|
Post by BluesGM on Dec 14, 2011 23:51:07 GMT -5
my idea was a one-time deal. i thought that people that were against rerates wouldnt mind if it was just a one-time deal. either way is fine by me though.
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Dec 15, 2011 10:18:41 GMT -5
If it's a one time deal, then it's a one time deal. 2-3 seasons from now, I don't want to be having this discussion again.
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Dec 15, 2011 11:25:09 GMT -5
I'd be fine with a single re-rate every 2-3 seasons just to keep some of the ratings honest for superstar type players especially considering there's no guarantee the ratings automatically go up in each auto re-rate. you could see someone like Hopkins dominating the NHL and only be a 74-75 on here in 3 seasons.
If you are going to do manual re-rates I think doing one each season is a bit much because we go through 2-3 seasons per each real NHL year and we wouldn't have enough time to see who's really a flash in the pan or a steady contributor.
A one time re-rate is only going to cause people to bitch and moan later on down the road. I would propose re-rating a player once every 3 seasons. I think not doing one each year would also keep the league from becoming overpopulated with superstars.
|
|
|
Post by ducksgm on Dec 15, 2011 13:02:26 GMT -5
i agree with the jackets ,every 2 or 3 years a rerate would be nice to have.
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Dec 15, 2011 13:04:34 GMT -5
should have a vote,why the hell would it be a 1 time thing? You basically sime 2 seasons to the nhl so you should have 2 rerates every 2nd yr and 1 rerate down if the player in question is to high.
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Dec 15, 2011 13:29:37 GMT -5
A one time offer would help fix the glaring errors. Even at 2 per team that's 60 players getting a boost in ratings. I would say 2 for the first go-round (with one going down), and 1 every other season for maintenance.
|
|