EHM The Blue Line

the end of season improvement points have changed slightly.
At the end of each season(except the first) you will get bonus points for how much improvement you show since the last season.
At the end of the 7th season I will then compare it with how well you did in the 1st season and there will be more points awarded then.

I can't make my mind about the comparaison between seasons 1 and 7... I mean, if everone is doing well, season 7 should be a winning one for nearly everyone, right? And so the best improvement would just be for the one who had the most disastrous season 1

But maybe not... Don't really know in fact. Just wanted to express my doubts.

You should give negative bonus points if a competitor does not improve in any given season.

Think about it, win the cup 1st season = great, lose in playoffs 2nd season = a step back.

What do you think?

the reason I've got the season 7 points is more people will (hopefully) carry on into further seasons and not get disheartened if they start off poorly.

timmy_t: I wouldn't want to penalise users for doing well, and then (maybe) having an unlucky season the next season.

Ok, I understand

Calv wrote:the reason I've got the season 7 points is more people will (hopefully) carry on into further seasons and not get disheartened if they start off poorly.

I understood that at once and really like the fact that long-term players could be rewarded, but i'm not 100% convinced it's the best way to do so

However, i won't criticize too much, because i have actually no better proposition to make. But if a constructive debate should be opened about that, i think it could benefit to anyone

Maybe having an overall champion of challenge 9, who could only be one of the players who played 7 seasons

I did intend on having an overall champion, the player with the most points in all 7 of his seasons.

Calv wrote:I did intend on having an overall champion, the player with the most points in all 7 of his seasons.

I would have been surprised this wasn't in the pipes

Anyway, i still can't make my mind about the best improvement between seasons 1 and 7... But if i'm alone in this case, don't mind about that

I think it is a fair thing. Encourages those who have poor first seasons..to really move on and go for it in the end.

Yeah, but if my memory serves, there are already improvement points during the curse of the challenge

Boah, keep it as it is, as it seems i'm the only one having doubts on that...

Stupid french people always complaining for nothin'!

Stop being grumpy Shadd. That is my job! SO STOP IT!

You have too much influence on me



[/off-topic]

Hey, guys!

Like a rookie i noted that occurs a lot of trades before the blackhawks season begins, of course the new rules made trade harder, but i propose together with the core roster a trade-bait roster with a number of players (maybe 5 signed and 3 prospect) that are the only ones allowed to be traded before mid-season so this would stop changing radically the rosters at the start of the season.

Let explain better. What i want is everybody start almost with the same team and progressivelly change them over the year. What about?

Yeah...we thought about that one too. Thanks for the suggestion corinthian, and it may be something to do in the future. We did not want to be "too restrictive" or people would not try the new way.

It is a great idea though, and we may look at this if this type of challenge still proves too easy to win!

Yeah... baby steps. First we see how people do with these restrictions on trades. We were honestly worried that we'd have a lot of people not want to participate because we had any restrictions on trading. So we'll go with this for a bit and see if it levels the playing field at all.

I would honestly like to see something like corinthian's idea in a challenge based in the CHL. That could be fun.

CHL as in Central Hockey League? Do people know actually know the players at that level outside of a few of us?

I think he means Canadian Hockey league (juniors) but not sure.

Issues with CHL include NHL teams signing your best players right at Mem Cup time and then not sending them back.

Yeah, I meant the Canadian Hockey League (juniors)... WHL, OHL, QMJHL. I think the fact that the NHL teams can sign away your best players is one of the most intriguing aspects of playing that league. The turnover rate is incredible. You can only really think a few years in the future and you're always in a constant state of rebuilding. It keeps things so fresh. I played a WHL team for a couple years and was having a blast. Then I accepted a job with an AHL team. It was the worst thing I could've done!

Olá, follks!

I'm kind of relieve that you already thought about it. I still have the impression that i was cheating when i used a couple of prospects to get Niitymaki and another one to dump Khabi then it hit me that some kind of restriction would be wellcome in the future. It's a sense that you want some player and you start adding player until the computer accepts you offer.

Next time we'll come back to this issue.(':thup:')

but by dumping those prospects, you are hurting your pool to draw from later on for talent. Since this goes on for 7 years you could potentially hurt your team down the road significantly by trading away too many prospects.

bruins72 wrote:I played a WHL team for a couple years and was having a blast. Then I accepted a job with an AHL team. It was the worst thing I could've done!

And How! The AHL is about the worst North American league to GM in. The majority (if not all) of your roster is dictated and you can lose 3-4 players in a day and be sent scrambling just to ice a full team only to have them returned in a few days after you have signed or given tryouts to players. When I was playing Toledo in the ECHL I took a job for the baby Pens for about a month and realized I had almost no controll over the team. I loaded a save prior to the move and continued with the Storm like it was all a bad dream.

bruins72 wrote:Yeah, I meant the Canadian Hockey League (juniors)... WHL, OHL, QMJHL. I think the fact that the NHL teams can sign away your best players is one of the most intriguing aspects of playing that league. The turnover rate is incredible. You can only really think a few years in the future and you're always in a constant state of rebuilding. It keeps things so fresh.

This was my point aboot doing challenges in the lower leagues. The pace tends to be a lot faster due to the turnover. You are more active in roster management and have to be on your toes more. Most of the NHL teams I've play run mostly on auto-pilot once I get the roster in shape. The most common activity I have is setting checking assignments before the game and resting (from practice) players after.

Hey, Thunderbug!

You'are right but there's draft every year and it didn't stop me to trade unlike ones. I still have Toews and probably 12 more (i forgot)

Then you could stop trading for the obvious ones everytime, there are still enough good players left

There are a couple of well known extreme overachievers like Nitty, Michalek, Marleau, Pitkanen, Sundin etc

I don't mind making good trades in the challenge myself but mostly try to get players I've never had before

Danny wrote:There are a couple of well known extreme overachievers like Nitty, Michalek, Marleau, Pitkanen, Sundin etc

I don't mind making good trades in the challenge myself but mostly try to get players I've never had before

That's the spirit Danny!

That's honestly why we implemented these roster resrictions - to try to stop people from 'playing it safe' and getting the 'extreme overachievers'. We wanted people to focus on developing lesser known players into stars, rather than grabbing the same obvious players all the time.

Another one I would add to Danny's excellent overachievers list above is Jagr. whew.

Anyway, what's this thread about, am I on topic? Go Challenges!!

Take charge of Bakersfield Condors in the ECHL - the only team without any affiliation.

No loan players, no going over the cap. Win the conference or playoffs?