Spartan

There probably is, I just haven't seen anything since we released attributes (and then maybe after the immediate adjustments post-release to fix blatant issues) that makes me want to go to the BoG and say "hey, here's something that is a valid issue, and this is what I think we should do about it." And I think that's a pretty important threshold that needs to be crossed, for any BoG member to look at something proposed and decide to take it into the BoG. So far I haven't seen any proposals or suggestions with the math behind it to convince me that the current attributes are anything more than an annoyance to people who are still expecting the simplicity and ease of upgrading the old attributes. Bek kinda covered it, it'd probably become the clear cut secondary option in that case with an even better secondary attribute than Strength. We'd just flip situations from SS being the "prioritized" secondary scoring attribute to WS. I don't think there's a problem with newbies investing in WS over SS. The benefit strength provides is not that massive that it messes up a new player's development. I don't think it comes close at all. I'm pretty sure my past forward, Nico Pearce, got both to 70 before incrementally increasing each one based on cost efficiencies. I also wasn't a center to need the ST investment immediately. Plus, not all attributes are going to make perfect sense with STHS and the real world comparisons, we just tried to come close without having meta hybrid attributes. The fact that most people will get at least 6-8 attributes into the 80's for their core build is a significant difference in the "core 4" that everyone would pump to 99 before hybrid and then become an elite player.

Surely we're not asking to make attributes more efficient and cost friendly when that was the reason we had to change attributes in the first place, right....?

Realistically could every goalie have just been name-dropped as I had pointed out (defense led by "insert defenseman and goalie") with the generic statement, sure. Is it a snub, I don't think so really. Seems like the writeup for every team followed more of a template/standard format which is fair for a weekly article that needs to meet VSN standards of higher word count and formatting. Some mild differences from team to team which would explain a couple goalies not being brought up. Personally I don't think my goalie should have been mentioned at all as a leader defensively, he's playing pretty poorly. And sure, the offense hasn't been carrying the team, you guys aren't doing the best there. But as I had mentioned, 2nd fewest shots faced (yet only 4th fewest GA) would make me personally praise the shit out of your defense. If I was writing 50 words about each VHL team, that's where mine would go for Malmo, especially with Stone and McFleury in the top 4 for team scoring.

Probably because he's 7th out of 16 starting goalies in save percentage and has seen the 2nd fewest shots against in the league. Not much to say in these lengthy articles about a goalie who isn't carrying the team. Seems like every other goalie mentioned was just included with a young defenseman to say "they're leading the defense." Doesn't seem like anyone in specific was praised in here anyways with Wallob also being told to step it up with Warsaw.

At this rate with Sully and the Pens, I'm gonna have to move on from him myself and get a new GM render

Play in the NA where playoffs are free....or should be at least

Can't believe I got Torts smh

@LastOneUp come back

Imagine letting Moscow have a playoff spot, EU snoozin

1. I think we can't get complacent and have to keep earning to maintain our growth. 2. Fire the GM tbh 3. I think they're good as is, you do a great job! 4. My fingers and brain are too frozen to figure this out. 5. Both seasons provided a lot of value. Last season let us grow and develop with more draft picks. Winning shows us what we do right and wrong. 6. I'll keep all of that a secret for now!

I think we fared a tad bit better than y'all in those conference finals . Just not in the finals

I won't say we're back, but we're certainly present in the moment

Dislike

I am only at 4,279

Sooooo I can't have [redacted] ???

Obuz certainly won't even have a card at that rate then. Tough crowd to please with the cardmakers huh?

Yeah the SHL has some partnership with some company to assign packs to users or something like that. Some platform just for trading cards that's linked to their player bank accounts. Dunno if we'd make that system work.

Lack of people to invest the amount of time to make cards, and the lack of a platform for cards to be "bought" in packs and all that.

Really making me wish we had VHL trading cards

I respect it

@Moon I'm uncomfortable

Part of my point earlier was that I don't think there's a massive difference in a 1.15k TPA build and a 1.3k TPA build. All your core attributes are in the high 80's/low 90's, and it's proven that further increase beyond that point is fairly marginal. I think Mac Atlas maintaining that current build will still be a top VHL player. That's why I say that the planning is more important in being able to maintain a strong build at or over 1.1k TPA. You will still be an elite player. I will agree that depreciation changes midway through might have made it tricky for existing players despite the heads up notice that the league tried to give.

Is it tampering if I reply to this article??

I don't see the exact numbers since I'm too lazy to add up your old updates and applied TPA, but were you around 1,300 TPA? As I've said in this thread, you are basically asking for super rough regression if you go that high. Realistically you're hitting your peak by year 5 and then maintaining your build over the depreciation seasons. Anything over 1.1k TPA will definitely feel a bit difficult because you're spending so much, and also depending on how TPE efficient your builds are for regression. You're at 1.1k TPA right now and you're pretty much already the best of the best with 89 SC and 93 DF, all excellent metrics. SK/PH also in a good spot and you're not playing C, therefore avoiding the FO investment as well. SK/PH at 89 and 92 each too. You are going to get super marginal gains from where you're at now if you keep spending. Maybe you can bump a couple attributes up by a point with another 100 TPE, but I just don't think it's worth it. You'd actually be a bit more TPE efficient if you had kept PC at 90 and brought up DC to 90 instead, then use FO for increasing strength. It's small things like that that add up. Makes your OV the 100% Jagr whenever you use it since nothing else is spending over 90.