ColoKrabatt

I'd go with familiar tactics, but I'm pretty sure the answer lays somewhere in between. Cuz even though they're unfamiliar with new tactic, if they fits naturaly to system their performance should/could grow on higher level... So both ways could work, but both could smack You down.
 
That said, I agree with Alex, it's uncertain.  

Big games and/or ambitions. But as everything here it's just one piece in the puzzle... I'm also looking on ego, but lesser.  And of course I have lot of players which aren't heroic and ambitious, but are performing well enough for me.
 
 
Leadership as "care about the least", just cuz I already have great captains and too much leaders is too much problems.
 
 
Edit: Ego can be both good and bad. And I don't mean red/green definition.  As You mentioned, sometimes You need cocky or arrogant brat for your squad.  It's really hard to exclude something from the scouting and evaluating process... I wiew player as whole bunch of numbers, pros and cons etc. I'm not truly focusing on some area while deciding.
 
Edit2: If You wouldn't have excluded dirty, I'd set that as "care about the least". One of my GENTLE players has soo much penalty minutes that he can't even count it. On the other hand, my two Dmen agitators have 284 pim together, so again I'm sure just about one thing - I know nothing.

It is indeed uncertain. That said for just one game I would scout the other team too and see what they have been using and use that to also factor into the decision. If they happen to be using current tactics that are better against one over the other that would also carry some weight into it.

I'll start with these two, because I love both suggestions.  IMO, the more in depth, the better.  About a year ago, I made a suggestion that teams should not be limited to a single offensive or defensive tactic.  Instead, it would be cool if we were allowed to play different tactics per line.  For example, Line 1 could use Possession, Line 2 is Dump and Chase, Line 3 could Crash the Net and so on.  Or if we wanted to limit it in any way, allow teams to become familiar with 2 offensive and defensive tactics, each, instead of all of them.  That way we could build a more versatile team, which would drive interest.
 
 
 
This one I don't agree with.  I think player progression is right where it should be.  One of the main reasons for the game refresh was to get ratings back in check.  If players increased like they used to, every GHL team would again be full of 90+ players and it would take a lot of the strategy out of it.  IMO, it's good to see some top line players in GHL that have an attribute flaw here and there.  Also, I've seen some younger players who are improving quite nicely.  But overall, I think current development is optimal for the game long term.
 
*Edit: either that, or we increase the rate of improvement, which would add some excitement, but start the ratings much lower.  Top 6 guys in GHL draft right now are 85-88.  We could start them at 75-78.
 
 
 
My original suggestion was for a trade deadline around day 66, which happens now, and for it to be locked through end of season.  Anders went a different direction and opened it up again during playoffs for a few reasons (1) to keep eliminated managers interested (2) to allow the team that got relegated via playoff a chance to make moves before next season.  Both of these are understandable.  To your point, it definitely is not the most fair approach, but the goal should be to make the playoffs and try to win it all.  If eliminated teams are making moves during that time, then it is what it is.
 
I think there is a simple solution here.  Teams who are still in the playoffs can make verbal offers.  If I'm in 11th or 12th place and have to battle for relegation, I would already be talking to all the playoff team managers and coming up with a plan in case of relegation.  But I guess I'm also optimistic that relegating managers would accept the "best" offer for their players to keep things fair and not the very first offer thrown their way.
 
This is also the reason why I think players should ask for a bit of money during negotiations, so it's harder to score a guy like Elie Breton and also have a lot of depth.  I feel that if you have a few 94+ players on your roster, they should come with a high cap hit and there should be holes in your roster elsewhere.
 
This topic is definitely worth a lengthy discussion.  Interested to keep it going and see what others have to say.

Hey,
 
I am still somewhat a n00b, but here is what I collected so far after the new game started (season and some little in Buzzer and almoust a season in Cage)... as I said, take it with a grain of salt, maybe someone more experienced will have some more things to add.
 
In no particular order...
 
 
- Development of players: They seem to progress too slow. Especially the young ones... I would expect them to grow a bit more. Can't say I have older players regress quick, as I don't have too many.
 
- Underestimation and overall performance of players: Now, regarding this I already notified Anders, but current Buzzer GHL season is really weird. Top team on Eastern division is performing way above their players skill (even the goalkeepers). There is also team in Western that is 5th or 6th, that has even worse players (both teams are promoted from SHL). Also, players on Buzzer with most points are 80 to 82 rated, with some serious flaws in their skills (like shooting for example, but still topping the charts). Now sure what is going on there, looks like a bug to me.
 
- Signing free agents during season: I was one of those who asked for that to be removed, however I do think that whole idea would be better if there would be a player or two that showed on free agents. I would keep them in lowish average rating tho. No superstars popping up. Just a journeyman, now and then. That way, people could patch a whole or two, without unbalancing the whole league, or devalueing players too much/if any.
 
- Trading when playoffs start for non playoff teams: Now, here is the tricky one. I almoust wanted to get knocked out of playoffs last season (eventually I did, but due to being outplayed by better team) so I can start trading as soon as possible and having advantage over those who are still there and want the same players I do. Not sure how to approach this one, but current system is somewhat abusable. For example, the best player in Cage GHL (Elie-Breton) is in possibilty of getting relegated trough possible playoffs and manager could trade him to some teams for picks or prospects before he losses him due to 1w contract. Teams that are out of playoffs can move in for him if he relegates, since they will have small chance of signing him for free later due to team reputation, while many other teams are still locked in playoffs. Its just a stupid example, but its abuseable. Maybe to allow all teams to trade when playoffs start, but those trades would start being effective last day of the season when everything is played and before relegated people lose players to contracts.
 
 
 
now to suggestions... (I am sure someone already suggested some of those, but still...)
 
- Chemistry between the lines: We need more micromanagment, please. To give more control in putting our lines/teams togeather. Maybe even of personality effect of how certain people blend with each other.
 
- More tactical options: Possiblity to set playstyle individially, like for example, telling players individually to go tough or gentle. That way we could have certain lines doing that, or even just players. Not just entire team. This is just an example, but I would get things complex here, I dunno, FM style The more we feel in control of our team, the more we will dive into the game.
 
 
Thats just it, from top of my head. Sry for spelling mistakes

To make trades easier if we could do a search for what teams are looking for what. For example if I want a 1-2 defenceman, then I could search for all teams with a player matching that description on some team's trading block. As well, if I'm looking to move a 1-2 defenceman then I could search what teams have that as one of their transfer needs. Might make trading easier.
 
Also when looking for players, if I have "Filter out unrealistic targets' then players in leagues higher with one way contracts shouldn't be shown.
 
Just my two thoughts!

So I was wondering if, in the future, it would be possible for us to manage our affiliate teams too.  It kind of sucks when a free agent or bad player is getting better playing minutes over a prospect that I want to grow.  I also think it would make the developing system a little better as if you want to work on a player's defense, you can play them in a more defensive role as opposed the the computer tossing them wherever.  I know training is partially available to do this, but being able to make a player more well-rounded in the aspects we want would be cool by setting up and managing affiliate team lines.
 
Also, I saw in a different forum, the idea of adding national teams.  To expand on that, having a world cup would be really cool and it would also add something else for us to follow when our team gets eliminated from the playoffs, as there is only so much you could do with scouting and contracts at the end of the season.
 
Just a couple of suggestions.  Hope to see these added, but otherwise, I've been liking 2.0 so far

Yes. Player 1 will never be the better performing player outside of a depth role even in that case. He can't provide the same offense and he doesn't provide a defensive advantage either.

Team average ages on league page, average salaries. Own stats pages on league to defensemen and U21 players.

Right now in the league menu, we can see the top 20 players in the league for different stats, but we cant search different player positions.. so for example, you can only see the top 3 defensemen on the main league menu. I would also extend the list to show top 50 from top 20 as the leagues have just about doubled in size. But this is more just stat fluff for us stat junkies so it is by no means a top of the list issue, just an idea. 

This is a simple suggestion but can you add the transfer status to the prospects so we can put them on the block or make them untouchable?

I don't think currently the traits ever change.  I think there was a suggestion made about that though in the suggestions forum before and might be thought about.
 
The roles fluctuate based on the players skills that benefit said role, and the league level they are playing at.  So yes it does

Scratched players will not sub in mid game anyway.  They are sitting up in the box with their suit on watching the game and your team will play short a player for the rest of the game where an injury occurs anyway.  Give your guys a chance to play if they can as it is better for development.

This would be what I would want to see at the end of the season

We are currently working with new logos. Except it to be done in a week or so.
 
//Tobias

All in good time.   Let the hardworking crew in this game take care of the important things. Logos are way down the list in my humble opinion.
 

Just a thought, but this could add some good depth to the game.
 
Instead of setting up the tactics like we do now, how about hiring a coach who is known to run a specific system.
If you want to run a defence-first trap-style team, hire some kind of fictional Ken Hitchcock. Have fictional bench bosses to represent each of the tactics that exist now.
Imagine re-creating some kind of Broad Street Bullies scenario where your roster is populated with tough players and you have a coach who favours intimidation?
Like you match your players to your systems now, you would sign players to run the system your coach prefers. If you don't, he may not give proper ice time to a certain player, or may even have the authority to sit that player out.
 
And that player would then demand a trade!
 
Like players, you could have upwardly mobile coaches who refuse to re-up their contract after a successful season.
 
You could integrate coaches with the existing 'traits' system. Have coaches who clash with lazy or arrogant players. Coaches who are challenged by the idea of motivating lazy players. Coaches who have a calming influence on nervous or anxious players and coaches who push those same players into mental-breakdown territory.
 
Loving or hating the coach could add another reason for a player to sign or not sign with your team.
 
The coach could also factor into a team's reputation.

I’m not in the LIHL but I love meeting and conversing with other managers, this game has a great community.
 
I’m Gator Raid, manager of the Unity Fire Dogs in the GHL, if you have any questions about the game or just want a second opinion on something regarding lines, tactics, trades etc. let me know! I’m learning new stuff about this game everyday, so I don’t know everything, but I’m willing to pass on what knowledge I do have.
 
Talk to you soon

Hi!
 
As you said we are aware of the problem and we are tuning to get it right.
 
Reason is it ain’t enough players in affiliate teams so the players get a lot of ice time.
 
Only bad thing about it could be players could easier be injured but on the other hand they will develop faster.
 
But some extra tuning will be done!

I was going to make the "upload your own logo" suggestion a while ago, but then realized that would be going down a risky path.  I still think it's a good idea.  Personally, there is literally nothing in the world that would offend me, but am also sensitive to the fact that others could be uncomfortable over various images.  We would need a way to monitor it and keep the site family friendly and/or safe for work use... if that's even possible.

I don’t even really want an overall. I want a ranking and the stats they have for the league they are in and that is it.
 
My idea is based on time scouted. You could have a quick scout which takes 1 day and get a general feel for him. Maybe they will say his skating, puck handling and shooting would be exceptional for your league but he will always be lacking in defense. Then when you look at him you would see random ranges for each ability that would be -/+ 15 or even just the words as well as a potential generalization like rising star, promising etc.
 
Normal scout would take 2 days and give you attributes within a closer range like -/+ 10. If would give you a more accurate reading of his potential and maybe point some things out like he seemed to always find a open player or he excelled at the physical side of the game giving you better ideas of potential roles.
 
Final one is a deep scout. I still like margin for error so plus or minus 5 for attributes and includes an interview that would indicate mental abilities. Or heck maybe the interview stage could be something on a certain day in the off season where you select so many players you want to interview.
 
Of course if you deep scout everyone you won’t get as many reports and might miss someone but will have a good idea if he is a star. If you do smaller scouts you will have more data but less accurate. Adds more decisions in the game and makes the draft more lively. N
 
Now I have no idea what it would take to happen... but think it is something I would like to see.

I think he means we are given the player overall, but that’s it. If we want to know that players shooting stat, passing etc. we would have to scout them to find out.
 
Again, this is what I got from his comment, would be cool though.

YES, YES, YES!!!! 

Personally I think there should be a generalized overall. Then we need scouts in the game and the more time they scout certain players the more info you get. On my phone so not going to go full detail.... but think that would be a hell of a lot of fun

CPU teams can offer contracts to prospects. You still hold the rights until 21. You can offer a contract to your prospect that is signed with a cpu team at any time, and he'll join your team at the start of the next season.
 
Human managers can't offer contracts to prospects they don't have rights to.
 
Edit: It appears that gators type faster than cats.