Two Players

[Beketov 8,685]

5 minutes ago, Molholt said:

I say only one player per team - when I was in the baseball league with 4 players, you could never have more than 2 on one team and it worked out, so 50% here seems good too.

Just curious what the reasoning is for this? Just so teams can't grab up 2 great players at a time via FA?

 

Im not opposed to a team based limit, just want to understand the reasoning. Would kinda suck, especially for goalies where the market is limited, to not be traceable to a certain team because your other player is already there. Seems like it closes up potential FA issues but limits trades.

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Just curious what the reasoning is for this? Just so teams can't grab up 2 great players at a time via FA?

 

Im not opposed to a team based limit, just want to understand the reasoning. Would kinda suck, especially for goalies where the market is limited, to not be traceable to a certain team because your other player is already there. Seems like it closes up potential FA issues but limits trades.

I was under the impression it was because both players would be getting the 6 TPE from the one PT. But if one will have to be welfare, I'm not sure the reasoning behind this either.

[Baozi 1,638]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Just curious what the reasoning is for this? Just so teams can't grab up 2 great players at a time via FA?

 

Im not opposed to a team based limit, just want to understand the reasoning. Would kinda suck, especially for goalies where the market is limited, to not be traceable to a certain team because your other player is already there. Seems like it closes up potential FA issues but limits trades.

 

I assume it helps spread the wealth so there are actually more players on teams spread out rather than just a consolidation of power?

[Beketov 8,685]

1 minute ago, tfong said:

 

I assume it helps spread the wealth so there are actually more players on teams spread out rather than just a consolidation of power?

Isn't there just a much a chance of that now though? Chances are most people won't have 2 crazy good players anyway.

 

Only thing I see being an issue with not limiting it would be that GM's could always have a goalie even if they don't love playing as one because they could have a forward or something at the same time.

[Molholt 2,183]

9 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Just curious what the reasoning is for this? Just so teams can't grab up 2 great players at a time via FA?

 

Im not opposed to a team based limit, just want to understand the reasoning. Would kinda suck, especially for goalies where the market is limited, to not be traceable to a certain team because your other player is already there. Seems like it closes up potential FA issues but limits trades.

 

Because if Kendrick, Green and Boom take their 6 best players and all join a team in free agency, that seems a bit unfair lol.

 

If you can't have two on the same team, you have less incentive to sabotage one player to spite the other team you're on. Whereas if you can have two on one team, you might say well I'll screw this player over until I can join Toronto, or whatever.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Molholt

[gregreg 930]

players should be spread out enough that should never happen 

also GMs 2nd players have to go through the draft and can't sign via free agency with their team. They could trade for them or draft them 

Edited May 16, 2016 by gregreg

[Phil 5,025]

I like this idea in theory. I would probably have a welfare player and it would create some nice mix of different salary bracket players.

 

It would also help bring a team to London! The Phil Franchise got a little more happy! 

[Beketov 8,685]

7 minutes ago, Molholt said:

 

Because if Kendrick, Green and Boom take their 6 best players and all join a team in free agency, that seems a bit unfair lol.

 

If you can't have two on the same team, you have less incentive to sabotage one player to spite the other team you're on. Whereas if you can have two on one team, you might say well I'll screw this player over until I can join Toronto, or whatever.

I get that, I don't see it happening really but I do understand the worry.

 

What worries me though, like I said, is that what if, for example, Calgary was the only team in need of a goalie so my GM wanted to trade me there but my other player is already there? Suddenly Calgary either has to trade a player they don't want to trade to get what they need or I'm stuck on a team that might want to get rid of me for some reason because of need.

 

I'm just not really sure what the compromise would be because both are kinda problematic IMO.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Beketov

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

It could also open up the chance for teams to have more than 1 goalie and finally have a backup become useful.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

A player could make a goalie based off welfare and see how it is to be a goalie if they never have or are scared to. This could finally replace all the computer back up goalies and back ups will finally be relevant like the SHL. The two teams things opens up lots of doors for GM's when drafting.

[gregreg 930]

Lets just remove the option of free agency

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

8 minutes ago, gregreg said:

Lets just remove the option of free agency

 

Nice way to lose Boom

[Molholt 2,183]

21 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I get that, I don't see it happening really but I do understand the worry.

 

What worries me though, like I said, is that what if, for example, Calgary was the only team in need of a goalie so my GM wanted to trade me there but my other player is already there? Suddenly Calgary either has to trade a player they don't want to trade to get what they need or I'm stuck on a team that might want to get rid of me for some reason because of need.

 

I'm just not really sure what the compromise would be because both are kinda problematic IMO.

 

I mean some goalie issues are unavoidable. Just this year we saw Sinclair and Campbell retire because they couldn't find teams, so this is already an issue - not really one being brought on by a change such as this.

[diamond_ace 3,106]

7 hours 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.

the fuck is a GOMHL

[Baozi 1,638]

Sounds like something I eat at a Japanese restaurant.

[Victor 10,580]

I love this thread. As soon as I read an issue, someone already posts the solution I would or even better. This is shaping up very nicely indeed.

 

For the new FA issue. I say:

- you can't sign in FA for the same team your other player is on.

- you can't try to force yourself to be drafted to the team your other player is on

- you can be drafted with both players to the same team if it's naturally - I.e. you don't force it

- you can be traded to the same team your other player is on.

[der meister 2,946]

23 hours ago, Victor said:

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.

 

[Beketov 8,685]

20 minutes ago, Victor said:

I love this thread. As soon as I read an issue, someone already posts the solution I would or even better. This is shaping up very nicely indeed.

 

For the new FA issue. I say:

- you can't sign in FA for the same team your other player is on.

- you can't try to force yourself to be drafted to the team your other player is on

- you can be drafted with both players to the same team if it's naturally - I.e. you don't force it

- you can be traded to the same team your other player is on.

That's kinda what I'm thinking. Doesn't bring up any possible trade issues (which also means GM's aren't even more limited in their abilities to make trades) and fixes the issue of players potentially stacking a roster. Although I don't think the above example would be possible under any cap haha.

 

The only thing is how do you enforce if something has been "forced" or not? Just like, if the user is being a whiny bitch?

[Kendrick 4,724]

10 hours ago, stevo said:

Now now, don't spoil it to the public

Stevo does this thing call the Mufasa. He cuts a tiny cut in both your thumbs and he forces you to wipe your thumbs below his eyes to make you look like Simba. It's sick and its very disturbing. Worst of all I tried going to a shrink for the issues it gave me, but Dr. Timon just made me remind myself of the reason I was there!!

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

49 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

the fuck is a GOMHL

If you're serious: http://gomhl.jcink.net/index.php?act=idx

 

It's an easy league with a lot of people from VHL and SHL where Activity Check is 8 TPE and Media for the week is 2 TPE, but able to upgrade to 3. Going into S5. So....VHL first....but GOMHL secondary.

[Will 4,612]

I feel like very few people will actually do 2 point tasks every week, but that's probably a good thing. I'd like this to add more depth to the league and simply give people a chance to play in different places/with more people rather than adding a bunch more 1000 TPE fuckers to the league.  

 

This is just an idea that I haven't given a ton of thought to, but what if instead of worrying about welfare or point tasks for a second player, we made job pay worth X TPE for your 2nd player? We could come up with a number similar to a welfare claim for each job, and we could include things that aren't currently paid jobs like VHL GM. 

[gregreg 930]

6 minutes ago, Draper said:

I feel like very few people will actually do 2 point tasks every week, but that's probably a good thing. I'd like this to add more depth to the league and simply give people a chance to play in different places/with more people rather than adding a bunch more 1000 TPE fuckers to the league.  

 

This is just an idea that I haven't given a ton of thought to, but what if instead of worrying about welfare or point tasks for a second player, we made job pay worth X TPE for your 2nd player? We could come up with a number similar to a welfare claim for each job, and we could include things that aren't currently paid jobs like VHL GM. 

I'd rather have PT/Welfare be the options then creating a bunch of random jobs every time a member wants to create a 2nd player

[Will 4,612]

1 minute ago, gregreg said:

I'd rather have PT/Welfare be the options then creating a bunch of random jobs every time a member wants to create a 2nd player

 

I don't really see that being an issue. There's plenty of jobs to go around as it stands now, and if we were going to stagger players then by the time a new member is even eligible to create a new player they will most likely have a job and if they don't, they probably don't need to be making a 2nd player

 

But, I suppose you do have people like fong with no job. 

[Molholt 2,183]

Let's not make it overly complex @Draper

[Will 4,612]

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.