Next Challenge?

[nino33]

We've got some people that play fast and will do several seasons before wanting to move on to something else

And I think it's great they participate, but as challenges are typically 6 weeks long I didn't think they were really geared for those really fast players that play multiple seasons in a few days (again, not saying they shouldn't take part.....but for such fast players I'd think any and all databases would be fine, as they're not really delving into the teams/database in-depth and they'll be on to something else in a few days anyways)

It's tricky finding something that works for the majority of the players here.

I bet it is! and you do it well

I offer my opinion, but I don't necessarily think that it in any way represents the majority!

[bruins72]

We've got some guys that will play 7 seasons of a challenge pretty quickly and then kick back until the next challenge. It's not my style but it works for some. Then again, I never seem to play more than 3 seasons of a challenge because I play so slowly.

[bruins72]

We've got a new challenge lined up and just about ready to go but we're going to have to hold off on launching it. With this issue where Euro players are leaving during the NHL playoffs, we just can't realistically play a challenge. Hopefully Riz with get a hotfix on it quickly.

[bruins72]

So we've got our retro 98 challenge well underway and even though we've still got over a month before it ends, I'm looking at possibilities for the next challenge. It's either going to be NHL or a Canadian Junior team. Do people want to use the latest TBL rosters (8.2) or do we want to go with the Retro 98 DB again? I'm open to either. If we do use the NHL, do we want still have age restrictions on trades? I feel that the latest patches have helped tighten up trading and make it not as exploitable. What about UFAs or Waiver Claims?

I've been tossing around an idea but haven't fully fleshed it out yet. I was thinking of maybe having a limit on how many players under a certain age (21? 22?) we can have on our NHL roster. This would encourage (and maybe force) us to keep prospects in the lower levels and let them develop more naturally. In conjunction with this we could allow UFA signings. You'd be allowed to sign X number (the number of players you let go to Free Agency minus the number of under age players) each season. I'm a little more reluctant to allow Waiver Claims because sometimes you see some very good players available there, although that's mostly in season 1.

What do you guys think of this?

[Peter_Doherty]

Should definitely have a pretty tight cap rule if you give us more leeway with trades imo, not sure where to draw the line on the cap though, especially in the 98 DB.

[bruins72]

Good point on that one! We'd have to enforce a tight budget.

[m0fownz0r]

So we've got our retro 98 challenge well underway and even though we've still got over a month before it ends, I'm looking at possibilities for the next challenge. It's either going to be NHL or a Canadian Junior team. Do people want to use the latest TBL rosters (8.2) or do we want to go with the Retro 98 DB again? I'm open to either. If we do use the NHL, do we want still have age restrictions on trades? I feel that the latest patches have helped tighten up trading and make it not as exploitable. What about UFAs or Waiver Claims?

I've been tossing around an idea but haven't fully fleshed it out yet. I was thinking of maybe having a limit on how many players under a certain age (21? 22?) we can have on our NHL roster. This would encourage (and maybe force) us to keep prospects in the lower levels and let them develop more naturally. In conjunction with this we could allow UFA signings. You'd be allowed to sign X number (the number of players you let go to Free Agency minus the number of under age players) each season. I'm a little more reluctant to allow Waiver Claims because sometimes you see some very good players available there, although that's mostly in season 1.

What do you guys think of this?

I would advise against the waiver claims. Like you said, sometimes a very good player ends up there but it's a bit random imo and will put players at a disadvantage.

The tighter budget should definitely be a consideration.

I don't think a new Retro98 challenge would present anything new since there is not much sense in going with the top dogs (Avs, Wings, Stars), so in all likelihood we will end up with another bottom dweller, building through the draft.

Maybe something crazy like all Russian Sharks, maybe also allow UFAs, trading 1st.

On the other hand, I've never played any Canadian Junior league.

I'm sure whatever you come up with will be fun times.

[MWE]

I don't think signing UFAs would be a good idea RFAs would be good though I think

[stone169]

I kind of like it the way this latest challenge was set up. Although I think a lot of us can agree that goal tending was a huge issue and could've been solved by that one waiver claim or that one UFA signing.

If you were to go that route, then why not one waiver claim and one UFA signing per season. Or one or the other per season and not both. It would mean an extra screen shot would need to be taken.

Although I've found that with this challenge, limiting the amount of assets for trades to 2 and not being able to trade for a 1st rounder really tied my hands where Mara was concerned as I was being offered everything under the sun for that guy. But it also made it interesting.

[Primis]

I don't think signing UFAs would be a good idea RFAs would be good though I think

There are some good RFA's that teams will let walk pretty easily in the retro DB. Given the salaries, you can often sign RFA's with very little compensation, making it fairly cheap and easy. You can pretty easily get say Berard, Lapointe, and Maltby the first offseason for example and I don't think you need to give up more than one 2nd, and a couple 3rds IIRC.

So I'd say for the retro 1998 DB, signing RFA's should be a no-no for a Challenge.

[bruins72]

Yeah, I don't think RFAs would be a good idea. I've seen instances (not just in the Retro DB but the current TBL DB) where teams will offer contracts to one of their RFAs, the player will agree, and the team will back out. Then this repeats over and over. In my current challenge game I'm seeing Colorado do this with Tanguay and New Jersey do this with Colin White. I'm guessing that these guys could be had with offer sheets.

I do think that our current trading restrictions of 2 assets per side of a trade and no 1st round picks keeps things fairly sane. I don't know if we really need to stick to an age limit though. Does anyone like the idea of a limit on how many young (like 21 and under) players we have on the roster? Would that present a challenge?

Another thing I was thinking about was simming forward a number of years with the 98 DB and picking a bottom dwelling team then. We'd have a different set of real players that we'd be dealing with.

One more idea I had but I don't kow how hard it would be to manage... We start with a team that's outside the playoffs (not the worst but not a good team either) and then we play a normal challenge. Once you win a Stanley Cup, you have to leave your current team and takeover the team that finished worst in the league. Just an idea.

[MWE]

I thought RFAs would have been good as you may lose a couple of draft picks to pick a player where as with UFAs you're just adding salary and not losing much else. Just a thought I will certainly still be playing the challenges whatever the rules

[Asher413]

Disclaimer- in the short term I can only do the summer challenge, so my feedback isn't as important for the next challenge . I also don't want a lack of me participating in the next one to be perceved as a result of the ruleset. (I'll eventually figure out how to balance teaching and children enough to play games... not there yet.)

Question- does the AI handle rights correctly now? I feel like that would be a good balance of the RFA thing- if it handles it right.

In the current challenge, I almost find the under 26 portion impossible. Every single team overvalues their prospects now (which isn't a bad thing) but I couldn't trade Lecaviler for 2nd line guys straight up. (It could be me of course). I feel like the old UFA rules with the pyramid served the purpose well, although a bit confusing. (Off the top of my head, 1 player with Very Good reputation with salary up to $3 million, 2 good up to $1.5 each, two wavier claims, etc.) I like the idea of having a 'hand' full of options and you have to pick the one or two that work. Currently, it's either draft (and those players won't be ready for how long most people play challenges), or trade. There is no other way to build. And (this may just be sour grapes since I suck in the challenges in the new EHM) since I trade poorly, I'm up a creek. I also agree with budget constraints if other things get opened up.

Lastly, at risk of being annoying, I'll repeat that I believe the best course would be to ensure some variety in the challenges. I think it was the Sharks one went well with the 'rebuild' but then the interest in the same concept again wasn't so high.

[bruins72]

You bring up some good points, Asher. Maybe after my current season, I'll do some testing on how the teams value player rights in trades. I also like having more options of ways to build our team. I do feel that it's pretty limiting with the age limit at the point in time. Riz has tweaked EHM and it's actually fixing many of the weaknesses and exploits that we used to have to make rules to cover.

The old UFA pyramid was good and fairly effective back when we used it. My concern right now is managing it. Sometimes going through all of the various screenshots and looking for mistakes or rule violations can be a bit overwhelming. Of course I've always welcomed other members of the community helping out with policing that sort of thing. I also thinking the salary amounts for the UFAs would have to be adjusted for whatever DB we use. In our current challenge, the salaries are much lower. In the next modern TBL DB I'm sure average salaries around the league will have gone up.

Feedback is not annoying at all! I post my ideas for challenges here to discuss with you guys that participate in the challenges so I can get that feedback. I also like having a variety to our challenges. I think over the past year or so we've had quite a bit of variety to our challenges. The rules have almost changed from challenge to challenge. I thought the Canucks challenge and the Sharks challenge were good ones. I also liked the All-American NY Rangers one. On my own a little while back I tested out an All-Scandinavian Minnesota Wild team. That was a lot of fun for me to play but I think it might not work for a challenge because we'd all end up with very similar teams. I've also enjoyed the challenges where we've simmed ahead a bit so that some players have retired and others have stepped up into the NHL.

Good luck in finding a balance on things. My only real "play" time is at work, mostly in the spring and summer because it's slow around here then. When I'm home, my boys are maniacs and never leave me alone. And then once they're in bed my wife actually wants my time. Go figure!

[Peter_Doherty]

Another thing I was thinking about was simming forward a number of years with the 98 DB and picking a bottom dwelling team then. We'd have a different set of real players that we'd be dealing with.

I like this idea alot.

[m0fownz0r]

Another thing I was thinking about was simming forward a number of years with the 98 DB and picking a bottom dwelling team then. We'd have a different set of real players that we'd be dealing with.

I like this idea alot.

I kinda like that too, however, I'm not a big fan of draft only strategy. It takes time and thus, for the most, part you can just sim through the first couple of seasons without much care.

[bruins72]

We'll be moving away from the drafting/youth focus on the next challenge I think.

I am leaning towards using the 98DB again though. When our current challenge ends we'll still have at least a couple months before the next modern TBL DB comes out. Why go back to the last version of that DB when the 98DB is still pretty new to all of us?

[Peter_Doherty]

We'll be moving away from the drafting/youth focus on the next challenge I think.

I am leaning towards using the 98DB again though. When our current challenge ends we'll still have at least a couple months before the next modern TBL DB comes out. Why go back to the last version of that DB when the 98DB is still pretty new to all of us?

98DB, sim a few years, take a bottom feeder and add a strict cap rule... Let us trade for whatever age but keep some restrictions there (max 2 parts involved in deal, no 1st rounders). Something like that maybe?

[bruins72]

That's the direction I'm heading.

[braeden]

How much longer with the Tampa save?

[nino33]

How much longer with the Tampa save?

The main TBL/Challenge pages say the current Challenge "Closes/Ends Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:59 am"

[bruins72]

That end date is tentative. If it looks like we're not quite ready to kick off the next one, it might be extended.

[bruins72]

I just wanted to toss some ideas out to you guys on what I'm thinking about for rules on the next challenge.

I'm thinking we use the 98DB again but I'll sim forward about 5 years. I'll have it so we take over in April or May so we have enough time to scout the draft and scout the leagues. You can only re-sign your players that you've already got under contract and you can sign your unsigned players that you own the rights to. Once July 1st hits, you're able to get to work. Each season you'll be allowed to sign 1 UFA for up to $1.5M or up to 4 UFAs at no more than $550k each. There would be no age restrictions on trades like we've been doing. No trading for 1st round picks or player rights allowed. Players involved in trades must be under contract. Only 1 for 1, 1 for 2, 2 for 1, and 2 for 2 deals allowed. We'd have a challenge imposed budget of $48M tentatively. For an exact budget I'll have to wait until I've simmed the game forward and picked the team.

My goal is for things to be opened up a little bit. I don't want to force people to go with youth or to rush young players into the lineup. Ideally we'd have a more balanced approach. I think that the game's trading has been tweaked enough that we shouldn't be able to exploit it with these kind of trades or signings.

I'd like some feedback from our challenge players on this. Does it sound too easy? Do you think this is something that would be easily exploited?

[MWE]

Sounds good to me, ill probably struggle like I always do regardless of the rules

[bruins72]

That's the way it's been for me too!