Reflection and a Question

[der meister 3,183]

I don't know why but I was thinking earlier this week about the time I was working with a few other SHLers way back when in designing a new startup league. It was before I joined the VHL, back when this league had the reputation of being a bunch of elitist gatekeepers, so I was interested in making a league, a leagueovus for the restovus, if you will. If I recall correctly, OrbitingDeath was involved in that process, and I know the infamous Fernando was as well, which was the reason the project died. Also, quick shoutout to OD once again for sponsoring my short story at the Holiday Charity auction a few years back. I still really like that story.

 

Anyway, one of the league concepts I was most interested in trying to figure out was a way to incorporate European Football-style relegation, and it's still a concept that intrigues me. Obviously doing it in an established league like the VHL is impossible, but as a startup, the idea of having two leagues of 6 teams each, and they shuffle up and down, vying for promotion to the top league and then the league title... it just sounds super cool to me. In this hypothetical, I always imagined having the draft picks go across the leagues, so it would be 1-12 in reverse standings order, but maybe the teams in the lower league would pick 1-6 and then again 7-12 before the top league teams had a chance to pick. I don't know, and I guess it's irrelevant because it'll never happen.

 

But the point of me writing this is to ask you all, during a rather long offseason: if you could incorporate one new rule, one new structure, to the VHL, what would you do, and why?

[jacobcarson877 2,521]

The idea I just can't shake is an 8 team minors + 8 team affiliate. The minors team should always have the numbers to support a 6-4-1, and in larger recruitment periods, the overflow into the affiliate team would be enough to support the most we'd ever need. Teams with 2 goaltenders can give both goalies full time starts, players with lower TPE can play in an environment that they can compete a bit better before joining the 400TPA squad (although I've tested it, 400TPA isn't too crazy of a difference from 30TPA, less different than the 250TPA pre-hybrid M used to be), and recreates can get top playing time without stealing roster spots from the newbies. All of the transactions happen easily in STHS, so minimal portal support needed. There's a few other ideas I like adding in there, but that's the gist, and I hope to be able to demonstrate it this season!

[JCarson 722]

I'd get rid of the VHLM waiver system and have new players assigned based on team need at each position with ties broken by reverse standings.  That should help all VHLM teams be more competitive and leave the GM's to focus on player development. 

Edited July 25 by JCarson

[Aimee 1,119]

I think I'd like to see situations thrown into the VHL that don't have actual impact, but give people something to write about. So we all know that we write about our own promotions, demotions, trades, drafts, etc.. But what if there were league wide situations made up on a weekly basis to make the VHL feel more real? 

 

For example:

 

Player was found to be throwing games in order to win at betting. 

 

GM has been spotted talking with other team admins and it sparks debate about if they are planning a move.

 

Changes in game rules like in real life.

 

 

All these would give everyone the chance to write something creative and could also give graphic artists something interesting to work with. 

 

With Jesse Teno I sort of did something like this where I wrote about them embezzling funds from their charity over the course of a few media spots. I feel like these sorts of prompts could really bring in some creative writing and graphics.

[Beketov 9,005]

15 minutes ago, Aimee said:

But what if there were league wide situations made up on a weekly basis to make the VHL feel more real? 

Boy that sounds like needing to come up with theme weeks every single week of the year so fuck that noise.

[Aimee 1,119]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Boy that sounds like needing to come up with theme weeks every single week of the year so fuck that noise.

Lol it doesn't have to be as specific as theme week. It could be literally anything. 

[der meister 3,183]

4 hours ago, Aimee said:

Lol it doesn't have to be as specific as theme week. It could be literally anything. 

 

"VHLPA debates banning Force Users as they have unfair advantage"

Edited July 26 by der meister

[VattghernCZ 971]

On 7/25/2024 at 8:22 PM, der meister said:

But the point of me writing this is to ask you all, during a rather long offseason: if you could incorporate one new rule, one new structure, to the VHL, what would you do, and why?

 

Abolish depreciation fighters...

 

Holup, let me cook.

 

And don't force the players retire. Start depreciating players before their 7th season after their draft season, regardless of what league they've played, with depreciation getting progressively higher, until the member chooses to retire their player, or until their player is at or below 400 tpa at the cutoff. Something like 4% -> 6% -> 9% -> 14% -> 20% -> 30% etc. depreciation for skaters (just spitballing, haven't done the math)

 

Imo, it just doesn't make any realistic sense that players of high earning and responsibly banking members retire right after posting the best seasons of their careers. Why not giving members the opportunity to have their players in the top league for 10, 11 or even 12 seasons, if they can keep up?

 

That would lead to changes in salaries and stuff, because suddenly you don't need to save tens of millions in player store, probably some other changes, but I still think it would be cool to have a bit more realistic aging curves. Or to have an opportunity to create a 13-season second liner, max earning but only keeping the player at like 600s tpa.

Edited July 27 by VattghernCZ

[jacobcarson877 2,521]

2 minutes ago, VattghernCZ said:

 

Abolish depreciation fighters...

 

Holup, let me cook.

 

And don't force the players retire. Start depreciating players before their 7th season after their draft season, regardless of what league they've played, with depreciation getting progressively higher, until the member chooses to retire their player, or until their player is at or below 400 tpa at the cutoff. Something like 4% -> 6% -> 9% -> 14% -> 20% -> 30% etc. depreciation for skaters (just spitballing, haven't done the math)

 

Imo, it just doesn't make any realistic sense that players of high earning and responsibly banking members retire right after posting the best seasons of their careers. Why not giving members the opportunity to have their players in the top league for 10, 11 or even 12 seasons, if they can keep up?

I actually agree with this take, obviously the numbers would have to be tested and such, but other than historical precedent, which we've already kind of broken with the ability to play 9 seasons, I don't see why we'd need to cling to 8 seasons. I do think it should still be based on VHL seasons, partially because I think it makes a really interesting niche for players who don't earn much, but earn consistently, and with lower TPA builds you lose less TPA overall, so it's easier to maintain. I do think auto-retirement should have SOME threshold, just for portal cleanliness purposes, but maybe that's just, whenever you depreciate below 400, you get auto-retired. Kind of fits "realism" as well, with some of the veteran lower ceiling players being able to play much longer than some of the stars, just by nature of playing a simpler game and fitting a role. Stars get high highs and then crash quickly. Takes away some of the stigma of "retiring early" as well, if there isn't a specific retirement time. Feels a little dumb to retire immediately after a season of being 1000+ TPA, or being able to just throw 1400TPA into a build because you know you'll have to retire anyways. 

I'm sure @Alex and @v.2  in particular would have some thoughts on this, considering their career paths, and may have tried some interesting strategies with this sort of system in mind! Opens up a lot of discussion on goaltenders as well, I know @Jubis and @Spartan  tried to figure out how to keep cap hits on goaltenders low, when there isn't much growth beyond 1000TPA. Probably wouldn't work with Salaries considering they include banked but depreciation doesn't but maybe there's an innovative solution there.

[VattghernCZ 971]

2 minutes ago, jacobcarson877 said:

Probably wouldn't work with Salaries considering they include banked but depreciation doesn't but maybe there's an innovative solution there.

Yeah, I though about that and was editing my comment while you were typing this

[v.2 1,403]

51 minutes ago, jacobcarson877 said:

I'm sure @Alex and @v.2  in particular would have some thoughts on this, considering their career paths, and may have tried some interesting strategies with this sort of system in mind! Opens up a lot of discussion on goaltenders as well, I know @Jubis and @Spartan  tried to figure out how to keep cap hits on goaltenders low, when there isn't much growth beyond 1000TPA. Probably wouldn't work with Salaries considering they include banked but depreciation doesn't but maybe there's an innovative solution there.

Yeahh, as soon as I post career highs I get hit with max depreciation and enter my final year lol.  With no individual awards to show.  I feel like 9 seasons makes more sense for a goalie and defender as the chance to win as a max earner is less competitive when going for personal awards or record breaking, but now im toying with the idea of just retiring at the start of the seasons and letting my player ride into the sunset.

[scoop 3,418]

28 minutes ago, jacobcarson877 said:

Feels a little dumb to retire immediately after a season of being 1000+ TPA, or being able to just throw 1400TPA into a build because you know you'll have to retire anyways.

Yeah, I've always found it strange that for the elite TPE earners, typically you'll be at your peak in your final season, because you don't need to bank anything. Even playing nine seasons, my peak TPA will be at the end of my career. While I don't necessarily think that will be the norm for nine-year players, we don't see many people going for nine-year careers because having one extra season as a sub-500 TPA player doesn't really add much to a career unless you get lucky, and it heavily punishes you on the back end compared to your draft classmates. But I have maintained an 1168 TPA build and I've never not had enough TPE banked to immediately counter my depreciation.

 

I've been a long-time supporter of removing the season limits and instead having the forced retirement be when you are depreciated under a certain amount of TPA (400 makes sense).

[scoop 3,418]

10 minutes ago, v.2 said:

Yeahh, as soon as I post career highs I get hit with max depreciation and enter my final year lol.  With no individual awards to show.  I feel like 9 seasons makes more sense for a goalie and defender as the chance to win as a max earner is less competitive when going for personal awards or record breaking, but now im toying with the idea of just retiring at the start of the seasons and letting my player ride into the sunset.

I don't have it figured out, but I think winning awards and putting up crazy stats is going to be more about the team around you than having 200 more TPA than the next guy. There's really not much of a difference between a 1000 TPA player and a 1200 TPA player, because the update scale gets to the point where it takes like 40 TPA to improve two attributes by 1 point and what does that really matter. If you're trying to make a career of personal accolades, you just need to figure out the right environment that you need to play in.

[jacobcarson877 2,521]

Just now, scoop said:

If you're trying to make a career of personal accolades, you just need to figure out the right environment that you need to play in.

100%. Getting yourself into the correct role to maximize your success is more important then upwards of 200-400TPA. Thankfully I like earning and building extreme builds for no good reason, because there was almost no gains for me from 1100 to 1450. Even in my 1450 season I was a middle of the pack (star-wise) scorer. Joyo, Abass Jr, and Mancini all had way smaller builds but ended equivalent or better than me based on being in a better role that season. It's an interesting balance, and helps me cope with not winning awards lmao