Two Players

[Frank 4,772]

Cologne must really be shit if the GM needs two players...

 

@gregreg

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Frank

[Kendrick 4,724]

9 minutes ago, Frank said:

Cologne must really be shit if the GM needs two players...

 

@gregreg

 

13 Seasons...

[Baozi 1,635]

So how would we count cup wins  0.5 if you have 2 players? haha

[BOOM 8,425]

Two players you say?

[stevo 760]

4 hours ago, Kendrick said:

If you only knew the things @stevo makes his bitches do. I have scars on my back and my thumbs.

Now now, don't spoil it to the public

[Beketov 8,646]

Definitely has some kinks to iron out but I wouldn't be opposed to this idea if the rules could be in place for it. I know in one old my old failed leagues I had tried this and people seems to really enjoy the aspect of controlling 2 players. Plus I might finally make a D man after 50 seasons haha.

 

One of the smaller notes to consider for this (expansion and such being the big ones) is that I think updater pay would have to be increased with it given that they would need to be updating way more players.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

I'd be all for thing. I'm not sure about 2 fully fleshed out players though, maybe have one as welfare only, but I'm not sure. There's a lot of discussion in here so that's very good.

 

I'm all for a rule of not allowing 2 players of the same user on a game. Since I think most GM's would just eliminated the goaltending problem and just have a goalie and a forward, or defenseman.

 

I don't think the issue of newer members being mad about minutes would be huge. I mean, you need to earn those minutes by making a good player. In the SHL I didn't become a top 4 D right away. I had to earn it. I had to earn my way onto getting PP time as well. Just like I had to earn my way onto Team Canada.

 

@Da Trifecta For your idea of having one player that's serious and one that is for trying out new things, I think that is what a lot of people are using GOMHL for, since it's so easy to earn TPE.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, DollarAndADream said:

I'd be all for thing. I'm not sure about 2 fully fleshed out players though, maybe have one as welfare only, but I'm not sure. There's a lot of discussion in here so that's very good.

 

I'm all for a rule of not allowing 2 players of the same user on a game. Since I think most GM's would just eliminated the goaltending problem and just have a goalie and a forward, or defenseman.

 

I don't think the issue of newer members being mad about minutes would be huge. I mean, you need to earn those minutes by making a good player. In the SHL I didn't become a top 4 D right away. I had to earn it. I had to earn my way onto getting PP time as well. Just like I had to earn my way onto Team Canada.

 

@Da Trifecta For your idea of having one player that's serious and one that is for trying out new things, I think that is what a lot of people are using GOMHL for, since it's so easy to earn TPE.

 

GOMHL is too much extra work

[Devise 4,475]

This idea seems to have the steam behind it to really be something we should consider.

 

I'm not opposed to it. I think that a system where if you do a PT it applies to both players, where as if you take welfare it only applies to one is really smart. But the question more becomes what about side activities? Fantasy, award predictions, xm radios, etc? I think all of that should apply to BOTH players. That way a welfare user can claim their welfare with one, and then do some side activities so that their secondary player still gets some TPE. It also allows way more build options. What if you get a player build to the 600-700 TPE you want, but earning TPE from there feels like a drag? You may be tempted to welfare + extra, boost up that second player you have all while keeping a bit of TPE for depreciation of your first player. 

[Advantage 2,770]

I think it's important we take the time to really hash out all of this cause there are certainly a lot of things that need to be ironed out, but really encouraging to see all the support.

[Devise 4,475]

Agreed ADV. Also I think introducing two new VHL teams in conjunction with this makes the most sense. We could allow anyone who is eligible to create a secondary player in Season 50 to be part of its own side draft. Include the other teams in the draft and just give the two new teams higher draft picks in it. Could even eliminate the need for an expansion draft. Moscow sorely needs out of the VHLM and into the VHL.

 

And then as Draper suggested, you increase salary cap by 4-6 mill imo. 

[Baozi 1,635]

2 hours ago, Mr. Power said:

This idea seems to have the steam behind it to really be something we should consider.

 

I'm not opposed to it. I think that a system where if you do a PT it applies to both players, where as if you take welfare it only applies to one is really smart. But the question more becomes what about side activities? Fantasy, award predictions, xm radios, etc? I think all of that should apply to BOTH players. That way a welfare user can claim their welfare with one, and then do some side activities so that their secondary player still gets some TPE. It also allows way more build options. What if you get a player build to the 600-700 TPE you want, but earning TPE from there feels like a drag? You may be tempted to welfare + extra, boost up that second player you have all while keeping a bit of TPE for depreciation of your first player. 

 

Wait a second....

 

I thought the whole premise behind dual players was that you have to do PTs for each player and they are essentially separate?

 

Edit: Nvm didn't see that clearly in section D from Mike's post.

 

I dislike the idea of PTs being applied for both players where Welfare doesn't. That essentially makes PTs worth 12 points.

Edited May 16, 2016 by tfong

[gregreg 930]

11 minutes ago, tfong said:

 

Wait a second....

 

I thought the whole premise behind dual players was that you have to do PTs for each player and they are essentially separate?

 

Edit: Nvm didn't see that clearly in section D from Mike's post.

 

I dislike the idea of PTs being applied for both players where Welfare doesn't. That essentially makes PTs worth 12 points.

and will actually make people do them instead of claiming welfare every week 

[Baozi 1,635]

4 minutes ago, gregreg said:

and will actually make people do them instead of claiming welfare every week 

 

Whats with this welfare hate again?

 

The point of welfare is to keep players around that would otherwise not be here either because of a lack of time to do PTs or where they don't have the ability to do them reguarly anymore.

 

This is not the case of Welfare = Avaialble players. Welfare players generally aren't capable of being PT players (hence taking welfare).

 

If you want to make people "do PTs" then just eliminate welfare altogether. You'll probably find that most of the welfare players at that point will disappear because it doesn't change their situation of being able to do PTs in the first place.

Edited May 16, 2016 by tfong

[gregreg 930]

Just now, tfong said:

 

Whats with this welfare hate again?

 

The point of welfare is to keep players around that would otherwise not be here either because of a lack of time to do PTs or where they don't have the ability to do them reguarly anymore.

 

This is not the case of Welfare = Avaialble players. Welfare players generally aren't capable of being PT players (hence taking welfare).

Yeah totally fine if all you can do is welfare that's great but it probably means you can't run two players either if you can't spend 30mins on a graphic or writing something 

[Molholt 2,183]

3 minutes ago, tfong said:

 

Whats with this welfare hate again?

 

The point of welfare is to keep players around that would otherwise not be here either because of a lack of time to do PTs or where they don't have the ability to do them reguarly anymore.

 

This is not the case of Welfare = Avaialble players. Welfare players generally aren't capable of being PT players (hence taking welfare).

 

If you want to make people "do PTs" then just eliminate welfare altogether. You'll probably find that most of the welfare players at that point will disappear because it doesn't change their situation of being able to do PTs in the first place.

 

The point of my idea is to allow welfare players to still exist, but give a slightly more benefit to a player who takes the time to do a pt. The way I see it, if you want to do welfare that's fine, but if you want to run two players you won't be able to with just welfare. Welfare is great for keeping people around, but in this proposal I'm saying let's give a benefit to the people who are still spending time each week to do a pt, instead of just 1 TPE more than welfare people. 

[Molholt 2,183]

If you want to be able to have two players getting 5 TPE a week for not doing anything but posting in a thread, then I hear the GOHML is great. 

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

1 minute ago, Molholt said:

If you want to be able to have two players getting 5 TPE a week for not doing anything but posting in a thread, then I hear the GOHML is great. 

It's 8 TPE and only one player, thank you very much

[Baozi 1,635]

Just now, gregreg said:

Yeah totally fine if all you can do is welfare that's great but it probably means you can't run two players either if you can't spend 30mins on a graphic or writing something 

 

Each of my PTs when I was active could take me upwards of 2 hours to do. Not 30 mins cuz those ones usually got me less than full points.

 

I contribute to the chat and post when I can on the site because I can do that while doing my other tasks. What I CAN'T do is devote 1-2 hours of my work day to researching and making a PT which requires total concentration if I want a quality product.

 

You don't need time to run a player, you login, welfare post and update your status post. Its not the same as needing to sit down and has out a PT.

 

I've also contributed max donations since the callout went out for it, so don't say I'm not contributing to the site. I'm doing everything that I barring PTs to be active on the site.

[Molholt 2,183]

Just now, tfong said:

 

Each of my PTs when I was active could take me upwards of 2 hours to do. Not 30 mins cuz those ones usually got me less than full points.

 

I contribute to the chat and post when I can on the site because I can do that while doing my other tasks. What I CAN'T do is devote 1-2 hours of my work day to researching and making a PT which requires total concentration if I want a quality product.

 

You don't need time to run a player, you login, welfare post and update your status post. Its not the same as needing to sit down and has out a PT.

 

I've also contributed max donations since the callout went out for it, so don't say I'm not contributing to the site. I'm doing everything that I barring PTs to be active on the site.

 

I'm perfectly fine with all of that - but why is that not acceptable for just one player? You don't want a pt to be worth 12, but you want welfare to be worth 10? 

 

Or am I confused?

[Baozi 1,635]

3 minutes ago, Molholt said:

If you want to be able to have two players getting 5 TPE a week for not doing anything but posting in a thread, then I hear the GOHML is great. 

 

I max donate every season. I sit in chat and converse with people that come in and i contribute to post threads and game threads. The only thing I don't have time to do is PTs. I'd say thats hardly fair to say "I'm not doing anything."

[FacePuncher 1,343]

You write some long ass PTs haha. I write for the mag, and usually my articles get cut short because they won't fit, and I've never spent much more than an hour

[Baozi 1,635]

2 minutes ago, Molholt said:

 

I'm perfectly fine with all of that - but why is that not acceptable for just one player? You don't want a pt to be worth 12, but you want welfare to be worth 10? 

 

Or am I confused?

 

No I just think the scaling seems to be unfair for someone that does 80% of the things that makes a person considered active on the site. Lets say If I do 4/5 things that the site deems as helping to make the website active. But I'm recieving 1/4 of the credit as a player that could arguably do 1/5.

 

I say 1/4 because Welfare is only worth 4 points unelss you can buy it in store.

 

But you can have a player like (sorry bush, going to pick on you here) that posts a PT but is not active in discussion or forums, not around ever etc.. So he essentially does 1/5 of the things required to be "active" but gets 100% of points.

 

I do 4/5 things (everything but pts) and get 20% of points.

[gregreg 930]

6 minutes ago, tfong said:

 

I max donate every season. I sit in chat and converse with people that come in and i contribute to post threads and game threads. The only thing I don't have time to do is PTs. I'd say thats hardly fair to say "I'm not doing anything."

And if you want two players you will have to do PTs  

 

Something we could do is one player must be a PTs player and the other is a welfare player. Letting new members if they do PTs be able to beat out the doubles in drafts

Edited May 16, 2016 by gregreg

[Molholt 2,183]

I see no reason to limit the second player - you can do PTs for both, because we want to promote activity, but you can only claim welfare for one. I don't see the issue with that - I'm not saying take welfare away, but damn, I don't think you deserve 8-10 TPE a week from welfare for two players. 

 

Lets be honest, it's not hard to get a 6 anymore. Just post something.