My thoughts on the E as Recruitment, M GM and a Semi New Player

[Moon 564]

My Thoughts on the E

During this article im going over my thoughts as I am a Recruitment team member, M GM and a Semi New Member.

RECRUITMENT TEAM MEMBER - As a Recruitment Team member we work hard to get new members into this league. With the current situation with the VHLE it causes players to have to wait quite abit longer to get to the VHL which in my opinion and I think I can speak for others it hurts retention as people want to play in the VHL as fast as they can for the most part. Overall I think we are ruining our retention percentage with having the E.

VHLM GM - As a M GM I have had multiple players try their best to stay in the M and or earn enough to jump passed the E and im sure other M GM's have had the same. I think the M should raise the cap back up to 250TPE or do something to help this as we are continuously losing players cause they have to play in the E and this isn't good if we want to up our retention rate. 

SEMI NEW PLAYER - I joined this league in August. Ever since I heard I had the chance of playing in the E I was not wanting to play there, I talked to multiple M GM's about not wanting to play there. I think as a new player something needs to be done as I'm positive new players dont wanna have to wait months to make it to the VHL.


OVERALL THOUGHTS - Overall I think the E is ruining this league, I think something needs to be done ASAP as at this rate we aren't gonna have many players. The longer it takes to make a change the worse its gonna get.

Hate on me all you want these are my thoughts

[Gustav 6,208]

P R E A C H

 

This might be an unpopular opinion to some, but I fully agree. You'll see why getting rid of it isn't realistic at the moment soon enough (spoiler alert!) but you'll also see the issue I have with that.

[Moon 564]

3 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

P R E A C H

 

This might be an unpopular opinion to some, but I fully agree. You'll see why getting rid of it isn't realistic at the moment soon enough (spoiler alert!) but you'll also see the issue I have with that.

I think aslong as something gets done to help it will be better

[Garsh 1,110]

I think it's fine if you don't like the E (i have no opinion either way) but a decent percentage of first gens are going to spend more than the minimum amount of time in the M (assuming there is no E) in the first place.  Other than what team they are on, little difference between that being in the M or the E.  There would be no difference in the time it takes them to get to the VHL

 

It would also be more helpful for discussion if you had actually talked about why you and the people you have talked to don't want to play in the E.  All you provided is that people want to get to the VHL as fast as possible, which doesn't make any sense for the people who are trying to see how they can stay down an extra season.  Not trying to be rude but all you haven't really done anything here to move any discussion forward.  You've basically just said  "It's bad" source Trust Me Bro.

[Moon 564]

10 minutes ago, Garsh said:

You've basically just said  "It's bad"

thats what im getting at, its bad in its current state

[Garsh 1,110]

Just now, Moon said:

thats what im getting at, its bad in its current state

But WHY is it bad.  Just saying something is bad isn't helpful.

[Moon 564]

1 hour ago, Garsh said:

But WHY is it bad.  Just saying something is bad isn't helpful.

Cause its ruining retention, causing roster issues

 

[bigAL 2,176]

4 hours ago, Moon said:

do something to help this as we are continuously losing players cause they have to play in the E and this isn't good if we want to up our retention rate.

I think a good retention rate for the community as a whole means that people graduate from the M and move onto the VHLE and the VHL. The M is the filter that weeds out the players who aren’t going to stick around anyways. If a member is to become a dedicated part of our community, they must pass the “test” of the VHLM. If they stay in the M for more than their one or two full seasons, they probably aren’t earning at a rate conducive to long term, sustainable activity. Clicking and presser every week (welfare+) should get you beyond the M in that time. 
 

Unfortunately, retention in the M does not equal retention as a whole. The job of the M is to prepare members for life in the broader VHL structure. 
 

The goal of the M is (should be) to get players out of there as quickly as they are able to do so. 

[Daniel Janser 2,035]

I do not think that the E is a problem per se: One does not become a regular player in the VHL under TPE 400-ish. Does the E prevent you to get to 400? No, it does not. It takes approximately the same amount, considering that the reduction of practice facility from 2 TPE to 1 TPE is somewhat compensated with the VHLM graduation bonus of 10 TPE. Therefore, the E does not slow you down in your progress to the VHL, to the contrary: Since we have an additional league to farm Fantasy points by predicting outcome of games, my contention is that it FURTHERS your progress.

 

As to retention: If you were to be promoted with a TPE of 250 from the VHLM as you seem to suggest, you will have bottom six positions in your first one-two seasons. At the same time if you are in the VHL with 250 TPE at the moment, you are a big contributor to your teams success and potentially will play in special teams and in all likely hood make the starting six (or at least second line). 

 

Now let me ask you this: What is more motivating to you as a player? 'Whoopie, I played two minutes in the last game and had 0g, 0a, -1' or 'Sweet, 2g, 2a, 7 hits, 23:31 min TOI and Man of the Match'

 

I know the answer I would give to this question. One wants to be an asset for one's team, not a liability. 

 

[Beketov 8,789]

6 hours ago, Moon said:

thats what im getting at, its bad in its current state

Then I would love to see either how you would fix it or replace it. If the answer is just “go back to what we had” then every VHL and VHLM team is full and we have active players who have literally nowhere to sign, I would argue that’s worse for retention.

 

I’m not saying the VHLE can’t be improved but the mindset that it’s just garbage with no concrete proof (keep in mind how new members are the league is very different than recreates) and with nothing presented as an option to fix the issues then it’s obviously a bit tough to go anywhere.

[Horcrux 322]

I think a lot of great points have been brought up. 

Moon you mentioned you dont like it which is fine but you faled to show any evidence to support your stance, why you belive that or how you would fix it which I think would go a long way. 

My thoughts on the whole thing Being an AGM aside. 

as @Daniel Janserpointed out you need 400+ TPE Anyways on average before you get any real ice time in the VHL. the E is that Semi pro level,  it gets you Ice Time, lets you fine tune your build so that when you get to the VHL you are the best version of yourself. the anti E sentiment has been pushed by a select group of members who I have yet seen give a great reason for their stance. What I think is hurting retention is having key members stating they are staying down just to avoid the E cause they dont wan tot play on it. 

let me rephrase what im tryign to say,

the "I dont want to play in the E" sentiment I think does more harm then good. Just play

Edited December 6, 2021 by Horcrux

[Daniel Janser 2,035]

41 minutes ago, Horcrux said:

Oslo could Ice 2 full lines if a few of the people we drafted stopped complaining and actually played in the E. when you see a prominent high ranking member and recreate do one thing a lot of newer players could follow along easy. 

I doubt that many have the ressources to do so tbh. As in this particular case, Spartan is also GM of  his players' VHL franchise and he called himself up (there, I spilled the beans, who you were talking about)... Otherwise he could not play in the VHLM (due to his amounted TPE) and likely would not be called up to the VHL (except as a favour from the respective GM)  This is in line with the existing rules as far as I can tell and I would not expect Spartan to act against same (for sure not knowingly). So it is a 'legal' move. Is it setting a great example? I do not think so, as it may give the rookies the wrong impression ('everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others')...

 

This shall by no means taken as a slander on Spartan. I only bring it up because it is meaningful for and related to this discussion AND because I think, we should name things/people and not tiptoe around it. At least that is the way I prefer it.  

[Horcrux 322]

1 minute ago, Daniel Janser said:

I doubt that many have the ressources to do so tbh. As in this particular case, Spartan is also GM of  his players' VHL franchise and he called himself up (there, I spilled the beans, who you were talking about)... Otherwise he could not play in the VHLM (due to his amounted TPE) and likely would not be called up to the VHL (except as a favour from the respective GM)  This is in line with the existing rules as far as I can tell and I would not expect Spartan to act against same (for sure not knowingly). So it is a 'legal' move. Is it setting a great example? I do not think so, as it may give the rookies the wrong impression ('everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others')...

 

This shall by no means taken as a slander on Spartan. I only bring it up because it is meaningful for and related to this discussion AND because I think, we should name things/people and not tiptoe around it. At least that is the way I prefer it.  

was not actually talking about Spartan, but thanks for that

[Spartan 4,150]

14 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I doubt that many have the ressources to do so tbh. As in this particular case, Spartan is also GM of  his players' VHL franchise and he called himself up (there, I spilled the beans, who you were talking about)... Otherwise he could not play in the VHLM (due to his amounted TPE) and likely would not be called up to the VHL (except as a favour from the respective GM)  This is in line with the existing rules as far as I can tell and I would not expect Spartan to act against same (for sure not knowingly). So it is a 'legal' move. Is it setting a great example? I do not think so, as it may give the rookies the wrong impression ('everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others')...

 

This shall by no means taken as a slander on Spartan. I only bring it up because it is meaningful for and related to this discussion AND because I think, we should name things/people and not tiptoe around it. At least that is the way I prefer it.  

For what it's worth, I wanted to skip the M, not the E. Many can attest to my persistence in the S79-80 offseason to try and get into the E last season, but I was ultimately denied. Looking back at it, I wouldn't have skipped the M anyways since PF is 2 in the M and 1 in the E. As a competitive earner, I'd prefer to keep 2 PF for as long as possible.

 

Also I wanted to play in the VHL this season instead of playing in the E due to the changes to player career lengths. With careers being extended to 9 seasons, I wanted to have a 9 season VHL career, instead of the typical 8 seasons. If you had the opportunity to play 72 more games in your career that counts towards the most meaningful awards, championship and records, wouldn't you want those 9 seasons as well?

 

At the end of the day, both the M and E have fantastic communities and the GM's do their part in engaging, retaining and developing their players. There is going to be no positive change if we gripe about stuff without offering realistic solutions. When the M had empty teams and the E was getting crammed, leagues were adjusted. There was productive discussion in the general community before that change. If M GM's present the E as undesirable, or as something they don't want to be part of, of course the first gens under their tutelage will echo the same thoughts.

 

We will have roster issues in the M and VHL without the E, so it's here to stay. If there are specific issues in the E beyond "oh others are saying they want to skip it so I want to as well," have a productive conversation about it - identify the issue and offer some solution.

[Horcrux 322]

10 minutes ago, Spartan said:

For what it's worth, I wanted to skip the M, not the E. Many can attest to my persistence in the S79-80 offseason to try and get into the E last season, but I was ultimately denied. Looking back at it, I wouldn't have skipped the M anyways since PF is 2 in the M and 1 in the E. As a competitive earner, I'd prefer to keep 2 PF for as long as possible.

 

Also I wanted to play in the VHL this season instead of playing in the E due to the changes to player career lengths. With careers being extended to 9 seasons, I wanted to have a 9 season VHL career, instead of the typical 8 seasons. If you had the opportunity to play 72 more games in your career that counts towards the most meaningful awards, championship and records, wouldn't you want those 9 seasons as well?

 

At the end of the day, both the M and E have fantastic communities and the GM's do their part in engaging, retaining and developing their players. There is going to be no positive change if we gripe about stuff without offering realistic solutions. When the M had empty teams and the E was getting crammed, leagues were adjusted. There was productive discussion in the general community before that change. If M GM's present the E as undesirable, or as something they don't want to be part of, of course the first gens under their tutelage will echo the same thoughts.

 

We will have roster issues in the M and VHL without the E, so it's here to stay. If there are specific issues in the E beyond "oh others are saying they want to skip it so I want to as well," have a productive conversation about it - identify the issue and offer some solution.

[Daniel Janser 2,035]

19 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Also I wanted to play in the VHL this season instead of playing in the E due to the changes to player career lengths. With careers being extended to 9 seasons, I wanted to have a 9 season VHL career, instead of the typical 8 seasons. If you had the opportunity to play 72 more games in your career that counts towards the most meaningful awards, championship and records, wouldn't you want those 9 seasons as well?

 

 

First of all, apologies as I seem to have misunderstood your intentions which league to skip.

 

Here are two thoughts to your statement above.

 

1. Is it possible that there is connection of implementing the 'E' and the extension of the VHL career being extended to 9 years? i.e. is that prolongation from 8 to 9 years already a compensation for the 1-2 years you spend in the 'E'?

 

2. If not, would it be helping the cause of the 'E' (and is it possible/doable), if only seasons actually spent in the VHL count against this 9 years limitation? i.e. if I am a 'clicker' (and I use this term an absolutely non-derogatory way) it takes me at least two seasons in the M to reach the 200 TPE and maybe two-three seasons in the 'E' to finally reach the VHL (and then bottom six as well), will my career be cut short and only be 6 seasons compared to 9 for max earners?

 

My two cents are, that everyone (whether may earner with paid jobs or clicker) should have the opportunity to have a 9 year VHL career, no matter how long it took you to get there. 

[JardyB10 4,839]

17 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

 

1. Is it possible that there is connection of implementing the 'E' and the extension of the VHL career being extended to 9 years? i.e. is that prolongation from 8 to 9 years already a compensation for the 1-2 years you spend in the 'E'?

That was in fact the design of the career extension! But of course it came with the caveat that said, “If you’re a mega nerd this also means you can spend 9 seasons in the VHL if you really want to I guess,” so obviously mega nerds (pardon me: “Competitive earners”) like Spartan are all over that. Which is fine. 
 

To your 2nd point, doing something like that would completely de-incentivize max earning. You’d run into messy situations where mega nerds like Spartan realize, “Hey, I can coast in the VHLM and rack up a career there, coast in the VHLE and rack up a career there, and then finally one season I’ll earn beyond 400 TPE at the start of the E season, enter the VHL with 650 TPE, and max earn for 9 seasons after that.”

 

I love all members, but this is a point task league. It’s fine if you don’t want to do point tasks or dedicate a ton of time to the league, but those people wouldn’t (and probably shouldn’t) have the exact same experience as someone who DOES dedicate a ton of time.

[Beketov 8,789]

20 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Is it possible that there is connection of implementing the 'E' and the extension of the VHL career being extended to 9 years? i.e. is that prolongation from 8 to 9 years already a compensation for the 1-2 years you spend in the 'E'?

That was 100% the intention of the extension. The expectation is that 95% of players will need a season in the VHLE and therefore to keep 8 season VHL careers we added the 9th season. This means if you are part of that 5% group that can skip you get the bonus season, though also will have some very tough depreciation.

 

24 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

if only seasons actually spent in the VHL count against this 9 years limitation?

The reason we have never wanted to do this is very simple: as we have seen in other leagues if you don’t have a set time to start the career clock people will intentionally stop right at the cutoff and stop warning so that they can get the biggest TPE bump possible before going up. This could mean people spending 90% of a season at 199 not earning so that they get a full “uncapping” year. This is not something we are interested in seeing. It is, however, why we adjusted depreciation to only run based off VHL seasons. So if you are in the VHL only 6 seasons instead of 9 you’ll only get hit with that first stage of depreciation and therefore won’t be reduced as much as a higher earner who has been in the VHL longer.

[Beketov 8,789]

3 minutes ago, JardyB10 said:

That was in fact the design of the career extension! But of course it came with the caveat that said, “If you’re a mega nerd this also means you can spend 9 seasons in the VHL if you really want to I guess,” so obviously mega nerds (pardon me: “Competitive earners”) like Spartan are all over that. Which is fine. 
 

To your 2nd point, doing something like that would completely de-incentivize max earning. You’d run into messy situations where mega nerds like Spartan realize, “Hey, I can coast in the VHLM and rack up a career there, coast in the VHLE and rack up a career there, and then finally one season I’ll earn beyond 400 TPE at the start of the E season, enter the VHL with 650 TPE, and max earn for 9 seasons after that.”

 

I love all members, but this is a point task league. It’s fine if you don’t want to do point tasks or dedicate a ton of time to the league, but those people wouldn’t (and probably shouldn’t) have the exact same experience as someone who DOES dedicate a ton of time.

Jardy coming in with basically the exact same answer as me but quicker haha

[Daniel Janser 2,035]

Thanks @JardyB10 and @Beketov for these clarifications.

 

They match more or less what I already thought would be the case, but was too lazy to find out on my own.

 

 

[Shindigs 1,771]

Okay, so I can give something on the side of @Moon at least. As I think it was yesterday or the day before that I asked (as a 1st gen) without knowing anything about this "Anti-E" bias, if it was possible to just stop applying points at 199 to stay in the M for one more season. My reason for it would have been very simple: Loyalty. Miami gave me a shot at basically unlimited minutes and any and all opportunities my player could ever ask for. But for the vast majority of this season, the fact of the matter is that as a 1st gen I won't be able to give them the kind of performance I want to. If I just max earn a full season then end up in the E the next season it will feel like I didn't "pay my dues" to my first team. Which doesn't really sit right with me personally. But it quickly became apparently that doing so and just hoarding TPE wasn't allowed. Which basically means that any ambitious 1st gen on a non-contending team will just be trade bait at some point in their first season. Uprooting them right as they start making connections in the locker room, which honestly kinda sucks.

 

Based on the points made about TPE scumming/abusing the system if doing what I wanted to do (for more predatory reasons). It's now obvious to me why it isn't allowed, but it still makes it feel like you are basically forced into being a bit of a journeyman right off the bat as a max earner. Not saying I have a solution, just that it irks me. So at least it's one relatively unbiased reason for why someone might want to stay down.

 

Also there's a risk I may end up in Västerås, and that would be brutal for IRL reasons. I swear to god Västerås, if you draft me I'm going to have to get on the train and probably be late (because your train station does absolutely suck) but eventually arrive and leave a harshly worded letter at your HQ. There shall be "dålig stämning" for days I tell you!

[JardyB10 4,839]

I agree, fuck Vasteras.

[Daniel Janser 2,035]

@Shindigs I feel with you. I was drafted by the Hounds into the VHLM and I would have gladly stayed there, even though they went from Cup-finalist to bottomfeeder during the post season as @N0HBDYhad to start with a literal empty roster and not many early picks... so obviously he did not have star players to start with and then had the odd IA to deal with on top of that... However, to give my brother and me a chance on the playoffs (and to get some much needed draft picks) he traded Marcel Janser and me to the Reapers mid-season. Due to the roster situation the LR there was much more active and therefore enjoyable... once it became apparent that I would reach the 200 TPE bar long before season end, I felt kind of sad to leave them, for the same reasons you mentioned above. 

However, most (or even all of them) were happy for me that I will get a high draft pick and that I can join the VHLE the following season. So I think you can drop your concerns about 'letting them down' or 'abandon the team' (though I understand where you are coming from). The VHLM is a development league and (almost) everyone is happy if your player is a success, that means they have done their job. 

 

And as a side note: I had the 'Vasteras-conflict' as well but with me it was Davos (luckily the Wranglers snatched me in the draft, so I dodged that bullet)

[Shindigs 1,771]

@Daniel Janser Yeah I already talked with the AGM @nurx primarily about the season thus far and that it may eventually come to that at some point etc. while we were talking about if it was possible to stay down 1 more year. It's more a me thing, wanting to have given my all at every level to leave something to be proud of, I guess. Normally being too loyal tends to hold me back, so I guess the VHL is forcing me to not repeat that too much. But one more season in the M would have been fun. Though (assuming Västerås doesn't draft me out of spite) I will probably have an amazing time in the E and meet a bunch of cool people there as well. So I'm not worried about that. But it is a mindset that isn't necessarily being catered to with how it currently works. But again, if it was being catered to there would be too much room for abusing it to min/max.

[Horcrux 322]

24 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

Okay, so I can give something on the side of @Moon at least. As I think it was yesterday or the day before that I asked (as a 1st gen) without knowing anything about this "Anti-E" bias, if it was possible to just stop applying points at 199 to stay in the M for one more season. My reason for it would have been very simple: Loyalty. Miami gave me a shot at basically unlimited minutes and any and all opportunities my player could ever ask for. But for the vast majority of this season, the fact of the matter is that as a 1st gen I won't be able to give them the kind of performance I want to. If I just max earn a full season then end up in the E the next season it will feel like I didn't "pay my dues" to my first team. Which doesn't really sit right with me personally. But it quickly became apparently that doing so and just hoarding TPE wasn't allowed. Which basically means that any ambitious 1st gen on a non-contending team will just be trade bait at some point in their first season. Uprooting them right as they start making connections in the locker room, which honestly kinda sucks.

 

Based on the points made about TPE scumming/abusing the system if doing what I wanted to do (for more predatory reasons). It's now obvious to me why it isn't allowed, but it still makes it feel like you are basically forced into being a bit of a journeyman right off the bat as a max earner. Not saying I have a solution, just that it irks me. So at least it's one relatively unbiased reason for why someone might want to stay down.

 

Also there's a risk I may end up in Västerås, and that would be brutal for IRL reasons. I swear to god Västerås, if you draft me I'm going to have to get on the train and probably be late (because your train station does absolutely suck) but eventually arrive and leave a harshly worded letter at your HQ. There shall be "dålig stämning" for days I tell you!

or ask your GM to not trade you...most would listen.