Bringing Back Player 2 (PP2.5)

[Beaviss 4,958]

I've tried stating my case to fix the GM case to the BOG and while we have had some good discussion id like the opinion of the everyday members. Im going to write up every detail of a revamped Player Two system I can think of and id like everyone's opinions on what you like, what you hate, and what you would change.

 

CURRENT RULE:

• General Manager's can only have Two players.
• Job Pay applies to both characters. 
• One of said players needs to be a "GM" Character (locked into General Managers Team)

 

With the above being said there is also talk of changing the system because of rule confusion. The lack of firm guidelines regarding General Manager players and the changing of a teams General Managers.

 

PP2.5 (Beaviss Edition):

• All players can have Two players. 

- General Managers can pay lowest 1st round pick to get there 2nd player without going through draft (shout out to @Quik)

- Must have THREE seasons in between each created player.

- Every season a Lotto will be held were people can enter to get 2nd player rights (5 to start).

• All TPE earned applies to both characters

- Exception: Cannot claim welfare while having two characters.

- Exception: Award wins do not count as both.

- Exception: League Partners can claim other Point Tasks as ours.

• GM Players 2nd Players cannot sign in FA

- Must be Drafted or Traded for.

- Exception: Unless not offered by any other team.

 

It is my theory that the change to PP2.5 would effect the league positively. Where the last implementation of PP2 burnt a lot of the leagues members by the increased workload, this will not. The old way of having to do all the required point tasks for each player was simply to hard for the average member to complete. This new format would not burn members out but it would increase activity and forum activity. The increase in players would also have the secondary effect of forced addition of more teams to the league. Which will have to happen in the next couple of seasons anyways.

 

With the slow implementation of the second player (5 people chosen per season) it would be a good test to see if it works or if it again becomes to much work to do. There is not many downsides that I can foresee coming from implementing PP2.5.

 

Negatives:

 

League Expansion too quickly:

Small numbers of players to start via a lotto would put a randomness to it so just not long term members get to trial run it. The increase of players would also increase the number of teams needed. We already have discontinued teams we can bring (Artwork and History of teams coming back)

 

Players Becoming Burnt out: 

The Increased load on players would be updating their players twice. Welfare players might try to complete point tasks and bring them out of welfare only(Is that a bad thing?)

 

Positives:

 

Increased Player Activity

Increased Amount of Teams

Increased Player Amount 

Reduced amount of Welfare's 

Fix GM Player Problem

 

Before any members point out the fact that im a "newer member" and I don't remember how bad PP2 was. When I first joined the BOG I was a loud voice in getting rid of the PP2 System. That being said I believe that these changes to the old outdated system will be a great thing for the site as a whole.

 

Lets hear some opinions!

[Beketov 9,095]

I was against it when it was here, I’m against it now. I’ll hear it out but as far as I’m concerned removing it was fixing a mistake.

[Beaviss 4,958]

3 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I was against it when it was here, I’m against it now. I’ll hear it out but as far as I’m concerned removing it was fixing a mistake.

 

My write up did nothing to change your mind?

[hedgehog337 3,483]

idk

 

some afilliate member claims welfare 6 TPE + some small PT and then what? nothing much for a second one. And yes, the burnout thing is still gonna do a damage.

[Da Trifecta 1,902]

Give me 2 players!

[Beketov 9,095]

12 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

My write up did nothing to change your mind?

Honestly I didn’t have time to fully read it, I will later. But assume it’s your same argument from the BOG I don’t feel like it would go over much better than last time. Since last time it nearly killed the league (with other things I’ll admit) I don’t want to risk it for very little benefit.

[Quik 4,113]

Yeah, like I said in our conversations about it, I’m not a fan of bringing it back. I think it creates far more stress on the league for artificial inflation. The logistics of setting up infrastructure and enough new teams for this to be viable, when the league is already growing at a fairly rapid pace, would just be a nightmare.

 

I know it comes off as “Old Guard” think, but the results have already been seen. Even if you make PTs claimable for both players (which I’m not sure wouldn’t violate our agreement with the efl and sba, since they allow welfare to be claimed for both, otherwise a PT here is worth the most), the potential positives are far outweighed by the likely negatives associated with a return of PP2. 

[Beaviss 4,958]

2 minutes ago, Quik said:

Yeah, like I said in our conversations about it, I’m not a fan of bringing it back. I think it creates far more stress on the league for artificial inflation. The logistics of setting up infrastructure and enough new teams for this to be viable, when the league is already growing at a fairly rapid pace, would just be a nightmare.

 

I know it comes off as “Old Guard” think, but the results have already been seen. Even if you make PTs claimable for both players (which I’m not sure wouldn’t violate our agreement with the efl and sba, since they allow welfare to be claimed for both, otherwise a PT here is worth the most), the potential positives are far outweighed by the likely negatives associated with a return of PP2. 

 

See

22 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

 

- Exception: League Partners can claim other Point Tasks as ours.

 

[Beaviss 4,958]

5 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Honestly I didn’t have time to fully read it, I will later. But assume it’s your same argument from the BOG I don’t feel like it would go over much better than last time. Since last time it nearly killed the league (with other things I’ll admit) I don’t want to risk it for very little benefit.

 

I agree I hated the original PP2 and yes it almost killed the league. I've addressed the causes of those issues in this suggestion. I believe that these changes would not impact the longevity of a players tenure here.

[Beketov 9,095]

7 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

See

 

 But can VHL PT’s count for both players in their leagues? Because if not that unfairly ways things between the leagues. The whole point of the partnership is to be even.

 

I just don’t get what problem is trying to be fixed here. I understood it the first time even if I didn’t like it. This time we aren’t at a loss for draftees so what problem is being solved by over complicating everything.

[Beaviss 4,958]

4 minutes ago, Beketov said:

 But can VHL PT’s count for both players in their leagues? Because if not that unfairly ways things between the leagues. The whole point of the partnership is to be even.

 

Ill have to research that. ohhhhhhhhh @.sniffuM

Edited October 30, 2018 by Beaviss

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

• Increased Player Activity: I'd like to see a study done on this, because I doubt it did. The vast majority of second players claimed welfare, which certainly brought down the active player activity level. And even if you're talking by member, I doubt the number is an increase as well due to the burnout you mentioned yourself. Read more closely on the apply to both players part. I still think it's a net wash, and the same amount of people have the same amount of activity, just spread more thin. Also, see Welfare below.
• Increased Amount of Teams: I don't think this is a positive - it leads to more inactive and semi-active teams.
• Increased Player Amount: Hooray? I guess you have non-CPUs on lines, but I also don't think it's something that moves the needle either way.
• Reduced amount of Welfare's: You're not going to bring a player out of doing welfare into doing point tasks. If they wanted to do so, they would already do it for their preexisting player.
• Fix GM Player Problem: So does eliminating their second player.

Edited October 30, 2018 by CowboyinAmerica

[Beaviss 4,958]

1 minute ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Increased Player Activity: I'd like to see a study done on this, because I doubt it did. The vast majority of second players claimed welfare, which certainly brought down the active player activity level. And even if you're talking by member, I doubt the number is an increase as well due to the burnout you mentioned yourself.

 

Thats why Point Tasks count for both. In theory x2 the players would get an increase in people posting on the forums.

3 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Increased Amount of Teams: I don't think this is a positive - it leads to more inactive and semi-active teams.

More teams = less fluctuation in league standings less best from worst in a seasons span.

4 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Increased Player Amount: Hooray? I guess you have non-CPUs on lines, but I also don't think it's something that moves the needle either way.

More Players = more chances are different archetypes being important instead of just scoring.

4 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Reduced amount of Welfare's: You're not going to bring a player out of doing welfare into doing point tasks. If they wanted to do so, they would already do it for their preexisting player.

  If they want a second player they will have to pass on welfare. Most do it now because the difference in TPE is so slight.

5 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Fix GM Player Problem: So does eliminating their second player.

Eliminating most of the top players in the league in the process now and in the future.

[Beaviss 4,958]

3 minutes ago, Sonnet said:

I'm all for it. I've been thinking a LOT about how I would love to have a 2nd player, and allowing each point task to count for both is a really great way to keep the workload from feeling overbearing. Since a lot of my point tasks are centered around writing about my player, it would actually make media spots and VHL.com articles a lot easier to write, since I have the story arcs of two players to choose from.

 

The welfare clause is a good addition, and keeps the acquisition of secondary players restricted to those who want them/are willing to actually make use of them. While it pains me to see that only five are going to be raffled off each season, theoretically, I understand that it's pretty necessary if we don't want to overrun the league with players.

 

This goes unaddressed in your post, but I would assume that once-per-career point tasks such as the Bio and Rookie Report would be claimable only for the player they apply to, as well as any player store purchases (same reasoning for why award wins can only be claimed by one player).

 

Overall, I really like the idea. Gives you a few seasons to develop your first player, then opens up a fresh opportunity for you to get a second upon reaching season 3. I know I would LOVE to build a forward in addition to having Pepper as my goalie, so something like this would be perfect. Would definitely help keep the VHL fresh, and weekly tasks diverse and easy to complete.

 

thank you for the well written response! 

 

Good catch also ill edit that in later!

[Beaviss 4,958]

2 minutes ago, Sonnet said:

 

You're right- it won't bring a player out of welfare and into point tasks. It will, however, give those of us who are active in capping out every week a bit of a reward for doing so.

 

My thoughts exactly

[McWolf 3,116]

I think one thing it would help with is the lack of specialist players. Not many people want to spend 8 seasons as a defensive player or a goon. Having 2nd players could make it so members have one typical offensive playmaker or sniper and one uncommon less interesting build.

 

But yeah, what the others said also. It would definitely cause mire problems than it would cause, and you'd need to basically double the teams to fit double players. So double the GMs, double the staff to manage everything and so on. Or you just crank the cap up and give more roster spots to teams, but some players would end up as career 4th liners or even healthy scratches, which would be very demoralizing for new members.

 

I'd like to have a 2nd player myself, but it's probably just not viable with the current state of the league. 

[Banackock 8,123]

I love player 2. Always an advocate for it, but unsure how to implement it now. I also like what @hedgehog337 I believe brought up.  People COULD burn out. I’ve said it many times and will again —> then don’t create a second player.

 

The argument being some feel obligated too and that’s just silly. A good point would be that they simply want to. Man, I’d love a second player (if not for being a GM) and to see the rest with the ability to. A cool thought is of the league having 10-12 teams. Maybe bring back divisions etc.. but I already feel burnt some days. BOG, VHL GM, VHLM Commissioner, WJC Presidente/Commissioner, and I’m in the GOMHL (shit), SHL and PBE. I’d likely have to cut leagues and GOMHL would be the first to go. 

 

The idea could always be there and used, just unsure how and if it were to it would take many seasons imo to hash out a great plan. Something like this you don’t rush. Maybe that was the problem before. 

[Beaviss 4,958]

2 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I love player 2. Always an advocate for it, but unsure how to implement it now. I also like what @hedgehog337 I believe brought up.  People COULD burn out. I’ve said it many times and will again —> then don’t create a second player.

 

The argument being some feel obligated too and that’s just silly. A good point would be that they simply want to. Man, I’d love a second player (if not for being a GM) and to see the rest with the ability to. A cool thought is of the league having 10-12 teams. Maybe bring back divisions etc.. but I already feel burnt some days. BOG, VHL GM, VHLM Commissioner, WJC Presidente/Commissioner, and I’m in the GOMHL (shit), SHL and PBE. I’d likely have to cut leagues and GOMHL would be the first to go. 

 

The idea could always be there and used, just unsure how and if it were to it would take many seasons imo to hash out a great plan. Something like this you don’t rush. Maybe that was the problem before. 

 

Thats why I want to do a trial lotto of 5 people per season to start. if it works we can add more every season.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

2 minutes ago, Sonnet said:

 

You're right- it won't bring a player out of welfare and into point tasks. It will, however, give those of us who are active in capping out every week a bit of a reward for doing so.

 

I mean, what's the level of the reward you're looking for? I would argue that if you're capping out every week, you're already getting a reward by creating a better player faster than everyone else. Now you're saying to do this twice - this instantly doubles the chances for winning awards, for pushing younger/welfare players off top lines, for filling up the stat sheet. Just look at Bushito's players currently - Stropko was a runner up for last year's MVP, and Canmore is doing the same this year. Now figure it's 15 constantly capping people with 30 players filling those roles (and I would've been one of them recently) - you're discouraging players that see double the high TPE totals and figure they don't have a chance from the beginning. And when you factor in that this plan means you can't have two players and claim Welfare, you're just writing a whole lot of people off right away.

 

TL;DR: There's a way to reward people capping out (adjusting Welfare down?) that doesn't equate to doubling the reward.

[Esso2264 774]

I wanted another player so i joined the SHL

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

4 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I love player 2. Always an advocate for it, but unsure how to implement it now. I also like what @hedgehog337 I believe brought up.  People COULD burn out. I’ve said it many times and will again —> then don’t create a second player.

 

And I'm one of those that has never created a second player for that reason. But under this system, there'd be no reason not to, since you could claim the same thing for everybody. Which either leads to clustering at the top with two player power users, or when people go inactive (because you can't claim welfare with two players, natch) it'll hurt multiple teams.

[BladeMaiden 1,807]

Bringing back having a 2nd player is a great idea, if it is brought about in a slow step by step manner it will allow the team to see small problems before they become real issues. Honestly, it will get current players more involved and encourage interaction between leagues.

[Beaviss 4,958]

1 minute ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

And I'm one of those that has never created a second player for that reason. But under this system, there'd be no reason not to, since you could claim the same thing for everybody. Which either leads to clustering at the top with two player power users, or when people go inactive (because you can't claim welfare with two players, natch) it'll hurt multiple teams.

 

That is why there is a three season buffer.

[McWolf 3,116]

2 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

And I'm one of those that has never created a second player for that reason. But under this system, there'd be no reason not to, since you could claim the same thing for everybody. Which either leads to clustering at the top with two player power users, or when people go inactive (because you can't claim welfare with two players, natch) it'll hurt multiple teams.

 

My thought as well. People would either have two 1000 TPE stars or one 600 TPE Welfare players.  It doesn't make sense to give double the rewards for the same thing.

[Beaviss 4,958]

good healthy discussion in here guys!