Community opinions on improving the player store.

[Erik Summers 451]

2 minutes ago, FrostBeard said:

Well, but think about it this way - you start off with 1.5 mil. You can buy 15 TPE a season. That would mean people probably would stay in VHLM for significantly longer time.  Okey, having less money for TPE package would fix it but that would not make sense as we are NOT a money league anyway. We should not allow that. 

 

Then make it an amount that could be afforded. Raise the VHLM salary to 2 mil and make it cost 200K, so they can buy the "welfare" 10 weeks a season (which is basically all season). Then when they get to the VHL, teams will have to pay them 2mil more/season if they want their payers to develop without activity. That limits the number of welfare players that each team can support. Then you just adjust the salary cap to accommodate the number of welfare players you want in the league.

 

That gives players an incentive to be active without actually penalizing players who aren't and instead penalizing the teams that employ them. Active players will be more valuable in the draft and in FA, but welfare players will still be able to easily make rosters and even be star players, just at a higher cost to the team.

[Rayzor_7 741]

Just now, Erik Summers said:

Then you just adjust the salary cap to accommodate the number of welfare players you want in the league.

Then why bother cutting welfare at all? No one is complaining with his many we have now 

[Erik Summers 451]

Just now, Rayzor_7 said:

Then why bother cutting welfare at all? No one is complaining with his many we have now 

 

That is what I am saying. This isn't a cut to welfare. It is a solution to money being useless. Players still get their welfare, but now contract negotiations actually matter, because teams will have to pay more for welfare players. It also gives GMs incentive to engage with players and encourage activity because then their contracts can cost less.

[Beketov 9,033]

Just now, Erik Summers said:

 

That is what I am saying. This isn't a cut to welfare. It is a solution to money being useless. Players still get their welfare, but now contract negotiations actually matter, because teams will have to pay more for welfare players. It also gives GMs incentive to engage with players and encourage activity because then their contracts can cost less.

The problem you keep ignoring is that you have “welfare players” as if it’s a thing that someone just is or isn’t. Not everyone who pulls welfare does so every single week. Let’s say you normally have tons of time and do your PT’s, great, you take league minimum to help your team. Suddenly work picks up and you have a month of craziness where you can’t be as active. You have no free welfare to fall back on so now you either get no TPE or you use your limited funds to buy welfare.

 

Its not the kind of thing where you can just say “X player is a welfare player and Y player isn’t”. It changes completely on a week by week basis.

[Baozi 1,658]

One thing I'd look at if we ever had "archetype" was money is required to boost your max capacities in non-core stats.

 

 

[Erik Summers 451]

32 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Its not the kind of thing where you can just say “X player is a welfare player and Y player isn’t”. It changes completely on a week by week basis.

 

I was going to make a spreadsheet to see if this is true or not, but that is more work than I want to do, lol. It certainly appears that my idea isn't popular which is 100% okay, I just wanted to make sure I had communicated it clearly as being a replacement for welfare, not a removal of welfare. I think that is clear now, and it still seems pretty universally hated, so I'm happy to forget it.

 

[Jbeezy76 396]

@Sonnetyeah I can understand a lot of what your saying. But I see nothing wrong with providing 20 TPE for cheaper price. 20 TPE only upgrades your attribute points 4 times. (once you get to the point where it takes 5TPE to upgrade 1attribute point) I’m highly active every week and I totally notice when players that were drafted a season one or two seasons after me have crazy TPE numbers above mine. I’m not the only player that notices this. Nobody is asking for 99s on everything I wouldn’t mind seeing the Weekly CAPPED TPE MAX  go up.  Also a weekly task should be at least 10TPE. Because then you can upgrade 2 attributes points. Instead of 6TPE which only provides 1 attribute upgrade and bank 1. 

[Enorama 2,038]

3 hours ago, Jbeezy76 said:

But I see nothing wrong with providing 20 TPE for cheaper price.

 

It would mean I would have 1900 TPE or whatever instead of 1800. I've already got too much uncapped TPE in my life.

[Victor 10,947]

On 1/17/2020 at 3:11 PM, Beketov said:

The lotto is bad enough for this.

which does beg the question, why DO we have a lottery?

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

4 minutes ago, Victor said:

which does beg the question, why DO we have a lottery?

 

If I recall correctly, it was put into place to promote activity and was one of the first "uncapped TPE" things we started to add. It was also originally for like 1 or 2 TPE or something. Don't remember the specifics on why we changed it.

[Victor 10,947]

17 minutes ago, flyersfan1453 said:

 

If I recall correctly, it was put into place to promote activity and was one of the first "uncapped TPE" things we started to add. It was also originally for like 1 or 2 TPE or something. Don't remember the specifics on why we changed it.

I think it's time for it to die.

[Enorama 2,038]

6 hours ago, Jbeezy76 said:

I wouldn’t mind seeing the Weekly CAPPED TPE MAX  go up.  Also a weekly task should be at least 10TPE. Because then you can upgrade 2 attributes points. Instead of 6TPE which only provides 1 attribute upgrade and bank 1. 

 

There's already too much TPE in the league. Making things easier for an average member like yourself also makes it easier for TPE whores like myself, and we can't just make it easier if you're, say, under a certain TPE, because there should be some separation between the really good and the "just" good players.