|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 4, 2014 21:41:42 GMT -5
For a while now, it has been suggested a minor change be made to the keeper system here for several reasons (help balance teams, give GMs more team-building options, increase the draft depth). Several means have been thought do do these 3 things, and we have narrowed several suggestions down to the following 3 alternatives. Please read all of the options, and select which option you think is best for EA NHL Simulation moving forward. Option 1: 8 Keeper slots. For every player rated 90 or above on your team, you lose one of your default 8 keeper slots. If you have no player over 90, you get 10 keepers, instead of 8. (Note, this includes goalies) Option 2: 9 keeper slots. Every player 90 and above uses 2 slots, instead of 1. If you have 0 players rated 90 or above, you get 10 keeper slots, instead of 9. (Goalies not included) Option 3: 11 Default keepers. Different value per player protected, based on rating (example: 88-89: 1 slot, 90: 2 slots, 91-94: 3 slots, 95+: 4 slots). Option 4: No change (8 keeper slots, regardless of rating). Thank you for your time, consideration, and input. We appreciate it, and of course, each and every one of you.  - Pens, Isles, and Canes. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 4, 2014 23:10:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I want to thank everyone who offered a suggestion to be as helpful as possible for IF a change occurs. Very cool that so many people are still actively seeking ways to enjoy this site even more. Power to the people!
|
|
|
|
Post by C00kies - Retired Kings GM on Jan 4, 2014 23:39:05 GMT -5
For a while now, it has been suggested a minor change be made to the keeper system here for several reasons (help balance teams, give GMs more team-building options, increase the draft depth). Several means have been thought do do these 3 things, and we have narrowed several suggestions down to the following 3 alternatives. Please read all of the options, and select which option you think is best for EA NHL Simulation moving forward. Option 1: 8 Keeper slots. For every player rated 90 or above on your team, you lose one of your default 8 keeper slots. If you have no player over 90, you get 10 keepers, instead of 8. (Note, this includes goalies) Option 2: 9 keeper slots. Every player 91 and above uses 2 slots, instead of 1. If you have 0 players rated 90 or above, you get 10 keeper slots, instead of 9. (Goalies not included) When you say goalies are included, does this mean that they are included in the 90+ rule? Are they auto-protected or do they have to be manually protected? |
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 4, 2014 23:41:13 GMT -5
I assumed it meant included in the count for your spots. If you have 8 spots and you want to keep your number 1 goalie, then you now have 7 spots left. If the goalie is over 90, you lose an additional spot.
That's how I read it, but I'll wait for an admin to confirm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 5, 2014 0:09:24 GMT -5
Yes, That is what I was thinking also. But we better get Carolina to tell us first |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 5, 2014 0:13:29 GMT -5
I had meant that goalies 90 and above count as "a player 90 and above", thus dropping the keeper slot. They would still be auto-protected though.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 5, 2014 0:41:44 GMT -5
I don't think we are really ready for an official poll on this, but I like option 3, but not if we have 11 slots and a 95 is worth 4. The values of the players and the amount of slots need to be re-worked and mapped out.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 5, 2014 0:49:56 GMT -5
What if you need to have an average rating of something to get extra slots or lose slots?
Even if you make it you keep 8 players, you need a 83 to average out the 95 type of dude in a sense.
I'm not sure if it'd work though, but it's worth throwing out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 5, 2014 1:08:43 GMT -5
I think the best course of action is not cluttering up this thread with more suggestions, letting the poll sort itself out, seeing where people's feeling stand and THEN fine tuning from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 5, 2014 1:15:14 GMT -5
I think the best course of action is not cluttering up this thread with more suggestions, letting the poll sort itself out, seeing where people's feeling stand and THEN fine tuning from there. I feel we weren't really done discussing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 5, 2014 1:32:46 GMT -5
I think the best course of action is not cluttering up this thread with more suggestions, letting the poll sort itself out, seeing where people's feeling stand and THEN fine tuning from there. I feel we weren't really done discussing it. I was definitely done discussing it. When Mike mentioned his option and somebody finally came up with something in between I was good. Then Justin did some editing with what you said and I liked that even more. We need a change to fill teams and I think this works for everybody. It will just take a couple seasons for teams to adjust and I think this will actually help the stacked teams more than the weaker teams. Just my instinct thought |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 5, 2014 1:46:38 GMT -5
Sure, maybe its just because I never got a chance to read it all then all of a sudden this was up lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 5, 2014 2:35:17 GMT -5
Sorry, I literally thought you were the one that told him to post it, yours and Cook's avatars and red names make you so similar I sometimes forget who's talking. My bad bud.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 5, 2014 11:25:06 GMT -5
Sorry, I literally thought you were the one that told him to post it, yours and Cook's avatars and red names make you so similar I sometimes forget who's talking. My bad bud. No it's cool dude, I was pretty baked/drunk last night so it was hard for me to follow what was going on hahah. I just feel we should add the option 'other' in case of another idea pops up, but meh. The average rating thing, although kinda neat, might get too complicated in the long haul. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 5, 2014 12:12:25 GMT -5
The first two don't make sense. I've already said why for option 1. Option 2, we're going to allow 10 89s, 9 90s but only 4 91s + 89-90? That in my eyes is clearly not balanced. We have to make sure there are no loop holes like this that will make one team/system/format/style of making a team clearly better, which will eventually happen.
|
|
