scoop

Another thing about this: for players that choose to do this, it could make for a more realistic career trajectory. A lot of top players just keep improving and improving even through depreciation. Season after season they are better than before (at least attribute-wise, which should in theory lead to better stats more often than not). And then after eight seasons, they just retire. I'm not one who likes to try to make sim league things as realistic as real sports things, but I feel like this idea is something that people might like.

Since Molholt is bringing up some old ideas, here's another one that has had discussion in the past. Maybe if we implement a two-player system, this idea has some more merit to it. I honestly don't even know if I'm all for this idea, but I figure since we're discussing things, here's another thing for people to discuss. Question: as we know, a player is limited to eight seasons after being drafted; should this limit be removed/increased? Of course we would have increased depreciation as their career goes on, and even if we don't put a strict limit (say, 11 seasons), if someone goes on much longer, depreciation would bring them back to base eventually. Exact numbers could be looked at, but my initial thoughts are around 10/13/16% for seasons 9/10/11. Maybe even higher. Salary cap brackets may need to be adjusted as well, maybe just tack a 9th season to the Veteran bracket and make a new one for 10+ seasons. Again, this is something that we'd look at if this idea gained any traction. It could potentially keep a member who is otherwise not planning on recreating. Take Lord Karnage for example; boubabi may not be interested in recreating right now, but he may keep Karnage around if he could. Given that he could now create a second player, perhaps he would do so, since he'd basically be improving a second player while mainly focusing on Karnage. Eventually when Karnage's time is up, he has this other player sitting there that maybe he decides to continue developing. A downside might be that it goes against the history of the VHL. Previous players didn't have this opportunity, so career records might be broken. But it's not like stats are entirely comparable to previous generations anyway. Scotty's gaudy numbers were in part a product of the times. Players in the first 10 or so seasons had significantly fewer hits. Teams now have backup goalies with some added attributes, whereas CPU goalies of the past had nothing. For me, the matter of VHL history is a non-issue here. I think the last time this was brought up, someone used as an argument against it the fact that they didn't get to do it with their player, which makes no sense (except from a selfish "if I couldn't have it I don't want to see other people have it" standpoint). I think a fair argument against it would be pointing to the fact that it means a player won't be replacing the aged player. This could slightly weaken a draft, but the two-player system that may be coming in could slightly alleviate this problem, as drafts will likely be stronger as a result of that. DISCUSS

I think we actually at some point in time put in a system for doing point tasks for the previous week if you miss, but I don't recall for sure. Not that I necessarily think it's something that we need. But if you're inactive for half a season, I don't see why we should be allowing someone to come back and do four point tasks to make up for it. We want people to be here, and as such we will reward that consistency. Want a big rush after depreciation? Bank your TPE. Problem solved. If you decide to write 8 media spots in the first week of the season, fine. But you get your TPE at a rate of 6/week. I guess I don't know the VHL's stance on it, but I don't see much of an issue with posting point tasks early to be claimed in future weeks.

I am 100% confident that the Toronto Legiom will not be in the playoffs.

where they should be

nice

Good trade Calgary

Uhh you can do that. Unless the panic comes from having to post an already made image

cool

Oh

I think they're sorted by tpe. Not that they should be but that's where the order comes from. I think

I think we should be looking at it in terms of draft year, just for the sake of less confusion of more definiteness. (wtf definiteness is a word?) But I agree that three might be a little too short, but I'm not adamant about it. At a three draft difference, though, an S50 player like myself could create a second player at the S51 trade deadline. I feel like that may be an unnecessarily short amount of time. However, it could force someone to wait to recreate after retiring a player early, even if it's just their 6th or 7th season, if they also have a younger player.

17/17 in faceoffs for Sven Wolf damn