MattBerserkers

I haven't really followed any older players as I haven't sought after anyone 35+ until the start of this past fishbowl season, so I don't know how the regression system really works. However, I do notice a lot of great veteran players at the top levels. I just assumed it worked like how you suggested already, but if it doesn't I definitely support this idea. Maybe the average player could lose a point or two starting at age 33 and then start to gradually increase in their regressions to the point where they drop to how it currently is at age 38. Kind of like rolling a snowball. That way it would be a bit less surprising when older players do drop in skill.

At that age, I actually think it's fine, especially because I feel like there is an oversaturation of talent. Although rare in reality, some players do seem to just jump off a cliff. My opinion is just let it be. It's a risk people should be taking by signing older players that just didn't pay off for you. As much as people don't like to admit it, winning still requires a bit of luck.

I'm curious as to how old these players are that are regressing fairly quickly.

Well what could a goalie do wrong while sitting on the bench? Open the gates too late?

I can't seem to find the page, but previously the fastest speed lightning (a game every 3h) was removed because it was causing too many problems with the simulator and always breaking causing the world to be constantly paused. If limiting the fastest game speed to a game every 6h prevents these issues, then I think the game is already as fast as it needs to be.

I find that the bigger the player, the less they seem to get injured, although it might just be m luck as well. My most recent season, I had maybe 5 or 6 injuries in total with most of them lasting a single day or less and two of the injuries actually came on the last day of the season. All but one of my players were above 6ft, and the one guy was 5'11". I don't really look at weight, though, but I imagine that there is a big correlation with height. I don't necessarily agree with a durability rating as human players would sign a guy with a lowish rating, effectively letting already almost teams become perfect teams in the higher leagues. There would also be no need for backup players because who cares about them if you know your team is unlikely to get injured. In my opinion, that would remove some realisticness from the game and reduce some of the appeal for me. Besides, a player's bio will list past injuries and I find that injury prone players are more likely to have that page filled with injuries. So, I think it's already pretty possible for managers whom do their research to avoid most players that are prone to injuries.

I think I see the problem. Try zooming out your browser, the stats stretch to your screen. If they don't all fit, certain stats will not be shown probably to keep the game looking clean. edit: Here's what I mean, rather than zoom in, I just shrunk my window to show the difference. http://imgur.com/a/vqZ8o -> Here's a link, my photos were kinda big.

Basically my title. It would be nice when offering a contract or when looking at a players transfer screen to be able to see his potential cap hit in another league in case you are about to be promoted or relegated or are considering to move him. I just earned a promotion this season and am wanting to offer some contracts to players, but everybody wants a promotion clause and I have no idea how much would affect my cap, so I am hesitant to put any pen to paper.

I agree with your point that guys above 35 should regress more. I just did not want to suggest it myself as I think that was a change in the most recent update, so I'd like to see how much it changes things before suggesting that the regression for aging players is boosted even more. Although, I could be mistaken and the change might only affect the chances that an older player could still improve.

Wouldn't increasing the cap just add to the problem? Maybe the formula for creating new players could change in order to avoid the oversaturation of top-top players generated in the game. I'm thinking of something similar to EHM where regens are just the potentials and mentalities taken from retired players and then re-used for the players created in a new season. Or else a different change could be widening the range of hard-cap potentials and reduces the number of players that can reach above 90 overall. Both options would probably take a lot of work to implement, but they would both increase the need for specialized players rather than just being able to ice 4 lines of perfectly rounded players as it would reduce the supply of almost perfect players.

I probably wouldn't sign up as I like the promotion system and don't have an infinite amount of time. My conference suggestion is that maybe have the two worst teams in each division gets reshuffled in their divisions. I don't think basing the divisions around actual locations would work considering how often teams are moved around.

I would love a roster limit. +1 to that idea. edit: Although you would have to take into consideration the affiliate teams whenever they come out; meaning it should be a little bit higher whenever that update is released. For that, my suggestion would be 50 signed contracts (like the NHL). However, as of now without the update, that 50 wouldn't at all feel like a roster limit.

I'm not entirely understanding what you mean by this. Are you talking about forcing a team to keep salary of a player after trading him away for a draft pick, then I completely disagree. If you're talking about having the ability to retain a bit of salary when trading, similar to the NHL, then I think it would be a cool feature. However, I like the current development plan and would like to see it worked on more before a feature like this. And I disagree with you as well junior, if either of these was implemented, there would still be a lot of trading. Trades are done to improve a team and that means there are a lot more possibilities in trades than just giving away cap.

Just keep offering the contract, I find that sometimes it takes a few days before a prospect actually accepts a contract. I haven't ever had a situation where the prospect never ended up agreeing to sign with me.

Yes, and it is also the promotion clause thing. a player with it will go up in salary with a higher league no matter how he got there, whether by trade or team promotion. It works the same for a demotion as well.

Yes, but taking a free player from the losing team just doesn't happen outside of things such as card games. If you badly want a reward, make it something that an actual hockey team would be competing for such as a cash prize or trophy. In my opinion, the format doesn't need any award, it's preseason and in reality, is more so used to get a better sense of a team's players and chemistry.

I like the idea, but not the part for selecting a free player. Raising a team's confidence and tactic proficiency should be a high incentive on its own. It also wouldn't be fair to anybody if a team wins and then gets to select a good player that puts them over the salary cap. Finally, the reward just does not make sense from a European perspective. Why should they lose a good player just for more "exposure"? Wouldn't the league gain more exposure by actually have the notable player play regularly in their own league? Not to mention, they all already have their own league reputations, some better than some of the human-played leagues. Other than the reward, it's a fun idea.

Your link doesn't seem to work, I think you need to include the www. http://www.gameplanhockey.com/team?gpid=13

As mentioned, yes, and that includes any extension contracts already signed even though they don't start until the following season. edit: Maybe that last bit I mentioned should be added to the help files as I don't see it there and I remember that it confused me the first time the system came out.

This is more of a suggestion because I'm not really a message delete type guy. The suggestion is fairly simple and would just allow users to star/pin/bookmark messages that they want to keep. The message would then stay at the top of the inbox until unbookmarked while new messages would start taking up the following inbox spots. I think this would aid in keeping messages that manager might want to re-read easy to find and also prevent messages from disappearing in 10 seconds when shortlisted players and prospects get a what must be a million offers from different teams. Any thoughts or comments?

I'll start by saying there are a few ideas Anders is wanting to implement that I think should take a huge priority over this suggestion if it is accepted by the community. Over the few months that I've played this game so far and monitored the forums I've noticed occasionally a comment will come up with the "unethical" or "abusive" trades people notice that other players make. I'll be honest and say that with the recent update with the 20-day lock, trades have looked cleaner and there have been far fewer negative comments on the forums. However, it still doesn't prevent teams from reaching down to steal essentially a free pick from the AI, a pick that typically turns into a top pick that will benefit the team immediately next season. There are often gentleman rules advocate not cheaply getting a top pick, but if someone doesn't agree to abide by the rules, they are going to get the pick. My suggestion is to add a "house rules" vote near the end of every season for each league in each world. For example, the GHL teams could vote on not allowing them to trade for the 1st round SHL picks, or the BHL picks could ban themselves from trading any picks. For a suggestion not related to picks, perhaps a league feels the 20-day trade limit is too much and should only be 10-days, or else think it is too little and want to up the restriction to 30-days. And as mentioned, the votes would reappear at the end of his season to allow managers to revote if they don't like the current set of house rules. My only gripes with my suggestion would be that the menu would probably appear clunky in a rather clean game. It would probably also be complicated to implement and therefore take a while to design. And as mentioned earlier, I'd rather Anders use that time to build other features he has planned that I think are cooler Anyways, any thoughts on the suggestion?

I feel the same about Fishbowl for the same reasons mentioned. My only problem is that 2/3 of the lower 3 leagues always feels full of inactive managers. After leaving lumber for a bit, I just took over another team. The reason I chose lumber is because I want to try a little experiment with growing ~45 overall, young players into players that can get signed and actually play in the higher tiers.

I do not think Nicck37 is active right now given his last post was in july and his forum signature mentions that he is unemployed.

No, each skill category can upgrade multiple times a season. The bar resets every point upgrade. Also, lots of players can still improve in their 30's, albeit a bit slower. How much players improve is related to their hidden potential, current ability, practice intensity, and playtime.

My only arguments would be a ) prospects from season 4 and season 5 didn't get the full development time in the minors. Give it time and we might find out some players drafted in the bhl or shl in the first couple drafts should have actually been top picks. b ) Not every draft in the NHL has had amazing top prospects that have an immediate or even big impact on the NHL. Just look at Patrik Stefan, Nail Yakapov, and even the scouting reports for this upcoming draft with Nolan Patrick. If the draft is working fine for other game worlds, I would just classify the season 6 draft to be like these unfortunate top picks.