Project Player 2.2

[Banackock 8,058]

1 minute ago, DollarAndADream said:

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.

Geeze, Player 2 would be a fricken cake walk now.

 

5 TPE or welfare, practice facility, a VHL.com and a quick press conference and boom. All but in 5-10 minutes and you get 9-10 TPE. 

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

5 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Geeze, Player 2 would be a fricken cake walk now.

 

5 TPE or welfare, practice facility, a VHL.com and a quick press conference and boom. All but in 5-10 minutes and you get 9-10 TPE. 

For sure. I don't know where this burn out is when a PT is only worth 1 more TPE than welfare.

I don't even claim full TPE on my PTs now because I earn too much.

 

Fuck, we need our old emojis back. I hate these newer small ones.

[Beketov 9,033]

9 hours ago, Exlaxchronicles said:

No harm in trying this.

That’s what people said last time.

 

Honestly yes, P2 was optional but basically everyone took up that option and we lost a lot of long time members because of it. It may be easy to say that they shouldn’t have put that much work into something that was optional but they did and they always will because that’s how VHL members are.

 

Even with an easier workload with something like this I would foresee it happening again. P2 was not a good idea for the league, period. It didn’t really result in drastically fuller rosters like it promised so we didn’t get the benefit and we lost members because of the burnout. That’s a net loss IMO.

 

I think our efforts would be better served focussing our attention on recruiting and retention rather than trying to find the easy way out and just splitting the members we have into more players when we have already proven that doesn’t work.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

27 minutes ago, Beketov said:

That’s what people said last time.

I think last time's harm was the fault of the user, not the system in place. Nobody was forcing anyone to make 2 players. Sure, you might feel like if you have a 2nd guy that you 'have' to update him, but you don't. Any GM would love a depth piece.

[Beketov 9,033]

1 minute ago, DollarAndADream said:

I think last time's harm was the fault of the user, not the system in place. Nobody was forcing anyone to make 2 players. Sure, you might feel like if you have a 2nd guy that you 'have' to update him, but you don't. Any GM would love a depth piece.

Note my edit, I added a lot.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

9 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Note my edit, I added a lot.

I still never saw much harm last time, even with these changes. I don't mind the changes at all, though.

[Exlaxchronicles 415]

So just restrict weekly PT to only welfare/gfx-media reviews/press con/prac fac/jobs after they do their initial bio/ rook profile, this way they spend less time on their p2 and contribute more to the forums. 

 

Everything else Quick said was fine.

 

[Quik 4,113]

16 hours 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. 

 

The mention of of possibly expanding was more because we’re already getting a lot of recruitment going, so if this was implemented and was a success, it might lead to full rosters. It’s not the goal, just a potential biproduct of everything working out. 

 

15 hours 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.

 

Not specific to fixing the league, just that I think it would be fun to have a second player to follow. It can be a bit dull sometimes, especially if your player isn’t doing well. 

 

Basically, it’s an idea to create a low maintenance player that guys don’t have to worry too much about, and doesn’t overpower first Gen players

 

14 hours ago, DollarAndADream said:

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.

 

To be fair, I can see people feeling pressure to get the most out of both players, especially when they’re drafted and have a team that may be relying on that second player. Also, not everyone gets tpe that is applicable to both players, so that means more work as well. 

[Beaviss 4,957]

@Quik we should look at removing the auto 99 Endurance since a lot of GM’s don’t like depth since it’s not needed... GM’s will just make 1-2 line teams instead of 3-4 since endurance is 99 so it makes no difference other than hurting top player play time. If they didn’t have the 99 endurance then they wouldn’t be able to play 20-30 mins a night... 

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

The entire VHL is balanced around the idea of 99 endurance and 2 line teams. Add on to it that being stuck on the 3rd line/3rd pairing is no fun at all.