Jump to content

Acydburn

Commissioner
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,643

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Acydburn

    Roster Sizes Between the VHL, E, and M.

    in Archive

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Beketov said:

    The numbers look interesting, no doubt about that. My fear is whether or not it would be a situation where we follow the theoretical numbers but don’t consider the actual user impact. For example, part of the idea behind the VHLE was to make sure players weren’t getting thrust into the VHL at too low of TPE levels to actually compete. I know @Gustav recently brought up a fear of whether or not 350 was too low to be worth the extra depreciation season for him and under these rules that would be the “forced up” point.

     

    So yeah, roster size wise it seems like a no brainer but in practice would it actually be what’s best or would we

    be simply trying to balance based off numbers and nothing else?

    Unfortunately there are two trains of thought and personally for me they're both equal. It just depends on which party is more vocal. I can see both sides and work to make whichever one the majority wants within reason. 

     

    I've always thought sub 400 is too low to move up to the VHL. We saw it when we started the VHLE. GMs didn't want low TPE players on the rosters if they were going to compete. So we capped it at 400 but gave a soft cap of 350 to help out the lower end teams fill up. We went through a recruitment drought and a lot of teams are without a full roster. The 85 class doesn't look too big (i'm in in it) but it's getting better everyday. 

     

    The idea that Alex has stated is the soft cap, which gives teams the option to call them up if the rosters are empty.  The soft cap of 300-400 would just give VHL GMs the ability to fill out a roster if they were so inclined to do. I do have the same fears of the numbers being a theory and as folks increase gaining TPE the M + E are going to suffer as the classes are getting lower in numbers. 

     

    *I just reread what Alex said and I missed the make the 350 the hard cap. I don't agree with that. I think we should have 300 be the soft cap and 400 be the hard cap. 350 as the hard cap would force too many up and could in theory make competing teams messier. Giving GMs the option to call them up between 300-400 should be their choice but forcing players up at 350 is too early. Give them the option if they so choose but don't force them.

    Roster Sizes Between the VHL, E, and M.

    in Archive

    Posted

    From the looks of it going from 200-300 instead of 200-400 halves it which makes sense. Lowering the soft cap to 300 and leaving it up to the players/GMs in theory would equate to 50% ( just a theory between GMs not wanting to pull them up yet or they choose not to move up and the GM respects that) of the bracket 300-400. That would give each team enough players with an exception for defensemen but I think that's a league issue and not just an E issue. I'm not against lowering it to 300 with these numbers as a soft cap. 

    S83 HOF Discussion

    in Hall of Fame Discussion

    Posted

    Definitely Taro, I'm in-between Lamb and Davis as are others. I think if I vote in Davis I have to vote in Killinger. They're very similar, difference being the awards on Davis's end but the numbers are similar minus the extra playoff games in Davis. Killinger has more points and hits in regular season.

     

    I think I have to go Taro + Lamb

     

     

    I can't vote Bouabi in, knowing the things he said and did. If he came back and was active and contributed again.. maybe to show he put the past behind him but a minor blip doesn't change that. I wasn't around so everything is from someone else.. even if half of it is true. I personally can't vote him in.

    (S85) G - Matt Murdock, TPE: 80

    in Create A Player

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Arce said:

    Pumped for your new player's journey Acyd!

     

    You know me, we aren't a playoff contender as we have been re-tooling this year and just sold the farm. But we will give you the ice time and starts for the rest of the season. If you would rather ride with a serious Founder's Cup competing team, I do not blame you! But if you are interested in grabbing life by the horns, just reply with #HornsUp

    I'm not saying that.. send me the contract.

    VHLM Waiver Improvement Proposal

    in Archive

    Posted

    To add to that because I think I didn't convey my perspective correctly.

     

    I was speaking from a user experience perspective of if you say I want to join San Diego out of the list. I get the PM and sign the contract. That looks great to me and everything is in order. I am on a team, join the LR and all is fine and dandy and it's very streamlined. From a users perspective it's seamless and I chose where I'm going. The GM is still going to reach out to me as well as anyone else players, agm, whoever if I do join the LR. 

     

    Now the concern is that they'll sign with a team be on the roster and never come back which is valid. To combat this, there should be an approval from the GM to actually add said player to the roster. It may seem like six of one half a dozen of the other, but it's not. 

     

    The process protects the GM if they never hear from the user/the user never comes back. 

    It also helps the user/player as the process was seamless and improved their experience. They now get to be in the LR/do tasks/learn about the league. The first 5 minutes or however long a user is on the site is where we have to grab them and keep them. Having them accept an offer and then hear back, okay your GM will reach out to you at some point may turn them away. Having them accept that first contract is a pretty big deal and can get someone hooked if it's done correctly. 

     

    I'll admit its a very small difference but it might be the difference between 5 users sticking around.

     

     

    VHLM Waiver Improvement Proposal

    in Archive

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Spartan said:

    I agree Prime Directive would cover most of my issue, and we'd definitely need to have some sort of process in place to monitor players joining teams and not being signed. Maybe once Dil gets deeper into the development, we can have an idea of how the process looks on the portal and how it could be monitored by commissioners. I just really don't want to see not signing players for competitive reasons behind the farce of say an uncommunicative member, or some weird excuse that I can't even think of right now lol.

     

    The process will look a lot different because it's not just "offer in a thread to someone you haven't even spoken to yet," but rather a GM will get to see how the user engages with the team or in the LR before signing them. There could definitely be valid reasons for not signing players under this new process.

     

    That reminds me, we should probably have mods work with GM's to try and secure their servers a bit, especially if we're leaving team LR invites on a public site. Can follow up on it down the line though.

     

    I may have missed a step in the process. I was going off of Gustav's original message. Why wouldn't the GM want to sign the user? Are we allowing them to apply to multiple teams at once? I figured it was:

    See what teams are available with the information of 

    • Important info to display for each team would include rank, projected line placement (i.e. the portal will say "3rd line" or "2nd pairing" based on the number of active players at that position on that team), current playoff/non-playoff status, and a button to click which brings up a short message from the GM, editable from that team's "manage team" page, about the team and its plans (give this a character limit)

    Then it would:

    • Once a team is selected to be joined, @VHL Bot or something creates a forum message between the player and the GM, and drops in a link to that team's Discord server (the GM can also provide one with the general message in Manage Team). 

    So are we allowing a player to select multiple teams? I feel like that could be confusing for a user. As it stands a few new users think they're signing up for multiple teams. 

     

    My opinion and it might be vetoed is you allow them to see all the information and when they select a team you just have a confirm "Are you sure you want to sign with this team? Once signed you can only be traded to another team. This can not be undone".

     

    1 team per user and then when it hits a certain number of a position it doesn't allow a user of that position to join said team. Which others have said/discussed.

    Career Point Task Revisit

    in Archive

    Posted

    5 hours ago, fishy said:

    i was thinking about why i don't do career tasks and it's 100% because i don't want to write them. thoughts on incorporating other media options? have people make a video, record a news cast, etc 

     

    I mean, could be a cool concept for a veteran presence to be like a 30 for 30 or a quick  prospect scouting report video for. Not sure how many would take the time/effort for that when a 400 word article would take less time to complete. 

     

    2 hours ago, Spartan said:

    What would be the guidelines/requirements for these tasks?

     

    I feel like 400 words with prompts and talking points isn't overly difficult to do, especially for 5 uncapped TPE. I don't know how low the requirements of an alternative media option would have to be in order to make it a proportional level of effort. 

     

     

    Overall for this thread, though, I don't feel like the options we have on the board are remotely reflective of the time spent on this topic. They're minor QoL changes at best and we haven't really impacted anyone's motivation to be completing these tasks outside hoping the topic edits and timeline tweaks make them more specific to what they are. If we want to quietly roll out the tweaks that's fine, but this can't be sold as the Career Task overhaul people were asking for. I'll admit I've checked out on this topic and I'm struggling to come up with more ideas.

     

    At this point, they seem easy enough at 400 words. I think if folks aren't happy, we either decrease the number of tasks and increase the word count like Fishy was saying or we increase the number of tasks and decrease the requirements/word counts. Seems to be the options as I don't think people would be comfortable speaking or videoing themselves as the only way to get a task done. 

     

     

    VHLM Waiver Improvement Proposal

    in Archive

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Spartan said:

    I'm a bit torn, since while this new process makes getting people onto teams a lot easier, we still have a layer in there where the GM has to send the player a contract. I don't know to what degree that could be abused by M GM's, and it's a bit pessimistic of me to even bring it up. I don't think any of the current GM's would make up a reason to not sign a player to continue running an optimal, competitive roster, but I feel like we should have a mitigating mechanism to ensure that it's not possible.

     

    Whether that means keeping the double shift rule or requiring GM's to get permission from M Commissioners to not be signing a player that requested to sign with their team, that'll have to be decided. 

    Couldn't that be considered a part of:

     

     - VHLM Prime Directive

     

    The VHLM is primarily a development league. Its objective is to be a welcoming and engaging environment for new players, in the hopes that they remain active and eventually graduate from the VHLM. General Managers and their assistants are expected to make offers to new players until their team is considered full. They are also expected to release inactive players from their rosters.

     

    Failure to comply with the VHLM Prime Directive may result in any of the following punishment, depending on the severity of the infraction.

    1. A warning, with grace extended to allow the GM to re-submit lines and carry on.
    2. Forced removal of the inactive player(s).
    3. Loss of draft picks and/or free agency signing rights (not waivers).
    4. Dismissal from the role of VHLM GM.

    Would just have to make it clear what a full roster is. Other than that, this rule would allow for punishment if a GM/AGM is not abiding by it. Not sure how far into development it is, but couldn't we institute a check of, player applied to team A but was not signed? Could have a screen for it or a PM/email that goes out once a week. I can help with the code if need be. 

     

    Allow Recreates to Opt Into the VHLE

    in Archive

    Posted

    Working off what Spartan said, I think 160 is fine and the reality is that not recreate is going to want to skip the M anyways. It's just an option for some if they want it. I think last season we had 6 out of 9 that we asked who wanted to go up. 

     

    Like Bek is saying and I agreed. It doesn't make any sense to gut the M, It exists for a reason and was never an option or thought. It would be nice to give those who "qualify" the option if they choose. 

×
×
  • Create New...