smozoma

it looks like we're missing the goal-light "new messages have been posted in this thread since you last visited" icon..

P is right next to the letter O on the keyboard. It's a typo adopted as the correct spelling, in typical Internet irony fashion. If that makes any sense... If you saw the South Park World of Warcraft episode, Cartman says "pwnt" at one point (pwnt = pwned = owned). He pronounces the P though...

Wow, that was pretty good. His first goal was good, too..

(still voting 2 minutes) If we make the 'injuring' penalty 1 minute, why don't we make them all one minute? Injuring a guy is pretty much the only penalty that has any real bearing on the game, as it is! I mean when the computer hooks a guy, it's very very very rarely a guy who's just about to break free for a breakaway or onetimer or something like that. It's usually some guy offscreen. When you injure a guy, you've actually done some real harm to your opponent (especially if it's for the game).

My vote is for 'injuring' As a side note, I'm of the opinion that the 'p' in 'pwn' is silent. Pronounced 'own', yet spelled 'pwn.' It would be an hilarious penalty name, but.. i like 'injuring'

alligators have so much more meaning to me now

Though it sounds terrible, I think I'd like the nets to be enlarged. The players and equipment are just so much bigger now. If you watch the old goalies, they had to be so much more acrobatic to cover the net. Guys would score with slapshots coming over the blueline, without a screen. 6x4 is such a great set of numbers, though...

I think it comes down to a few things. - The Wonky Skating. It's just different than the later games. In 94, the players 'swoop', whereas, in the newer games, they turn on a dime. It's just better somehow. You really need to work with the momentum of the players. If your player is skating the wrong way, you shouldn't just turn around and skate the other way, you should try to pass to a guy who has some momentum in the right direction. If you miss a check, you REALLY miss the check. - The Wonky Passing. Making over 60% of your passes is quite an accomplishment. I don't know why, but this unpredictability makes the game more fun, than knowing that every pass will work. If you pull off 3 good passes in a row, resulting in a goal, you just feel like you scored an amazing high-light reel goal. - The Quirks (which are also wonky). NHL 94 makes me laugh, plain and simple. I've played so many games of 94, yet I'm still surprised by some of the things that happen. How i wish i hadn't accidentally saved over the clip of me scoring off Larry Murphy's face... - Player Diversity. In new games, the players all feel pretty much the same. Not so in 94. The speeds, agilities, shot power and accuracy, and checking ability of the players are so varied, that every player has his own feel. Try playing with Randy Wood on the Sabres, whose speed is ~85, but agility is ~40. Then compare him to someone like Mike Modano (same speed, but better agility). Gretzky's shot will surprise no goalies, while Tomas Sandstrom's inspires fear in goaltenders, and Al Iafrate's inspires fear in every single player on the ice, other than the goalies. - The Sounds. the check noise in 94 is just SO SATISFYING. BLLOOOAARRGHh!!! - The Polish. The game is basically the evolution and refinement of a single vision over 4 years, from the first NHL Hockey game, to NHL94. OK, there are bugs for sure.. but they're good bugs! Also, compare the one-timers in NHL94, to the one-timers in NHL06 for the XBox -- the NHL94 ones seem much more natural and fluid. - Unpredictabilty. I touched on this before with the passing. It also applies to the shooting, such as when Iafrate shoots a shot at around 500 mph about 35 degrees off from the net, nailing a guy minding his own business by the boards in the face; and the checking, where you don't always know if your check will knock the player flat, or if he'll slide off the check and go in for an easy deke (you need to know the players well to know who can check whom -- or get good with the B-button poke-check/trip). Unpredictability creates obsession. A bit like gambling, or a girl you just can't quite figure out, but feel endlessly required to try to. Yes, i am comparing NHL94.. to love. Here are my NHL94 videos on youtube that I hope can help elucidate my points:

I also prefer the second set of divisions provided by dadonch. The central in the first set is just scary, and I'm in it (and am not one of the scary guys)

True, the question could be restated as 1 minute 2 minutes more than 2 minutes then vote again on 3 minutes vs 4 minutes, if the 'more than' option wins. same kind of thing for the draft format -- '100% snaking' vs 'not 100% snaking (could be 100% non-snaking, or a hybrid)'

seconded!

"headbutt"!

Might want to put the deadline in the title of the thread. I very nearly skipped this thread because it didn't seem to actually be about anything in particular.

Haha, I like it, "injuring." Boarding didn't make much sense, since it's almost always an open-ice hit.

3 never struck me as a bad number. 8 seems like a lot, but screwing someone out of some points/stats sucks.. tough call. You could just make it something like "x draft positions per game missed where you didn't make an effort" If the draft is snaking, I guess putting them at the bottom is fine. Why give Roenick to a new guy, when a guy who was terrorized by him the last season could get him? If the draft is part non-snaking, then the issue is more complicated... the skill of the player is important to factor in.

I went 'no'.. If I got yake, I would treasure him for his individuality

I had to vote no... We just have to stop somewhere, and i think 24 is a good number. Two 16-team leagues would be good, too. I wouldn't want too few teams in a league, though, as the teams are just too fast and powerful (as was the case in the short-lived nhl94.net league).

I've been thinking of making a multi-tiered league. Three (or more) 10-team divisions/leagues. A, B, C,.. levels. drafted teams. line changes on, since the teams would be deep. maybe C league has no line changes. top 8 make the playoffs. regular season champ and playoff champ both promoted to next league. if it's the same guy, then the other cup finalist also promoted. the 2 teams that miss the playoffs are relegated down. seasons are 36 games (4 vs each team). season and playoffs should take just 2 months, so the league 'evolves' quickly. smaller league size reduces the need for non-snaking draft, but it could be introduced if things get too predictable. but, not enough free time these days to try to make it happen...

A thought.. In the NHL, the division/conference system is largely about travel issues. Online, travel is not an issue. What if we ignore the division level when making the schedule -- teams in the same conference could all play each other the same number of times. If you play each team in your conference 3 times and each team in the other conf twice, that's a 57-game schedule. This would make division placement less of an issue. Thought #2: If we do a hybrid draft, the division balancing issue mostly goes away because there won't be such a large disparity between the good players and the bad players.

I'm not sure why i get so rant-y on some topics I can see why some people want a completely even draft, since we're competing (though I like to think of it as friendly competition where you want both guys to at least be competitive against each other..) Also, the top 10 or so players (roenick, belfour, etc) are so much better than the rest that there is certainly a bit of an advantage to picking in the top 10. It's like a bell curve, where the later players are more clumped together, so 1st and 48th picks are probably a bit better than 24th and 25th. I still prefer a hybrid, though! You could also factor in the fact that the weaker coaches typically don't draft players as well as the better coaches. Lemieux as the first pick? Yzerman lasting to around 10th pick? And heck, I picked Ranford in the second round. First 2 rounds non-snaked is good; 3 was a bit much. Or, snake the first 2, then non-snake the next 3 or 4 rounds.

I am pretty sure the non-snaking of the first three rounds will get shot down here. People want a couple franchise guys... Full non-snaking will never happen. What about an option for mid-draft non-snaking rounds? 1: #1 to #24 2: #24 to #1 3: #1 to #24 4: #1 to #24 5: #1 to #24 6: #24 to #1 7: #1 to #24 8: #24 to #1 9-12: keep snaking 1: #1 to #24 2: #24 to #1 3: #1 to #24 4: #24 to #1 5: #1 to #24 6: #1 to #24 7: #1 to #24 8: #24 to #1 9: #1 to #24 10-12: keep snaking I think this is a good compromise. There are piles of guys in those middle rounds who aren't going to be anyone's go-to guy, but will still help 'shift' things overall to make a more balanced league, especially the goalies and checking defensemen. Do people just not care about equalizing things a bit? I'm a .500 guy as it is (in the draft league, anyway), so it won't make much difference to my record, but if I were a better or worse player, I know I'd rather win some and lose some than win 80% or lose 80%. I'd rather see closer games and tighter races throughout the league.

May I propose.. the mid-draft non-snake for-the-purpose-of-better-parity,-excitement,-and-coach-retention-while-still-getting-two-respectable-players 1: 24->1 2: 1>24 3: 24->1 4: 24->1 5: 1>24 6: 24->1 7: 1>24 8: 24->1 9: 1>24 .. (by 24, i mean the 24th ranked team, ie weakest coach) Any number of rounds could be non-snaked, 2 like above, 3..

I think 30 is too many, primarily because of the goalies. I'd rather not see any goalies rated below 60, they're just toooo bad. As it is, I think all the goalies below 70 are pretty darn brutal...

You probably just misread dadonch, but the idea is that the weaker guys get a few rounds of better picks, but not for the whole draft. For those who aren't converts, I will evangelize it again! It'll make the league closer while not making much of a relative difference for players who are already around the same skill level (ie if you're about as good as playerX, you'll both still have similar records, since you'll have drafted around the same spot.. he may have gotten a round or two extra where he got to pick before you, though, but only by a couple spots). I think the best reason for it is to reduce the dropout rate for new guys. A second benefit is that things won't be as predictable, since the weaker guys will be more competitive and the good guys will be just heads above the mere mortals, instead of head AND shoulders . 3 rounds right off could possibly be too much, but we can always just see how the season pans out, and change it next season. Or just do the first two rounds (WW-BWBWBW..), or a hybrid-hybrid (WW-B-WW-BWB..) -- currently proposed is (WWW-BWBWB..). In all 3 of those formats, the W(eaker) coaches get 4 of the first 6 rounds with early picks, but the position of the rounds where the B(etter) coaches get top picks changes. We could even put the non-snaking rounds later on (WB-WWW-BWB..) so everyone can get a 'dynamic duo' in the first two rounds, while the weaker players can draft a good supporting cast in the middle rounds (goalies will probably be the big equalizers). I would consider giving new guys better draft positions. They're the guys most likely to drop out, because they typically aren't very good their first season. We could end up in a situation where they get shelled by everyone because the weaker coaches got to draft better players, and the better coaches are, well, better. Maybe just put them right after the guys who missed the playoffs. I missed the playoffs by I think 1 point, so I don't really feel I need to draft better than new, inexperienced guys. So, maybe put them after the guys who missed the playoffs, but let each playoff misser choose to draft after the new guys if they want to.

I think 2 minutes is fine. 4 might have been ok with 7 minute periods, but it's waaayy too much with 5 minute periods. http://65.36.133.56/nhl94_draft/teamstats.asp One thing I noticed is that even the guys with 2-3 goals per game last year had PP% in the 30s. Tampa Bay scored 19% of their goals on the PP. So, if you double the penalty time to 4 minutes, you're giving about a 60% chance for a goal even for the guys like me who can't score. That's pretty annoying when you take out, say, Brian Bellows for the last 23 seconds of the 2nd period. Overall, people scored 13.1% of their goals on the powerplay. If they took an average of the whole 2 minutes for each powerplay, they would have played 16.8% of their games shorthanded. I think a better estimate is about 1:20 per powerplay (probably still generous) which makes that percentage 11.2%. 13.1% of goals in 11.2% of the time, just a 17% boost, say 20%. A powerplay doesn't seem to do a whole lot to help a teams scoring. However, what it does do, is greatly hinder the shorthanded team's ability to score! Though many people feel that they score a lot shorthanded, it's not nearly their usual rate: in an offline stats league i run, the PP% is 35.8% and the SHG% is 23.3%, and you can potentially score multiple shorthanded goals on one penalty.