Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 15:42:11 GMT -5
Yeah, that sounds perfect actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 15:58:00 GMT -5
This whole "you are just punishing good teams" argument again? You realize Cranker that this would hurt both me and Canes right? We just see this would be better for the league, and that's what the whole goal is, to make this site better so people don't come in and leave after a week because they are bored. This has nothing to do with hurting anyone, or helping anyone, it's simply trying to improve the league. I know it's strange, but not everything needs to have an agenda attached to it. As I said, don't bring up this "I've had Gretzky for 30 seasons" crap and have had top players my entire time here. You specially did not, but in general. Once again, I said I liked the idea, but the way it is currently presented will not happen, it has a major flaw and will not work. Thank you for explaining to me how things work Cor, especially after your absence for quite some time. the way you have it is too much. The fact that you completely ignored my input Your proposed modifications completely changed the suggestion. It once again takes out the strategy component and just gives people with 4 90s another way to keep their teams in tact without any loss. The system I proposed, as I said, gives VERY SPECIFIC value to every individual player over 90 you acquire or think about acquiring. Your changes do not do that, they just say, "you can have max. this, max that" without the same strategy dynamic that makes the core suggestion interesting. No it did not at all, it kept in tact with allowing a certain amount of 90s on a team and losing keeper spots. It leaves the entire strategy component of allowing depth instead of 90s. Actually, if this were to happen, and I had 5 90s, I would lose my 3 89s, that's a pretty big difference from before. Those 89s would head to bottom teams, helping them out immensely. The VERY SPECIFIC method you proposed makes 89s the most valuable thing of all time. It's quite clear having 10 89s over 4 90s is much better, especially once the next 5 players are considered equal. That isn't a balance, that is a punishment for having top end players. With the modifications I proposed, you are allowed 5 90s, and the other team is allowed 7 89s then 3 86s, which provides a better balance. Every system is literally "you can have max. this, max that" so I don't know what you're getting at. With yours, you can have max 4 90s, max 10 89s, max this amount if you have this amount. It is literally the exact same thing, but doesn't allow 10 89s on one team, and allows 5 90+s. How you do not see this is way way beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 2, 2014 15:59:12 GMT -5
I like what Jersey posted on that accept it would be hard to get rid of the 95's then LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 16:00:40 GMT -5
I like what Jersey posted on that accept it would be hard to get rid of the 95's then LOL Agreed, how many slots would you also have? |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 2, 2014 16:14:18 GMT -5
there are 54 players rated 90 and above
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 2, 2014 16:16:37 GMT -5
What Jersey said and make some slight modifications as to what would work. But I like the basis of that better. that there is a difference between a 90 and a 95. There are 5 players rated 95,96 Gretzky, Lemieux, Datsyuk, Orr and Crosby
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 16:34:30 GMT -5
I agree, I believe it's pretty much the same system though, but 5 players hold a bigger value. Maybe you get something like 16 keepers, 1 slot for 86 below, 2 keepers for 87-89s, 3 for 90-94, 4 for 95 +?
That's not an exact number or thought out, just brainstormed to expand the keeper amount and a bit more precise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 2, 2014 17:04:22 GMT -5
basically a keeper point system. I like that much better than a guy being allowed 10 89 rated players. But still limits the stacked teams some
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 17:10:50 GMT -5
Yes exactly
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 2, 2014 17:23:13 GMT -5
I'm down for whatever allows me to not be a forever out of the playoffs team. I'd like to make it once and a while, and I feel the current formula has it somewhat stagnated, but whatever makes people most excited to enjoy the site again I'll support  |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 21:08:18 GMT -5
I agree, I believe it's pretty much the same system though, but 5 players hold a bigger value. Maybe you get something like 16 keepers, 1 slot for 86 below, 2 keepers for 87-89s, 3 for 90-94, 4 for 95 +? That's not an exact number or thought out, just brainstormed to expand the keeper amount and a bit more precise. K, but when you look at all of this though....is the original proposed system not INCREDIBLY simpler to explain, execute, enforce, and implement? You have a 90+, you lose a protect. Simple, clean, done. This requires constantly checking back to see how much each player you want to protect is worth. If it makes things more complicated for people, we are going to start losing casual members, not gaining them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 21:14:19 GMT -5
I agree, I believe it's pretty much the same system though, but 5 players hold a bigger value. Maybe you get something like 16 keepers, 1 slot for 86 below, 2 keepers for 87-89s, 3 for 90-94, 4 for 95 +? That's not an exact number or thought out, just brainstormed to expand the keeper amount and a bit more precise. K, but when you look at all of this though....is the original proposed system not INCREDIBLY simpler to explain, execute, enforce, and implement? You have a 90+, you lose a protect. Simple, clean, done. This requires constantly checking back to see how much each player you want to protect is worth. If it makes things more complicated for people, we are going to start losing casual members, not gaining them. With that logic, we should move to having 1 90, you lose the rest of your players. It is not incredibly simpler at all, mine might be slightly more complex, but not really. There needs to be a balance between simple and good. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 21:16:50 GMT -5
There needs to be a balance between simple and good. Such was my original suggestion, if you looked at it objectively. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 21:34:39 GMT -5
There needs to be a balance between simple and good. Such was my original suggestion, if you looked at it objectively. Because I didn't do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 21:36:21 GMT -5
K
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*