Challenge Questions & Feedback Thread

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:35 pm

Same here, batdad. I like scrappy teams and I'll still have my goon(s) but it's just too easy to make a guy have an insane amount of penalty minutes. It's not a good challenge stat.

Post by **visualdarkness** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:43 pm

I would like to see a goalie stat instead of the PIM. I would say that getting a good SV% is much harder than getting insane amount of PIM or goals. Not that I ever could challenge the top guys in that stat (pointing ät Batdad).

Post by **batdad** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:43 pm

No it is not. Never has been. I remember talking about it way back when. And then I just dropped it, and decided to beat Lidas in that stat each and every challenge season. That has always been my only goal in the last several challenges...do not let Lidas get the top PIM guy.

Post by **Lidas** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:09 am

I believe I suggested to use a goalie stat instead of PIM, which will probably favor Batdad the most. I think I suggested SV% as GAA is too connected to Goals against, and we already count wins.

Using PIM as a challenge stat just makes it too unrealistic, and it doesnt require much skill to put a goon on berserk and encouraged fighting, resulting in 1000+ PIMs.

Post by **Danny** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:05 am

Is he who shall not be named Marleau or Nitty ?

ooops

Post by **visualdarkness** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:53 am

Lidas wrote:I believe I suggested to use a goalie stat instead of PIM, which will probably favor Batdad the most. I think I suggested SV% as GAA is too connected to Goals against, and we already count wins.

Using PIM as a challenge stat just makes it too unrealistic, and it doesnt require much skill to put a goon on berserk and encouraged fighting, resulting in 1000+ PIMs.

SV% is based on setting up a sound defensive system and not overly connected to goals against, so i agree that it should be the goalie stat if any.

Post by **batdad** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:10 pm

Danny---He who shall not be named is Marleau.

Save percentage is a good one.

Post by **visualdarkness** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:22 pm

batdad wrote:Danny---He who shall not be named is Marleau.

Save percentage is a good one.

Too bad that you will win it every challenge, lets start making defensive systems everyone!

toddpaul · Post by **toddpaul** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:55 pm

visualdarkness wrote:
batdad wrote:Danny---He who shall not be named is Marleau.

Save percentage is a good one.
Too bad that you will win it every challenge, lets start making defensive systems everyone!

I've been trying to tinker with a defensive system for a while now. It's a more realistic NHL style of play IMO, over the all-out offense that is so easy to create.

Being said, excited about a challenge in Junior. Hopefully it's the O as follow it quite a bit. When is it expected to start up by the way, closer to the summer?

Post by **visualdarkness** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:59 pm

toddpaul wrote:
visualdarkness wrote:
batdad wrote:Danny---He who shall not be named is Marleau.

Save percentage is a good one.
Too bad that you will win it every challenge, lets start making defensive systems everyone!
I've been trying to tinker with a defensive system for a while now. It's a more realistic NHL style of play IMO, over the all-out offense that is so easy to create.

Being said, excited about a challenge in Junior. Hopefully it's the O as follow it quite a bit. When is it expected to start up by the way, closer to the summer?

I have yet to try a defensive realistic tactic for a full season, it's so to just fall back into old habits. I'm also pumped up for a junior challenge as I barely played any seasons (can't remember) in one the leagues.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:22 pm

toddpaul wrote: Being said, excited about a challenge in Junior. Hopefully it's the O as follow it quite a bit. When is it expected to start up by the way, closer to the summer?

We're hoping to do it sooner than that. Maybe in the next few weeks. It's just a matter of some testing and working out the kinks with the rules applied to Junior.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:51 am

We need to make sure everyone thoroughly reads and understands the rules before entering. It seemed to me as if there were WAY too many people who didn't post their stats - and especially their screenshots - properly.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:40 pm

Good point, jbsnadb!

kuulapaa · Post by **kuulapaa** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 pm

Would it be possible to decide two different deadlines for a challenge every now and then, for example twice a year or so? The other deadline/challenge would be for those who cannot play the challenge so quickly. Next normal challenge would start before this kind of prolonged challenge would end and you could also restrict the amount of seasons played so that those who play fast and furious, wouldn't post their 32nd season in it.

Viva slowness!

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:00 pm

Interesting idea, kuulapaa. Like you, I play very slowly. My major concern with this idea is that there will only be a small handful of us that are still playing the old challenge while everyone else will be playing the new challenge. I know right now it takes a long time for us to get the results from the challenges (everyone points and the winner) up on the board but Archi is working on a way to make this run smoother and happen more quickly. So if we had a handful of us playing to the longer deadline, everyone else would be held up waiting for the results. Also, if we're still playing the old challenge, we'll be missing out on the new challenge. We want as many people as possible to participate in each challenge but by running multiple challenges at the same time, we'd be working against ourselves.

Did all that make sense?

Post by **visualdarkness** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:10 pm

bruins72 wrote:Interesting idea, kuulapaa. Like you, I play very slowly. My major concern with this idea is that there will only be a small handful of us that are still playing the old challenge while everyone else will be playing the new challenge. I know right now it takes a long time for us to get the results from the challenges (everyone points and the winner) up on the board but Archi is working on a way to make this run smoother and happen more quickly. So if we had a handful of us playing to the longer deadline, everyone else would be held up waiting for the results. Also, if we're still playing the old challenge, we'll be missing out on the new challenge. We want as many people as possible to participate in each challenge but by running multiple challenges at the same time, we'd be working against ourselves.

Did all that make sense?

I was thinking the same thing. It takes a couple of participants to make the challenges a real competition and by dividing the players in two smaller groups, if you ask me, makes each one less thrilling.
I'm also a slow player (slow thinker...) but, if I've understood things right, most seasons after the first ones don't count anyway due to a lack of players. What's currently the limit?

It would be fun to see the draft picks develop but it would take ages for most of us.

kuulapaa · Post by **kuulapaa** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:36 am

bruins72 wrote:Interesting idea, kuulapaa. Like you, I play very slowly.

It was you who I was counting on when I wrote about my idea, the same way that you recognized me as one of the slow boys

bruins72 wrote:My major concern with this idea is that there will only be a small handful of us that are still playing the old challenge while everyone else will be playing the new challenge. I know right now it takes a long time for us to get the results from the challenges (everyone points and the winner) up on the board but Archi is working on a way to make this run smoother and happen more quickly. So if we had a handful of us playing to the longer deadline, everyone else would be held up waiting for the results. Also, if we're still playing the old challenge, we'll be missing out on the new challenge. We want as many people as possible to participate in each challenge but by running multiple challenges at the same time, we'd be working against ourselves.

Did all that make sense?

It made sense, alright, actually there were many things I was thinking about too.

I would consider "the slow challenge" as a different challenge from the normal speed one - actually it wouldn't bother me if the slow one wouldn't be considered as a competition at all but merely an examination or study. Either way I would keep it's points separated from normal speed challenges because while playing slowly one is able to concentrate in the challenge better - or if you want to think more wretched way, one is able to re-play his sims if he's not satisfied in them first (or even third) time.

What comes to missing out the next challenge, it's a choice one makes. I have missed out all the challenges last winter because I haven't enough time to play them 'til the deadlines. This way there would be a way to play 1-2 challenges during the IRL NHL season - now my only possibility to attend in a challenge is summer when I have more free time. And yes, I know I can play all the challenges by myself without any deadlines, but it just isn't the same when there's no-one to share it with - or compete with.

Viva slowness!

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:52 pm

The primary issue is that different people have different demands on their time. Some of us with families, full-time jobs and other obligations may only have time to devote for a season or two, while others may be students, unemployed or whatnot that have a whole lot more time to give to the game in general and the challenges in particular.

Perhaps it would be best to either a) Make the challenge longer from the start; or b) give the option of continuing the challenge as we get towards the deadline via poll or mod decision.

I know I was able to devote more time to the challenge as the deadline approached, but was unable to get the third season completed in time to post.

Post by **Lidas** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:06 pm

Making the challenge longer makes a lot of sense.

The aim of the challenge is focusing on developing your own roster instead of trading and bringing in UFAs - but as it is now, not many players we draft (and quite few prospects too) actually get developed enough to make the first squad. Making it longer would make it possible to actually use your prospects.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:57 pm

I think that will definitely help, along with sufficient trading restrictions. Seeing Oiler squads with Carter, Malkin, Crosby, Ovechkin, etc. was - IMHO - patently ridiculous, especially since those players were acquired at the expense of prospects to be developed. I know it was complicated, but I would not be averse to bringing back the homegrown rules to some degree to both guarantee prospects remain in your system and to stop the crazy trades for top-calibre players.

Perhaps the one-for-one trades will do that. If the Pens want to give up Malkin straight-up for Penner or Horcoff, then I can't begrudge someone for pulling the trigger. But getting him because of trading Gagner and MPS (for example) defeats the whole purpose of what the CHALLENGEs try to accomplish.

And I do feel the need to call some of these deals into question since so many people posted "Players In" screenshots instead of "Trades" during this challenge and did this for multiple seasons. Is there someone tasked to mointor this type of thing (during the actual challenge) so the problems can be rectified?

kuulapaa · Post by **kuulapaa** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:28 pm

If someone wants to change his every challenge team into a star parade, I think he should be able to do so. I've suggested this before, but I'll do it again now. I think there should be a +/- -point system (I recall I talked about bonus system earlier), where a GM developing his own prospects would get + -points and a GM who trades them for star players would get - -points. That wouldn't restrict anyone but would only direct people making decisions that might be more realistic.

Post by **McQwak** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:10 pm

As for trades: I think we already found solution. We can use reputation combined with 1-1 or in some case 2-2 trades.
I already suggested such trade limits, which should work well.

And as for developing players: I mentioned it couple of months ago, too, but... what about to set minimum number of seasons required?

b72 wrote valid arguments against my suggestions

Post by **McQwak** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:13 pm

Just to add: I'm in slowmen squad, too

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:38 pm

I think that the length of challenge should be extended, with at least three seasons played.

What do you think about points being awarded over the life of the challenge rather than season by season? Do you think that might encourage consistency of roster? Am I way off base? I'm starting to feel that way

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:24 pm

visualdarkness wrote: I was thinking the same thing. It takes a couple of participants to make the challenges a real competition and by dividing the players in two smaller groups, if you ask me, makes each one less thrilling.
I'm also a slow player (slow thinker...) but, if I've understood things right, most seasons after the first ones don't count anyway due to a lack of players. What's currently the limit?

It would be fun to see the draft picks develop but it would take ages for most of us.

I would say that the 4th season is really the cutoff for where we get a really good number of people playing. Sometimes it's the 3rd. The most we have the stats spreadsheet setup for is 7 seasons. I suppose you could do more than that but it would be kind of a waste for challenge purposes because you'll probably only see 2 or 3 people (if that) go that far.