SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/GM Game

v2 Discussion Thread

Aug. 16, 2017 at 12:38 a.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,386
Likes: 2,880
Edited Aug. 16, 2017 at 12:52 a.m.
As some of you may know, for the past week I have been contacting many GMs about the v2 plan that matt and myself created around a month back. Since then, it has been liked by all, as 16 out of the 16 that gave a definitive answer in support of the implementation of the v2 plan.

The abstract of contacting GMs offline to gather data was to avoid a mosh pit of questions and conversations that would be impossible to reasonably contain. Due to the popularity of the plan, I have assessed that now is the proper time to open up the conversation to CapFriendly, in which a "Q&A" would occur, ideally it would be contained as much as possible.

However, I have noticed that there is lack of new individual(s) joining the GM Game mostly due to the hidden location of the Game. I have emailed the MODs about possibly doing some coding for us to make the game run smoother on both ends, while being able to generate more interest.

Some of the ideas that I had for the code are as follows:
<> Any Arm-Chair GM team made within v2 to be exempt from any IRL transaction.
<> Make v2 a subsection of the CapFriendly website, much like "Arm-Chair GM". This would increase activity and draw new members to the game

My estimations is that the code is hopefully completed prior to the tentative start date of v2 (September 15th).

Please be sure to bold your question or comment below so that it can be easily tracked and answered. To run this as smoothly as possible, I will ask that we only deal with one question at a time. From the original plan, very little was changed from the 15 that support it, however they had feedback and I have made proper adjustments (trade limits, salary cap ceiling, etc.). This were minor changes, and I can reasonably assume that most of the GM Game community will not have a cow about the salary cap being increased from 75M to 76M and the trade limits going up from 8 per year to 4 per month.

Again, please remember to bold your question or comment, and it will have a high chance to be addressed.

edit ; the link to the Google Doc with all the v2 plan is located here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zi4LXQwOvTM87VxHnNl8I84OLr5AjZJgHYS6IbupOcc/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you,

phillyjabroni
Vegas Golden Knights GM

matt59
Columbus Blue Jackets GM
Mr_cap and Duster liked this.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 12:42 a.m.
#2
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,915
Likes: 4,649
Just a suggestion: The cap is at 75M in real life so we could maybe update the cap whenever the real cap changes or do 75M and keep it at 75M ... i don't think we should go any higher than 76M unless it's to make it a no-cap-league which is unlikely i'm guessing. Maybe 77M, but i'd suggest 75M or 76M.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 12:46 a.m.
#3
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,386
Likes: 2,880
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
Just a suggestion: The cap is at 75M in real life so we could maybe update the cap whenever the real cap changes or do 75M and keep it at 75M ... i don't think we should go any higher than 76M unless it's to make it a no-cap-league which is unlikely i'm guessing. Maybe 77M, but i'd suggest 75M or 76M.


I must have confused the IRL salary cap ceiling with the current GM Game ceiling. I will make the change back to a 75M salary cap ceiling, from the 76M cap ceiling.

The salary cap ceiling would need to increase as the players would be getting raises within the game and would need to make proper adjustments.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 1:12 a.m.
#4
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,915
Likes: 4,649
Quoting: phillyjabroni
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
Just a suggestion: The cap is at 75M in real life so we could maybe update the cap whenever the real cap changes or do 75M and keep it at 75M ... i don't think we should go any higher than 76M unless it's to make it a no-cap-league which is unlikely i'm guessing. Maybe 77M, but i'd suggest 75M or 76M.


I must have confused the IRL salary cap ceiling with the current GM Game ceiling. I will make the change back to a 75M salary cap ceiling, from the 76M cap ceiling.

The salary cap ceiling would need to increase as the players would be getting raises within the game and would need to make proper adjustments.


Also just one more suggestion is i don't see a need for an offer sheet thread as offer sheets are very unlikely to be signed ... if there is an offer sheet, in my opinion, it could just go in the RFA signings thread or something.
Max liked this.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 1:45 a.m.
#5
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,915
Likes: 4,649
Sorry to keep making suggestions here but 3 members of the BOE seems a bit small. Maybe we could have 5? Just a suggestion though, it's fine either way.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 1:57 a.m.
#6
Go Habs Go
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,667
Likes: 4,091
I'll look into this more over the next few days, but temper your expectations on the coding. CF has their own agenda and with things like PM's and general website improvements in preparation for the upcoming season, I doubt we would see anything exclusive for our purposes within 4 months (at best).

Hosting a separate copy/instance of the database would be a good first step. With that, we may be able to have a starting set of players at their current RL status to begin with.
That would be a big improvement over our current option, where all CF changes are reflected within the database.
From my understanding however, this would be a temporary measure, as I believe Banks has said he has plans to implement changes to allow teams to be tracked over the course of multiple seasons. Anything beyond a separate database copy would likely have to wait for the current system to be revamped.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 1:59 a.m.
#7
NateElder12
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2016
Posts: 5,736
Likes: 801
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
Quoting: phillyjabroni


I must have confused the IRL salary cap ceiling with the current GM Game ceiling. I will make the change back to a 75M salary cap ceiling, from the 76M cap ceiling.

The salary cap ceiling would need to increase as the players would be getting raises within the game and would need to make proper adjustments.


Also just one more suggestion is i don't see a need for an offer sheet thread as offer sheets are very unlikely to be signed ... if there is an offer sheet, in my opinion, it could just go in the RFA signings thread or something.


Honestly I think an offer sheet thread makes the most sense to keep it clean from RFA thread. I see them as unlikely too, but it would be easy to find if one of your players does get offered. It really doesn't seem like a big deal to change or take away I'm just giving my opinion.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:11 a.m.
#8
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2016
Posts: 13,508
Likes: 3,060
Edited Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:23 a.m.
I have a couple of suggestions.

1. No trade limits or weekly trade limits.

I understand that IRL GMs would never make the number of trades that we do but IRL a GM is never going to turn down an offer that makes the organization better. If there are monthly trade limits then that GM may miss out on a player or deal that could have improved their team. At least with weekly GMs might be more willing to way a few days before they shop that player elsewhere.

2. Free Agency

I don't feel that sending all players (non RFA) with expiring contracts to FA is realistic. Without any of the home rights stuff, that makes every pending UFA worthless. I think people should be able to re-sign UFAs prior to FA if they are so inclined. It would need to be something of a sliding scale where certain age groups must be signed to certain length of contracts. BoG would have to approve all contracts. Details could be worked out later.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:23 a.m.
#9
NBABound
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2016
Posts: 5,655
Likes: 1,392
Quoting: DirtyDangles
I have a couple of suggestions.

1. No trade limits or weekly trade limits.

I understand that IRL GMs would never make the number of trades that we do but IRL a GM is never going to turn down an offer that makes the organization better. If there are monthly trade limits then that GM may miss out on a player or deal that could have improved their team. At least with weekly GMs might be more willing to way a few days before they shop that player elsewhere.

2. Free Agency

I don't feel that sending all players (non RFA) with expiring contracts to FA is realistic. Without any of the home rights stuff, that makes every pending UFA worthless. I think people should be able to re-sign UFAs prior to FA if they are so inclined. It would need to be something of a sliding scale where certain age groups must be signed to certain length of contracts. Details could be worked out later.


Tbh I like the trade limits. Aside from the realistic standpoint, the trade limits give GM's more time to organize and stratigize their next move rather than trying to understand whats happening when at the same time theres like 5 trades being made at once. This also spreads it out over a course of time period. The only reason this game went as far as it did (or is going) is because it ran through the draft and FA which kept everyone intrigued.

Oh and P.S. its monthly trade limits not weekly.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:27 a.m.
#10
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2016
Posts: 13,508
Likes: 3,060
I know it's monthly, I am suggesting weekly...
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:29 a.m.
#11
NBABound
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2016
Posts: 5,655
Likes: 1,392
Quoting: DirtyDangles
I know it's monthly, I am suggesting weekly...


Oh true

Even then, I still feel like monthly would be better. Unless you want 1 weekly trade haha.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:45 a.m.
#12
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,386
Likes: 2,880
RAIF - Offer Sheet Thread is for GMs that are wanting to Offer Sheet a player that they do not own RFA rights to. It is a method to keep the RFA thread where teams bring their proposed contract to the BOE separated from where teams bring their Offer Sheet to another individual. Finding 5 BOE members will be tough, seeing as how they must forgo being a GM, to suppress the opportunity to have biases evident. I think that 3 people would be willing to forgo being a GM, if they have universally accepted analysis, such as an understanding of advanced analytics, projected talent, etc.

Rico - I have a feeling that the re-code would be just an ideal, seeing as how they (MODs) have bigger fish to fry than us. If they can't get to it, no big deal and we just roll with the discrepancies in the "team description".

Dangles - I think that enforcing a weekly trade limit is too restrictive to the GM. Ideally, they don't take the first offer they get, as they have to strategize how to make their team better. Having 4 per month allows the GM to properly weight all the offers on the table and then decide which of them make the team better. For FA, I like the idea on having contract extensions, however, I am not sure exactly how the formula would be, as you said as well. I have a gut feeling that all teams will just sign all their FAs and never have them it the open market, regardless of talent.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:49 a.m.
#13
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2016
Posts: 13,508
Likes: 3,060
Quoting: Mr_cap


Oh true

Even then, I still feel like monthly would be better. Unless you want 1 weekly trade haha.


I was thinking 2 trades per week. The GM doesn't have to accept offers so saying a monthly limit gives GMs time to weigh their options is kind of a moot point.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:52 a.m.
#14
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2016
Posts: 13,508
Likes: 3,060
as for FA, we can limit the number of FA each team can re-sign, even if the limit is 1 or 2 I am good with that.
ricochetii liked this.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 9:54 a.m.
#15
NBABound
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2016
Posts: 5,655
Likes: 1,392
Quoting: DirtyDangles
Quoting: Mr_cap


Oh true

Even then, I still feel like monthly would be better. Unless you want 1 weekly trade haha.


I was thinking 2 trades per week. The GM doesn't have to accept offers so saying a monthly limit gives GMs time to weigh their options is kind of a moot point.


Yeah but most people on here are going to be inclined towards finishing and accepting those 2 trades on a weekly basis and therefore leading it to be hectic again. I feel like most people would like the realistic approach of 4 per M.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 10:05 a.m.
#16
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2016
Posts: 13,508
Likes: 3,060
4 per month is going to make the game extremely boring imo. Everyone will use their 4 early in the month then nothing will happen for 3 weeks.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 10:19 a.m.
#17
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,537
Likes: 6,692
Limiting the amount of trades on V2 is going to limit GM activity for the game. What purpose is there to stay active if you made all your trades already for that month? This will in turn give less options for other GMs to make trades with.

Need to attack the problem. Not band-aid it. The problem is having GM's who don't value players correctly and just accept anything thrown their way. (I could name names but is it really necessary?) I don't mean value players correctly as in advanced stats VS eye test stuff. I mean trading away good players for less than value and thinking they got a good deal...... That kind of stuff.

I don't have an answer for how to do this but that is why we're discussing it now. One potential solution is having posters GM teams only that they are fans of. Having a sentimental attachment to a team and players makes accepting anything less than fair value in trade harder. Thus eliminating some of the needless trades. Im ok with having less trades but it has to feel organic. Not forced.
Mr_cap liked this.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 10:23 a.m.
#18
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,386
Likes: 2,880
Quoting: DirtyDangles
as for FA, we can limit the number of FA each team can re-sign, even if the limit is 1 or 2 I am good with that.


You mean as a contract extension? Yeah, that could work.

Quoting: DirtyDangles
4 per month is going to make the game extremely boring imo. Everyone will use their 4 early in the month then nothing will happen for 3 weeks.


I don't think teams will use up those trades early, seeing as how that is a very moronic way to do it. GMs need to evaluate the risk involved with making a trade early, seeing as how a good deal could come later and they would pass it up.

If GMs want to just make their 4 trades within the 8 hours of the month, then go play v1.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 10:32 a.m.
#19
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2016
Posts: 13,508
Likes: 3,060
Quoting: phillyjabroni
Quoting: DirtyDangles
as for FA, we can limit the number of FA each team can re-sign, even if the limit is 1 or 2 I am good with that.


You mean as a contract extension? Yeah, that could work.

Quoting: DirtyDangles
4 per month is going to make the game extremely boring imo. Everyone will use their 4 early in the month then nothing will happen for 3 weeks.


I don't think teams will use up those trades early, seeing as how that is a very moronic way to do it. GMs need to evaluate the risk involved with making a trade early, seeing as how a good deal could come later and they would pass it up.

If GMs want to just make their 4 trades within the 8 hours of the month, then go play v1.


I'm not saying it's smart but we have seen how many GMs in this game act and I don't see that changing much. 2 per week would at least let them play but limit their craziness.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 10:45 a.m.
#20
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,537
Likes: 6,692
Just a thought. What about having the BOE have the ability to fire a GM? (For being bad at his job. i:e making numerous bad trades and signings)

There is no repercussions to making bad trades and as many of them as you want so why not have that accountability that a real GM would have? Of course the BOE would have to be impartial and unbiased but we're not talking about the few trades here and there that were somewhat questionable. We're talking about the Matthews trade, Karlsson (original) trade, etc.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 11:01 a.m.
#21
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,386
Likes: 2,880
Going off of Marco's post, if a GM has 75% of the trades within a month being rated 1 star, the BOE can exercise measures to remove that GM from their position, as a replacement is available. This solution is going to help weed out those who have zero sense of proper evaluation compared to those who actually strive to make deals that benefit themselves.

That would remedy the proposed issue that teams will execute their trade limits within the first hours of the opening of the allotted time to make a roster transaction.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 11:04 a.m.
#22
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2016
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 253
Quoting: F50marco
Just a thought. What about having the BOE have the ability to fire a GM? (For being bad at his job. i:e making numerous bad trades and signings)

There is no repercussions to making bad trades and as many of them as you want so why not have that accountability that a real GM would have? Of course the BOE would have to be impartial and unbiased but we're not talking about the few trades here and there that were somewhat questionable. We're talking about the Matthews trade, Karlsson (original) trade, etc.


that would work excellently, I think!
Aug. 16, 2017 at 11:06 a.m.
#23
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,915
Likes: 4,649
Quoting: F50marco
Just a thought. What about having the BOE have the ability to fire a GM? (For being bad at his job. i:e making numerous bad trades and signings)

There is no repercussions to making bad trades and as many of them as you want so why not have that accountability that a real GM would have? Of course the BOE would have to be impartial and unbiased but we're not talking about the few trades here and there that were somewhat questionable. We're talking about the Matthews trade, Karlsson (original) trade, etc.


i really don't think this is needed ... if there is a super unfair trade like McDavid for a 7th, the trade would just be taken back for being meant as a joke. I mean, maybe, but only if they can go to a different team soon, like Chiarelli for example.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 11:08 a.m.
#24
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2016
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 253
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
Quoting: F50marco
Just a thought. What about having the BOE have the ability to fire a GM? (For being bad at his job. i:e making numerous bad trades and signings)

There is no repercussions to making bad trades and as many of them as you want so why not have that accountability that a real GM would have? Of course the BOE would have to be impartial and unbiased but we're not talking about the few trades here and there that were somewhat questionable. We're talking about the Matthews trade, Karlsson (original) trade, etc.


i really don't think this is needed ... if there is a super unfair trade like McDavid for a 7th, the trade would just be taken back for being meant as a joke. I mean, maybe, but only if they can go to a different team soon, like Chiarelli for example.


in the new v2 league though, obviously we can all have fun, but I don't think there should be really any joke trades officially posted. it kinda ruins the purpose of restarting with more defined rules and trying to keep it realistic.
Mr_cap liked this.
Aug. 16, 2017 at 11:09 a.m.
#25
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,915
Likes: 4,649
Quoting: DirtyDangles
Quoting: phillyjabroni


You mean as a contract extension? Yeah, that could work.



I don't think teams will use up those trades early, seeing as how that is a very moronic way to do it. GMs need to evaluate the risk involved with making a trade early, seeing as how a good deal could come later and they would pass it up.

If GMs want to just make their 4 trades within the 8 hours of the month, then go play v1.


I'm not saying it's smart but we have seen how many GMs in this game act and I don't see that changing much. 2 per week would at least let them play but limit their craziness.

i mean, it depends on the time ... we should have a limit to trades at the deadline in my opinion, or at least an okay sized limit ... if we say like 2 per week every week, that wouldn't make a lot of sense to me because if we'd have the same trade limit when the game starts as we would when all the trades will be happening ... though we do need to find a way to not have every team totally rebuild and move most of their players.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll