MAPGA - MAKE ACTIVE PLAYERS GREAT AGAIN

[jRuutu 2,464]

 

Hi, my name is jRuutu. You might remember me from such articles as ''Bots - if you yell at them is anybody going to hear?'' and 'Inactive players have no soul''. Today I'm here to talk about the welfare players. VHL and VHLM leadership announced earlier that the VHLM is making changes on how inactive players are treated, simply put now active players come first as it's harder to keep inactives in the VHLM teams. The second part of the announcement was also an interesting one, there will be ''farm'' in the juniors, which guarantees playing time for the younger active players. The news received positive feedback, but few commentators wondered whether it would have been better to just expand the VHLM? Reasonable and fair, but I would like to say that an even better idea would have been to remove a few teams but also keep the farm, so welfare players have a place to play.

 

That is correct. Welfare needs to be weaker, so the ''farm'' is filled with welfare players. Meanwhile, the active younger players get to shine in the VHLM and later on in VHL. Right now the welfare players are out there taking valuable playing time from young active players. The same happens both in VHL and in the juniors.

 

I have said it before and I'm going to say it again - regular active players do not get enough love in VHL. With active players I mean those who earn 12 or close TPE per week and do not want to donate. Right now if you want to be top of your draft class in TPE - you need to pay for it. I believe the main reason is that those who in the past donated did not get enough bang for their buck as users who were lucky/active were able to keep up with the donating users by doing various activities. What is the easiest way to do something to it? Take TPE opportunities away from everybody, so donating is more valuable. That has happened.

 

Perhaps making donating more attractive by removing the lottery, All-Star tpe, etc is good for the league as a whole, but at the same time, if inactive players are the problem in juniors, I would say the welfare players are the problem in VHL. It's about time to do something about the welfare players. Their benefits need to be cut down as well, if I as a user who earns close to 12 TPE per week for a career need to accept the fact that those who donate get better faster, welfare players need to be clearly worse than my player. Someone might be wondering that they are worse, but ooops - wait a minute, the majority builds the same type of player here. Just so it happens the so-called ''meta build'' is perfect for the welfare players as they don't need to update passing that high, who updates checking anymore, and only a few play as a center, so they don't update faceoffs either.  Basically, we are in a situation where welfare players get by just fine. That is not right.

 

What can they do about it? Make welfare clearly weaker, 2 or 3 TPE per week is fine for clicking a button.  

 

MAPGA - MAKE ACTIVE PLAYERS GREAT AGAIN

 

 

[Beaviss 4,957]

Crazy Fin yells at clouds

[Spence King 387]

I love the idea and the graphic is great LOL , goes right along with the crazy world that we line in IRL. I am totally agreement with you that our Welfare guys with major TPE should not be able to just ride that out, keep them active ! incentivize them to be active to achieve even more greatness and a potentially better build and more memorable career ! great article, loved the thought and great work getting your message and ideas spread to the community. Rate 10/10

[Garsh 1,189]

[bigAL 2,176]

What if we put limits on welfare? You only get your welfare every second week. In the odd weeks, you gotta work or eat ramen noodles again. In the pay weeks, if you don't press the button, you're shit outta luck. It'll really make a clear gap between the active players and The Clickers. If we can't make the active players rise to the top, you can put a bit of weight on The Clickers to drag them down.

[der meister 3,183]

Nerfing welfare will make me leave, for one. I put in the work with multiple players in the past but don't have the time to write MS + .com every week. 

[Beketov 9,021]

26 minutes ago, der meister said:

Nerfing welfare will make me leave, for one. I put in the work with multiple players in the past but don't have the time to write MS + .com every week. 

A lot of time super active guys may want to nerf welfare but tbh it’s not something the league is too interested in. We recognize we have a lot of members and everyone has different levels of free time. Welfare n the whole helps the community.

[Phil 5,119]

 

 

[fishy 1,757]

3 hours ago, jRuutu said:

Right now if you want to be top of your draft class in TPE - you need to pay for it.

This is one thing you said that I do actually agree with. I haven't maxed every week and am still moving up the ranks, but without donating, it's difficult to compete with other folks at the top of my draft class who are donating. I don't think it's gotten to the point of a pay to play where, if you don't donate, you're explicitly disadvantaged, but it is rather frustrating as someone who doesn't want to donate. That being said, I haven't fully fleged out my thoughts on donations, so I just want to make it clear that I'm not saying that dono perks should be reconsidered. 

 

As for the rest of your article: what would be the goal of decreasing welfare impact? Letting max earners shine brighter? Right now there are users who don't have the time to max earn for one reason or another - this is, after all, a hockey simulation league. If someone were to be going through shit and only have time to collect welfare, when they return, with your ideas, they're basically screwed. Teams won't want them unless they just need actives to fill the roster. 

 

It feels to me that the only reason why this change would be made would be to make the people who are already on top seem even more sparkly, which just doesn't make any sense. I suspect that we'd struggle even more with retention for players that aren't all in. What's the point of a sim league? I think it's to have a good time, but you can't do that if your player is ass. People who can't sit down and make a graphic or write a media spot for whatever reason but still care about the league would be much likely to stick around if this were to be put into place. 

 

I also think that welfare earners have a really important spot on teams. Decreasing welfare basically says, "you know what, fuck you, we don't want you on the team if you're not going to point in as much time as me." Every team should have some core earners who cap or get close to it every week and fill out their rosters with welfare earners, rather than playing those top line players without breaks. 

3 hours ago, jRuutu said:

welfare players need to be clearly worse than my player

I'm also not entirely sure what you meant by this. TPE isn't everything in the league, but I don't think anyone is saying that welfare earners are as high quality as max earners. If I'm missing background on that, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems unrealistic to think that a welfare earner really thinks that they're going to be able to compete with a max earner when they're only getting about half the TPE. 

[Phil 5,119]

[Phil 5,119]

3 hours ago, Beaviss said:

Crazy Fin yells at clouds

 

[ThePerfectNut 563]

I do agree 'cuz on my last player (Aleksander Rodriguez) I was and could of been over 1k TPE and 95% of those TPE were from Welfare. That`s kinda op for people that only need 2 sec to get them

 

Now I`m maxing with my current play and I think I will be at like 1.1K once it`s done. I could really go the easy way out.

 

People who who get's more TPE got higher TPA in there remaining years, but with the SHTS. Anything bad can happen and people get unlucky seasons rip

Edited November 10, 2020 by Jtv123

[ThePerfectNut 563]

Not even worth it to be active sometimes

[Beketov 9,021]

14 minutes ago, fishy said:

This is one thing you said that I do actually agree with. I haven't maxed every week and am still moving up the ranks, but without donating, it's difficult to compete with other folks at the top of my draft class who are donating.

Of note, I’m leading the S70 class right now and have never donated during Lahtinen’s career.

[Garsh 1,189]

 

41 minutes ago, fishy said:

This is one thing you said that I do actually agree with. I haven't maxed every week and am still moving up the ranks, but without donating, it's difficult to compete with other folks at the top of my draft class who are donating. I don't think it's gotten to the point of a pay to play where, if you don't donate, you're explicitly disadvantaged, but it is rather frustrating as someone who doesn't want to donate. That being said, I haven't fully fleged out my thoughts on donations, so I just want to make it clear that I'm not saying that dono perks should be reconsidered. 

 

When you say compete are you talking about in terms of the TPE leaderboard for your class or how good your player is?  

[Callahan 39]

Definitely a big fan of this topic and was wondering when someone was going to talk about it. It's interesting because I see both sides, people who are max earning every week and people who are using welfare because of time restraints. It would be wild to see when a player is at a certain TPE the welfare goes down by 1 or 2 TPE so they can't just ride it out. While on the other hand some people are very into the VHL but sometimes can't make the time commitments for some of the other tasks. I'm wondering if there have been other weekly jobs added that maybe only get you 1 TPE but take a shorter amount of time (like reviewing). Regardless, loved reading this and thought it was super insightful. 10/10

[fishy 1,757]

11 minutes ago, Garsh said:

When you say compete are you talking about in terms of the TPE leaderboard for your class or how good your player is?  

TPE leaderboard

[Beketov 9,021]

1 hour ago, fishy said:

TPE leaderboard

Which is ultimately meaningless FWIW

[fishy 1,757]

7 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Which is ultimately meaningless FWIW

yeah, very true & fair. still a degree of satisfaction knowing that you're at the top, regardless of how meaningless it is lol

[BOOM 8,744]

33 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Which is ultimately meaningless FWIW

 

That's good, because it's something that I'll never see the dizzying heights of!

[jRuutu 2,464]

9 hours ago, fishy said:

This is one thing you said that I do actually agree with. I haven't maxed every week and am still moving up the ranks, but without donating, it's difficult to compete with other folks at the top of my draft class who are donating. I don't think it's gotten to the point of a pay to play where, if you don't donate, you're explicitly disadvantaged, but it is rather frustrating as someone who doesn't want to donate. That being said, I haven't fully fleged out my thoughts on donations, so I just want to make it clear that I'm not saying that dono perks should be reconsidered. 

 

As for the rest of your article: what would be the goal of decreasing welfare impact? Letting max earners shine brighter? Right now there are users who don't have the time to max earn for one reason or another - this is, after all, a hockey simulation league. If someone were to be going through shit and only have time to collect welfare, when they return, with your ideas, they're basically screwed. Teams won't want them unless they just need actives to fill the roster. 

 

It feels to me that the only reason why this change would be made would be to make the people who are already on top seem even more sparkly, which just doesn't make any sense. I suspect that we'd struggle even more with retention for players that aren't all in. What's the point of a sim league? I think it's to have a good time, but you can't do that if your player is ass. People who can't sit down and make a graphic or write a media spot for whatever reason but still care about the league would be much likely to stick around if this were to be put into place. 

 

I also think that welfare earners have a really important spot on teams. Decreasing welfare basically says, "you know what, fuck you, we don't want you on the team if you're not going to point in as much time as me." Every team should have some core earners who cap or get close to it every week and fill out their rosters with welfare earners, rather than playing those top line players without breaks. 

I'm also not entirely sure what you meant by this. TPE isn't everything in the league, but I don't think anyone is saying that welfare earners are as high quality as max earners. If I'm missing background on that, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems unrealistic to think that a welfare earner really thinks that they're going to be able to compete with a max earner when they're only getting about half the TPE. 

 

I think it's too easy to build a good player with welfare, it's too easy to get the ''scoring/meta build'' with welfare, that is something that needs to change in my opinion. In my eyes it should be impossible for welfare player to get more than one skill to 99.

 

It is true that top of the TPE leaderboards mean nothing, it's all about what you do with the TPE, BUT I would argue that especially the latter loses a lot of its meaning when we look what kind of players are mostly being built in VHL - it's the high SC - low PA builds. 

 

I think my 12 or close per week player should be clearly better than anything a welfare player puts together, that means either doing something to how much it costs to update scoring between 85 and 99 OR just simply taking TPE away from welfare users.

 

And what comes to welfare players having important roles, they do have important roles in the teams, but I would also say that they are way too valuable due to the fact that so many of them build the meta build.

Edited November 11, 2020 by jRuutu

[Retuperkele 21]

Well, there are pros and cons to this

 

First of all, players who are not that active get significantly less than players who are active. On a long run this would mean that the difference would be few hundreds of points - therefore hurtful for the game, cause these less active players would have less impact in the engine and couldnt reach milestones or scorelines like an active player would

On the other hand, the idea is great. We need to enable more point tasks with more or less stuff to do. Would make the game more enjoyable when theres more to do, for the active players.

 

I'd say a 7/10

[bigAL 2,176]

Can anyone explain (or link to the explanation) of the EFL's recent cap change? I'm new there, but my understanding is that for the longest time they had a reduced "welfare" system (welfare defined as someone who doesn't have a job, like the classical definition haha) but now have removed that barrier so any member can reach the same cap as the "working" people. It's kind of apples and oranges to our definition, but they had this two-tiered hierarchy of members and that's kinda what J's proposing.

[Beketov 9,021]

28 minutes ago, bigAL said:

Can anyone explain (or link to the explanation) of the EFL's recent cap change? I'm new there, but my understanding is that for the longest time they had a reduced "welfare" system (welfare defined as someone who doesn't have a job, like the classical definition haha) but now have removed that barrier so any member can reach the same cap as the "working" people. It's kind of apples and oranges to our definition, but they had this two-tiered hierarchy of members and that's kinda what J's proposing.

I don’t know what they’ve changed but historically the SBA and EFL had a split cap. IE if you have a job your cap is 12, if you don’t your cap is 9. Had nothing strictly speaking to do with welfare. Personally I’ve never cared for it. The argument is that it keeps people in jobs because they get an extra benefit but we e never had a problem filling jobs really and I prefer the idea that everyone can earn the same amount, just in different ways.

[Garsh 1,189]

10 hours ago, jRuutu said:

 

I think it's too easy to build a good player with welfare, it's too easy to get the ''scoring/meta build'' with welfare, that is something that needs to change in my opinion. In my eyes it should be impossible for welfare player to get more than one skill to 99.

 

It is true that top of the TPE leaderboards mean nothing, it's all about what you do with the TPE, BUT I would argue that especially the latter loses a lot of its meaning when we look what kind of players are mostly being built in VHL - it's the high SC - low PA builds. 

 

I think my 12 or close per week player should be clearly better than anything a welfare player puts together, that means either doing something to how much it costs to update scoring between 85 and 99 OR just simply taking TPE away from welfare users.

 

And what comes to welfare players having important roles, they do have important roles in the teams, but I would also say that they are way too valuable due to the fact that so many of them build the meta build.

 

Well personally speaking as a person who does welfare + practice + press conference + trivia (9 total tpe a week in the VHL most weeks) I don't have or have ever had a single stat at 99 let alone 2.  I'm def not capping the tpe I could earn on welfare and I'm probably not on the most meta perfected build so maybe that the difference there.  I'll have to take your word that it can be done.

 

Also hitting on the clearly better part.  It would probably be hard to prove a player is clearly better in every case because team chemistry is a thing that exists and I think is important imo.