bremitt

well the RFA in this game doesn't have to have the same parameters as the NHL RFA system... how about, so that good teams can't abuse the system... -an RFA is someone under the age of 23 or has played less than 60 games with the pro club. -if a team doesn't renew an RFA contract before free agency begins, he becomes an UFA. -RFAs will ask for the same amount in contract negotiations as he would if he was an UFA. -there is no "qualifying offer", they either accept your contract offer, or they become an UFA. -an RFA contract can only extend up to his 23rd birthday. (if he's 20, can sign him 3 more years, if he's 21, can sign him 2 more years, etc) this way, that eliminates the issue you brought up about RFAs being cheap because they have no where else to go, allowing really good teams to keep really good RFAs and be a better team. If they run into salary cap troubles, they will still be forced to let go of the player due to salary restraints and these players will then become UFAs. But, at the same time, this allows lower teams that aren't having salary cap troubles to sign a good young player that can be the corner stone of their franchise when a player of his skill level would normally probably refuse to negotiate. Thus allowing teams to retain their draft picks a little bit longer and be on their way to promotion.

By posting the NHL system, I was only trying to establish a guideline rather than a hard rule. But, while looking at the rules, that is where the games played come in. The most games a player can play before he becomes waiver eligible is 160, which is 2 NHL seasons, so i guess for the sake of this game, it would be 120. So if the player is good enough to help the team out by being in the lineup, he should rack up that number of games pretty quickly. And if he is a good player, then for a team to hold him out of the lineup to purposefully prolong his waiver ineligibility, that GM is handcuffing himself. But, i suppose some GM's may be willing to do that still. so we could change the max age to 23 or so.

another idea I forgot to add was, there could be another stipulation that these players might be willing to give a new GM a chance at a 2 or 3 year contract because he/she might be a better GM than the last and would lead the team to promotion. So if the RFA idea is out the window, possibly put in a stipulation that if a new GM takes over the team, the players are more willing to re-sign for a short contract. This would obviously be within reason, If a player continues to improve and is now 30 years old and a 90 overall but the team is still in the LIHL, but a new GM keeps taking over every 2 to 3 seasons, each new GM shouldn't still be able to sign him because of a New GM stipulation. P.S. I don't think i used the word "stipulation" enough

My team just finished 15th or 16 teams in the Lower Iron Hockey League. My team sucks, but i took over the team with 5 games left in the season, so the responsibility of the poor season my team had can hardly be blamed on me. My 2 best players are coming off of their entry level contracts, and are still young (obviously) and they have been improving at a good rate. These are 2 players I would plan on locking up for a while at a good contract and someone to build my team (at least for the very near future) around. Both of them said that they will not negotiate a new contract with me. Now, i would understand if i had been the GM for the last number of seasons and was continually running my team into the ground, but considering i just took over, this development seems to be handcuffing me considerably. I understand that the purpose of a good player refusing to negotiate with a team that he considers beneath him, that it is to make a clear division of skill between the higher levels and the the lower levels. If you allowed really good players to sign with the lower level teams, then the diversity of the different leagues would be minimal and when you were promoted, you could possibly already have a team good enough to be one of the top teams at your new level, and that defeats the purpose of a tiered system. But at the same time, it seems counter productive of my efforts to make it to the next level, if all of my good players won't re-sign with me, and I have to start all over to try and build a stronger franchise. the NHL dictates that a player is an RFA until he has accrued 7 seasons or is 27 years of age (which ever comes first). For the purpose of this game, and maintaining a level of division between the skill levels of each worlds tiers, this could be considered too long, as a team could get a very good player and maintain control until he's 27 and that player could be multiple levels above the tier that your team is at. I would say maybe, 5 years after first contract or 25 years of age, or maybe even just he will be willing to sign 1 more contract after his entry level expires, but if he knows that he is going to be a player that will be above your level of competition, will only accept a max length of 3 years (if you feel that is too long, then only 2). This gives a GM a little control over their top draft prospects, and gives him a 3 (or 2) years with that player to be able to build the team up to a level that will allow it to be promoted, which hopefully, then the player will be willing to re-sign again.

the NHL rules for when a player becomes waiver eligible are if signed first NHL contract at age 18 - 5 years or 160 games played if signed first NHL contract at age 19 - 4 years or 160 games played if signed first NHL contract at age 20 - 3 years or 160 games played if signed first NHL contract at age 21 - 3 years or 80 games played if signed first NHL contract at age 22 - 3 years or 70 games played if signed first NHL contract at age 23 - 3 years or 60 games played if signed first NHL contract at age 24 - 2 years or 60 games played if signed first NHL contract at age 25+ - 1 year the NHL rules for when a goalie becomes waiver eligible are if signed first NHL contract at 18 - 6 years or 80 games played if signed first NHL contract at 19 - 5 years or 80 games played if signed first NHL contract at 20 - 4 years or 80 games played if signed first NHL contract at 21 - 4 years or 60 games played if signed first NHL contract at 22 - 4 years or 60 games played if signed first NHL contract at 23 - 3 years or 60 games played if signed first NHL contract at 24 - 2 years or 60 games played if signed first NHL contract at 25+ - 1 year i think these same (or fairly similar) rules would serve this game well... as for waiver claims, I would suggest, if the player has a 1 way clause, only his league can make a claim, if he does not, then his league and 1 league below can make a claim, but if he goes to a team 1 league below, he gets a 1 way clause from then on. (except I am now possibly remembering that a player with a 1 way clause is unable to be sent down to an affiliate, so ergo would not be able to put on waivers, so if i am remembering correctly, you can ignore the first part of that sentence). claims would work in reverse order of current standings starting the players current level, and then working in reverse standings for the level below (which i think you already said)... in the NHL, i believe the length of time a player is on waivers is, 48 hours (2 days) during the week and 72 hours (3 days) if done on the weekend, I think i would be okay with a 2 day waiver, but i understand that some people are busy and it would suck for them to miss making a claim just because they could not log in for a couple of days. As well as for some of the faster worlds, 2 days is possibly only 6 to 12 hours if a waiver system is implemented, a parent club player cap would also have to come into effect, as otherwise, GM's just wouldn't send down really good waiver eligible players and risk losing them. NHL rules are 23 players (this includes at least 2 goalies), but if we wanted this raised a bit, 24 or 25 wouldn't be so bad. Injured players would be exempt from this player cap, but if you called up a player and then the injured player recovered and this put you over the player cap, you would forfeit all games until your roster numbers were reduced to or below the cap

already thought of something else (you guys are going to get sick of me fast). With the draft prospects, rather than have the players ratings displayed on his page before his draft, maybe have a 5-10 range, like instead of player A having a 86 shooting rating , he could be 83-88 shooting, or even 80-90 shooting.This way, drafting isn't an exact science, you can create more scenarios where the 1st player picked isn't always going to be the best. Finding an algorithm to have full on busts or late round steals would be great too. The problem with that would be, A, i don't know how to make that happen in a fair manor, B, everyone who drafts a bust would get really pissed off and might rage quit... also to do with draft prospects, I've only experienced one list of prospects, and maybe this is just an unusually good draft, but i think their ratings should be lowered. This draft has a 92 overall player, and many high 80's. If the idea is realism, there shouldn't be more than a handful of players that will make an impact in their draft year, with a lot of players (even high drafted players) needing to develop over a couple (or 3 or 4) seasons before they become regular pro players. Bringing along a highly rated prospect every once in a while would be great (a la Crosby, McDavid) but most years, i would think, for those top picks that DO make their team in their draft year, should be of a secondary scoring, or a sheltered role, etc.

I only recently discovered and started playing Game Plan Hockey Manager. I discovered the game probably around a week ago. I looked and so no teams were available, i cried a little, i got over it. I checked back a day or 2 later, and a team had opened up in a fast (6 hour) world. I quickly made a profile and took over this team, not sure of how often teams became available. This world proved too fast for me. I got my team, relocated, changed the team name and jersey, and then it was time to get to bed. I woke up and went to work, came home, to realize my team had already played 3 games in that span. One of my good players was hurt and only had 1 game to go before he was available again, unfortunately, when i was able to sit down and set up my lineup, i had played 3 more games and a good player was a healthy scratch for 2 of those. This world proved to fast for me, and i had noticed that there was a team available in the slow (24 hour) world, so i resigned, waiting 2 hours, hoped it was still available, and eventually, got my new team. So far, i am enjoying what i have seen, i don't even think i have discovered all there is to discover yet, and still haven't really taken the time to get to know my NEW new team, but it is a weak team and most of the players are on the last year of their contract, so i'll have a lot of turnover after this season, which is now 1 game from being over. I used to play Hockey-Dynasty, was a little late to that party, as i think i only got in about 3 seasons before it died. I still play Good Hockey, but that's a shallow hockey sim, and it's basically been dead for a while, it just hasn't realized it yet. I'm always looking for a good Hockey GM simulation, and i think I've stumbled onto a gem with Game Plan Hockey. Now, with my life story out of the way, and maybe being so new doesn't give me a the requirements to make suggestions, but here's a few things i noticed that could enhance the game (unless they are in the game and i just haven't discovered them yet. Did i mention that I'm new?) 1. Roster Limits. With Affiliate teams coming in now (and that is absolutely fantastic) how about a roster limit? The NHL standard of 23 players (which usually results in 14 forwards, 7 D, and 2 Goalies) would be good, or it could be another number just to make the game a little unique. Injured players don't count, allowing you to pull up players to replace them until they recover. The team i inherited had 39 players on it, that is a tad ridiculous, I think anyways. As soon as the affiliate teams became available, i sent 13 players down. 2. Positions. I find the centre and forward thing a little odd, as a centre is a forward, and why not just have centres and wings? but that is minor, and not really the point of this suggestion. I did a little bit of reading in the Forums and heard people talking about off hand penalties, as well as out of position penalties (putting centres on wings, playing forwards at D, etc) I think it is good to have these kind of penalties, but not in such a black and white way. I would like to see the rosters broken up in to all the positions (C, RW, LW, RD, LD, G) but also, have the ability to change a players position as you see fit. The kicker (and where the out of position penalty comes in) have the positions much like "Roles". Have each player have 5 positional ratings (a goalie is a goalie and nobody else can be a goalie, that's just how it is), you can make a player any position of your choosing. Player A could play anywhere on the ice, forward of back. Some positions will come more naturally for him, some he may just be good at, some, he's OK, and some he's bad. I would suggest that you have to set his position before the game and then place him in that position for the game, if he is out of position, he would suffer a performance penalty much like if he was assigned a position he was bad at. This would help with the off handed penalty as well. There are advanced stats that suggest a right handed player is better on the right side and a left handed player is better on the left side, at least when it comes to defence, but there are exceptions to the rule (ovechkin). So, to create sense of realism in the game, have most of the players that are right handed be natural RW/RD and those that are left handed be natural LW/LD with the hand not mattering for centres. But with a percentage (5%, 10%?) of players being natural at both wings/Ds, or even being natural at their off handed position. Have a higher percentage being natural at their proper side, and being good at their off-side, that way, there's a penalty for putting a player on his off-side, but not a big one. This system would also help for create players that can play all around the lineup, while limit it so that not EVERY player is so versatile. I would also suggest that a very small percentage of players be good or natural at both a D position and a forward position, creating players like a Brent Burns or Dustin Byfuglien. Being able to switch players around creates better solutions, plus more in depth strategies, for the instance when an injury occurs, is it better to call up the next centre in line? or can you slide a wing over to the centre and pick someone else. a bit of a twist on the Positions suggestions, i know i said about having to pick assign a player a position before the game, but i just thought of this alternate. Don't assign players positions at all. When you are putting them in the lineup, put them anywhere you want (much like it is now) and the game engine would factor in his position skill for whatever you assign him to. This would allow for being able to put a player on an off wing on a power play or penalty kill with out an obvious penalty. If you assign player A as a RW, and he is right handed, but on the power play you want him on the LW so that he can be in better position to one time bombs all night (I'm not sure if the game engine actually takes this into account) then his powerplay performance would suffer due to his out of position penalty. But if player A is natural or good at the LW position, taking the "position assignment" out of the game, would allow him to play the left side of the PP without as much penalty. If it was implemented this way, still have his position skill count on special teams play, but if it was done with having to assign a position to a player before a game, then maybe have no out of position penalty for special teams play so that you can put wingers and D on their off hand side so that they can be set up for one timers, even going as far as allowing forwards to play D on the power play as some teams do this in real life. 3. Beginners guide. I have seen a lot of people talk about getting one of these set up, I'm not sure if it has been done yet or not, but my suggestion on the guide would be to not go too in depth. I think a guide that explains what everything means (for example, I would like to think myself someone that knows the game of hockey, but when i read on a players page where it said their spirit rating, i just wasn't sure what this referred to for a real world player), but some have even suggested the guide to explain how a beginner should set up their roster, what things to look at in a players ratings, what tactics to use, etc. I think that making sure everyone knows what each rating affects a players performance, and how each tactic will affect the style of how your player will play, but i think telling the GM how to go about setting these things, which tactic to use with what kind of player, that defeats the purpose of playing the game. These sort of things, I think, are best left to the GM to experiment, figure out what he likes best, what works best for his club and go from there. I'm sorry for the long winded novel, when i try to explain a concept, i like to make sure there are no misunderstandings, and i appreciate those that are still with me at this point and didn't just close the page as soon as they saw that this post had a 9 billion word count. This is all i can think of right now for some suggestions (reasonable ones at least, there are ideas about waivers, and scouts that may just be too much of a pipe dream) and may add if something else strikes me at a later date. I look forward to hearing your critiques or praise (preferably praise) and any comments or counter-suggestions you may have.