12-04-2021, 04:09 PMAcsolap Wrote:

12-04-2021, 03:44 PMsve7en Wrote: Playing with the numbers has done almost nothing to solve the issue the first two times, surely this third attempt to play with numbers will put a restriction on how dominant some forms of competitive advantage are.

Changes take time to come to fruition. You are seeing teams having to release higher tpe players now such as buffalo with Aumy and I would argue that while maybe not in championships there has been a narrowing between the top and the bottom due to the scale change.

I also wanna touch on this real quick I think, tying my initial statement, the responses from Finn and Acsolap about this, and my long post above together.

These numerical changes like the update scale do have an effect, they make it harder on teams to stay good but it doesn't affect parity. Teams like Buffalo have a harder time keeping all their talent but they still thrive because there's more to this league than just accumulating TPE. As I mentioned above and in my response to Finn, you can thrive despite that due to having multiple competitive advantages, and these advantages are the source of imbalance in the league. It's fine that they exist, they should exist, but their impact is massive compared to what is healthy for the league and compared to what is seen in real life (since we love to compare to the NHL around here when committing to decisions).

It can be weird to see me talk as if playing with numbers doesn't solve the issue, while also advocating for it in my long post. This is not because I think that the update scale solves the parity issue but because I don't think changing regression does shit long term either, and if we're gonna identify the gap between rookies and elite players as an issue, this is a real fix to that, just as making the regression percentages different is a real fix to career lengths.