Challenge Questions/Feedback? Post Here!

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:46 pm

I could be in favor of that. There've been way too many 3-for-1 and 4-for-2 deals.

Post by **batdad** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:51 pm

That was also suggested way back when. Not liked by some. Anyway, carry on.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:02 pm

I think part of the issue is with the rosters (and by this I mean no disrespect for Lidas who has done an incredible job).

By this I mean there is too much salary room between where the Isles start off and how much the budget has allocated. It makes it too easy to beef up the roster with higher priced stars because there is room in the budget to do so.

Just a thought

Post by **batdad** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:09 pm

Nope not the rosters. People's choices.

Post by **batdad** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:14 pm

Got no problem with new people playing the challenges.

As long as

1. They don't PM mods (who do this for free Hartmans) and waste the time of the mods...about every little thing to do with the challenge. Ask questions in the forum.
2. They read all the rules of the challenges like they are FREAKING told too.
3. They follow the SPIRIT of the challenges, which is not to turn over the roster every 5 games.
4. They pay attention to what they are told.
5. They don't whine about stuff.

So...realizing there is a post that was here and is now gone I am saying...just play the game by the rules AND spirit of the challenges and stop whining.

As I said, this is it for me. My life is busier than ever and I don't have as much time for the site as I used to. It may appear I am on all the time, but I just don't sign out alot.

Anyway, what I am saying is. Since I don't have time to babysit, and I don't get paid to babysit here. I will be leaving challenges out of my life for the future.

Salming · Post by **Salming** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:43 pm

bruins72 wrote:I wonder if maybe in addition to our current trade restriction we could limit the number of trades per season? Or the number of players traded in and out each season?

the later sounds good.

mustardstew · Post by **mustardstew** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:30 am

Salming wrote:
bruins72 wrote:I wonder if maybe in addition to our current trade restriction we could limit the number of trades per season? Or the number of players traded in and out each season?
the later sounds good.

I agree with Salming...
If the limit were 5 and 5 (or 4 and 4), if you get a 3 or 4 for 1 or 2 deal... you're kinda at the wall...esp. with the draft pick / unsigned prospect restriction... seems a good compromise without rules insanity for everyone / mods....

and allows you to be free-wheeling Mike Milbury... for a day

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:43 pm

mustardstew wrote: and allows you to be free-wheeling Mike Milbury... for a day

Nobody wants to be like Mike Milbury!

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:52 pm

Forgive me if I have stated this before.

I think a return to some form of the core players rules should be revisited for the next challenge. It will cut down on the number of trades, as well as the insanity that led to rosters like those highlighted in the Challenge Discussion Thread.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:58 pm

The one problem with the Core rosters that was a real issue for the mods/admins was that it was very time intensive. We had to go through and compare everyone's cores for each season against their screenshots and make sure they made their minimum games. This was in addition to going over all of the other stats and screenshots. It just got to be a bit much. Our intention with this last challenge was to really limit trading by cutting out the unsigned prospects trading and limiting the draft pick trading. Obviously, we overestimated that impact. I think with a few other rules to restrict trading we can really bring things back to reality. I've got a few ideas up my sleeve...

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:37 am

Having not participated in previous challenges, I was unaware of the burden caused by core rosters. Perhaps a happy medium?

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:14 am

Well, you've got to figure, each person keeps track of their core roster in the spreadsheet. What is it? 10 or 12 players in the first season? I forget exactly. Then it drops in the following seasons but homegrowns are added. So each participant in the challenge has a spreadsheet tracking this. Now figure having to keep track over that for everyone in the challenge and then matching them all up against screenshots. It just got a bit cumbersome and time consuming. There are other ways to regulate the team turnover without resorting to the core rosters. I think a few more restrictions to trading will help cover that. Maybe more emphasis on development and player growth?

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:36 pm

Any chance of doing core players without the games played restriction? Much like the HG's now, have a way to make sure that there are certain guys who remain on the roster for 'x' amount of time.

Post by **archibalduk** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:17 pm

We'd like to hold our hands up and say that this latest Challenge hasn't gone quite as we planned. With the extra rules we introduced, it has left it wide open for users and Mods to aggressively trade out the majority of players and bring in an entire new roster. We take full responsibility for this as it is our fault for not writing the rules well enough rather than users exploiting them (all users have played exactly to the rules). Some users and Mods have understandably become disheartened about the situation.

This has demonstrated quite how complicated the rules have become over the past three and a half years. The reason for all of these rules is to try and keep the Challenges realistic and a challenge. However, it's gotten to the point that there are so many rules, that users are having to regularly ask us to explain the rules and this must be quite intimidating for prospective new competitors.

Sorry for the doom and gloom of this post! But out of this doom and gloom, we have something positive to say: We have taken the decision to completely overhaul the Challenge in its entirety. The emphasis of the new rules are going to be on simplicity. We have begun brainstorming and discussing how we can go about improving the Challenges, and we think we have come up with a very promising new plan. We're going for a very fresh approach which will hopefully reignite everybody's enthusiasm for the Challenges. The basic format is going to remain the same (i.e. quarterly recording, the same stats will be recorded, etc) but the rules are going to be much fewer and significantly more straightforward. Of course, the rules will need to be restrictive in order to prevent exploitation of EHM's weaknesses, but they will be restrictive in a very different way to the current rules.

In the coming weeks, we will be inviting a number of our regular Challenge users to test out the rules and get feedback from them. In the meantime, you may continue to play our NY Islanders Challenge but we may bring the deadline forward slightly from the 9th April deadline - possibly to the 29th March. We will try to give as much notice of any change as possible and will of course be flexible if the 29th March deadline is too soon for some users.

I hope you will all be as excited about the new changes as we are!

AvesFan101 · Post by **AvesFan101** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:19 am

Awesome news !
Looking forward to see what you guys come up with.

Post by **Lidas** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:44 am

I'll do my best to have a new database update out for the next challenge

Post by **Lidas** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:08 am

I've been thinking of a few additions and changes for next challenge, and this is what I came up with (for an NHL team).

* 1 homegrown per season. He should stay on the roster for at least 3 seasons, and play at least 50 games (2400min) season 1, 55 (2600 min) season 2, and 60 (2800 min) season 3.

* An NHL team must have at least 4GKs, 12DEFs, and 24FWDs signed and placed in the NHL team and its affiliates (not Jrs). This gives potentially 10 players to send back to juniors.

* Remove "young UFA" signings. A team is only allowed to sign 2 UFAs per season. The 2 UFAs for season 1 must be ineligleble for waivers, max 24 Y.O, and signed for 450K. By removing "young UFA" signings, it will put bigger focus on the draft and player development. Your signed UFAs are not allowed to be traded away the same season they are signed.

* Waiver signings are allowed, but a waiver signing is equivalent to an UFA signing. (i.e. max 2 UFA signings or waiver claims per season.) Since first year UFAs must be waiver ineligleble, its impossible to claim on waivers season 1. Waiver claims can be made at any time in the season, giving the opportunity no to use the UFA signings between July 1st and Aug 31, but instead take a gamble and hope that someone interesting gets waived.

* You are allowed to sign max 1 new AGM,HC or AC (only AC for season 1), 2 scouts, and 1 physio per season.

* You are only allowed to do 2 trades per year. A trade is only allowed to contain 3 "items" (players, draft picks, or prospects). (1in/1out, 2in/1out, or 1in,2out). You are allowed to use the trades to get higher draft picks, but must still have at least a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd round pick each season (unless the team starts without some of those picks).

* Extend the no-trade period. No trades at all after trade deadline (Feb 23) until the new season starts (July 1). Instead of trading players with expiring contracts just before deadline, it is now too easy to give the players a contract, and trade them when the transfer window opens (June 7).

* Maybe add screenshot requirements for staff/players in/out and drafted players.

By removing young UFA signings and restricting trades, it will only be possible to add 6 new players per year (outside of your own prospects). This should make the challenge more realistic (and hopefully more challenging).

I hope you can find something useful from my ideas. Flame away!

thunderbug · Post by **thunderbug** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:09 pm

I like them, but I can see them becoming cumbersome for new players. I could see us running into the same problem we did this time with them always asking questions. It's not that I don't mind answering questions, I think it would be a better situation for all if everything was simplified and restrictive at the same time.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:26 pm

I know the core rosters in previous challenges was a serious PITA, what with the games played requirements and all.

What about a variation: you need to select x number of players who must remain on your roster for the entire season. Whether they play or not is irrelevant, but they must be under contract with you from 1 July-30 June. This way, we are assured of less roster turnover each year.

Limiting the number of trades does not necessarily make it realistic. How many deals did Tornoto pull off on Tuesday? Philly has made no fewer than 4 trades this season.

I do think Lidas has a good idea about extending the no-trade period. I would be in favor of holding off until no earlier than 1 December. In fact, in season 2 of my Isles challenge I made 5 trades total: 3 before July 15th, and 2 at the deadline with none in between.

I like the current staff restrictions, but I think limiting the signings in subsequent season will hurt the team. I rarely resign scouts when their contract is expiring (they always ask for too much money - $250K/yr isn't worth it for most), and sometimes there are more to replace naturally (had 2 retire on me as well) without firing them than we would be able to replace.

Post by **archibalduk** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:40 pm

I've just got a spare five minutes to post this so I'm sorry I don't currently have the time to respond to all of your suggestions. However, for the new Challenge, we plan on completely removing the Homegrown and Core rules. It makes things too complicated for new (and veteran) users and it means a lot of monitoring for the Mods. We plan on making the trading rules much, much simpler but still restrictive so that team performance is realistic (i.e. so we're not all winning the playoffs in the first season with Nashville, Columbus, etc).

How about no trades whatsoever in the first season???

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:12 pm

Lidas, you've got some really good ideas there. We've just about got our new rules decided on (just some tweaking and testing to do) but I wonder if a couple of those ones you came up with might fit in. Thanks!

No flames here! Feedback and ideas to make the challenges better are always welcome!

kuulapaa · Post by **kuulapaa** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:08 pm

The word "realistic" comes up very often in this discussion. That's not bad, not bad at all since I'm a big reality-addict in all kinds of sports games I play. I still would like to remind that there is two kinds of realism in EHM. First there is the realism which comes when we compare the game to real life hockey. If we score 20 goals a game it's not realistic, that's for sure. I think this is the kind of "realistic" most of the writers mean. But there is another thing too. If my team can't do trades or claim players from waivers when the other teams in the league can, it's not "realistic". Now I don't mean to say it is wrong to regulate trading and all that activity, but I think there has to be some kind of balance with my trading and the level of trading the other teams do. Because if there isn't, it gets as "unrealistic" as scoring five times more per game than other teams in the league.

I know this wasn't very clearly put and it wasn't even a good or semi-good suggestion (or no suggestion at all), but I just wanted to say it.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:52 am

That's a very valid point. There are some players that are waived that might fit what I am looking to do that I can't pick up is very frustrating at times. Of course, I'm taking about depth guys, not the salary dump waiving that happens frequently (in game and in real life as well).

This past trading deadline has shown that real life can be more like EHM than we tend to realize.

Post by **archibalduk** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:23 pm

I guess the term "realistic" for the purposes of our Challenges is actually very difficult to define; yet it's one of, if not the, most important aspect of the Challenges. Within the constraints of EHM it would be impossible to make the game 100% realistic so we have to recognise that ultimate realism is never achievable (we can't control the game AI, for example). Additionally, to achieve a semblance of realism in the Challenge, we actually have to impose rules and regulations which in their very existence go against realism. Writing the Challenge rules is thus a difficult balancing act.

We've found in the past that if we give users too much scope to trade then they will sign all of the usual sorts of players (Niittymaki springs to mind) and they ship out the majority of the original team. If it isn't against the rules then fair enough, but is it really in the spirit of the Challenges? Look at our current NYI Challenge, we slipped up a bit with the rules-writing and now some users have completely changed the composition of their team. Is this realistic? Possibly more importantly, is this fun? I'd argue that this approach sucks out most/all of the fun out of the Challenge.

I think to me, realism means taking control of a team and performing to a similar level that they perform in real life. E.g. if we take control of Vancouver or SJ then there is a good chance of going far in the Playoffs, whereas if we take control of NYI or Minnesota, we're trying desperately to not finish in last place! Without this form of realism, then each Challenge becomes the same and it doesn't matter which team we take control of because we'll inevitably win the Presidents' Trophy and go far in the Playoffs.

Thus I think restrictive trade rules, resulting in a realistic performance of the team is a more desirable form of realism than more relaxed rules, making each Challenge feel the same.

But what I'm not trying to suggest is that having hundreds of rules and preventing trading is the best way to go about this. Somehow we have to figure out how we can maintain "realism" (at least, the "realism" I mention above) but whilst allowing users the freedom to make trades, change rosters, etc. I think the new rules we're working on are very much going in the right direction, but I don't know if we will ever be able to get the ultimate level of realism we all want within the constraints of EHM's game engine.

selne · Post by **selne** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:37 pm

What about this:

1. draft picks untouchable: must use all your draft picks in the draft and cannot trade for other picks.

2. UFA/RFA signings: only one UFA signing per season allowed, he must be european or if not european born he must play in Europe (because these player are harder to get and to keep)

3. trading allowed with prospects, rights, contracted players but one restriction:
only one component may be included in every trade. For example if you trade for a player you are only allowed to give up one of your players.

4. of course no trading for injured players.