EHM The Blue Line

We've had a lot of discussion in the Challenge Questions and Feedback thread about the duration of the challenges. Currently, we have a 2 month (real time) deadline. Everyone plays as many seasons as they can in that 2 month span. Some people (myself included) play EHM very slowly and can only log a few seasons in that length of time. Others whip through 7 seasons in one month and then sit waiting for the next challenge. What is your preference?

I voted for four, but wouldn't be averse to splitting the difference and going three. With the extended challenge time, I would also love to see a quick turnaround between challenges as well, having time to plan the next while the first is going on to appease those who rush through and then wait.

Just my 2 cents.

Easier said than done on the quick turn around. Those of us that plan the challenges also like to play in them. The last few challenges have mostly been planned by Lidas, Manimal, and myself. Also, there's a lot involved in planning the challenges since there is usually rule changes or rosters being updated. The downtime between challenges isn't something we're trying to do. We kick them off as soon as we're done testing/planning/updating.

I think the current structure is fine. As Bruins72 said, activity really goes down after a certain amount of time and that is what's important, I think. If there aren't much discussion about the challenge-team it kinda gets dull.

That's another good point you bring up, Manimal. Discussion! The more active the discussion stays, the more interest the challenge is. We need as many people as possible discussing their challenge games. Another thing I notice is that we'll have a bunch of people post something about their challenge game but we don't get many comments on other people's games. We learn more about the game by talking about each other's games! Plus, the whole fun of these challenges is comparing what you do to the way other people play.

bruins72 wrote:That's another good point you bring up, Manimal. Discussion! The more active the discussion stays, the more interest the challenge is. We need as many people as possible discussing their challenge games. Another thing I notice is that we'll have a bunch of people post something about their challenge game but we don't get many comments on other people's games. We learn more about the game by talking about each other's games! Plus, the whole fun of these challenges is comparing what you do to the way other people play.

I completely agree with that.

I also agree with that. I know that I learn a lot by reading the good and the bad from what other people are saying about their teams, but unfortunately, I don't post because I do so bad. Maybe by discussing my team as well, maybe help is out there for those like me that suffer through long losing seasons.

I could go either way with 2 months or four months. You could run into situations like work/school/family obligations and not have the time or energy in 2 months to play multiple seasons, but on the flip side, you have people that can play 6-7 seasons or more in a 2-4 month time frame as stated earlier.

How about starting with 3 months? If too many managers drop out early, we can go back to 2 next challenge, and if most managers keep playing we can try 4 next time...

Also, I'm not sure that 4 months would be good for next challenge since it will be a junior challenge, and we will not be able to keep/develop out talent that many seasons.

To get the full effect of junior leagues, you need to play a full cycle. In junior that is 5 years. Your guys play for you 16,17,18,19,20. Five seasons to get the full effect. And only the last season would be solely your team, to show the development of your players.

jbsnadb wrote:I voted for four, but wouldn't be averse to splitting the difference and going three. With the extended challenge time, I would also love to see a quick turnaround between challenges as well, having time to plan the next while the first is going on to appease those who rush through and then wait.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with that quick turnaround between challenges. This time between challenges is boring. But I understand that you have to test the next db and also take a rest - since you want to participate on every challenge

IMHO, 3 months would be ideal, so I voted for two

Haha, I also think 3 months is good, so I voted for four!

Laker2415 wrote:I also agree with that. I know that I learn a lot by reading the good and the bad from what other people are saying about their teams, but unfortunately, I don't post because I do so bad. Maybe by discussing my team as well, maybe help is out there for those like me that suffer through long losing seasons.

I could go either way with 2 months or four months. You could run into situations like work/school/family obligations and not have the time or energy in 2 months to play multiple seasons, but on the flip side, you have people that can play 6-7 seasons or more in a 2-4 month time frame as stated earlier.

Just because your team is doing poorly, that shouldn't stop you from discussing your team. Talk about the problems you're having. Maybe you'll get some advice? Maybe somebody else is having those same difficulties. Seriously, just because you're doing poorly, that shouldn't silence you. The chat thread isn't just about bragging.

Lidas wrote:How about starting with 3 months? If too many managers drop out early, we can go back to 2 next challenge, and if most managers keep playing we can try 4 next time...

Also, I'm not sure that 4 months would be good for next challenge since it will be a junior challenge, and we will not be able to keep/develop out talent that many seasons.

That makes sense. We should try 3 to start. Then once things are winding down in the challenge we can run a poll and see if people want to extend the challenge for another month or end it.

I play pretty quick, so I don't mind the 2 month system as is.

I'd have to agree with both Lidas and Batdad in that the length should tailor to the specific challenge and we should see what works best to have the most people playing. As for the length of the CHL challenge, I'd agree that one should play five seasons to get the full effect. Though, I've been playing around in the OHL and the second draft is miles better than the first one (91 birth date in the first draft, 92 in the second), making it considerably easier to win in years four and five.

There's still some time left on the poll but out of 20 votes, it's almost an even split between 2 and 4 months. Maybe we could go with 3 months to see how things go and then do a poll towards the end of that to see if people want to extend the challenge?

Manimal wrote:If there aren't much discussion about the challenge-team it kinda gets dull.

I would love to discuss challenges and blog about my team and read what goes on in other's challenges, but it all takes me several hours a week, especially writing in English is very time consuming. That is also one reason that made me think the deadlines are too tight. But now I'm thinking that as I'm not so competitive, I also could keep on playing and blogging after the deadline sometimes. I'm also interested in trying to develop an informative way of blogging with less amount of text.

bruins72 wrote:Maybe we could go with 3 months to see how things go and then do a poll towards the end of that to see if people want to extend the challenge?

I would've personally wanted to extend it straight to four months, but three months is 50% better than two months anyway.

I voted two, it's a sensible length for a challenge. However, I really think three months challenge duration would be worth giving a try. That would be my vote, if there was such an option.

I play rather slowly. My computer's really old, plus I usually have lots of work to do, and so extending the length of future challenges to three months would make sense to me. Rather not longer, though, as it may affect the people's involvement. And you guys are right saying it's the discussion that really makes the challenges that enjoyable.

I also think that three months is worth a try before extending it to four months.