Challenge Questions & Feedback Thread

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:11 pm

Manimal wrote:
bruins72 wrote:Yes if both go down in the regular season and neither Mason nor Bernier are on your main roster or one of your affiliates.
I can't see anything in the rules regarding goaltending injuries that apply to Mason or Bernier as they are under the age of 21 in the first season

True. I'll have to correct that in the rules for the next challenge. The emergency goalie rules were intended to cover you in the rare instance that you didn't have any more goalies and to not make you recall then from a Junior hockey loan. It was meant to allow you to get a free UFA goalie and not recall your youngsters from the minors.To be honest, I didn't see foresee the rule ever needing to be used.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:01 pm

Hey, B-

Lost the save from after posting the second set of stats for season one. Need to go back to the only good save I have left from Mid-December.

Should I a) just start over from scratch or b)pickup from where I left off and have someone erase my posted stats?

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:15 pm

Go back to your last good save and I will delete you last set of stats. Just to make sure I'm deleting the right ones, which segment are they for?

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:46 pm

14.1 Games 21-40.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:22 am

It's deleted.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:37 pm

Not that I've seen anybody break it yet but just as a friendly reminder... please make sure to follow rule 7.3 of the Gameplay Rules...

7.3 Players must be at least 24 years of age at the time of signing to qualify as a UFA signing.

watts555 · Post by **watts555** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:53 pm

bruins72 wrote:Not that I've seen anybody break it yet but just as a friendly reminder... please make sure to follow rule 7.3 of the Gameplay Rules...

7.3 Players must be at least 24 years of age at the time of signing to qualify as a UFA signing.

We are allowed to TRADE for players under 24 correct?

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:01 am

Yup. Just make sure they are players under contract by the team with their rights. You can't trade for the rights of an unsigned player.

Post by **McQwak** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:34 pm

McQwak wrote:One remark regarding the rule 12.2 and the posted mandatory screenshots: they cannot be taken on June 30th because the game data is updated during the night from 29th to 30th. It means that you get empty player stats for current season (all stats are zero) on June 30th.

bruins72 wrote:I always thought it got updated when you transition from the 30th to the 1st? Anyhow, the Standings, Player Stats, and Playoff Results say that you must take them in the month of June and the Trades screen must be taken on July 1st. That should cover things, right?

McQwak wrote:Yes, that should, but it's not precisely said. The three screenshots must be taken between June 1st and 29th. They cannot be taken on June 30th.
I wanted to take my screenshots at once and since the Trades screen has to be taken on July 1st I decided to take the rest screens one day before. And I couldn't. The stats were already updated for new season. I'd be glad if someone else can check it when he comes to time of capturing screenshots.

bruins72 wrote:When I get to that point, I will take a look.

Well, this is clarified. The stats related screenshots must be taken BEFORE June 30th. The game data is updated during the night from June 29th to 30th. I know this complicates the rules a bit

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:22 pm

It just means that you must take your screenshots before them. It doesn't really complicate things. The trades screenshot must still be taken on July 1st. The rules say the rest are to be taken in the month of June. A slight tweak in the wording to say before June 29th isn't a big deal.

The Forsberg Fan · Post by **The Forsberg Fan** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:11 pm

Maybe not right Thread but wich team will be the next challenge ? cause im intresting start play challenges

( Sorry or my bad english

)

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:11 pm

This challenge is ending very soon. I don't expect another one to start up until the new Lidas rosters are released, probably sometime in October.

The Forsberg Fan · Post by **The Forsberg Fan** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:56 pm

bruins72 wrote:This challenge is ending very soon. I don't expect another one to start up until the new Lidas rosters are released, probably sometime in October.

Ok. Thanks

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:35 pm

So... since Marsac was asking if we were considering doing NTNB (No Trade/No Budget) again, I wanted to field this question to everyone... how do you feel the current trade rules are working out? I can't see them being relaxed to make things easier but do you think that the current trade rules make the challenge too easy?

Marsac · Post by **Marsac** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:27 am

I'd love to see another NTNB, or rather NTNFANW (no trades, no free agents, no waivers) but I might be in the minority on that. I think the current trade restrictions are good if we start with a weaker team but the free agent restrictions could probably be tightened a bit, a "free" 4M player can make a huge impact (Morris sure did for me).

Post by **McQwak** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:13 am

I don't undestand the "No budget" term. We have player budget given by the board and salary cap/floor set by the league. Which budget do you want to play without?
Playing the first season is fun due to trade and signing restrictions. But after some time playing with the same roster it can become a little bit boring. So I don't know what's better.
Maybe only one trade per season can be satisfying. UFA pyramid works fine, too. Challenge 14 has been quite easy (that's good!) and therefore some players can feel they would be successfull even with harder rules. I don't think so. Every challenge is specific and we would need to tweak rules according to the chosen team. This way wouldn't be good. We need one set of rules for all upcoming challenges and the current version is fine.

Post by **Lidas** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:12 am

I'm all for more restictions, but "less experienced" players might have a difficult time with less trades.

I just started a Red Wings game to test my new database, and I'm restricting myself to one transaction per year (one trade, one UFA signing, or one waiver claim).

I also agree with Marsac that the UFA pyramid should be made even further restricted. Maybe 3M as an upper limit.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:41 pm

McQwak wrote:I don't undestand the "No budget" term. We have player budget given by the board and salary cap/floor set by the league. Which budget do you want to play without?
Playing the first season is fun due to trade and signing restrictions. But after some time playing with the same roster it can become a little bit boring. So I don't know what's better.
Maybe only one trade per season can be satisfying. UFA pyramid works fine, too. Challenge 14 has been quite easy (that's good!) and therefore some players can feel they would be successfull even with harder rules. I don't think so. Every challenge is specific and we would need to tweak rules according to the chosen team. This way wouldn't be good. We need one set of rules for all upcoming challenges and the current version is fine.

The "No Budget" part was something relating to our old challenge rules. We used to have a TBL Budget that we would set for the challenge. For a couple challenges we had an option where you could decide not to make any trades (or Free Agent signings) and you wouldn't have to stay with the TBL budget. You could just go by the budget the team set for you. It was an interesting trade off because it allowed you keep your team and develop your own talent without worry about the strict budget we set for the challenge.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Yeah, the UFA Pyramid might be a little too easy with the $4M cap. You can get a game-changing player with that kind of money. $3M does sound like it might be a little better.

While I do like how our restrictions on the number of player per side in a trade limits who you might acquire, the fact that we have 2 trades can make it a little easy to overhaul a team in a short period of time. I'd like to see people's teams evolve with the talent that they've drafted and developed but that's hard to do as well because in most challenges you'll see most people play not more than 4 or 5 seasons, many only playing 1 or 2. Then again, if we start with a team that is bad to start with but has a good core of prospects, it might be interesting to see that group of prospects developed.

Post by **McQwak** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:06 pm

Maybe we can agree on some minimal number of seasons played

Or the exact number, let's say 5 or 6 seasons. But it will take much longer to finish each challenge.
Another idea: let's have more than one challenge running in parallel. We can start Ch15 in October with end in January. And then start Ch16 in December with end in April and so on. The challenge can last longer and the number of challenges ran on TBL per year remains the same. Just brainstorming

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:13 pm

We don't have a quota of challenges we need to run per season. Also, we want as many people as possible participating in each challenge. If we have 2 challenges overlapping, it's going to take away from that. Also, it's gotten to the point where we've used many of the weaker teams already and it's getting difficult to set up new challenges.

As for setting a minimum number of seasons required... I think that will scare off a lot of people too. Not everyone wants to commit to that many. We used to have a deadline for when each season was required to be completed and it ended up excluding a lot of people. Having the set end date for the challenge allows people to start, finish, and play at their own pace, getting as many seasons in as the can manage.

Post by **Manimal** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:26 pm

What team shall we use for the next challenge? Atlanta is probably the worst team we haven't used, but they have Kovalchuk and Lehtonen often turns out really good in my saves( I haven't used him, though)
Do we weaken a team somehow to make it more challenging?
I for one, would also like to give a go at junior hockey again, but I'm not sure if they'll be finished in time for the release of 2.0

The Forsberg Fan · Post by **The Forsberg Fan** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:28 pm

Manimal wrote:What team shall we use for the next challenge? Atlanta is probably the worst team we haven't used, but they have Kovalchuk and Lehtonen often turns out really good in my saves( I haven't used him, though)
Do we weaken a team somehow to make it more challenging?
I for one, would also like to give a go at junior hockey again, but I'm not sure if they'll be finished in time for the release of 2.0

Why not a europe team ?

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:52 pm

I'd love to see us use a junior hockey team again. I thought the Saint John Sea Dogs challenge was a whole lot of fun. That being said, I think we the new DB and the NHL season kicking off, it might be better to use an NHL team for this one. Since we've done a QMJHL team, maybe in challenge 16 we could use a WHL or OHL team?

As for the next challenge, you're reading my mind. Atlanta was the team that came to mind for me too. And I also thought about the Kovalchuk/Lehtonen problem with using them. If Lehtonen is toned down to reflect real life (he's not as good as he is in the game), we'd still have it pretty easy with Kovalchuk on the team. I've tossed around the idea of using an edited DB that had him off the team. Where would Kovalchuk be sent? What would the Thrashers get in return? I'm sure Kovalchuk will be traded at the deadline in real life. Do we wait and do a challenge with the team once that happens?

Any other ideas for teams? Edmonton might have been an interesting team to play with but the addition of Khabibulin addressed one of their biggest weaknesses. He's not over-powered in the DB. His CA is actually a bit lower than it figures out to be using the ShaddSheet and last year's stats. I wonder if we used that team with Khabibulin set to retire after the first season and a no trade clause. Would that make them tougher or would he make them Stanley Cup contenders in that first season? They're an interesting team because their defense has some old players on it. I wonder if they might have a little too much strength offensively though.

It's kind of hard picking a weak enough team because a strong goalie or just 1 start offensive player makes a huge difference. For example, Tampa really struggled last season but if we used them in the challenge, they'd be too easy because of Lecavalier.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:54 pm

The Forsberg Fan wrote:
Manimal wrote:What team shall we use for the next challenge? Atlanta is probably the worst team we haven't used, but they have Kovalchuk and Lehtonen often turns out really good in my saves( I haven't used him, though)
Do we weaken a team somehow to make it more challenging?
I for one, would also like to give a go at junior hockey again, but I'm not sure if they'll be finished in time for the release of 2.0
Why not a europe team ?

We've done votes before and it just didn't seem to bring enough interest. Most people playing the challenges seem to be primarily interested in the NHL.