Two Players

[Molholt 2,183]

It's time VHL. Devise wants suggestions, so I'm digging through the box of my favorites and back at it again. Let every user have two players if they want to.

 

Im on mobile, so forgive me if this seems rushed, formatting is weird, or any other complaints you might have. Let's talk about all of the good this would do:

 

1. Users can try multiple things at once. 

 

Somone like @Mr. Power could have one of his builds and then also an effective one  @Da Trifecta could make the player he wants and keep the one he might normally give up on. @Banackock could have his goalie he wants and the center his team needs (I'll get to GMs involvement in this). The ability to experiment with builds or types of players would give users more options without feeling like they are handicapping their career. We might even get around to using real backup goalies.

 

2. Drafts would be way more interesting and consistently awesome.

 

Tired of weaker drafts? Imagine two @Kendrick players coming through during 8 seasons, instead of one. Or imagine two Kendrick players in one draft! Now multiple that by all of the prominent members and users. Every draft would be exciting. 

 

3. We'd either have more teams or deeper teams.

 

The SHL runs full sets of four lines and (I think) more teams. We could do one of those, or maybe both, simply by doubling our players without having to recruit at all (something we've slacked in). More players and depth would mean more trades, more competitive teams, more competitive awards, etc.

 

4. Users get to interact with more people. 

 

Tired of the same five people on your team? Guess what, you could be on two teams and interacting with twice the teammates, maybe even more! Not only does this give veterans more exposure around the boards, it makes new members get to know a lot more of our community.

 

5. Free Agency and Trades would be more prevalent.

 

Some people want to test free agency but are also loyal to a team. Why not do both? Have one player that operates @boom style and one that operates @Jamie style. Suddenly way more people are gonna be moving teams in the offseason. We'd also see people more likely to trade all sorts of players. All we ever see low are deadline deals to save money and depth players moving for late picks and chance prospects. Let's see some big names moved because there would be more big names to go around!

 

Now, let me address some of the concerns I expect to hear before we even hear them:

 

A. But Molholt, what about locker rooms? Won't that be an issue if you're in two? 

 

Who gives a damn about locker rooms? Let people be in two, or get rid of them all together. Why does it even matter? It's not like some big secret is in locker rooms. I had to confirm through PM that @eaglesfan036 could be in our locker room this year, because he's an opposing GM. How dumb is that? Did he learn anything that might sabotage us? No. He contributed as was a part of our team and it was fun. Who cares that he's an opposing GM - he wanted to succeed with TebowGow just like I do with Max. He wanted to win a cup just like the rest of us. People aren't going to use locker rooms for some devious thing or to hide some major secret. I just think this argument is so dumb. Alternatively, dump locker rooms altogether and get the posts on the forums like some want anyway.

 

B. But Molholt, won't this just benefit GMs to get two of their own players? 

 

Will this benefit GMs? Hell yes it will - but not for that reason. I'd want to limit GMs to only one of their own players on their team, meaning that, finally, GMs could GM a team but still get to enter the draft! That's part of why I stepped down as GM of Davos. I hate going straight to a team and not getting the full draft process. You don't get to be a part of Kendrick's VHLSC, you don't get to see how you stack up against other prospects, you don't get to experience other teams. I'd love to be able to do that and still GM my team. Max could be on Toronto and some other player I created could wind up anywhere! You could easily apply this to all users - only 1 player on 1 team at a time, not allowing you to stack 2 on your team (i.e. Toronto can't have two @DollarAndADream players at once).

 

C. But Molholt, won't users sabotage their players?

 

Are our members evil? Do we really think this is a possibility? Last time I checked, we all put in work here to do well, win awards, win cups, break records, etc. If someone wants to sabotage all of that for their own player to try and get at a team, let them! Guess what, it ruins their own reputation. They can already do this, it isn't like their is a rule against it. A.C. Savage had 99 fighting. I wasn't banned. Ultimately though, everyone wants to succeed and this gives them twice the opportunities to, and most people are gonna take that opportunity and run with it. 

 

D. But Molholt, what about welfare and earning TPE?

 

Guess what lazy bums, this would be a great way to let the welfare people have their way but really reward those that put in work. This is how I suggest it goes. First, if you claim welfare, it could only apply to one player in a week. You couldn't use welfare on two players. Second, I think point tasks could go one of two ways. Either a single point task could apply to both players (do one, get 12 TPE benefit) or you could make it so you have to do one for each. I don't mind either direction. Make job pay and VHL.com stuff apply to both either way. So then, point tasks are more crucial than before without hampering welfare. Either they are twice as powerful, or they are the only way to build and develop a second player (since welfare would only apply to one).

 

---

 

I'm sure I'm missing something or there will be some other complaint, but if you want to breathe some new life into the league, use the life you already have. Because let's stop pretending the recruitment issue is going to fix itself or magically start working - it hasn't for tens of seasons. Some people would take advantage of this, some wouldn't, but it would boost numbers and excitement all around. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

 

I really like this idea I must say, and that's coming from a guy that is currently doing welfare only , so I won't have much benefit out of this. But with the depth in this league being limited to mostly two lines, it wouldn't hurt to have the double amount of influx.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Green

[jack 496]

I'd be for this. Only thing is that if we made this a rule there would be one huge influx of players. I suppose that's not a bad thing just something to think about.

[Molholt 2,183]

2 minutes ago, jack said:

I'd be for this. Only thing is that if we made this a rule there would be one huge influx of players. I suppose that's not a bad thing just something to think about.

 

Implement it for S50 and guess what, we could have that expansion draft/new league starting feel without having to start over.

 

Or hell, implement it AND start fresh  

[FacePuncher 1,343]

I like that plan. Only thing that concerns me is D. I think this would make the league much better, though I doubt anyone will implement it since I'm pretty sure it's been shot down before. Though jacks concern is very important one

[Victor 10,549]

The thing about rival GMs in locker rooms is that it's too late to sabotage anything as they will retire at the end of the season. The GM's own team will also always have completely separate interest to the one they're traded to - one's competing, the other isn't. So it wouldn't use your eaglesfan example or any other similar as proof that it will always go well - what you're proposing is a whole different step.

 

Nonetheless, the idea has grown on me over the many times you've suggested it. I'm willing to accept it for the return of LRs at the bottom.

[Evans 305]

Just now, Victor said:

The thing about rival GMs in locker rooms is that it's too late to sabotage anything as they will retire at the end of the season. The GM's own team will also always have completely separate interest to the one they're traded to - one's competing, the other isn't. So it wouldn't use your eaglesfan example or any other similar as proof that it will always go well - what you're proposing is a whole different step.

 

Nonetheless, the idea has grown on me over the many times you've suggested it. I'm willing to accept it for the return of LRs at the bottom.

 

#Titanorship accepts your offer

[Dangles13 373]

The only way I think this will work is if we have 1 LR on top and 1 on the bottom.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Implement a second "capped" player that can only earn X TPE per year, similar to the SBA NCAA players you're familiar with. The two players come as a package. Everyone's "second player" will be good for 3rd or 4th line duty, maybe 2nd line towards the end of their career. Move to V2 of the sim engine, as we now have enough players to fill out 4 lines for most teams. Allow the players to have different draft years and the option "uncap" the previously capped player. This puts more players in the VHLM, more activity.

 

LRs to the bottom where they belong.

[Molholt 2,183]

4 minutes ago, flyersfan1493 said:

Implement a second "capped" player that can only earn X TPE per year, similar to the SBA NCAA players you're familiar with. The two players come as a package. Everyone's "second player" will be good for 3rd or 4th line duty, maybe 2nd line towards the end of their career. Move to V2 of the sim engine, as we now have enough players to fill out 4 lines for most teams. Allow the players to have different draft years and the option "uncap" the previously capped player. This puts more players in the VHLM, more activity.

 

LRs to the bottom where they belong.

 

Who cares about the VHLM?  

 

i think if you want this to work and not be a hassle, just let them both be full players. Implementing a cap seems like too much trouble just to handicap the whole system.

[Victor 10,549]

I don't think there should be any cap. Whore the fuck out of both of them if you want.

 

My condition would be that you can not have two players in the same draft year. That's a bit silly imo. Maybe even make it a mandatory gap of 2 seasons, but 1 might suffice.

 

Otherwise, I actually don't see why we shouldn't implement this for S50. Or S51 I guess for timing purposes and because that's actually the start of the next half-century. If all the potential issues do end up being true, we can can it by S60.

[Dangles13 373]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

I don't think there should be any cap. Whore the fuck out of both of them if you want.

 

My condition would be that you can not have two players in the same draft year. That's a bit silly imo. Maybe even make it a mandatory gap of 2 seasons, but 1 might suffice.

 

Otherwise, I actually don't see why we shouldn't implement this for S50. Or S51 I guess for timing purposes and because that's actually the start of the next half-century. If all the potential issues do end up being true, we can can it by S60.

Maybe make it so you can add a second player once you reach the VHLM cap.

[Victor 10,549]

Just now, Dangles13 said:

Maybe make it so you can add a second player once you reach the VHLM cap.

yeah that sounds reasonable

 

There should also be something which incentivises a staggered start. I don't think EVERYONE creating another player for S51 is a great idea and would work much better if it spread out over 4-5 seasons.

[Kendrick 4,724]

Why not allow a second player to only reach 175 TPE and spend as much time in the VHLM as he wants (up to 4 years). It would allow the VHLM to be more active and possible get those uncapped players into the VHL feeling full of excitement!

[gregreg 930]

10 minutes ago, Victor said:

yeah that sounds reasonable

 

There should also be something which incentivises a staggered start. I don't think EVERYONE creating another player for S51 is a great idea and would work much better if it spread out over 4-5 seasons.

I was thinking once you reach your 5th season you have the option to recreate. Having people go the full 8 more often

[gregreg 930]

I like the idea of two players more and more. It would create more activity and buzz around the league. Something needs to be added for us oldies to add some excitement

[Will 4,604]

23 minutes ago, Victor said:

There should also be something which incentivises a staggered start. I don't think EVERYONE creating another player for S51 is a great idea and would work much better if it spread out over 4-5 seasons.

 

I would agree, it would be unfortunate to have an ass load of people moving from rookie->prime->veteran all at the same time. And the simple fact of having everyone in one draft would suck. Speaking of salary cap, we would certainly have to change that shit. I think I definitely like the idea of deeper teams rather than expansion. 

 

And yeah I will say right now that LR's are 100% going back to the bottom if this were to happen 

[gregreg 930]

Have to be 4 seasons apart maybe?? 

 

I'm happy to help figure this out to see if we can make this work! 

[boubabi 4,725]

I already have 2 players

Its nice

[Victor 10,549]

Just now, boubabi said:

I already have 2 players

Its nice

both s42 tho. naughty.

[boubabi 4,725]

Dat timing

[boubabi 4,725]

I could split karnage's tpe and help @StevenStamkos91 to be finally good.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

10 minutes ago, boubabi said:

I could split karnage's tpe and help @StevenStamkos91 to be finally good.

im ok with this 

[Tagger 2,722]

If there's one thing about the conversation of new ideas that I've agreed with, it's when @CowboyinAmerica said that Season 50 is too close to consider implementing these ideas for. It seems like a decent enough idea to think about, but I think discussion of Season 50/51 should be quashed. 

 

As for the ideas themselves, it's difficult for me to say because there seems to be so many variants on the idea. Like I do think it's a decent idea for those of us who are here right now, but I'm not so sure if that's going to be good for new recruits. E.g. I think one of the things that could potentially be a problem is if you allow two players, is there a chance that, say by the time we reach Season 60, that it'll take a while for newer members to get onto a decent line and are they going to be pissed off because the guys ahead of them are duplicates? 

[boubabi 4,725]

7 minutes ago, StevenStamkos91 said:

im ok with this 

Whats your paiment method? Cash? Credit? Paypal?