PSN Player's Poll, Should Bans from PSN Carry a Ban to Xbox LGHL?

Discussion in 'Leaguegaming Hockey League (LGHL PSN)' started by LG McDonald, Mar 10, 2017.

?

Should Players Ban from Xbox be Removed From PSN?

  1. Yes, PSN bans should result in the player being removed from Xbox League

    81.8%
  2. No, the league bans should be separate

    18.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. frost I17I

    frost I17I looking for a club Staff Member Platinum

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +1,229 / 5 / -44
    Fun fact of the day... I am pretty high up in the world of officiating, and one of the new rule changes for the upcoming 17-20 seasons is the elimination of free icing on the penalty kill. Standard icing would apply on PK. It is not completely final, but the voting - and push behind it - is pretty strong, and there is a real chance USA Hockey implements it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    frostx7
  2. radicalapex

    radicalapex LGPSN Sharks Owner LGHL Owner (PSN)

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2015
    Messages:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    New Brunswick, Canada
    Ratings:
    +226 / 4 / -10
    I've never been a fan of that idea. You're already at a disadvantage being down a player, at least give them something that might allow them to get a change in.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Offline
    radapex
  3. Markis

    Markis Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2015
    Messages:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +103 / 3 / -1
    I think the idea is to deter penalties even further promoting more 5on5 play. I don't mind the idea of teams not slowing the game down by throwing the puck to the other side of the ice as well. I think overall the game will be better with less penalties and more goals.
     
    At Stardrop Saloon
    Offline
    markis444
  4. II_Jcross_II

    II_Jcross_II Well-Known Member Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Messages:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    53
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +225 / 10 / -10
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Offline
    II_Jcross_II
  5. frost I17I

    frost I17I looking for a club Staff Member Platinum

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +1,229 / 5 / -44

    This is the exact reason why they were talking about taking away the ability to ice the puck. If your player commits an infraction that is penalized under the rules, you should not be rewarded by being able to continually throw the puck down the ice for any reason (in USA Hockey's mind). They also want to encourage teams to play their skilled players in all situations. Right now, teams generally put out their weaker guys, and tell them to ice the puck the whole time. When the penalty is over, they put out their stronger unit again rested up. USA Hockey wanted to eliminate the idea of carrying players specifically for PK specialists in an attempt to promote equal skill across all lines, while increasing power play numbers. Their thought process is the success rate of a power play should be way higher than an average of 25-35% for the top end of the spectrum, and penalize the team who commits an infraction MORE to penalize those who are routinely in the box.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    frostx7
  6. vhigh

    vhigh Well-Known Member Media Director Media Team

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    267
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Ratings:
    +460 / 5 / -62
    I agree 100%!!! Why should the team that takes a penalty get ANY reward!! If you go 1 man down, or 2 men down, then why should you be rewarded with the ability to do something that is otherwise not allowed? It becomes a PRIVELAGE on the PK to be able to freely ice the puck and kill time. I love this and I hope it does find its way into organized leagues and eventually the NHL. The best players in the world should not have an advantage on PK to be able to do this! I am all for this and hope, like I said, that this is implemented!!!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    Vhigh
  7. frost I17I

    frost I17I looking for a club Staff Member Platinum

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +1,229 / 5 / -44
    As of last I heard there was a really strong backing behind it. I know they had been talking about implementing it in the Junior leagues next season as well to test it before moving it to the AHL/NHL testing phase. I'm sure they will play a few games with NHL players under those rules in the off season as well to see how they work. It'll change the game for sure though, but at the end of the day everyone will adapt like always. There will be a premium for not taking PIMs.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    frostx7
  8. Lazy Pedestrian

    Lazy Pedestrian Well-Known Member LGHL Owner (PSN)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Ratings:
    +1,279 / 22 / -57
    This way of thinking is out dated IMO.

    Expecting people to be happy on a shitty team is never going to happen. Them quitting the league doesn't help the situation because like you said, they'll buy out and be back next season. It just leaves that shitty team short a player and does that really benefit the league at all?

    You say players have too much power when in reality, the players have none.

    A good player from Xbox that doesn't have time for management gets run up to 11mill and he's trapped in a shitty situation 10 times out of 9.


    I know some people hate the idea but maybe it's about time we give players some say in where they play. Maybe we'll see less bullshit :O
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
    Playing Attrition on Wargames
    Offline
    LazyPedestrian
  9. frost I17I

    frost I17I looking for a club Staff Member Platinum

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +1,229 / 5 / -44
    There is a place for them to have a say... Club, and the new E-SHL league. If a player doesn't want to deal with where they end up, then don't play at all honestly. This isn't a club league, and people join this to play with/against people they normally wouldn't have played with before. I'm all for getting guys who play together on the same team, but you have to do so the right way. Throwing a tantrum because you are on a sub par team, or were traded away, is the exact reason why quitting penalties should be more harsh than what they are. There should be no reward for quitting. It is the exact thing that is wrong with our society today as it is..... It's hard, or you don't like it, just quit. Might as well take away playoffs and give everyone participation medals while we're at it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    frostx7
  10. H-spartan-G

    H-spartan-G Sparty Staff Member LGHL BOG (PSN)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +225 / 7 / -27
    Players absolutely have power. Dealing with management and trades this season I saw it and dealt with it first hand. We have to worry about players we are receiving in trades and or trading away quitting on their new team and it can often deter or alter a potential trade out of fear of compensation. And how many players were traded this season because they threatened to quit if they weren't?....more than once. If that isn't power I don't know what is. It ruins the experience for all of management who are giving of their time and effort to make this league run smoothly. It also can ruin the experience for teams as a whole when they have people quitting and bitching about their team before new players even play a single game there, just as MTL.

    If you want to decide who you play with then play club and be an ESports gamer. That isn't what a virtual league that is meant to imitate the NHL is for. It would just be a lopsided shitshow of uneven games even worse than it is now.

    Ultimately you are only asked to play 3 fucking games a week. 3. We aren't asking you to play every night for hours with a shitty lineup. Is it fun getting pumped 12-3 in a game? No. But if you can't accept the potential of ending up on a bad team for a season and to play 3 a week then you should go play something else.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
    Offline
    BackupGoaltending
  11. vhigh

    vhigh Well-Known Member Media Director Media Team

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    267
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Ratings:
    +460 / 5 / -62
    Players have all the power they want in PRO SERIES. They abuse the "quit and buyout" option (a select few ruin it for all). LGHL is not Pro Series and players should play where they are or don't play at all.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Offline
    Vhigh
  12. Markis

    Markis Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2015
    Messages:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +103 / 3 / -1
    If you commit to two leagues, and you quit on one of them, you're to blame for the team on the other console getting screwed. There's no one forcing a player to sign up to two leagues. There's no one forcing a player to quit because he's on a bad team. It's all the players fault for this scenario.

    If you're the owner of a bad team, having guys quit on you only makes the issue harder to escape. Having guys you bid/traded for to improve your team, and having them leave immediately, only makes your team worse. This will then prompt possibly more players to jump ship and just make it harder and harder to escape the cycle.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    At Stardrop Saloon
    Offline
    markis444
  13. Moranaconda

    Moranaconda "A Players Coach" Co-Host LG Hockey Hotline Media Director LGHL Owner (PSN)

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    213
    Location:
    Denver,CO
    Ratings:
    +1,403 / 16 / -149

    This^^^^^^ Also when player status is busted back to Prospect there should 100% be no option to buy status and bypass having to earn the right to play in the NHL again. This season as well as previous seasons have seen a great number of players quit purely out of spit only to buy out their ban and be playing the following week which is unacceptable in my book. Now if you have to "quit" the league for justifiable reasons then the appeal process will run it's course and the right decision will be made I am sure of it. But players quitting because they don't like the team they were traded to or the owner or any other cry baby reason then they should have to start back at the beginning and earn the right to be in this league again. It is a privilege to play in this League and not a right and you should have to earn it just like everyone else if you decide to throw a temper tantrum and quit the league.
    Stanley-Cup-Trophy.jpg
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    Offline
    Moranaconda
  14. Lazy Pedestrian

    Lazy Pedestrian Well-Known Member LGHL Owner (PSN)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Ratings:
    +1,279 / 22 / -57
    I guess my point was missed.
    Harsher penalties for quitting is not going to solve a damn thing, you're just going to chase a huge portion of the community away and the quality will suffer too.

    I fully appreciate the point you're making but you're trying to fundamentally change people and it's never going to happen.

    People will always want to play with people they're familiar with and avoid certain teams that aren't fun to play with.

    Sometimes there is a reward for quitting - not being forced to play 3 games a week with a team that isn't fun to play with can be viewed as a reward and has been a reward for many people.

    When the LG games aren't fun, why would people play? That's the purpose of the league after all.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Get Good Get Good x 1
    Playing Attrition on Wargames
    Offline
    LazyPedestrian
  15. Lazy Pedestrian

    Lazy Pedestrian Well-Known Member LGHL Owner (PSN)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Ratings:
    +1,279 / 22 / -57
    A player can just as easily flip that blame on management and say you should know who you're trading for and know they're not going to quit on you.

    I don't fully believe that point, I'm playing devil's advocate. Management can't know everyone in the league, it's impossible... But you also can't put 100% of the blame on the player if you acquire a guy that wants nothing to do with your team. Either you're running a dysfunctional team or giving off the perception that your team is dysfunctional.

    I believed this as management and I believe it as a player - if a guy threatens to quit if he isn't traded, you have 2 options. Trade him and get something or don't trade him and get nothing. You can't force a guy to be happy on your team and if he doesn't want to be there, you shouldn't want him there. If nobody wants to play for you, you need self reflection.



    When I say players should get some power, I mean some little things. Like give players incentive to play for a shit team, have a big contract, etc.

    If I know I'm mediocre af and get bid to 6.5mill simply because I own an Xbox, My LG experience for 3 months is ruined. A better example might be the good players that get those 10+mill contracts on meh teams. That's not fun 10 times out of 9. If that guy puts on a brave face and takes a butt stretching for a season, how do we reward him? We put him back in bidding for a new owner to do the same shit to him.
     
    • Troll Troll x 1
    Playing Attrition on Wargames
    Offline
    LazyPedestrian
  16. Lazy Pedestrian

    Lazy Pedestrian Well-Known Member LGHL Owner (PSN)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Ratings:
    +1,279 / 22 / -57
    I know it's the topic of the thread but my response was to Frost's point about player happiness and had nothing to do with 2 consoles.

    You're still leaving out a huge part about the 2 console player - what if they have a legitimate change in life that limits their availability? You're basically giving a middle finger to a 2 console player - a player that is clearly dedicated to LG and commits a large portion of their time to LG.


    I swear, some of you guys only react to the 1% scumbag and don't care how you effect the rest of the league that have been active members of the community for a long time.

    Sick display of appreciation to your users.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    Playing Attrition on Wargames
    Offline
    LazyPedestrian
  17. frost I17I

    frost I17I looking for a club Staff Member Platinum

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +1,229 / 5 / -44
    I know that at the end of the day I won't change a persons fundamental values. I get that, and know its impossible to do in an internet setting. Everyone can be a keyboard warrior behind a screen. At the same time, there are unspoken rules that govern people as a whole. There has to be some form of penalty that makes a player consider if quitting is really worth it to them. If it still is, then so be it. At least they have considered the consequences of their actions, and accept the punishment being given to them.

    The majority of the better players in the league are already staying away in favor of Pro Series events, or this new E-SHL league. It has been happening on Xbox for a while now. There really wouldn't be as much of a drop off as you are suggesting if harsher penalties existed in all honesty. Maybe 10-20 out of a 3,000 player league?? The only difference is that player now has to spend a season in a lesser league, with lesser players to earn his right to play in the NHL again if they do quit. The reward for staying is having the option to play for a different team the year after, or take management with a buddy. Not everyone enjoys management, but if you are that hell bent on playing with a set group of guys, that is the only sure way to do so. Historically, that is what high cap players do, and the league benefits from better owners taking teams. Those players don't want to play with people that are bad, so as a result, they build a better team. That leads to more competition, and a better league for everyone.

    The point is all simulation leagues are designed to give someone the opportunity to play in a league that somewhat mimics real life. You see this all the time with teams that have superstar players on their roster, with nothing around them in real life. Guys with big contracts may hate playing for the team they are on, but continue to do so based on the contract they signed. Jonathon Drouin tried the whole "trade me or I quit" last year, and look how well that played out for him. Obviously the incentive is for them they are actually getting paid, but that principle holds true for this league. At the end of the day, play your games and try to make the people around you better. Maybe you find someone you actually enjoy playing with that makes the experience better instead of the assumption everyone is shit, I'm just going to quit. They very may well be shit, but at least you gave them a chance, and tried to make your situation better.

    League rules state that you are required to get permission from the owner of the player you are trading for to speak with them. If I want a guy, I can't just go up to him and say "hey, would you play for me if I made a trade for you?". It's not how LG works. Do people get away with doing that... probably. But to make a case around talking to a player about getting them in a trade before you know if they will stay is unrealistic. Especially when (just as you said) there is no way for them to know every player in the league. It's impossible. Bidding, on the other hand, is fair game, and I would agree that sending a message goes a long way. That should be encouraged.

    Playing devils advocate the other way... sometimes guys don't want to go to team because of players outside of management. There is a perception that teams who aren't doing well are complete shit. That isn't always the case. Maybe they had avail issues, players didn't mesh as well as they thought, you realized you over valued a players talent. There are alot of reasons a team may not be doing as well as they could. But maybe you are the one piece of the puzzle that fits to correct the ship. It may be enough to save a season, and make a run.

    I also think that it is hard for newer (or lesser known) owners to attract better guys. Better players don't know who they are, so naturally assume they are bad at the buttons... or assume they can't build a team. Many times, they bid on a player that is well known in order to attract other well known players. That may be their only chance to get another guy who they might not know of before. Maybe they suck the first year, but it could be a learning curve for the next. If the player is helpful after they are won or traded, they might be able to help make that team better through other acquisitions. We all started somewhere as lesser known players. If given a chance, these owners who aren't doing well might prove you wrong. So why reward a guy for quitting when that owner is just trying to make his team better? On paper, he is trying to make you a competitive group by getting you (a good player), and you quitting makes it that much harder for him to succeed.

    Even more so, the team trading you may not like what you are bringing to the team. They know they are not in the best spot to win a cup with you on the roster, and decide to trade you in order to build a better collective group. They won't tell you in fear they can't move you, but looking in the mirror goes two ways some times. You may not be as good as you think, and that trade would be the difference in making a cup run. Sometimes you even trade people because of the cap. It isn't that you don't like them, but the team you sent them too were the only ones who could make it work. That happened to me at trade deadline with a player I respect.

    I actually agree with you here that there are circumstances that present themselves that make it challenging over a 9 week season for a guy on 2 consoles. There is no way to predict what is going to happen. Having said that, you take that risk when you sign up at the beginning of a season. If something does happen in respect to your scenario that limits the time a player can play, what is he going to do? Naturally, he is going to quit the team that has a worse chance of success in favor of playing his limited schedule on the better team. It is the natural thing to do. But in doing so, that player has created a deeper hole for an owner that may be doing his best to keep things together. We have an appeal process that is very dedicated to making sure cases such as this are handled appropriately. In a case that you mention, I am sure the league would side with the guy who has been a dedicated member of the community if he had a legitimate reason to leave. In all honesty, stepping away from LG on both sides may be the best action for him if it comes down to that scenario. The harsh quitting penalties are designed to prevent the habitual quitting that results from players acting stupid. There are multiple scenarios that a player who has an established relationship with their team owner could work out a mutual agreement to finish the season, while playing less games. There are other options outside of quitting, and owners take care of those guys all the time in LG.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Offline
    frostx7
  18. Lazy Pedestrian

    Lazy Pedestrian Well-Known Member LGHL Owner (PSN)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Ratings:
    +1,279 / 22 / -57
    I 100% disagree with your thought that there really wouldn't be as much of a drop off.

    When the 'best' players quit for Pro Series, etc. new kids take over the 10mill contracts... and then they don't have fun... and then they leave.

    Just look at some of the big contracts on PS4... Some of them were or still are average on Xbox. Some of them are tired of those big contracts and ready to quit.

    It's cyclical.

    Forcing people into management by constantly giving them big contracts is not a good way to get good management. It's been failing on the Xbox side since '09. For every 1 good owner that you can name that was essentially forced into ownership, I can probably name 10 that failed HARD.

    Unless you want to have the AGM position brought back... Another can of worms right there lol


    You point out the flaw in your simulation paragraph, real players get paid. What's the reward for a 10mill player on a bad team right now? Literally nothing. My ideas on this have been shot down before. People aren't open to the idea of rewarding a player for getting a big cap hit but then complain when the big cap hit is unhappy with his situation. Owners want the players feet held at the fire but don't want to take responsibility for putting players in shitty situations. You're going to have to give a little if you want to take.


    I know how tampering works and I wasn't suggesting tampering. If you don't know the guy you're trading for, you have to assume a certain amount of risk. IMO It's a bit crazy to make a trade for a complete stranger. You should at least have some sort of connection to the player whether that be his former D-partner is on the roster, his clubmate wants to play with him, etc.

    I can understand moving a guy for a stranger if you're just trying to dump a useless player and want to roll the dice on a guys stats... but trading for a well known guy with a well known attitude and expecting him to be on board with you is just a bad idea.
    (For anyone wondering, I've been an AGM, GM, and Owner before on Xbox - I luv me some trading)

    In response to your devils advocate pitch - I don't fully disagree but I think that comes down to the managements ability to sell a player on a team. I've had guys pissed that they were on my team and I've found ways to make them happy. If they're respectful in asking for a trade (if they don't have a request) after my pitch, I go to work for them and try to make them happy. I can't be mad at a guy for not wanting to play for me if he doesn't know me, doesn't like the look of my roster, he might have beef with some of the players on my roster, etc. - I call that a failure on my own part to do my due diligence on a player. Sometimes you get a "big name" like @Foster on your team and you get his buddy from PS3 on your team as well... You win a bunch of games and then they both quit because you know what they say, menstrual cyclessync up sometimes.It sucksbut you can still overcome it and make a palyoff ru.. I know, I've been apart of it.


    Newer/lesser known owners are always going to have to put in 3x the work... but if they can't sell their plan to a "good" player, then they likely aren't cut out to be an owner. I 100% agree that there are a ton of guys with 0 self awareness and think they're a lot better than they are when they make their demands. I've been overpriced and traded for better players to nub owners lol I get it. But if you're one of those lesser known owners and you get one of those players, I still say you fucked up. You can cry about the guy not wanting to be there/threatening to quit or you can get back on the grind and find a player that is willing to contribute positively.



    As for the appeal process... how long does that take? If I get banned on 2 consoles and have to go through this appeal process, isn't my team still going to get fucked in the short term at a minimum? I've never seen an appeal process done to be completely honest so it just raises more questions than it answers for me.



    Some questions I have which is directed more at site staff:
    1. How many players play on 2 consoles
    2. How many players that played on 2 consoles quit on 1 console
    3. How many of those players had a quitting history

    I know these numbers are probably a pain in the ass to dig up, but before we go putting in these rules maybe we should figure out how legitimate this problem is.


    These responses are getting so long that it's difficult to remember what I'm responding to and probably missed some good points lol
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    Playing Attrition on Wargames
    Offline
    LazyPedestrian
  19. A_Raging_Sloth

    A_Raging_Sloth Center, #15

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2015
    Messages:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    penticton, british columbia
    Ratings:
    +18 / 3 / -3
    TL;DR

    Frost voted yes
    Lazy voted no

    I agree with Frost
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    TheDeganator
  20. Oso-Sic

    Oso-Sic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2015
    Messages:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Houston
    Ratings:
    +456 / 4 / -19
    If you sign up for two leagues and have a big enough "life change" that it's forcing you to quit, maybe you need to take some time and deal with real life shit.

    Ban in both, imo.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Offline
    SicSports
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.