Nykonax

@Esso2264 run it back?

@Kylrad would you like to hear about our lord and saviour: point tasks?

just a quick response to this: is less parity actually a good thing? I think people would be kinda upset if the same teams are winning every season. Like in SHL for a long time it was just Hamilton and Buffalo winning, along with Chicago a few times. I don't think the people not on those teams had fun, especially after like the 10th season in a row of it being the exact same. And you can argue that they deserve to win because of good management, which I think is fair, but it still ruins enjoyment for people. could say the same thing about VHL, people were PISSED that Vancouver three-peated (obviously in large due to meta, but I think people would've been much less pissed if Vancouver only won 1/3 of the finals). I think the same would go for Moscow, they just keep losing so no one cares. If they won 5 straight people probably wouldn't like it. is upping the cap and giving teams longer contention windows and more obvious contenders a good idea? I personally like the balance in the VHL and the idea that like a few teams in the playoffs can win it every year, rather than just the one or two obvious stronger teams.

sorry, grumpy old inactive boomers only.

The problem with increasing cap by too much in my opinion is that teams aren't going to use that space to sign the low 400 tpe players out of the goodness of their heart, they are going to use that space to just sign more high TPE players or give their players more bonuses. Especially under a system where TPE matters way more, giving teams the option to sign more high TPE players and form super teams just decreases parity while not really helping the low TPE people without teams. Sure, they'll eventually end up on a bottom feeder team that has no good players because the good players left to teams that have new cap space for them. But that's not really fun or a change we would want. I think some teams would even just refuse to sign these players given the extra cap because it literally just makes your team worse. If you have a 6-4-1 of good players and like 3 mil extra cap space, you aren't signing a 400 TPE 7th forward or 5th Dman if you are trying to win. It just ruins your lines and the player isn't good enough to make up for it. It makes way more sense to use that cap space on bonuses to help your players fight regression or buy more TPE. Obviously it's not good that GM's would do this over signing active members, and we could mandate teams with cap space to sign these players, but then that just ruins the point of team-building flexibility that a higher cap brings. This is being worked on.

True but also gives free wins unless he's on fiora

@O4L meowy christmas :3

@O4L

@O4L

@O4L

$1

30,31,32,33,34,35,36

$15 Transaction ID: 25309041L9350132M

@O4L

@O4L

Dunno, never tested how much it actually mitigates. All I know is it that only provides noticeable benefits to team winrate up to like 70, anymore than that and it didnt do much. so maybe it does cap out around 70 individually too for reducing hits/pims.

add discipline too? would just negate any ck and leave u with just the df

@O4L

@O4L

pre-listen: i hope it's a dance battle

i wonder if these are optimal lines. would love to see a forward swapped with a D and see what happens since I feel like on a forward line if 2 of them are good the 3rd one just doesn't matter + the bot on the line would lead to more production I think. Then having a 3rd dman would probably work better defensively.

@O4L

@O4L

@O4L

explains a lot