(06-11-2017, 12:18 PM)Bengals1Fan Wrote:So for the GFX Discussion, personally it doesnt take me hours to make sigs, but I've been making signatures since I was literally like 11. A lot of the people here don't have that skill built up yet. The GFX payouts are odd because they don't EVER equal 1M flat. I feel like a quality sig should be able to get to 1M to cover a 5 TPE training for the week. The Graphics pay has to go up if the Media one is.

Also one thing no one mentioned, if the DT's play better then the O-lineman and you realize and have admitted this, does this mean that the Otters just have a distinct advantage this season? They have the best D-Line and Shaka knows how to use it. If you aren't going to anything about it to even the level of play that's a bit messed up for the other teams who didn't know this going into the draft.

(06-11-2017, 12:00 PM)Perkules Wrote:As did i, but I have two trainings on this update.  I could see people trying to claim 5 for last weeks training.

(06-11-2017, 11:59 AM)Ballerstorm Wrote:DTs are good  but not game breaking as you can see by the Otters 2-2 pre season vs the Hawks 4-0 who have one DT starting who is 50 TPE.

If a 5/5 grafx was worth 1 mil there would be people routinely getting 3+ mil per week from grafx. Grafx guys on SHL are already the guys who seem to make the most money IMO. 1 mil.for 1 Sig seems like a bit much when people submit 4 per week.

(06-11-2017, 02:42 PM)JBLAZE_THE_BOSS Wrote:It takes you longer than 15 minutes to write 600 words?  No. But there's something to be said for quality over quantity. I could just spit out meaningless stream-of-consciousness articles all day, but I like my media to have solid substance. Again, like I said, though, I don't have any trouble earning $, but for some it may require more work. Can't speak for graphics, I know nothing about that.

My point: save your time and write articles instead of wasting time making a graphic that may or may not get what your preconceived value.

(06-11-2017, 02:59 PM)Ballerstorm Wrote:DTs are good  but not game breaking as you can see by the Otters 2-2 pre season vs the Hawks 4-0 who have one DT starting who is 50 TPE.

If a 5/5 grafx was worth 1 mil there would be people routinely getting 3+ mil per week from grafx. Grafx guys on SHL are already the guys who seem to make the most money IMO. 1 mil.for 1 Sig seems like a bit much when people submit 4 per week.

(06-11-2017, 01:19 PM)Bengals1Fan Wrote:1. The game does not always sim the way that the stats work, there is an element of randomness. This is why in the WFL we had the number one seeds go down in the playoffs a few times. If they aren't game breaking, just good. Why the F*$k did you feel the need to bring it up? It sounds to me like they are, but you have no way of fixing this for the year because the Otters drafted specifically to play this way because there was no rule against it (Shout-Out the Otters staff for finding that Loophole).I haven't looked, but if I had to guess, the Otters would win their two games because their DT's wrecked havoc, and the offense did the same thing in both games. That's my guess.

2. The problem here is you're grading based on the person's skill level. I got a 4/5 on one of my graphics because it was washed out (or something idk seemed dumb to me) and other people are getting 5's for slapping some text with a stroke on a picture. I agree with Blaze who said graphic grading is getting way to easy. If the sig is not good, it doesn't deserve a 5 in my opinion. People new to graphics want to get better, not to stroke their ego. That's the issue with the GFX grading.

(06-11-2017, 01:19 PM)Bengals1Fan Wrote:1. The game does not always sim the way that the stats work, there is an element of randomness. This is why in the WFL we had the number one seeds go down in the playoffs a few times. If they aren't game breaking, just good. Why the F*$k did you feel the need to bring it up? It sounds to me like they are, but you have no way of fixing this for the year because the Otters drafted specifically to play this way because there was no rule against it (Shout-Out the Otters staff for finding that Loophole).I haven't looked, but if I had to guess, the Otters would win their two games because their DT's wrecked havoc, and the offense did the same thing in both games. That's my guess.

2. The problem here is you're grading based on the person's skill level. I got a 4/5 on one of my graphics because it was washed out (or something idk seemed dumb to me) and other people are getting 5's for slapping some text with a stroke on a picture. I agree with Blaze who said graphic grading is getting way to easy. If the sig is not good, it doesn't deserve a 5 in my opinion. People new to graphics want to get better, not to stroke their ego. That's the issue with the GFX grading.

(06-11-2017, 03:39 PM)Kendrick Wrote:In all fairness you graded one of my sigs that sounded based on personal preference a lot and not on the actual signature. Which is what you implied here.

(06-11-2017, 03:38 PM)Ballerstorm Wrote:I felt the need to bring it up because it was something people noticed. DTs leading in sacks across the board. I considered putting a change in immediately but it was too close to the regular season to realistically expect to implement and ask the current DTs to update their builds before being updated.