|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 3:07:59 GMT -5
Ummmm... I like the max amount of 90s you can have is 5 then you lose the rest of your dudes and can max out at 10 if you don't have any 90s, but can only have 8 87s+. But if you have 1 90, you get 9 keepers. I like the idea of you start with 10 keepers, every 90 + you lose one, thus you can have 5 90+s on your team max (unless you manage to get 11 90s+ by some miracle). + if your top 8 has 8 87s+, you end up with only 9 keeper spots, thus if you want 10 keepers, 4 need to be 86s, which would be strong depth players. 90, 90, 90, 90, 90 option 1 90, 90, 90, 90, 88, 88 option 2 90, 90, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89 option 3 (what we have now pretty much) 89, 89, 88, 88, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87 option 4 89, 89, 89, 89, 88, 88, 88, 86, 86, 86, 85 option 5 Well those aren't the only options, but it shows a bit of what could happen. RE: Both of these tweaks: 5 90s is a ridiculous amount. Hell, I think 4 is too much, when so many of the league have 0. But the point of my suggestion as it was specifically structured was that it creates a very clear value for every single player you have or acquire. It creates a brand new system, with a brand new strategy dynamic So when I look at Kane, 90, coming into my team with this pending trade, I know his value is the spot of 2 89s or less. So I have to think, do I want Kane, or do I want to try to get some 89s instead? If we have cut-offs, like what is suggested in the above quotes, that whole direct-comparison part is lost, because you can go back to your roster, say, "oh, no I only have 4 90s, so I am safe". There is not a direct cause and effect to every single body you acquire over 90, and that is the part I really like best. That is a whole different strategy here, and something that no other sim site has ever done. It would be great launching pad for pushing the site again with members who have retired in the past, because now they have a chance to take a fresh team, and build it how they want, with more talent being moved because of this direct-value set up. With the cut offs, those just come across as rules we are implementing to create parity. This is a whole different strategy dynamic. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 3:08:40 GMT -5
But you can have 10 89s too if you want. Just not if you want to keep Gretzky, and the other guys on your team you like. As I said, the most sought-after guys in the league are the 90+ guys. When I had no one over 90 on my team, I got no offers at all for a whole season. When I had Sakic, I got offers weekly. You will see both kinds of builds and since it's never been done, we do not know what is more successful. Yes, I'm aware of that with your suggestion, I'm saying that's a flaw of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 3:09:30 GMT -5
ANd I am saying it is a strength, not a flaw. See above.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 3:10:26 GMT -5
Ummmm... I like the max amount of 90s you can have is 5 then you lose the rest of your dudes and can max out at 10 if you don't have any 90s, but can only have 8 87s+. But if you have 1 90, you get 9 keepers. 5 90s is a ridiculous amount. Hell, I think 4 is too much, when so many of the league have 0. But the point of my suggestion as it was specifically structured was that it creates a very clear value for every single player you have or acquire. So when I look at Kane, 90, coming into my team with this pending trade, I know his value is the spot of 2 89s or less. So I have to think, do I want Kane, or do I want to try to get some 89s instead? If we have cut-offs, like what is suggested in the above quite, that whole direct-comparison part is lost, because you can go back to your roster, say, "oh, no I only have 4 90s, so I am safe". There is not a direct cause and effect to every single body you acquire over 90, and that is the part I really like best. That is a whole different strategy here, and something that no other sim site has ever done. It would be great launching pad for pushing the site again with members who have retired in the past, because now they have a chance to take a fresh team, and build it how they want, with more talent being moved because of this direct-value set up. With the cut offs, those just come across as rules we are implementing to create parity. This is a whole different strategy dynamic. It wouldn't be with my added part, you can have 5 90s, or 7 87s-89s + 3 86s. The team with the 5 90s would then likely have 84s as their next best 5 players. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 3:12:41 GMT -5
You still lose the foundation of the suggestion. The thing that makes it interesting. The direct-value comparison. As I said, it's the difference between imposing restrictions, and creating a whole new strategy dynamic for sim team building.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 3:19:14 GMT -5
No, I understand it completely. I like it a lot, the part I added on does the exact same thing. I just prefer a 5 keeper - 10 keeper system where the 10 keeper system doesn't allow 10 89s on one team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 3:22:19 GMT -5
But it also allows a team with 4 90+ players to keep an 89, which I think is a bigger problem. Especially if one of those players is a 95+ (which is often the case on these teams with 4 90+ players, since they are the long-time members who have accumulated and held onto the best players for 30+ seasons).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 3:46:03 GMT -5
Let's drop the entire 'we held onto the best players for 30+ seasons' act for this suggestion. I'm trying to work with you on this one. This is a suggestion, not a solidified system.
Look at the line up this way, me for example.
I then get to keep, Gretzky 96, Denisisov 92, Ohman 91, LaFleur 91. I then get to keep Mogilny 89 and Phaneuf 87, losing Roberts 87 and Sundin 88 to the draft (these players help other teams that have the 88s already). I also then lose Timonen 85, Nisknanen 84, and Schenn 83. These are all good players to lose. Let's say I draft a Timonen, Niskanen, B Schenn, + a 82 C and a 80 D with my 27th placed finish.
My team then looks like
91-96-91
82-83-89
81-82-80
80-80-80
92-87
85-84
81-81
Now lets go with a team that has 5 89 forwards, 2 89 D. 2 86s D and 1 86 F. They finish 26th and get the same players. Let's say the have the same depth as me as well. They can role with
89-89-89
89-89-86
82-83-82
81-82-80
89-89
86-86
84-85
With your system, it looks like:
91-96-91
82-83-89
81-82-80
80-80-80
92-85
84-81
81-80
and
89-89-89
89-89-89
85-84-83
82-81-80
89-89
89-89
82-81
EDIT - Sorry it looks even worse then I had it for me.
Forward group looks like
91-96-91
82-83-82
80-81-80
79-80-80
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 3:53:22 GMT -5
Yes, my system looks significantly more balanced. Also, I would include goalies in the "90 and over" as well.
I think because you have 4 90+ players you are failing to see all the teams that have 0. Or 1. That is the majority here, and it is the number one reason I have heard from people about why they don't come back here - because the the available teams suck, and they can't get better. Letting those teams with 0 players in the 90s have 10 89s (still not gonna happen, realistically) would be a HUGE draw.
And though I want to move away from this "your team vs my team" crap, you told me how much you had to pay to acquire Gretzky, so why should he not also be expensive to hold onto? No one will ever pry him from you, so shouldn't they at least have a chance to build a deep team, if they cannot build a good one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 3:54:29 GMT -5
Also, you do know there are like, 30 players in this league rated 90 or more, right? They are a rarity. Hence this entire strategy structure suggestion surrounding them?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:00:16 GMT -5
I just went through every roster, there are 4 teams without a 90, they include CGY, CHI, OTT and WSH. So they don't seem to be as 'rare' as you're making them out to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:01:37 GMT -5
I like the idea of the suggestion, but not as it's presented, we aren't going with the exact system you proposed, so I wouldn't bother wasting any more time trying to sell it. A similar concept is intriguing though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 4:02:01 GMT -5
4 teams have no 90+ player AT ALL. You have 4. That seem fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:02:59 GMT -5
4 teams have no 90+ player AT ALL. You have 4. That seem fair? Should we ask Chicago if its fair that they have Kane, Toews etc while Buffalo only has Cody Hodgson? Maybe we should get Pens to get us all to finish 41-41 so no feelings get hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 4:03:45 GMT -5
I like the idea of the suggestion, but not as it's presented, we aren't going with the exact system you proposed, so I wouldn't bother wasting any more time trying to sell it. A similar concept is intriguing though. If you change it the way you want to, you are removing the strategy component and just throwing a bunch of rules at people for no reason, solving no problems. You guys want ideas on how to breathe fresh life into this league, this is one way to do it. Adding restrictions is not. |
|
