.png.89070b1700d17dc29d5856f05a15adea.png)
rainsilent
-
Content Count
591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
91
Posts posted by rainsilent
-
-
It is very slow to train compared to everything else and I have yet to see any training focus change that fact.
-
http://www.gameplanhockey.com/player?gpid=4180
I know it hasn't been continuous but he is still a useful player even in the GHL. Yes he not on the team currently but he is my 1st call up for a top 9 injury and did well the one game I called him up. Next season I plan on trying to play him on my 3rd line after letting go a number of vets. Oh the days when he was actually a quality 3rd line role player in the GHL.
-
So the primary issues are that your checking line only has 1 decent checking type player and you have no two way defenders. Never mind the role that you set for your players. Basically you got players trying to do things that they aren't good at doing. Also all of your defensemen are defensive defensemen. You can set them to match line but stay at home would likely be best for most if not all of them. Only one of your forwards makes for a suitable player on a checking line so scrap the checking line for a two way line and adjust players as necessary.
Finally team tactics wise set it to what you want it to be. The players will develop into the tactics that you choose. Just know that it may take time to do. Also you don't necessarily need a 7th defender however seeing as how most of your defenders have relatively low endurance ratings if you find your defenders getting tired a lot it may be an option worth exploring. That said only playing 1 on each PP would almost do the same thing as it will actively cut down the amount of time on ice the defenders are getting and that alone may be enough.
-
Since I can't see the most important thing, your roster, I can't really do much to help. With what I can see it could be anything from trying to get players on a line to play a style that doesn't suit them to the players just not liking the system which is a possibility.
sonstone and Walter A. Donaldson reacted to this -
To add on to above:
Dynamic is good for high skilled defenders that can do it all as well as two way. Think the elite defensemen in the modern game. This set up is basically giving them the green light to do whatever they think is best at any time.
I would use match line if your team plays a specific style a la very physical and aggressive, strong puck play, what have you and you have the defenders to match that style or alternately you have high skilled do everything defenders and you want them to match the play of the forward line they are playing with.
-
Point number one has been addressed. However it will take time to see the results of the solution take effect. Patience here would be appreciated.
Point two was something debated over when "minor leagues" were created. It was decided not to go that route for 2 main reasons. First it removed any real management role from lower league teams as they would just be given the extra players from leagues above and actual signing and maintaining their own players was more or less absent with this idea. Second calling the players up would suddenly mean that the lower league team is losing a player on their team just out of the blue with nothing the manager can do. Not an ideal thing to be dealing with when running a team to say the least. Also there are other problems with your given idea. Chiefly the complications behind it. For example why should a team that sent a player down to develop have to then match an offer to keep the player just because the lower league team that got them when they were sent down then promoted? The player is already under contract to that team and should remain so until they are either traded or the contract ends. That of course does not include the waiver system that is being worked on to be included but that still doesn't come into play.
The third idea has a major issue. Every league has their cap and contract system set at a certain percentage of the league above. This allows the simplest transition of player salaries from one league to the next should a team either promote or a player be traded. The third idea, and since it is an extension of the second even the second idea, just wouldn't work in the current system from how I understand it. Something would need a major rework.
The IHL and IIHL idea would just create a mess out of a currently rather streamlined system currently in place. In terms of new players joining there are two solutions. First would be the creation of a new game world and second would be a more strict enforcement of the fact that managers should only have 1 profile to create more room for new players without creating new game worlds. Let me go back to and explain the first part. The way that the leagues are currently set up is the foundation of everything in the game world. The draft, the way contracts work, everything. Breaking it up in the way you suggested means that most everything would have to be reworked from the ground up. The current system works as intended. It may not be the perfect system in your mind but changing these game worlds now in that manner just isn't likely going to happen. If Anders decides to try to create one massive game world for each speed type with a massive ladder tree then your idea would most definitely come to the forefront. However until that happens how things are now will likely remain how things will continue to be. It is a different solution to the same problem with no absolute right or wrong answer to it.
Finally I suggested getting rid of center and forward for just forward way back in beta. Anders wanted to keep some sort of distinction between a center and a winger though and thus kept it which is fine for the game.
-
It should start going down. Unfortunately it won't be quickly. It will take a few seasons for the super players to stop coming through the draft. Once that happens though we are going to have a really rough period of top player unbalance and managers trying to hoard as many as they can under the cap.
-
I currently have 30 + 4 prospects. I don't think prospects should count against your roster limit since they are unsigned. It'd also encourage those prospects that are turning 21 to either be dealt or released to proper leagues instead of signing and burying in the minors for less than a $200k per season.
I'd be fine with a limit of 35 at GHL level. I think most of us would, but this would also unfairly disadvantage newly promoted teams who might be carrying salaries from even two leagues below. If they cut them, then that counts against their cap, only making it more difficult for them to compete. Plus, it wipes out a lot of their insurance salaries if they get demoted in their 1st or 2nd season at the higher level. Maybe promoted teams could be given a 1-season time frame to meet the new league's roster limit?
Unsigned prospects shouldn't count to the roster limit because they aren't signed onto the roster. That said the manager that has them is wasting their development potential to a degree by not signing them.
As for the newly promoted teams be more aware of your players contracts. Part of the strategy of this game is being able to financially work your contracts in such a way that when you promote you still have the flexibility to adjust the roster to the new league. You over commit to your roster in the league you are in and promote there will be the penalty to pay when you promote a la all of the promotional contracts.
Mostly they can't. I know from own experience. I had a half of the team on promotion contracts to have enough quality to be able win promotion. So they weren't on "lower league level contract" next season....
That is because they were promotional contracts. Non promotional contracts become lower league contracts which you can then cut for free. When I unexpectedly promoted to the GHL so long ago I didn't have very many promotional contracts and could have easily cut a majority of my team when I promoted. Then again cutting players back then when not for free only lead to a lockout of half the salary for x days with x equal to the remaining seasons left under the contract.
-
If you remove the extra players that I have signed (young IIHL/IHL/BHL quality players unsigned at a start of a season that show promise for growth that I signed a season or two ago so they had a chance to develop) my roster is at 37. Who I would get rid of to get to 35 wouldn't be a hard decision. After this season is over if I keep this roster as is the rest of the season and stay in the GHL I will be letting go of 8 players. 35 is definitely manageable for a GHL team. A bit tight but definitely manageable.
-
-
Don't think that I am saying that there shouldn't be a roster limit. When the suggestion first came up a long time ago I said somewhere in the ballpark of 40 is where I think we should be. Too low of a roster limit and proper team building becomes nearly impossible as does sustaining your team from efforts within. Too high a limit and it might as well not be there. With around 40 you can have 5 depth players give or take a few and 10-12 prospects with some extra room left over for multiplayer trades.
Edit: Also turning and burning picks means that someone somewhere is selling out their picks/prospects for a short term risk while the team benefiting is maintaining their position atop the league they are in with valuable future assets. So long as the team benefiting works the deals to maintain status que they aren't ever going to move and it will remain status quo. If you guys don't think human managers are that gullible look at the team that won the GHL in Biscuit the prior two seasons. They got human managers to give them way more value than the players they were trading away were worth and now that team is a gold mine of young players.
-
I didn't say that the roster limit wouldn't address it. I said that it doesn't directly address it. Introducing a roster limit does nothing to directly address player hoarding. A team could skimp on prospects and fill their entire roster space with quality players for the league they are in. Its a very indirect way of addressing the issue meaning that the actual meaningful impact it is going to have is going to be limited by each individual managers decision specifically in how much roster space they want to have for developing prospects vs hoarding quality players. For example take your limit of 10 excess players for GHL teams. If just 3 teams decides to use their complement of 10 extra roster spaces to hoard players that is 30 less GHL worthy players playing in the GHL. That pretty much leaves us where we are now in terms of player hoarding and we have essentially gone nowhere in terms of addressing player hoarding. And yes that means that said team isn't developing their current prospects but they can trade roster players or the players they are hoarding for 1st and 2nd round GHL picks depending upon the quality of players they are giving away thus it doesn't really hurt those teams in the long run anyways.
The current ability to remove players off of the waivers I think was done to allow managers to remove players they accidentally placed on waivers to take them off of waivers. However you wouldn't have that option with assignment waivers, ideally anyways. Once you assign a player that meets the waiver requirements the game ideally should ask if you are sure and warns you of the risk of losing them through waivers with no chance of undoing the option. If the manager decides to assign them to an affiliate they accept the risk and the player has to go through waivers and the manager cannot remove the player from waivers.
-
The roster limit has to apply to all players for simplicity sake. You can't have 18-20 players not counting. Edit: ok you can but again simpler is better usually. If GHL teams have only 10 extra players they would theoretically be continuously trading prospects for picks, drafting those players and then trading them again just to stay under the roster limit. It creates a ridiculous situation.
Also if it is more difficult to hoard players in the lower leagues than what is the point of the higher roster limit? I ask this in complete, genuine honesty.
Finally creating a roster limit doesn't directly address the real issue with player hoarding. The fact that teams can sign players of any age and skill level and then stash them away in their affiliate system. With the roster limit it would theoretically be possible to still stash away 10 real quality players and still hoard them. What I suggested to Anders in the original hoarding thread is a much better solution because it is direct. Any player above a certain age and overall (I think 23-25 and older at say 83 overall for GHL teams is about right) that get sent to the affiliate immediately goes on waivers for x time. Only after that time is up and no team claims them will they then go to the affiliates and stay on said team. Every new season the players that are at or above the age limit go to the main roster and have to be sent to the affiliate at the start of the season to have the process repeat again unless the manager decides to keep them on the main roster to again prevent from player hoarding.
Edit: Paul T it doesn't matter how much you care or not. It is important to talk about it and any other issues in the game openly. The more friendly dialogue that happens over an issue the more possible solutions that can be found. The more possible solutions that get discussed the more likely it is that a really good solution gets found. Good solution idea or not talking about issues with the game in an open and friendly manner only will go to help make the game better as issues are getting discussed which will lead to suggested fixes which will lead to improving the game.
As for low player salaries yes it is a real issue but what isn't helping is the inflated overalls. I think once player overalls come back down again we can see what the salary demands are doing and go from there. That said players weren't asking enough then either so bumping up player salary demands at least a little wouldn't be a bad thing in my mind at all. After all the ideal situation is that the best teams have to deal with cap crunches and difficult decisions in who to keep and who to give away or get rid when their team is good because of quality depth.
-
Overall is calculated with the different skills weighted in a certain way. That means that not all are calculated equally. For example the faceoff skill might only have say a 30% weight relative to all other skills of this player when calculating overall.
-
A few things. 30 players is too few. That is 10 extra players total. That means your getting rid of drafted players very quickly. Too quickly. It completely prevents from building a team and sustaining it from within via through the draft. I get player hoarding is an issue but the answer is not the other extreme where sustainability is found through pot luck signings in FA.
Also for simplicity sake choose a number and stick with it for every league. It makes it easier to code and for all to understand. The simpler things are to code the more likely they are to be looked at to be added into the game and the less likely they are to break and the easier they are to fix if the do break or have bugs. The easier to understand the better for all players in the game.
As for hoarding players Anders is working on a fix so please be patient.
-
You guys find that confusing?
Try having a player than when playing poorly will gain confidence but when playing well losses it.
-
I genuinely don't know with winner instinct.
-
In other SHL news, the Leopards and Musketeers finished with the same point total and will face off in the first round of the playoffs as the #4 and #5 seeds. We split the season series 2-2. The crazy fact is that both teams promoted from BHL last season where they finished with the same exact point total there, too. What are the chances?
Good luck, Exxeo. Thought for sure you were going to dig your way out of having to play to stay. Your team was on quite the tear the last 20 or so games of the season.
That is an amazing statistic. Good luck in that match up.
I'm cheering for you Exxeo.
HurjaHerra and EXXEO reacted to this -
In terms of team focus i change it rather regularly with mostly positive effects. Knowing how to change it and what to is the important thing.
In regards to the tactics it is very possible to continuously change the team tactics to where none of them ever gets out of red and you win a lot of games however you have to precisely predict the tactics the opposing teams are going to use in each game to have any chance of success short of just having the best players by far. If the players are roughly equal and you guess wrong it is a near guarantee that you will lose with the only question being by how much.
So with Team Focus alterations it's more or less a game plan for the upcoming opponent rather than what you referred to as identity? If this is the case how do you usually adjust your focus? Let's say a team usually plays offensive, do you attempt to counter their offense with a more defensive strategy or try to outdo them with a Very Offensive focus? I think rainsilent mentioned it being similar to Rock Paper Scissors... is this just because you never know what the other manager will do with their focus?
I should have replied to this when you posted. I apologize that I missed it.
Team focus is more a game to game game plan thing yes. I adjust my teams focus depending upon the strengths and weaknesses of both my team and the opposing team. If the opposing team is a strong offensive team but a bit weak defensively or in net I will set my team to be more offensive as well because I have a defensive team with a strong goalie. I am willing to bet that my defense and goalie will outlast their offense better than their D and goalie can hold against mine. However if the opposing team is just better than mine (Protons) I will try to play a conservative defensive game trying to hold the score close and hope for a 1-0, 2-1 game where my team scores the last and hopefully deciding goal as I lean on my teams defense (its greatest strength) heavily to try to get a win.
-
That record is short term. Don't trust short term. For dump and chase you have to have a fast and physical team.
My advice would be pick the style you want your team to play. The players will learn it and they will focus their training to develop the skills relevant for it faster than other skills. As for what to go for I have descriptions of the offensive tactics here: http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/6845-general-user-guide/
To help you I will repost them for you here:
Offensive tactics
Crash the Net: This is very simple. Puck and players to the net. In real life this isn't a tactic so much as it is a way of life. Hockey players are preached to crash the net. "Go to the net and good things will happen," "throw the puck to the net because anything could happen" and "there is no such thing as a bad shot" (there actually is) are things you commonly hear if you watch NHL games.
What do you need for this tactic? Players high in the physical attribute. Bigger sized players are also a plus. The good about this tactic: You only need one skill to make it work and it is very simple. The Bad: You NEED one skill to make it work or it will not work at all, it is heavily reliant on your players to have higher physical skills and be bigger than the opposing defensemen for it to work, it is simple and very easy to counter.
This tactic is the least efficient tactic out there and the most reliant on the opposing team being weak to it makes it pretty much not worth it. This tactic isn't garbage. it is just over reliant on a few things making it a very situational tactic at best. Using a situational tactic all of the time isn't exactly an ideal situation.
Dump and Chase: This is all about getting the puck deep and then getting the puck via a strong forecheck. This tactic is less about skill and more about the defensive posture of the opposing team through the neutral zone. If the defensive posture is "up" then a dump and chase is a very good tactic to use. However that is in a real hockey game.
What do you need for this tactic? Speed and physical skills predominantly. Like above bigger sized players are a plus. The good: This tactic is all about using your teams physical attributes to the greatest possible effect. It isn't overly reliant on puck skills. The bad: Due to the aggressive hitting nature of this tactic over aggressive players will take a lot of penalties, considering that your team will take more penalties off of the bat as it is that could really kill any momentum your team builds on a regular basis making it difficult for your team to generate much offense.
This tactic is still very reliant on a players physical skill so not having a lot of forwards with high physical ratings will hurt this offense a lot. This tactic and the tactic above are the two physically focused offensive styles. The dump and chase is the more versatile of the two as it is less reliant on the opponent and their skills and more about your own players and theirs.
Puck possession: This is all about controlling the puck in the opponents end by passing the puck around. This tactic is the basis of most modern hockey offenses. Even the LA Kings use a puck possession offense with a heavy influence of physical play whereas the Chicago Blackhawks use a more finesse based puck possession style.
What you need: Puck handling and passing and then more puck handling and passing and then even more. The Good: This tactic is all about the puck skills of your players. This is the most difficult offense to stop with a skilled team. The bad: This is the most difficult offense to run because it is exceptionally reliant on the puck skills of your players.
This tactic is very high risk high reward in nature. As a result if you don't do things right things can very easily go very wrong with this tactic. You don't need fast or physical players but that will definitely help.
Transition rushes: This is all about counter attacking quickly. Get the puck and get it up ice quickly trying to create odd man rushes. However in the real life game this is not an offensive strategy per se and more another part of the game altogether.
What you need: A lot of skating, passing and puck handling. The good: Very aggressive and fast offensive tactic that aims to take advantage of both the speed and skill of your players. The bad: This tactic has the most demands from the players as they need to be fast, good puck handlers and passers.
Like puck possession this is high risk high reward but it is also the tactic that demands the most out of the players which demands the most out of you as well as you need the right players for this tactic to work. Also this tactic has some reliance on the opposing team as well making it that much more harder to implement successfully.
Since I finally have a week off from work and life short of a sudden call from life I will be adding at least defensive descriptions this week to that after a long overdue time of not adding it. It literally takes hours to do that stuff.
-
I'm in SHL and acquired a player from a GHL team earlier this season who did not have a 1W/PC and after the trade, he had a 1W/PC contract. But I have also seen other players go from GHL to SHL and not have 1W/PC contracts after.
The reason you saw players go from the GHL to the SHL and not get a 1 way contract is because they had a lower league contract when in the GHL. As said though when on a standard contract and traded to a lower league they will get a 1 way contract.
I'll put this in the same thread if it's ok.
I have a contract situation in Dangles that puzzles me. I signed my keeper Augsten in IHL for 2 seasons with 1w clause. Now I got promoted and he still has his 1w clause in BHL. Isn't IHL level contract 1w clause supposed to drop when player enters BHL level?
Anyone had a similar situation?
I would think so. I've never seen this happen and the only thing I can think of is you resigned him and his new contract had that. However you don't say that you did so I don't know.
-
First a waiver system is coming to allow lower league managers to claim players. How exactly it will work I don't know. That said I did call at the outset that overly greedy managers would abuse the affiliate system.
Second there is a right way to find and go after players for an affiliate system. Its simple. Wait until the end of FA and then go after any FA not being offered a contract by lower league teams that you have interest in. It allows other teams (most importantly lower league teams) to go after FAs that they may actually need.
-
3 forwards are on the block for me.
Chattillon, Eger and Grieveau-Brisjoly.
Looking for picks, prospects or 3rd/4th line forwards in return.
-
In the affiliate they train as hard as you set them to. The problem is that injuries stagnates training while the player is hurt. Combine that with players on affiliate teams regularly getting fatigued due to the combination of hard training and a lack of managing minutes and I don't doubt that fatigue injuries happen a bit more often than we would like in the affiliates. Hence me mentioning those pros and cons.
.png)
S14 Magic Numbers
in Biscuit
Posted
I get the strange feeling that you may have left a 0 out somewhere...