EHM The Blue Line

Hi folks! I was wondering what everyone's feelings were on the current challenge trade rules. Is the 1 for 1 deal too strict? Does this keep you from participating in the challenges?

Please vote in the poll and then give your thoughts in a comment below.

Thanks!

I do think the 1 for 1 is too strict. I'm not sure about 2 for 1 or 2 for 2 either. I understand the need for limiting trades and stopping people from completing ripping apart the team, but I also find that the challenges almost always try and find the worst possible team that seem more like a long term project than a short-term challenge.

I find that usually by the time the 2nd season is part way through I'm just frustrated with how the team is performing and don't really want to continue playing.

I am not going to vote as I have not been participating much lately with my schedule.

I feel that it is possible to allow one of these things to happen (player choice)

You trade player plus pick for player
you trade player for pick plus player

you trade Pick for player plus player

you trade player plus player for player plus player.
you trade player for player

Any of those three options can be selected for each year of the challenge. However...once you do a trade for a pick you may not do one the next season. So can only trade FOR a pick every 2 years. you can only AWAY a pick every 2 years as well.

And of course...one trade per year.

Interesting ideas, Batdad. I'd like to see what others think of that.

Loosie, I do understand your frustration. That's a big part of the reason why I started this poll. I've been frustrated with this too at times.

bruins72 wrote:Interesting ideas, Batdad. I'd like to see what others think of that.

Loosie, I do understand your frustration. That's a big part of the reason why I started this poll. I've been frustrated with this too at times.

I wonder if it is the limitations of trading or signing that makes the game stagnant? It is inevitable that by the third season the team still needs to get more than two pieces to get over the hump. (I'm saying two because one for the trade and one that you sign for 2 million.)

I still like 1 for 1 trades though.

For the most part I dont mind the 1 for 1 trade. What I think would help though is to add one more trade of a single player going out for a draft pick ( 1 only ) . There is always someone on my team who either doesn’t perform or doesn’t fit in with my team plans. Being able to dump that player at the deadline for a single draft pick would be good as it still allows more for development of a team.

timmy_t wrote:

bruins72 wrote:Interesting ideas, Batdad. I'd like to see what others think of that.

Loosie, I do understand your frustration. That's a big part of the reason why I started this poll. I've been frustrated with this too at times.

I wonder if it is the limitations of trading or signing that makes the game stagnant? It is inevitable that by the third season the team still needs to get more than two pieces to get over the hump. (I'm saying two because one for the trade and one that you sign for 2 million.)

I still like 1 for 1 trades though.

This is a good point Timmy. Maybe it is not the trade thing? Maybe need to loosen up Free Agency a bit? Let the guys sign one guy after year one....no matter the cost? Then go back to the other rules? Or have a one year exemption on FRee Agency after year 2.....actually I like this more. Rewards guys for continuing.

Between season 2 and season 3, maybe allow the guys a shot at signing Free Agents no matter the deal or $ amount??? Keep em playing longer?

Then allow it every 3 years?

Other 2 years following the normal rule of Free Agent claims.

Trading: Could still do that loosening up as well?

What about going back to the old Core, and home grown system. I kinda liked that. I liked the idea of being forced to develop your own guys.

I liked the core and home grown system but it was confusing for some folks and a lot to manage. It also forced certain moves. I didn't like when I had to rush a player into the lineup or force one out due to the homegrown rule.

I like the 1 for 1 limitation as earlier it was way too easy to completly rip of the AI. I would rather see two trades at 1 for 1 rather than one 2 for 2, that would open it up a bit. Maybe allowing one trade before the first season starts could ease up the restricions? Though that would make things like "brutal goalie challenges" almost non-existing.

I think the main problem is how limited the tactics engine is combined with the lack of possibility to change the roster. I think many feel that they have to go ultra offensive on tactics and and click on a pre-made one, that together with a lack movement makes it kind of stale. If only I knew Batdads defence tactics.

I doubt Batdan does the same tactics every challenge. While he keeps it defensive, its much more in your interest to tailor it to your squad.

Exactly my dear thunderbug. Things change. SOmetimes physical, sometimes not. Sometimes more offensive than others....varies between lines as well and players.

For UFA signings... how about 1 player for up to $3M or 2 players for up to $1M each? Or 1 player for up to $3M or 2 players for a combined $2M? Then maybe a special option to make 1 big signing going into season 4, 1 player up to $5M. This would be an incentive to keep playing the challenge longer. Is this too much? I know I often feel like my hands are tied during UFA season and that I don't really have the ability to do much. Thoughts?

And I've been thinking about what's been said about trades. I'm thinking about allowing one trade of 1 player for 1 player AND one trade of 1 player for 1 draft pick or 1 draft pick for 1 player. The draft pick would have to be no better than a 2nd rounder (no 1st rounders allowed). Does this seem fair? I don't want to make it too easy for people to build over-powered rosters (like in the past) but I'd like to make things a little more interesting for everyone.

I'm hoping that these two ideas would keep people interested in continuing to play the challenges for more than 1 or 2 seasons. I'd love to hear some feedback from my challenge regulars, people new to challenges, and people who've been thinking about participating but haven't joined in yet.

batdad wrote:Exactly my dear thunderbug. Things change. SOmetimes physical, sometimes not. Sometimes more offensive than others....varies between lines as well and players.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the knowledge of how to set the defensive tactics.

AH. That is easy. Play to the strengths of each and every player you have. And make sure that your naff players are mean silly billies.

B72--I like the ideas, they work for me.

bruins72 wrote:For UFA signings... how about 1 player for up to $3M or 2 players for up to $1M each? Or 1 player for up to $3M or 2 players for a combined $2M? Then maybe a special option to make 1 big signing going into season 4, 1 player up to $5M. This would be an incentive to keep playing the challenge longer. Is this too much? I know I often feel like my hands are tied during UFA season and that I don't really have the ability to do much. Thoughts?

And I've been thinking about what's been said about trades. I'm thinking about allowing one trade of 1 player for 1 player AND one trade of 1 player for 1 draft pick or 1 draft pick for 1 player. The draft pick would have to be no better than a 2nd rounder (no 1st rounders allowed). Does this seem fair? I don't want to make it too easy for people to build over-powered rosters (like in the past) but I'd like to make things a little more interesting for everyone.

I'm hoping that these two ideas would keep people interested in continuing to play the challenges for more than 1 or 2 seasons. I'd love to hear some feedback from my challenge regulars, people new to challenges, and people who've been thinking about participating but haven't joined in yet.

Those ideas sounds good to me.
It will mean a little more work for you(or whoever helps out to check these things)

The challenge participants have been pretty active in policing each other. It shouldn't be too bad.