The future of challenges at TBL

Post by **timmy_t** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:28 pm

Hey guys-

I've been lurking for many months waiting for talk of challenge 10. I voted against another NHL challenge because it's too easy to get a 60 win team together after a season or two. But having 7 60+ win seasons in a row and winning the cup 7 years straight ??? (Come on)

If I was that good at this game, I would challenge myself by doing whatever I could to make the game harder. For instance, play with all 3rd/4th line players and 5/6 d-men.

When I played the fantasy challenge, I challenged myself by picking all American players. My whole roster was American, and my staff was too. Not even one foreign scout. (I couldn't finish because of family commitments, but my restrictions sure made the game harder)

There are a couple of people who play in these challenges that are that good, and they could probably win the cup with Scott Parker and Donald Brashear, centered by Sean Avery, on the first line. (But they won't do it)

I like the idea of having a long-running challenge, but challenge 9 started last summer, and it's still going on. It would be nice to have a long-term challenge and a shorter challenge for people that don't want to put in that type of commitment. (Hi Mr. Newguy, yeah the challenges are great, but we started this one 5 months ago, and it won't be finished for another 5 months, so check back later)

In closing, as much as I love this game, it's hard to put in the effort and commitment just to "keep up with the pack." I wouldn't get to 70+ wins with my Parker-Avery-Brashear line.

We need to put challenging back in the Challenges.

Hypnotist · Post by **Hypnotist** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:53 am

A fantasy draft where all would pick from the same pool would be awfully difficult to coordinate. Not saying it couldn't be done, but I am glad I wouldn't be running it!

timmy_t: I like your way of thinking. I thought about doing an all American NHL squad, just haven't got around to it. The idea of using sets of parameters rather than blanket restrictions would be far more interesting (IMO), while allowing individuals the freedom to meet those parameters how they see fit. An all American or Broad Street Bullies type team would immediately prevent most if not all "abusive" players from coming into play. Niitty, Marleau, Handzus et. al are not american or aggressive enough respectively.

On the other side, if there would be enough interest to go outside the NHL (and there may be, with the voting so close right now), I would be happy to hold a second Unofficial Challenge and keep score like before. I would prefer, however for it to be official challenge to get as many people playing as possible. The ECHL challenge was simply to pass the time until the marathon of challenge 9 finished. IMO, running two challenges side-by-side would be like having 2 candiates of the same party running for an office. All it does is screw both. The more people who play the better the challenge because the scoring would (hopefully) be more dispersed. The points were obviously skewed in the ECHL challenge since we only had 2 people finish so both of us were getting 1st or 2nd place points in every catagory.

I like archibalduk's plan to give the same treatment for non-NHL challenges as was for NHL ones. It isn't likely to be perfect on the first go, but then again neither were the NHL challenges thus all the extra rules and restrictions. But TBL wouldn't be starting from scratch either. The experience of the 9 previous challenges would be easily applied.

I like this discussion. mmmm...discussion...good like donut...

Post by **archibalduk** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:35 am

Timmy_t - I do see what you mean with your criticism of Challenge 9. It has been running far too long. I think this is down to the fact that since the summer things have been very hectic for most, if not all, the Admins/Mods (I moved house in September and lost my internet connection for three months, B72 has a wedding to plan, Batdad is busy with his job commitments, my bro is doing his finals at university, Tasku & Shadd are looking for jobs, and CatchUp is working and studying). This in conjunction with having a seven season-long Challenge has meant that it has dragged out far too long. It's frustrating for those that completed the Challenge and for those waiting to join the next one.

We're going to make sure that we don't encounter this problem next time by having a single Challenge deadline rather than deadlines for each individual quarter of each season. As each season was delayed due to other real-life commitments, it had a knock-on effect for each quarterly season deadline thereafter. Having just one overall Challenge deadline will allow users to go at their own pace and complete as much or as little they wish. We'll keep recording Challenge seasons so long as a minimum number of users compete (probably a minimum of four). Thus the Challenge will be as short or as long term as everyone wants. It'll also ensure that the Challenge doesn't drag out. Out of interest, how long does everyone think a Challenge should last for? I was thinking a two month deadline would be about right.

As for everyone winning everything - again, I agree with you. It is a problem. We introduced roster restrictions (i.e. core players, etc) to ensure that users didn't just trade away their entire roster. I think it has helped to ensure that teams keep their "identity" but clearly it hasn't been enough. I like the suggestion of not signing free agents until the end of the first season. I don't know whether this has already been suggested, but restricting free agent acquisitions to just the post/pre-season could be a better idea.

I'm not keen on the fantasy draft idea. I'd rather take a team and turn it around rather than assemble a team from scratch. It seems, however, that any team we take is easy to get to the Playoffs in the first season. This is why I think it might be time to go for a non-NHL team. Hypnotist's remark about the fact that using the "unrealistic targets" filter showed that there were few players an ECHL team could acquire is perhaps a good thing - it could make things more challenging.

Ultimately, I really want to see a shift in mentality from the current one whereby everyone expects to make the Playoffs in the first season to one where perhaps finishing in the middle of the standings table is seen as an achievement. My idea of the Challenge is to try to get a team to perform as well as they could, rather than necessarily winning silverware.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:44 pm

archibalduk wrote: As for everyone winning everything - again, I agree with you. It is a problem. We introduced roster restrictions (i.e. core players, etc) to ensure that users didn't just trade away their entire roster. I think it has helped to ensure that teams keep their "identity" but clearly it hasn't been enough. I like the suggestion of not signing free agents until the end of the first season. I don't know whether this has already been suggested, but restricting free agent acquisitions to just the post/pre-season could be a better idea.

I like this idea. This would prevent people from signing UFAs deep into the season when they'll sign for a fraction of their worth. I know quite a few people did that in the latest challenge.

Post by **Shadd666** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:52 pm

archibalduk wrote:I don't know whether this has already been suggested, but restricting free agent acquisitions to just the post/pre-season could be a better idea.

I don't remember where, but i proposed to limit it until October 1st (right before the start of the season). Or better: September 1st, so that they're with the team for the training camp and pre-season games. The main deal with it was to avoid to get superstars at a ridiculously cheap price. Getting guys like Lecavalier or Chara for less than 2M$ on a 2-3 years contract makes things way too easy toward the TBL budget.

timmy_t wrote:I like the idea of having a long-running challenge, but challenge 9 started last summer, and it's still going on. It would be nice to have a long-term challenge and a shorter challenge for people that don't want to put in that type of commitment.

We already thought about that long ago. But it would demand way more time to manage two (or more) challenges at the same time, and Mods/Admins aren't that free.

The other issue is the number of challengers in each challenge. People would certainly have the time to play both challenges at the same time, which means that the more challenges are running at the same time, the less challengers there is in each challenge. Just look at the ECHL challenge, who ended with just two competitors because many where still stuck on challenge 9. It's not like if we had 100 people willing to join a challenge! We've just got about 15-20 guys, with a 50% turnover between the start and the end of a challenge for various reasons, leading to 7-10 guys at the end of the challenge. Not a big enough number to split them in two.

That's why, like Archi mentionned, we'll try a new approach, with an overall deadline for the whole challenge, and hopefully an adapted challenge length. It looks to be the best alternative when all the parameters are taken into account...

corinthian · Post by **corinthian** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:41 pm

I like playing the swedish league but i know there's a lot of problems to come up with new rules, so why not a QMJHL, OHL or WHL challenge?

Hypnotist · Post by **Hypnotist** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:35 pm

Archibalduk: I'm not quite following you on the time limits. Is that 2 months per season or 2 months for the entire challenge?

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:53 pm

The entire challenge. Rather than have deadlines for each season or block of 20 games like we usually do, everyone would have 2 months (or whatever the final length is decided to be) to complete as many seasons as they can. Some folks might get through 7 season in that time (like a few did in the Blackhawks Challenge) while others might only complete one or two seasons.

Post by **timmy_t** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:04 pm

Archibalduk: I'm not quite following you on the time limits. Is that 2 months per season or 2 months for the entire challenge?

That would make a 7 season game last 14 months... No thanks

I like playing the swedish league but i know there's a lot of problems to come up with new rules, so why not a QMJHL, OHL or WHL challenge?

I'm all for this. I played about a month into a season in the OHL and I had no idea what I was doing. (But it sure was fun!)
I think that would make it really interesting for a couple of reasons:

1) There will be no 7 year, 60+ win season, 7 straight Stanley Cup winning teams.
2) We might all be on the same page with player knowledge.
3) Even if you put a great team together, you only get the kids for a few years.
4) Different is fun.

Finally,

I believe that the 7 season mega-game should be the informal challenge, and short 2 to 3 month challenges (each one trying something different) should be the main challenges.

I understand that the moderators love EHM and want to play in the challenges too, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the benefit of the community. I love what the moderators do for The Blue Line. I think they're great guys, but I think its hard to give your best effort to running the site when you're trying to get your cheezy ringer team to 75 wins and a 10th straight Stanley Cup.

Thanks for letting me get this all out guys, you're the best!

Tim

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:23 pm

timmy_t wrote:
Archibalduk: I'm not quite following you on the time limits. Is that 2 months per season or 2 months for the entire challenge?
That would make a 7 season game last 14 months... No thanks

Please read more carefully. Both Archi and myself have stated that it is a 2 month limit on the entire challenge. Get as many seasons done in 2 months as you can.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:29 pm

timmy_t wrote: I understand that the moderators love EHM and want to play in the challenges too, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the benefit of the community. I love what the moderators do for The Blue Line. I think they're great guys, but I think its hard to give your best effort to running the site when you're trying to get your cheezy ringer team to 75 wins and a 10th straight Stanley Cup.

So let me get this straight. The mods should participate in the challenges because some people suck at EHM? Yeah, that sounds fair. I don't know if you were around during the last challenge (and if you weren't, you're really talking out of school) but the mods didn't put together "cheezy ringer teams". In fact, we stayed away from the players that we know are "easy". No Marleau. No Niitty. There are others too.

If you're not up to a fair challenge, that's fine. Don't start throwing around accusations towards the people who bust their humps here. You go on about how you appreciate what we do here but then you insult us? Makes me wonder why any of us bother. I know I've got better things to do with my time.

Hypnotist · Post by **Hypnotist** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:41 pm

timmy_t: THAT'S A FIVE MINUTE MAJOR AND A 10-MINUTE MISCONDUCT! Even when batdad & I butt heads about diffences in opinion, we don't get that low. Without the the Admins/Mods, there wouldn't be any TBL challenges to begin with and their hard work entitles them to enjoy the game with the rest of us. I was right with you on a lot of the things you were posting lately, but that last comment was just way off base and out of line.

Post by **archibalduk** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:55 pm

The Canadian or US minor leagues would probably be the best starting point for a non-NHL Challenge. From there, we could see how the rules need to be adapted rather than jumping right over to Euro straightaway.

As I said earlier, the overall Challenge deadline of 2 months (or whatever length is decided) will take enable players to play long or short Challenges. The number of seasons played will be determined by how many seasons everyone can play within that time limit - some like to take their time whereas others like to go at a faster pace. Having two Challenges run at the same time means a lot more work - it's enough work running one as it is!

timmy_t wrote:I understand that the moderators love EHM and want to play in the challenges too, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the benefit of the community. I love what the moderators do for The Blue Line. I think they're great guys, but I think its hard to give your best effort to running the site when you're trying to get your cheezy ringer team to 75 wins and a 10th straight Stanley Cup.

Thanks for letting me get this all out guys, you're the best!

Tim

I really don't understand what you're on about here.

We put weeks of work in preparing for a new challenge - particularly experimenting with new rules to make the Challenges more challenging and more fun. Looking back in the Admins Forum, we have a 9 page thread spanning two months where we discussed how to change the trading rules for Challenge 9. It involved several of our Mods experimenting with numerous saved games to fine-tune these rules. On top of that, we re-wrote several rules threads and I redesigned part of the Challenge Stats section of the site (which I had spent a good two months designing). My bro takes the time to enter all your Challenge stats manually into the site database (they can't be simply copied and pasted). I hope this will help you to understand quite how much work we put into the Challenges. We don't do this for our own egos - we do this for the site and for the community that we've built up over the past three and a half years. We don't earn any money whatsoever for this. Is this not sacrifice enough for the community?!

On top of this, we have threads like this very one where we ask our community what they think and what they'd like to see changed/improved. What more can we possibly do to make this the community's game? We've acknowledged that the Challenges see too many users winning the Playoffs and we've stated that we want to change this. For Challenge 9 we introduced a wide range of roster restrictions to try to make things better.

I think you should look at the Challenge Stats for seasons gone by. You'll see that the Mods (such as Bruins72, Batdad and CatchUp) aren't the only ones to win the Playoffs in the Challenges. Additionally, the Mods do well in the Challenges because they're good at EHM - they've been performing well in the Challenges well before they were made Mods on the site. In Challenge 9.1 ten of the sixteen competitors won the Playoffs - so to say that the Mods are the only ones winning the Playoffs and getting 60+ wins is wholly untrue. We don't run these Challenges for us to win, we run and play in them because we enjoy them.

Post by **batdad** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:44 pm

Archi--Timmy T is on about the fact that he can't win in the challenges, because the mods know what the heck they are doing with the game.

I could post a four page diatribe about what I do to make my team good, but ol timmy t won't get it. So there is no point. he just can't handle getting beaten day in and day out.

Society today is wonderful...I think we should make sure that even those who cannot do well enough to win get brownie badges or something. Just like the kindergarten kids at Sports Day. That way when they lose they can look at their shiny badge and feel good about themselves. Christ.

So I will limit it to this:

1. I don't change my roster every 2 seconds.
2. I have 3 sets of tactics..which I have explained, but there are 3 tiers to these tactics
a. team level
b. line level
c. indiv level

3. I pay very close attention to practice regimes, coaching staff and what they are good at.
4. I only hire staff that fit the vision of the team. No defensive assistants when I have attacking head coaches.
5. I have 1 fitness coach, and 1 tech coach. 1 for tactics, 1 for goalies and 1 general coach with decent attributes everywhere
6. When I do trade I usually trade downwards in terms of stars actually. Hossa/Mike Richards for Ladd, Justin Williams, 2nd being the latest example.

Yet my team wins.

I would post my tactics, but as I have said above it is not just team tactics which make the game work for me, it is layered, and would ake days to post...even in screen shot form...all of them

And at level C...they vary so much depending on who I have on my team it is nuts.

Oh...and timmy...if you want to accuse someone of cheating..why don't you just do it? Just say it bud. CAuse noone has cheated...and those who have, have been caught and booted from the challenge.

My game is up for a look if the mods/admins suggest it. Nothing to hide here. My team is good in the Hawks challenge....just good.

And now I have had it with challenge rubbish. I won't be working on the rules for the new one, and with the other mods being busy etc...best of luck getting one started any time soon. Timmy T---Hypno and I have argued, but you have just managed to piddle off the one guy who cared about the challenges and how they were run.

I am done with challenge rules. If I have time, I will still kick all your arses at it, but done helping with rules. Have fun guys.

Post by **Shadd666** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:01 pm

Hypnotist wrote:timmy_t: THAT'S A FIVE MINUTE MAJOR AND A 10-MINUTE MISCONDUCT!

I wouldn't mind if it had been a game misconduct...

You're a pretty kind ref!

archibalduk wrote:so to say that the Mods are the only ones winning the Playoffs and getting 60+ wins is wholly untrue.

Right.

Plus, i'm a good example of a mod who didn't perform that well, despite honorable numbers.

In 5 seasons made, i had 'only' 3 Cups, and never reached the 55 wins plateau (or maybe just once).

And i know that if i'm so far of the best challengers, it's just because i don't get the best out of my players and out of my team. Nothing to deal with any kind of cheating from the others. Just me being less skilled. And i've learned a lot with this challenge, and progressed a bit, even if i'm still far behind the top guys. But well, i learned things, i progressed, and i had a lot of fun! Can't ask more!

Oh and disguised cheating accusations coming from someone who didn't even participated to the challenge? Come on! It wouldn't hurt anyone if we had some more serious and objective opinions.

Hypnotist · Post by **Hypnotist** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:14 pm

Shadd666 wrote:
Hypnotist wrote:timmy_t: THAT'S A FIVE MINUTE MAJOR AND A 10-MINUTE MISCONDUCT!
I wouldn't mind if it had been a game misconduct...

You're a pretty kind ref!

I'm not a mod or it would have been, plus a probable suspension. I mean, come on, the mods are likely to be the last ones to cheat as it would become self-defeating. I understand at least, that the restrictions & extra rules are to help give everyone a chance to do well - even if I don't agree with all of them. To me, it just sounds like someone who isn't very good at the game trying to eliminate the better competition, to give himself a better chance to win. Sad.

Post by **Shadd666** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:29 pm

Hypnotist wrote:I mean, come on, the mods are likely to be the last ones to cheat as it would become self-defeating. I understand at least, that the restrictions & extra rules are to help give everyone a chance to do well - even if I don't agree with all of them. To me, it just sounds like someone who isn't very good at the game trying to eliminate the better competition, to give himself a better chance to win. Sad.

Couldn't have expressed this in a better way. But well, you know, it's the same people who will cry that their team lost because of the ref, being unable to see their own team's weaknesses/mistakes or their opponent's strength. Some just refuse to admit that they're not good enough to win. It's never their fault, always the fault of someone else. But of course, when they win, it's only because they are the best of the world, the undisputted universe champions who deserved to be cheered by the whole universe. Some people are like that. It's their right afterall

It's our right to totally disagree and put them in front of their responsabilities.

That being said, maybe everyone should go back on topic for some more constructive points than cheating accusations... It would help a lot more on the way to challenge 10...

Post by **batdad** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:32 pm

Guys...lets lay off timmy t now. Yep he is upset and widdled. And yes he made me madder than a hatter, and more than a few of you.

Points are made out of anger/frustration in real life all the time.

Timmy has been a member of this site for some time...he participated in the very first challenge here.

We can disagree, and as you can tell he and I do vehemently on this issue of the challenge.

He voiced his concern about the challenge rules when we started with them, and he is voicing his anger now. Yes he did so inappropriately, but we have all done something the incorrect way at some point or another.

So....for now...no sweat timmy t. We get the point the challenges are too easy. Trust me, we do. I could make my team weaker if I wanted to, but that would be me coming down to a level to "let" others win. Not going to do that. Anyone wants to beat me...go ahead and try. I believe two or three people have during the HAwks challenge even.

I am letting it go....

And now back to our regular scheduled voting.

Post by **timmy_t** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:32 am

I understand that I made a highly controversial comment. I sincerely apologize if I offended the moderators, as it wasn't my intention. I could have left the part out about "making sacrifices," but maybe if I expanded on it more, it would have helped people understand what I'm trying to say.

The biggest thing is that there are over 1300 members on The Blue Line. I figure half of them signed up, poked around a little bit, and then moved on. That gets us down to 650. Halve it again to 325 for the people who made a post or two and that's it. Imagine if half of these people played in the challenges. 150+ challenge participants would be awesome for the site, but hard as heck on the moderators. (Especially if they tried to compete too)

I've been around the site long enough to know how to play the game and do well in the challenges. I placed 2nd in challenge 2 and 3, and I had no idea about PIMs, goals against, etc. If people read my posts, I write about ways to make the challenges more challenging.
To me "challenge" = "fun."

I get it that everyone in the challenges is awesome at them. But maybe, just for those people who come poking around The Blue Line, you could have a "Beginner's Challenge," designed specifically for them. Senior members could assist the new players when they post specific questions, and generally help develop the new players into challenge veterans. By doing this we are growing the talent pool for future challenges.

Please, think about the meat of what I'm trying to say:
1) The NHL challenge is too easy for our veteran players
2) 7 year challenges discourage new competitors because it's a huge commitment.
3) We should have a continuous-rolling beginner's challenge to get more people involved.
4) We should really try to have challenges in other leagues, specifically the CHL, for the veterans.
5) Long-term challenges, should be more "informal," since they will last a long time.

I'm not sure if anyone can relate to my last point, but I'll give it a try:

I started Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu nine years ago. It's a grappling oriented martial art that became popular in 1993 when Royce Gracie competed in the first UFC. I'm pretty good, but there are people at my school that are better than me. These guys are the bar I'm trying to raise myself up to.
Now, on the other hand, there are a lot of people that I am better than at my school. I could armbar, choke, or otherwise submit them easily, but I like to "challenge" myself. I think of ways to give the less experienced guys the advantage. Like giving them a superior position, only using one submission, try not to use one hand, close my eyes, etc.
By "challenging" myself, I become a better Jiu-Jitsu player, and get closer to beating the top guys in my gym.
The funny thing is, the top guys use this same "challenge yourself" tactic on me. And they get better too.

I use specific things in my posts hoping that batdad, bruins72, and everyone else I look up to on the site.
My All-American challenge team
My Parker-Avery-Brashear 1st line idea
And may others I posted with hopes of those guys saying "Hey, that's a great idea, I'm going to use it too!"

Finally,I never called anyone a cheater, and I agree my "cheezy ringer" comment was totally off base for me. I have never made any comments like it before. Once again, I apologize. Please take my points seriously, because I think they would make the challenges better, more appealing to new players (and people new to the site), and grow the EHM fanbase.

Post by **batdad** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:52 am

This last post is more what I would expect from you timmy. No issue on what you said before, at least with me.

We are going to disagree on the issue of the mods or those who are good at challenges doing things to help the other guy, by "dumbing down" their teams (edited that in--I will help with questions) I get your ju-jitsu example and see the point you are making about a "beginner" challenge. This is something we have talked about in the past, as you are aware.

I likely won't go as far as Parker-Avery-Brashear...but I am curious to see if I can win with Cloutier in net.

Edit: I will answer questions about tactics, and would love to post mine for you guys to try...but what would the point of that be? I would much rather figure it out on my own, as I may have done..then have someone pass the info to me.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:51 pm

I'm glad you came back and cleared things up, Timmy. To be honest with you, what you said before had me extremely P.O.'d. I'm glad you're not actually throwing out accusations and insults. Let's move on past that.

I do get your point about challenge newbs maybe being intimidated by competing against more experienced players. In the past, the the mods have discussed ways to "level the playing field" in the challenges. This lead to the changes we made to the challenge rules for the Chicago Blackhawks challenge. We figured that most inexperienced players wouldn't be trading half their roster for certain players. That was something we saw when we looked at some past challenges. The less experienced participants made significantly less trades than the more experienced ones. So we implemented the "core roster" rules to help curb the excessive trading done by some of the more experienced challenge participants. We made it more about working with your team. Also, the idea behind the homegrown players and keeping players on your roster was all about teaching less experienced players how to develop their own talent. We're always felt that the best part of the challenges was that you learned so much about the game, especially when we all discussed it in the forums. Some of us have even gone so far as to blog our challenge teams to help give others insight into how we run our teams.

On the other hand, I don't think we should handicap the more experienced players and give an advantage to others. Like batdad said, that's really not a good idea. In fact, I find that disrespectful to the less experienced players. It's like playing a game with little kids and letting them win. What does that teach them? Also, there is nothing stopping someone from competing against people who are at a higher skill level than them. So they might finish near the bottom for a couple challenges. It's a learning experience. People shouldn't expect to be in contention for the championship right out of the gate. Sometimes you've got to work at things for a bit. It makes it all the sweeter when you do finally win.

As for your self-challenge ideas... I have done some of these things on my own. I've done a fantasy draft and picked an all USA team. I've also done a team with all physical and defensive players. I'll do these things on my own when I feel I need a break from my regular game and want to mix it up a bit. I've also played games without trading, just so I could focus on my tactics and training. Running a challenge that way is another case entirely.

I don't know if we have time to run a veteran challenge and a rookie challenge. Several of us just have too much going on at the moment. We've discussed it before and I'm sure we'll discuss it again. We've even discussed running one challenge but having two different ranking groups. Have one with veterans and another with the rookies. The only problem is, how do you decide who is a rookie? We had a few people in the most recent challenge that had never participated in our challenges before but they did quite well. They might have been "ringers" against actual EHM rookies. Honestly, at this point I think our best option is to continue to tweak the rules in ways that level the playing field for both rookie and veteran users.

Post by **archibalduk** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:32 pm

I too am glad you cleared up your original post. It did seem to come out of nowhere and really confused me as to why you'd say what it seemed you meant. As has been said already, the Mods (Batdad and B72 in particular - conversely, I suck at them!) have been doing well in the Challenges since before they were Mods. If you look at the stats, the Mods are not the the only users that win the Playoffs regularly in the Challenges - there's many users that do.

What we need to do is to somehow make it more challenging for the better users whilst still making it accessible and fun for the less experienced users. I think we have take steps in the right direction - the Challenge has pretty much become B72's and Batdad's baby since they became Mods. To a large extent, they have transformed the Challenges into what we see today - the introduction of the roster restrictions (core players, etc) is a particularly important development in the competition. But I think we all recognise that there is room for improvement. We need to make the NHL more challenging, but how? This is what we should be concentrating on - not on the other issues. Many/most of us agree that:

1) a non-NHL Challenge is a good idea (either now or in a future challenge);
2) the challenges need to be more "challenging" (particularly for experienced users) but retain a sufficient sense of fun; and
3) an overall challenge deadline will allow users to play as many or as few seasons as they like and ensure that the challenge doesn't last for six months!

We don't need to discuss these issues much more because I think they're proving a distraction. I think it's much more important to concentrate how we can make the NHL challenges more challenging.

I think we can split the rules/restrictions into three main categories: Roster, Trades and Financial. I've tried to summarise the current rules and have added suggestions in this thread in blue. Let me know if I've missed something out. At least looking at the list may provide inspiration on how to solve this issue:

Financial
TBL-assigned budget

Roster
Core roster players / Home-grown players
Must coach all games and use your own team selection & tactics

Trades
Can only trade Draft Picks for the upcoming Draft
Must have at least one first and second round Draft Pick for every challenge season
No-trade period (15 July - 14 Sept)
No trades on Draft day
No more than two FA's signed a season
FA's can only be signed during the summer
No FA's signed until after the end of season 1
No trades until after game 20 of season 1

Post by **Shadd666** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:47 pm

timmy_t: nice to see that your thoughts are far from what was supposed in your controversial post.

Now that this episode is over, let's go back to the real purpose of this thread.

I can see the point of different challenges, with different levels. I even thought once about a promotion/relegation organisation through the multiple challenges. But well, it would be a lot of extra-work, and as Bruins mentionned, we don't have that much free time on our own on a recurrent basis. It's not like if organising challenges was our job. Else it wouldn't be a problem. But this is just for fun, and made on free time, which means that real life comes always comes first and somehow prevents us from doing such big things. I guess you have no difficulty to understand that

Other issue is the number of challengers. As mentionned before, we have just about 15-20 guys playing... Splitting it in two is probably not a very good idea. Combined with all the extra-work it would mean, it doesn't worth it. If we had something around 40-50 challengers, we should certainly give it more thoughts, and would maybe need to do so. But that's not (yet) the case.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:51 pm

Nice summary there, Archi... and way to get us all back on track. Let's keep this constructive and applicable to what we're going to be working with on Challenge 10. We can worry about other challenges later.

So what about the database used? In the past we've given people the choice between the 3.04 default rosters and the TBL:DB. Now that we've got the TBL Update (using 07-08 season rosters), I think we should use this database for the next challenge. Several people put a lot of work into this database so the TBL community could enjoy it. I think it's only fitting that we use it for the TBL challenges. It is easy enough to install a second DB and start a new game from it. If people follow the directions, there is no risk to their original data. What are people's thoughts on this?

One of the things with the TBL Update is that players have their 07-08 season salaries and the NHL has the 07-08 salary cap. This means that our existing TBL challenge budget is too small. I doubt many teams would be able to fit under it as it is. So we'd need to adjust that. Batdad had a good idea for this. Since our old TBL budget was $36M while the Salary Cap was $44M, we should make the new TBL Budget $8M less than the salary cap. So since the salary cap is $50M in the TBL Update, we'd be working with a TBL budget of $42M. That would work well for the teams we discussed in the other challenge 10 thread. A couple of them would have to shed a little salary from their payroll but it's definitely do-able.

Post by **archibalduk** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:22 pm

Using the updated rosters would also mix things up with regards to new rosters. Having played a fair few Challenges using the original EHM 2007 rosters, it'd be nice to see a change.

If one were to be strictly mathematical/scientific with regards to changing the budget, you could say that the original cap of $36m was 81.8% of the $44m cap, and so it should be the same proportion of the new $50m cap. Thus the new budget should be $40.9m (or round it up to a nice $41m. Nick would agree with me anyway

The future of challenges at TBL

Is it time for a non NHL challenge at TBL?