Beketov

I don't know about you but I've already planned the design.

That's kinda what I'm thinking. Doesn't bring up any possible trade issues (which also means GM's aren't even more limited in their abilities to make trades) and fixes the issue of players potentially stacking a roster. Although I don't think the above example would be possible under any cap haha. The only thing is how do you enforce if something has been "forced" or not? Just like, if the user is being a whiny bitch?

I get that, I don't see it happening really but I do understand the worry. What worries me though, like I said, is that what if, for example, Calgary was the only team in need of a goalie so my GM wanted to trade me there but my other player is already there? Suddenly Calgary either has to trade a player they don't want to trade to get what they need or I'm stuck on a team that might want to get rid of me for some reason because of need. I'm just not really sure what the compromise would be because both are kinda problematic IMO.

Isn't there just a much a chance of that now though? Chances are most people won't have 2 crazy good players anyway. Only thing I see being an issue with not limiting it would be that GM's could always have a goalie even if they don't love playing as one because they could have a forward or something at the same time.

Just curious what the reasoning is for this? Just so teams can't grab up 2 great players at a time via FA? Im not opposed to a team based limit, just want to understand the reasoning. Would kinda suck, especially for goalies where the market is limited, to not be traceable to a certain team because your other player is already there. Seems like it closes up potential FA issues but limits trades.

That seems like the easiest solution. Have it distinctly in the post which player it's being used for so the updater can cross reference when they are doing the updates. Doesn't even make it that you can't change your mind later as you can edit the post so long as the updater hasn't put anything in yet.

I don't see why it would change anything. Would be no different than a player who doesn't earn much now. Drafted in your draft year and if you stay in the VHLM for ages than its just VHL years you lose. Also, nothing saying you would HAVE to have a "welfare" player and a "PT" player. You could easily update player 1 with the PT the first week and then player 2 with it the second week, effectively splitting all TPE earned between the two.

There's some stuff that would have to be made clear, for example buying a welfare upgrade only works on the player who buys it. Aside from simple stuff like that though it seems like the best system. I agree with fong that having welfare be limited to 1 per week but giving both players 6 per PT seems pretty unfair to welfare guys so separating them into two PT's makes the most sense. This way it allows players to have that second guy without him having to be a total scrub (or both players being half scrubs) but while still offering a benefit to people who can manage 2 PT's.

What if we made it that PT's are separate for both players (would need 2 to get max with both) but if you do a PT for one you can claim welfare for the other? Still gives a benefit to those who can do two PT's but doesn't push away people who might want two players. For example, I'm all for 2 players and agree that welfare should only be for one of them. However I DEFINITELY do not have time for 2 PT's a week. I think it's more than fair to have one of them be a welfare player and 1 be a PT player, as long as I don't claim both on both players at the same time. Basically makes the PT options: 1. 2 PT's 2. 1 PT, 1 Welfare 3. 1 Welfare Ehich gives people the option to have a blended player (PT some weeks, welfare others), 2 strong players, 1 strong player and 1 welfare player OR 1 welfare player and 1 complete scrub. Seems like it opens a lot of options and doesn't turn off some people (like myself and fuglien above) from creating a second player because they don't have time to devote to both. Edit: I got really long winded with this so it was basically suggested while I was typing but oh well.

Definitely has some kinks to iron out but I wouldn't be opposed to this idea if the rules could be in place for it. I know in one old my old failed leagues I had tried this and people seems to really enjoy the aspect of controlling 2 players. Plus I might finally make a D man after 50 seasons haha. One of the smaller notes to consider for this (expansion and such being the big ones) is that I think updater pay would have to be increased with it given that they would need to be updating way more players.

User Name: Beketov (A2) Tampa Bay vs (M2) Pittsburgh Winner: Tampa Bay # of Games: 7 WESTERN CONFERENCE (C2) St. Louis vs (P3) San Jose Winner: San Jose # of Games: 6

@Banackock I’m sadly not feeling this too much but at least it’s something

Hey that's me! I will sit on the bench with pride.

4

I moved back in November, do we talk that little that you never noticed haha. Clearly I need to be a Commish so that Halifax can run the league

I'm pleased with the look of these, 6 is respectable IMO. Just don't add individual awards or mine will suddenly look very sad haha

I'm guessing you have the other question since I definitely did not need the indexes for this.

I'll get my main gripe out of the way first: Text. Even with (I think) 3 layers of text I found it very hard to read. The main one is okay but I think the others should have just been used to accent it, not this strange pyramid of text think you have going on. Aside from that it's very simple but in a nice clean way. The contrast looks great, lighting is giving it a very clean feeling, BG gets the job done even without much depth. I like it, I just wish I liked the text a bit more.

This is different but actually pretty cool looking. Blending is spot on and perfect execution of shapes, especially with the text. Lighting dot is a little bright and white, especially compered to everything else so that's a tad distracting. Overall I think the lighting affecting the render and text could be a tad bit stronger but that's not a big deal. Well done.

This is...umm...something? I'm just going to work my way up I guess, not sure how to really review this haha. The bit at the bottom kinda looks like a basketball court, not sure if it is but that's what I'm seeing. The mixing of fonts throws my eye off, same with the mixing of text effects, it's kinda all over the place. The fire / ice thing you have going on in the middle is cool enough I suppose. All the render's look a little pink, not really sure why, and one has a distinct line around the cut, should probably defringe that off.

First off, and this isn't a major complaint but just something I;m noticing, try experimenting with different sizes and a lack of black border. I'm noticing that on all your sigs and I don't want you to get stagnant. Now then, this juxtaposition actually looks pretty cool. I would probably have put a little more lighting on the render side (the wolf seems fine) to make him pop a bit more; especially around the eyes. The text is cool but the subtext I think should be a bit smaller so the name stands out more. Effects are spot on and blending is amazing; just need a few extra hits of light and change the text up slightly to really make this something amazing.

It's good to see a nice manip every once in a while. The effects are good, the focus and blurring are spot on. Almost has a painting kinda feel to it which is nice. The text could use a bit of work. Not sure if it's up too high in the layers or just doesn't blend or what but it feels slapped on and distracting which is a shame because the render looks amazing both lighting and effects wise.

Man you sure do love your text focus don't you? I'm not opposed to it, I just think if the text is going to be the focus it needs a little more going on. I would like to see a little more punch to that text rather than having it plain white. Render effects are good and the splatter is okay but definitely more could have been done with it. Kinda feels like someone just threw paint on a photo.

Definitely some cool, if not a little triply, styling on this one. The wave effect is VERY strong but I think it works to get the render as a focal point. Sadly it does make text very challenging and I think that's where you faltered a bit. Personally I would have tried a small text, maybe on a black bar, to get it out there without feeling like you are hiding it but not making it a distraction either. I'm not 100% sure that would work but it might, it's a tricky situation.