|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jan 20, 2017 5:48:26 GMT
May as well get this started in case anyone wants to consider a rule change. Feel free to propose rule changes/additions/removal here for voting. We have already discussed CON/LD boosts, which lots of GMs seem to be on board with: globalhockeyl.proboards.com/thread/855/ideaI have one to bring up regarding retiring players. EHM has (in my opinion) a bug regarding the players that it chooses to retire each year. It always selects 180 players each season and it doesn't always choose players that should actually retire. There are many instances where it chooses players that are relatively young (34-35) and/or are still very productive. For example, Cristopher Nilstorp (goalie for Carolina) is only 35 years old and still one of the top goalies in the league (83OA). A player like that wouldn't likely retire if he's still productive. I suggest that we bring in something that allows GMs to stop certain players from retiring under these circumstances. Especially since our draft classes aren't really inst that strong and therefore won't replace the talent we are losing. It also hurts players chances of breaking all-time records. It's a fairly simple fix in the EHM file. I would even volunteer to do it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 15:26:03 GMT
#1 on my list is a bump in draft talent... looking through it's actually not a horrible draft, but not something anyone will ever rebuild a team through (evident by the 1st and 2nd ovr picks currently on the market). Might be as simple as inputting 30ish real prospects every year, would go a long way towards keeping the league relevant to the real NHL as well. Or would it make sense to just expand on Boom/Bust quantities?... simulating the real world and randomizing the heck out of teams trying to do a tank/rebuild.
#2 is reiterating the +con boosts for meetings, awards, activity, etc...
#3 is cash reward system, start simple, add one new item a year.
#4 as a longshot suggestion... and probably not a popular one, always liked the idea of a under 20 guy having a chance to grow one inch before the age of 20. Personally seen this idea abused in some leagues... but if regulated heavily... can't count the number of time's I have seen that 6"1 guy and thought dang, one inch from greatness.
|
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Jan 20, 2017 15:47:12 GMT
#1 on my list is a bump in draft talent... looking through it's actually not a horrible draft, but not something anyone will ever rebuild a team through (evident by the 1st and 2nd ovr picks currently on the market). Might be as simple as inputting 30ish real prospects every year, would go a long way towards keeping the league relevant to the real NHL as well. Or would it make sense to just expand on Boom/Bust quantities?... simulating the real world and randomizing the heck out of teams trying to do a tank/rebuild. #2 is reiterating the +con boosts for meetings, awards, activity, etc... #3 is cash reward system, start simple, add one new item a year. #4 as a longshot suggestion... and probably not a popular one, always liked the idea of a under 20 guy having a chance to grow one inch before the age of 20. Personally seen this idea abused in some leagues... but if regulated heavily... can't count the number of time's I have seen that 6"1 guy and thought dang, one inch from greatness. Some nice ideas but I am against modifying the draft players beyond Stephen actually using version 1.15b to create the drafts. The idea for this league was to have a league where players are actually rated as the game creators intended them to be. Gm's have all become accustomed to overrated players and think that is the norm. Take a look at the RLHL....a very good league and I am not picking on them. However, to use them as an example of extremely overrated players is not as they are just doing something every league including the first iteration of this one has done. To have a league where in order to win you have to have players on your fourth line be over 80 OA is not good. What happened to the GHL the first time is because we had over rated players the amount of money they asked for increased to the point where the game could not handle it. We could no longer sim ahead too far without a runtime error. I tried doing a split off league with my son with the file and had to use the salary roll back tool twice to prevent the crashes. Even that was a short term bandage because most players wanted 11 million to sign again and the finances went out of whack quickly. The intention of this league was to use the game intended versions of ratings where players in their 60's OA are average, 70s are good players, 80s are the stars, and 90s rated are your superstars. These ratings actually allow GM's to have more then 1 or 2 useful players for call ups when injuries occur. Give the league time and it will level out to those ratings and building a team wont be impossible. You have to adjust your player rating views for this file and you will be fine. Brett - KingsGM Avatar |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 15:48:00 GMT
I think all players height should be 6'1 or under, I dont much like file with big hitters  that's maybe beacause I think at real life,if player's #1 skill is hitting he should never be pro hockey player  |
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jan 20, 2017 16:31:05 GMT
Stephen intended to switch over to 1.15b for the draft class creation this past season, but he accidently switched at the wrong time (after the draft class had already been created). I'm assuming he's planning on switching to create the draft class again this season
|
|
|
|
Post by lebas on Jan 20, 2017 19:30:30 GMT
Doesn't 1.15b just make a file full of goons?
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jan 20, 2017 21:09:24 GMT
Doesn't 1.15b just make a file full of goons? Hasn't done that for me when I did it on my own |
|
|
|
Post by lebas on Jan 21, 2017 0:46:50 GMT
Just wondering i knoe a few leagues i was in and changing the game just made a file of 70s offense 99 hitter fighters.... im good with that but yeah wondering
|
|
|
|
Post by lebas on Jan 21, 2017 0:47:30 GMT
Juha idea of making everyone 61 would be fun but little late for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen (League Admin) on Jan 24, 2017 19:13:01 GMT
OK. There WILL be a reward scheme in place next season. I've looked at your suggestions and there have been some great ones. I want to avoid increasing ceilings on players. Increasing consistecy is fine. Increasing Leadership is fine. I have included limited options to increase potential. I've done this because its a powerful reward and can only be earned through good participation in the league. I'm inclined to reward slightly higher than has been suggested but if you guys think its too much let me know. I also like the height increase idea but I have not come up with a reason to give it yet. | Award | Reason
| Reward | Player of the Week
Player of the Month
Rookie of the Month
Milestone Reached
Media Glorifies - Limited to one per week
Positive Captains Meeting
Positive Outcome on next game
Pro Team 1st Place
Pro Team 2nd Place
Pro Team 3rd Place
AHL Team 1st Place
AHL Team 2nd Place
AHL Team 3rd Place
AHL Team 4th Place
AHL team 5th Place
GM of the Season
GM Activity Awards
Player Nominations
Player Winning Awards
Voting GMs
Rookie Boosts
| Game Generated
Game Generated
Game Generated
Game Generated
Game Generated
Game Generated
If player who met with Captain has a game rating of 7 in preceeding match
League Standings
League Standings
League Standings
AHL League Standings
AHL League Standings
AHL League Standings
AHL League Standings
AHL League Standings
End of season voting
Noteable Extra board activity
End of Season voting
End of Season voting
End of Season voting Activity
Pre-season activity for rookie players only
| 1 Con Points - mentioned player only
3 Con Points - mentioned player only
3 Con Points - mentioned player only
1 Con Points - mentioned player only
3 Con Points - any player(s) - 1 point each
2 Con Points - mentioned player only
2 Leadership Points - Captain Only
9 Con Point
6 Con points
3 Con points
Given to players with 20+ PRO games - max 3 points each
15 Con Points
12 Con points
09 Con points
06 Con points
03 Con points
Given to players with 60+ AHL games - max 3 points each
1 Pot points - any player under 21 with less than 8 potential
1 Pot points - any prospect with less than 8 potential
1 Con points - mentioned player only
2 Con points - mentioned player only
9 Con points - any players - max 3 points each
1 Con points - per rookie - max 5, per set of lines sent in - max 4.
|
Max con gains would be 80 for players, 75 for goalies. The Activity awards would be for things like regular league or team news articles (maybe 1 a month), league analysis such as power rankings or statistical analysis, pre-draft prospect write ups. I'm tempted not to do con points for pro team standings as its not really encouragement to be active like the AHL rewards are and it could just make strong teams stronger. I'm also considering giving Pot points for players under 23 years and under 7 pot for all top 5 teams. Won't make star players but could make worthwhile players and therefore encourage AHL activity. Retirement Rule I'm not inclined to change retirements in game for players over 30, however, I will consider doing so in exchange for a loss on Consistency. How about 5 points for for each year over 34? So at 34 you lose 5 con points if you extend their retirement, at 35 you lose 10 points, 36 15 points and so on. This will be a hell of a lot of work for me but i'm willing to do it if it improve the league and gets people active again as in all honesty, after 15 years, I don't know how many more seasons I have left if we keep losing GM's. |
|
|
|
Post by atlantagm on Jan 25, 2017 4:08:31 GMT
Stephen - whats milestone reached? E.g. new career high in goals, assists, points?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen (League Admin) on Jan 25, 2017 6:26:26 GMT
Yes, when ever the computer spits them out. They normally get posted in the league news section but I dont know if that always picks up every single one that appears in team news.
|
|
|
|
Post by lebas on Jan 25, 2017 13:29:31 GMT
I say no to height.... that completely changes a player the file will be loaded in a few seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlantagm on Jan 25, 2017 14:32:05 GMT
I agree completely with Lebas...which is a first I am also concerned that we leave some teams in the dust. We have what, 5-10 teams looking for GMs? Someone has to look after those teams to make sure the boosts are provided for everyone, not just teams with GMs. If we don't do it, the "parity gap" just gets wider. Think its hard to get GMs now, then have teams literally barren with awful drafts behind it...bad news. I think this is one of the best files I've ever worked with. I'd like to see more talent in the drafts to replace retiring/aging players and some boosts to things like LE, PE, and very little movement on CON. Taking the rubric above, a player could be at 60 CON at the beginning of the season, and have this happen: 1 Milestone - 1 CON 1 POW - 1 CON 1 Captain Meeting - 2 CON Pro Team 3rd Place - 3 CON I just moved my player's CON from 60 to 67 in one season. I think that's an outrageous jump because over the course of 5 seasons, with modest gains, this player with mediocre CON got into the 70s and 80s. And again, now I have one far better player than a GM-less team. I'm not opposed to boosts for activity, milestones, etc. We just need to be careful because these gains over the course of many seasons will be very impactful. I'd like to see max +10 values for things like PE, LE and +5 CON per player, ever/max. We can track it in a google doc (happy to do this). And if we look after other teams that do not have GMs (e.g. acting GM for a WC team if you are an EC team) I think that is more manageable and has a better overall impact. Finally, not sure how you guys feel, but I think it might be nice to have a lengthy discussion on this before we start next season with all active GMs. The changes we make now will have impact on this league and my hope is that we are here 5-10-15 seasons from now loving this league, because I already do. We should make sure the league matches our desires. |
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jan 25, 2017 15:26:13 GMT
Retirement Rule I'm not inclined to change retirements in game for players over 30, however, I will consider doing so in exchange for a loss on Consistency. How about 5 points for for each year over 34? So at 34 you lose 5 con points if you extend their retirement, at 35 you lose 10 points, 36 15 points and so on. I can get behind this idea, but I wouldn't use a progressively increasing CON drop system. I would say the player loses 5 CON points anytime you want to extend his career |
|
that's maybe beacause I think at real life,if player's #1 skill is hitting he should never be pro hockey player 
i'll be doing it all on friday as its teh only day off I have at the moment. Sorry, we are down people and its long late shifts at teh moment.