westvandude
-
Posts
333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by westvandude
-
-
3 minutes ago, Rush17 said:
I like all but Hague. ^^
Why not?
-
1 minute ago, TheHitman said:
Jaret Anderson-Dolan has to get some recognition.
I based my list on us wanting another D and fill up our very weak LW depth. C is less of an issue. But yea Jaret looks good too.
-
12 minutes ago, numb3r 16 said:
could someone tell me who our top 5 at 33 should be
It really should be either of:
- Hague, D - big 6' 6" defender, most had him going in first round
- Robertson, LW - 6' 2" 40 G, 80 P, fills up our weak LW depth, most had him going in first round too
If not, then:
- Comtois, LW
- Timmins, D
- Ratcliffe, LW
- 4
-
Just now, funkyfresh said:
Yup, he'd be my choice at 33.
Robertson or Hague the big D. We'll fill a hole nicely with either of them!
-
So Colorado will not pick Hague since they already got Makar (hopefully), just need Pens don't take him or trade to another defence needing team
-
Actually updating my list:
Hoping for either of:
- Tolvanen, LW
- Hague, D
If not, then:
- Robertson, LW
- Kotsin, RW
- Comtois, LW
If not, then:
- Timmins, D
- Ratcliffe, LW
-
8 minutes ago, westvandude said:
For Canucks' 33rd pick, I'm hoping one of these are available:
- Hague, D
- Ratcliffe, LW
- Timmins, D
- Robertson, LW
- Comtois, LW
Just need 2 teams to take other players and we can get one of them
There we go, guaranteed one of these is available at 33rd now. We'll have a decent D or some much needed decent LW considering our lack of LW depth
-
For Canucks' 33rd pick, I'm hoping one of these are available:
- Hague, D
- Ratcliffe, LW
- Timmins, D
- Robertson, LW
- Comtois, LW
Just need 2 teams to take other players and we can get one of them
- 1
-
15 hours ago, -Stammer- said:
this is the only save where I have won this many cups. In other saves my best was 7 cups by 2040. The game undervalues draft picks and that is the only reason you can build dynasties. And I usually play on saves that I make realistic by not trading players teams don't want and by not stacking up draft picks. That's when the game becomes really fun
This is one of the reasons I actually prefer games that aren't trying to be so realistic and simulating every little aspect of the real life, that the game becomes so complicated it's nearly impossible to have a good AI. And a bad AI is a quick way to ruin the whole experience, specially from the realism aspect. The other reason I can't get into these overly complicated sim games is the time it takes to learn the mechanics of the game. I own both this and the Franchise Hockey Manager 3 games and have tried some of the Football Manager games that have come out every year. One main problem: I can never commit the time necessary to learn the mechanism enough to not feel like things are happening randomly. As a busy person, it's hard to commit 20+ hours just to learn the game, and many more just to play a few seasons.
I would love to see simpler management type games that focus on the key aspects of a good sim (like focus on 6-10 skills for each player instead of the 20+ and their happiness and royalty and their suddenly random ask to go to a different team...) Not only this makes the game much quicker to learn and play (so more people can play it) but also you can have a much better AI that would almost feel human, simply because the rules are simple enough for our current technology to be able to do the proper analysis and calculations.
In that sense, board games are a great example, due to technological limitations and also time limitations and need for simplicity so new people can get into it easily, create a situation where these games have to focus on a few important gameplay elements as opposed to trying to handle a ton of different details. Now if you could apply that principle to an computer game where you don't have the technological limitations (aside from the AI limitations as mentioned above), then you can have a game that not only a lot more people can get into, but the game itself would be much better with things like AI that can be perfected much easier.
-
On 5/14/2017 at 3:47 PM, -Stammer- said:
This to me looks like a broken game.. no way in a salary cap system can a team win so many back to back stanley cups! There needs to be a proper rebuild-contend cycle, and even in your contending years, you shouldn't be able to win so many cups... where are the other contending teams?! There are 30 teams, so on average you should be winning 1 in 30 seasons.. and with good strategic decisions, you could maybe increase that to 2 or 3 every 10-15 years given 5-7 year rebuild/contend cycles.
I don't get people who like to play games like this... the unrealisim and lack of challenge would bore me very quickly.
[GDT] 2017 NHL Entry Draft
in General Hockey Discussion
Posted
Team 1040 guys saying they got a sense Benning was not looking for a D for 33rd