Community opinions on improving the player store.

[zepheter 586]

im trying to buy a gucci belt add that to the player store

[Peace 1,532]

I agree with a lot of your points, @GustavMattias. My goal here in this debate is not to make things easier, but rather to give players more options to spend that money on. As you can see, both of my suggestions that have TPE going to the player (add five TPE) cost $4, 000, 000 which turns into 800k per attribute point, and in light of your information actually results in it being overpriced. I just want the store to be useful, and make contract negotiations and monetary value mean something here on the VHL rather than just an arbitrary number determined by your TPE/TPA. 

[DangerGolding 222]

The option to buy a name change would be cool. 

[Gustav 6,407]

Just now, Peace said:

My goal here in this debate is not to make things easier, but rather to give players more options to spend that money on.

I assumed so, I just thought that we might have people coming in, reading what you wrote, and interpreting it as "give me TPE" and then proceeding to repeat that sentiment...that would just end up with this thread going nowhere meaningful.

[ColeMrtz 574]

1 hour ago, Erik Summers said:

Step 1.

Eliminate Pension/Welfare

Currently, many player's primary source of TPE is for doing nothing but claiming it each week. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we need to eliminate this source of free TPE to make the a new source attractive.

Already wrong

[Berocka 2,263]

1 minute ago, ColeMrtz said:

Already wrong

The step works well when you consider the other parts of his offer. The point of a debate is to provide constructive criticism not just to shut someone down for ideas. This makes people scared to give ideas which defeats the point of a debate. 

[Beketov 9,025]

1 hour ago, DMaximus said:

I think we could also look at selling temporary boosts, something like add 5 attribute points to a specific attribute for the next 10 games: $2,000,000

I’ve always been against anything temporary like this. Even with the portal making it easier temporary attribute changes are inevitably messy as hell.

 

1 hour ago, DMaximus said:

A possible cost breakdown:

Add 1 uncapped TPE to a point task : $250,000 (purchasable any number of times during a season and stackable (i.e. you can use 6 on the same point task)

Add 1 uncapped TPE: $500,000 ( again, no maximum amount of purchases )

Add 1 Attribute point: $4,000,000 

Those prices might be too expensive still.

There’s a lot more in this thread for me to dig through later but just to point at this quickly.

 

$500k for 1 uncapped is still pathetically low reward compared to something like the depreciation fighters. The Jagr on a 99 attribute and max depreciation is akin to 40 TPE or something for $7mill. For the same price at that point you’d only be getting 14 TPE. Yes it’s new TPE not TPE saves but still. Might be an argument against the cost of depreciation fighters more than anything else but still. That’s the main problem with straight TPE purchases. They are either too much for too little which causes huge inflation or too little TPE to be worth it. 
 

We also had straight buying attributes before and they were okay but were generally still less worth it than depreciation fighters.

[Nykonax 1,564]

I think you should have to make a choice regarding money.

 

That choice should be do I help out the team or myself? 

 

Right now as it stands people will have enough money for regression if they save up and dont buy stupid shit. Even if they take min they still have enough for it.

 

First I'd suggest raising cap by a lot  like to 80mil or some shit. This would allow players to sign big contracts, and adds the irl factor of "that's such a shit contract" or "what a deal on that contract"

Not only would raising cap effect money though, it would affect free agency. Right now free agents only leave the team to win a cup or be with friends, and they end up signing min on whichever team they like. With a higher cap teams can offer that money factor and have actual bidding wars.

 

Of course with a cap raise the player store prices would need to increase to like 25 mil for regression fighters and other stuff, as well as contract minimums raising a bit, but not in the same ratio as cap. So a much higher cap and a little higher min. This gives players the decision whether to help the team out and not have enough for regression fighters or other stuff, or take higher contracts but give the team less to work with.

 

Also add the stuff that peace mentioned.

[DMaximus 1,046]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Might be an argument against the cost of depreciation fighters more than anything else but still.

 

That's what I was thinking, eliminate the OP depreciation fighters and make TPE purchases more accessible to everyone.

[Beketov 9,025]

3 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

 

That's what I was thinking, eliminate the OP depreciation fighters and make TPE purchases more accessible to everyone.

On the one hand it increases inflation, on the other it removes the abilities to fight its removal so it’s an option yeah.

 

Unrelated to this response but because @Peace mentioned it: I never actually said what season I would want to have the cutoff for a record book seal. Could be whenever new rules go in, could be the portal seasons, etc. So not saying it has to be S70 onward necessarily just that I’ve always been okay with closing the old records and saying we have new ones; that’s not an issue for me personally.

[ColeMrtz 574]

18 minutes ago, Berocka said:

The step works well when you consider the other parts of his offer. The point of a debate is to provide constructive criticism not just to shut someone down for ideas. This makes people scared to give ideas which defeats the point of a debate. 

Yes, I understand that but the long term retention benefits of both pension and welfare far outweigh any positives about restructuring the player store. It's not worth the fallout by any stretch of the imagination.

[Berocka 2,263]

Okay we want to shake things up, lets shake things up then. I am going to go probably a bit over the top with this, so I am accepting some backlash. The new cap for attributes is 90… that is right you can only get up to 90 on your defence. If you would like to go higher you need to buy training packages basic training lets you go to 95 and advanced training lets you go to 99. This applies for each ability, therefore if people want to tpe whore they will also need to money whore to be able to buy all the training they need to level up. This means that all the great players will need to be spread around the league a bit more (possibly depending on pricing).

 

All non-depreciable attributes are purchased through cash now and not TPE, as most people don’t waste tpe on them anyway bar a few players we could see this being used as an expense.

 

Spend money to reduce some of your skills under 40. You want to be a huge bruiser who throws their weight around and doesn’t care about penalties pay a certain amount of money and reduce your base discipline to 30 for a bonus of 5 TPE. This gives people TPE for money but also adds a risk and reward. Do we see defence then reduce scoring to get the TPE boost to apply elsewhere?

 

Of course, I do not have all the answers and have no idea what any of these should cost. But there should be a risk vs reward and if you want to have a player store and contracts, we need to make sure that minimum isn’t the standard. We saw with Rayzor when he signed with Seattle for $6mil everyone was up in arms about the million-dollar baby. I want to see more of that! 

 

I should be able to claim this for TPE...

[cody73 87]

I've always agreed that the store as it is has certain things priced too high and others that feel worthless. 

I'm going into season #4 as a VHL'er (6th overall) & because of things, I've made my fair share of purchases over the past bit: 

The 1st Gen
1st Gen Doubles
Position Switch
Reroll 


That's 11 million spent right there, leaving me currently with 3.75 Million in the bank.... given that I'm entering what most would call my player's prime, I don't have to worry just yet about depiciation, but it is knocking on that door. 

So yeah, more store options and better contracts is 100% worth it given the current setup can be costly.... even though I know I'm a rare case. 
 

[Peace 1,532]

12 minutes ago, Beketov said:

On the one hand it increases inflation, on the other it removes the abilities to fight its removal so it’s an option yeah.

 

Unrelated to this response but because @Peace mentioned it: I never actually said what season I would want to have the cutoff for a record book seal. Could be whenever new rules go in, could be the portal seasons, etc. So not saying it has to be S70 onward necessarily just that I’ve always been okay with closing the old records and saying we have new ones; that’s not an issue for me personally.

Ah, I misunderstood then. My apologies! 

[Beketov 9,025]

7 minutes ago, cody73 said:

I've always agreed that the store as it is has certain things priced too high and others that feel worthless. 

I'm going into season #4 as a VHL'er (6th overall) & because of things, I've made my fair share of purchases over the past bit: 

The 1st Gen
1st Gen Doubles
Position Switch
Reroll 


That's 11 million spent right there, leaving me currently with 3.75 Million in the bank.... given that I'm entering what most would call my player's prime, I don't have to worry just yet about depiciation, but it is knocking on that door. 

So yeah, more store options and better contracts is 100% worth it given the current setup can be costly.... even though I know I'm a rare case. 
 

As @GustavMattias (I think) pointed out this is a dangerous protocol though. The store doesn’t scale in price so the more TPE whore players, who also have the bigger contracts, will get the same benefits of the cheaper store. This means reducing costs equates to even more insane inflation and an even easier time for TPE whores. I know we can’t base everything off just the whores or just the low earners but the point is that to many the store is actually not remotely expensive. With Thompson I bought all the depreciation fighters and still had money leftover for at least 1 uncapped package (maybe 2) and some left to drop an attribute I shouldn’t have updated. Easily I bought several hundred TPE if you think of things that way.

[Philliefan 69]

I really like what @DMaximus brought up with the temporary upgrades. Like Bek said, it would be hard for the simmers to keep up with all of the changes, but I think some sort of system could be used for a work-around (Maybe like half-season upgrades, for example). Something else I thought would be cool would be some sort of clutch upgrade. I know STHS doesn't have a clutch rating (or, at least, I don't think it does), but maybe like being able to buy an upgrade that boosts all of your (non-99) stats by 1 for one playoff run would be cool.

[Nykonax 1,564]

28 minutes ago, Berocka said:

Spend money to reduce some of your skills under 40. You want to be a huge bruiser who throws their weight around and doesn’t care about penalties pay a certain amount of money and reduce your base discipline to 30 for a bonus of 5 TPE. This gives people TPE for money but also adds a risk and reward. Do we see defence then reduce scoring to get the TPE boost to apply elsewhere?

no because sths can be heavily abused through that

[Gustav 6,407]

7 minutes ago, Beketov said:

As @GustavMattias (I think) pointed out this is a dangerous protocol though. The store doesn’t scale in price so the more TPE whore players, who also have the bigger contracts, will get the same benefits of the cheaper store. This means reducing costs equates to even more insane inflation and an even easier time for TPE whores. I know we can’t base everything off just the whores or just the low earners but the point is that to many the store is actually not remotely expensive. With Thompson I bought all the depreciation fighters and still had money leftover for at least 1 uncapped package (maybe 2) and some left to drop an attribute I shouldn’t have updated. Easily I bought several hundred TPE if you think of things that way.

 

The main thing I have a problem with is the fact that, as you earn TPE, depreciation fighters will get more and more valuable. You're saving more and more TPE when a certain percentage is deducted. So what I'm trying to say is that there's nothing wrong with those purchases being easily the most valuable ones for any solid earner, and I think that's something that's being neglected a bit in this thread.

 

That doesn't take away from the fact that just about every other TPE-related purchase is outlandishly expensive for a player at any level, in terms of cost per TPE earned or saved. It's absolutely possible to scale the prices of these purchases so that they're worth it for a mid-level player, at least, like I did in my previous post. That would not only actually make the purchase worth it for some people, it would still be above cost-per-TPE levels for a max earner buying the depreciation fighters, improving things for a large group of members while also not really making life much easier for us whores.

 

If you'd like me to run the numbers for a player on any other level for further research on adjustment of prices, if it's decided that said adjustment is a viable plan, let me know and I'd be happy to do it.

[Berocka 2,263]

46 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

no because sths can be heavily abused through that

Okay solid reasoning strike that from my suggestions then.

[Beketov 9,025]

1 hour ago, Nykonax said:

First I'd suggest raising cap by a lot  like to 80mil or some shit.

The issue with cap raises, especially insanely drastic ones like that, is that it doesn’t necessarily do what you think it does. Teams having $80mill in cap aren’t going to automatically go hand everyone $10mill contracts. They are just going to sign all the top talent to one major super team and have the cap space to do it.

 

The cap is incredibly tricky in that manner.

[gorlab 4,321]

My humble suggestion is to make the money tracking more transparent or have more clear directions on how the store itself works.

 

i.e.

 

A player has multiple "income streams"  (contract, donation, lotto, yearly special giveaway, etc.) and there's no real guide or documentation within the store or the finances tab of your player page, indicating what automatically makes it into the system and what doesn't.

 

It seems like contracts are now automated, which is awesome, but those "rare" sources of VHL $$ is where I think it gets confusing. 

[zepheter 586]

2 hours ago, DangerGolding said:

The option to buy a name change would be cool. 

name change should be free tbh. but limited to 1 per player.

[Erik Summers 451]

1 hour ago, ColeMrtz said:

Yes, I understand that but the long term retention benefits of both pension and welfare far outweigh any positives about restructuring the player store. It's not worth the fallout by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Can you mind explaining the fallout? Obviously, I have only been here a few months, so I could be missing something. Individual players won't be penalized for relying on essentially free TPE, however, teams will be not be able to support the contract needs of several free TPE dependant players at the same time.

 

I would look at it like this. In contract negotiations, the player that already earns the cap each week will accept a minimum contract because he has nothing to gain from a larger deal.

 

However, if a player doesn't plan to cap out every week, he can negotiate a higher contract in order to pay for free weeks to cover the difference, the more free TPE the player intends to use, the larger the contract they will have to try to get.

[Beketov 9,025]

Just now, zepheter said:

name change should be free tbh. but limited to 1 per player.

It’s actually kinda a massive annoyance simming wise. The portal creates our players for us but STHS doesn’t know to read a changed name as the same player so it makes a new player with the new name. We need to manually change over the name or else no updates will apply correctly. It’s a mess.

[zepheter 586]

Just now, Beketov said:

It’s actually kinda a massive annoyance simming wise. The portal creates our players for us but STHS doesn’t know to read a changed name as the same player so it makes a new player with the new name. We need to manually change over the name or else no updates will apply correctly. It’s a mess.

Understood sir!