MattBerserkers

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    488

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Posts posted by MattBerserkers

  1. Posted

    I have the same question that just popped up in my head. I'm just wondering has anything changed since this was posted? If not, what option - offensive, defensive, or general - is the most effective at increasing faceoff strength. I currently have 2 phenomenally bad faceoff takers :P

  2. Posted

    This would be a minor change, but would it be possible to let the AI use their backups more often rather than only when the better goalie is injured. In my opinion, it is a little bit unrealistic to play a goalie when he has the exhausted stat. I imagine that the behind the scenes algorithms for the games do take exhaustion into play and that it causes the goalie to have a drop in performance.And so my suggestion would be to have a simple formula added to the AI managers so that they check to see if a goalie has the exhausted stat and if he does, to only play him as the back-up until he is once again fit. The second best goalie would take his spot as the starter until the best one is fit. 

     

    I'm not exactly sure how player development works, but I imagine minutes played and performance ratings are also factored into a player's development. Rotating to the back-up and allowing the starter to only play when he is not exhausted to get better performance ratings should also aid AI to develop their own good goalies. This same formula could also be used for players, however, I don't think they suffer as much from the problem.

    xZhou reacted to this

  3. Posted

    That is the reason I tried coming up with the second solution. It wouldn't hurt old players, but there is a chance it could hurt the occasional new player. The "probation" period would only have to be something small like logging in for 3 separate in-game days before the player gets "old player" status. In my opinion, it would probably really only target people who sign up for the game, and quit the same day. It should prevent a decent portion of the teams from ending up locked for the majority of the season. 

     

    I agree, I think the current holiday system pretty good, my goal is simply providing suggestions to free teams from one-session managers.

  4. Posted

    I have another alternate solution to the same problem. I find that the majority of the managers on holiday have registered, signed onto a team but then decided that this is not a game they like, don't return, and usually don't resign from their team. My idea is to give managers a limbo period where until a manager logs in so many times, they are unable to go on a holiday and instead are simply fired after 12 days instead or else have a shortened holiday. For example, a manager signs in once, but doesn't come back, ai gets to completely control the team after 12 days. However, if the manager signs in say 3 separate in-game days, if he has to take a break, he gets the full holiday like he would today. 

    Fangowolf reacted to this

  5. Posted

    I agree about not  making the game overly complicated just to beat the cheaters. However, I'm not really sure what blocking traded players would do. In my opinion, I don't think there is any abuse done if a team trades away a player they acquire by trade. I also see the current system as a way that permits  3-way trades, however, I have no idea if they are actually ever discussed.

  7. Posted

    This is a very good thing. But in my view the trade lock should be longer: 1 whole season for newly signed free agents and half a season for those signed through trade.

     

    One of the significant problems of the game now (cause it heavily advantages GHL teams) is that teams sign many players that they don't actually need only to use them as trade bait. 

     

    That's actually a really good point that I don't think was really brought up when the idea was being tossed around. Maybe the solution could be to include a mandatory minimum amount of games played. However, I think the time limit would have an overall effect of reducing managers signing players only for trade bait as the biggest abusers currently pretty much just instantly sign and trade free agents for  picks/prospects/good players. Also with the time limit, people would use more thought in signing free agents as it's easier to run into the problem of needing a player, but not being able to acquire him because of cap space essentially locked for the time limit. All in all, I think it would be better to observe how this new feature plays out and to see if it does end up leading to any abuse and whether it is better or worse than the old abuse.

    Steve reacted to this

  8. Posted

    Currently, you can't tell if a player is online or not, although infeffableleafs  just made a suggestion for that. To check if a team currently has a human manager, go to your league standings and anybody with a dot to the left of their team name has a human manager. If you are trading, it will tell you the name of the manager in the top right of the screen. Finally, you can check to see if a manager is currently on holiday by entering the trade screen or by clicking on their team and going to their team info section. Unfortunately, you can't see how long a manager has been inactive, but it could be a decent suggestion to be added into the game.

     

     

    And if you have never had a reasonable trade request with another human, it's likely that you are requesting too much for what you are willing to give up, you are over valuing your current assets or else the other person is doing the same thing. If you think the trade is possible, just open up a chat with the other manager and hope he/she gets back to you. 

  9. Posted

    This is probably only more of an annoyance on slow worlds, but would it be possible to lower the number of days before a manager could be fired? Currently in my division, as is, there are 14 teams with human managers. Of those, 7 are on holiday, most of them since pretty much the day they joined their respective teams. Another manager has played under 12 days, so he might also be an inactive member, I am unsure and another manager was fired within this past week due to inactivity.

     

    I bring this up because part of the appeal of this game to me is discussing possible trades with fellow human managers, and if the majority of the teams are not active, it really limits this aspect of the game. Sure, you might say there is a division below and above me that I can construct trades with, however, I argue they probably often suffer from the same problem and most of the realistic trades are for players within the same division as they have similar overalls. I am not including trades with the npc in my argument because there isn't ever a discussion in those trades and it is too easy to accidently create unrealistic or lopsided trades.

     

    I understand part of the appeal of a slow world is being able to rejoin the same team after a while of inactivity due to real world time constraints, but I find the slow worlds give just a little bit too much time. At the top of my head, I think a person gets 12 days of inactivity before they are given the on-holiday status and then another 36 before being fired from their team. That's 48 real world days of inactivity in total! If you fancy multiples of 12, my suggestion would be to reduce the total inactivity period before being fired to 36 days which I doubt would remove any appeal from choosing a slow world.

    Steve reacted to this

  10. Posted

    I've noticed if you trade away a captain or assistant captain, the player roster can sometimes give the goalie the new position. But if you go to set your 3 captains, that goalie spot will be empty and you cannot choose him. So I would assume it's a minor bug that the AI can give a goalie captaincy. I have no idea if it affects team performance like a player would.

  13. Posted

    I'm just curious to learn there is a roster limit in this game. My curiosity stems from the fact that I just noticed a guy in my league who has 11 centers, 22 forwards, 10 defensemen, and 4 goalies all currently on his roster and is still managing to put contract offers on guys in free agency. If not, why not? In a game where you don't yet need to fill a minor team, why have so many extra players?

     

    To add, all but one of his players are 21 and under, and all of them could play in either our league below us. It is my opinion that that's a little bit greedy...

  17. Posted

    I've seen an "up/down" vote system in play before where a certain number of people had to approve a trade in order for it to go through. Unfortunately, it doesn't work too well. In my experience, people can get petty about people who manage to dominate or else remain a top team for multiple seasons that people collude in order to disallow all trades with the 'champion' player until he/she gets fed up and quits. It didn't matter if the trade was fair or somewhat lopsided in any direction, it would always be declined. 

  21. Posted

    Here's a minor suggestion coming from a minor annoyance. When filtering players in transactions, if the filter unrealistic target box is checked, I think any player in a higher league whom has a one way contract should be hidden. It's a little bit annoying when I'm looking through a bunch of players I might potentially attempt to acquire only to change windows when I find a guy I like, and then discover that it is not actually possible for me to try and trade for the guy as he has a one way contract and I am in a lower division.

     

    edit: It should also cover players in other leagues around the world whom are unable to come over this season. Another idea I had while writing this is that there should also be the option to filter players by the league that they are currently playing in.

    Mark Z and TucsonJay reacted to this