Two Players: The Proposal So Far

[Victor 10,536]

We've had lots of great discussion in the other thread, and the OP there remains an excellent read if you want to find out/revisit the reasons why this is an awesome idea and the responses to the various possible criticisms. However!

 

I have gone through the thread and compiled something of a loose rulebook for this proposal based largely on what's been discussed there and a bit of my own opinion. Behold...

 

Second Player Proposal

 

1. Restrictions on draft years

 

The two players must be at least 3 seasons apart. So in a nutshell, a S50 draftee will be able to create a S53 draftee but not S51 or S52. Two seasons is certainly too short a timeframe IMO, while four seasons is half a career - probably too much of a wait.

 

2. Two players on the same team

 

I believe there was no opposition to my suggestion as follows:

 

Draft

Second player can be drafted to the team of the first player BUT NOT if the user forces other GMs to pass on him.

Free Agency

Under no circumstances can a user choose to sign with one of their players to the team of the other.

Trades

No trades which bypass the FA restriction above (i.e. sign and trade). Otherwise, free trade remains.

 

3. GM players

 

Regardless of the above, I believe one GM player must be on the GM's team at all times. Or have their rights owned by the team like Travis Gowecny or Sven Wolf atm. Basically one GM player continued to adhere to current GM player rules. Likewise, you can not take over a team without at least one of your players on board (which should be easier than what it is now anyway).

 

4. Earning TPE

 

I believe we have reached consensus on PTs/PT replacements:

 

Each player earns TPE from:

- 1 6 TPE Point Task OR welfare claim per week *

- 1 VHL.com article OR 2 TPE radio per week

- the bio and rookie profile relating to that player

- awards relating to that player

 

* both players can not claim welfare in the same week. 2 PTs or 1 PT and 1 welfare are the only allowed combinations.

Also welfare claims will HAVE TO include player name for ease of updating.

 

Each user earns TPE for both players from:

- donations

- jobs

- any fantasy/trivia/predictions/etc.

- top GM awards

 

5. Carryover

 

You can use carryover from one player once, same as it is now. If you have a 1,000 and 600 TPE players, then retire the 1,000 one and move back to just one player, you can then claim carryover from the 1,000 TPE one for whenever you retire the 600 TPE player.

 

For most cases it will just be a case of carryover from your last player since the above scenario is only possible if someone gets a second player and then decides to take a break from having two players.

 

6. Implementation

 

Timeline:

Cap initial second players at 10 or 15. Make a TPE tracker (or use/adapt @YEAH!stlemania's index) for the season of implementation, and the top 10/15 players who earned the most TPE in that particular season, get first dibs on second players.

 

No initial expansion.

It's not necessary. First goal should be 11 actives per 10 teams. The salary cap will have to increase but it should be a gradual increase. Numbers need to be crunched but given initially second players will be draftees, then cheap rookies, it could probably go up on an incremental basis.

 

First season after proposal implemented: salary cap $33 million

then $34 million, 35, etc etc. Maybe stop and look at how things are going at 36mil and if necessary go up to 40.

 

 

 

Now we have structure, let us continue!

 

 

[Molholt 2,183]

Everything considered "extra" for TPE should go to both - you shouldn't have to pick which one you want to use it on, leads to opportunities to abuse that or "sabotage" teams, especially as a GM with 2 players. 

 

Separate PT/Welfare, but everything else the same imo. 

[Tagger 2,722]

Hmm, I'm coming round on the idea now that I see it in a more clear format. Especially like the restrictions on welfare, makes it more of a reward for those who are contributing Point Tasks. 

 

I will say though that, in a league that covers so many different time zones, I don't think a first come first serve thing is the best approach. The approach to use though would depend on how early you announce that it's happening in advance of it's implementation.

 

A better approach could be if you announced it a full season ahead of it's implementation, offer the 10-15 players who earned the most TPE in that time-frame (annoucement to implementation) the opportunity to create a second player, and then if they turn it down, it gets passed on to the next highest TPE earner in that time frame (e.g. if the highest TPE earner in that time frame doesn't want a second player, it gets passed onto the 11th/16th highest TPE earner in that time frame) until you have 10-15 "second" players. Would give people an extra incentive to be active and posting PT's during that time period. 

[Higgins 3,617]

2. Two players on the same team

 

Why all the restrictions?

 

5. Implementation

 

Hold a lottery with all users that are eligible and interested and allow 10 randomly selected to create the first wave.

[Victor 10,536]

4 minutes ago, Higgins said:

2. Two players on the same team

 

Why all the restrictions?

 

5. Implementation

 

Hold a lottery with all users that are eligible and interested and allow 10 randomly selected to create the first wave.

we can't go into this with the blind hope that no one will try to abuse the system. Honestly, the only restrictions here are no FA (and honestly, what saddo wants to to join an LR with them in it already?) and not being a dick at the draft. They're very simple but necessary to be in writing.

 

 

Lottery sounds fun but YEAH's idea certainly rewards activity in that particular season which is cool and interactive.

[Higgins 3,617]

2 minutes ago, Victor said:

we can't go into this with the blind hope that no one will try to abuse the system. Honestly, the only restrictions here are no FA (and honestly, what saddo wants to to join an LR with them in it already?) and not being a dick at the draft. They're very simple but necessary to be in writing.

 

 

Lottery sounds fun but YEAH's idea certainly rewards activity in that particular season which is cool and interactive.

 

What about this abuse of system: Player 1 signs with Team 1. Player 2 signs with Team 2 and is traded to Team 1 for a low draft pick. A basic circumvention of your rule.

[Victor 10,536]

1 minute ago, Higgins said:

 

What about this abuse of system: Player 1 signs with Team 1. Player 2 signs with Team 2 and is traded to Team 1 for a low draft pick. A basic circumvention of your rule.

but why would the GM do that?

 

Branching out from the don't-be-a-dick draft restriction, I think any blatant forcing of yourself on your own team should be cracked down on.

[Higgins 3,617]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

but why would the GM do that?

 

Branching out from the don't-be-a-dick draft restriction, I think any blatant forcing of yourself on your own team should be cracked down on.

 

So basically you are saying any deal that involves a users 2 players ending up on the same team will need to be approved or veto by "commissioner".

[Victor 10,536]

1 minute ago, Higgins said:

 

So basically you are saying any deal that involves a users 2 players ending up on the same team will need to be approved or veto by "commissioner".

I suppose. Approval if GMs unsure, veto if blatant circumvention.

 

Kind of like the trading back players rule.

[Higgins 3,617]

5. Implementation

 

If the first wave is 10 players, I believe the salary cap should rise by 2 million to account for 10 new rookie contracts at an average of 2 million each. 32 to 34 million.

 

If the next wave had a new 10 players, raise another 2 million to 36 million.

[Victor 10,536]

23 minutes ago, Higgins said:

5. Implementation

 

If the first wave is 10 players, I believe the salary cap should rise by 2 million to account for 10 new rookie contracts at an average of 2 million each. 32 to 34 million.

 

If the next wave had a new 10 players, raise another 2 million to 36 million.

Trade deadline creation would mean those 10 players are in the VHLM first.

 

So if S51 trade deadline opened up to second players, S52 would go up to 33mil, while S53 would be 34mil when the players actually come in.

[Higgins 3,617]

5 minutes ago, Victor said:

Trade deadline creation would mean those 10 players are in the VHLM first.

 

So if S51 trade deadline opened up to second players, S52 would go up to 33mil, while S53 would be 34mil when the players actually come in.

 

 

I meant to say cap would increase the same off-season as their VHL draft

 

[Frank 4,764]

I changed my mind I like this

[gregreg 930]

Good job Alfie, makes it easier when it's all in one post 

[Banackock 7,642]

I say the salary cap should be hire once implemented.. With the amount of people having a second player.. we're only going to raise the cap by 1 Million. Makes much sense to double or ALMOST double the league in player amount, but raise the salary cap by 6%. If this is being done, we'll have to raise the cap significantly while taking into consideration of a new bracket. OR, keep the same bracket but raise the cap to the 40-50M range. Again, we won't need it for all teams to be higher.. but for teams competing, we're already against the cap and we barely have a line of players.. which is bullshit.. We're not doing this move to be like the VHLM and "Level things out". IF we're doing this to make ALL teams more equal, fuck that. This should be simply to have more players in the league. It's the job of the GM to make their teams EQUAL or not - not something like this.

 

So if Victor wants 11 active people a team, that leaves us with 3.3 M for each player based off a 33 M salary cap. That's 11 400-600 TPE players. Not bad I suppose, but doesn't allow you to fully rage out and compete. Thus, raise the cap. 

 

 I also say abolish the "3 year" wait period thing. I also state that you allow us to do it whenever, because I can assure you I want a 2nd player and won't be happy missing cut off and that it's going to result in a super draft anyway so you might as well enjoy a super draft every 8 seasons. Plus, it's no guarantee it'll be a super draft. How many people actually have the time to run 2 players and create 2 elite stars off them? Some players may flop or only reach 300-400 tpe etc.

 

Either way, adding 15 players to a draft that may likely already have 5-6 old gen recreates and new members is already boosting the draft caliber.  

 

Just my 2 cents. 

[Banackock 7,642]

2 hours ago, Higgins said:

5. Implementation

 

If the first wave is 10 players, I believe the salary cap should rise by 2 million to account for 10 new rookie contracts at an average of 2 million each. 32 to 34 million.

 

If the next wave had a new 10 players, raise another 2 million to 36 million.

That's just accounting for rookie contracts.. what happens when they're Prime players at $4 500 000? 

Is EVERY contending team going to have to trade their rookie players to shitty teams because they can no longer afford them simply because we raised the player amount more than the salary cap?

 

We're simply taking into affect the "rookie player", not later on down the road". It's great that everyne wants to make every single team in the league have a chance and contend, but that's not realistic. You have your shit teams, average ones and all in/contending teams. This should give teams the power to have lots of youth and very bright future, a but of both and coming along or a really good line up for contending that extends passed one full fucking set of Dmen and forwards because that's all the salary cap allows us to afford.

 

I'm maxed out for contending right now cap wise and I have a limited amount of 600+ tpe players. If I wish to acquire more 600+ tpe players, I need to rid of my youth at essentially a 2 to 1 ratio. The cap imo is already problematic or not 100% efficient. This would only cause issues and would need more than a 2 M raise to have things run how I'm sure we'd want it too. 

[Will 4,604]

26 minutes ago, Banackock said:

How many people actually have the time to run 2 players and create 2 elite stars off them? Some players may flop or only reach 300-400 tpe etc.

 

You acknowledge this when talking about the season limit but fail to acknowledge it when talking about the salary cap

[Banackock 7,642]

Just now, Draper said:

 

You acknowledge this when talking about the season limit but fail to acknowledge it when talking about the salary cap

You have to plan for worst and best scenario, Draper. WHAT IF a lot of those who recreate are able to maintain 2 players? Wouldn't you of wished the cap was higher. Always better to plan with more available and adjust accordingly after a season or two. 

 

Either way, me having a 300 tpe player and a 700 tpe player is 4.5 and 2 M.. for 6.5 M total. 

 

Having Victor's "Every 3 year" thing will help with this slightly as you wont have both players at 600 TPE raping you at 4.5 M a piece..

 

But you have to plan for worst and best - worst being a lot flop or cant maintain well enough - best being a lot can. Regarding the amount we can do turn earn TPE, I'd say it's fairly manageable for those who to choose 2 players to maintain and build up both. Thus, we'd need a more significant bump up that 1-2 M. 10 added players is essentially an extra player or 2 on every team depending on drafts and then Free agency. 1-2 M will no be enough for a team to successful hold players and would cause a lot of unstable rosters etc. 

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Jobs to both. Donations to both. Maybe you could get more people to donate that way.

[Banackock 7,642]

1 minute ago, Da Trifecta said:

Jobs to both. Donations to both. Maybe you could get more people to donate that way.

I'd def, likely donate for both. MAYBE  Or let us donate twice for one SIMPLY in our first season  

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Just now, Banackock said:

I'd def, likely donate for both. MAYBE  Or let us donate twice for one SIMPLY in our first season  

 

See while some people would donate twice, others would only want once. Some people shouldn't have to be penalized because they only have enough to donate once instead of two amounts.

[Banackock 7,642]

Just now, Da Trifecta said:

 

See while some people would donate twice, others would only want once. Some people shouldn't have to be penalized because they only have enough to donate once instead of two amounts.

Well, some don't have enough to donate once.. so are they penalized as well? Essentially, based off what you say, that is penalizing them due to them not being able to afford it and be equal when it comes to earning TPE. Simply and utmost discrimination. 

 

That's like saying we need to take away TPE because you don't have time to do em. Not my problem.

 

But I see your point.

 

Mine was simply a joke   

[Banackock 7,642]

Just now, Banackock said:

Well, some don't have enough to donate once.. so are they penalized as well? Essentially, based off what you say, that is penalizing them due to them not being able to afford it and be equal when it comes to earning TPE. Simply and utmost discrimination. 

 

That's like saying we need to take away TPE because you don't have time to do em. Not my problem.

 

But I see your point.

 

Mine was simply a joke   

ON that not though @Da Trifecta

 

You think it's penalizing people by allowing us to donate twice.. yet your idea is to... donate... twice.. Mine is simply with one player, yours being two.. So if they can't afford two with one player.. how will they afford 2 with individual donations to one player..? PENALIZING. 

[Devise 4,475]

I'm pretty against the idea about all the restrictions preventing players to be on the same team together. I guess I just don't get it. I don't see any example that isn't extreme that would get super abused. Especially if we keep the salary cap balanced. I mean, if your a GM for example and you already have an elite player and your missing that depth piece, we are literally going to say that the GM has no way unless he trades for him, of acquiring his own depth player to fill a hole in the line up. That, seems, silly. The purpose of this is to add to the strategic elements, not limit them. 

 

Also, the non PT stuff such as fantasy, jobs, etc, should apply to both players. I'm also fine with Higgins idea of taking 10 players from a lottery and letting them get going that way. However I do think the player age requirement should be higher. You shouldn't be able to ever create a second player unless your current player is 4 seasons into his career. I feel that should be constantly maintained so that is always the case. If your player is currently in their sixth season, you can create a new player, but as your older player retires you can't create another new one until your current/younger player reaches the 4 season old mark. This discourages early retirement just for the sake of creating another second player. 

[FacePuncher 1,343]

TO DISCUSS: Is there a potential issue here if a GM wants to trade for their other player? Could force opposing GM's hand/acquire for lower than true value of player.

 

how would this work at all?

 

3. GM players

 

Regardless of the above, I believe one GM player must be on the GM's team at all times. Or have their rights owned by the team like Travis Gowecny or Sven Wolf atm. Basically one GM player continued to adhere to current GM player rules. Likewise, you can not take over a team without at least one of your players on board (which should be easier than what it is now anyway).

 

Ewwwwwwwwwww