Two Players

[Victor 10,940]

Yeah that seems like a step too far. I do think more paying jobs can be an option. Keep the 9 TPE cap but allow job pay to be split between the players. Maybe.

[CoachReilly 688]

so much discussion to read through and replies happening @ record breaking pace.

 

we should think pretty deeply about:

 

1. how much will we expand?  how many additional teams?  how will the cap be affected?  do we need top reevaluate the salary brackets?

2. who will be allowed to make 2nd player first?  are we going to layer it by current draft class?

3. how TPE will be spread

- i.e. non-welfare point tasks can be implemented to both players, job TPE to 1 player, welfare to only 1 player

4. timing: i would recommend giving at least a season to discuss and frame the rules

5. free agency/tampering - i see this is being discussed.

[Victor 10,940]

Most of that's been discussed.

[Molholt 2,185]

32 minutes ago, Draper said:

I'm just wondering if you would really want people to be able to hit the TPE cap every week on 2 players, even though I know few people would actually do it. 

 

Why would you not want that? 

[Devise 4,475]

If we stagger it so that you can't have a player less than 3 seasons apart, then I don't see free agency being a big deal. Your new player would be a rookie, having to sign that 3 season rookie contract. By the time he's no longer a rookie, your in your sixth season.

 

Also Molholt, your suggestion about Kendrick, Boom and Green is hilarious. There is this crazy thing called a Salary Cap, don't know if you've heard about it. If people want to "hoard" themselves to one team, let them. They will lack in depth. That IS the salary caps job already, preventing super teams. This will just mean they'd have less actual members on their roster but provided the salary cap stays balanced, nobody will be able to abuse it regardless of FA. 

 

Jobs and other things like that should just apply to both players as well imo. The more confusing we make it for having to update, the less members will even want to get involved with a second player. I'm fine with the limitations on PT suggested, where you can do 2 if you want, but pretty much everything else that is logical to apply to both players should. with obvious exceptions being of course things like Practice Facility and Achievement Tracker in VHLM. Realistically though, if we rule it as such there should never be an instance where one member has two players in the VHLM at the same time unless his first player is in like his 4th+ season, and still doesn't even have 200 TPE. 

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

If we stagger it so that you can't have a player less than 3 seasons apart, then I don't see free agency being a big deal. Your new player would be a rookie, having to sign that 3 season rookie contract. By the time he's no longer a rookie, your in your sixth season.

 

Also Molholt, your suggestion about Kendrick, Boom and Green is hilarious. There is this crazy thing called a Salary Cap, don't know if you've heard about it. If people want to "hoard" themselves to one team, let them. They will lack in depth. That IS the salary caps job already, preventing super teams. This will just mean they'd have less actual members on their roster but provided the salary cap stays balanced, nobody will be able to abuse it regardless of FA. 

 

Funny enough, I view these two as related. Take three random TPE whore members, and if their players are staggering, three of them are probably on rookie deals. If, say, those 3 members have 3 players in their 3rd year and 3 players in their 6th year, you've got one hell of a base there at a lower cost because of the rookie deals. For a real life example, see Phil, Victor and Draper all signing their older dudes to Helsinki after the S45 draft.

 

(I don't think it's a back-breaking thing for this suggestion btw, but the thought certainly isn't outlandish.)

[Kendrick 4,741]

I got one, a player that can only earn points from VHL Fan articles. It raises the excitement and discussion level. Max of 6 per week haha

[Molholt 2,185]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

If we stagger it so that you can't have a player less than 3 seasons apart, then I don't see free agency being a big deal. Your new player would be a rookie, having to sign that 3 season rookie contract. By the time he's no longer a rookie, your in your sixth season.

 

Also Molholt, your suggestion about Kendrick, Boom and Green is hilarious. There is this crazy thing called a Salary Cap, don't know if you've heard about it. If people want to "hoard" themselves to one team, let them. They will lack in depth. That IS the salary caps job already, preventing super teams. This will just mean they'd have less actual members on their roster but provided the salary cap stays balanced, nobody will be able to abuse it regardless of FA. 

 

Jobs and other things like that should just apply to both players as well imo. The more confusing we make it for having to update, the less members will even want to get involved with a second player. I'm fine with the limitations on PT suggested, where you can do 2 if you want, but pretty much everything else that is logical to apply to both players should. with obvious exceptions being of course things like Practice Facility and Achievement Tracker in VHLM. Realistically though, if we rule it as such there should never be an instance where one member has two players in the VHLM at the same time unless his first player is in like his 4th+ season, and still doesn't even have 200 TPE. 

 

Yes and it was 100% a realistic situation. I call it, an "exaggeration." Hint: That first sentence was what I call, "sarcasm." 

[Will 4,660]

52 minutes ago, Molholt said:

Why would you not want that? 

 

My thought is that when you stagger the 2 players, the small group of people who DO put in the time to do multiple point tasks per week will basically always have a top player. After just 4 VHL seasons, Phil and I are both at 850+ TPE with more or less maxed attributes. 

 

My concern might be unfounded in that maybe nobody will keep up that pace forever, or maybe it's even a good thing to be rewarding the people who put in that much time, but I do think it's something to consider. Mind you this coming from one of the more likely people to do multiple PT's. 

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

5 minutes ago, Draper said:

maybe it's even a good thing to be rewarding the people who put in that much time

 

That's basically where I'm at on it, as somebody who would probably do one. I'm all for super active people, and 2 all-stars on separate squads over a 12-14 team league wouldn't make that much of a dent.

[Molholt 2,185]

5 minutes ago, Draper said:

 

My thought is that when you stagger the 2 players, the small group of people who DO put in the time to do multiple point tasks per week will basically always have a top player. After just 4 VHL seasons, Phil and I are both at 850+ TPE with more or less maxed attributes. 

 

My concern might be unfounded in that maybe nobody will keep up that pace forever, or maybe it's even a good thing to be rewarding the people who put in that much time, but I do think it's something to consider. Mind you this coming from one of the more likely people to do multiple PT's. 

 

I probably wouldn't have went inactive all those times if I didn't have to go through the boring VHLM and early seasons... if I could have a player who is at his peak while developing my lower player, and always having a better player, I'd be happier and more active. 

 

I think it could work either way.

[Daniel 565]

This may have already been answered but what would the situation be for GMs? I don't really want to make another player to help make another team better but at the same time I'm guessing we'd want to avoid a scenario where we can create two beast players for our own team

[Molholt 2,185]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

This may have already been answered but what would the situation be for GMs? I don't really want to make another player to help make another team better but at the same time I'm guessing we'd want to avoid a scenario where we can create two beast players for our own team

 

Addressed in the OP, one player per team. If you wouldn't want to help another team, don't make a 2nd player.

 

I would though, myself. I think it would be interesting 

[Baozi 1,658]

Still not answered: How do we count championship wins

[gregreg 930]

5 minutes ago, tfong said:

Still not answered: How do we count championship wins

A wins a win. 

[Will 4,660]

3 minutes ago, tfong said:

Still not answered: How do we count championship wins

 

Answer: who cares 

[Molholt 2,185]

Yeah I mean, numbers are numbers. If you win one, you've won one... 

[BOOM 8,745]

I'm down for whatever. Just as long as it is easier than the 2 PT's, 2 Fan 590's etc that I am doing every week now. Too much work.

 

 

[Baozi 1,658]

2 hours ago, Draper said:

 

Answer: who cares 

 

Everyone in the league, otherwise whats the point in playing? These will be etched on our tombstones!

Edited May 16, 2016 by tfong

[Beketov 9,025]

45 minutes ago, tfong said:

 

Everyone in the league, otherwise whats the point in playing? These will be etched on our tombstones!

I don't know about you but I've already planned the design.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

People will 2 players will definitely start to skew the current cup winner rankings. Other awards that members rack up toward their name will be a lot easier to obtain as well with 2 players. I mean, it won't be easy obviously, but it will kill the current rankings. I don't really care for those though.

 

 

I like the suggestion of having it so only PT's can be applied to both players. Anything else like Welfare, Job Pay, uncapped possibly, etc is only applicable to one player. Obviously Bio's and RP's need to be done separately for both players, but that's obvious.

 

I just like the idea better of having a superstar guy, then your secondary player is a bit of a lesser one, although still great with 6 TPE a week and other bonuses during the season. I mean, my first-gen Travis Boychuk was 6 TPE a week for most of his career and he was pretty good.

 

I'm not really against having 2 superstar players and being able to make 2 PT's per week for your 2 players, but I just like the other way better. I wouldn't be against having one normal player and one welfare-only player as well.

[scoop 3,432]

7 hours ago, der meister said:

 

That's especially spiteful because he'd rather be on the bottom.

[Cuffy 346]

I'll stick wit one CGY is the only place for mee

[scoop 3,432]

6 hours ago, Mr. Power said:

Also Molholt, your suggestion about Kendrick, Boom and Green is hilarious. There is this crazy thing called a Salary Cap, don't know if you've heard about it. If people want to "hoard" themselves to one team, let them. They will lack in depth.

What if three members have 3rd year players on a team together (Phil+Victor+Draper in S47 were all incredible, relatively cheap players for Helsinki). Now let's say they all happened to also have players in their 7th or 8th seasons that were free agents (they could've made preparations to become free agents at this time in particular). Those veterans will cost a total of 13.5M. Let's say the three young guys are all in the 400-500 TPE range: that's another 7.5M. So 21M and you've got six great players on the roster already. If you're looking for a 6-4-1 team, you have 11M for five other players, and considering you already have six incredible players, you won't necessarily need them to be the greatest.

 

 

 

But do we really think that's going to happen because I sure don't.

[Smarch 3,153]

Why stop at two players?