Nykonax

Any 5 random numbers is good

I think this is an important part that people missed, Warsaw/Chicago/Malmo all definitely targeted meta-adjacent players in the late 70s, they were just never as outright explicit about it as I was with Vancouver. No matter what, some team was eventually going to end up full meta. Lmao tbf I was the one who asked him. I'll admit I did it in a bad way, but thought it was fine cause it is a pretty common question in other sim leagues if you're willing to like reroll a player. This was also when I was like AGM of Vancouver in S78 or S79 and @fonziGG rightfully gave me shit for it lol. I will say I don't think I ever told someone to build a specific way. If people asked me what to build, I'd just tell them that like low passing high sc is the best, which I think is a valid answer if you're asking for advice on "how do I make my player as good as possible". I just traded for/signed players who also were meta or wanted to build themselves meta (which Chicago/Warsaw/Malmo were also doing at the time). I agree people should be free to build whatever they want, on your note about checking I'm definitely one of those checking purists, but I totally understand someone just wanting to lay people out in the sim and try to go for the hit record. As a GM though, I wanted to build the best team possible and win, and I personally have fun min-maxing and optimizing things. So I had fun trying to build a good team, sign people who would fit that vision, and whatnot. If someone wanted to be a hit player, or a pass player, or any player that had like a conflicting vision, I totally understood that and felt like that they can just totally do it on a different team. I figured that people who got enjoyment from traditional success in the sim would target the top playoff teams, while someone who wanted to just get a bunch of hits or something could find a role on another like "roleplay" team. Looking back on it now though, I definitely see how it becomes unfun for those other people when they realise there's just 0 chance of them winning at all, doesn't matter if they expect to win or not, but knowing there's no hope is unfun. I still think meta being stoppable is somewhat true. We had like ~50% win rate vs. Moscow in cup final tests, and I think like sub 50% vs. LA or Chicago one year, but they got upset by DC and we did good against DC. I think there was an element of luck that people overlooked, and since they saw Vancouver win 3 cups and top the league 3 times in a row they thought it was basically 100%. It was however absolutely dominant vs. shit teams, but I think each year there was definitely 1 or 2 teams that could relatively fairly compete. I think the main problem with meta was just how achievable it was. You could get 400/500 tpe welfare players basically come "online" in like a season or two and be 90+ point players, plus you could fit so many of them under the cap. You could spend seasons making good GM decisions to build a team like Moscow, or you could get a few draft picks and sign some decent clickers and compete with Moscow in the span of a single season. The like effort:reward was very unbalanced. Seeing how hybrid played out I think it's an okay solution to the problem. My biggest problem with it is just how bad it feels for low-tpe welfare people now, under it I don't think you can ever have like a top player if you're a welfare earner. Which maybe is valid, the people putting in the effort should have the top players, but I know it's definitely sort of killed my interest in the league when it takes like a week or two just to get +1 in a single attribute in the sim. I agree though it has killed meta, and I think is a better alternative to just a simple "can't be more than 15 apart", which is what the SHL put as like a stop-gap while they switched to FHM (and I'm not sure it really worked, cause I think Hamilton still won the cup). I definitely agree with all these points, especially the third one. It feels like people want to make changes just for the sake of making big changes, instead of just focusing on what the key issue is and how do we fix that as simply as possible. The first two I think are issues as well, but I can't really speak on them since I'll self-admit I also contribute to them. Overall great article, and my bad gang.

yes: @BluObieZ no: @Dil

still cant believe Quik or who was running the draft thought I was trolling when I told him to pick you when hedge was sleeping for draft, and then you had a HOF career. hedge my goat though o7

I mean it's probably not bad, will just help you reach protein goals for the day, and if you're taking too much protein you'll just shit it out. I think a lot of it is pretty fake or you don't need it at all. Only supplements I've heard good things about is like creatine/magnesium. I'm not an expert, but think basically creatine just helps ATP production so helps you get like a few extra reps when you're working out, which leads to more muscle development. Also makes your muscles store more water so you look a little bigger. Also think there's some studies saying it helps your brain. However it coulddddd lead to hairloss (some study found it increased like blood DHT levels or something, and DHT levels at like hair follicle sites is linked to hair loss, however the DHT levels in the study were still way within normal ranges. So it's probably like if you're at risk of hair loss it might speed it up a little, but there's not really any conclusive studies saying it does cause hairloss). Magnesium I don't know much about, just know anecdotally a bunch of people says it helps with sleep. Only things I take are just protein powder and creatine. From what you said about your goals, probably no need to take creatine unless you're super serious about the gym and like tracking calories, weight, volume, and getting good sleep. Otherwise your not really getting full value from it and you'll get more value from just starting to focus those other things. Personally I just use protein powder and creatine.

BladeMaiden leading her Reaper troops into battle against the Houston Bulls (S66 colourized)

the madlad finally did it

every student union does it

didnt this guy scam like @Enorama out of a graphics card a few years ago or something... no idea how he even became a blue in the first place. absolute incompetence by Badketov to hire this fraud. Gorlab would've never let this happen.....

does being an actuary count, aka math for insurance pricing, it's thrilling. but have a co-op for it this summer

ANOTHER @Velevra VHL.COM BANGER

i mean you're technically not wrong....

Wdym? Surely we can make an attribute increase by 0.38 instead of 0.3? I mean this is just essentially the same thing.

Discipline is OP if your whole team has it around ~60 or 70 with no checking. But yeah I agree that hybrid hasn't been the greatest for the league, but it is a much much healthier solution. I think it's been unhealthy in the terms of player progression for welfare players, as you'll like never have a good player now whereas pre-hybrid you still could. Which can be argued whether it's good or bad (people contributing more content/work to the league should probably have better players, but should it be impossible for welfare players to have all-star players?). I think one potential solution is just increasing ratio's by like 1.3x or something small. Would need to look into it more. In terms of build flexibility, it definitely allows for more flexible builds, but it locks people out of insanely off-meta builds (you can't ignore attributes). Wonder if we could allow TPA recalls to just target the STHS attribute instead of the hybrid attribute. Would need rules on it so you can't just recall all of your passing but might open up options.

You can get like 5 of them