Beketov

Render needs a bit more light to really pop so I would like to see that. I would tone down or remove the effect on the BG, I don't think you really need it. Text is solid and render effects are on point. Weird black blob in the bottom right corner is throwing me off a bit.

Simple but effective. BG is clean, lighting gives some nice pops of colour. I would like to see a bit more done with the render effects and I think the kerning on the text could be toned down a tad but overall a great clean sig. Well done.

Amazing render effects and the blurring (not really sure what's what I should call that but w/e) is perfectly executed. I like the idea for the text but something about it isn't working for me; I think it's just the overall contrast of it. Well done in general though.

I have the agree with Boubabi, this confuses me. The render and BG seems like a complete afterthought, as if you made the piece and then threw paint on it. If you want to go crazy with something that's fine by me but I think you should go all the way with it. Why not have the render splashed with the crazy colours as well for example? This looks like two different sigs slapped together and it makes me completely ignore the render and lighting.

Great clean sig. BG is simple but has enough depth to keep me interested, lighting effects and colour pop beautifully, text keeps my eye focused on the render but has enough effects to really pop. Amazing work.

Love the render effects and the overall canvas size works very well. Depth and blending are both very well done. Lighting overall is good but I think the text area is a little bright compared to the render which is throwing my eye for a loop a bit. Overall a great piece.

Loving the 3D effect, it really adds a nice dynamic to the render and works well. I think it could have been used a bit more (text maybe?) to add some theming to the piece though. Lighting and depth are pretty good, I feel like the text is holding this back a bit though; I'd like to see a bit more done with it.

I like the direction this sig is going but the execution isn't quite there. The render effects look great and the overall cracked feeling is good but the amount of colour still showing in the BG is throwing it off and the lighting effects on the render have a weird purple colour that doesn't match. Might have worked better with a render instead of a manip. Text is pretty good but I think it would actually work better without the first name.

Colours are a bit crazy but it works well, lens flare fits which is nice. render does need a defringe to remove a bit of extra BG, definitely watch out for that. Text looks a bit boring to me, seems like you just slapped some white text on at the last minute and it doesn't fit with anything else. Face is a bit too bright as boubabi mentioned.

I agree with Boubabi that the dragon scale BG you have going on is a bit distracting. If it was uniform in it's focus I think it would be fine but the blurring almost seems random. I think using it as a clipping mask on the text was a poor choice as it showcases this problem more than necessary. Lighting and contrast is decent though which you've vastly improved on in the last few weeks.

Stock work is on point, nice use of colour. Text is supposed to be the focal point I guess but the contrast of it still seems slightly odd to me and I'm not sure I like the blood splatter on it (although you added it beautifully)

I will give you credit, your work is probably some of the most creative on the site; always bringing something different to the table. I like the digital idea you have going on here and the render effects are definitely top notch. However I think a BG based around white instead of black would have turned this from an un-blended sig to a clean masterpiece. The stock work blends well together but not well with the render or the text (which stands out a lot). Overall a solid piece but I think making it cleaner would have worked amazingly.

I like the ideas I'm seeing here but I'm not sure how much they flow together. The blending of the stock work and render are well done but the contrast on everything feels different so nothing seems like it belongs. I think some exposure layers could really help this out a lot. Lighting feels a little weird as well, probably because there isn't enough darkness in the sig for my liking. Text is decent but could be blended a bit better.

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