Regression vs forced retirement

[scoop 3,447]

I'm also implying that if you care so much about it you could make your own league with different rules than the ones we have here. It would fuck with a lot of things, too much hassle imo.

I don't care so much about it, and I highly doubt that I would play beyond eight seasons myself, but it never hurts to consider change. The league went on for 30 seasons with eight teams and then made a huge change in expanding to ten. I don't think it would have a much bigger impact than that, if at all.

 

I think the best argument mentioned against allowing longer careers, in terms of how it would affect the health of the league and its cyclical nature, is that it would potentially weaken drafts, because recreations would happen less frequently. I don't think there would be a whole lot of players who play beyond eight seasons if we made depreciation something like 13%.

[xDParK 81]

I really enjoy the system they have in place right now. Gives me a chance to try out new builds frequently.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

I just don't really see a big enough problem with the current system to make any changes to it.

[Molholt 2,185]

I've made my case for longer careers in the past. Simply put, your breath is wasted because no one who has been here wants to change anything. 

 

The answer is always the same, it isn't broken. This isn't an area of the league that anyone is interested in improving, they just don't want to change it unless it is flawed. The VHL isn't going to change this. If this is something you want badly enough, join the SBA or SHL who have longer career lengths available. I don't think the VHL "needs" it either, but I think it would be cool and a nice addition. It isn't broken, but everything can always be improved, nothing is perfect. 

 

I've always been someone who strives for some realism from a sim like this, and the 8 years thing drives me crazy, but you deal with the rules/regulations, and work within them to be the best you can. 

 

Although I will say I've always thought the rules thing was a stupid argument against it. We're all in agreement we have rules that absolutely cannot and will not be broken, what is so important about preserving that? We have 20/20, 30/30, 40/40, and league historians like Victor and Kendrick to tell us about how awesome Scotty Campbell was. Who cares if someone breaks a record? I'm not saying go overboard, but if a rule change evens the playing field why is that so bad? Right now, the playing field is unreachable. 

[Victor 11,023]

It's not that unrealistic to hit those records within these conditions. Well, not Campbell's, but if you look at career points and goals leaders - Rafter, Rybak, Baldwin, Reikkinen, Chershenko all retired within the past 10 seasons (less than that). Smalling got a new career hits record in S34, Larsson almost beat him in S35. Valiq scored the most goals of any defenceman ever, by a large margin too.

I don't think that all the possibilities within 8-season limitations have been used up.

[Molholt 2,185]

My point isn't that this HAS to happen. My point is all of the arguments make the VHL members look like they are against progression unless something is broken.

 

Your statement only furthers it, we shouldn't change it because we haven't tapped into all the possibilities of this method - well, you also haven't tapped into all the possibilities for the league. 

 

I'm not saying this is the issue, or that there is even an issue right now. What I'm saying, is that the arguments against some of the issues brought up make the VHL seem very stagnant and "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Instead of constantly looking for ways to improve. (Not that people aren't, but that can be the perception)

[DGFX. 42]

so im even less likely to make the HOF cuz ill regress by the time my player actually gets some offensive skill greattttt. i dunno just my opinion as a noobie

I think most people don't make it into the HOF with their first players anyways, I know my first player was trash... but my 2nd had an amazing career and made it into the HOF.

 

Keep your head up, everyone goes through the initial fight.. sometimes you get lucky with a stud player, sometimes you just got to try again.

[Advantage 2,899]

I think most people don't make it into the HOF with their first players anyways, I know my first player was trash... but my 2nd had an amazing career and made it into the HOF.

 

Keep your head up, everyone goes through the initial fight.. sometimes you get lucky with a stud player, sometimes you just got to try again.

Welcome back scrub.

[Gooningitup 1,290]

I think most people don't make it into the HOF with their first players anyways, I know my first player was trash... but my 2nd had an amazing career and made it into the HOF.

 

Keep your head up, everyone goes through the initial fight.. sometimes you get lucky with a stud player, sometimes you just got to try again.

 

i prob wont recreate so i wanna try to be a hof right off the bat to have a good run at it. its alot of work to build a player and not speaking English properly hurts. im too prideful to sit an collect welfare. hated doing it the first time and that only creates a decent player. i want to be a great one an if they have career spans that short i likely wont put in the same time the second go round an i dont want to make a scrub

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Every player should just have to retire after one season imo

[Victor 11,023]

My point isn't that this HAS to happen. My point is all of the arguments make the VHL members look like they are against progression unless something is broken.

 

Your statement only furthers it, we shouldn't change it because we haven't tapped into all the possibilities of this method - well, you also haven't tapped into all the possibilities for the league. 

 

I'm not saying this is the issue, or that there is even an issue right now. What I'm saying, is that the arguments against some of the issues brought up make the VHL seem very stagnant and "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Instead of constantly looking for ways to improve. (Not that people aren't, but that can be the perception)

That has not been the only argument used here though.

[Mike 708]

I think everyone should just get 1000 TPE and we sim 1 season a week make careers last up to 16 seasons lets get this shit moving.

[Smarch 3,194]

i prob wont recreate so i wanna try to be a hof right off the bat to have a good run at it. its alot of work to build a player and not speaking English properly hurts. im too prideful to sit an collect welfare. hated doing it the first time and that only creates a decent player. i want to be a great one an if they have career spans that short i likely wont put in the same time the second go round an i dont want to make a scrub

If you really wanna make a HOF caliber player, just put your mind to it and do it up. Just cause you're on your first player doesn't mean you won't be able to achieve superstar status with him. I've never experienced a good player in this league, but when i put my mind to it and stayed active with this guy he's turned out alright, so do the ame and i'm sure you'll see the success you want eventually with your player. 

[Phil 5,129]

Yeah just a couple weeks ago a first gen (STZ) got inducted into the HOF. He started from 0 TPE and that worked out alright.

 

Oh Hai  Phil Gerrard

 

Consistency is the key

 

Oh Hai Phil Gerrard

[BOOM 8,818]

Let players play a 9th season with 10% depreciation.....and no carryover TPE for their recreate. Still keen?

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Let players play a 9th season with 10% depreciation.....and no carryover TPE for their recreate. Still keen?

 

Something to this effect could be viable. Maybe make carryover for retiring in your 9th season like 3 or 4%.

[sterling 2,000]

That seems okay boom

[Guest]

Why not throw the record books away?

[frescoelmo 1,282]

I don't care so much about it, and I highly doubt that I would play beyond eight seasons myself, but it never hurts to consider change. The league went on for 30 seasons with eight teams and then made a huge change in expanding to ten. I don't think it would have a much bigger impact than that, if at all.

 

I think the best argument mentioned against allowing longer careers, in terms of how it would affect the health of the league and its cyclical nature, is that it would potentially weaken drafts, because recreations would happen less frequently. I don't think there would be a whole lot of players who play beyond eight seasons if we made depreciation something like 13%.

 

To one of your latter points, I don't think you can really predict how weak or strong draft classes will be based on career length.  Players still gravitate towards joining forces with others to make more competitive classes, and even if that wasn't true the model of recreations would probably show that draft class strength is closer to a bell curve.

[Beketov 9,103]

With a few exceptions I'm seeing the trend I was expecting with this. The old farts want to keep things, the young bloods want to change things. I'm not going to break this mold.

It isn't that "if something isn't broken, don't fix it" as Mike implies it is, but rather that history does matter after 40 seasons. I want a chance to break Scotty's records as much as anyone else does and I'm sure there are GM's that would chop off a nut to have a better record than the S1 Wranglers but the fact is that we shouldn't change the rules so that people have a chance to do it. Has the landscape changed since then? Hell yeah it has but the rules shouldn't. Scotty managed all his records with 8 seasons so why should we get 10 seasons to break them? Hell, Scotty only wound up with 630 TPE which is easy by today's standards. Nothing saying an elite wonder the sim loves can't come up again.

8 Seasons in the VHL is quite a long time, I'd be just coming to the end of my 5th player if I had gone all 8 seasons and that's saying something with how long I've been around. I don't see why there is a reason to keep players longer aside from giving them a better shot at records which, frankly, is a terrible reason. That would be like if the NHL looked specifically at Gretzky's goal records and said "man, no one has beaten these in awhile, maybe we should extend the season by 20 games so someone has a chance." Arguing that it's so people can enjoy their players longer doesn't seem valid to me. No one is going to enjoy being regressed to the point of nothing UNLESS they can get records out of it.

In my view it would literally be changing the rules for the express purpose of destroying history books and that doesn't seem right at all. Besides, as someone pointed out above (Victor? I wasn't fulling paying attention) there have been career records broken within the last 10 seasons. Records that had stood since early seasons. If it could be done then, why can't it now?

Edited August 5, 2014 by Beketov

[Corco 1,267]

Gretzky was the greatest player of all time, no question. But do you think he would score as much if he played during the 2000s (especially pre-lockout)? I think the same sort of thing can be applied to Campbell; sure he was a great player obviously and would still have some records if he played during the current era S30-present, but I don't think he would be as dominant as he was.

[Beketov 9,103]

Gretzky was the greatest player of all time, no question. But do you think he would score as much if he played during the 2000s (especially pre-lockout)? I think the same sort of thing can be applied to Campbell; sure he was a great player obviously and would still have some records if he played during the current era S30-present, but I don't think he would be as dominant as he was.

I don't think anyone is denying that he wouldn't have been so dominant, that's not he point. Just as Gretzky's records still count for something, so should Scotty's. A rule change like this would not improve anything in the VHL, it would simply make our record books mean nothing because any pre-S40 player would have been working with 2 fewer seasons.

[scoop 3,447]

In my view it would literally be changing the rules for the express purpose of destroying history books and that doesn't seem right at all. Besides, as someone pointed out above (Victor? I wasn't fulling paying attention) there have been career records broken within the last 10 seasons. Records that had stood since early seasons. If it could be done then, why can't it now?

It would be to allow people more freedom with their careers, not to destroy the history books.

[scoop 3,447]

And if people are so concerned about maintaining the history of the league, I feel like whoever updates career stats should be paid a hefty sum of TPE.

[Molholt 2,185]

It isn't even about records. It's about users who want a longer career with their player, or a more realistic career length/arc. Everyone in the VHL basically retires in their prime with max attributes lol. Every VHL player retires as Barry Sanders.