Bringing Back Player 2 (PP2.5)

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

@Beketov So why not allow it as a part of a person's early recreation. When someone hits the 6.5 mark aka the trade deadline in their 6th season. Then they  have the 1.5 they would normally spend in the VHLM. Then carryover gets applied only after the draft. It's like getting a jump start on their next one.

[Beaviss 4,957]

5 hours ago, Beketov said:

That’s kinda my problem. It offers little to no benefit in the big picture but brings up a lot of potential problems. Work would count for both players so no net gain in acitivity. Not enough players to actually boost things in a significant way so no real increase there, STHS is still gonna be STHS so any different kinds of builds will quickly die so no benefit there.

 

PP2 was always a band-aid and our cut has healed, we don’t need to cover it any more.

 

As I said, I would only really want to consider it with like a 6 season gap so that people always have some excitement to focus on. Even then I’m not fully sold by any means but I definitely don’t like people having 2 players running the league at once. Even now when it’s just GM’s I don’t like it.

 

I dont see how having two players run the league at once is an argument here. The Lotto would see that it wouldn't happen and compared to now it wouldn't be any different with Stopko - Canmore or Keaton - Beau. 

 

If you look at it without remembering how terrible it was the first time this looks amazing IMO. This is also not a band aid but a expansion. Instead of the league's survival we are expanding on the league potential.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Beaviss

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

im seeing a lot of good points against this. As someone who was part of the original PP2, I got burnt out. Albeit some other real life stuff happened but from when I took a break I really don't want to start doing PT's again because I did that x2 for the end of Muller's Career with Gretzky's Career and like 3 seasons of Brodeur's career where I would pump out x2 of the work. that's like what probably a year of going hard in the paint. I never really recovered.

 

However, that is my experience, so maybe we shall see if it'll be different. but I am against it. It was needed then, but why is it now? so we can have 2 players just to say we have two players. It doesn't make sense.

[Beaviss 4,957]

14 minutes ago, TheLastOlympian07 said:

im seeing a lot of good points against this. As someone who was part of the original PP2, I got burnt out. Albeit some other real life stuff happened but from when I took a break I really don't want to start doing PT's again because I did that x2 for the end of Muller's Career with Gretzky's Career and like 3 seasons of Brodeur's career where I would pump out x2 of the work. that's like what probably a year of going hard in the paint. I never really recovered.

 

However, that is my experience, so maybe we shall see if it'll be different. but I am against it. It was needed then, but why is it now? so we can have 2 players just to say we have two players. It doesn't make sense.

 

So people that want to try other positions can. 8 seasons or roughly 1.5 years is quite a long time to be dedicated to one character. Most people get burnt out by the third season here (see draft busts after the first season) If they have a second character to look forward and or plan it could do wonders for site population and activity.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

6 hours ago, Beaviss said:

 

So people that want to try other positions can. 8 seasons or roughly 1.5 years is quite a long time to be dedicated to one character. Most people get burnt out by the third season here (see draft busts after the first season) If they have a second character to look forward and or plan it could do wonders for site population and activity.

no what I mean was. for 2 seasons of Muller's Career and all of Gretzky's and for 2 of Brodeur's career I had 2 players and that is what burnt me out.

[Beaviss 4,957]

4 minutes ago, TheLastOlympian07 said:

no what I mean was. for 2 seasons of Muller's Career and all of Gretzky's and for 2 of Brodeur's career I had 2 players and that is what burnt me out.

 

Fair enough but was that the double point tasks that burnt you out or the two players?

[Victor 10,937]

6 hours ago, Beaviss said:

 

So people that want to try other positions can. 8 seasons or roughly 1.5 years is quite a long time to be dedicated to one character. Most people get burnt out by the third season here (see draft busts after the first season) If they have a second character to look forward and or plan it could do wonders for site population and activity.

What might actually help this is going back to the ancient system we had where 6th season retirement had 15% carryover, compared to 10% in 7th season, and 5% in 8th. It was very much the thing to retire in your 6th seasons (unless, but also often even if you were having a great career) which was why the carryover structure changed.

 

But if there's a real problem with burnout, increasing that incentive again is a simpler solution IMO.

[Beaviss 4,957]

6 minutes ago, Victor said:

What might actually help this is going back to the ancient system we had where 6th season retirement had 15% carryover, compared to 10% in 7th season, and 5% in 8th. It was very much the thing to retire in your 6th seasons (unless, but also often even if you were having a great career) which was why the carryover structure changed.

 

But if there's a real problem with burnout, increasing that incentive again is a simpler solution IMO.

 

I think with the recent TPE increase it should be a max 100 TPE carryover instead of 75

[Beketov 9,021]

8 hours ago, Trifecta said:

@Beketov So why not allow it as a part of a person's early recreation. When someone hits the 6.5 mark aka the trade deadline in their 6th season. Then they  have the 1.5 they would normally spend in the VHLM. Then carryover gets applied only after the draft. It's like getting a jump start on their next one.

We’ve gone back to carryover being from the get go since it didn’t change much and was more complicated. But we could probably manage it easily enough since it would basically just be added as an other.

 

In any case, as I said, I’m still not sold even  on that. It’s judt the only compromised system I’d be okay with.

[Advantage 2,891]

Well I think in an ideal scenario I've always liked the idea of a two player system..I don't want it for a major reason.  Any change we make needs to go to the better good for the league, and I literally don't think this offers us something as a league that we don't have.

 

No for me.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Advantage

[Advantage 2,891]

9 hours ago, Beaviss said:

 

I dont see how having two players run the league at once is an argument here. The Lotto would see that it wouldn't happen and compared to now it wouldn't be any different with Stopko - Canmore or Keaton - Beau. 

 

If you look at it without remembering how terrible it was the first time this looks amazing IMO. This is also not a band aid but a expansion. Instead of the league's survival we are expanding on the league potential.

What are we expanding? We would have no more actives than before.  

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

6 hours ago, Beaviss said:

 

Fair enough but was that the double point tasks that burnt you out or the two players?

double the point tasks 100%

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

Ill definitly quit if 2nd players are active again. Not as active as i used to be anyway but this would bump my players down to useless 3/4th liners.  

 

Now i can atleast steal points from @tfong

[Molholt 2,185]

The problem with this, is that this is how they should've done the Player 2 Project from the start, but they wanted to make it more difficult and then surprisingly it burnt people out. You won't ever get this passed because they didn't implement it effectively last time and ruined your shot at implementing it the right way, more like what you've proposed. It never should've been double work. It never should've made it harder on the member. It always should've just been a bonus.

 

That being sad, keep coming up with ideas and people might eventually listen. I just kept throwing things at the wall hoping they'd stick - unfortunately when they did they let the wrong people get their hands on how it should be implemented and work. 

 

Last thing, because it seemed there might have been some confusion earlier - the SBA doesn't allow 2 players at the pro level, you're just allowed to have a 2nd player at the college level, which can become your main player when your pro one retires - shortening the time you have to spend in the development league (another thing the VHL should be doing). The EFL does allow 2 players, but its limited to one offensive and one defensive, given the two distinct sides of the ball. 

[Beaviss 4,957]

12 minutes ago, Molholt said:

The problem with this, is that this is how they should've done the Player 2 Project from the start, but they wanted to make it more difficult and then surprisingly it burnt people out. You won't ever get this passed because they didn't implement it effectively last time and ruined your shot at implementing it the right way, more like what you've proposed. It never should've been double work. It never should've made it harder on the member. It always should've just been a bonus.

 

That being sad, keep coming up with ideas and people might eventually listen. I just kept throwing things at the wall hoping they'd stick - unfortunately when they did they let the wrong people get their hands on how it should be implemented and work. 

 

Last thing, because it seemed there might have been some confusion earlier - the SBA doesn't allow 2 players at the pro level, you're just allowed to have a 2nd player at the college level, which can become your main player when your pro one retires - shortening the time you have to spend in the development league (another thing the VHL should be doing). The EFL does allow 2 players, but its limited to one offensive and one defensive, given the two distinct sides of the ball. 

 

Unfortunately I think your right most people that are against this are people that were around during the shitty original PP2. No matter how I word it most people fall back on the "We tried it and failed lets not do it again". Which is quite unfortunate because I think there is a lot of value with this revamp of PP2. I just hope the next time PP2 comes around its not for a band-aid but for an addition to the league.

[Molholt 2,185]

7 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

Unfortunately I think your right most people that are against this are people that were around during the shitty original PP2. No matter how I word it most people fall back on the "We tried it and failed lets not do it again". Which is quite unfortunate because I think there is a lot of value with this revamp of PP2. I just hope the next time PP2 comes around its not for a band-aid but for an addition to the league.

 

Another problem, my original proposal was never a band-aid, but that's how it was approached I think later on. I meant it to be an enhancement to the site, with the main benefits being more interest for GMs, better drafts, etc.

[Baozi 1,658]

6 hours ago, Green said:

Ill definitly quit if 2nd players are active again. Not as active as i used to be anyway but this would bump my players down to useless 3/4th liners.  

 

Now i can atleast steal points from @tfong

 

There is a special place in my anus for people like you.

[Quik 4,113]

10 minutes ago, Molholt said:

Last thing, because it seemed there might have been some confusion earlier - the SBA doesn't allow 2 players at the pro level, you're just allowed to have a 2nd player at the college level, which can become your main player when your pro one retires - shortening the time you have to spend in the development league (another thing the VHL should be doing). The EFL does allow 2 players, but its limited to one offensive and one defensive, given the two distinct sides of the ball. 

To be fair, that's the part that Beketov said he'd be willing to listen to, and I agree. Being allowed to create a player who is ready when your 1st player retires.

 

Outside of that, the league has already had a strong push for recruitment, and continues to push for more new members, removing the need for P2s in the VHL. Regardless of if they only claim welfare/practice facility, or fully cap out, there are new members every week who are becoming a larger part of the league. Allowing 2nd players in the VHL would only create artificial inflation. Whether it burns people out, or not, isn't my issue with it. It's that it isn't something that improves the league, and would either push the lower end active players down further/out of the league because they can't keep up with the people capping out 2 players (without having to worry about doing twice the work), or require massive expansion in short order.

 

The league's already nearing a point where expansion will become a realistic probability, fairly soon. Why double the work for no actual gain?

 

To the point about allowing a minor league player, it is something I've been ok with in the past, and would be fine with still, we'd just need to look at how it affects the VHLM, and how to go forward there. For example, if we allow people to create during their first player's 6th season, that would still be 2 full seasons in the minors. If you take all advantages with TPE, that means 2 full seasons at 200 TPE. I know the SBA has their "filler" rules, but I don't think it's worth it for @Will to put rules into the portal capping players at 100 in their first season, and then allowing them to go up to 200 in their second season; so it would need to be either the first player's 7th season, or a forced retirement of the first player when the 2nd player is ready for the VHL. And if that's the case, then it also removes any need to expand the VHLM due to P2s (though, it may need expansion again at some point, depending solely on recruitment), because the only difference is that they'd be around earlier, not longer, which is a plus.

[Beaviss 4,957]

16 minutes ago, Molholt said:

 

Another problem, my original proposal was never a band-aid, but that's how it was approached I think later on. I meant it to be an enhancement to the site, with the main benefits being more interest for GMs, better drafts, etc.

 

Inb4 this gets implemented next time the site hits a member hit

[Beketov 9,021]

1 minute ago, Beaviss said:

 

Inb4 this gets implemented next time the site hits a member hit

As the head of recruitment it’s kinda your job to make sure that doesn’t happen

[Beaviss 4,957]

12 minutes ago, Quik said:

To be fair, that's the part that Beketov said he'd be willing to listen to, and I agree. Being allowed to create a player who is ready when your 1st player retires.

 

Outside of that, the league has already had a strong push for recruitment, and continues to push for more new members, removing the need for P2s in the VHL. Regardless of if they only claim welfare/practice facility, or fully cap out, there are new members every week who are becoming a larger part of the league. Allowing 2nd players in the VHL would only create artificial inflation. Whether it burns people out, or not, isn't my issue with it. It's that it isn't something that improves the league, and would either push the lower end active players down further/out of the league because they can't keep up with the people capping out 2 players (without having to worry about doing twice the work), or require massive expansion in short order.

 

The league's already nearing a point where expansion will become a realistic probability, fairly soon. Why double the work for no actual gain?

 

To the point about allowing a minor league player, it is something I've been ok with in the past, and would be fine with still, we'd just need to look at how it affects the VHLM, and how to go forward there. For example, if we allow people to create during their first player's 6th season, that would still be 2 full seasons in the minors. If you take all advantages with TPE, that means 2 full seasons at 200 TPE. I know the SBA has their "filler" rules, but I don't think it's worth it for @Will to put rules into the portal capping players at 100 in their first season, and then allowing them to go up to 200 in their second season; so it would need to be either the first player's 7th season, or a forced retirement of the first player when the 2nd player is ready for the VHL. And if that's the case, then it also removes any need to expand the VHLM due to P2s (though, it may need expansion again at some point, depending solely on recruitment), because the only difference is that they'd be around earlier, not longer, which is a plus.

 

The VHLM is too full for minor only players.

[Beaviss 4,957]

Just now, Beketov said:

As the head of recruitment it’s kinda your job to make sure that doesn’t happen

 

While true im of the ilk that we should use this as an addition to the site instead of a band aid

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

18 minutes ago, tfong said:

 

There is a special place in my anus for people like you.

 

Something has to change.
Un-deniable dilemma.
Boredom's not a burden
Anyone should bear.
Constant over stimulation numbs me
And I wouldn't have
It any other way.
It's not enough.
I need more.
Nothing seems to satisfy.
I don't want it.
I just need it.
To feel, to breathe, to know I'm alive.
Finger deep within the borderline.
Show me that you love me and that we belong together.
Relax, turn around and take my hand.
I can help you change
Tired moments into pleasure.
Say the word and we'll be
Well upon our way.
Blend and balance
Pain and comfort
Deep within you
Till you will not have me any other way.
It's not enough.
I need more.
Nothing seems to satisfy.
I don't want it.
I just need it.
To feel, to breathe, to know I'm alive.
Knuckle deep inside the borderline.
This may…

[Quik 4,113]

2 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

  

The VHLM is too full for minor only players.

It wouldn't really make a difference if the players are created a season earlier than they would be? They're not spending any extra time in the minors than if they were created after retiring the first player.

 

VHLM Expansion is another topic that will need to be addressed, but allowing members to create their VHLM player early doesn't change anything. P2 would cause greater issues on that front.

[Beketov 9,021]

3 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

While true im of the ilk that we should use this as an addition to the site instead of a band aid

And I disagree that it’s an addition, that’s the problem. Ultimately it adds a bunch of players but I don’t seem that an addition we need. It adds no extra members and no extra activity, purely just extra players and we aren’t in a need for players so why is that a bonus? 

 

As @Quik said there’s ample opportunity for it to turn people away because they don’t like 1 TPE whore now being allowed to beat them twice (which has been proven that 3 seasons is not enough to avoid, guys like Kendrick and Boubabi made that gap up easily). So we gain more players but at the potential risk of losing more members. I don’t think that’s a positive enough benefit to be worth the risk.

 

I’m not even talking about the burn out problem it had last time. Fine, everything applies to both and people don’t get burnt out. But that doesn’t change the perception of 1 member dominating with 2 players. We also end up with a pile of clusterfuck rules related to having 2 players creates. It adds a pile of bureaucracy for the sake of artificial inflation. I’d much rather true growth getting us more members instead of simply more players.

 

This just comes off to me like the federal bank saying “all dollars are now worth 2 dollars”. Sure we all doubled our wealth but we didn’t actually; the bank just suddenly decided that what we have is worth more. Adding this doesn’t gain us any active members, it just artificially inflates our “bank”