Jump to content

Photo

Hoarding Players


  • Please log in to reply

#21

Posted February 16, 2018 - 12:15 AM

sonstone

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: May 2017
19
Rep - Helpful
After promotion, I generally cut the lower league contracts if they won't make my lineup and don't have trade value. It is way cheaper to keep everyone else on an affiliate team than it is to cut them though.
I am also someone who likes to hold on to assets once I get to GHL, so it hurts me to offer this up... but, raising the affiliate contract to the price of cutting a player might solve the whole problem.

#22

Posted February 22, 2018 - 10:40 PM

thanos023

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: February 2018
8
Rep - Floater
I'm obviously in the minority on this subject, but I really like the roster caps to be open like they are now, limited only by the league salary cap. I believe that it adds a level of strategy and really helps the new managers build a team. I use a big roster to develop, to swap out players when they are injured or tired, and to change up my shifts to test out different player attributes. Also, there are a crap ton of free agents (yes, crap ton is a technical term and a literal measurement;) so it's not like manager A signing player B impacts manager C.

Manager of:

Black Lick Blacks | SHL | Lumber
Adrian Spartans | IHL | Howitzer


#23

Posted February 23, 2018 - 02:14 AM

rainsilent

    GamePlanHockey Advisor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • 22 thanks
    GM Since: April 2015
265
Rep - Outstanding

Steam Profile

 I believe that it adds a level of strategy and really helps the new managers build a team.

 

It does the exact opposite. With fewer viable options the ability to build or even rebuild a team becomes more limited the more people do it. In the league I am in the only FAs after a few days are older or are limited in actual ability. It makes it exceptionally difficult to build a team.

 

 

Also, there are a crap ton of free agents (yes, crap ton is a technical term and a literal measurement;) so it's not like manager A signing player B impacts manager C.

 

While yes there are a number of FAs there is a reason most are in FA. They are journeyman players that are good enough to be role players or are otherwise too limited in ability to be much more than limited ability specialists. You can't build a team around those players. Thus manager A signing player A (who won't ever really be used on the team and is being buried as a depth option for the team when they are fully capable of being a starter in the league) is forcing manager B to go to to options that are less than optimal thus reducing the ability for them to put together a competitive team. That then impacts manager C and then D and on down the line. The chained result (if everyone took part in player hoarding) is that it would create a never breakable situation where the top teams in the GHL stay there for eternity due to talent hoarding and the SHL teams trying to break into the GHL are never going to stay because they don't have the ability to get the players necessary to even field a remotely competitive team thus they go right back to the SHL. The only people in that scenario that would be enjoying that are the select few at the top of the GHL. That is a gameplay archetype that would kill this game.



#24

Posted February 24, 2018 - 12:05 AM

Wick Schozen

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • 7 thanks
    GM Since: April 2016
147
Rep - Outstanding

I really like the roster caps to be open like they are now, limited only by the league salary cap. I believe that it adds a level of strategy

 

I don't want to put down another manager and all input is good and different perspectives cultivate discussion. So please don't take this as me attacking your statement, I'm just merely referencing your statement. 

Unless the salary cap was reduced there is not much strategy that goes into accumulating a large number of players for the affiliate beyond maybe assigning a player to gain the cap space so you get assign a recently signed player and promote your original active one. 

A roster cap would force managers to make a calculated and strategic decision on the future outlook on their roster because they'd need to assess the value of their players when they are against the roster limit and choose who is worth keeping and who is worth moving. It would also create situations where managers would need to off load contracts when they are too close to the maximum which would stimulate roster movement and increase the player pool available to lower league managers. 

Measures have been taken to reduce development rates so players abilities are more realistic relative to the top league and below. But the full effects of the development reduction are still a ways away in some game worlds. A roster limit could also influence this transition as it would almost force players to align into their true league level or world crimple managers who keep said player for the sake of not giving them up. 



#25

Posted February 24, 2018 - 08:06 PM

Paul T

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • 3 thanks
    GM Since: May 2017
260
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationBOSTON

Agree with rainsilent and ncik here. 

 

Although just to keep in mind that different opinions can be formed based on what world you play in and your league level.  When I played in BHL it would have been tough to stack an affiliate and keep a competitive main roster and I believe that to be the case with lower leagues.  There actually would be some level of strategy in building a bigger roster and developing players as thanos suggests. 

 

But if we're talking GHL/SHL, it becomes very easy to hoard players and as both rainsilent and ncik pointed out, more strategy would be required if there were a roster limit.



#26
A13

Posted March 14, 2018 - 01:16 PM

A13

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: March 2018
14
Rep - Helpful

They need to change the 1-way contract I have so many wasted roster spots cause I can't send players to my affiliate and then I could cut some of the lower rated affiliate players freeing up roster space.

And when you offer a contract w/out



#27
A13

Posted March 14, 2018 - 01:23 PM

A13

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: March 2018
14
Rep - Helpful

They need to change the 1-way contract I have so many wasted roster spots cause I can't send players to my affiliate and then I could cut some of the lower rated affiliate players freeing up roster space.

And when you offer a contract w/out a 1-way clause they want 10-15 thousand more than their original demand. And for me I constantly get rejected by 74-78 rated players so when I get one I have to send down or waive or trade to free up roster space. A 40 man roster is good it equals 2 full teams 4 lines 3 sets of D and 2 goalies if you have more players on your team ( not affiliate ) than the per-say 18 player max any players out of the lineup get sent to an affiliate and then you send an affiliate player down.



#28

Posted March 14, 2018 - 02:08 PM

flowbish1

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: June 2017
12
Rep - Helpful
  • LocationK'ek part au Qu├ębec.

I've stated originally that i would be for a 40-45 players limit. But after reading and thinking more about it,  why not having different roster limit, since it seems to affect GHL and SHL in a different way than say IHL or LIHL. Also, some people might want to use the affiliate system and play as many players as they can (that makes for 60 roster spots,!). The solution should be around 50 contract, perhaps lower it to 45 for SHL and 40 for GHL, it should at least moderate those that tend to hoard players, and also make it more realistic. 


Fred Longpre

Riversdale Heroes BHL Clapper


#29

Posted March 29, 2018 - 03:40 AM

Glawing

    GamePlanHockey Support Team

  • Moderators
  • 99 posts
  • 5 thanks
    GM Since: November 2016
51
Rep - Reliable

Hi all of you!

 

Just for your information we (Anders and I) are following most discussion in the forum and listen to all inputs in the game!

 

Just because we don't answer doesn't mean we don't care. =)

 

In this particular discussion we not sure how to sort it, YET! ;)

 

Keep you posted!

 

Enjoy the game!

 

//Tobias



#30

Posted March 29, 2018 - 10:09 AM

MattLumberjacks

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • 13 thanks
    GM Since: September 2016
182
Rep - Outstanding

Hi all of you!

 

Just for your information we (Anders and I) are following most discussion in the forum and listen to all inputs in the game!

 

Just because we don't answer doesn't mean we don't care. =)

 

In this particular discussion we not sure how to sort it, YET! ;)

 

Keep you posted!

 

Enjoy the game!

 

//Tobias

 I like the current idea, but I do sign all my prospects to deals which has pushed me to just above 40 slots. If you guys roll it out, could you please do it  on day 1 of a new season for each world or else allow teams to make any trade as long as it reduces your total player count until you are able to be within a player limit.



#31

Posted March 29, 2018 - 06:42 PM

rainsilent

    GamePlanHockey Advisor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • 22 thanks
    GM Since: April 2015
265
Rep - Outstanding

Steam Profile

 I like the current idea, but I do sign all my prospects to deals which has pushed me to just above 40 slots. If you guys roll it out, could you please do it  on day 1 of a new season for each world or else allow teams to make any trade as long as it reduces your total player count until you are able to be within a player limit.

 

That would be really hard to do as I don't think that the timing would ever be that good between all of the game worlds. That said I think a grace until the start of the next season would be the best.



#32

Posted April 11, 2018 - 07:19 PM

ET2018

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • 5 thanks
    GM Since: March 2018
48
Rep - Reliable

I'm bumping this thread because I think it's an important topic that may need addressing by the game developers. There absolutely needs to be roster limits, because as it stands, GHL teams have too much cap space and some abuse that cap space by hoarding a bunch of players that have no business in the GHL. There's currently a manager in Lumber GHL that takes pleasure in hijacking other's contract offers for players that are not at a GHL level. This is highly unfair. How can a SHL team possibly compete with a GHL team's cap space? You can't, and anyone that says otherwise either uses the same chump strategy or refuses to see how hoarding players takes the fun out of this game.



#33

Posted April 21, 2018 - 06:00 PM

Walter A. Donaldson

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: April 2017
8
Rep - Floater

I prefer to Stock up my Minor League teams but I hate having healthy Scratches, especially one-way contract bozos who won't see Ice time in the SHL except in fringe situations. Call that Hoarding if you want but I keep mainly old BHLers who may have helped me to get to the SHL and were big assets in the BHL but won't see Genuine Ice time in the SHL. I'm all for a Roster limit, but how about we fix this one way Contract problem because, unless I can waive a one-way contract a Computer made, I'm stuck with the Player because half his salary hurts my Cap. If a player with a one way contract Clears waivers he should be able to be sent down, since everyone had a fair crack at the player.

 

Depth is important to some guys, and I believe in depth, but that the players get use, instead of sitting on their keisters, being paid to sit. To me getting a deep farm system is a key to success, the Salary Cap should remain the Regulating factor for minor leaguer signees, however maybe something like having roster limits like 25 a team. I try to keep the number of players to about 20-22. My point is limit the Roster number to 18 skaters, and 2 goalies. While keeping space for 5 healthy scratches. The IR is for more serious Day-to-day, and more serious injuries, it makes room for you players.



#34

Posted April 21, 2018 - 06:10 PM

ET2018

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • 5 thanks
    GM Since: March 2018
48
Rep - Reliable

I prefer to Stock up my Minor League teams but I hate having healthy Scratches, especially one-way contract bozos who won't see Ice time in the SHL except in fringe situations. Call that Hoarding if you want but I keep mainly old BHLers who may have helped me to get to the SHL and were big assets in the BHL but won't see Genuine Ice time in the SHL. I'm all for a Roster limit, but how about we fix this one way Contract problem because, unless I can waive a one-way contract a Computer made, I'm stuck with the Player because half his salary hurts my Cap. If a player with a one way contract Clears waivers he should be able to be sent down, since everyone had a fair crack at the player.

 

Depth is important to some guys, and I believe in depth, but that the players get use, instead of sitting on their keisters, being paid to sit. To me getting a deep farm system is a key to success, the Salary Cap should remain the Regulating factor for minor leaguer signees, however maybe something like having roster limits like 25 a team. I try to keep the number of players to about 20-22. My point is limit the Roster number to 18 skaters, and 2 goalies. While keeping space for 5 healthy scratches. The IR is for more serious Day-to-day, and more serious injuries, it makes room for you players.

 

That makes sense. I don't mind people having affiliate playes, but that number should be limited to about 15-20. Do you really need more that? Especially if your roster has about 20 or more players?

 

Taking over a CPU team with a bunch of garbage players definitely sucks, but I'm talking about players that have been around for a while....if you have 40-50 players all together....yeah, you are probably hoarding players.



#35

Posted April 21, 2018 - 07:32 PM

Walter A. Donaldson

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: April 2017
8
Rep - Floater

Some guys are there for Veteran Leadership, to teach the youngsters I have about 20 guys in the Minors I try to keep lesser prospects like 64-70 Overall in AAHL 2, but I like to send some veterans to guide the young guys with no experience, Veterans being talented but past their prime. Mainly leaders, guys who can teach youngsters a thing or two. But having Farm teams filled with with more than 15 players of your own is going a bit much. So I think having 30-35 is the amount you want some are developmental, some are over-the-hill Veterans, and the Rest are Leadership Vets. That is how I develop my farm teams.

 

I have 19 guys in my system, plus the 23 on my regular roster, the only reason I have that many is because of poor previous management. I usually only Keep enough to fill the 20 spots on the roster, the rest go to the minors, but again the Computers made some bad decisions, by bringing in bad players not worth their one way contracts, and the guys I wanted to bring in actually skate and play.

 

I think 30 is a good limit, for amount of players in the Farm system, or maybe 35 to be safe in case of bad AI Management.



#36

Posted April 21, 2018 - 07:59 PM

ET2018

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • 5 thanks
    GM Since: March 2018
48
Rep - Reliable

Some guys are there for Veteran Leadership, to teach the youngsters I have about 20 guys in the Minors I try to keep lesser prospects like 64-70 Overall in AAHL 2, but I like to send some veterans to guide the young guys with no experience, Veterans being talented but past their prime. Mainly leaders, guys who can teach youngsters a thing or two. But having Farm teams filled with with more than 15 players of your own is going a bit much. So I think having 30-35 is the amount you want some are developmental, some are over-the-hill Veterans, and the Rest are Leadership Vets. That is how I develop my farm teams.

 

I have 19 guys in my system, plus the 23 on my regular roster, the only reason I have that many is because of poor previous management. I usually only Keep enough to fill the 20 spots on the roster, the rest go to the minors, but again the Computers made some bad decisions, by bringing in bad players not worth their one way contracts, and the guys I wanted to bring in actually skate and play.

 

I think 30 is a good limit, for amount of players in the Farm system, or maybe 35 to be safe in case of bad AI Management.

 

I don't think veteran presence has an impact on how your affiliate guys develop. Really, you should only be stashing away players in affiliates if you plan on using them in the next few seasons. Keeping guys you have zero chance of using is pretty silly, and just hinders other teams from finding players. Speaking generally here of course.



#37

Posted April 21, 2018 - 08:55 PM

Walter A. Donaldson

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: April 2017
8
Rep - Floater

I don't think veteran presence has an impact on how your affiliate guys develop. Really, you should only be stashing away players in affiliates if you plan on using them in the next few seasons. Keeping guys you have zero chance of using is pretty silly, and just hinders other teams from finding players. Speaking generally here of course.

Well I just think that if they add that kind of thing it is, I'm a loyalty guy, if a player got me into a promotion, I figure, I let them play out their careers in the minors, as a sign of loyalty whether or not it has any effect. I do call up guys to fill in for an injury once in awhile. My reasoning is that if you can't get any real value for the old guys, then let'em stick with the minor league club provide some good stats.



#38

Posted April 21, 2018 - 09:05 PM

Walter A. Donaldson

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: April 2017
8
Rep - Floater

I don't know any BHL manager including me who would deliberately go after a 35 year old over the hill player.



#39

Posted April 21, 2018 - 09:07 PM

ET2018

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • 5 thanks
    GM Since: March 2018
48
Rep - Reliable

I don't know any BHL manager including me who would deliberately go after a 35 year old over the hill player.

 

My BHL team last season dominated the league, losing only five times. It was made mostly of players 33-35 years or older. Lots of players, including myself, don't mind building teams around veterans since they provide a performance bonus due to experience. 



#40

Posted April 21, 2018 - 09:10 PM

Walter A. Donaldson

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: April 2017
8
Rep - Floater

My BHL team last season dominated the league, losing only five times. It was made mostly of players 33-35 years or older.

Yeah I'm a veteran guy too, my point is, most guys won't go for guys who are 70-75 overall guys who are on the decline with poor trade value, and that is what I class as past their prime. One of my Heroes is Punch Imlach who was the ultimate veterans guy but even he brought in rookies not as quick as some guys will usually 1 to 2 a season.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users