Edition 298

[STZ 5,376]

VHL Magazine - Edition 298

[Molholt 2,185]

My favorite part so far:

 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oJFUh8Pgal4/maxresde

-

fault.jpg

Diana Maxwell leads the VIkings with 26 goals,

giving her nearly 40% of Stockholm’s scores.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,910]

Lol every goalie belonging to Western Europe or World (or I guess Mercenaries)

[Da Trifecta 1,902]

Sick

[eaglesfan036 4,604]

@sterling I'm not sure when your article was written, but we've pretty much scrapped a player build idea at this point and are looking at other ways to change the update scale. Also, you idea is horrible. Our drafts are already horrible, and having careers of unlimited length is not going to help that. 

[Devise 4,475]

Yeah Sterling none of the proposed changes have anything to do with what your talking about....

 

As in there isn't any differences based on some choices for sniper or playmaker or anything like that. It's just broad changes to the update scale, as a means of combatting the constant complaints that too many attributes are at 99 for lots of members regardless of activity. Members of all sorts have said to us this is the case, so rather than add complicated changes we figured changing the update scale to change how much TPE it takes to get to 99 attacks that idea directly.

 

Even your suggestion of lowering starting attributes essentially does the exact same thing. My suggestion as well was to category the attributes across the board for all players, as I'm sure nobody cares how easy it is for a welfare player to get to 99 discipline or penalty shot. But skating or scoring? That's a different story. I'd be interested in your feedback in general if you actually read through and realised there are no proposed changes on the board to label or start with differing attributes or update scales for different player types. Members would enjoy the freedom they have now to freely put TPE in any attributes with no restrictions. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Mr. Power

[sterling 2,000]

Yeah, I didn't fully read everything, I was just mad that such stupid ideas were brought up and seriously considered in the first place. The focus should be on recruiting new members, not constantly changing things that don't need to be changed.

[Devise 4,475]

7 minutes ago, sterling said:

Yeah, I didn't fully read everything, I was just mad that such stupid ideas were brought up and seriously considered in the first place. The focus should be on recruiting new members, not constantly changing things that don't need to be changed.

 

We implemented new recruitment idea's, and we all agree that is the primary focus. 

 

That doesn't change the fact that nearly a quarter of members have the main attributes needed to make a good player (Scoring, Passing, Skating) are in the high 90s. The incentive to do point tasks is so limited now. Not because welfare earns too much but because it doesn't take that much to get the TPE to get the 5 attributes anyone cares about to high totals. It's why even actives put in a season or two of work and can coast on welfare and keep said attributes in the high 90s for their career. 

 

 

[Molholt 2,185]

Yeah, Max has been on welfare for awhile now. Mostly due to me being busy, but also because I don't need the points anymore. 

 

However, I think the super complicated methods of varying update scales is too much. I also think that it makes more sense to keep the same update scale but scale back the TPE available, rather than changing the update scale drastically. That or an archetype system, but that's too drastic of a change.

 

I'm also surprised, given that the feedback for almost any change is that it would ruin records, that changing the update scale is being considered. Seems like that would definitely change the stats that players have. 

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Molholt said:

Yeah, Max has been on welfare for awhile now. Mostly due to me being busy, but also because I don't need the points anymore. 

 

However, I think the super complicated methods of varying update scales is too much. I also think that it makes more sense to keep the same update scale but scale back the TPE available, rather than changing the update scale drastically. That or an archetype system, but that's too drastic of a change.

 

I'm also surprised, given that the feedback for almost any change is that it would ruin records, that changing the update scale is being considered. Seems like that would definitely change the stats that players have. 

 

It was discussed but the feeling is the changes won't alter the numbers enough to mess with anything anymore than we already have. Semi actives go from maintaining 97-99 in main attributes to 90-93. That isn't a huge enough difference to suddenly make the players garbage, but its big enough to bring incentives to do PT and give first gens a real reason to take an active role and get their players to the top. 

[Smarch 3,185]

11 hours ago, eaglesfan036 said:

@sterling I'm not sure when your article was written, but we've pretty much scrapped a player build idea at this point and are looking at other ways to change the update scale. Also, you idea is horrible. Our drafts are already horrible, and having careers of unlimited length is not going to help that. 

The shitty career lengths might be one of the reasons people don't feel like sticking around tho, maybe that needs to be explored a bit more. 

[Devise 4,475]

Also for the record I'm not against Sterlings idea of unlimited careers either, however I don't know if depreciation at 10 is early enough. As was the original purpose of update scale suggestions, we only really have 5 attributes people spend all their TPE on. Maybe six if they care about hitting or face offs. 10 seasons without depreciation, and high TPE bonuses to first gens means everyone will have 99 in everything. 

 

I didn't realise the goal to turn everyone into Crosby. Then what the success of any player is basically a coin flip or a full on dice game lol. 

[Will 4,662]

39 minutes ago, Molholt said:

Yeah, Max has been on welfare for awhile now. Mostly due to me being busy, but also because I don't need the points anymore. 

 

However, I think the super complicated methods of varying update scales is too much. I also think that it makes more sense to keep the same update scale but scale back the TPE available, rather than changing the update scale drastically. That or an archetype system, but that's too drastic of a change.

 

I'm also surprised, given that the feedback for almost any change is that it would ruin records, that changing the update scale is being considered. Seems like that would definitely change the stats that players have. 

 

I mean, at this point the only thing I think we could really scale back is league giveaways and that by itself wouldn't make a huge difference even if we were willing to do it. I don't see the argument for scaling back activity versus fixing the update scale so that it can accomodate the activity.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,910]

I feel like the vast majority of people (myself included) burn out of updating a player by Season 5 or 6 or so. Perhaps 10+ season careers may work better for members with two players, but on its face, that just seems like a hell of a long real-world time to stick to one player.

[Devise 4,475]

26 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

I feel like the vast majority of people (myself included) burn out of updating a player by Season 5 or 6 or so. Perhaps 10+ season careers may work better for members with two players, but on its face, that just seems like a hell of a long real-world time to stick to one player.

 

There is also the fact that some here under estimate how easy it is to get 99 in an attribute. It costs only 116 TPE to go from 40 to 99, (40-70 is 30, 70-80 is 20, 80-90 is 30, and 90-99 is 36). So if I wanted 99 in Skating, Passing, Defense, and Scoring that only costs me 464 TPE. Most members first gen or otherwise have close to half that amount before they are even drafted. Most members hover close to the 500 TPE amount, and reasonably could have the 4 most important attributes maxed well before depreciation.