Mattti0

Good idea Exxeo.
 
   Perhaps there should be some restrictions, to prevent new managers from trading-away the future?
Example: Only after managing the same team for 4 seasons, would the manager be able to trade-away their 2-year-out future picks; and perhaps an 8-year manager, could trade away the 3-year-out picks?
-
   The worry is that some managers in desperate situations, will give the house away. 

There's much more to a players value than just his overall rating. Thus I don't think the suggestion would work as is, but I like the idea of somehow limiting the trades with computers when it comes to having it be a win-win both ways of the deal.

There is a bug where headlines may be missing if the player signs with a non playable team (e.g. team in Europe). I will try to fix this for the upcoming release. Thanks for the report.

There has been some discussion about this topic in the chat box here and figured it may be a good subject to hash out a bit more. The idea is to try and better engage the community. I really enjoy the chat box in top of the page here and think it would be great to see it in a similar format that sits on top of the browser rather than in the manager tabs. I know there were other ideas discussed as well so please throw those in here too.

Been thinking about this more.  I'm for the IR designation, but also feel like it could be exploited.  For example, if you have a player on a bad 1-way salary, you shouldn't be able to put them on IR as a way around it.  So I'm thinking the IR spot works with some variation of the following rules:
 
1) Player MUST be injured in order to put them on IR
2) Player must remain on IR for a minimum of 5-10 days
3) IR does not totally relieve the player's salary - a portion of it (anywhere from 25-50%) should still count towards the cap
 
I feel like that would give managers some relief without allowing them to exploit it.

Hi another little suggestion about injuries. Why we get message just about recover of affiliated players? I don't know he's injured till I get report obout recovery. There could be message of injury just like for regular team player. 

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.

Okay, so this may be a bit weird of me suggesting this, but there is plenty of reason behind removing 3rd rounders.
 
One, a third round pick always has players that are meant to be drafted to the next lowest league. For example, a BHL third rounder could be useful as an IHL pick.
 
Second, they seem to cause a lot of confusion at the draft table. It would be a lot simpler is the format was: (GHL 1st, GHL 2nd, SHL 1st, SHL 2nd, and so on and so forth).
 
Third, there are currently 240 picks, which means that you could say, roughly every season, at least 240 players are generated, and will eventually be drafted. But you also have to take into account that the game randomly generates players around the conclusion of the season (those new players on the FA list with no history? Yeah, that's them). Further, every time someone mismanages their team and a player is "signed in the last minute before the game", those players are newly generated as well. But then looking at the prospect rankings, there are almost 290 ranked prospects. So in total, you have almost 400 players generated every season, and roughly 100 retire per season (using Fishbowl data here). Statistically speaking, that means that the net players generated per season is about +300. Now, I don't know how databases work, but based on Anders' wishes for a new server, this ahould undoubtedly be causing server strain and the game to be slower, which I know a lot of us hate. Think about this long term though, it's only 80 less players generated per season, but let's assume that drafted players play till they're 37. About 19 season in the human competition. In the span of one generation, that's about 1500 3rd rounders, many of which will never turn out, at least for the team that drafted them (which is the whole point of drafting players, right? To have them turn out for your team!). I'd say that's a pretty big waste of 1500 draft picks, and space in the database, which I'm guessing would make the game faster.
 
To sum up the above: GPHM is generating a lot of players, which is contributing to a slower server, and removing third round picks in all 7 leagues (I'm including Mitts as part of the 7) would drastically help make GPHM faster. Based on the facts and figures, every season in every game world, the game adds roughly 2100 players to the database, which logically speaking, should be slowing down the game.
 
Fourth, this is more personal experience, but I've never had a 3rd round pick pan out for me. The best 3rd round pick I ever made (I believe at SHL level) peaked at a 77 rating... On a BHL team. By the time I checked, my team is already in the GHL. Making that pick (and all other 3rd rounders before it) useless.
 
Fifth, if you remove all 3rd round picks, it may not have the biggest impact on higher leagues, but it would make lower leagues MUCH more appealing. I'll try to explain this point below:
 
Here is the current draft structure, and average ratings of the players ranked in that round in square brackets (again Fishbowl data):
 
GHL 1st round -> 1st - 16th [85]
GHL 2nd round -> 17th - 32th [81]
SHL 1st round -> 33th - 48th [76]
GHL 3rd round -> 49th - 64th [72]
SHL 2nd round -> 65th - 80th [70]
BHL 1st round -> 81th - 96th [66]
SHL 3rd round -> 97th - 112th [63]
BHL 2nd round -> 113th - 128th [62]
IHL 1st round -> 129th - 144th [60]
BHL 3rd round -> 145th - 160th [58]
IHL 2nd round -> 161th - 176th [55]
LIHL 1st round -> 177th - 192th [59]
IHL 3rd round -> 193th - 208th [53]
LIHL 2nd round -> 209th - 224th [55]
LIHL 3rd round -> 225th - 240th [52]
 
I didn't bother counting the other 23 players.
 
Now, as you can see, a 72 overall will not be of use in the GHL, A 63 overall will not be of use in the SHL, and so on. Now, remove 3rd rounders from the equation:
 
GHL 1st round -> 1st - 16th [85]
GHL 2nd round -> 17th - 32th [81]
SHL 1st round -> 33th - 48th [76]
SHL 2nd round -> 49th - 64th [72]
BHL 1st round -> 65th - 80th [70]
BHL 2nd round -> 81th - 96th [66]
IHL 1st round -> 97th - 112th [63]
IHL 2nd round -> 113th - 128th [62]
LIHL 1st round -> 129th - 144th [60]
LIHL 2nd round -> 145th - 160th [58]
Gone (But you could leave a few) -> 161th - 240th
 
Now, you won't see much difference from the tops of both tables, but look at the bottom.
 
A BHL 1st rounder goes from 66 OVR to 70.
An IHL 2nd rounder goes from 55 OVR to 62.
A LIHL 2nd rounder goes from 55 OVR to 58.
 
You can read the data how you want, but for lower league managers, this is huge. They are getting players that are 4 times better than they would have with 3 picks. This way, in any league, almost all teams would be able to sign and play their first round picks in at least a small role.
 
Now, those are all the reasons I can think of for removing the 3rd rounder. If anyone can think of a reason for not removing 3rd rounders, I want to see some feedback.
 
Anyways, I think this was my longest post ever, hope you all take this into consideration.

"Make trade lock period prevent affiliate assignment & remove trade lock from entry level contracts."
 
Why?
 
To prevent handing FA's big two-way contracts and immediately hiding them into affiliates, making it possible to keep offering such contracts in great numbers.
One could still assign these player into affiliates after the 20-day period, but it would prevent, or at least hinder, "hoarding" players at the beginning of a season.
 
The second part would allow you to still assign your own prospects to affiliates as soon as they're signed. (And entry level contracts don't really need a trade lock anyways.)
 
This would be a partial, temporary solution using existing mechanics (thus would hopefully be easier to implement).
A better solution would of course be something like a waiver system, as discussed here http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/7945-waiver-system/

There's some issues and nice to have features:
Remove player info popup in match stats when using mobile phone - doesn't work - instead use direct link to player page Remove team info popup in player stats when using mobile phone - doesn't work - instead use direct link to team page Add space between team name and league in "Next game" box on team page (appears only when promotion/relegation/friendly(?)) Enable collapsing when using mobile phone on Team page - it would be nice if I can collapse those boxes e.g. "Team leaders" (https://www.w3schools.com/bootstrap/bootstrap_collapse.asp) Add "Injuries" box to Team page - Show injuries if any active Fix "Player stats" sorting by performance (http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/7597-player-sorting-by-performance-doesnt-work/) (1.3.3) Combine player ordering - in roster page players are ordered by number but training, edit role and edit lineup uses some random ordering Rating ordering - ratings order in "Rating" page and in "Development" dropbox isn't using same ordering I was browsing game log on iPad and noticed that stats column and player name columns are not in sync (stats column row height doesn't match first column) Mixed normal text and CamelCase notations (e.g. in Transfer status and Tactics view) Add "User on holiday" marking to standings (e.g. change blue dot after team name to yellow)  
I continue filling more details when I found/remember some but there's couple small "issues" what I found. Feel free to add your own UI/UX issues.
 
(*Mobile phone = I'm using Chrome on Huawei P10)

Hi, I suggest stats window for players in affiliate teams. Now you must see players' profile to know how's he doing when he's affiliated. How I see it: on the affiliate team screen, there could be stats button just like on your teams' home page, describing your affiliated players. To make easier to know your prospects and how are their performances.  It's just suggestion, please don't crucify me. 

Sorry for the delay!
 
This bug is now fixed with next release and we sorted your situation.
 
You have to offer a new contract though!
 
Thanks for reporting the bug. Keep enjoying the game and keep reporting!
 
//Tobias

The current free space in the ongoing and next season assumes the roster and assignments remain the same. Buyout is however calculated from the full contract value, and as stated, leaves you actually paying more than when keeping the player assigned.
 
In this case the numbers:
Full contract cap charge $29,000
Assigned cap charge $2,900
Buyout cap charge $14,500
 
So you released an assigned player, who was counting $2,900 against the cap. After releasing, the buyout counts as $14,500 against the cap. Thus, after releasing, you've $11,600 less to spend next season, compared to when he was assigned.
 
E: Yes, the process is a bit confusing. If you want to see the real cap situation for buyout, you've to bring the player up first.

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.  

The past few weeks I have made a numerous releases to the UAT, since there have been mostly bug fixes and behind the scenes improvements I haven't released any info regarding its contents. But in today's release there has been a small UI change of the world info worth mentioning. So here's the complete change log so far.
 
World info and countdown is now clickable to reveal more detailed info regarding upcoming events When world is simulating (flashing SIMULATING) more info regarding estimated finish is available when clicked More detailed team finances/salary cap info Player development will slow down if assigned to too low affiliate level Player may be unhappy if assigned to affiliate even if on two way contract Improved and more individualistic player regression Fixed bug where team standings could be become unsync Fixed bug where manager name was displayed as Computer on team history Fixed bug where salary cap wasn't updated correctly when trading for affiliate assigned players Fixed bug where goalie stats wasn't correctly updated when assigned to affiliate Fixed bug where injured players still could be auto assigned to lineup in games Fixed bug where players could play games for more than one team at once Fixed bug where player stats could not be sorted on BKS (Blocked shots) Fixed bug where a player wasn't rewarded a league achievement if released before season end  Fixed small typo Note. This is not the complete list for the upcoming v1.3.2. There's still a few more things planned. I'm aiming for a release to the official game worlds in early October.

I'm sure it is already common knowledge that teams get a boost when playing at home.  I decided to do some quick research into how much of an advantage the home crowd gives their team. I know there are many variables that could affect this such as injuries, starting goalies, etc - but my results seemed directionally consistent.
 
First, I took a look at home winning percentages for all GHL, SHL & BHL teams.  For the purpose of a percentage, I considered OT/SO win a win and OT/SO loss a loss.  The average home record and win percentages are below.
 
GHL:  11 - 2 - 2 - 8 = 56%
SHL:  12 - 2 - 1 - 7 = 63%
BHL:  12 - 1 - 1 - 9 = 56%
 
Second, I took a look at my own team's history to determine how my home record compared to my overall record.  For example, my Win % this year is 80%.  My home Win & is 83%.  An advantage of 3%.  Last year, my Win % was 72% and my home Win % was 83%.  An advantage of 11%.  When averaged out from Season 1 - 11, my average home ice advantage was 6%.  This falls in line with the GHL/BHL results above where home ice seems to add a 6% advantage.  SHL seems to be the outlier.
 
Finally, I tallied all goals scored in BHL this year (I did BHL since that's the league I'm in).  On average, the home team is scoring 3.8 goals per game, while the visiting team is scoring 3.3 goals per game.  The home team is scoring 53% of the goals.  I did the same for GHL and the results were 2.66 Home for 2.27 Away.  The home team is scoring 54% of the goals.  These numbers seem a bit lower than the first two sets of results. 
 
For now, until I have a chance to do more research and understanding that there are many variables that could sway these numbers, I will conclude that the home team gains a roughly 5% advantage.
 

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.

Yes, the computer trading has been discussed for a long time now. And there have actually been quite many improvements made over the last year. A computer team will demand more quality players in return, they will reject most trades involving too many players and they will not make too many trades each season.
 
Computer teams actually do put players on the untouchable list from time to time, however this logic can be improved further and is something I will look closer into for the upcoming release. Maybe that would solve future scenarios like the one you're describing.
 
Thanks for your feedback!

So there is a team in GHL Howitzer that has just shifted to being run by a computer. The team has a stud centerman that every team would be interested in acquiring. Full disclosure, I have submitted an offer as well, I'm not trying to yell to the masses on my high horse, I'm just as tainted as every other manager that is trying to acquire this player. 
 
The way I view this situation is that it is possible right now to acquire this player. I don't think any manager is submitting an offer with the intent of circumvent the rules of this game or cheat the game, myself included. It's purely that this player is going to be moved and in a competitive sense everyone would like to be on the receiving end of this transaction as opposed to seeing him go to someone they are competing with.
 
Now that being said I had conversations with the previous manager about what it would take to create a deal for this player and he flat out said he would never move him. So in that respect you could put this player's true value as immovable, so really we are all cheating by trying to acquiring because we feel we could make this deal go through because it is with a computer instead of an actual person managing this team.
 
I am fully aware that everything written above is a transparent attempt to try and validate myself making a deal for a player that would never be moved. I would sell my soul for a 20 year old franchise centerman. With that being the case, I don't like what this situation has created in terms of a bunch of managers whom we all communicate amongst each other, I haven't seen any of the other managers cheat the game, nor have I intentionally tried to. But we are all human and at our core we will cut down a neighbor's tree if we can get some more sunlight in our own yard. 
 
So my idea is for some form of a trade lock on computer GHL teams. These are teams that generally have a strong core, maybe a few prospects and those holy grail esque GHL draft picks. If there was a trade lock on GHL teams it would leave them open for experienced managers, maybe from a different game world, maybe managers looking for a new job or challenge, to come in and take control. At the very least maybe give a team like a twenty day (game world day) trade lock buffer after becoming a CPU so maybe a new manager can step in to acquire a team that is a true GHL team and not the carcass of what it once was.
 
 
 
 
**Few side notes, if you made it the whole way through, I'm sorry for my rambling. I didn't want my point or purpose to be misconstrued. Also I know the topic of computer trades is a hot debate, I am not trying to spark up another pissing match, I just thought that this particular situation should be addressed.**
 
ncik
 
 
 

Salries and contracts already on next season so it's normal

It would be nice if we could just go from player page to the next player on the roster instead of having to go back to the team page,then back to the roster page, and then going to the next players page.

Greetings. 
  
    GW Howitzer, BHL: Well, it's day 65, season is drawing to an end.   On any kind of professional team, the GM would already have solid plans for the next season's lineup.
 
   We have 13 active lineup players on the last year of their contract, and only 2 are willing to negotiate a new contract.
So we have 11 players in our current lineup, whom will not negotiate, only saying: "I'm happy with my current contract".  
  As you all know: this could lead to an utter disaster for next season.  The problem is less severe in the GHL, as at least the player won't price himself off of the team, unless he's not a real keeper. If he's a real keeper, then the GM will sign him, and work the cap around that new salary.
But in the lower leagues: it's more difficult to plan and balance. 
 
   It's good not to just complain, but better to try and come-up with solutions along with the complaint. 
So how about a contract deadline day, by which the player must let management know his intentions. (EX: is he willing to negotiate, how much salary he wants, no chance, whatever.  Just let us know, or we'll cut-off the "extra benefits", from Irma, the team's masseuse. 
 
  How about day 37?  At the very latest: day 57.
 
Cheers, and hope you are all enjoying this cool game. 

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.

As said before, I don't want too messy roster page. Instead of that I suggest that contract situation is shown bottom of roster page where assigned players are shown already

I am in the need of a couple of centers and I have a goalie I can trade. I would like to be able to see quickly teams that may be in need of a goalie so I can Initiate a trade for a center. I could focus on those teams instead of initiating a trade with each team and see if they need a goalie.... I could see a list of teams in need of one.