12-05-2021, 05:20 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote:

12-05-2021, 04:13 PMsve7en Wrote: That's an error on my part, we have hit our peaks this season and have started to benefit from that. I meant to specify that we haven't to the same degree. Saying S53 got to play with TPE levels over what the old eras were limited at is pretty disingenuous as it doesn't take into account that the season we played at 1600 to the elite's 2100, we're at 75% of their TPE. TPE numbers matter in the contexts of what those are able to perform at and represent relative to the top of the league.

To expand on that though, I was called up to LAP in S56 after spending a 4th season in the J, at the time me and my classmates like Lime were the highest TPE rookies in league history. We were right about 1000 TPE, where Rex Kirkby had just regressed and updated to 1800 and Winter had just moved to 1650. When the FHM change happened 3 seasons prior you and Kirkby debuted with an 1800 and 1750 build respectively. All of this occurred on the old scale as well. Season 47 went from 1400 at the to over 2k in that range, and the slightly older players got the full ride at the top - many of us only knew the career arc that we were watching unfold. The S50-53 classes all had their power level brought down a bit with the new update scale, which was a good move and something I absolutely support at this point, and if we need to continue to elevate lower TPE players that's perfectly fine. As a radical view, I'd be fine with rookies playing at 80% of what we can play at with our 2k TPE. Give them 16s wherever and make them competitive, yes it has issues with grind/slog, but myself and many others are fine with not putting up 80 point seasons for half a decade. Hell, if the S51-S55 didn't end up on TEX/Great Lakes we never really experienced a lot of that to begin with.

You are right in that you guys also had to compete with other even higher TPE players on your way to the 2000+ TPE peak. I guess it depends a bit on your perspective, I would argue that at 1900 TPE you are still in a much better situation to beat up on a 800 TPE player than the 1500 TPE peak players of the past were, whereas for you the more important aspect is that some other player is sitting even higher at 2100 TPE. At the end of the day it's probably a bit of a personal preference as well, I was never a fan of that overly comparatative view on this league where it's all about TPE leaderboards within a class or where class as a whole stands in TPE compared to some other class, but that seems to be a very prevalent mindset in the younger draft classes. I just don't think it's a very healthy approach and sets it people up for frustration and disappointment the second something goes wrong or something unexpected happens. It also paralyzes us as a league when we can't do big changes anymore because every significant change to the system will eventually impact some classes more than others and that is never completely fair. If we can't have any significant change because of that and only ever very small and incremental adjustments then I don't see how the league can tackle the huge challenges that lie ahead.

I'm not quite sure why you bring up Kirkby or Winter here, this is absolutely not about us defending any past advantages that you claim we've had. Hell I've been arguing for more parity ever since we started on our FHM-journey, when my player was at the height of his career, annoying quite a few people as I just wouldn't shut up about it even when everyone was still saying that this isn't a problem at all or one that will solve itself if just given some time. And my position on this has been consistent through my prime, my twilight years and it still is now that I'm about to start my next player. This isn't about my players but about the health of the league as a whole, which has been in a steady decline ever since the problem was first brought up, and I'm sure that the same is true for the other older members commenting in here as well. Even if we did chip in here in order to protect our old accomplishments this would be a lost cause anyway, as they'll all be shattered sooner or later thanks to 66 game seasons with both higher and more consistent scoring for the top players.

The core point of comparison between the engines is that it's not about TPE available, it's about TPE applied. And you could only apply about 1500 TPE effectively in STHS and with quickly diminishing returns, everything beyond that either went into attributes that didn't matter or went straight into the bank to fight regression. There absolutely were 2000+ TPE players in our classes (I wasn't one of them btw), the difference is that they effectively only played with 1500 TPE until FHM came along. Kirkby and I fell into that weird limbo where we got to spent about half of our careers in each engine and at least to me, it didn't feel like we were benefactors of the engine change at all. Hell my last season in STHS was my only MVP-caliber season whereas after the switch to FHM I was never a top-caliber player in the league again. That right there is the difference between being a 1650 TPE player in a league where there effectively is a soft-cap of 1500 TPE, and being a 1650 TPE player in a league where you have 2200 TPE players that can effectively use all those TPE on useful attributes. And all that is felt even more by someone who isn't at 1650 TPE but 1500, 1200 or even lower.

So going by your logic I guess I could also argue that I was "robbed" of some of my peak as well, that our draft class was "nuked", because we went from being top of the league with the opportunity to fight off regression for a few more seasons to good-but-not-great when the sim change happened. And if you ask other people from other classes or eras they can probably also point you to some sort of change that impacted them more negatively than others, be it update scale, regression or engine based. It's the nature of the league, whenever we do big changes some people will be more affected by it than others and right now we have to do a lot of these changes in rapid succession due to the crisis we find ourselves in. And in this case here, these consequences are hitting a draft class that doesn't even realize how got it has had it so far in terms of TPE-earning opportunities and ways to set themselves apart from lower TPE players. Yet I don't see people being humble about any of this at all, what I mostly see is a sense of being entitled to certain priviliges that didn't even exist until a few seasons ago and that have contributed massively to the parity crisis we are finding ourselves in. Yet nobody is willing to let even just a few of those advantages go because hell, the class before yours had them so obviously you must have them as well. This is just not a helpful approach, be it in a league like this or when talking about any real world social issue.

I bring up the last era of players because it feels like most of the "get over it" crowd comes from those draft classes. I agree that there are selfish intents in some of the elite players complaints right now, but it feels like that broad explanation of self indulgence is being applied to all aspects of people having issues with this. 

The league shifted to an engine that didn't provide the levels of diminishing returns seen in the past and I get where this addresses that. We're coming full circle though, my base complaint is that this affects two classes disproportionately. It makes sense how changes to the tpe curve will benefit the league. If it means moving from the 4 season plateau to 2 seasons at the top, that's fine. Being the first classes to deal with that wouldn't be fun but it'd be OK long term, but the move to 9 season regression takes one of those seasons away from each of two classes before allowing it to later classes again. Is it selfish to want the same as future classes? Maybe, but it's less than what some people are insinuating, especially when we have alternative options to provide a similar effect.

I at least believe I fully understand your perspective, but I can't sit by and take something that is specifically unfair when it's clearly not been fully explored.