Challenge Questions & Feedback Thread

[batdad]

Ok so bringing in a Tier A B or C player by UFA signing. Bit confused...is the signing scale should I want to sign an UFA in any year...the same as it was previously listed above in the rules...section 7.5 for the tiers based on $ you sign them for, or is it now based solely on the ice time as listed in the new rules?

I ask because if so I can go out and sign someone for year 1 that makes approximately $4-5 million and then list him as a C player...ie minimum ice time 7 min as forward?

Just lost because you call the signings in the new rules as A B and C whereas in the old rules they are 1,2 and waivers.

[bruins72]

I think it's August 12th that we have to start from for the patch, so go ahead and start from that. I've got to update the rules on the game setup to note the start date.

[bruins72]

Ok so bringing in a Tier A B or C player by UFA signing. Bit confused...is the signing scale should I want to sign an UFA in any year...the same as it was previously listed above in the rules...section 7.5 for the tiers based on $ you sign them for, or is it now based solely on the ice time as listed in the new rules?

I ask because if so I can go out and sign someone for year 1 that makes approximately $4-5 million and then list him as a C player...ie minimum ice time 7 min as forward?

Just lost because you call the signings in the new rules as A B and C whereas in the old rules they are 1,2 and waivers.

Nope. You've got it confused. You don't get to decide what tier you list a player as. It's already determined. Download the spreadsheet. That lists what Tier all contracted NHLers fall into. It's actually a list that you can use a drop-down to select the player and see their tier. This tier applies for their playing time and games. I based it off of a combination of their CA/PA and their salary. Once it comes to a UFA signing, you can pay the player whatever you like (as long as you stay within budget) but the player you sign must be the appropriate tier. In season 1, you can sign a C player. So that's either a player listed as a C player in the spreadsheet or a player who was drafted in the 5th, 6th, or 7th round or went undrafted. You couldn't sign Alexander Radulov because he was a 1st round pick. You'd be allowed to sign Andrew Alberts though, because he was drafted in the 6th round.

As I was looking at UFAs to find examples to make my point with, I noticed that some players have their draft info listed wrong. For example Kovalchuk is shown as being drafted in the 11th round of the 2013 draft. In cases like this that are obviously wrong, I expect people to be honest, take a quick google and see what round the player was actually drafted in.

[batdad]

Ah. Now I get it. Need to look at the sheet more closely. Thanks

[Asher413]

I may just be missing this- I can't find in the newest set of rules the restrictions on signing unsigned prospects. I'll run with the assumption the rule hasn't changed, but figured I should ask clarification.

[jesterx7769]

It's on the sheet you download and also in the rules page linked from the main page http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... 74&t=12957

[bruins72]

I may just be missing this- I can't find in the newest set of rules the restrictions on signing unsigned prospects. I'll run with the assumption the rule hasn't changed, but figured I should ask clarification.

Do you mean your own unsigned prospects or somebody else's? If it's somebody else's unsigned prospect, like a UFA because their rights expired, then the UFA signing rules come into play.

[Asher413]

I may just be missing this- I can't find in the newest set of rules the restrictions on signing unsigned prospects. I'll run with the assumption the rule hasn't changed, but figured I should ask clarification.

Do you mean your own unsigned prospects or somebody else's? If it's somebody else's unsigned prospect, like a UFA because their rights expired, then the UFA signing rules come into play.

Your own prospects- In 5.4 of the 'old' rules it says you can sign them from May 1st to Oct 1st, but I didn't notice anything about it in the new. (Sorry for all the questions, just want to make sure I do it right...)

[batdad]

It is there. Same rule.

[Asher413]

It is there. Same rule.

My bad- I can't seem to find it in the newest post.

[totch]

I have a question. For example, is it necessary for a Tier B player to have at least 15 minutes as average time on the ice? or the most important thing it's the number of game played?

[batdad]

BOTH

[jesterx7769]

After two season I am giving my constructive feedback on new rules

1) Love the core Home grown idea

This to me is what a challenge is about. Instead of just turning players over you have to plan and build. I like how you kind of have to plan the whole thing right away and bring in new players.

2) However its not perfect

2a) Core players: It kind of sucks you have limited flexibility in naming your core players. You don't really know who will be worth it until after season 1. So I suggest not having to name your core players until after season 1, you can't trade anyway anyways so it doesn't really change. For example I put Tlusty and Lindholm there, who end up being two of your most valuable trade assets. You also cannot add players, which is a little weird. I feel like you should be able to add someone and remove another player a few times or something.

2b) Homegrown: This builds into another point I will make but the homegrown ATOI is F'd up right now. Example, I drafted Jake Eichel in the first round so he is an A tier player. In his first year of competition he has to average 15 minutes of ice time a game. Basically 2nd line. This doesn't make sense for a rookie no matter what round he is drafted. Anyones first year is most likely 3rd line at best, so its forcing you to do something whacked up just to fulfill Ice time which is pretty meaningless.

3) Get rid of ATOI/GP: Pretty pointless. Good idea in theory but what happens if a player gets injured and doesn't meet their tier? Is someone dq'd? No. The ATOI is also something I did not even look at until end of season.

4) Limit/Opne up trades more: Trading in EHM can be messed up. Its all about taking advantage of the AI. One thing I don't like is no limit of trades, I felt quite guilty doing more than one per season. While the rules opened up trades, I would like to see it opened up more. For example you have 1 trade, but can add draft picks ont it. Most trade proposals are SO CLOSE, but are just short. This is complicated so I won't pretend to know the right answer.

5) HG roster build for Core: I think it would be nice to be able to alter homegrown/core choices. For example in season 3, you don't HAVE to use your s2 homegrown, but you still need 2/3 homeg rowns. This provides more flexibility while maintaining the home grown quota (you just have to use 2 new players in a year). For example Rask sucks and I want him gone...but I can't bc I chose him before he even played a game for me due to lack of other options which isn't fair.

6) Player Tiers is too much work: Get rid of it. It sucks having to check what tier someone is before trades/FA. For FA I felt its better just to stick to a cap limit. For trades...

7) Trade ideas: Super random idea but here it is: You can't trade for anyone under 30 and you can trade away anyone over 30 for draft picks. this seesm much more real life (teams dont trade away 25 year old studs) and would help close the "superstar trade" loop hole.

8) Allow draft pick trading season 1: Seriously. For those who want to rebuild throught draft this would help big time, I should be able to trade my 35 year old Dmanf or a 3rd roudn pick for s1...but now i ahve to wait until s2. This discourages homegorwn.

Just my thoughts, they aren't perfect but hopefully helping. I do like the core/hg overall just

[batdad]

POint 2....no in his first year as a home grown he does not need 15 minutes of ice time (Eichel). In his 2nd year he does. As a HG he only needs 7 minutes.

Knew the ice time issue would come up. People tend to way overplay their star players in this game. I mean to the point of 25-30 minutes for forwards. THat does not happen until the playoffs. 22 minutes is a ton for guys. Ask Daniel and Henrik in real life.

Sure there is the odd dman that plays 28 minutes--guys like Suter in Minnesota. But even there the top dmen in the league mainly are in the 22-24 range. It is quite easy to get guys a proper amount of ice time. In fact I find it too easy for the top tier forwards, should be more in the 18 minute range for them for the challenge, and the B defensemen my thoughts would be in the 18 minute range as well.

HG at 7 minutes is fine, that is 4th line ice time on equal without any PP time. 15 minutes ice time is 2nd line on EQUAL without any PP time. For a stud in his 2nd year in the league that should be no problem to handle in EHM. COuld also have 3 line on equal on top PP Unit and a PK unit that would get him there.

It is simple....run on equal and normal only and put guys on decent units and they will get the appropriate amount of time.


PLAYER TIERS--Yeah it is hard to manage in some ways, but I like it....most of the time will not be able to go out and hit a homerun in a trade. Which is good...not limiting # of trades per year which is good as well. I like that I cannot include two scrubs (C rates) for a B player in most cases. THat I actually have to include something of value to get a decent player. THat is good.

Draft pick trades...reason they are not really in there that much....too easy to take advantage of. Although allowing to make a deal in year one for a pick with a guy like say Hainsey in this challenge--older player (Liles) on a non compete team for a pick no higher than a 2nd...yeah maybe okay. Limit of maybe one of those.

I do not see how it discourages home grown not to have the draft pick trading in year one. Not at all. Year 2 homegrown has to be a player already with the team at start up. Year 3 player has to be someone you drafted in year one, or a player in the game already, and it should not be someone who you managed to suck into taking Liles for a playoff first round exit and you get a top pick. Besides if you are sucking and making that veteran deal, should be no need as will already have a top round 1 pick to be homegrown in 3rd year if you wish.

This team...already there is a great year three homegrown in Fleury. In fact if you sign him right off the bat at start up...he could be your year 2 homegrown. IN the 9 games he played for me in year 2...he averaged 7.5 and had 2-2-4.


So my thoughts are

yeah the tiering for trades takes some thought. But we should be forced to think in making trades, not just keep on hitting players to add to trade until we have one that works. THis makes us think about who we are targetting. And it also allows us to actually have SALARY DUMP trades without picking up some young hot superstar in the process.

Blockbuster deals do not happen very often in the NHL. Very rarely. Lots of changes in the area of 4-9 forwards but not top 3. Same for dmen.

[bruins72]

Thank you for the feedback, Jester and Batdad! I really appreciate it. These new rules are definitely a work in progress and I didn't get to test them out much. I've just based them off of my playing experience and some general ideas I had.

Batdad addressed many of the points Jester brought up but I'm going to also give my take on them. I'll answer point by point (based on your numbering) to hopefully be clear (I can get myself in talking in circles sometimes).

1. I'm glad you're enjoying the homegrown. It's something we implemented into the challenges way back. I know back then it was me, Batdad, and maybe Catchup (hope I didn't forget anyone) working on revamping the challenges rules. We first used it on our Chicago Blackhawks challenge. IMO, it was one of our most fun challenges. Chicago was a young team with lots of players that we got to develop over the course of the challenge.

2.
(A) Naming a core before the start of season 1 is a part of the challenge. I know it's difficult because you might not know what you have by the end of training camp. Keep in mind, when you go into season 2, you get to drop a couple of those guys from your core. So you may have included a couple players that you really don't want to build around. Drop them for season 2. I included Gerbe in my core for season 1 and oh boy was that a mistake. I'll be dropping him from my core in season 2. I know that this challenge has Jordan Staal injured to start and he's somebody everyone would like to have in their core. I don't think you'd be facing that in most challenges.

(B)As Batdad mentioned, an A tiered homegrown wouldn't have to pull those A tier minutes until his second NHL season. Homegrowns have their own games played and ATOI requirements, which are pretty low. I think you might have misunderstood the Games Played and ATOI requirements for Homegrowns.

3. I think we need to have the ATOI and Games Played requirements make sure people are using their core and not just carrying them on their roster. I'll go back to Gerbe. I'd love to just have him as a healthy scratch most of the season and just have him fill in during injuries. But he's in my core and I should have to use him. That's part of what makes it challenging. I've got to go about things a little differently to make sure I use him.

Also, I feel the ATOIs for the various tiers were pretty fair and in some cases lax. I tend to run my line usage for most teams at equal or normal most of the season with occasional jumps to overload or just three. I looked at players' ATOI from each tier and then went with lower requirements than I use. As Batdad said, it's too easy to just to give your star players a butt-load of minutes and not utilize your full roster/core.

4. The rules I came up with for trades still need work. I don't know if I like adding the ability to just add a little more to a deal because it makes things just a little too easy. Honestly, compared to the old 1 for 1 deals allowed in the old challenge rules, I think the new rules open things up quite a bit. They allow you to make more changes to your team without letting you go wild.

I do think that limiting the number of trades made each season might be something to look at though. I kind of wanted to see how much trading people would do with these pretty lax rules. I was hoping that between the core requirements, the budget/cap, and the types of trades allowed, it would limit the number of trades on it's own. It definitely needs work though. I'm also thinking that maybe we need a list of Superstars that you can't trade for. Maybe take the top 5 (or less) players (by PA) at each position and making them untouchable to the challenge teams. This would make it so you couldn't trade for guys like Stamkos or Ovechkin.

5. I'm not so sure about that one. I'd like to hear some other opinions on that one. I'm not so sure that one needs to be changed. I don't think it's too much to expect a team to give a young talent 2 years in the league before trading him away.

6. I know that the player tiers are a pain. It does require some extra work to look a player up. But I really don't see how we can have this opened up trading without them. That's the whole basis for trying to keep the trading reasonable.

7. We kind of did that type of trade (veteran for pick/pick for veteran) in our old challenge rules. I don't know that it's really necessary here with all of the other types of trades you can make.

8. This one I'd like to hear more opinions on too. I wouldn't want to open up too much trading in season 1 but what about allowing one older veteran player to be dumped for a pick in season 1? Maybe limit what round pick you could get in return?


I'd like to hear what people think of the way I put the players into the tiers. Do the tier assignments seem fair? Are there guys that are A tier that you think should be B's? That sort of thing? I basically went with a combination of PA/CA, age, and salary.

[batdad]

THe tier assignments are really well done Bruins. When I go and look at making moves, I do not look at the tier right away...I look to see if trade available and guess where you would have tiered, and boom...you do. One time I think I was off and the player was tiered lower and that allowed me to make a move I was not expecting to be able to make. BUt I decided that the deal would not work in real life, so did not make it.

I do understand where jester was coming from even in the 2nd year of the HG and ice time. When you have a first round player, you are taking him from 7 minutes in season one to 15 in season two. Fourth to second line. IN most cases not too bad, but occasionally could be...but really that is something the user has to take into consideration before naming someone a homegrown.

I am really happy with the way trading working. I want to move Tlusty right now...but noone will make a reasonable deal for him. Best I could do is a 2nd rounder or two 4th liners. I do not want that. (January year 3). I am stuck with him for right now. That is a good thing.

Having same problem with Osala as would move him as well, but only getting low draft picks at most and that is not good enough to me (although likely realistic).

I cannot seem to make a deal position for position. IE TLusty for another good LW, or Semin for another good RW. (Not moving Semin but as example).

I believe the team is becoming stale in year 3, and that is what is hurting my record and scoring for the top line. Two well known in 3 years what we do. Like the Sedin twins last year and year before.

FOr the dump older player, I guess I Would be okay with that, as it does make things more interesting especially if on cusp of playoffs.

QUite please the way this has worked out, as my trades have not brought me any instant success, and they really should not all that much.

Stone and Fast have sucked. Doherty is playing well and has filled the Hainsey spot nicely on third set of dmen. But not exciting enough to make a big difference....and finally Neuvirth has been average for me.

THis is year 3 and I Really have not been able to make a ton of changes that made sense or improved the team. Look at my lineup and you can see that.

To me this is the way real life works, only 3-6 changes over a couple of years in a stable organization. (Real life Canucks this year quite different, but that is because they were an unstable org with new group...big changes coming in. But even with all that the changes are not big..

1. Bonino
2. Vey
3. Miller
4. Vrbata
5. Sbisa

Totally unstable environment and they moved their 2nd line center (Kesler) out, a dman for cap space (Garrison), and brought in a 2nd line C, a 4th line C, a goalie and a winger and depth dman. Not huge changes to the team there, but it renewed them.

THis is kind of what I want to do with Tlusty...move out for a player and a depth player...3 line guy and bum dman or low pick. But nooone wants to do it....

[bruins72]

So do you guys think in future challenges we should add a set of requirements for a homegrown's second season requirements? Maybe in a homegrown's first season 7 minutes (for forwards) and second season they go up to 9 or 10 minutes? After that, they join the core at whatever tier their draft position would indicate or they're not included in your core?

[batdad]

Not really sure if that is the case. MAybe for top level prospects we could go to 12 minutes, but with a guy like Rask--B level guy, going from 7 to 10 is really not that big a deal to me. Really for a top level guy going from 7 to 15 would not be either. But would actually have to be a top level guy, not a guy that was a 1st round pick that was a dud.


Rask as year 1 hg had to play 7
As a B player, he has to play 10 I Am fine with that.

Dman from 7 to 15 for B is fine as well.

I think that people who are not you and I however, and ride the horses of the stars, will have a hard time playing Rask on third line and PP2...because it will slow down their scoring a bit. Because of the way I play, I do not have that issue in my mind.

I can understand though if you have a HG like Virtanen, not wanting to go from 7 minutes to 15 in some ways. But really, should not be an issue. Fleury is going to make that jump for me big time. He is averaging 19 minutes as a rookie anyway in homegrown where he only has to play 10. SO getting him to 20 minutes will not be an issue.

[Asher413]

I like the idea of changing it all up with this rule set. The feedback I've noticed (and I'm still on July 1 of the 2nd season)

1: I personally found 23 minutes to be a bit too low- even with equal lines for two periods, then normal for the 3rd, and Eric Staal on the first line, I had to remove him from the 4 v 4 for about 15 games to get him back under 23, and take very chance in a blowout to bench him in the last 10-15 mins. I'm not against the idea of having a maximum ATOI, but I found it to be an annoyance to manage. Will get better when I have a team.

2: The Jordan Staal thing- someone that should be a core option, but is already hurt... I don't really know what the solution is, but that's a pain. Just a complaint (Sorry I don't have a suggestion)

3: Core year over year- I would rather see a larger set of core requirements in year 1 (and more later on)- since you can't move people it would work better if you started with a larger core requirement. I forsee in combination with the unlimited trades someone could realistically only had 8 players from the original roster in year 2- and I don't think that's the idea. I would also like to see a longer homegrown requirement than 4 years (1 year before, 1 HG year, 2 in core). I see myself planning on using a lot of C homegrowns to bury the guy instead of having to actually use him.

4: The tiers are a great idea, but when using EHM on my laptop, I have to keep alt-tab to excel, search, etc, and I'm not on my third day of trying to even find what tier C's are available to sign, and haven't hit continue game. To me it's a great mechanic that just isn't enhancing the FA portion of the game. (No problem with them for trading). I guess the tiers aren't a problem in general, but there are some problems in looking them up.

I'll have more opinions as I get farther, that's just what I see after season 1. I wish I had more recommendations for 'solutions' instead of just pointing out things I dislike.

[batdad]

1. Absolutely must have a maximum TOI, and no forward in real life generally plays more than 22 minutes...so you set at 23 and boom...perfect. I have never ever even once in this game averaged over 23 minutes with a forward in the regular season at least that I can recall. If you do that, you are skewing the game and not playing realistically. You cannot have your top forward playing line 1, PP1, PK1 and 4 on 4. Not many actually do that. Sid sure does not and neither does Ovi...even in real life. Closest to doing that are guys like Datsyuk and Kesler and even they do not. So...sorry Asher, but I have no problem with the max ice time rule. It is one of the things that people who rack up points with star players do...they don't play realistically, and stars then get too many points. Also...if you do that for a whole season (over 23 for F or even for dmen in many cases....you will have zillions of playoff injuries). LOVE THE MAX ICE TIME RULE MAKING PEOPLE PLAY THE GAME REALISTICALLY IS THE POINT OF THE CHALLENGES.

2. Jordan Staal--one off situation for this challenge. Not gonna happen too often when we pick other teams to do challenge with. Totally realistic as that is what Carolina is going through this year. No suggestion needed as great to have it that realistic.

3. Someone could have by end of year two just 8 of the original Hurricanes. Let em THat is fine. After checking out all the possible trades that new team will not be very good either. Biggest complaint over history about challenges is not enough option to trade. So now there are tons of options, just have to actually work instead of randomly going after guys until someone accepts a bad deal

4. And again...no problem having to work with the tiering. I like it. back and forth we go. Tiers are awesome. Makes us think when looking to sign someone. No rapid superstar improvement. No cheating the AI. YAY..

.and still allowed to make trades. Great solution Bruins to all the issues we have had with people wanting to trade and rip off the AI in the past. Rare that they will be able to now...that one guy's Stamkos deal aside (10 bucks said did it with Stamkos on IR BTW...


Hey maybe put in a rule have to take screenshots of guys you trade for on the day your trade is accepted to show they are not injured!

[bruins72]

I don't plan to add any additional screenshots. That was one of those things that I found to be a PitA back in the old challenges. We've got the screenshots we do. People can take screenshots of things they think might be called into question (like injuries causing you to not meet tier requirements). I think we've got a pretty honest bunch here. I'd like to keep things from getting too nit-picky.

[batdad]

I know...hence the smiley face.

[Asher413]

I had a terrible mental lapse, and forgot to take screenshots for Season 2 of Challenge 34.

I do have a save file from July 1 of season 3. From there, I can still get the playoff wins, the franchise summary (which gives the team record and finishing place- with a GF/GA/PK and PP). I can pull from the team history page showing who led in each statistical category, and from player histories their ATOI and games played.

The question I have is how would you guys like me to proceed- take an army of screenshots, any specific ones, post the save file? Please let me know, and this was totally on me to space it out.

[bruins72]

Go ahead and post what you can for screens without going crazy.

[Elastisk]

Hi guys,

Thinking of participating in my first challenge. A question came in to my mind before I got too far playing: You can sign one C tier UFA in the first season, yes? UFA´s can only be signed between 1 July and 31 August, but the North America start date is 3rd September, so you really cannot sing a UFA in the first season can you?

Or where did I go wrong...?