Bringing Back Player 2 (PP2.5)

[Devise 4,475]

Hard no from me. Not even just the we tried it didn't work. Victor pretty much nails most of it on the head, it just doesn't really create the type of scenario people are envisioning. It unfortunately doesn't just create a situation where a bunch of excited players create a second player, and the ones not interested don't. It leads to people burning out due to everyone wanting to check it out. It leads to a flood gate of same type players creating weird ebbs and flows in positional needs. It leads to groups/cliques being able to double up in some cases. It's just a headache. 

 

The only way I think I'd ever be open to something like this again, is if neither player played in the same league at the same time. Ergo the VHLM became a hub for one of your players for several seasons and he big leagues for the other. Just season gap it so that when the second player comes up, the first retires, and you can create a new one to go into the minors. At least then the involvement would be leading to people taking their investments into two seperate leagues, with two entirely different make ups to success etc. But even then working through rules to make all that work is messy. 

 

[Victor 10,939]

6 minutes ago, Sonnet said:

 

People didn't get this far by giving up after one failure. You fail, you look at what you did wrong, you do your best to make corrections, and you give it another go.

 

If there are a good number of people that express the interest in having a second player, then it's certainly worth discussing, at the very least. We have an example of how not to do it, and we have people discussing some of the drawbacks and concerns that we can use to help address the situation as a whole.

 

I think there's a definite way for it to be done correctly, it's just a matter of getting there.

There will always be support for this because it sounds cool. Especially now with so many people who've joined after it was abolished.

 

It just dilutes the experience, it's conceptually incompatible with the premise of this league. Create a player, not two players. Why stop at two anyway?

 

Again, it's undeniably an appealing idea. It just doesn't last past the initial excitement. And yeah, that's addressed a bit by staggering but it was staggered last time too. The idea of a lottery just makes people sign up without thinking and then all you get is members who don't care about either of their players anymore.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

@Devise @Victor @Beaviss I propose these adjustments to the P2 project.

 

-A 2nd player can only earn 6 per week. Any uncapped TPE can not be claimed by the 2nd player (this includes career PT's, trivia, etc.)

-A 2nd player may not earn more than 60 TPE in one season (off-season included)

-A 2nd player can not be a deadline create but rather has to start right before the season.

-A 2nd player must play 3 seasons minimum in the VHLM.

-A 2nd player can play up at the 180 TPE mark.

 

This would allow the VHLM to be more competitive as well because it would make sure that a player would serve out 3 seasons minimum in the VHLM. (At that point they would have 180 TPE and would have to convince their GM to call them up). This already cuts into their career years as one season would not count but the next two would. This leaves them 3 years before they hit their first year of regression that off-season. With seasons being roughly 10 weeks (max), they can only earn 60 per season. So a career P2 could end up with a max of 480 TPE total which could be a depth player. You also have to factor in TPA levels but that is only if someone banks to avoid how things work out. This could bolster the whole 2/3 line arguments as someone could come into the VHL as a 3 liner and end up a 2 liner later in their career potentially.

[Victor 10,939]

14 minutes ago, Trifecta said:

@Devise @Victor @Beaviss I propose these adjustments to the P2 project.

 

-A 2nd player can only earn 6 per week. Any uncapped TPE can not be claimed by the 2nd player (this includes career PT's, trivia, etc.)

-A 2nd player may not earn more than 60 TPE in one season (off-season included)

-A 2nd player can not be a deadline create but rather has to start right before the season.

-A 2nd player must play 3 seasons minimum in the VHLM.

-A 2nd player can play up at the 180 TPE mark.

 

This would allow the VHLM to be more competitive as well because it would make sure that a player would serve out 3 seasons minimum in the VHLM. (At that point they would have 180 TPE and would have to convince their GM to call them up). This already cuts into their career years as one season would not count but the next two would. This leaves them 3 years before they hit their first year of regression that off-season. With seasons being roughly 10 weeks (max), they can only earn 60 per season. So a career P2 could end up with a max of 480 TPE total which could be a depth player. You also have to factor in TPA levels but that is only if someone banks to avoid how things work out. This could bolster the whole 2/3 line arguments as someone could come into the VHL as a 3 liner and end up a 2 liner later in their career potentially.

If you're going to add so many restrictions, what's the point in the first place?

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

If you're going to add so many restrictions, what's the point in the first place?

 

To add depth to rosters. To avoid inflation. To be able to still enjoy the P2 project. The list goes on bud.

[oilmandan 688]

I'd be open to seeing it tested out. At this point I'm against it though. For my own circumstance, and I'm assuming most are similar, I work full time and have a family life as well. Most people dont max their tpe as it is, would they find new interest with a second player? Also if I'm a new or fringe player I dont really want to see myself on a 4th line fighting for ice time with the 2nd player of someone already pumping out tpe like a madman. 

 

Personally I'd get burnt out. 

 

If enough people want to go ahead with it I wouldnt stop it, but I think it should work kinda like the 2nd player in the EFL. 

 

Or having a 4 year spread, or having it so one guy has to be in the VHLM until the other retires. 

 

Not that I matter lol

[Victor 10,939]

14 minutes ago, Trifecta said:

 

To add depth to rosters. To avoid inflation. To be able to still enjoy the P2 project. The list goes on bud.

Is there demand from people to make depth players? We've got the concept of second players but this loses sight of why people want second players in the first place and just tries to compromise based on some of the counter arguments made. I don't think anyone's interested in a compromise on second players.

[Beaviss 4,957]

12 minutes ago, oilmandan said:

I'd be open to seeing it tested out. At this point I'm against it though. For my own circumstance, and I'm assuming most are similar, I work full time and have a family life as well. Most people dont max their tpe as it is, would they find new interest with a second player? Also if I'm a new or fringe player I dont really want to see myself on a 4th line fighting for ice time with the 2nd player of someone already pumping out tpe like a madman. 

 

Personally I'd get burnt out. 

 

If enough people want to go ahead with it I wouldnt stop it, but I think it should work kinda like the 2nd player in the EFL. 

 

Or having a 4 year spread, or having it so one guy has to be in the VHLM until the other retires. 

 

Not that I matter lol

 

How would you get burnt out on a player that takes the same effort as your first?

[Beaviss 4,957]

@Spade18 I think most people are missing the Lotto aspect of this preposal we are talking a small amount of members each season. Just because you are up for it on your third season doesn't mean you will get it. 5 2nd players a season will be enough to stimulate the league as well as increase activity.

[oilmandan 688]

5 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

How would you get burnt out on a player that takes the same effort as your first?

If everything you do applies to both, you wouldn't. But where is the challenge in that? Should be some extra effort.  Especially if there's enough demand that you have to hold a lottery 

[Beketov 9,024]

1 hour ago, Trifecta said:

@Beaviss Could open up the idea that the second player is limited to just 6 a week. Meaning they can just get the Media/GFX or welfare+ to earn their max. They can't earn any extra uncapped though. That could be feasible as it would allow you to have your all out player and then a depth player. I mean you could end up with a guy who has 1200 at the end of his career and another that finishes with say 600. That's not bad as a 600 TPE guy could still be more than capable of helping a team.

 

That significantly messes with portal updating since we’s Need to set who everyone’s second player is and build completely different limits into them and then have every updated aware of who everyone’s first and second player is to keep track and make sure nothing is being abused. All so that they can have a shittier player? You see the problem? It creates a lot of headache for not a lot of bonus.

1 hour ago, Victor said:

To just add an additional point so it's not just "we tried, it failed, forget it", although to be honest that's all that needs to be said IMO...

 

We're seeing discussion about how STHS gives you about 4-5 different player options overall, including goalies. Should we really be encouraging people smashing through those player builds at double the speed?

I don’t think people are realizing this enough. I get the excitement from new guys who didn’t see this last time but take it from someone who lived it: you won’t do the things you think you will. At first everything thinks they’ll just make a “for fun” build with ridiculous attributes and stuff. However they will quickly realize that the build is awful so where’s the fun in watching your player fail? I know this because it happened exactly that way last time.

 

That’s ultimately the problem here. You can come up with as many compromises as you want but in the end we have seen it, we have lived it, and we know it’s shortcomings. It was necessary last time for temporary survival but at this point the league doesn’t need that so it’s srtificial inflation that only serves to make new members less interested. Why would you want to stick around to have shit minutes behind 2 members owned by the same person? As someone, @CowboyinAmerica I think, pointed out 3 seasons gap does nothing to a good earner. Cornerstone and Ron we’re both dominating despite being 3 seasons apart. The gap would need to be at least 6 seasons for me to even consider it and that’s really just so people can go full careers and still have someone ready to come in and take over immediately.

[Beketov 9,024]

3 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

@Spade18 I think most people are missing the Lotto aspect of this preposal we are talking a small amount of members each season. Just because you are up for it on your third season doesn't mean you will get it. 5 2nd players a season will be enough to stimulate the league as well as increase activity.

Does the league need stimulation enough that 5 players are making that big of a difference? I think no.

[Beaviss 4,957]

1 minute ago, oilmandan said:

If everything you do applies to both, you wouldn't. But where is the challenge in that? Should be some extra effort.  Especially if there's enough demand that you have to hold a lottery 

 

While I agree with you we cannot get around that without the burn out problem. 

[Beaviss 4,957]

3 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Does the league need stimulation enough that 5 players are making that big of a difference? I think no.

 

If you x5 by 8 that's 40 players before the first generation retires that's enough for 3 teams mix that with our expanding recruitment. The league would be healthy for years.

 

The recent influx of goalies is also going to cause huge problems in a season or two also which this would start to fix.

 

I'm looking 3-5 seasons in the future.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

@Beketov it's not that hard to put an * by someone's name or something lol

[Beketov 9,024]

2 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

If you x5 by 8 that's 40 players before the first generation retires that's enough for 3 teams mix that with our expanding recruitment. The league would be healthy for years.

 

The recent influx of goalies is also going to cause huge problems in a season or two also which this would start to fix.

 

I'm looking 3-5 seasons in the future.

So am I. It’s still 5 players per season, basically half a round of draftees. Is that really worth it for the amount of red tape and potential problems we could encounter as we did last time?

 

Its also not really enough for 3 teams because your math isn’t adding up. You’re taking an 8 season total and saying that makes 3 teams but that’s over the course of 8 seasons. You think 2 seasons in we have room to expand and not have those teams be miserable? You forget that I’ve seen every mistake the league has ever made. PP2 is one of those but so is expanding far too early. It killed any semblance of balance we had and spread teams far too thin. I’m in no rush to expand again when half the league isn’t remotely close to icing a competitive roster as it’s clearly not needed.

 

So again I ask you, where’s the real benefit because I still don’t see it. I see something that hurt the league and lost us some very good members in exchange for a major headache and no real benefits.

 

2 minutes ago, Trifecta said:

@Beketov it's not that hard to put an * by someone's name or something lol

It’s still building the entire systems and doubling the workload for the sake of what?

 

That’s ultimately what I’m not seeing an answer for. What do we realistically gain? Some terrible builds people will give up on? Some teams that won’t realistically be able to compete? We have very little to gain and a lot to lose.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Just now, Beketov said:

So am I. It’s still 5 players per season, basically half a round of draftees. Is that really worth it for the amount of red tape and potential problems we could encounter as we did last time?

 

Its also not really enough for 3 teams because your math isn’t adding up. You’re taking an 8 season total and saying that makes 3 teams but that’s over the course of 8 seasons. You think 2 seasons in we have room to expand and not have those teams be miserable? You forget that I’ve seen every mistake the league has ever made. PP2 is one of those but so is expanding far too early. It killed any semblance of balance we had and spread teams far too thin. I’m in no rush to expand again when half the league isn’t remotely close to icing a competitive roster as it’s clearly not needed.

 

So again I ask you, where’s the real benefit because I still don’t see it. I see something that hurt the league and lost us some very good members in exchange for a major headache and no real benefits.

 

It’s still building the entire systems and doubling the workload for the sake of what?

 

That’s ultimately what I’m not seeing an answer for. What do we realistically gain? Some terrible builds people will give up on? Some teams that won’t realistically be able to compete? We have very little to gain and a lot to lose.

 

We see more people trying stuff and it's not that hard to click a button. Hell this could open up more updater jobs if anything.

[Beketov 9,024]

4 minutes ago, Trifecta said:

 

We see more people trying stuff and it's not that hard to click a button. Hell this could open up more updater jobs if anything.

Last I checked you haven’t updated in this system so could you try to not just assume it’s clicking a button?

 

The math may not be involved but for every update we need to check to make sure the person hasn’t claimed too much of what they are trying to claim in a given week (happens more often than you’d think) and isn’t trying to circumvent weeks or anything else that the portal checks for. Then we need to actually check the content to make sure it’s fine and make any necessary edits to the claim to make sure it goes through cleanly. It’s a time consuming process when you get over 60 in one shot which easily happens. 

 

That also ignores ores all the work on the back end of compiling code for a completely separate scale and set of warning rules to run concurrently with ours now.

 

And you still haven’t answered for what purpose. I’m sorry but more people trying stuff doesn’t really cut it since we both know that won’t happen. People said that last time, the first group tried it, they all failed, no one tried after that.

[Beaviss 4,957]

9 minutes ago, Beketov said:

So am I. It’s still 5 players per season, basically half a round of draftees. Is that really worth it for the amount of red tape and potential problems we could encounter as we did last time?

arguable yes, people want to try different builds. Also the amount of players in the league makes everything from drafts to free agency more exciting. 

So again I ask you, where’s the real benefit because I still don’t see it. I see something that hurt the league and lost us some very good members in exchange for a major headache and no real benefits.

while I saw the shitty side of pp2 the first time around I even helped kill it. I believe that this fixes multiple problems without the burning out of what happend last time. With the limited amount of people getting them and the low amount of effort  it would take there isn't  almost a downside. It fixes the GM player problem aswell.

That’s ultimately what I’m not seeing an answer for. What do we realistically gain? Some terrible builds people will give up on? Some teams that won’t realistically be able to compete? We have very little to gain and a lot to lose.

We would gain league activity (like this thread) some builds might be shitty but why does that matter? They make great depth peices also if they are shitty people won't sign them etc. What is there to lose? It takes almost the same effort?

Deleted some parts.

 

 

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

15 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Last I checked you haven’t updated in this system so could you try to not just assume it’s clicking a button?

 

The math may not be involved but for every update we need to check to make sure the person hasn’t claimed too much of what they are trying to claim in a given week (happens more often than you’d think) and isn’t trying to circumvent weeks or anything else that the portal checks for. Then we need to actually check the content to make sure it’s fine and make any necessary edits to the claim to make sure it goes through cleanly. It’s a time consuming process when you get over 60 in one shot which easily happens. 

 

That also ignores ores all the work on the back end of compiling code for a completely separate scale and set of warning rules to run concurrently with ours now.

 

And you still haven’t answered for what purpose. I’m sorry but more people trying stuff doesn’t really cut it since we both know that won’t happen. People said that last time, the first group tried it, they all failed, no one tried after that.

 

Holy hell, calm down. Eat a snickers because you aren't you when you are hungry.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

4 hours 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.

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, Beaviss said:

 

Ill have to research that. ohhhhhhhhh @.sniffuM

 

In EFL each PT or welfare claim counts towards both players, in SBA each PT or welfare claim counts towards both a member's SBA and NCAA player.

[Beaviss 4,957]

11 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

 

 

In EFL each PT or welfare claim counts towards both players, in SBA each PT or welfare claim counts towards both a member's SBA and NCAA player.

 

That's good to know! So this would work then from an affiliate point of view.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Main purpose of 2 players in EFL is to have another players to fill out rosters for offense and defense. The VHL does not have that problem. As far as I know, 2 players are a staple of all football leagues for this reason.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, PP2 was a bandaid for piss poor recruitment and retainment during a period of time when we were struggling to even fill out a 1st round with decent players. We're not at that point now.

 

More teams is not a positive for the sake of more players, not members. 

[Will 4,660]

Hate the old P2 system too but I don't really see the point of 2nd players if all TPE would apply the exact same tbqh. I mean, I know many people would love to apply their TPE to two players, but  looking at it from the perspective of the league rather than a self serving member I find it kind of hard to find a real benefit in that scenario.. it seems like it would really just amount to a shallow increase in the # of players, even shallower than the original P2 program and that was a time when we actually needed it 

 

[Beketov 9,024]

6 hours ago, Will said:

Hate the old P2 system too but I don't really see the point of 2nd players if all TPE would apply the exact same tbqh. I mean, I know many people would love to apply their TPE to two players, but  looking at it from the perspective of the league rather than a self serving member I find it kind of hard to find a real benefit in that scenario.. it seems like it would really just amount to a shallow increase in the # of players, even shallower than the original P2 program and that was a time when we actually needed it 

 

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.