Ideas for Season 2 - 2010-2011

Oilers_GM · Post by **Oilers_GM** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:50 pm

Hey guys -

just wanted to start a thread since one isn't already started to see what everyone thinks.

Any ideas on how to boost profile of the league, do things better, add more realism?

Some ideas i've heard in other leagues - besides the random boom/bust idea was to have some Russians decided no to come to their drafted team... or to resign with them.

I was also thinking of with the training camp idea... maybe a random player again.. but EHM team news lists players that are in shape and out of shape.. maybe if a 1 or 2 con drop for one player out of shape and a boost to one player in shape - so a random # generates # 4.... so 4th player (or 3rd if necessary) down the list of in shape and out of shape would get the boost or drop? I'm only suggesting one player since editing everyone else in those lists would be huge and I know Adam and Ryan don't want more work

thoughts or ideas??

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:10 am

maybe a +/- to endurance, but a drop to there CON is a sucky idea imo.

Jungle Cats · Post by **Jungle Cats** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:26 am

in/out of shape already nukes/boosts their endurance, i don't see any reason to pile on that.

Oilers_GM · Post by **Oilers_GM** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:21 pm

does the in shape out of shape?? i didn't think it did...

Jungle Cats · Post by **Jungle Cats** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:02 pm

yeah, it drops a player ten, which is particularly discouraging if you have a freshly drafted guy (who already has like 60ish) and he comes to camp with 51endurance.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:04 pm

Yeah, if a guy shows up in good shape he gets +10 to EN, -10 if out of shape.

I don't like the idea of any monkeying with the game mechanics outside of the game other than maybe the occasional minor CON bump as a reward for whatever.

I would like to see the AHL playoffs next year. It shouldn't be too much work if we use the NHL/AHL Suite available on fhockey.com.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:06 pm

Jungle Cats wrote:yeah, it drops a player ten, which is particularly discouraging if you have a freshly drafted guy (who already has like 60ish) and he comes to camp with 51endurance.

Blah, you beat me to it. For prospects I don't see how it's a big deal as EN develops pretty quickly. What sucks is when a veteran who is no longer developing shows up out of shape three straight seasons and goes from 75 EN to 45, and will never re-develop it.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:10 pm

Parker wrote:Yeah, if a guy shows up in good shape he gets +10 to EN, -10 if out of shape.

I don't like the idea of any monkeying with the game mechanics outside of the game other than maybe the occasional minor CON bump as a reward for whatever.

I would like to see the AHL playoffs next year. It shouldn't be too much work if we use the NHL/AHL Suite available on fhockey.com.

Parker, the problem I ran in to last year was that some affiliates that made the playoffs were in the opposite conference of the NHL parent club.

I think I've figured it out, though. So we should definitely have the AHL playoffs next year.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:24 pm

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Parker, the problem I ran in to last year was that some affiliates that made the playoffs were in the opposite conference of the NHL parent club.

I think I've figured it out, though. So we should definitely have the AHL playoffs next year.

Oh yeah, I never even thought about that. Duly noted.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:44 pm

I'm trying to think of a reward to keep your prospects in the Juniors.

With the Farm system training our prospects very fast, it's always better to send them there right away (not realistic). But, in this case, the Junior league reward could become a factor.

Ex: 1 year in the Juniors = +2 ceiling increase or something

DevilsGM · Post by **DevilsGM** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:50 pm

decent idea but I'm worried stats could get skewed that way considering we cant have all of our prospects move up anyway.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:06 pm

Penguin wrote:I'm trying to think of a reward to keep your prospects in the Juniors.

With the Farm system training our prospects very fast, it's always better to send them there right away (not realistic). But, in this case, the Junior league reward could become a factor.

Ex: 1 year in the Juniors = +2 ceiling increase or something

First year prospects can't count as underagers in the AHL?

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:18 pm

No. Sticking to 2 underagers is fine. But, having the option to keep a possible ''underager'' in the prospect pool so he can develop a bit more is a nice option.

IMO, guys that are 18-19 neeeed to stay in juniors to develop. They're not ready for the AHL yet.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:21 pm

I don't like the idea of a ceiling increase, but how about a leadership increase? Prospects start out with absolutely brutal LE attributes and even winning 16 playoff games a season for fifteen seasons doesn't guarantee that they'll max out their LE. Some kind of supplementary boost would be pretty sweet, and I don't see how it would affect game balance since everyone gets equal opportunity to play in juniors, unlike the playoffs (either NHL- or AHL-level).

Just throwing it out there, but I think it's kind of a cool idea.

DevilsGM · Post by **DevilsGM** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:24 pm

Thats pretty good idea, LE can be such a bitch to improve sometimes. You always have to go get guys with leadership would be nice if some of the young guys might have some already to build on.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:26 pm

Sounds good!

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:07 pm

I like the LE increase, hopefully if it is implemented we can count Steven Stamkos's run to the Cup last year

I know I have talked about off-season rewards before, but with this incredibly deep entry draft I think to balance the gamefile out it be a good idea. Nothing major, but for the GM's who survive the off-season layoff (or even all 30 regardless) get something like 6 CON points to use (max of 3 per player, CON can not exceed 70) and 30-50 ceiling points (max of 25 per player, ceiling can not exceed 100). I don't like tampering with the gamefile, but in terms of boosts these would be very minor changes but could have a significant impact if used properly.

thoughts?

DevilsGM · Post by **DevilsGM** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:13 pm

Not sure I like the ceiling idea, I know it was probably meant more for crappy players but imagine say I used them on like Fowler or something and boosted his offense and hitting as far as I could he would be an 88-88+(to lazy to caluclate right now

) but you get the idea could make for some really jacked up players unless I mixed up what you were trying to say. The CON idea I don't mind it can really help with some late guys you might pick up in the draft and it isn't anything to exessive.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:27 pm

Talking about this year, we have so many players that are pot boosters in this draft that having consistency rewards would make it even worse.

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:27 pm

DevilsGM wrote:Not sure I like the ceiling idea, I know it was probably meant more for crappy players but imagine say I used them on like Fowler or something and boosted his offense and hitting as far as I could he would be an 88-88+(to lazy to caluclate right now ) but you get the idea could make for some really jacked up players unless I mixed up what you were trying to say. The CON idea I don't mind it can really help with some late guys you might pick up in the draft and it isn't anything to exessive.

Ya, maybe making it a max of 85-90 on the ceiling. Not allowing it to be used on any player in this draft class as well.

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:29 pm

Penguin wrote:Talking about this year, we have so many players that are pot boosters in this draft that having consistency rewards would make it even worse.

Well, you couldn't give a CON boost to a player with a 70+ CON. Not being able to use the rewards on players in this draft class would fix that problem as well.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:32 pm

Alright well I'm in.

What about some sort of participation system for rewards? Like ITC? With a lot less file editing (no pot boosts, no height increase).

NashvilleGM · Post by **NashvilleGM** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:23 pm

Penguin wrote:No. Sticking to 2 underagers is fine. But, having the option to keep a possible ''underager'' in the prospect pool so he can develop a bit more is a nice option.

IMO, guys that are 18-19 neeeed to stay in juniors to develop. They're not ready for the AHL yet.

yeah I totally agree with that !

Post by **SharksGM** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:48 pm

Some players don't develop much in EHM juniors though...

I like the idea of ceiling boosts to pre-2010 draftees and capping to 100. Maybe also applied only to players who didn't have boosts at the beginning of the year either.

I don't know what to do about the goalies issue though... the way goalies develop in EHM means basically any <75 pot goalie is worthless. I'm not sure if that can be fixed though.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:52 pm

One little tip I'll give guys who have trouble with development in juniors, in case anyone's not aware of this:

Invite any prospect you care about to training camp and make sure you assign a training regimen to them. Otherwise they're on "REST" for the entire year in junior and the only development they'll get is what happens in the games. In my experience, training accounts for more than half of a player's development.

Also, while we're on the subject of goalie usefulness, does the league plan to implement a maximum games played rule for goalies? It was discussed a little bit early in the season but I don't think any decision was ever made.

NashvilleGM · Post by **NashvilleGM** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:03 pm

yup I agree with SJ and PHO about the goalie situation, it would be cool if we could figure out a way to increase the value of <75 pot goalies...

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:18 pm

Parker wrote:Also, while we're on the subject of goalie usefulness, does the league plan to implement a maximum games played rule for goalies? It was discussed a little bit early in the season but I don't think any decision was ever made.

This has been decided upon. It'll be posted after the draft shit settles down.

Jungle Cats · Post by **Jungle Cats** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:36 pm

Con boosts are contentious, particularly if they're going to prospects that another person might have drafted if not for the sub-70 con. We didn't have system in place for that, and thus we run the risk of having people divide on the issue - those who would benefit and those who might benefit less.

The leadership boost is the best one I've seen so far, and one that I can't see being very divisive - we should all be able to crank some utility out of that idea.

Femur · Post by **Femur** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:55 pm

how about "Nickel Beer Nights" on Wednesdays?

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:04 am

Jungle Cats wrote:Con boosts are contentious, particularly if they're going to prospects that another person might have drafted if not for the sub-70 con. We didn't have system in place for that, and thus we run the risk of having people divide on the issue - those who would benefit and those who might benefit less.

The leadership boost is the best one I've seen so far, and one that I can't see being very divisive - we should all be able to crank some utility out of that idea.

Everyone has pretty much agreed that CON boosts shouldn't be allowed on this years draftees.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:08 am

Femur wrote:how about "Nickel Beer Nights" on Wednesdays?

Down.

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:17 am

Tampa Bay GM wrote:I like the LE increase, hopefully if it is implemented we can count Steven Stamkos's run to the Cup last year

I know I have talked about off-season rewards before, but with this incredibly deep entry draft I think to balance the gamefile out it be a good idea. Nothing major, but for the GM's who survive the off-season layoff (or even all 30 regardless) get something like 6 CON points to use (max of 3 per player, CON can not exceed 70) and 30-50 ceiling points (max of 25 per player, ceiling can not exceed 100). I don't like tampering with the gamefile, but in terms of boosts these would be very minor changes but could have a significant impact if used properly.

thoughts?

Yeah, I'm in favor of a small CON/ceiling boost to reward activity. It's not that ridiculous like in some leagues where boosts are given out like candy and 85OA centers are playing on the third line of lottery teams. And it can definitely be restricted so that the players boosted don't get insanely good out of nowhere (like maximum CON boost, maximum ceiling boost, no 2010 draftees, etc.).

Fedz · Post by **Fedz** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:14 pm

CapsGM wrote:
Tampa Bay GM wrote:I like the LE increase, hopefully if it is implemented we can count Steven Stamkos's run to the Cup last year

I know I have talked about off-season rewards before, but with this incredibly deep entry draft I think to balance the gamefile out it be a good idea. Nothing major, but for the GM's who survive the off-season layoff (or even all 30 regardless) get something like 6 CON points to use (max of 3 per player, CON can not exceed 70) and 30-50 ceiling points (max of 25 per player, ceiling can not exceed 100). I don't like tampering with the gamefile, but in terms of boosts these would be very minor changes but could have a significant impact if used properly.

thoughts?
Yeah, I'm in favor of a small CON/ceiling boost to reward activity. It's not that ridiculous like in some leagues where boosts are given out like candy and 85OA centers are playing on the third line of lottery teams. And it can definitely be restricted so that the players boosted don't get insanely good out of nowhere (like maximum CON boost, maximum ceiling boost, no 2010 draftees, etc.).

I love the con/ceiling boost idea for two reasons. 1) It helps keep teams active and allows a real life feeling where players come out of nowhere. ie mason raymond and how much he sucks in this file. 2) With how great this draft is allowing each team to improve 1-2 prospects to play catch up is probably a good thing or you'll see that NJ will go 82-0 in the near future. Hahah.

Count me in for a CON/Ceiling boost for 3 prospects max, and I'd put stips on who gets em saying they have to be used on players under the age of 25 and cant of played more than 82 games in the NHL.

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:40 pm

boo on Lee's 82 game idea lol, why should that matter? your penalizing teams with exceptional young players. obv im bias with Stamkos but I bet teams with players like Hedman, Tavares, Doughty etc would agree with me as well. Comparing those players pot/con/ceilings with the talent in this draft, theres a clear edge to this years entry draft. I don't think I need to argue that Drew Doughty is a better player now, and will most likely be better hockey player then Cam Fowler for the next 20 years. I'm not trying to say Cam Fowler is garbage, he's sick but Drew Doughty is a monster. With a con/ceiling boost in the right areas by LA could make a player like Drew Doughty develop in game a lot closer to what he' appears to be turning into irl (or already is imo).

Commish Bub(NYR) · Post by **Commish Bub(NYR)** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:57 pm

I'm for some small versions of pot/con boosts, and ditto for leadership. Getting the AHL playoffs going will help some with the latter, imo. Not sure about the game limit Lee suggested, but some sort of age limit should be there, like no one over 24 yrs old, e.g.

Also, I'd like to see some review of the file to bring some of the player weights up to snuff. Can't remember who, but isn't there a highly rated (or at least decent) prospect in this year's draft who's listed at 120 pounds? It may not be super super critical, but it does help with hitting and strength development.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:14 pm

Bub(NYR) wrote:Also, I'd like to see some review of the file to bring some of the player weights up to snuff. Can't remember who, but isn't there a highly rated (or at least decent) prospect in this year's draft who's listed at 120 pounds? It may not be super super critical, but it does help with hitting and strength development.

I'm assuming I meant to put 210. Who is it?

Commish Bub(NYR) · Post by **Commish Bub(NYR)** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:36 pm

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:I'm assuming I meant to put 210. Who is it?

Erm, you would have to ask....I'll check and get back to you.

DevilsGM · Post by **DevilsGM** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:19 pm

From all my expeiences with EHM never had weight affect a player in anyway, that being said I have also never seen a 120 pound prospect.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:02 pm

While we're on the topic of ideas and upgrades...

I have decided that I will add 10-20 pounds to each of this year's draftees. Obviously, their playing weight will not be their draft weight.

So I will add 10 pounds to guys below 6', 15 pounds to guys who are 6'1", and 20 pounds to guys who are over 6'2". Their bodies will fill out and it's only realistic to do that in the league as well.

From what I have gathered, weight also affects HI like height does. If it doesn't, this change is marginal. If it does, it's worthwhile.

Jungle Cats · Post by **Jungle Cats** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:09 pm

I've never tested that it does either way (although i believe weight to be cosmetic), but if some people maintain that it does, let's see if it does, far be it from me to perpetuate my own conceptions over others.

DevilsGM · Post by **DevilsGM** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:17 pm

Yea I don't believe the weight does affect anything but I totally support it from the development and filling out stand point, we don't want to end up with a ridiculous amount of tall but skinny guys.

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:36 am

Tampa Bay GM wrote:boo on Lee's 82 game idea lol, why should that matter? your penalizing teams with exceptional young players. obv im bias with Stamkos but I bet teams with players like Hedman, Tavares, Doughty etc would agree with me as well. Comparing those players pot/con/ceilings with the talent in this draft, theres a clear edge to this years entry draft. I don't think I need to argue that Drew Doughty is a better player now, and will most likely be better hockey player then Cam Fowler for the next 20 years. I'm not trying to say Cam Fowler is garbage, he's sick but Drew Doughty is a monster. With a con/ceiling boost in the right areas by LA could make a player like Drew Doughty develop in game a lot closer to what he' appears to be turning into irl (or already is imo).

Yeah, I don't think that a cap on age/games played is necessary. If a GM wants to boost the ceilings of a 26-27 year old, then that's his call. I don't see an issue of a ceiling maximum - for instance, 30 points max for a single player, and 110 maximum for a player between 70-79POT, 100 maximum for a player with 80+POT, etc.

However, I do think that it's a good idea to have only players that have stayed with their original team be eligible to receive boosts.

Commish Bub(NYR) · Post by **Commish Bub(NYR)** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:33 am

The 120 pounder is Tyler Toffoli. It looks like Vik used 120# as a default value when leaving blank players in the file.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:41 am

Bub(NYR) wrote:The 120 pounder is Tyler Toffoli. It looks like Vik used 120# as a default value when leaving blank players in the file.

Noted, it will be edited post-draft. Along with three names I have to fix and a defenseman who also plays C.

Commish Bub(NYR) · Post by **Commish Bub(NYR)** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:09 am

Also, Radko Gudas (around #145) is listed as a goalie, but is a defenseman.

Post by **SharksGM** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:35 pm

CapsGM wrote:However, I do think that it's a good idea to have only players that have stayed with their original team be eligible to receive boosts.

What would the point of that be? The only issue I can think that would solve is piling multiple upgrades onto the same player, but that's easily solved by... well, not allowing multiple upgrades on the same player.

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:15 pm

SharksGM wrote:
CapsGM wrote:However, I do think that it's a good idea to have only players that have stayed with their original team be eligible to receive boosts.
What would the point of that be? The only issue I can think that would solve is piling multiple upgrades onto the same player, but that's easily solved by... well, not allowing multiple upgrades on the same player.

It could be unfair for the team who traded the upgraded player for say a second round pick, but if he were upgraded, he would be worth a late first.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:12 pm

CapsGM wrote:It could be unfair for the team who traded the upgraded player for say a second round pick, but if he were upgraded, he would be worth a late first.

Exactly. If I'd know there were more ceiling upgrades coming down the pipe, I sure wouldn't have traded away Peter Mueller or Chris Summers.

NashvilleGM · Post by **NashvilleGM** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:27 pm

IMO, no ceilings upgrade. We have to deal with the startup file, and it stays fair for everyone.

we could input minor upgrades like leadership or endurance or whatever tho...

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:01 pm

There will be no ceiling upgrades. That's not right after a season. If I was going to do it, I should have done it at the start.

LE boosts are a definite possibility. Maybe add CON points to G under 75 POT so that they hold a little more value. Nothing definite on that. We'll try to be creative.