights and ratings. This is equivalent to you claiming that you invented a new dance move called "ASTRO WALK", and then demonstrating it as the Moonwalk.

Clockwise, the patch is working now. Excellent job, as always! I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everybody to NOT apply this patch to the original NHL '94 rom, as the original rom does not have an altered checksum. If you are going to apply this patch to your roms, apply it to an altered rom.

We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition: A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy!

No, he does not get the shutout. For it to be statistically declared as a shutout, the TEAM itself would have to allow zero goals.

Ratings do indeed make a difference. For instance, those with a higher puck control rating will let fewer shots go into the net through their five-holes. Those with higher awareness ratings -- and higher agility and speed rating as well -- will be better at anticipating a shot and moving quickly enough to stop those one-timers.

I thought I'd take a moment to clear up any misconceptions anybody may have about the Genesis version of NHL '94 and its goalies being stars. To qualify as one of the three stars of the game, a goaltender must register a shutout with no less than one save. If the goaltender does NOT get a shutout, then his save percentage must be no lower than 95%. Making 18 saves on 19 shots does not qualify for a star; however, making 19 saves on 20 shots does qualify. As for a shooter being ranked above a goalie: yes, it has happened before. If a player registers enough points when a goalie saves at least 95% of his shots (but no shutout), then the goalie will probably be the 2nd star of the game, rather than the first. Furthermore, I had a game where I defeated the New York Islanders 7-5, while Ken Wregget was named one of the three stars of the game. Does that mean Wregget made 95 saves on 100 shots? NO. Wregget made 13 saves on 13 shots and was named one of the game's three stars (Barrasso had a terrible game, so I pulled him). While a 7-5 victory isn't a shutout, Wregget still saved no less than 95% of his shots. I believe the save minimum might be 1 for these high-scoring games as well, but I am not certain. I hope this post answered a lot of questions any of you may have.