Project Player 2.2

[Quik 4,113]

I've discussed this before, definitely in the BOG, but I think in another topic that came up as well, and just wanted to take the pulse of the league to see how regular members felt about it. I'd make a poll for easy analysis, but I want you bums to read my thread!

 

Keep in mind, it would obviously need to be fleshed out further, and would possibly lead to an eventual re-expansion of both the VHLM and the VHL.

 

The idea is to allow 2nd player that would not lead to members burning out, trying to run multiple players. Anyways, here is my run-down for the parameters of a possible new generation of Project Player 2.

 

• Starts with 30 TPE
  • These players would not start with any carryover
  • No TPE can be carried over from these players either
• Only one PP2.2 player would be allowed in the league at a time, per member
  • To avoid the possible loophole of someone creating 2 of these players, I just want to point this out right away lol
• Career TPE max is 300
  • Basically, PP2.2 would provide depth players for VHL teams that are solid, but not superstars
• Attributes would be max'd at 85
  • Again, to prevent players from getting too good lol
  • Would be allowed a single attribute max'd at 90.
• These players would never depreciate
  • As compensation for the restrictions on builds, as well as a way to make these as low maintenance as possible and keep members from burning out
• While in the VHLM, TPA is max'd at 125
  • As these are secondary players, even in the VHLM they would be limited below other players
  • Also, there is a possibility these players would be in the VHLM for a while...
• Restrictions on how to earn TPE
  • The only way for these players to earn TPE would be through regular Point Tasks (including bio/rp/vhl.com), donations, jobs, welfare (this would only be claimable for one player per member, per week), practice facility and training camp (until they hit 300).
  • Other means of collecting TPE (lottery, practice facility, trivia, VHLM bonus, etc.) would not be allowed for these players.
• These players would only be entered into the VHL Draft upon hitting 200 TPE
  • Basically, once they hit the VHLM limit, they're pushed to the closest draft
  • They do not get auto-retired until they've played 5 seasons in the VHLM without hitting 200 TPE.
• Cannot claim a salary, but WOULD count against the salary cap
  • While they must sign contracts for the minimum of their TPA bracket (201-300), and would fall under rookie/vet categories, the players themselves would not add any salary to their bank
  • This also means that they cannot make any purchases from the player store, a need that is mitigated by the lack of depreciation.
  • They would have the same rights as all other players, in that they can reach Free Agency after 3 seasons, if they so choose, and have a NTC on their contract to prevent avoid being traded to a team they don't want to be on.
  • Goalies would have the same rules on the cap as current, in that they would only count at 1/2 their bracket salary.
• Would be allowed one re-shuffling of TPA OR position change per career
  • As these are normally items of the Player Store, people sometimes change their mind as to their build. This would basically be one freebie that is allowed per player, should they wish to use it.

 

Essentially, the goal is to allow members to create a low-maintenance second player they can follow, even create a wacky build that they might never try on a full player.

 

By putting in these restrictions, the hope is that it avoids the burnout that was caused by Project Player 2.1, as you would basically be able to finish your build in 2-3 seasons (1.5-2.5 of those being in the VHLM), and then sit back and watch your player. Originally, I had included a means for turning a PP2.2 into a regular player if the member's original player is retired, but I think that would be complicating things for no reason, as the low TPE count on these means it'd be easier, and make more sense, just to re-create than switch mid-career.

 

 

Borrowing @Smarch's tags, as I want to get an idea of how all members feel about this, new and old.

 

@Bushito

@MD9

@Symmetrik

@Corco

@JardyB10

@Toast

@Strtlght

@Toast

@Fire Hakstol

@Frank

@evrydayimbyfuglien

@Ahma

@BluObieZ

@TheLastOlympian07

@Bring Back Chat

@Corco

@boubabi

@Higgins

@Trifecta

@Kylrad

@gregreg

@diamond_ace

@UZI™

@Kyle

@STZ

@der meister 

@Kendrick

@Gooningitup

@Spade18

@ADV

@Kesler

@John Scott

@Lunaro

@bgreene21

@Velevra

@Phil

@Beaviss

@Tyler

@hedgehog337

@solas

@Jonessee27

@Will

@tfong

@Green

@jRuutu

@Banackock

@Laflamme

@CowboyinAmerica

@Devise

@Eggy216

@Pandar

@DollarAndADream

@Velevra

@philthethrill81

@Jogn

@Sixersfan549

@Mr.Baller

@Exlaxchronicles

@GoodLeftUndone

@Boragina

@Koradek

@Arthur

@stevo

@bukss_a

@FacePuncher

@DeathOnReddit

@nikkurri17

@HellBillyXIII

@MadMax

@Jepox

@Polygeekism

@Masxn1

@omgitshim

@Sami K

@OldTimeHockey

@Vincebrown

@VHLwhat

@MWHazard

@Týr

@Shaka

@Daniel

@Dangles13

@probably not noah

@iRockstar

@.sniffuM

@Victor

@Barracuda

@cpetrella

@Sathurx

@TrueNorth

@Hoopydog

@GCN7115

@Lloyd_71_Pav

@Burzawa

@CookieJo

@Austin3886

@DomWalton90

@Broalie34

@TWalkerFC

@10293lolo 2nd

@declanburns

@Quik

@Aiden G

@Talia03

@Dante Massaro

@MexicanCow

@jackphillips.18

@Hadz

@MaikTheRed

@Jera

@That1guy

@Zaramon95

@YayIWin

@Benm2110

@ujju2

@InsaneEruptt

@pennypenny

@TNTGamer101

@ColtonMariner11

@AdderClounJr209

@OB1mx

@YoungBlood

@jcfbey01

@Erik Johannsen

@Lax66

@Cleveland crashers

@AnthonyOuellet

@nucks

@PeterZahBa

@Noah Kearney

@GavinHaslam

@AndrewWarren13

@Rosco

@sencitis

@ShaneAppelle

@HockeyGod99

@nzakes

@twoplayable

@Papa Bless' Memes

@Tim

@YourInferiorx

@Seattle Storm

@PKelly

@Kalpa

@Smitty

@Jacob Kundrat

@nolanmclaney

@Gillyweed123

@miketheczar

@TN71

@njheseltine38

@Echotastic2

@lonelyethics

@ColtonMariner11

@Hybrid1486

@Romaris

@why₀

@Boomcheck

@James Ratcliffe

@Poisoniic

@Donno100

[Bushito 1,945]

I like it

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

How about make it so say I am in my 6th season in the VHL with Noel. I create my 2nd player and once he gets drafted, my player could retire if I wanted to (or if his time was up), then I could apply the TPE carryover after the draft and continue out said players career as if it was almost a new career.

[Quik 4,113]

2 minutes ago, Lucky 2 Times said:

How about make it so say I am in my 6th season in the VHL with Noel. I create my 2nd player and once he gets drafted, my player could retire if I wanted to (or if his time was up), then I could apply the TPE carryover after the draft and continue out said players career as if it was almost a new career.

This was originally part of my idea, but I think it just makes it more confusing to go forward. Especially if 2 players are created close together, and someone wants to retire their regular player mid-career then add that player's carry-over...

 

I think it's just easier if PP2.2 is a separate entity from regular players. That way we don't have to make rules about when you can or can't do that, or what happens to salary that was lost while being a 2.2, or what happens if a 2.2 already used a re-roll/position change, etc...

[Beaviss 4,957]

1 minute ago, Quik said:

This was originally part of my idea, but I think it just makes it more confusing to go forward. Especially if 2 players are created close together, and someone wants to retire their regular player mid-career then add that player's carry-over...

 

I think it's just easier if PP2.2 is a separate entity from regular players. That way we don't have to make rules about when you can or can't do that, or what happens to salary that was lost while being a 2.2, or what happens if a 2.2 already used a re-roll/position change, etc...

 

Side question would that mean GM’s could have three players? 

[Quik 4,113]

1 minute ago, Beaviss said:

 

Side question would that mean GM’s could have three players? 

Never really thought about it, I would suggest no, as there is already enough work with 2 full players.

 

I'm actually kind of on the fence about continuing 2 full players for GMs if this were to happen. On the one hand, this would replace the current model and allow GMs to be a part of other LRs. On the other, I can see the appeal of having a full player for another team when you're "forced" to have your GM player on your own team.

 

Idk, I lean towards transitioning GMs to 2.2 as well, but that's a different discussion to have.

[Baozi 1,658]

Omg why me.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

4 minutes ago, Quik said:

This was originally part of my idea, but I think it just makes it more confusing to go forward. Especially if 2 players are created close together, and someone wants to retire their regular player mid-career then add that player's carry-over...

 

I think it's just easier if PP2.2 is a separate entity from regular players. That way we don't have to make rules about when you can or can't do that, or what happens to salary that was lost while being a 2.2, or what happens if a 2.2 already used a re-roll/position change, etc...

 

Well the project 2 player would be listed as so in their roster thread. If say I were to have created one and he was in the VHL in 2 seasons. Noel hits season 4 and I wanna give up on him. I then apply the carryover to my P2 player and he becomes the go to player. Noel retires properly and P2 player is now just P1 player. I can then go and make another P2 if I want to. I was hinting at the point of some people kinda want to avoid the VHLM with their player. This would give them an outlet to do so.

 

P2 hits the VHLM and they kinda can forget about them almost except for the updating. They still have their main player to focus on and that is cool. Once they are ready to retire their P2 will be getting ready to be drafted and after they do get drafted they almost get to skip the VHLM kinda. With how it is normally, you retire and recreate and get stuck in the VHLM for 1-1.5 seasons. This would eliminate the hard focus on those 1-1.5 years and allow for those to "technically" skip the VHLM and they could go about their career with the carryover and enjoy that P2. It's a win win because the VHLM still gets a player for roughly 2-3 seasons and then the other person don't have to focus so much on their P2 outside of updating them.  They would still start at the 30 with no carryover obviously, but it could be applied later to help bypass the "VHLM Phase" that some people kinda want to skip.

[Quik 4,113]

2 minutes ago, tfong said:

Omg why me.

 

??

 

1 minute ago, Lucky 2 Times said:

 

Well the project 2 player would be listed as so in their roster thread. If say I were to have created one and he was in the VHL in 2 seasons. Noel hits season 4 and I wanna give up on him. I then apply the carryover to my P2 player and he becomes the go to player. Noel retires properly and P2 player is now just P1 player. I can then go and make another P2 if I want to. I was hinting at the point of some people kinda want to avoid the VHLM with their player. This would give them an outlet to do so. 

 

P2 hits the VHLM and they kinda can forget about them almost except for the updating. They still have their main player to focus on and that is cool. Once they are ready to retire their P2 will be getting ready to be drafted and after they do get drafted they almost get to skip the VHLM kinda. With how it is normally, you retire and recreate and get stuck in the VHLM for 1-1.5 seasons. This would eliminate the hard focus on those 1-1.5 years and allow for those to "technically" skip the VHLM and they could go about their career with the carryover and enjoy that P2. It's a win win because the VHLM still gets a player for roughly 2-3 seasons and then the other person don't have to focus so much on their P2 outside of updating them.  They would still start at the 30 with no carryover obviously, but it could be applied later to help bypass the "VHLM Phase" that some people kinda want to skip.

 

Fair enough. It's something that would have to be looked at more in depth, and fleshed out properly. Right now I'm just looking to see what people think of this as a proposed idea, and then the BOG can flesh things out further.

[Tagger 2,722]

Just a heads up, you've got practice facility in both the things they would be able to claim and things they would not be able to claim.

 

As for the idea, I don't mind it, but at the same time it's not something I'd probably do myself. One thing that I would add as a rule is that if a PP2.2 guy is considered inactive (and by that I mean the member hasn't done anything on the site for a month), he cannot be signed to inactive extensions or inactive FA. I don't mind the idea of guys who are active sticking round the league with a second player whose a backup, but I don't want inactive guys roaming around the league for 4-5 seasons at an un-depreciated 300 TPA playing at a better level than guys making their VHL debut. 

[Baozi 1,658]

As in i got tagged but I'm probably least likely to have a project 2 player lol.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

One of the shortcomings to me of the PP2 system was the fact that extra work had to be done to maintain both players. If TPE (or maybe at least PTs) applied to both players it would've been more sustainable for more than just the most active of members imo.

[Pandar 302]

Personally, I'd be okay with this as something that you'd have to give a second PT for.  It's a way to appease those people who are more invested in this league above the other affiliates, without actually jeopardizing those affiliations by giving additional incentives for PTs done on VHL.

 

I'm okay with it as an idea on the whole, for the record.  Not sure I'd participate, as I'm already spread a little thin, but it's a solid idea, imo.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

So this is similar to something I was in favor of when we first started discussing project player 2, but after going through the SBA's NCAA a couple of times, I'm no longer in favor of this. They're not exactly the same, but it really sucks being a new member and seeing your player bested by what are essentially another member's throw away player. 

[Quik 4,113]

3 hours ago, Tagger said:

Just a heads up, you've got practice facility in both the things they would be able to claim and things they would not be able to claim.

 

As for the idea, I don't mind it, but at the same time it's not something I'd probably do myself. One thing that I would add as a rule is that if a PP2.2 guy is considered inactive (and by that I mean the member hasn't done anything on the site for a month), he cannot be signed to inactive extensions or inactive FA. I don't mind the idea of guys who are active sticking round the league with a second player whose a backup, but I don't want inactive guys roaming around the league for 4-5 seasons at an un-depreciated 300 TPA playing at a better level than guys making their VHL debut. 

 

Good catch. It would be something that can’t be claimed as a 2.2. 

 

As for inactives, I would say that’s a good caveat. This is supposed to be a fun thing, not something that clogs the league. I think making rules that ensure the activity of the member would be good, or maybe even just an activity check to prevent depreciation. Like, if you don’t post in the main pp2.2 thread by the end of the finals, you get deprecated the same as you would regularly?

 

Also, there would probably need to be a rule about having a player in the league at the time of creation...maybe?

 

2 hours ago, tfong said:

As in i got tagged but I'm probably least likely to have a project 2 player lol.

 

Loll fair enough. I just stole smarch’s rage from the lotto

 

2 hours ago, .sniffuM said:

One of the shortcomings to me of the PP2 system was the fact that extra work had to be done to maintain both players. If TPE (or maybe at least PTs) applied to both players it would've been more sustainable for more than just the most active of members imo.

 

The extra work is mitigated here though. You can just claim welfare every week, and if you do rp/bio, be ready in a couple seasons. This version would be very low maintenance and once you hit the max tpe, it’s literally just managing your players career. 

 

1 hour ago, Fire Hakstol said:

So this is similar to something I was in favor of when we first started discussing project player 2, but after going through the SBA's NCAA a couple of times, I'm no longer in favor of this. They're not exactly the same, but it really sucks being a new member and seeing your player bested by what are essentially another member's throw away player. 

 

Thats a fair thought, which is why there’s limits, even in the vhlm. With 125 tpa max, and less ways to earn tpe, it’s easy for regular players to surpass these guys fairly quickly. It would be no worse than the career vhlm inactives that teams always have. 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

1. I like this idea, there are obviously some things to work out (Trifecta's thing about wanting P2 to become P1 - not sure where I stand on it, but it's something we'd have to decide on either way)

 

2. You know I'd get him to 125 and stop for a while, basically make a VHLM-only passer to set up any first gens I'd draft with a scorer build (should help retention at least, if they see their guy doing well). Then in the 5th season when he'd be auto-retired otherwise (and only then, no sooner) I'd debate adding to him and getting him to the bigs

[Exlaxchronicles 415]

No harm in trying this.

[Tagger 2,722]

"Keep in mind, it would obviously need to be fleshed out further, and would possibly lead to an eventual re-expansion of both the VHLM and the VHL."

 

For the record though, this or any other re-establishment of the two player rule shouldn't lead to any re-expansion of the VH, and I'd be strongly opposed to any implementation of this plan that angled towards the league expanding. We contracted the VHL while we had the two player rule in effect because we couldn't justify having ten teams even with those extra players (and even when we went down to eight with those leftover second players in their last 2-3 seasons, there were still lots of gaps on rosters) , re-implementing it with a TPE cap won't change that. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Tagger

[diamond_ace 3,112]

14 minutes ago, Tagger said:

"Keep in mind, it would obviously need to be fleshed out further, and would possibly lead to an eventual re-expansion of both the VHLM and the VHL."

 

For the record though, this or any other re-establishment of the two player rule shouldn't lead to any re-expansion of the VH, and I'd be strongly opposed to any implementation of this plan that angled towards the league expanding. We contracted the VHL while we had the two player rule in effect because we couldn't justify having ten teams even with those extra players (and even when we went down to eight with those leftover second players in their last 2-3 seasons, there were still lots of gaps on rosters) , re-implementing it with a TPE cap won't change that. 

Agreed - VHLM could probably expand from this, but not VHL.

[Hybrid1486 577]

I don't quite have the perspective to give a good answer right now, but I remember seeing a comment Beketov made in another post about how second players aren't quite as important in the VHL because teams don't need very large rosters to work properly. Is there a specific issue that adding more players would fix? If it's just a neutral idea, I'm not against it but I doubt I'd participate.

[Beaviss 4,957]

15 minutes ago, Hybrid1486 said:

I don't quite have the perspective to give a good answer right now, but I remember seeing a comment Beketov made in another post about how second players aren't quite as important in the VHL because teams don't need very large rosters to work properly. Is there a specific issue that adding more players would fix? If it's just a neutral idea, I'm not against it but I doubt I'd participate.

 

Very good point I’m a huge hater of the 99 endurance it should be a stat you have to put TPE into if not it’s to easy to be one line and pairing teams. The only teams that will be winning from this is the ones with the fewest 300’s 

[Banackock 8,058]

Still dislike it big time.

 

So do GM's get their GM player + Normal player + this player? Talk about burn out.

 

Same thing applies with the only player two. Wasn't mandatory but someone burned people out ! 

 

I think this is largely not needed, serves little.to no benefit and could potentially cause greater harm than greater good. 

[omgitshim 902]

So it'd basically be a low-maintenance filler player then? If the league needs fillers to replace bots and low TPE inactives, I don't see the harm in it. The TPE levels are low enough that it's not really worth full attention like a regular player would be and being optional people who don't want to bother don't have to.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

I've always liked the way SBA has it, where you can have a 2nd player capped in the NCAA until your SBA player retires. Then once he's retired, you uncap the NCAA guy to make him a full fledged player. It helps keep the NCAA more competitive on top of preventing low attribute CPUs from getting high minutes.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

47 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Still dislike it big time.

 

So do GM's get their GM player + Normal player + this player? Talk about burn out.

 

Same thing applies with the only player two. Wasn't mandatory but someone burned people out ! 

 

I think this is largely not needed, serves little.to no benefit and could potentially cause greater harm than greater good. 

Yeah, I don't get the burn out argument. It was never mandatory. You could put as much TPE into a player as you want, and if you feel obligated to do PTs and make a great player out of your 2nd guy, then it's your own fault. I've been on board with having 2 players since the beginning, and since I"m a GM I've been doing it for the duration of the Player Two rule and after it ended. The only thing "draining" about it to me is having 2 update threads.....but with them both linked into my sig it's really easy. Most of the stuff I do is claimable by 2 players so I just copy and paste that part.