2nd Player Carryover

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

I know there's a rule out there that regarding your 2nd player, you cannot use the carryover from your 1st player on him. It sounds like a decent rule, but then when I think about it, it's kind of fucky.

 

Take me, for instance.

- Torstein Ironside is a S54 goaltender, uncapable of Parechkin's carryover once he retires.

- Parechkin retires next season.

- Since there has to be 3 draft seasons between your 1st and 2nd player, my next "1st" player won't be created until the S55 deadline, to put him in the S57 draft.

- But during this time, Zach Parechkin will be gone from the VHL, and technically, Torstein Ironside will become my "1st" player. He will be the only player I have playing in the league throughout S54 and half of S55. So, Parechkin's carryover will be in limbo for 1.5 seasons.

- Should I just be able to use his carryover on my "2nd" player, Ironside, who was just created this past deadline?

 

It just seems weird to me that Torstein Ironside will be my only player in the VHL for 1.5 seasons. So, I mean, realistically, the player I create at the S55 deadline would then become my "2nd" player, since I'll be only active with 1 player until then.

 

 

I just figured I'd throw this out there for discussion. I know there are others that question that rule. I don't really care if it's in or not, since I can keep track of when the carryover happens.

 

I mean, you'd need to keep track of all the players who haven't used their carryover yet as well, since they'd be waiting over a season.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

I think the point is (and I'm speaking based off assumptions not stuff I know is true) is that carryover in the VHL is only something that can be applied at the beginning of a players' career, unlike the SBA where u can "uncap" your guy and add all your carryover at that point.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

1 hour ago, The Bread Man said:

I think the point is (and I'm speaking based off assumptions not stuff I know is true) is that carryover in the VHL is only something that can be applied at the beginning of a players' career, unlike the SBA where u can "uncap" your guy and add all your carryover at that point.

Yeah. It's just a discussion that's been had with me by a few people.

 

Somebody will have to keep track of which players' carryovers haven't been used yet. In a case like me, it'll be sitting there untouched for 1.5 seasons until I use it on my next recreate.

[Devise 4,475]

58 minutes ago, DollarAndADream said:

Yeah. It's just a discussion that's been had with me by a few people.

 

Somebody will have to keep track of which players' carryovers haven't been used yet. In a case like me, it'll be sitting there untouched for 1.5 seasons until I use it on my next recreate.

 

While I understand this concern, I don't really see why you feel the need to continue saying "keep track" of ones carry over like this is some extremely hard task. One doesn't have to keep task of any carryover TPE, only the player associated with it. 

 

But as you'll see from any current player page, a list of that members retired players and their TPE can almost always be found. At that point doing carryover is simply basic math. The player page on your newest player already has Parechkin, and while it doesn't currently have TPE listed we do have all the previous player pages archived as well. But it was my belief that all player pages should have readily a previous member player list including TPE earned for quick reference purposes, such as this one. 

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

1 hour ago, Mr. Power said:

 

While I understand this concern, I don't really see why you feel the need to continue saying "keep track" of ones carry over like this is some extremely hard task. One doesn't have to keep task of any carryover TPE, only the player associated with it. 

 

But as you'll see from any current player page, a list of that members retired players and their TPE can almost always be found. At that point doing carryover is simply basic math. The player page on your newest player already has Parechkin, and while it doesn't currently have TPE listed we do have all the previous player pages archived as well. But it was my belief that all player pages should have readily a previous member player list including TPE earned for quick reference purposes, such as this one. 

Keep track

Keep track

Keep track

 

But for real, I know keeping track isn't a huge issue. It can be entirely done by the user, but Commishes need to make sure they don't go spending the carryover on the wrong guy, with the seasons of gap in between. It's not too hard though.

 

This is just a topic I thought I'd bring up, because of the discussions I've had.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

I fully support this

[Higgins 3,618]

But then you're next player after Ironside would just start at 30 TPE anyways so I don't see the point.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

14 minutes ago, Higgins said:

But then you're next player after Ironside would just start at 30 TPE anyways so I don't see the point.

 

Point being, your second player will always be at the 30 start over until your first retires then that moves to the 2nd player which becomes the first player and then your second after that will keep starting at 30.

[Higgins 3,618]

15 minutes ago, BMax said:

 

Point being, your second player will always be at the 30 start over until your first retires then that moves to the 2nd player which becomes the first player and then your second after that will keep starting at 30.

 

Not sure I follow, but it will only be a one time thing

[Victor 10,953]

Seems unnecessary - just look at it as you being two members. DAAD 1 retires and will recreate soon-ish with carryover. DAAD 2 joined the league and has created Ironside from scratch. DAAD 2 will get carryover after Ironside's done.

 

Anything more is at best complicating things and could even be construed as an unfair advantage to old members.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

If that is the case, then carryover in general should be eliminated as it's an unfair advantage to old members according to you @Victor. Whether it's the beginning of them creating or later on, they still have the extra that would be added to their player. Also for @Higgins what is meant is that every time the 1st player gets retired, the carryover moves to player 2. Player 2 becomes player 1 then and they still have to wait a certain amount of seasons (if necessary) otherwise start at 30 TPE again. Then when that player 1 retires again, it's a rinse and repeat process.

[JardyB10 4,865]

I feel it's just more simple to associate carryover as if it were two accounts, as Victor said. I also swear DT is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

Technically it wouldn't be that big of a deal to let your Player 1 TPE carryover to your Player 2. But that just complicates things for when you re-create your Player 1. If you think keeping track of your one retired player for 1.5 seasons is bad, I don't imagine doing so again 5 or so seasons later would be any easier. As Higgins said, even if Ironside did get Parechkin's carryover, the player you create in 1.5 seasons wouldn't be eligible for any carryover, so there's not even a real disadvantage. I suppose things could get complicated/"unfair" if you didn't end up actually wanting to re-create a second player, but in that case I don't know why one would have created on in the first place.

[Victor 10,953]

3 hours ago, BMax said:

If that is the case, then carryover in general should be eliminated as it's an unfair advantage to old members according to you @Victor. Whether it's the beginning of them creating or later on, they still have the extra that would be added to their player. Also for @Higgins what is meant is that every time the 1st player gets retired, the carryover moves to player 2. Player 2 becomes player 1 then and they still have to wait a certain amount of seasons (if necessary) otherwise start at 30 TPE again. Then when that player 1 retires again, it's a rinse and repeat process.

Carryover is just an advantage, switching it up as you fit is just taking the piss.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

5 hours ago, JardyB10 said:

I feel it's just more simple to associate carryover as if it were two accounts, as Victor said. I also swear DT is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

Technically it wouldn't be that big of a deal to let your Player 1 TPE carryover to your Player 2. But that just complicates things for when you re-create your Player 1. If you think keeping track of your one retired player for 1.5 seasons is bad, I don't imagine doing so again 5 or so seasons later would be any easier. As Higgins said, even if Ironside did get Parechkin's carryover, the player you create in 1.5 seasons wouldn't be eligible for any carryover, so there's not even a real disadvantage. I suppose things could get complicated/"unfair" if you didn't end up actually wanting to re-create a second player, but in that case I don't know why one would have created on in the first place.

 

I am arguing to make it heard of what I and others have expressed. I don't know who else talked about it, but I know myself, @DollarAndADream and @Phil all feel the same way on this subject. There is no arguing just for the sake of arguing. Just now you are making it seem like it's 2 different accounts. If you want to go ahead and do that, then why implement the 3 season rule? Would player A and player B have to wait 3 seasons? Would say yourself for example have to wait 3 seasons after I create for you to create? No. We are using 2 players under 1 account. Therefore you are forcing us to wait the 3 season rule and therefore the player is technically OUR second player. That means US in general. Therefore there isn't no different account that should be associated or pretended that there is. So why are we treating OUR, again OUR second player like it's a second account? I get what you are trying to do by keeping things separate but it's just carryover. I mean it's still carryover no matter what. I don't get how it would discourage new players any different than a recreate. They still have that extra advantage no matter how you look at it. And there is no switching it up as you fit @Victor. It's giving it from the 1st player to the 2nd. Aka how it would be with a recreate. There is no taking a piss so I don't know where you got that idiotic remark from. Your statement is completely empty and devoid of real reason to hold itself accountable as a response. Please elaborate on why you think that it shouldn't be done. And don't give me that short simple bullshit of "it should be 2 accounts or as treated so." Give me some real shit as to why you think that it shouldn't happen like that. No matter how we look at it, a new member will still have less than a recreate or second player one way or another. If they have less than a recreate, what is the difference between that and the 2nd getting the TPE? Can someone please give me a nice detailed reason why. I challenge you @Mr. Power to bring back the old Devise responses that you are so famous for. Since you support Victor's response, give some defense. The ball is in your courts, Victor, Jardy and Devise.

[Victor 10,953]

I swear to god if Devise replies to this I am not reading this thread.

 

Can I have bullet points?

[Devise 4,475]

Honestly I just think mixing and matching carryover makes it far more confusing. It's much easier to just look at a list of previous players, see what if any carryover should be applied from the appropriate player and move on. Keep in mind guys you only don't get carryover once with your first second player.

 

Also since it just told me @Victor responded, I agree with whatever he said.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

Just now, Mr. Power said:

Honestly I just think mixing and matching carryover makes it far more confusing. It's much easier to just look at a list of previous players, see what if any carryover should be applied from the appropriate player and move on. Keep in mind guys you only don't get carryover once with your first second player.

 

Also since it just told me @Victor responded, I agree with whatever he said.

 

I mean most people are already accustomed to it being that it goes on in the SBA. So it really wouldn't be that much more different than how it's done there.

[Phil 5,119]

I actually don't give a hoot. I earn enough TPE for it to not matter. 

 

The way I see things is thusly. 

 

- Hammy was at 1,000 TPE when I create Shankly. 

- Shankly's a SECOND player so he starts from scratch.

- Hammy still exists so why "carry over?"

- My next created player will be an S55 player ---> Hamilton's carry-over is applied. 

- When Shankly retires, the next player I recreate will get his carry-over.

 

 

Makes perfect sense to me

[Kendrick 4,741]

I'm so confused how this turned into a debate, I thought this was one of the easiest things to understand about the two-player system.

 

@DollarAndADream I blame you and no longer endorse you to be a GM 

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

Just now, Kendrick said:

I'm so confused how this turned into a debate, I thought this was one of the easiest things to understand about the two-player system.

 

@DollarAndADream I blame you and no longer endorse you to be a GM 

Hey, man, I don't really care what happens here either. Just like Phil, I earn enough TPE that I don't care who gets what carry-over. I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion with the website as a whole to see if there's anyone else that is bothered by the rule. I'm not really bothered, as I think it makes sense, but it just seemed a little 'odd'.

 

Either way, Ironside will be legit and recreate after Parechkin will be God 2.0.

[Kendrick 4,741]

1 minute ago, DollarAndADream said:

Hey, man, I don't really care what happens here either. Just like Phil, I earn enough TPE that I don't care who gets what carry-over. I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion with the website as a whole to see if there's anyone else that is bothered by the rule. I'm not really bothered, as I think it makes sense, but it just seemed a little 'odd'.

 

Either way, Ironside will be legit and recreate after Parechkin will be God 2.0.

Yeah but if Ironside was to get Parechkin's carryover (impossible considering Parechkin hasn't retired yet) then your next create would be at 30 TPE. You're effectively just making it complicated at that stage haha

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

1 minute ago, Kendrick said:

Yeah but if Ironside was to get Parechkin's carryover (impossible considering Parechkin hasn't retired yet) then your next create would be at 30 TPE. You're effectively just making it complicated at that stage haha

I don't think it's too complicated. Users could keep track (shoutout to Mr.Power) of them claiming carryover onto their 2nd player or their 1st player, just as they would wait it out to recreate with the carryover from 1st player to 1st player #2.

 

Either way, I'm fine with the debate whichever way it goes. I know it's going to stay how it is, though. I just thought I'd bring it up because more than one person was discussing it with me. It's just a discussion.

 

At least to me. Some people make it more into an argument.

[Kendrick 4,741]

27 minutes ago, DollarAndADream said:

I don't think it's too complicated. Users could keep track (shoutout to Mr.Power) of them claiming carryover onto their 2nd player or their 1st player, just as they would wait it out to recreate with the carryover from 1st player to 1st player #2.

 

Either way, I'm fine with the debate whichever way it goes. I know it's going to stay how it is, though. I just thought I'd bring it up because more than one person was discussing it with me. It's just a discussion.

 

At least to me. Some people make it more into an argument.

Yeah but I mean regardless of how you do it, you're getting carryover and it just means you have to wait until Ironside retires to acquire carryover on the next "2nd" player of yours. You just treat it as a newly created prospect.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

12 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

Yeah but I mean regardless of how you do it, you're getting carryover and it just means you have to wait until Ironside retires to acquire carryover on the next "2nd" player of yours. You just treat it as a newly created prospect.

But I don't want to!

[Kendrick 4,741]

Just now, DollarAndADream said:

But I don't want to!

Wait, you got a selfie from Brovy as well?