MattBerserkers

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    488

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Posts posted by MattBerserkers

  2. Posted

    Should the buyout cap penalty be adjusted? Right now it's pretty pointless as it is a lot cheaper just to hide players in your minors for 10% of their salary versus the 50% cost it would take to buy them out for an equal number of years. I do think it should stay a little more expensive as some teams might be forced to buy out guys to give younger players some ice time, maybe 15%-25% would be a better range.

     

    This change should only affect 2-way guys as 1-way guys can't be hidden in the minors for a cheaper cost.

    Mattti0 reacted to this

  3. Posted

    This season is pretty close in the GHL. Most teams are a game away from jumping or falling a few spots. And a small streak of bad luck could put any of the bottom 9 teams into relegation spot and there are still a number of teams that have a realistic chance for the #1 spot. I can't wait to see how it plays out.

  6. Posted

    But that is exactly the situation that I don't really want. As I said earlier, skills/stats are well documented and every team should easily be able to quickly find a player that fits their skill requirements. But personality traits are different; you don't know what a guy is like until you meet him, and the current method of having to click on players to see their traits is a decent alternative to interviewing a guy as I doubt most people would like to actually converse with every player to find out what they are like.

     

    Another argument is the fact that everybody would try and pick up role-model-type players. Sure some "blue traits" would be searched for to keep a team balanced, but that still ignores a bunch of players. You mentioned earlier in another comment that there would be a bunch of good players excluded simple due to having a bad trait, but does that really matter? Older leagues have a glut of players and I am sure that everybody is able to find that perfect player to add to their team. The current method forces managers to click each player and manually look for the traits they want. But because I don't see most managers sifting through more than 30 players trying to find the perfect guys, unperfect players are often given a chance to sign and play on a team. Also, what would be the point of even having traits in this game if every manager just signed perfect players? Mentalities would just become a moot feature of this game.

  7. Posted

    I don't like the idea of searching for personality traits. I look at it like this, I'm searching for players based upon their skill/stats I have no idea what their personality is going to be like. The stats are given data that's collected, personality traits, not so much. When I then click on a player to view his traits, it's like I am giving him a small interview to find out what his personality is like and then can decide if he fits in my teams culture. I enjoy games where everything is not just searchable and people have to do a little work, I think personality is something that doesn't belong in that searchable category.

     

     

    Height and weight are just numbers, I wouldn't mind those being searchable.

    ColoKrabatt reacted to this

  8. Posted

    This post should really be in suggestions. Anyways...

     

    I like the idea. A similar thing that I thought of when I abandoned the Cherhill Chieftens in Lumber to experiment in the LIHL would be is if the AI could players that I listed as untradeable and keep them there. Managers that make players untouchable usually have a good reason for doing so and it doesn't make much sense that the AI is then willing to trade the stud a few days later. To be direct, I am saying that the computer shouldn't unlist any players from the untradable block until their contract expires or is extended. At best, AI keeps the players that human managers wouldn't consider moving and at worst, everybody is locked up and it's impossible for the AI to make any trades. But if I think a little, I can recall that there were many managers asking for that in the past and so I see that problem as a non-issue.

  10. Posted

    I'm prepared to swap backups if you really want to tank and save 1mil. I guarantee that he'll lose half the games he plays while keeping your starter tired do to having to play most of a game anyway.

     

    I do like that all those top goaltending prospects fell from the top ranks of the draft rankings, and I don't have any young, promising centers. This will be a good draft if I lose my losing streak and not get relegated.

  15. Posted

    Honestly, there are mixed feelings in the community about these sorts of trades and there are some past threads with a lot of arguing. Some managers think that it's completely fair because the game accepts the trade. In my opinion, that's a bad argument as the needed perfect coding is really difficult to do and isn't quite there yet. Although Anders has made it more difficult to abuse. Others say it's cheating or unfair as people are often trading quantity for quality and stripping teams that make it really difficult for new managers to get a competitive team when they first join.

     

    How I try to evaluate trades (with the AI) is:

    1) AI has top pick or prospect, leave it.

    2) Are you trading final year guys for a guy that will be a core player for many years to come? That's blatant robbery, don't do it.

    3) I've noticed that typically with trading with AI, it's a quantity for quality type deal, that's not necessarily bad, but how fair is it? A bunch of dud prospects for a star? That's typically a major loss for the AI. A 78 Defenseman and a 79 forward for an 80 forward, that's probably a fair trade with AI, but double check their contracts.

    4) If I was AI, would I accept? If I have 5 good centers and 1 good defenseman and someones offering me a really good center for that single defenseman, I wouldn't accept it. Keeping the defenseman is more important than another center, even if he is better.

     

    These aren't rules, just guidelines that I am trying to follow. Ultimately, just ask yourself if the trade is fair. If you're feeling unsure, just leave it, there's a ton of other good players available that you can chase after instead.

  17. Posted

    This one is not really a single new suggestion, but an amalgamation of a bunch of previous trading suggestions that I think would vastly improve trading and is somewhat needed. I just happen to be doing this because I've gotten a few trade offers recently with random picks thrown in exchange for a bunch of extra minor league players who don't look like they'll ever compete on my team but then am unable to remove the picks from the trade which annoys me to no end. 

     

    Suggestion #1: Let draft picks be removed from trades. I think I've typed it before, but I can't find it in suggestions so it's probably somewhere hidden in bugs. This is the straw that broke the camels back and I don't think much else needs to be said.

     

    Suggestion #2: Track previous trade offers. It's been suggested in the past here http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/7261-track-trade-offers/ and here http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/5260-trade-partnershistory/  by Wingedbeaver and themattinthehat. Trade offers/negotiations can sometimes take days or even weeks. People forget what has previously been offered and sometimes accidentally send the same offer a second time. Sure people can right stuff down, but most people don't and notes can accidentally be thrown away or deleted after a little while. Another current option is to pm the person and negotiate through private messages before committing a trade, but that can take a long time and it's easier to have trade talks alongside a screen where I can quickly scan every player in a trade versus having to look and find each player on a team.

     

    An addition to this suggestions would be to let people add notes to their trades and counteroffers. Let people quickly explain why they made/like/dislike a certain part of a trade and let managers see these notes along with the previous negotiations.

     

    Suggestion #3: Transfer/trade needs. 

    http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/5152-transfer-needs/ - canucks

    http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/4421-trade-section/ - Victoria Royals

     

    Essentially these suggestions just want to expand the current Trade Wants/Needs for teams. Let teams specify that there looking for that defensive forward with 85 defense and 80 spirit rather than the broad "two-way forward" suggestions right now. Also, it should be possible for teams to specify that they're looking to rebuild and acquire draft picks rather than limiting it wants to prospects. Personally, I consider a team looking specifically for draft picks to be just starting a rebuild and looking for star players while teams that just want prospects are finishing their rebuild and just wanting that extra good guy or two that they can lock up for a long time.

     

    Suggestion #4: Grand trade want/need page. I wish that there to be a page with all teams that we can trade with so that we can easily see who would be good trading partners. Baden's suggestions here http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/8076-trade-needs/ is similar and gets a little more specific. I'm pretty sure his idea is if he has a player he wants to trade away (say a goalie) for something more need, he can filter away to all teams that would definitely want to acquire that certain goalie and/or would be already willing to give him the type of player that he is after.

     

    Suggestion #5: Let us set certain picks & prospects as unavailable.

    http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/7443-let-picks-and-prospects-be-untouchable-or-on-trade-block/ - ineffableleafs

    We have all most of us have all had that pick or prospect that everybody wants but we are completely unwilling to trade it away for whatever reason. Let us just lock it/him away so that we don't get pointless offers and don't accidentally waste other people's time. Besides a locked pick/guy can always be unlocked through a PM.

     

    Suggestion #6: Retained salary. 

    http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/7288-trading-retain-salary/ - ineffableleafs

    It just adds an extra element to trades as well as open up more realistic possiblities for those guys that are signed for just a little bit too much.

     

    In my opinion, implementing some/all of these suggestions are important enough that they should get added in v1.3X. Of course I'd love to hear everybody else's opinion on the matter.

    Erzac, Mattti0, MWiles and 1 other reacted to this

  18. Posted

    If I'm understanding correctly, the player's contract negotiation message will change after 37/57 days? I like it.

     

    Just to add stuff, I've got some suggestions for the wording.

     

    For a player that would have confirmed interest: "I'm quite pleased with the team, I hope that we can talk about an extension in the future!"

    For might interest: "The team seems to be trending upwards, I'll have to think a little more before deciding whether I would like to talk about an extension."

    For no interest: "I've enjoyed my time here, but unfortunately I think it will be time for me to part ways with this team."

     

    edit: Could someone just let me know if frustrated players have their own reasons why they don't want to rejoin a team. I haven't had to deal with that yet, but I think it would be cool if they did.

    MWiles and Big-Bobby Clobber reacted to this

  20. Posted

    For myself, it's hard to say; I've won just over half my games but am in 11th place. I've just completed a trade with the Cyclones to finish breaking apart a failing line. A few days ago I've replaced the 5'5" center with someone a lot bigger, albeit worse in the stats, and the trade with the Cyclones got me a right winger with better physicality, speed and defense in exchange for a lefty with better playmaking traits. Hopefully, that line can finally turn it around.

     

    As for my plans for the remainder of the seasons now that I sort of know how my team compares to everyone else's, I hope to finish just outside the playoffs as there are a couple prospects I am eyeing that should end up in that range. And my goal next season is to finally have the pieces that can keep my team competitive for multiple seasons.

  21. Posted

    Sure, I'm confident that training intensity plays role in injuries, maybe quite important one - on hard they will get more injured than on easy. High endurance and/or less TOI helps, I would guess. But that is all connected to being tired. And there are players more injury prone by nature.

    And of course there is luck, random factor in it.

    The question is, if the number of injuries, in average, changed with some of the upgrades recently or not. 

     

    Goalies injuries - Are you sure? I know it was mentioned in the forums, that it is intended to be introduced, but I actually never saw it happening for real and I never saw goalie injured. Many teams signed 3rd goalie when it was first mentioned, but never used him. Now with the affiliates it would be better time to start the goalie injuries (you can call goalie from affiliate instead of having 3rd goalie who played 0 games in 5 seasons).

     

    A week later and I happen to get a screenshot to show you with an injured goaltender. injured goalie.PNG

    Steve reacted to this

  22. Posted

    I wasn't too sure, so I just checked a bunch of players around 6 feet to see when they started getting the message.

     

    5'10" guy: no mention

    6'2" guy: no mention

    5"11" guy: no mention

    6'1" guy: no mention

    6'3" guy: respectable size

    6'2" guy: no mention

    5'7" guy: lacks size

    5'10" guy: no mention

    5"10" guy: no mention

    6'2" guy: no mention

    5'9" guy: lacks size

    6'2" guy; no mention

     

    I can pretty much conclude that the game considers guys 5'9" and under as small and guys 6'3" and taller as big. I don't think it takes into consideration weight, but I didn't bother checking so I could be wrong.

    ColoKrabatt reacted to this

  23. Posted

    That's a cool idea, maybe an additional feature that could be included and also already part of this game would be to add that small list of players from your roster that could fit the trade bill.

     

    A separate suggestion that's related to this thread could be the possibility of a more detailed trading needs block. EA: If I'm looking for a powerforward with a physical trait of at least 80 and skating of 85, let me put that somewhere so that trading partners can see.

  24. Posted

    It seems I will be stuck in the lihl forever

     

    If you are struggling and need help, feel free to message me or post questions in the appropriate forums. Most members will be super-willing to help you out and succeed in this game.

     

     

    The current system favors the higher ranked teams a little too much and I think RFA's would balance everything out. Think of it as a good reason to lower the salary cap so that every team has a hard time keeping players over age 24. It'll make things tougher for the top teams

     

     

    I understand what you guys are getting at with lower tier teams needing to be able to keep some of their rising talent. But just as you think I'm missing something needed in lower leagues, you guys are missing what would happen in the top leagues. Things would not get tougher, but a lot easier for the best teams to stay the best. I'll use my favourite world, Fishbowl, to try and explain the potential problem to you guys.

     

    The team in the best position is without a doubt the Larson Knights. They've achieved 1st place in the GHL for 6/9 seasons and made 2nd place twice. They've got the best average overall at 90.8 while second place has an overall of 88.7 and the average is 87.1. Without checking everybody, they've also got one of the lowest total salaries for their team (possibly the lowest) with 7.8mil in free space. This was recently free space added with the cheap cap hits for assigned players. The Knights also have one of the deepest, if not the deepest, pool of up-and-coming prospects. Before the recent cap relief (and it will eventually catch up to him again) from affiliates, the way other teams were able to slowly catch up and the Knights biggest problem was the fact that he had to release either star players or else his young stars to free agency as he couldn't afford them and the talent would dilute itself to more teams. If RFA's are added, he can keep his starts and ignore his young budding stars until their salary demands go down and is super cheap. If it a greedy player or if there still isn't enough salary room, he can still hold onto the young star because of the exclusive rights that RFA's would provide and his competition will remain slightly easier because less talent is going around.

    *note: Kelvin, if you are reading this, I am not mad at you for having a super successful team, I'm just using you as an easy example of an OP team

     

    The problem with RFA's isn't that it's a bad idea or that I want bad teams to remain bad, the problem is that it creates new issues in other parts of a world. I want to play the best game that I can and want to help provide and develop the best suggestions that positively affect the game and provide minimal issues elsewhere in the game. It's why I brought up the possible alternate suggestion of a loyalty personal trait that wouldn't influence a players potential salary but would encourage slightly better young guys to resign with the team that drafted them while not giving any advantage to GHL teams.

    *When I re-read this paragraph, I thought it sounded like I'm taking some offense and getting defensive, so I thought I'd mention that I'm not

     

     

     

    Free agency should be a place where you pick up a few solid veterans if you have cap room to put your team over the edge, Instead everyone is completely rebuilding their entire teams through free agency every year and if you don't have a high reputation you're shit out of luck.

     

    There are multiple ways to build a winning team. The LIHL and maybe the IHL do suffer from teams being unable to keep their budding stars, but that is the problem that I think we are trying to solve with this thread. Yes, free agency is another way to build a successful team and sometimes you can get caught doing exactly that every season. My favorite tactic in the LIHL and IHL involves a little bit of growing and free agency over several seasons. I just sign as many growing young guys (21-23, and low 60's overall) as I can afford to 3-4 year deals or longer if I really like the player. The guys that grow fast I keep and the ones that don't I move to the minors or else try and trade them away for players that are out of a contract sooner. After 3-4 seasons, you should have a really strong team and you should be able to afford a few vets to, as you mentioned, push your team over the edge. 

     

     

    edit: somehow I copied/pasted this post twice when trying to get in the paragraph for cammi, so I just deleted the repetition.

    Paul T reacted to this

  25. Posted

    Make sure there isn't a "#" mark at the end of your URL. For some reason it sometimes throws that in there and then you cannot access any of the pop-down menus. If that's the case just manually take away the # at the end of the URL and hit enter to reload the page.

    I find that happens whenever I try to access something too fast; i.e. the page is still loading.