Jump to content

Photo

An extension to the 20 day trade lock rule


  • Please log in to reply

#1

Posted March 17, 2019 - 08:38 PM

MattBerserkers

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • 13 thanks
    GM Since: September 2016
258
Rep - Outstanding

I've got 2 suggestions that I hope can be added into that 20 day trade lock rule.

 

1) Entry level players do not have the restriction. They were allowed to be traded as prospects before having signed any deal, it just makes sense to me that they don't have the restriction handed to them as soon as they finally sign a deal.

 

2) This one only applies to mid-season free agent signings. The restriction would essentially be that any free agent signing (preferably entry level contracts excluded) after day 6 would be unable to be assigned to the minors for 20 days. If we go back to the start of Dangles, its big problem was that 1 team was essentially able to sign nearly every free agent with a snowball effect at less than most managers were offering. This was possible for 2 reasons; reputation and the minors. Coming back to when the new updated worlds were released, everybody was given an equal reputation to prevent an unfair advantage to the older managers as well as the managers that played fast worlds over slow worlds. And that worked all fine and dandy as it was mostly best offer gets the player with a little bit of random luck.

 

However, the snowball effect is still possible. Now that the seasons have all begun, the team reputations are shifting up and down to reflect how well teams are doing. The reputation thing itself isn't a bad idea; my issue starts with the fact that I've noticed good free agents popping up and then are snagged by better teams with better offers than some worse off teams made. To me, this is still acceptable since a free agent probably wants to go a more successful team than a team looking towards relegation. Where I really develop a problem with the system is when these rare free agents appear and better teams snag them up and then immediately get assigned to the minors. If a team plays him, fine, I have no issue, but if the player is immediately assigned its basically telling me a manager is being super greedy and signing players just so that other teams cannot sign new free agents and improve themselves. This is rather unfair for managers less fortunate at the start of the season. It also enables the snowball effect to continually exist as managers are able to assign players for a fraction of their cost and then once again make more offers for the limited number of free agents that appear mid season.

 

My reasoning for the 20 day mid-season free agent assignment restriction is that it prevents teams for going after every new free agent solely in an effort to prevent other teams from getting them and essentially abusing the minor system. If a team actually wants to play the player, then the restriction wouldn't really affect the manager as he/she can still do so. I suggest that this happens for only mid-season signings since there is a lot of free agent movement during the preseason and sometimes managers get 2 out of  2 free agents they aimed for while only expecting to possibly get 1. It also makes sense from a players perspective. If a strong free agent can expect to be paid millions, why would he go with a team that's going to immediately assign him to the minors and then only make a few hundred thousand. Yes 1-way/2-way deal exist, but I don't think good players sign 2-way deals expecting to be immediately sent down.



#2

Posted March 17, 2019 - 08:50 PM

Thunderhawks

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: August 2018
13
Rep - Helpful

i would be nice to see no more FA's added to the game after the mid point in the season aswell



#3

Posted March 17, 2019 - 09:35 PM

Paul T

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • 7 thanks
    GM Since: May 2017
553
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationBOSTON

i would be nice to see no more FA's added to the game after the mid point in the season aswell

 

Agree.  I'm not sure why they appear at all.  I suppose it does add some excitement to the game there's no denying that.  But if players that are randomly spawning out of thin air are GHL 1st & 2nd line caliber, we are going to end up with all star teams like in the old worlds. 


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 


#4

Posted March 18, 2019 - 01:54 AM

Glawing

    GamePlanHockey Support Team

  • Moderators
  • 259 posts
  • 10 thanks
    GM Since: November 2016
193
Rep - Outstanding
Hi!

We have discovered a bug causing players not to show up on FA. We are looking into this issue and hope to solve it as soon as possible. But as Paul says we don’t want tit to be over crowded with all star players.

About the hoarding issue, we have done some restrictions. We will take a second look at this. Thanks for feedback!

#5

Posted March 18, 2019 - 04:50 AM

Peekaboo

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
25
Rep - Helpful

There is a thing with FA, that somehow allows loopholes in trading system. I will try to explain the logic behind it:

 

I trade 2 of my 88 guys for a 92 guy (for example). Then I sign FA player, the stronger the better. Then do it again. Etc. In some time I will have team stacked with much better players. If I am careful, salary cap won't be a problem, you can always waive.

 

If FA players keep appearing they are devalueing players we currently have.



#6

Posted March 18, 2019 - 05:11 AM

Erzac

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • 6 thanks
    GM Since: September 2015
285
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationFinland

If FA players keep appearing they are devalueing players we currently have.


This. Any sort of FA spawning should be kept to minimum, and timed at one certain point (start) of a season.

The most frustrating thing is when you acquire a player in a trade, and then see a better one magically appear in FA a day later.

#7

Posted March 18, 2019 - 07:19 AM

Camii663

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: August 2017
15
Rep - Helpful
  • LocationSarnia canada

Steam Profile

No more free agents after the start of the season please! Unless they r low rated players. Maybe a roster cap size so people cant hoard players?

#8

Posted March 18, 2019 - 07:20 AM

Camii663

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: August 2017
15
Rep - Helpful
  • LocationSarnia canada

Steam Profile

Nhl has a contract cap at 50 players

#9

Posted March 18, 2019 - 08:21 AM

Steve

    GamePlanHockey Advisor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • 3 thanks
    GM Since: February 2015
282
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationUnited States

There should be NO Free Agents after the initial list generation at the beginning of the season UNLESS a player gets cut!  Having these random players show up is ONLY going to reward players that have hours a day to follow the FA list, which is unfair to the majority of players.  I'm not faulting the manager that picked up the latest one, but the SYSTEM!  This is almost as bad as pay-for-play style systems.  The point of GPHM is that we all compete as managers evenly on that skill level, not on how much time we can devote to the game (stats analysis not included).  



#10

Posted March 18, 2019 - 08:52 AM

Paul T

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • 7 thanks
    GM Since: May 2017
553
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationBOSTON

To be fair, this was occurring in the old worlds as well.  Starting around day 40, every 4th day or so, players would randomly appear in the FA list.  There was a group of about 15 managers (myself included) who would bid on them.  I was in SHL at the time and whenever a GHL manager bid it was game over.  The difference was the players were always SHL caliber players (SHL starter/GHL affiliate), not GHL starters.  But anyways...

 

I also agree with Steve that we can't fault the managers who are bidding.  If it's in the game it should be fair play.  But agree with the overall theme here that it should be changed because there's too many loopholes and a certain unfairness to it all.


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 


#11

Posted March 18, 2019 - 09:58 AM

AlexanderRasputin

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: May 2018
30
Rep - Reliable

I personally do not mind 1-2 free agents generating every week or two, I think it adds flavour to the game and allows teams that are weak in certain positions to fill holes. 

 

Here is what I don't like - the current reputation format. I understand if teams have built up a "Legendary" reputation via FINISHING in 1st or 2nd in the league consistently. I do not like it when during this reset, the current top 2/4 teams in every league have "Legendary/Honored" reputation already simply based on current league position, and therefore have free shots at every FA that appears. This only serves to snowball stronger teams - there is a particular one that is already stacked in the West and also managed to get one of the latest FAs.

 

Case in point with the most recent FA (87F) - the 2nd placed team signed him for over 1mil less than what I offered as the 7th placed team, purely on reputation. No fault of the manager involved, it's the right thing to do. However, if there ARE FAs appearing throughout the season, it is only fair that we have a nice, clean bidding war at this point, with an even ground for everyone. Otherwise, it is just silly.



#12

Posted March 18, 2019 - 10:13 AM

Kyle44

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: March 2019
14
Rep - Helpful

If i may offer a suggestion about fa spawning, why not make it only unsigned prospects.  Not a lot, just a couple sprinkled through the season or only at around game 60.  The reason for my thinking is that the NHL has undrafted college free agents that become available at that time of year so it would still allow some flavour for fa signings but limit overpowered teams from snagging high-end players for ridiculous contracts



#13

Posted March 18, 2019 - 10:27 AM

Peekaboo

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
25
Rep - Helpful

I personally do not mind 1-2 free agents generating every week or two, I think it adds flavour to the game and allows teams that are weak in certain positions to fill holes. 

 

Here is what I don't like - the current reputation format. I understand if teams have built up a "Legendary" reputation via FINISHING in 1st or 2nd in the league consistently. I do not like it when during this reset, the current top 2/4 teams in every league have "Legendary/Honored" reputation already simply based on current league position, and therefore have free shots at every FA that appears. This only serves to snowball stronger teams - there is a particular one that is already stacked in the West and also managed to get one of the latest FAs.

 

Case in point with the most recent FA (87F) - the 2nd placed team signed him for over 1mil less than what I offered as the 7th placed team, purely on reputation. No fault of the manager involved, it's the right thing to do. However, if there ARE FAs appearing throughout the season, it is only fair that we have a nice, clean bidding war at this point, with an even ground for everyone. Otherwise, it is just silly.

 

 

Its really nothing personal, but your way of trading/gameplay is kinda what I was reffering as an exploit of current system. I know its all fair and square and you are just using "loopholes" in the system to build a stronger team, by (aside from few shady deals) offering all kind of trades and then trying to sign FAs. Now its all legitimate and all, but I think its just bad for the game.

 

I am therefore against FAs, due to reasons I already posted here and on chat. Without reworking trade value/trade system, this FA thingy, despite adding flavor to the game, with which I agree, creates more mess and makes game harder to balance.



#14

Posted March 18, 2019 - 10:32 AM

Peekaboo

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
25
Rep - Helpful

Aside from that, I do agree with team reputation observation. That is actually most exploitable at the moment. But I think Anders said to cut down FA atm, so it woudn't be an issue.



#15

Posted March 18, 2019 - 10:40 AM

AlexanderRasputin

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: May 2018
30
Rep - Reliable

So first of all, I have not signed a single FA of those that have been generated throughout the season. 

 

Second, if you think offering "all kind of trades" is somehow gaming the system, you are delusional, my friend. You throw around words like "loopholes", while referencing normal in-game behaviours. Then, of course, behind the scenes, you beg me to trade my best prospect in-game.

I'm starting to think this IS personal, and you need to take a step back, because at this point, you are making yourself look foolish.

Appreciate the agreement on the rep issue though  ;) .

 

Its really nothing personal, but your way of trading/gameplay is kinda what I was reffering as an exploit of current system. I know its all fair and square and you are just using "loopholes" in the system to build a stronger team, by (aside from few shady deals) offering all kind of trades and then trying to sign FAs. Now its all legitimate and all, but I think its just bad for the game.

 

I am therefore against FAs, due to reasons I already posted here and on chat. Without reworking trade value/trade system, this FA thingy, despite adding flavor to the game, with which I agree, creates more mess and makes game harder to balance.



#16

Posted March 18, 2019 - 10:45 AM

Peekaboo

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
25
Rep - Helpful

Its not personal. I know you didn't sign FA, but I am fairly certain you planned to, the way you were trading. Thats what I would do, if I choose to play that way  :)

 

Nevermind, as I said its not personal. Stepping back :)

 

edited: spelling :)



#17

Posted March 18, 2019 - 10:46 AM

Peekaboo

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
25
Rep - Helpful

 Then, of course, behind the scenes, you beg me to trade my best prospect in-game.

 

 

Begged? I asked if you would consider trading him and for what? How is that begging, I don't understand.

 

The way you manipulate words, you do it at the market. I just want system that will prevent that. Cheers :)



#18

Posted March 18, 2019 - 11:30 AM

Thunderhawks

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: August 2018
13
Rep - Helpful

super excited to see the hot fix with the FA's by the GPH adims...  this is huge to catch early as it going too keep the drafting element a huge part of the game that would of other wise been eroded to meaningless.. keep up the good work.. (hopefully a roster limit will be in the works down the road as well) thanks again. 



#19

Posted March 18, 2019 - 11:40 AM

Paul T

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • 7 thanks
    GM Since: May 2017
553
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationBOSTON

 (hopefully a roster limit will be in the works down the road as well)

35  :cool: 


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 


#20

Posted March 18, 2019 - 11:49 AM

AlexanderRasputin

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: May 2018
30
Rep - Reliable

+1 for roster limit






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users