.sniffuM

My taste buds approve

Jardyb10

New York is piecemailing a rebuild together wonderfully. Big props to @YEAH!stlemania

Delicious FTW!

thread over

Remember when the VHL was considered an elitist league? Those are were good times.

4-1 Reign

Cologne Seattle Toronto Helsinki

And making a stink that certain members don't deserve second players is definitely a great way to keep them around.

I wouldn't mind coming back to the grader position at all. Y'all need bodies and I have the time to review anything out there that needs one tonight (should I review the claimed ones that have 1 out of 2 reviews? Some of them are months old ). You know about my experience, hell you've hired me like 3 times for this job already but yeah with a new player coming in for me I'd love to have a job in the VHL again.

Welfare's a pretty powerful thing in the league, it's pretty easy to still earn 5-7 TPE in the league even with welfare which is pretty close to the cap. While it might create some level of rift, at the end of the day top players aren't dominating like they used to, or at least not as consistently (even Phil's season last year isn't that impressive compared to some older defensemen, at least points-wise) so I disagree. I think that the line between role players and stars should be more clearly defined; imo there's no way Delicious should have been a point per game player nearly his whole career with about 450 TPE applied.

Me please.

95% of my time here is on mobile tho :\

Not sure if you saw this post I made, but if not take a look and see if it's a workable scale (or at least a starting point for a discussion).

Obviously the second players won't add a ton of star players, but they don't really need to from what I see. I know some members (you, Alfie, Draper, etc.) would likely build their second players to be beasts as well, but ultimately they serve to add depth to rosters and a more realistic sense to the VHL. I think that the amount of strong players they will add (again, you, Alfie, and so on) is enough to balance out the longer careers, but maybe that's just me. My other suggestion was, instead of lengthening careers, to either have a doubles week every season or increase the weekly cap to 10 TPE per week with something at least similar to my scale as players would need some extra points. What's your take on that?

But with the addition of 2nd players... Plus we could fight that by making more carryover incentive to retire earlier. Make the max after 7 or 8 seasons and make 10th season carryover like 3 or 4 percent lower than 7th/8th season retirement. And there's been plenty of fight to make a second record book era for Season 51 and on anyway. I know you said that's not your primary concern but I know it would be for a lot of members.

Your opinion was one of the ones I wanted the most since you've been here from the start and have built a ton of players. I disagree with your scale though. To get 6 skills to 90 goes from 480 TPE to 510. That's just not a big enough change imo, and especially so because it's also only an extra 13 TPE to get a rating from 90 to 99. My biggest issue with the VHL has always been that there isn't enough to do with your points and, as someone who admittedly isn't a big hockey fan, there isn't enough to keep me around consistently because of that. I agree that the SHL's scale is very harsh and the VHL shouldn't take that on, but I believe that there needs to be some relatively significant change in the scale because it's just too easy to fill out your stuff. I think that my proposed scale (or something similar) paired with either a raise in the weekly cap to 10 or slightly longer careers would be enough change to see variance in builds both at the VHLM and VHL levels and would help me want to keep active here again.

This just proves it's been too long since you've told the story.

Does this mean you haven't heard the emu story?

So is this something that actually has a chance of happening? That would be awesome. Also another possibility with it if it gets implemented for S51: 10 season careers, regression starts after 7. That could be a different way instead of adding more TPE opportunities to make it work in the long run.

Obviously with this the league would need to give out a little more TPE, but that's not too hard. Maybe run a doubles week every season and/or bump the cap to 10 TPE per week.

Just as a proposal from someone whose opinion on the matter probably doesn't carry much weight: Currently it costs 116 TPE to max out an attribute. I think a scale that could work better would be: 40-60: 1 point 60-70: 2 points 70-80: 3 points 80-90: 4 points 90-95: 5 points 95-99: 7 points That's 163 TPE to max out one attribute. The 40-60 allows for more build variance in the VHLM and the overall scale would work better IMO. Here's a balanced defenseman with 800 TPE and the current scale: CK = Checking: 99 FG = Fighting: 40 DI = Discipline: 40 SK = Skating: 99 ST = Strength: 99 PH = Puck Handling: 99 FO = Face Offs: 40 PA = Passing: 99 SC = Scoring: 96 DF = Defense: 99 PS = Penalty Shot: 40 EX = Experience: 40 LD = Leadership: 40 Here's that same defenseman with my proposed scale: CK = Checking: 94 FG = Fighting: 40 DI = Discipline: 40 SK = Skating: 95 ST = Strength: 90 PH = Puck Handling: 90 FO = Face Offs: 40 PA = Passing: 90 SC = Scoring: 80 DF = Defense: 95 PS = Penalty Shot: 40 EX = Experience: 40 LD = Leadership: 40 It's not a huge difference and it forces players to specialize a bit more. With second players creating more depth on rosters in the future I think that's a good thing.

As a winger getting scoring, passing, defense, skating, puck handling and strength all to 90 takes just 480 TPE. That right there tells me the scale needs to be changed. The scale and the resulting lack of variance in builds is what has made it hard for me to stick around since the end of Reikkinen tbh. It's just not all that fun to keep making the same build over and over with a difference of maybe 16-20 TPE in a couple attributes.

harsher update scale iibh