Nykonax

11 hours ago, Gustav said:

To end on a less holier-than-thou note--what do you think the league could do to do better? I'm going to start by challenging GMs (and welcoming anyone else who would like to join in) to do one simple thing--reach out to a clicker today. Check in, ask what's up, make sure they're aware of opportunities to earn in our league (especially the easy ones!), and make it clear that you're there to help if needed. If you do that, I grant you permission to tell me to fuck off in this thread, in as many insulting words as you'd like.

@Kylrad would you like to hear about our lord and saviour: point tasks?

just a quick response to this:

is less parity actually a good thing? I think people would be kinda upset if the same teams are winning every season. Like in SHL for a long time it was just Hamilton and Buffalo winning, along with Chicago a few times. I don't think the people not on those teams had fun, especially after like the 10th season in a row of it being the exact same. And you can argue that they deserve to win because of good management, which I think is fair, but it still ruins enjoyment for people.

could say the same thing about VHL, people were PISSED that Vancouver three-peated (obviously in large due to meta, but I think people would've been much less pissed if Vancouver only won 1/3 of the finals). I think the same would go for Moscow, they just keep losing so no one cares. If they won 5 straight people probably wouldn't like it.

is upping the cap and giving teams longer contention windows and more obvious contenders a good idea? I personally like the balance in the VHL and the idea that like a few teams in the playoffs can win it every year, rather than just the one or two obvious stronger teams.

1 hour ago, Doomsday said:

If the new player costs more than the old contract, the cap penalty is removed for the duration of the new contract where appropriate.

Hold on what. So if I had a $4 million inactive contract, and I went and signed a $5 million free agent. I'd only have to pay the $5 million for the FA? Seems broken to me? Can just sign whoever to a contract and if they go inactive you can get a free buyout and a better player?

Wouldn't teams just keep inactives of higher TPE until they can drop them for a higher TPE player for free? There's no incentive to drop an inactive player for a player with a lower cap hit. It's like going from an 800 TPE inactive player to a 600 TPE active player and still paying the same price for the 800? Why would any competitor do that?

7 hours ago, jacobcarson877 said:

Lemorse is the pinnacle of activity in sim leagues, and is always out and about spreading cheer on Discord.

sorry, grumpy old inactive boomers only.

I really don't know why this wasn't the case in the first place. I'm all for it.

33 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

 

What problems does it create? Seriously, if everybody's getting signed and members are engaged, personal opinion is that I don't see teams not signing free agents as a bad thing. I default to the rule of fun here: The ability for GMs to build as they please and cycle between rebuilding/contending, players to have more flexibility to move where they want, and actual contenders and pretenders in a given season is more fun for me. And generally members have more fun if they have a chance to win versus being mandated seventh-season cap casualties. At the very least I prefer it to uber-parity, where teams are forced to sign cast-off players who don't want to be there, playoffs are a crapshoot between ~12 teams all squeezed against the cap, and everybody is looking to optimize build construction and there isn't much freedom left for players to do as they please (see: Vinny Detroit trying to have a fun build and being bounced around the league for doing so).

 

A lot of this cap crunch was predictable from way back, which I know you know. But it seems like a bit of a band aid over a wound. $2M over the life of the 9-season career shift is essentially four $500k salary bracket bumps - when an extra season of earning gives people 100-150 more APE for the back half of their career, meaning 1-2 bracket bumps per individual on a team of 11. (Depreciation changes mitigate that slightly, but not totally.) Plus with players spending their first season or two post-draft in the VHLE, there are fewer rookie scale contracts in the VHL as well, making that cap even tighter. It's also going to get even worse next offseason when S80 players don't retire.

 

It's never going to be perfect, and I appreciate the work you've put in to try and get this crazy system up and running. But I almost wish you'd be doing less - it seems a bit like y'all are letting perfect be the enemy of good here. That's the point I was making about analysis paralysis - you can do all the testing in the world, but at some point you've gotta make a change if things aren't working. And perhaps our opinions differ here, but I don't think the tight cap is working.

The problem with increasing cap by too much in my opinion is that teams aren't going to use that space to sign the low 400 tpe players out of the goodness of their heart, they are going to use that space to just sign more high TPE players or give their players more bonuses. Especially under a system where TPE matters way more, giving teams the option to sign more high TPE players and form super teams just decreases parity while not really helping the low TPE people without teams. Sure, they'll eventually end up on a bottom feeder team that has no good players because the good players left to teams that have new cap space for them. But that's not really fun or a change we would want. I think some teams would even just refuse to sign these players given the extra cap because it literally just makes your team worse. If you have a 6-4-1 of good players and like 3 mil extra cap space, you aren't signing a 400 TPE 7th forward or 5th Dman if you are trying to win. It just ruins your lines and the player isn't good enough to make up for it. It makes way more sense to use that cap space on bonuses to help your players fight regression or buy more TPE.

Obviously it's not good that GM's would do this over signing active members, and we could mandate teams with cap space to sign these players, but then that just ruins the point of team-building flexibility that a higher cap brings.

33 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

there are fewer rookie scale contracts in the VHL as well, making that cap even tighter.

This is being worked on.

3 hours ago, Spartan said:

I like him more over Kyl who gives me unplayable league games if I queue with him.

True but also gives free wins unless he's on fiora

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

My hesitation with the idea if it's a store purchase is that it becomes a "rich get richer" situation. We already see high TPA players using their excess money to just buy additional TPE from the store, with this they'd just bypass that extra TPE and instead get even more bang for their buck by going for direct STHS attribute

Yeah I don't really care about it being purchasable in the store one way or another. I assume if it was it'd be extremely expensive, like sacrificing regression fighters expensive. But I do think if it is in the store then it gives the decision of "do I want to peak higher and be worse in later seasons, or peak lower but have better later seasons". There's a lot of players with like pretty maxed builds, so this gives a way for someone to stand out against those players, just at a high cost. I think it could also give options for teambuilding, as players on teams could decide to buy stat boosts to have an even better chance of winning if they are on a contender. Or if they are an amazing player on a rebuilding team, could buy a boost to get even more stats.

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

Even if it gets triggered by events in the sim, that's still someone doing something well getting rewarded by becoming even better.

I mean it depends how we design the boosts. Some of the one's STZ described would be on captaincy you get LD/DI which isn't much of a reward, and is up to the GM on who to give that to. Or the fighting one which just gives a boost to fighting and checking, which could honestly be argued as a negative in the sim, but would allow people who want to play as power forwards to fulfill their role even more. But yes some of the offensive or defensive +5 to a stat or 99 in a stat would have to be thought about, but I don't think it's really a major case of rich getting richer that matters much.

On 1/10/2023 at 2:11 PM, Dil said:

It’s a pain in the ass to implement but it could be doing pretty automatically and the only people who would need to get involved in the process would be the player store updaters

7 hours ago, Josh said:

I don't think this would be incredibly difficult to implement via the player store. Presuming there are no curve ball asks I think it could probably be knocked out in an afternoon.

So if it can be implemented on the portal I think it's worth discussing how the system would be then. Assuming most people are in favour of it since seems like people only had a problem of portal implementation and whether that being worth it or not.

I'm guessing most of the ones STZ said could be automatically activated, like checking if a player has won 3 fights in the sim and applying it, or checking if they signed 3 mil above the min contract and applying it. But that's a Josh question. The award and captaincy ones would probably have to be claimed manually though which is fine, not a big deal. Should probably stay away from situational ones like the Playoff MVP which only applies in game 6 and 7 of playoffs since that seems hard to track.

Would we also want to make it a player store option to buy a stat boost for like 10/36/72 games? I don't really have a strong opinion on it either way, I think it'd need to be pretty pricey though if it was.

Another STZ idea for @BOG

I think the idea is really cool. Most of the boosts he's come up with are pretty good, some are a little questionable. But I think before discussing the balance of these would be good to just see if other people actually support it. I think as long as the stat boosts aren't too ridiculous or the time period of them isn't too lengthy it's pretty interesting and could add some more variation. Other consideration would be the implementation of it, but I assume it could be coded into the portal.

Does experience even do anything? I'm not really sure it has like a legitimate effect on performance or anything. Because of that I'm pretty indifferent on adding it or not, I don't think it matters that much one way or another. I guess it would fit thematically though.

@O4L meowy christmas :3

@O4L

@O4L

@O4L

$1

30,31,32,33,34,35,36

$15

Transaction ID: 25309041L9350132M

@O4L

@O4L

Just now, Daniel Janser said:

I think Shindigs or some other big brain crunched numbers/ran tests and apparently you can only mitigate to a certain amount the penalty minutes created by high checking attributes.

 

Dunno, never tested how much it actually mitigates. All I know is it that only provides noticeable benefits to team winrate up to like 70, anymore than that and it didnt do much. so maybe it does cap out around 70 individually too for reducing hits/pims.

47 minutes ago, jacobcarson877 said:

I’m also reaching the point where I’ll soon have to invest TPE into CK which I never really intended on doing, just to make any progress on the DF I really wanted. It is simply too expensive to gain it any other way, and it is a bit disappointing to be forced into either incredible inefficiency or a specific build style in order to accomplish my goals.

add discipline too? would just negate any ck and leave u with just the df

@O4L

@O4L

30 minutes ago, Tate said:

7:37 - 9:37 : Challenge to @Beketov

pre-listen: i hope it's a dance battle