MattBerserkers

I don't think that you have to be under cap to send them down.

I noticed the same stat thing happening in Lumber, so I have a feeling that it's nothing to do with Howitzers problems.

Check out mitts, it's supposed to be in testing for the next update.

It's an alright idea, but I like the way that the current system is set up so that affiliates will mirror a manager's tactics as well as allow the manager to develop players with their own training. Having an affiliate manager (one that you wouldn't even get to choose yourself) could wreck that as he might have a different idea on how to develop your progress. If you just want to develop prospects, try the LIHL. I've found a few 21 year olds with low overalls that could still be developed, they just needed some love. I suggest the LIHL in particular as I don't see many guys signing the 50 overall players, so you will always have guys that you could potentially develop. There also isn't any relegation risk and a promotion would just mean that you've done an excellent job at developing guys.

I'm just gonna bump this post as I've noticed a third of the GHL teams have made offers trying to get the best prospect in the history of Fishbowl that the AI just happened to get. Let's leave him be and have more competition all around.

I will admit that I am also hoarding on Lumber, but they were guys that I've already signed for multiple years and kept as a backup in-case I get a demotion this season. If that happens, I'll have a team that I've already used for an SHL promotion . Although these players were all signed before free agency this season.

I think there is actually a cooldown of 2 hours, MNLK just went through this when restarting from SHL to LIHL. Although the current cooldown is more so a cheater deterrent. Personally, I don't mind if a new manager switches from an LIHL team to a BHL team when a spot opens up, especially if the manager is brand-spanken-new. Some guys enjoy playing at a higher level more even if the competition is roughly the same as the lower level. My preference was to start in the LIHL so that the team would feel truly mine, but I know that I don't share that with everybody. I also wouldn't want to force a guy to be playing in a lower beginner's league than he wants to just because he signed up a couple days too early. I agree that managers switching a lot is annoying, but it's hardly ever noticeable so I don't think the delay needs to be lengthened. I also haven't noticed as many/any cheaters since the 2 hour delay has been a thing, so I think a 2 hour delay works pretty well. However, if the cheater thing changes, then I'd be in favor of a longer cooldown.

Don't get me wrong guys, I don't think affiliates are necessarily bad, it's just a little bit annoying. Maybe this could also just be how she goes now and we have to wait a couple seasons so that everything balances out. The first-hand experience has just raised my liking of the waiver idea.

Honestly, it already stings a little bit to see guys that I was going after immediately assigned to their affiliates. As Jihee mentioned, they weren't GHL good, but they might be in a few seasons as they were young. It definitely changed my opinion of the waiver suggestion from meh, to maybe this should actually be a thing. Although I am satisfied that there will be more players signed by the end of the season, I always found it weird when there were a bunch of unsigned guys just sitting around.

Here's a short annoyance that I just encountered: if your main team is short a player, it will still automatically sign a free agent. My suggestion is to instead automatically promote one of your affiliated players instead.

wait until post-free agency and you can underpay . Downside is that the best of the best players are already taken, so I doubt it would work in the GHL. I just earned a promotion from BHL doing that (Parkville Guardians).

In brief, it just means looking for patterns in the game whether it's good or bad. Anders can analyze what players are doing and make game development decisions based on that. For example (don't quote me on this, I have no idea if it's true), he might've seen that almost all managers were keeping their players on hard training. He probably considered that a problem as it meant there weren't high enough consequences that forces managers to go easier on their players. He's gonna try and remedy that by increasing player fatigue while on hard training and decrease the performance of an exhausted player. Managers will analyze the game to figure out what works and what doesn't. For example, what stats give a player better performance in your lineup and tactics. You've probably done a little bit of analyzing yourself.

That's a cool new feature. Hopefully I can get some hot streaks in the playoffs Also, +1 to the endurance update, there are almost no players that I need to take off of hard training. The increased penalty is also good, I hope it stops more goalies from playing 60 games a season and still being a top goalie in the league.

Gameworld: Lumber player: http://www.gameplanhockey.com/player?gpid=34021 teams: http://www.gameplanhockey.com/all-teams?gpid=723and http://www.gameplanhockey.com/team?gpid=80 The player, Almlof, was on my team last season and I assigned him to an affiliate. Now that the season has switched over, he's been released from my club but still appears on my affiliate team. He's also now been signed by a BHL team and now appears to be playable by both teams. I'm not yet sure if he can actually be playing games for both teams yet, but it's looking possible. I also don't know if the player would disappear from my affiliate should the other team chose to assign the player to their own affiliate.

Just wait until day 1 and it'll fix itself. There is a period in between being promoted and the game still thinking that you are to yet to be promoted. In lower leagues, you get extra salary space that you can use (btw, knowingly using and abusing this is cheating), but in the GHL it behaves weirdly. I forget what salary the game thinks you should have, but obviously, it's not enough. I've seen this bug reported before, but I don't think Anders has found a way to fix it. Good luck in the GHL!

I suggested the same thing a long time ago. +1 that it should be a thing.

The reason I like the idea was because it would allow for the same experimentality that you like, but not let the top teams get too far ahead by hiding top players others might covet. That's also part of what was going through my head when I suggested that waivers should be clauses. Making a player unclaimable would give managers a safety in their mind that they can play a guy more games but would obviously come at a higher cost. Now that I think about it, the cost wouldn't be that much if you plan on demoting the player. Maybe the percent of salary that counts towards cap could be increased with a players age. Ex: 18-22 year olds in minors take 10% of cap, 23-27 year olds take 20% of cap, etc. Maybe after it could also go back down after a certain age. Another option could be to include the percent of cash that a player will earn should he be sent down to the minors. But that might start to clutter contract screen and I do like the games simple design. I'm just spit-balling ideas here.

I've only ever done the most basic of coding, but I don't see why it would break anything else or be difficult. Wouldn't it literally be something like function waiver_eligibility if age >= 24 or games_played > 60 player is waiver eligible else player is not eligible To me, adding conditions would be pretty simple, especially compared to everything else which I have no idea how to even approach. But as I said earlier, I think it's fine anyway as long as I can easily check how far away a player would be from waivers.

Adding conditions shouldn't be hard to code. My reasoning earlier was so that managers wouldn't have to spend time figuring out how many GHL, SHL, etc. a player has played/been on the roster for. But now that I think about it, a player could be given a counter somewhere on his page that lets managers know how many games a player has played. I'm fine either way.

Unless I am missing something, isn't the current system exactly like that except better for a team? The "RFA" period is currently the same as the playoffs and is technically better as you can offer players of all ages a contract. Other teams are also unable to make any contract offers to your players.

Good point, but remember that things like Robidas Island, Chicago getting the extra space in playoffs a few years ago and Chicago again getting to get off paying consequences for Hossa retiring early, so they have the same problems with the injury reserve. A solution could be to force players to pull the players who are healed and been healed while on IR the longest first. There's enough injuries that eventually a manager will go "shit, I really need that guy" and find a way to get to him or else suffer the consequences.

How are you finding the new season of GoT so far?

I guess I'll get my post here as well...

I say that that the player on IR should be forced to stay on IR until there is free space. Although all players should come off of IR at the end of a season to prevent managers from using it as a way around older, declining players on a multi-year deal.

Honestly, I'd prefer that this game not 100% copy everything the NHL does. It's fun to have a unique system, but if we are comparing everything to the NHL, I'll play along. If it's like the NHL, then a 1-way contract after waivers would mean that the player is still getting paid the same as though they were in the NHL. But yes, they can go on waivers. Why should it be age dependent? Older fringe players don't deserve one-ways. In the NHL, you wouldn't give John Scott a one-way contract, when he is signed, he gets a two-way contract because he would barely play on any roster. I do like the idea about two-ways being 3 years or less. It would prevent stupidly good manager-friendly contracts that let teams have a main team and an affiliate full of 85 overall and better players, not that it's a problem yet. Honestly, roster limits only hurt computer teams. The majority of managers who have played a few seasons already limit their teams to less than 22. The affiliates will probably get the remaining manager teams to a small number. I'm neutral on this. Why would it be ridiculous? Two-way contracts in the NHL are all waiver eligible. As Bremitt mentioned earlier, their waiver system is based on age and number of games that players were on a roster. It's part of why I was suggesting different levels of waiver eligibility through clauses as an alternate system. edit: For whatever reason, I feel like I'm being an ass in this post -- don't take it like that, I'm just trying to bring arguments to help develop better ideas.