Wick Schozen

Also a rule of thumb I always try to stick to. Making sure you don't miss on your first round pick is far more important than hitting on your second or third. Too much value is lost by not getting the best possible talent with your first rounder.

When evaluating prospects the first thing that will get me to open the player page is their traits. There are traits I steer clear of when building my team, so even if the guy is a stud if their traits will not add to the makeup of my team I'll look elsewhere. Secondly I go straight to the players rating page and look at their development history. I have no interest in using a pick on someone that will never even develop into a player that can contribute for me. Those are my two measures for shortlisting a prospect. Once they are in my internal rankings I'll start to evaluate individual attributes, season development, height and weight, compare traits among prospects, etc. I find that this is where you can be best situated for the draft. Also if a player is high on my internal rankings but low on the final player rankings it give me an opportunity to reach out to other managers for the potential of trading down from my original spot to acquire more picks and still get the player I'm after.
 
I rarely take production into account with prospects. If you were to see a player that has exceptional numbers can almost guarantee that he has a couple other top prospects on his team. Same for a top prospect that has a high rating but not the best numbers, his team is probably full of 15 and 16 year olds or he just doesn't have elite support around him. I'm just yet to see a direct correlation between the success of a prospect and their numbers in junior, a far better measure is how much they will develop. I've fooled around with the idea of developing a formula to try and predict a players points output in relation to their production in juniors when taking into account what league they play in and what overall they were when they had said production in comparison to historical references of what other players accomplished. But that would be a giant endeavour to pull all the data for that and I lack the motivation to do it. 

I send out a fair amount of personal messages to other managers. Sometimes it can be a bit hard to keep up with them. Just wanted to throw out a couple ideas for improvements on the current messaging system:
 
- On the manager page, a separate tab from the current inbox for personal messages. The current inbox could be changed to 'notifications' and the personal message tab would be it's on tab next to history forum and chat. I'm not sure about other game worlds but in Howitzer the forum and chat function are rarely used within the game world. A new personal message interface could replace those two entirely.
 
-A bit of an email or message interface where threads are kept and you can view messages you've sent but haven't received a reply to yet.
 
-This would need the thread to be implemented, but it would be nice to know if a manager has read the message. Currently you don't know if a manager has read the message and not responded or the manager is just inactive. I also believe this would improve communication between managers solely on a moral standpoint (moral standpoint might be a leap, but you get the gist)
 
 
 
If anyone else has any other improvements that like to see for the PMs I'd be very interested in hearing about them.

I send out a fair amount of personal messages to other managers. Sometimes it can be a bit hard to keep up with them. Just wanted to throw out a couple ideas for improvements on the current messaging system:
 
- On the manager page, a separate tab from the current inbox for personal messages. The current inbox could be changed to 'notifications' and the personal message tab would be it's on tab next to history forum and chat. I'm not sure about other game worlds but in Howitzer the forum and chat function are rarely used within the game world. A new personal message interface could replace those two entirely.
 
-A bit of an email or message interface where threads are kept and you can view messages you've sent but haven't received a reply to yet.
 
-This would need the thread to be implemented, but it would be nice to know if a manager has read the message. Currently you don't know if a manager has read the message and not responded or the manager is just inactive. I also believe this would improve communication between managers solely on a moral standpoint (moral standpoint might be a leap, but you get the gist)
 
 
 
If anyone else has any other improvements that like to see for the PMs I'd be very interested in hearing about them.

I send out a fair amount of personal messages to other managers. Sometimes it can be a bit hard to keep up with them. Just wanted to throw out a couple ideas for improvements on the current messaging system:
 
- On the manager page, a separate tab from the current inbox for personal messages. The current inbox could be changed to 'notifications' and the personal message tab would be it's on tab next to history forum and chat. I'm not sure about other game worlds but in Howitzer the forum and chat function are rarely used within the game world. A new personal message interface could replace those two entirely.
 
-A bit of an email or message interface where threads are kept and you can view messages you've sent but haven't received a reply to yet.
 
-This would need the thread to be implemented, but it would be nice to know if a manager has read the message. Currently you don't know if a manager has read the message and not responded or the manager is just inactive. I also believe this would improve communication between managers solely on a moral standpoint (moral standpoint might be a leap, but you get the gist)
 
 
 
If anyone else has any other improvements that like to see for the PMs I'd be very interested in hearing about them.

Changing tactics generally take around 40 games to get to 100%. I feel that there are two ways to approach tactics. You either build a team geared towards a particular tactic because you like that style of play or you've looked at what the most used tactic of your league is and you adopt a tactic that can play at an advantage over that. 
 
Personally I prefer to utilise my teams strengths and play to that and when I am looking to bring in new players I am only looking for additions that will complement my team and the style of play. 

I find trades interesting. You can add a player to your lineup that is an improvement, but better results won't come straight away. I find it can take anywhere from 10-15 games for my team to either feel normal or show improvement. I think it has to do with the player coming in with just 'ok' confidence. As a result I pretty much never make trades that affect my main lineup in the final 20 games of the season. 

Well that seems realistic to me. In the NHL if a captain is injured you don't see another player take the letter, it's just your captain is injured and out of the lineup, still the leader in the dressing room though. So if you gave the letter to another player, there'd be a ripple effect in the room and once the captain is back and the letter is returned there is now a player who had that leadership taken away. 
 
I haven't had my captain injured *knocks on wood* but I have had alternates go down and I usually just wait for them to return.

In regards to teamwork and winner instinct I feel they are about managing players traits in your roster, confidence is a whole different ball game but I'll get to that in a bit. I had to make some roster moves at the start of this season to get my teamwork back up. Too many arrogant and cocky players on my team seemed to take my teamwork in the wrong direction and I wasn't willing to test how much of an impact that would have on my team's record. 

Simply signing more heroic or determined players won't affect winning instinct as much as creating a better balance among your team in terms of the trait. Adding more players that push the teams winner instinct in the right direction while also subtracting those that don't will obviously have a greater impact.
 
I know some feel that teamwork, confidence and winner instinct doesn't have that much of an impact but I feel it does in a relative sense. For example, a player that is 95 overall will need to produce far more than a player that is 85 overall to feel confident in their game. So it is the same for a team, if a team has the potential to win the cup that means the players rostered on that team are all going to be really good. So if those players aren't producing at elite rates their confidence will reflect that as will the teams. 

On that point I keep seeing the Biscuits GHL win referenced. The way I see it, if that team was capable of winning the cup, they had elite players on that team. So even though they beat teams that were feeling more confident, their superior player overcame inferior teams that were playing at the top of their game. 

I'm not sure if I perfectly explained the idea I'm trying to convey but basically I see confidence as the ceiling of a players performance. Like so:

---------Players Peak----------
Elite player high confidence
 
Good player high confidence
 
Elite player ok confidence
 
Good player ok confidence
 
Average player high confidence
 
and so on......
 
--------Player slump-------
 
 
Basically I see it as how much of would a good player performing at his peak outperform a great player playing ok relative to his skill level.

It's difficult sometimes to see how a player is progressing based off of the current bar system. One could take notes as to their last known locations and track gain and loss but what would be nice is a bit more simplistic overview. What if when you went to the player's progress tab you were then able to see one of four progress bar colors to show growth and decline. We could use the same colors (red, yellow, blue, green) as a foundation for this. Let's say that a player is increasing but at a slower rate at faceoffs then the bar would show as blue for slow progress while a different attribute on the same player could be increasing quickly and show a green color bar. Likewise, there could be a player that has some digression and his bars could look yellow or red depending on how fast those traits are decreasing. This would give a GM a better understanding in how their players are developing or decreasing and maybe even give a little insight into how training alters specific training rates.
 
Thoughts?

A live feed has been on the back burner for awhile now. I imagine it would be a gigantic task to try and implement. A stop gap that would satisfy a lot of managers would be an expanded play by play. I'd like to know exactly who is on the ice for every event. That would allow for managers who are interested to track more details of how their players are performing (zone starts, shots for and against while on the ice). Would open up a broader spectrum to evaluate how your players are performing. 

A live feed has been on the back burner for awhile now. I imagine it would be a gigantic task to try and implement. A stop gap that would satisfy a lot of managers would be an expanded play by play. I'd like to know exactly who is on the ice for every event. That would allow for managers who are interested to track more details of how their players are performing (zone starts, shots for and against while on the ice). Would open up a broader spectrum to evaluate how your players are performing. 

Hi, there could be option to write message while rejecting trade offer. Or there should be more options. The answers when you're rejecting offer are so banal, too general and you have just few choices. It'll give us little bit more chance to continue with negotiation. And It's easier than write personal message.

I echo TheWeekKnights' statements.
 
Since the mud slinging continues, this thread is now locked.

Just to throw in my two cents that no one asked for: 
 
1. Everybody needs to calm down.  This is a forum for an online game, not a political protest.  There are plenty of ways to bring up an issue you have with the game without personally attacking people.  And there are plenty of ways to defend yourself without getting into essentially a yelling match.  I haven't ever seen this from the community, and I'm disappointed.  Let's keep it constructive.  
 
2. CPU trading, in my opinion, is pretty balanced now.  It's almost impossible to rip off the computer, and you truly have to give up something good to get something from one of those teams.  If it's not unbalanced in the CPU's favor, the trade is not going through.  Besides, you should have seen it a few seasons ago when you could give up 3 old guys who aren't very good with orange trade value and get a top prospect.  It's come a long way and I think it's a good part of the game.  
 
3. The game is still being developed, and it's certainly not flawless.  But it changes and grows and gets better all the time, so bring up your complaints in a way that makes people want to listen, discuss, and make those changes, and it'll improve more quickly.  
 
4. This isn't meant to be condescending, I just like the game too much to see people rip it to shreds.  
 
5. Now I feel like a parent.  Great.  

I think the next progression to creating more balanced opportunities will be to cap the number of affiliate players. The affiliate system has helped everyone but the IHL and LIHL. There has been a trickle down effect to where SHL teams have less guys to pick from because of GHL affiliates, BHL has less to pick from because of SHL affiliates and so they take all the scraps to be competitive. The IHL is where the drop off becomes dramatic. If there is a capped system more players become available across the board which will trickle down to the IHL and LIHL getting more drops from the BHL. 

For what it's worth, I'm not saying this from the perspective of a manager that has been hurt by the affiliate system. I have a GHL affiliate in Howitzer that would crush a lot of SHL teams, built solely on developing players under the age of 24. Sometimes I think it's laughable the players I have assigned to my affiliate. I love the affiliate feature for developing prospects but in a promotion and relegation system it poses problems for teams in lower divisions.

Hiya guys,
 
Just a thought that came to some of our minds as we were discussing in the chat. What if we could disable computer trading completely? Instead of the Day 20 deadline, how about just getting rid of computer trading totally?
 
Any thoughts?
 
I feel like we could definitely try this, especially with the new Worlds. I'm sure it'll fill up pretty quickly, and we could keep it really competitive between human managers.
 
@Anders, could we please consider this before the Day 20 deadline hits?

I understand that it’s not very obvious what impact the player profile has, but that’s also by design. It’s not supposed to be too obvious - but at the same time obvious enough so that you can use your common hockey sense to figure things out. And as I can see in this topic so far, you’re already on the right track. However, I have been asked to give a comment on this matter and I’d be happy to. I won’t reveal any secrets but hopefully I can shed some light on this.
 First, it’s important to understand that the player profile is not only used to impact the player’s game performance. It will also influence things like team culture, happiness/unhappiness triggers, retirement age, contract negotiations and demands (including choice of team). When it comes to game performance the player profile will play an important role (it can be the difference between a win and a loss) but it will only act as an addition to the player’s original skill level. That means that if your player’s skill level is high enough it can compensate for his bad profile. But as mentioned above the profile will influence other parts of the game (culture, happiness, etc.) which in its own turn can lead to a bad game performance. Also, both high and low values can be of benefit in different situations. It’s a complex system, just like it should be. And now to RNG. As Rainsilent pointed out I don’t believe there is any good way to exclude random numbers from any game. Depending on what meaning you put into the word random I believe there’s a random factor present even in real life. A top sniper wont score 1 million goals on a 1 million shots even with an empty net. He would probably miss at least one . But I promise you this, there are NO complete random numbers in this game. All actions will be based on skill, trait or other ratings to decide if an action is a success or failure.

This is an awesome thread. I reckon having the world championships start at the same time as playoffs would be good. Currently there are teams that sit for over a week (slow worlds 3 weeks) with nothing to do. If the WC started on the same day as playoffs you would have your team built primary of players from teams that didn't make the playoffs, like in real life with the NHL playoffs and IIHF world championships and then as players get eliminated they could go join the national team to play out the rest of the tournament. 

This is an awesome thread. I reckon having the world championships start at the same time as playoffs would be good. Currently there are teams that sit for over a week (slow worlds 3 weeks) with nothing to do. If the WC started on the same day as playoffs you would have your team built primary of players from teams that didn't make the playoffs, like in real life with the NHL playoffs and IIHF world championships and then as players get eliminated they could go join the national team to play out the rest of the tournament. 

Can't offer a definitive answer, but I do think that a player's role does affect their training. For example, I've had defensemen where their offensive skills, so they are set to stay at home but they'll struggle to increase their offensive attributes. 

Also I've started to believe that their in game results has some effect on how they develop. I have a player where I want to develop his faceoffs, but when I have him on my GHL team he is only taking 5-10 faceoffs a game and isn't improving much. But when he is with my affiliate he's taking over 20 draws a game and his faceoff development sky rockets. So with that, if you have him set to powerforward and he starts hitting more, maybe his physicality could follow suit. 

Can't offer a definitive answer, but I do think that a player's role does affect their training. For example, I've had defensemen where their offensive skills, so they are set to stay at home but they'll struggle to increase their offensive attributes. 

Also I've started to believe that their in game results has some effect on how they develop. I have a player where I want to develop his faceoffs, but when I have him on my GHL team he is only taking 5-10 faceoffs a game and isn't improving much. But when he is with my affiliate he's taking over 20 draws a game and his faceoff development sky rockets. So with that, if you have him set to powerforward and he starts hitting more, maybe his physicality could follow suit. 

I now have both my affiliates stocked with drafted prospects. I've created a system for myself to try and maximize how they get ice time, but I am worried that their development will be shorted because of how the affiliate teams utilise players. I have my top two center prospects on my AAHL team, but only one is being used as a center and the other is a forward. I imagine it is like this because they are the top two players on the team so the affiliate is loading up the top line. But when a player isn't taking faceoffs they won't develop their faceoff skill. This also throws my other assigned players out of whack because I now have a forward player filling in for the second line player. It just creates sloppy and unrealistic development.

If we could assign them to a position we would have more control over their development and it would be more like a real life affiliate system where to top team sends down a player and they want them to develop in a certain role or position. We still wouldn't be able to allocate where they are in the lineup, that would be on the affiliate but we would be able to make sure that they are training in their position nonetheless.  

I now have both my affiliates stocked with drafted prospects. I've created a system for myself to try and maximize how they get ice time, but I am worried that their development will be shorted because of how the affiliate teams utilise players. I have my top two center prospects on my AAHL team, but only one is being used as a center and the other is a forward. I imagine it is like this because they are the top two players on the team so the affiliate is loading up the top line. But when a player isn't taking faceoffs they won't develop their faceoff skill. This also throws my other assigned players out of whack because I now have a forward player filling in for the second line player. It just creates sloppy and unrealistic development.

If we could assign them to a position we would have more control over their development and it would be more like a real life affiliate system where to top team sends down a player and they want them to develop in a certain role or position. We still wouldn't be able to allocate where they are in the lineup, that would be on the affiliate but we would be able to make sure that they are training in their position nonetheless.  

I now have both my affiliates stocked with drafted prospects. I've created a system for myself to try and maximize how they get ice time, but I am worried that their development will be shorted because of how the affiliate teams utilise players. I have my top two center prospects on my AAHL team, but only one is being used as a center and the other is a forward. I imagine it is like this because they are the top two players on the team so the affiliate is loading up the top line. But when a player isn't taking faceoffs they won't develop their faceoff skill. This also throws my other assigned players out of whack because I now have a forward player filling in for the second line player. It just creates sloppy and unrealistic development.

If we could assign them to a position we would have more control over their development and it would be more like a real life affiliate system where to top team sends down a player and they want them to develop in a certain role or position. We still wouldn't be able to allocate where they are in the lineup, that would be on the affiliate but we would be able to make sure that they are training in their position nonetheless.