12-03-2021, 09:56 AMAcsolap Wrote:

12-03-2021, 09:46 AMleviadan Wrote: @Acsolap I understand that, but what I don't feel like is being communicated, and maybe I'm just dumb for not understanding this because I'm not particularly engaged with the GM / FHM side of the site, is what is inherently wrong with more people hitting 2K or with 2K being hit earlier? Why is it such an issue that it justifies totally gutting the work that many of us have put in over the last two years vs. simply a steeper fall off?

As of right now you are on 41 more tpe than I "reached" and I was in the top 10 earners in site history at the time. Which means by the time all the off season tpe is added you'll probabaly end up closer to or over 2300 tpe.

The idea is to narrow the width between the super stars of the league, the middling players and the rookies entering the league and therefore create a more competitive and interesting environment.

I get that it doesn't feel great being on the receiving end of it but it you imprint your career onto mine you'll see that there isn't much difference at all. I was 1810 tpe after regression my first season for example. It's important to note that everyone is getting beaten with the same stick outside of the few remaining geriatrics in the league who borderline retirement anyway (I'm done this off season which was nothing to do with this).

Ultimately you'll still be at the top of the pile come next season and there or there abouts the season or two after. The major difference is that your peak will be shorter as will all future generations but this needs to happen for the sake of this game we mostly enjoy playing. The league is stagnating badly and without significant change it won't be able to sustain itself.

12-03-2021, 10:12 AMsve7en Wrote: OK, but why are we trying to use earlier regression to solve TPE inflation when that causes everyone to fast forward through a season they were looking forward to. Teams and players are getting their windows partially skipped over with this implementation when you could just manage TPE schedules differently and/or frontload the first regression season.

As an aside, TPE inflation doesn't hurt the way the league plays. You can scale everything up or down, the only things affected are your visible peak numbers and similar cosmetic/historic affects, and the inflation didn't seem to matter to the people complaining until their numbers got surpassed.

12-02-2021, 09:36 PMhonkerrs Wrote:

12-02-2021, 09:22 PMhockeyiscool Wrote: I didn't expect this from you. For the record I was writing something going against it and all of the many reasons. When I first saw the proposed scale of  draft+ 9, 12, 15,15,15, 18, 20...  I thought it was a joke as it was far different than anything I have seen. I didn't think I needed to voice my concern because another gm made a statement that mirrored my perspective that was not commented on at all by anyone so I didn't feel a need to repeat what was said. I then asked "what is the issue that the regression changes talked about earlier intend to fix and why is it an issue...this was never addressed by HO or communicated by HO at all to then continue the dialog...

maybe your other gm shouldnt have used that day to randomly complain that anc and nlb players get tampered in the shl with no receipts and instead create a meaningful discussion with HO and the tbb LR

12-03-2021, 09:46 AMleviadan Wrote: @Acsolap I understand that, but what I don't feel like is being communicated, and maybe I'm just dumb for not understanding this because I'm not particularly engaged with the GM / FHM side of the site, is what is inherently wrong with more people hitting 2K or with 2K being hit earlier? Why is it such an issue that it justifies totally gutting the work that many of us have put in over the last two years vs. simply a steeper fall off?

12-03-2021, 09:58 AMAcsolap Wrote:

12-03-2021, 09:50 AMEvok Wrote: We did? I honnestly can't find a moment where we actually reduced TPE in an effective manner, would be interessed to know what correction you mentioned that was effective, cause i only see the TPE going up and up and up without actual correction as far as i can see it, else we wouldn't have this problem

Shl players used to be able to do post game threads which is why there were players with 2300+ tpe when most of the recent top earners couldn't break 2150.

12-03-2021, 10:21 AMEvok Wrote:

12-03-2021, 09:58 AMAcsolap Wrote: Shl players used to be able to do post game threads which is why there were players with 2300+ tpe when most of the recent top earners couldn't break 2150.

More details please ? Please define which season your change took effect and which classes it affect ? because all big changes (SHL players bared to do it (around S36ish) and then PGS > Deep Dive, which effectively cut 5 TPE) to post game thread / shows have been in effect for SEASONS before the 'recent' top earner and yet S53 class, which is pretty much around the last time we had playoff play by play (which is also something different) have 9 players over 2150.

12-03-2021, 10:21 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote:

12-03-2021, 09:46 AMleviadan Wrote: @Acsolap I understand that, but what I don't feel like is being communicated, and maybe I'm just dumb for not understanding this because I'm not particularly engaged with the GM / FHM side of the site, is what is inherently wrong with more people hitting 2K or with 2K being hit earlier? Why is it such an issue that it justifies totally gutting the work that many of us have put in over the last two years vs. simply a steeper fall off?

Counter-question, why is it so important to so many people to have 2100 TPE instead of 1900 when what determines you players value is how his relative TPE level is compared to that of his peers? What does that type of highscore thinking accomplish when it gets to the point where people claim the whole league experience is ruined for them when they can't hit an arbitrary number for 2 or 3 out of their 15 total seasons anymore?

This is not meant as a slight against you, you made some very good points in your previous post about the things that are indeed problematic about this change and could maybe have been done better.

12-02-2021, 03:02 PMByrdeMan Wrote:

12-02-2021, 01:46 PMGCool Wrote: Early signs of a decent change

Disagree bad GMs will still be bad GMs

12-03-2021, 10:30 AMAcsolap Wrote:

12-03-2021, 10:21 AMEvok Wrote: More details please ? Please define which season your change took effect and which classes it affect ? because all big changes (SHL players bared to do it (around S36ish) and then PGS > Deep Dive, which effectively cut 5 TPE) to post game thread / shows have been in effect for SEASONS before the 'recent' top earner and yet S53 class, which is pretty much around the last time we had playoff play by play (which is also something different) have 9 players over 2150.

Post game threads got limited to juniors only players but for a time they were available to SHL players. Off the top of my head I think the 31 class were the main benefactors of this.

Edit: pretty sure not limited to just juniors players but to only players in their first smjhl season.

12-03-2021, 10:15 AMleviadan Wrote:

12-03-2021, 09:56 AMAcsolap Wrote: As of right now you are on 41 more tpe than I "reached" and I was in the top 10 earners in site history at the time. Which means by the time all the off season tpe is added you'll probabaly end up closer to or over 2300 tpe.

The idea is to narrow the width between the super stars of the league, the middling players and the rookies entering the league and therefore create a more competitive and interesting environment.

I get that it doesn't feel great being on the receiving end of it but it you imprint your career onto mine you'll see that there isn't much difference at all. I was 1810 tpe after regression my first season for example. It's important to note that everyone is getting beaten with the same stick outside of the few remaining geriatrics in the league who borderline retirement anyway (I'm done this off season which was nothing to do with this).

Ultimately you'll still be at the top of the pile come next season and there or there abouts the season or two after. The major difference is that your peak will be shorter as will all future generations but this needs to happen for the sake of this game we mostly enjoy playing. The league is stagnating badly and without significant change it won't be able to sustain itself.

I'm not arguing against a shorter peak, I am comfortable with and able to stomach a much quicker regression than I was expecting. Like I said 12, 15, 15 even 12, 15, 18 is way steeper than before but is easier to take than-- as RED put it-- the psychological effect of having 400+ TPE robbed on two weeks notice.

I'm still not sure I am fully seeing the argument for why inflation is bad for the league other than "it used to be harder to get 2k." Do 2200 players perform significantly better than 2000 players? When I look at the scoring leaders I don't really feel like that's the case. A lot of the guys there are 2k or sub 2k players. Seems like they're more or less on par with 2.2k folks? Like I said I might just be ignorant to this stuff because I'm not on that side of things, but I feel like this kind of thing should be communicated better to those of us that aren't. Inflation is presented as a self-evident problem without any explanation as to why.

12-03-2021, 10:35 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:

12-02-2021, 03:02 PMByrdeMan Wrote: Disagree bad GMs will still be bad GMs

I'm tired of hearing this "bad GM" take. Let's just make it clear when we hear this what is being said. These people right here:

@JKortesi81 @Pythonic @JayWhy @Citizen of Adraa @Ace @Bayley @Thatguy91 @AgentSmith630 @Mutedfaith @spooked @notorioustig @reid @FuzzSHL @TheDangaZone @Inf1d3l @TheFlash @kenvald @39alaska39

Are you telling me that these are all shit GMs? Or am I just interpreting this wrong? Maybe not shit GMs, that'd be mean. Just bad. Right?

What a load.

I agree with the rest of the post but come the fuck on with that absolute garbage.

12-03-2021, 10:35 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:

12-02-2021, 03:02 PMByrdeMan Wrote: Disagree bad GMs will still be bad GMs

I'm tired of hearing this "bad GM" take. Let's just make it clear when we hear this what is being said. These people right here:

@JKortesi81 @Pythonic @JayWhy @Citizen of Adraa @Ace @Bayley @Thatguy91 @AgentSmith630 @Mutedfaith @spooked @notorioustig @reid @FuzzSHL @TheDangaZone @Inf1d3l @TheFlash @kenvald @39alaska39

Are you telling me that these are all shit GMs? Or am I just interpreting this wrong? Maybe not shit GMs, that'd be mean. Just bad. Right?

What a load.

I agree with the rest of the post but come the fuck on with that absolute garbage.

12-03-2021, 10:35 AMleviadan Wrote:

12-03-2021, 10:21 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Counter-question, why is it so important to so many people to have 2100 TPE instead of 1900 when what determines you players value is how his relative TPE level is compared to that of his peers? What does that type of highscore thinking accomplish when it gets to the point where people claim the whole league experience is ruined for them when they can't hit an arbitrary number for 2 or 3 out of their 15 total seasons anymore?

This is not meant as a slight against you, you made some very good points in your previous post about the things that are indeed problematic about this change and could maybe have been done better.

I think you're right, it's largely arbitrary whether me or other peak players are at 2100 or 1900 if the on ice outcome is roughly the same. I don't really think I have a high score mentality with the site, despite what my TPE might imply. What hits hard about it is that the 400 TPE being taken is representative of something like 10+ PTs / mPTs, multiple CWs, a few hours of media for seasons of top coaching, etc. The fact that we all had to do that to just have it slashed... sucks? I should have just stopped when I hit 2k if I knew that was the HO approved TPE peak.

I max earned because I had fun doing it and because I wanted to have a really strong player. I understand that everyone being slashed means that I'll still be a top player. I'm fine with that, and I'm fine with a shorter peak. I see that it's good for the league and I agree with it. What I don't feel like is being adequately explained is why TPE inflation is an issue other than it's making 2k less prestigious. I see the need for harsher regression, what I don't see the need for is undoing hours of PT/CW/media work for the sake of what appears to just be trying to maintain the TPE prestige and the TPE records of older players.