Archetypes

[diamond_ace 3,112]

1 minute ago, KGR said:

I've been hearing the same bullshit about retiring from you and Kendrick for seasons. Quite frankly it gets hilarious that you actually say it. While you think it may bother me, (him too), it really doesn't. If I felt the need to retire one of my players this very second or in a couple seasons, that is on me. I will still recreate and not give a single fuck about what either of you think. I will still be drafted to a VHL team and team's will still value me as an active because it is what I am.

You've been hearing it from Kendrick for seasons. You can't possibly have been hearing it from me for seasons, because according to you, I haven't been here for seasons.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

You've been hearing it from Kendrick for seasons. You can't possibly have been hearing it from me for seasons, because according to you, I haven't been here for seasons.

 

Hence why I said your name first and then kendrick for seasons. Implied on him. Otherwise I would have said from both of you.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

6 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

Instead of having weakness and strengths to make the league have a larger variance of players. Get more people into the VHL so that not everyone will be scorers.

 

If teams have more then one line then they would be forced to have more then one type of player.

 

He won. Ya'll better talk about recruitment and member retaining thing.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Just now, KGR said:

 

All I am asking for is for a legit reason as to why you think archetypes are bad. Instead of saying "no. i came back for one reason to this league and no other." How about argue why it's not such a good idea.

 

I did that in the first post, the one you so conveniently glossed over so you could instead take a jab at my activity. I also came up with the basic outline of a solution that would solve your desire for differing players without telling a guy he can't put more into a stat for the rest of his career.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

1 minute ago, KGR said:

 

Hence why I said your name first and then kendrick for seasons. Implied on him. Otherwise I would have said from both of you.

The way it was phrased, it implied both of us, but I'll give you credit for the clarification

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Just now, diamond_ace said:

 

I did that in the first post, the one you so conveniently glossed over so you could instead take a jab at my activity. I also came up with the basic outline of a solution that would solve your desire for differing players without telling a guy he can't put more into a stat for the rest of his career.

 

The solution isn't a harsher scale. That literally does nothing but make literally everyone shittier. This archetype system makes a lot of more things happen and a lot more possibilities than your "change the update scale."

[jRuutu 2,464]

4 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

Instead of having weakness and strengths to make the league have a larger variance of players. Get more people into the VHL so that not everyone will be scorers.

 

If teams have more then one line then they would be forced to have more then one type of player.

Over in SHL everybody is pretty much scorer-playmaker combination. Only very few chose something else than checking as weakness = not that much difference between players.

 

In the past most teams could at least put together 3 lines with unique players over in SHL, but lately the trend has come closer to VHL, small rosters with multiple players double shifted. In the past nothing was different with player types when comparing what they are now, everybody can do everything, be great skaters, playmakers, scorers and defenders, two-way hockey league where some odd players decide to have some checking on their players.

 

Not sure what it all means to VHL, but I could seriously see opening for a league that has strict update scale or strict build types that force users to pick even roughly what kind of player they want to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Your suggestion is pretty much a watered down archetype system @diamond_ace. You are just asking for nothing to be capped. I am suggesting it so that not everyone is the same kind of player. This gives more diversity compared to just having 99 everything.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Also as for your "no one likes to be told what they can put points into or not" remark, why does the SHL have so many more members than we do and they do this?

[hedgehog337 3,483]

6 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

In the past most teams could at least put together 3 lines with unique players over in SHL, but lately the trend has come closer to VHL, small rosters with multiple players double shifted.

 

18 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

Instead of having weakness and strengths to make the league have a larger variance of players. Get more people into the VHL so that not everyone will be scorers.

 

If teams have more then one line then they would be forced to have more then one type of player.

 

yup

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Just now, KGR said:

 

The solution isn't a harsher scale. That literally does nothing but make literally everyone shittier. This archetype system makes a lot of more things happen and a lot more possibilities than your "change the update scale."

I don't want to change the update scale. I never said a word about changing the update scale. Read what I've been replying to Ruutu with (the person on your side who's been debating my views, rather than me as a member).

 

I think permanently capping a skill limits your options for getting out of a shitty player, to either doing what you can and basically being stuck with him, or retiring and giving a different weakness to your new guy. You can force variation by instead putting unlockables, which is what I said.

 

Here, I'll describe my idea in a little more detail:

 

You can develop any stat as far as 60. You must initially specialize to an extent, by developing only three stats past 60 at a time, the rest are temporarily capped at 60. Once you get a stat to 80, you unlock the ability to either a: develop that stat to 99 or b: develop one additional stat to 80. You can choose whatever stats you want, but at any given time (beyond the 60 mark) you're only working on 3 stats at a given time. You can change path later on in your career, and it's as simple as hitting 80 for a stat that's between 60 and 80, or 99 for a stat that's between 80 and 99. If you discover your player is shit, and you think developing X would fix it, hit a barrier, unlock the stat, and then focus on it. You're not stuck with it just because you called it a weakness at the beginning of your career.

 

It's an idea. It might be good, it might be bad, but it's a contribution. A contribution you're ready to dismiss out of hand because my opinions are irrelevant to you, but a contribution nonetheless.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

2 minutes ago, KGR said:

Also as for your "no one likes to be told what they can put points into or not" remark, why does the SHL have so many more members than we do and they do this?

Because SHL caters more to the people who want to be members just for the sake of being members. Activity is good, but pure post count just for its own sake doesn't really do much.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

3 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

I don't want to change the update scale. I never said a word about changing the update scale. Read what I've been replying to Ruutu with (the person on your side who's been debating my views, rather than me as a member).

 

I think permanently capping a skill limits your options for getting out of a shitty player, to either doing what you can and basically being stuck with him, or retiring and giving a different weakness to your new guy. You can force variation by instead putting unlockables, which is what I said.

 

Here, I'll describe my idea in a little more detail:

 

You can develop any stat as far as 60. You must initially specialize to an extent, by developing only three stats past 60 at a time, the rest are temporarily capped at 60. Once you get a stat to 80, you unlock the ability to either a: develop that stat to 99 or b: develop one additional stat to 80. You can choose whatever stats you want, but at any given time (beyond the 60 mark) you're only working on 3 stats at a given time. You can change path later on in your career, and it's as simple as hitting 80 for a stat that's between 60 and 80, or 99 for a stat that's between 80 and 99. If you discover your player is shit, and you think developing X would fix it, hit a barrier, unlock the stat, and then focus on it. You're not stuck with it just because you called it a weakness at the beginning of your career.

 

It's an idea. It might be good, it might be bad, but it's a contribution. A contribution you're ready to dismiss out of hand because my opinions are irrelevant to you, but a contribution nonetheless.

 

I read what you wrote and for your closing remark, I have not dismissed it. I never once said that my idea is the only answer and yours is invalid. It's your choice but I was asking for an arguing reason as to why you dislike mine.

 

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

Because SHL caters more to the people who want to be members just for the sake of being members. Activity is good, but pure post count just for its own sake doesn't really do much.

 

I think that they have activity covered no matter what extent it is. Check their game threads and shit. Hell they have presenters for a reason. They earn TPE, (another job), and people attend those as well. They have a shit ton of teams and they don't seem to have slowed down at all.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

8 minutes ago, KGR said:

Your suggestion is pretty much a watered down archetype system @diamond_ace. You are just asking for nothing to be capped. I am suggesting it so that not everyone is the same kind of player. This gives more diversity compared to just having 99 everything.

Another term for "watered down" is compromise. Not everything has to be fully implemented exactly as you want - I'm coming up with solutions in the middle, for the sake of compromise. Stubbornness and an inability to grant even the smallest concession from your original point is more likely to just get the whole thing thrown out. Do you think the people in charge are more likely to fully change this in a major way, or implement a compromise? I'm helping your end goal here, of making players diversified.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Just now, KGR said:

 

I read what you wrote and for your closing remark, I have not dismissed it. I never once said that my idea is the only answer and yours is invalid. It's your choice but I was asking for an arguing reason as to why you dislike mine.

 

 

I think that they have activity covered no matter what extent it is. Check their game threads and shit. Hell they have presenters for a reason. They earn TPE, (another job), and people attend those as well. They have a shit ton of teams and they don't seem to have slowed down at all.

You did read what I wrote - a page later. You instead spent the first few comments going after me, then finally got around to the idea that maybe, just maybe, I had a real idea in there somewhere and it might be worth checking out.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

Another term for "watered down" is compromise. Not everything has to be fully implemented exactly as you want - I'm coming up with solutions in the middle, for the sake of compromise. Stubbornness and an inability to grant even the smallest concession from your original point is more likely to just get the whole thing thrown out. Do you think the people in charge are more likely to fully change this in a major way, or implement a compromise? I'm helping your end goal here, of making players diversified.

 

My initial suggestion was just archetypes. Then it was suggested to have 2 weaknesses. Then I said why not have only 2 strengths. That way they are balanced and on top of it that's two things that are different from the initial suggestion. I am just throwing out a base here. Just because I suggest it, don't mean it happens. I am just starting with blueprints and where it goes from there is up to the community, the BOG and the Blue team.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

You did read what I wrote - a page later. You instead spent the first few comments going after me, then finally got around to the idea that maybe, just maybe, I had a real idea in there somewhere and it might be worth checking out.

 

Again, not going after you for anything. Just stating the obvious. Your activity, until recently was rather lackluster. Sure you have picked it up, but I was just saying that you won't hit the cap across the board. Who knows if I even would either. Point being was stating the obvious again. No need for it to be personal bud.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

2 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

Again, not going after you for anything. Just stating the irrelevant. Your activity, until recently was rather lackluster which has no bearing on your ability to discuss concepts. Sure you have picked it up, but I was just saying that you won't hit the cap across the board and you're only allowed to discuss things that affect you personally, according to me. Who knows if I even would either. Point being was stating the obvious again. No need for it to be personal bud.

FIFY

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

I wrote in ignorant shit.

 

I'd have to agree.

Edited November 7, 2017 by KGR

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Just now, KGR said:

 

Nice you fixed it one time but forgot the other. Either way, it's obvious. You can deem it irrelevant, but I deem it as what happened.

While we're on the topic, the Penguins won the Stanley Cup. I deem that as what happened as well. I suppose that means anyone who's not a Penguin can't talk about this idea.

 

I can talk about things that happened but aren't pertinent to the topic as well. Still doesn't mean there's a point in saying it

[diamond_ace 3,112]

2 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

Nice you fixed it one time but forgot the other. Either way, it's obvious. You can deem it irrelevant, but I deem it as what happened.

You also didn't read the rest of it. I fixed more than just changing obvious to irrelevant

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Either way, you are just one person. You can bitch and whine all you want that I took personal shots and blah blah blah, but in actuality, I stated COLD HARD FACTS. I know that they can be a bitch to deal with, but once you accept it, you can move forward.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

While we're on the topic, the Penguins won the Stanley Cup. I deem that as what happened as well. I suppose that means anyone who's not a Penguin can't talk about this idea.

 

I can talk about things that happened but aren't pertinent to the topic as well. Still doesn't mean there's a point in saying it

 

Wow, you turned something into nothing. Congratulations for spewing bullshit Jason. The dunce cap is yours for the day.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Maybe I should actually start treating you as if your opinion don't matter and you aren't a member of the community. Then you have reason to point fingers at me for "personal attacks" and "your opinion not mattering".

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Just now, KGR said:

 

Wow, you turned something into nothing. Congratulations for spewing bullshit Jason. The dunce cap is yours for the day.

I turned nothing into nothing. You commented on my activity, and heavily implied it restricted my ability to speak on the topic at hand, when it did nothing of the sort. You spouted "facts" that have no bearing on anything. I then did the same, to prove the ridiculousness of your claim. It's funny though, you keep bringing it up even after I've pointed out it means absolutely nothing in the context of this discussion. You're stubborn, I'll give you that, you think that repeating it over and over again might actually make it mean something. Have I ever told you the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing and expecting different results.