Second players for new members

[Victor 10,953]

Branching off from the main proposal, and after a fairly unrelated discussion with my Yukon Rush peeps ( @Tixe @Dangles13 @Digg ), I came to this realisation:

 

Second players addresses a key issue in not having enough to do during the week but the people most affected by that issue (new members) won't actually feel the benefits until it may be too late.

 

Because of the 3-season restriction, which I do believe is necessary, if we implemented this right now (which we won't, don't worry), S50 and even S49 draftees would have to wait until S51/52 at the earliest to create another player. Which isn't that long but still altogether adds up to approaching half a year IRL.

 

So, my suggestion to address this: give new members the option of creating a second player soon after joining. The caveat: this player would start with lower attributes (I'm thinking as low as 20), maybe even with some sort of update scale from 30 to 40, and maybe a limit on how much TPE can be spent on that player. In the end, that player will still join the S53 draft class (for an S50 draftee), but will have been in existence for a bit longer.

 

A few resulting issues:

 

1. Where will these players play before they become equivalents of normal players? - I say still the VHLM.

 

2. What about carryover? - Yeah so obviously this will give these players extra TPE due to the earlier start but I don't really care - if they break some TPE record, good for them, it's still be a challenge, and well I feel it's a minor hand-out really for new members who start at a disadvantaged position anyway.

 

3. Should there be an attribute cap? - I think it'd be silly to allow someone to just put all TPE in scoring and then become draft-eligible with 99 scoring in the VHLM. One solution is instituting an update scale between 20 and 40, while I'd also say these players should be encouraged to get to 40 in all attributes before starting to max out the others. *

 

* - speaking of 40, any attributes still below 40 at the day of actual draft eligibility (in this hypothetical scenario it would be S52 trade deadline), would be bumped up to 40 anyway to regain equal footing.

 

 

Not the best worded idea possibly with some work to do, but IMHO it has legs.

[Digg 28]

Great proposal! I agree from what I've noticed already.

[Daniel 565]

I could get behind this

[Dangles13 373]

Might be a little confusing/overwhelming trying to figure out two players who follow different rules when they first sign up.

[Devise 4,475]

What if there are two options. You can create the standard, second VHL player after you have passed the cap. Or alternatively, anytime before the cap you can choose to create a second "junior' player. This would work as you proposed, lower attributes, or alternatively and more simply a harsher update scale from 30-40-50 range. This player would have to be younger in age, and the idea would be that they would be spending a few extra seasons in the VHLM. The amount of stability this should give VHLM GM's would be huge. Not only do they get more players sticking around for a bit longer, but they are actives too. Sure second players, but that basically gives us a nice little core to stay in the VHLM for longer periods of time and really welcome in the new members. Parity could go up in that league as well.

 

Oh also, welfare players who have debated creating a second player but don't know may be more happy with the option of creating said junior player. Hence the reason we make it open to more than just new players, and anyone who wishes to create a second player before they have a single player with 3-4 seasons or more played. I know a few of the welfare/key guys who have stated to me that they'd love to create a second player and leave them in the VHLM for a while just for the fun of it. So this really opens that up to them as well. 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Mr. Power

[Devise 4,475]

If you want to theme it so it's not confusing either, just call these players Junior players, until they complete X amount of seasons, maybe say the 3 or 4 gap? Junior players would then have a harsher update scale earlier on. I mean if we do this I don't know why we don't just create the junior player as a completely different build option. Traditionally all VHL player start very equal. But the Junior Player could be a sort of new challenge or take. We could even just let people create such a player whenever they create a player, but stipulate that if you create a second player before the 3-4 season gap it has to be a junior player. I mean you could even go crazy with it and say that Juniors have less of an update scale from 80-90 and 90-99. Let's see if I can math this out in my very tired state here. 

 

Rules of VHL Junior Player

When creating a player you have the option of choosing between a standard, or junior. A standard player starts with the traditional VHL update scale that gets harsher as the player gets better, and starts with the standard attribute amounts in the 40's. This is the easiest starting point in the league and depending on the levels of activity you should be able to build a good-great player. A junior player starts with lower attributes than normal, and has a harsher update scale earlier on, but receives an easier update scale in the higher attributes. Due to the lower attributes, Junior players must play a minimum of 3 seasons in the VHLM before they are eligible to be drafted in the VHL. 

 

A Junior player would start in the 30's for all the attributes that are in the 40's for a standard player. 

Update Scale as follows: 30-60 (2 TPE per 1 attribute) 60-80 (1 TPE per attribute) 80-90 (2 TPE Per attribute) 90-99 (3 TPE per attribute) 

 

Note: When creating a second player, if you have not met the 3/4 season career requirement you can only create a junior player. 

 

 

 

 

Now I know what your saying, your saying Devise you are crazy man. However it would take a total of 127 TPE to max out an attribute from 30-99 as a junior player. It only takes 116 to do it as a regular player. But the advantage for the junior player down the road, after they struggle to get through all the seasons in the VHLM and that harsh early update scale is that once depreciation hits, they can handle it better than a standard player. Assuming you take two equal TPE earners both standard and junior, the standard player will be using up all his TPE to handle depreciation, while the junior player will be able to more easily handle said depreciation and have leftover TPE to make their player constantly better. Especially in the late seasons, and this becomes even more of a thing if we add 2 extra seasons in career length. I don't think it would have that much of an impact on drafts either, because I don't forsee everyone choosing to be a junior player, and if we add the two players which this idea goes hand in hand with then we should have some staggering out to the quality of our drafts. 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Mr. Power

[Victor 10,953]

3 hours ago, Dangles13 said:

Might be a little confusing/overwhelming trying to figure out two players who follow different rules when they first sign up.

I don't think it should be offered straight away.

 

but 1-2 weeks in we go "oh hey do you want a second player too? here's how it works..."

[Victor 10,953]

And yeah @Mr. Power's idea of making it available for everyone makes sense too... though I don't imagine it would be that popular. Maybe, i dunno, it doesn't matter either.

 

I think the main question is how bad are players with attributes in their 20s? Because if they're just shit then the better idea would be start at 40 but with a harsh update scale from 40 to 70 (then keep the same scale as right now from 70 to 99).

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Vote no to the junior players. No need to make another update scale and have to create changes that balance around the two different types of players. My suggestion is to allow new members to create another player as part of the next draft class, but encourage them to wait the same amount of time as a returning member.

[Devise 4,475]

3 hours ago, flyersfan1493 said:

Vote no to the junior players. No need to make another update scale and have to create changes that balance around the two different types of players. My suggestion is to allow new members to create another player as part of the next draft class, but encourage them to wait the same amount of time as a returning member.

 

While I do agree on keeping it simple, I don't think the solution presented is all that crazy. This would allow new members to get in on the two player aspect and put some much needed stability in the VHLM. Which that alone has tons of benefits.

 

Granted regardless of how we implement the two player system there will be those who intentionally build players who stick it out in the VHLM longer. But I will argue that with a system/build change we would at least be offering a base level variety people have been critical against. It's also not that gimmicky or complicated and even to the root of Victors base idea feels very much like a VHL version of "player build options". By that I mean instead of mucking it up with multiple options or play styles we'd still be allowing all that freedom. The only differences relate to the update scale and time spent in VHLM, neither of which are things that the more old school VHL crew has been adamant about never changing. 

 

Feels like an eventual middle ground to me, which is generally how all our changes look.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

I'm not sure about letting new members create a second player right away. I think it would be weird to have two VHLM players right off the bat when you start. But it's whatever

[Dangles13 373]

As a VHLM newbie I would rather wait until I get one player to the VHL before I create a second player.

[BOOM 8,759]

I'll stick with my multi's for now. Easier to manage.

[Victor 10,953]

10 hours ago, flyersfan1493 said:

Vote no to the junior players. No need to make another update scale and have to create changes that balance around the two different types of players. My suggestion is to allow new members to create another player as part of the next draft class, but encourage them to wait the same amount of time as a returning member.

and how would you encourage that?

[Molholt 2,185]

Trying to make this overly complex. 

[Devise 4,475]

58 minutes ago, Molholt said:

Trying to make this overly complex. 

Your right, a single different player attribute scale option that has what, two or three rules to it? Nothing is more complex than that.

 

Seriously, I understand the hesitation for weird ideas but sometimes I get the impression some people here jump to the "this idea isn't simple enough" even though some of the ideas are in fact simple. Want an example of a complex idea? The Super Cup. There were more rules and confusing elements to a single Super Cup draft than there is to this entire second player idea as it relates to new members. When an idea ends up being too complex and doesn't work, I'm often the first to eat the crow on it. I did that very much with the Super cup as an example. And that isn't it. 

 

But this isn't that complicated. I'm not even talking about just my own branded version of the suggestions either. Victors initial idea, which somewhat goes in hand with the branding I suggested at it's base makes a lot of sense and is really easy to understand. We want to implement two players, but we don't want to exclude new members from engaging in it until 4 seasons in. Victor, like myself, knows that after we implement two players it's only a matter of time until someone comes on here and says "Another thing for older/longer time members in the VHL." Considering a solution to this would be to just allow new players (or any player) the option of building a different type of secondary player, with some very minor changes to the attribute stuff and some extra time in the VHLM, neither of which are overly complicated ideas or really have many serious negative consequences. At least not consequences that we aren't already going to be creating/attempting to handle anyways. 

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

1 hour ago, Victor said:

and how would you encourage that?

 

"Hey if you really want to you can make a second player now, but we recommend waiting until X seasons later for reasons"

[Victor 10,953]

Just now, flyersfan1493 said:

 

"Hey if you really want to you can make a second player now, but we recommend waiting until X seasons later for reasons"

But what would the reasons be? Why would anyone wait 3 seasons if that was an option?

[Devise 4,475]

I realize I probably come off super condescending with that first remark. Not intending to offend or insult you Molholt.

 

Instead I'll just say this on the subject. If it's too complicated, explain to me how. Take the position of a new member or a returning member going to use these features, and explain to me the hook ups and the overly complicated aspects of it that you or someone in that position fail to understand. And lets just go from there on that.

 

1 minute ago, flyersfan1493 said:

 

"Hey if you really want to you can make a second player now, but we recommend waiting until X seasons later for reasons"

 

So only new members would be allowed to create a second player before the X season gap? Or do we want to open that up to everyone? There was an agreement for overall balance purposes that spacing out the second player a mandatory 3 (or more, an actual number hasn't been decided but nobody seemed to complain with 3) season gap. 

 

For me the less special circumstances we need to create the better this will all go off. A rule in which anyone and everyone can go something is as clear cut as it gets. A rule in which only X members can do this, and only X members can do this after X seasons. Not too bring it up again but that sounds a bit too complicated.  

[Molholt 2,185]

Yeah, being a condescending prick is a good way to ensure I don't read anything beyond the first sentence of your post. 

 

Adding any rules and regulations is an additional thing for NEW members to deal with. That is MORE complex than them not being there. 

 

I didn't read your shit and I won't be back in this thread, but adding extra stuff for new members that is different than what everyone else has means it is more complicated for everyone. 

[Victor 10,953]

1 minute ago, Molholt said:

I didn't read your shit and I won't be back in this thread

A mature attitude. I can only imagine the reaction if someone responded to your suggestion like that.

[Devise 4,475]

21 minutes ago, Molholt said:

Yeah, being a condescending prick is a good way to ensure I don't read anything beyond the first sentence of your post. 

 

Adding any rules and regulations is an additional thing for NEW members to deal with. That is MORE complex than them not being there. 

 

I didn't read your shit and I won't be back in this thread, but adding extra stuff for new members that is different than what everyone else has means it is more complicated for everyone. 

 

I literally posted saying I recognized I came off condescending and made sure to let you know that was not my intent. I just get sick of seeing counter responses that equal "this is good." Or. "this is bad." In your case it was a blanket vague "this is complicated." 

 

In regards to your actual complaint and justification, yes you are right. Adding anything new is always going to be more complex. But by that very same token, why add anything new at all then? Why add the ability for two players? Why expand? Why not stick with the same teams forever. We make changes because the community that your apart of and posting in threads for, at least parts of said community would like to see them. 

 

Just so it's crystal clear too, nowhere is any of our posts some legitimate pasting of confirmed things happening. The whole point of this is discussion, so if your going to come here I don't think it would be too much to ask you to discuss. And no, I don't expect everyone to post giant paragraphs of text like I do. But a little justification could be in order. In this specific case, if your only solely against a second build option/any of the suggestions posted in the OP because new things in general are complicated is it safe for me to assume that you also are against many of the other proposed/potential changes suggested, given that they are also new and thus by your own logic complicated. If not, please explain. This isn't me trying to call you out. But I personally would like as many thought out opinions of the people who will potentially be using any new features as possible. it's how you make sure the features are as in line with what the community wants as possible. 

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mr. Power

[FacePuncher 1,343]

2 hours ago, Victor said:

But what would the reasons be? Why would anyone wait 3 seasons if that was an option?

Same reason you would want to wait in the SBA. For me I think it would be weird to have 2 players at the exact same time. 1) I think it would be a little more difficult to manage, though I haven't had any studies on that so not for sure, just seems like it would be, and 2) wouldn't the whole point be to have your second player be different? In this case you could still have their attributes be different but they would be in the VHLM together, be in the VHL together, reach their peak together, regress together.

Edited May 29, 2016 by ADwyer87

[FacePuncher 1,343]

45 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

I literally posted saying I recognized I came off condescending and made sure to let you know that was not my intent. I just get sick of seeing counter responses that equal "this is good." Or. "this is bad." In your case it was a blanket vague "this is complicated." 

To complain, though I have already, being condescending and then saying you didn't mean it is just as good as saying 'no offense, but' and then saying something offensive. Seems to be the case a lot in suggestions, which ironically is one of the main reasons I try and say blanket responses like 'this is bad' or 'this is good'

[Devise 4,475]

4 minutes ago, ADwyer87 said:

To complain, though I have already, being condescending and then saying you didn't mean it is just as good as saying 'no offense, but' and then saying something offensive. Seems to be the case a lot in suggestions, which ironically is one of the main reasons I try and say blanket responses like 'this is bad' or 'this is good'

 

While I agree in that my hastey response came off condescending, a dialogue is more than one comment or opinion. The purpose of me letting him know my actual intent was to help clarify that I was actually just interested in some detailed thoughts on how it was complicated.

 

As for the blanket responses. Are people afraid of being human? It's why I no longer go and edit or delete posts such as the one in question. I'm not trying to portray myself as some perfect poster. If this exact conversation where to happen in real life, it'd be as simple as me saying that my intent wasn't to be condescending and it would roll on. 

 

As a mostly random aside, there seems to be a great many and likely I'm in the minority regarding this, but many people try to type and converse on the internet distinctly different then how they would in person. I often lean more towards trying to come off how I would in person. In this particular case, I saw another post critical of how complicated the idea was without actually mentioning why, just off work and hungry, and instantly responded, which came off super condescending.