Project jRuutu (Amount of Players per Team)

[rjfryman 1,120]

By my quik count, we have 17 VHLM players who already are past the 200 points right now. That includes S64-S66. There are 8 VHLM players who are at 180 or above who should hit the 200 unless they choose not too. 10 players who are 150 - 180 who again could hit 200 but might choose not to play in the VHLM another season. 

 

[Peace 1,528]

To make 9F-6D-2G (or 9F-4D-2G) work I strongly believe you need to increase how many seasons a player actually plays before retiring, introduce new mechanics and so on. Right now everything is consolidated - player careers are shortened, earning TPE is quite easy and creating a star player honestly isn't that much work. You get guided on the path by just completing your tasks, which is how it should be, but I feel like there should be something more.

 

To make a larger team actually benefit the community, I personally believe three things need to happen:

Firstly, players careers need to be extended from eight seasons maximum to something like twelve before depreciation is just too much to keep building a player and retiring is more beneficial than just keep going unless you really want to set some records. This allows depth to develop to replace veterans, allows veterans to actually have a decent 'prime' as a decade of hockey is pretty average, and invites new systems into the VHL such as re-adding the minor hockey system from the past

 

Secondly, teams need to have an max-min requirement for each line if teams are expected to fill their rosters with 9F-4D-2G. Top line plays no more than 50% of the time, but requires at least 40%, something like that as well as more backup games required for the backup... or introduce fatigue into the game so players realistically (as much as STHS can simulate that anyway) tire as the game and season progresses. 

And lastly, I saved the good one here... injuries. Oh no you didn't, Peace! Aye, I did, and I think it's a good idea. I think players should take injuries - nothing season ending or week to week - but small injuries that take the player out of the lineup for a few days makes the league more engaged and GMs have to react. Oh shit, my top C just went down with a sprained ankle for three games... okay, I'll put him there and call up my prospect to use him here. When he's back I'll just send him down again! 

 

Just seems like a good way to engage the community a bit. 

[Nykonax 1,564]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

Secondly, teams need to have an max-min requirement for each line if teams are expected to fill their rosters with 9F-4D-2G. Top line plays no more than 50% of the time, but requires at least 40%, something like that as well as more backup games required for the backup... or introduce fatigue into the game so players realistically (as much as STHS can simulate that anyway) tire as the game and season progresses. 

And lastly, I saved the good one here... injuries. Oh no you didn't, Peace! Aye, I did, and I think it's a good idea. I think players should take injuries - nothing season ending or week to week - but small injuries that take the player out of the lineup for a few days makes the league more engaged and GMs have to react. Oh shit, my top C just went down with a sprained ankle for three games... okay, I'll put him there and call up my prospect to use him here. When he's back I'll just send him down again!  

I like this. The main problems from moving to v3 from v1 is the unrealistic stats. If we add fatigue and injuries, along with the 3-4 line system we would be able to realisticly have v3, with the same stats that we have now. With injuries and fatigue we could add in durability and endurance as upgradeable stats, making for more very builds (do you sacrifice your scoring ability to not get tired as much?)

 

Endurance works well with the 3-4 line system as well, depending on the players endurance it will factor into the line they play.)

 

Making injuries max 2 games would work as well, and have a randomizer spun once a week to determine who is injured and who isn't and durability will factor into the chances of being injured. In the player store you could buy "randomizer immunity" for say 1 million.

 

Overall I really think this is worth looking into

[rjfryman 1,120]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

And lastly, I saved the good one here... injuries. Oh no you didn't, Peace! Aye, I did, and I think it's a good idea. I think players should take injuries - nothing season ending or week to week - but small injuries that take the player out of the lineup for a few days makes the league more engaged and GMs have to react. Oh shit, my top C just went down with a sprained ankle for three games... okay, I'll put him there and call up my prospect to use him here. When he's back I'll just send him down again! 

3

Are you sure Injuries are not on right now? HHH might have torn his quad a couple of games ago and is just not diagnosed yet. 

 

But in all seriousness with injuries, my only worry with that is with a call up are they expected to be taken off a roster spot in the VHLM? or since we have an instance of them in both files would it be a temp call up just in the VHL? Also with that would being called up mess with rookie seasons? I know a GM has every right to do what they want with the team they have but It does seem tough.  

[jRuutu 2,464]

38 minutes ago, rjfryman said:

How many players retire ever year, On average? 

 

Like DMaximus I am still new to this whole thing but I worry because Even being a good prospect maxing out every week I would have a hard time beating out existing players simply because they have been in the league longer with their player. There are a few teams where I would win a second line job but many that if they only play two lines I would ride the bench for a couple of weeks putting my shot at rookie of the year in jeopardy. I don't know what GM's care more about in a given time period. If I max out every week am I rewarded with more ice time even If I am not as good as someone else who is not as active? Granted some of those are per GM question but I would hate to see some people get discouraged with the league because they do well then because of space are not rewarded with ice time.

I´d say that is mostly on the GM to make sure the upcoming star players who collect max tpe every week gets the treatment they deserve - fair role on the 2nd line and powerplay time for example. Of course there might be players who get into first line right away due to the team simply having absolutely no other options and you end up into slightly deeper team from the draft and that way lose on the rookie race, that is unfortunate, but on the bright side you are a lot closer to actually winning something as a team.

 

In general the GM´s who put semi actives with lets say 400 TPE over a max earning 250 TPE rookie player are insane, so I would not be worried as a young player. You can and absolutely should talk to your GM right away every time a inactive or semi-active is taking your ice time -  In this league, with old or new line system and in general in every other sim leagues.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

And lastly, I saved the good one here... injuries. Oh no you didn't, Peace! Aye, I did, and I think it's a good idea. I think players should take injuries - nothing season ending or week to week - but small injuries that take the player out of the lineup for a few days makes the league more engaged and GMs have to react. Oh shit, my top C just went down with a sprained ankle for three games... okay, I'll put him there and call up my prospect to use him here. When he's back I'll just send him down again! 

 

 

I'm not a STHS pro so...is it possible to change the injury settings into a "just small injuries"? Cause if not, this won't work. And what about the achievement tracker? A prospect could even lose some TPE just because he was called up. Especially when it happens more than once in a season. TPE whores won't be happy about that lol.

[Peace 1,528]

14 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

I'm not a STHS pro so...is it possible to change the injury settings into a "just small injuries"? Cause if not, this won't work. And what about the achievement tracker? A prospect could even lose some TPE just because he was called up. Especially when it happens more than once in a season. TPE whores won't be happy about that lol.

Prospects called up from the VHLM temporarily (play less than 9 games for example) should still be eligible for tracker TPE. With all great changes comes restructuring, VHL has to do that as well or the sim will be too aged to do anything in the future. 

[DMaximus 1,046]

1 minute ago, rjfryman said:

By my quik count, we have 17 VHLM players who already are past the 200 points right now. That includes S64-S66. There are 8 VHLM players who are at 180 or above who should hit the 200 unless they choose not too. 10 players who are 150 - 180 who again could hit 200 but might choose not to play in the VHLM another season. 

 

 

Thank you @rjfryman for taking the time to tabulate that.

 

 

It sounds like at a bare minimum, there's going to be 20 new VHL players. More realistically, there will be between 25 - 30. When will we know that exact number?

 

Does anyone know the number of available slots for new players in the VHL next season? When we will know that exact number?

 

Can someone talk about the actual events that would occur in the scenario where there are more new players than available slots next season?

 

I guess what I'm trying to understand is, do we have an immediate problem that needs to be solved right away? Or is this discussion more about setting a path on the future roadmap for the league?

[Nykonax 1,564]

9 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

Does anyone know the number of available slots for new players in the VHL next season? When we will know that exact number? 

like 15, only the expansion team + like 5 spots on other teams.

 

10 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

Can someone talk about the actual events that would occur in the scenario where there are more new players than available slots next season? 

Some teams will need to play 3 lines, but contenders who have that issue will play the 3rd line very little. Expansion will probably happen again next season too.

 

11 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

I guess what I'm trying to understand is, do we have an immediate problem that needs to be solved right away? Or is this discussion more about setting a path on the future roadmap for the league?

Both

[Enorama 2,038]

I've said this already. The only way to ever really grow lineups is to introduce fatigue as a factor.

 

Also, injuries are a terrible idea. Imagine how pissed you'd be if missing 3 games or whatever is what cost you a shot at the scoring title or something.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

30 minutes ago, Peace said:

Prospects called up from the VHLM temporarily (play less than 9 games for example) should still be eligible for tracker TPE

 

Yes, they should be. But I was more about prospect losing some achievement TPE cause he was being called up.

[Beaviss 4,957]

16 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

Yes, they should be. But I was more about prospect losing some achievement TPE cause he was being called up.

 

Or getting sniped off waivers

[Beketov 9,025]

1 hour ago, Nykonax said:

The main problems from moving to v3 from v1 is the unrealistic stats. If we add fatigue and injuries, along with the 3-4 line system we would be able to realisticly have v3, with the same stats that we have now.

1. V3 is just the sim version, we already use that. You’re thinking the engine which is V2.

2. Fatigue and Injuries alone would most certainly not fix our stat issues with V2 without any further changes. We’re talking top players scoring over 450 points a season with 50% shooting percentages. Even if they are playing half their current minutes it’s safe to assume we’d still have players will over 200 points a season. Attributes are simply too high for V2 right now, period. Fatigue won’t fix that.

[Beketov 9,025]

2 hours ago, Nykonax said:

Personally I believe that the VHL system should be changed to add a college system. With that the VHLM would become similar to the AHL, and the VHL would stay the same. NCAA players would play 4 seasons with a 200 tpe cap, then "uncap" where they play a season where they can apply past 200 tpe. They then get drafted to the VHL where the VHL team decides if they want to send them down to the VHLM, or keep them in the VHL. NCAA would also have "fillers" who are second players that people would create if they want too, and could only earn up to 50 tpe a season on them, then retire them after their senior NCAA year.

I actually proposed something similar to this "third league" idea in the BOG but we can discuss it here as well. Only difference being that I would keep the VHLM as more or less the CHL like it is now rather than making it the AHL and have the third league enter underneath it as like a minor hockey step. We can call it NCAA if we want but that's barely a thing with hockey so its a bit odd. Anyway, instead of using the VHL's farm system and linking VHLM teams it would link minor league teams to VHLM teams. Since most VHLM teams already have an AGM anyway the AGM would be in control of the farm minor league team which is where all new players would start. They can be sent down / called up from there as needed and fill out teams at that level while still being apart of the larger VHLM team in a sense. Most active guys wouldn't have to live at this level long but at least it would be there if needed. The VHLM cap would also go up and we'd have to adjust career lengths and update scale accordingly but once all that's done the theory would be that players would spend a few seasons in the VHLM / minor league  instead of just 1. This would result in fewer going up in mass and offering more teams for players to play for without needing to expand the league further or have a third simmer. Would also result in ice time remaining where people expect and no one needed to waste half their career with 4th line minutes.

 

Regardless of if we did it this way or how you suggest with VHLM linked to VHL and the "third league" separate (which I think that link is key no matter what, keep 2 simmers) I would think this would add a more interesting dynamic and keep ice tie what VHL players have come to expect better than micromanaging GM's and forcing a certain number of players on them resulting in those players having shit minutes and getting discouraged.

[Beaviss 4,957]

21 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I actually proposed something similar to this "third league" idea in the BOG but we can discuss it here as well. Only difference being that I would keep the VHLM as more or less the CHL like it is now rather than making it the AHL and have the third league enter underneath it as like a minor hockey step. We can call it NCAA if we want but that's barely a thing with hockey so its a bit odd. Anyway, instead of using the VHL's farm system and linking VHLM teams it would link minor league teams to VHLM teams. Since most VHLM teams already have an AGM anyway the AGM would be in control of the farm minor league team which is where all new players would start. They can be sent down / called up from there as needed and fill out teams at that level while still being apart of the larger VHLM team in a sense. Most active guys wouldn't have to live at this level long but at least it would be there if needed. The VHLM cap would also go up and we'd have to adjust career lengths and update scale accordingly but once all that's done the theory would be that players would spend a few seasons in the VHLM / minor league  instead of just 1. This would result in fewer going up in mass and offering more teams for players to play for without needing to expand the league further or have a third simmer. Would also result in ice time remaining where people expect and no one needed to waste half their career with 4th line minutes.

 

Regardless of if we did it this way or how you suggest with VHLM linked to VHL and the "third league" separate (which I think that link is key no matter what, keep 2 simmers) I would think this would add a more interesting dynamic and keep ice tie what VHL players have come to expect better than micromanaging GM's and forcing a certain number of players on them resulting in those players having shit minutes and getting discouraged.

 

I think a third league is a good idea but I don't think the league is quite ready for that at the moment. Once the VHL gets a couple more teams I could see it working but for now I don't see it being a viable option because of the lack of people to fill the teams.

[uphillmoss 134]

I think that it’s stupid to have players getting 30+ minutes per game. THATS NOT FUCKING HOCKEY, That’s football. I think that having at least 3 lines means so much more for the league. It makes the draft a lot more meaningful. As long as you don’t allow gm’s to give the third line under 20% of time, they will get 15 minutes. I would be fine with that amount of time. I believe however that if we make this league three lines, we should extend player lifetimes by two seasons to allow for players to have a more full career 

[Beketov 9,025]

6 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

I think a third league is a good idea but I don't think the league is quite ready for that at the moment. Once the VHL gets a couple more teams I could see it working but for now I don't see it being a viable option because of the lack of people to fill the teams.

How does the VHL having more teams mean there are more people to fill the third league teams? Theoretically you’d dump the VHLM inactives and any new guys onto them (they are linked to VHLM teams so they still have an active LR and such) and some of the people who would otherwise come up this season would stay in the VHLM longer.

 

If anything because of having to have them linked to VHLM or VHL teams (depending which way we go with it) the more teams we add the harder it’ll be to fill third league teams because we need to add the same number.  So if we linked them to the VHL teams for example we’d have to add 10 next season. If we expand by 2 more teams (for example) we compound the issue by needing 2 further third league teams.

[Beaviss 4,957]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

How does the VHL having more teams mean there are more people to fill the third league teams? Theoretically you’d dump the VHLM inactives and any new guys onto them (they are linked to VHLM teams so they still have an active LR and such) and some of the people who would otherwise come up this season would stay in the VHLM longer.

 

If anything because of having to have them linked to VHLM or VHL teams (depending which way we go with it) the more teams we add the harder it’ll be to fill third league teams because we need to add the same number.  So if we linked them to the VHL teams for example we’d have to add 10 next season. If we expand by 2 more teams (for example) we compound the issue by needing 2 further third league teams.

 

I was Implying with the increased number of people coming into the league.

[Beketov 9,025]

Just now, Beaviss said:

 

I was Implying with the increased number of people coming into the league.

Is it not better to be prepared for them though? I would rather see emptier third league teams that fill up with new members than having players on VHL teams and being sent down. I guess it depends how we add it though and whether the VHL gets linked to the VHLM or if the VHLM gets linked to the third league.

[Beaviss 4,957]

1 minute ago, Beketov said:

Is it not better to be prepared for them though?

 

Thats why I brought up the three forward line VHL. Its a stop gap and way to fit people without super aggressive expansion. (3/4th of this draft class seems to be forwards).  In the coming seasons there will be a space issue with the rate we are gaining members. Thats why to slow down the rapid expansion you could make a simple cap change and add three forwards to a team with very minimal consequence. The pros heavily outweigh the cons IMO and the only valid reason that's brought up so far was ice time and that can be managed quite easily.

[uphillmoss 134]

2 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

The pros heavily outweigh the cons IMO and the only valid reason that's brought up so far was ice time and that can be managed quite easily.

15 minutes is not a small amount of time

[Beaviss 4,957]

11 minutes ago, uphillmoss said:

15 minutes is not a small amount of time

 

My thoughts as well

[Beketov 9,025]

22 minutes ago, uphillmoss said:

15 minutes is not a small amount of time

If teams actually agree to add the players but some GM’s have already flat out said they’d continue to have 2 lines so because they can win with that.

[Beaviss 4,957]

17 minutes ago, Beketov said:

If teams actually agree to add the players but some GM’s have already flat out said they’d continue to have 2 lines so because they can win with that.

 

There are ways to make sure that doesn't happen....

[Nykonax 1,564]

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

2. Fatigue and Injuries alone would most certainly not fix our stat issues with V2 without any further changes. We’re talking top players scoring over 450 points a season with 50% shooting percentages. Even if they are playing half their current minutes it’s safe to assume we’d still have players will over 200 points a season. Attributes are simply too high for V2 right now, period. Fatigue won’t fix that. 

So couldn't we just adjust current attributes and update scale? You'd do some math or something with the old update scale, and convert the amount of TPE you spent in that attribute to TPE spent in that attribute with the new scale.

 

So if you spent 10 tpe to get scoring from 40 --> 50, and the new update would be 2 tpe per point from 40 --> 50 you'd have 45 scoring after that.