|
Post by Hank on Apr 1, 2006 13:37:38 GMT -5
Sorry about the wait guys. I finally got my computer back up and running and with more RAM so it should be less taxing on my system.
Ok. I still want to get the league going for this Monday. However, it looks like there's some disparity as to which roster set we should be using.
Would anyone seriously object to the rosters as of January 2006? Also, to anyone that knows, does the "Unmasking" update screw up these rosters?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by mordak on Apr 1, 2006 13:49:42 GMT -5
I don't really care. My big concern is that I don't want to see this league become a group of GMs obsessed with looking in the editor to compare players and there worth. Lets try and keep this ingame and use the scouts etc.
|
|
|
Post by abyss on Apr 1, 2006 13:51:45 GMT -5
I don't really care. My big concern is that I don't want to see this league become a group of GMs obsessed with looking in the editor to compare players and there worth. Lets try and keep this ingame and use the scouts etc. sounds good to me, even if Bergeron is like 100 in the editor i'll keep him based on the fact he is my favorite player
|
|
|
Post by instaaled on Apr 1, 2006 14:02:51 GMT -5
I don't even use the editor
|
|
e5150
AHL Player
Posts: 45
|
Post by e5150 on Apr 1, 2006 14:04:43 GMT -5
Would anyone seriously object to the rosters as of January 2006? Also, to anyone that knows, does the "Unmasking" update screw up these rosters? Thanks! Seeing as the votes are split between Sept and March, I guess that would be a fair comprise to everyone. The first version doesn't change any potentials around (to my knowledge), So if we went with Patch 2.1.3, Unfaking version 1, and January roster updates, I guess that would be just fine.
|
|
|
Post by instaaled on Apr 1, 2006 14:07:48 GMT -5
The reason I want September rosters is because it's alot more realistic starting from the beginning of the season than from the middle.
If you know what I mean...
|
|
|
Post by Hank on Apr 1, 2006 14:21:34 GMT -5
Sorry guys, I read the poll results incorrectly. It looks like 8 people want the post deadline rosters as opposed to 5 for Sept.1 and 3 for January.
It really makes no difference to me but I would like to go with the majority. Is anyone really, really opposed to Post-deadline rosters?
|
|
|
Post by instaaled on Apr 1, 2006 14:52:41 GMT -5
Me.
I don't want to have to update my database.
Plus, I don't recall the season ever starting during March. I thought it was September.
|
|
|
Post by Hank on Apr 1, 2006 15:05:31 GMT -5
Me. I don't want to have to update my database. Plus, I don't recall the season ever starting during March. I thought it was September. Okay. I need people to chime in RIGHT NOW. If we start with Sept.1 rosters (Thornton still a Bruin) is anyone super upset with that. I need to know now. The server will remain unavailable until everyone says so.
|
|
sidthekid
Rookie
Pittsburgh Penguins GM
Posts: 7
|
Post by sidthekid on Apr 1, 2006 15:19:34 GMT -5
Personally I'd like to start with Post Deadline rosters...sorry instaaled I just would really rather start with those.
|
|
|
Post by instaaled on Apr 1, 2006 15:20:50 GMT -5
I'd rather not have Weight or Recchi.
Take your stupid Wrecking Ball sidwick.
|
|
e5150
AHL Player
Posts: 45
|
Post by e5150 on Apr 1, 2006 15:20:58 GMT -5
Sept 1st is when we are starting the season, so I don't see why we should have any rosters past that date.
|
|
|
Post by instaaled on Apr 1, 2006 15:26:22 GMT -5
Nobody has given a reason to start with rosters after the trade deadline.
|
|
sidthekid
Rookie
Pittsburgh Penguins GM
Posts: 7
|
Post by sidthekid on Apr 1, 2006 15:35:03 GMT -5
Heres a reason...more people voted that they wanted to use the After the trade deadline rosters. I'm sorry they didn't vote the way you wanted but majority should rule. And give them some time its only been 20 minutes, I don't even think most members have seen this thread yet.
|
|
|
Post by instaaled on Apr 1, 2006 15:37:08 GMT -5
Yes, I understand that.
But I want to know WHY.
|
|