12-05-2021, 03:02 PM(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 03:04 PM by leviadan.)
12-05-2021, 08:37 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: This is a really tough issue for me right now because on the one hand I understand people being upset and the devastating emotional effect of this change being dropped on people like that. But at the same time, I really hope that we won't be looking back at this situation in a few months or years as the day where S53 and 54s sacrificed the health of the league so they could keep their shiny 2k badges.
I've definitely calmed on the whole thing after some time. I like to think I've been decently transparent about the fact that my reaction is largely just that it sucks to get gutted a bunch of TPE. I am all in favour of improving parity, I want the league to be more interesting and exciting for everyone despite being on one of the "juggernaut" teams that performs well. My main thought, being a couple of days removed from it now, is that I still hope there's a way to handle this without making a decent portion of users feel hurt by it. I get that's it's for the greater good, but my hope is that there's somehow a gentler way of doing it.
I think it's a little harsh to say it's only about wanting people to keep shiny badges or whatever. Regardless of how you feel about TPE, like I said in my first post, those 400 points represent tangible work that was done. I can't fault people for feeling like some of the hours they've put in to media or PTs or whatever was for nothing when, in S53s case, they're losing around 10% that they have no chance of earning back.
It's hard, and while I'm not in the camp that's looking to retire or won't recreate-- I've heard and seen from people on Discord how this hurts and I can't really fault them at all for feeling that way because they're right. It's for the health of the league, but it sucks for those most affected in the short term. Ultimately I want the league to be more exciting, so if this is something I just have to eat for things to get closer to that goal then I'll eat it.
All I hope is that users smarter than me like Bromanov or 7 that have more data and experience can work with HO to find a way to achieve the same goal with less harm. Is that possible? I have no idea. Is it unfair to hope for? I don't think so.
12-05-2021, 03:29 PM(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 03:31 PM by RomanesEuntDomus.)
12-05-2021, 02:25 PMsve7en Wrote:
12-05-2021, 01:40 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Thank you for bringing that up again because I wanted to touch on the "1500 TPE was the cap in STHS" argument as well, as it wasn't me who brought it up the first time but Tommy I think? This really is a crucial point that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention in the discussion so far. The problem with FHM and parity as a whole isn't necessarily that certain players or GMs are "too good". It's that the engine rewards relatively small differences in roster quality and GM skill with way too big of a result. A good team should be beating a team that is a bit worse than them but not all that much maybe 65% of the time, not 80-90% as we've seen in recent years. The gap between the top-tier of the league and the good to average teams should be 30 points or so, not 50 or 60. So if the differences in player quality have too big of an impact in the sim, we need to look into lowering this discrepancy which is exactly what this change does.
Some people, especially those who only joined in the S50s, don't realize how much bigger the gap between the best and the rest has become since our change to FHM. The reason for bringing up the fact that you could only apply around 1500 TPE or so effectively in STHS before you had to put TPE into stuff that was barely useful or bank it for regression, is not to point out how tough the poor older players have had it in the past. No, the point is to show that after the engine switch, we went from a league where people who competed with each other were all in about the 800 to 1500 TPE range to a league where 800 TPE players suddenly have to compete with people with over 2300 TPE, so three times their TPE. Even the gap between 1500 TPE and 2300 TPE players is as big as the entire TPE gap from the very top to the very bottom was in the previous era. The differences in the update scale between the different engines do negate some of that of course, but not all of it.
I know correlation isn't causation, but this is exactly when our parity problems started. And who were the biggest benefactors of that change? The people who created in about the S50-S55 range, who spent their entire careers in the FHM era and are now at or reaching their peak - the very ones who are now upset about this regressions change. You are upset about something being taken away from you that nobody who came before you even had in the first place. Nobody who came before you had the chance to beat up on 800 TPE players with 2300 TPE, that basically started with you and if the last seasons are any indication, this is one of the main factors that has been ruining peoples enjoyment of the league. That's why HO wants to change this and tackle players career "peaks", because those peaks are so much higher than ever before.
Kinda want to take this on because I think we are legitimately on the same page about this regarding parity - the level of randomness in results, the slant in win percentage for a single game is too steep. Additionally, the competitive advantage of a good roster is massively impactful and we're both well aware of that, but if that was the only function of team success we'd see TBB among others as way more successful at this point. Parity goes beyond numbers and players at this point.
I agree that these users with peaking players right now feel shorted out of success that they think they've earned, and agree that there's a lot of selfishness in there from some. I'd contest a part of this though, because the most vocal about this (S53-54, 55 has been notably quieter) are mad about the loss of peak seasons and these are people who haven't yet benefited from the FHM scale changes. When we came into the league, seasons 53-58 on the new engine as J players and as rookies, there was a different wave of people at the top. Those players, S43-49 were the ones that got to spend a full career dunking on lower TPE players and it has the perception that now that they're done benefiting from it they're ok with leaving that system in the past. Both sides are arguing from a more selfish side than they might want to admit.
There is an issue with how low TPE players, both young and old, compared to the elite of the league, but this idea which caps top end TPE has a similar effect to making the update scale different and frontloading regression. The former brings lower TPE players up to a higher percentage of the league's skill ceiling just as it did before and the latter halves the number of people playing at that level which leaves the top end weaker on average. Both of these are even possible at the same time to multiplicative effect. Beyond those changes, we've seen effective use of a cap on applied TPE in the STHS days, and that also didn't obliterate engagement, though I'd not like to see this.
This is not the total fix for parity, which Nour acknowledged, and it's not the only fix for lower TPE player performance.
I absolutely agree that parity goes way beyond this issue right here and that the tactics-related aspects of FHM play just as big of a if not a bigger role than the TPE-side of things. I hope and am confident that we tackle that part of the problem as well soon. If we don't and HO indeed only tries to solve the parity issue through the regression system then they would deserved a lot of criticism coming their way.
I strongly contest your point though that the S53/54 classes haven't benefitted of the FHM scale changes yet. Some players from the S53 class are at what, 2200 TPE now? At around 200 to 250 TPE available per season thats about 3 seasons that they already got to perform at above 1500 TPE which was the amount that previous players capped out at - and even with the new regression system they will be able to stay above that mark for a lot more seasons.
None of the S43-49 players got to "dunk" on their competition the same way that the S50-55 classes did. Previous classes did their "dunking" with 1500 TPE applied, S50-55 did their dunking with up to 2400 TPE. And you could even argue that an 800 or 1200 TPE player in the old engine was better than their equivalent in the new engine, so the edge that the high TPE players have in the new sim is even bigger, although that is probably taking that whole discussion a bit too far into the hypotheticals.
Regarding this point...
Quote:There is an issue with how low TPE players, both young and old, compared to the elite of the league, but this idea which caps top end TPE has a similar effect to making the update scale different and frontloading regression. The former brings lower TPE players up to a higher percentage of the league's skill ceiling just as it did before and the latter halves the number of people playing at that level which leaves the top end weaker on average. Both of these are even possible at the same time to multiplicative effect. Beyond those changes, we've seen effective use of a cap on applied TPE in the STHS days, and that also didn't obliterate engagement, though I'd not like to see this.
... a lot of this depends on the specific numbers, it could go the way you describe it or it couldn't depending on how it is set up exactly. There are two things I'd like to add here though: One, there is quite a bit of a psychological difference between making progression slower in order to lower career TPE earnings, and keeping progression the same but make players hit their ceiling a bit earlier. Even if the ceiling is exactly the same, the experience is different. There are legitimate arguments for both approaches but I would argue that progression is already so slow (especially for those further into their careers) that we can't slow things down even further on the earning/TPE application side without things feeling like even more of a slog than they already do for many. Now for those of you that just got hit with this change out of thin air and essentially got their ceilings lowered overnight it's a shitty short-term experience as well, no doubt. But for me the trade-off is still smaller than if we cut back on the other side of the scale.
Especially since, and that brings me to my second point, you are still the top of the league, you just have to share it with a few more people. You guys keep claiming that this change halves the number of people playing at the highest level or that it "nukes" the peak of an entire class of players, which just isn't true. You guys still have your peak. You still are at the top of the league. You still have a wider edge on the middle to lower tier of players than everyone pre-S50 had. If your entire experience of this league is ruined, as some of you has claimed, because you so badly need that one season where you are not just the top of the league but also can't live with another class sharing that top with you then sorry, I have little sympathy for that approach and have a hard time not to call it out as selfish.
12-05-2021, 03:02 PMleviadan Wrote: I think it's a little harsh to say it's only about wanting people to keep shiny badges or whatever. Regardless of how you feel about TPE, like I said in my first post, those 400 points represent tangible work that was done. I can't fault people for feeling like some of the hours they've put in to media or PTs or whatever was for nothing when, in S53s case, they're losing around 10% that they have no chance of earning back.
This is just how regression is though? Like yes there's tangible work done but you were always going to lose that work when you are in regression. You're losing TPE that you can't get back.
12-05-2021, 04:13 PM(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 04:17 PM by sve7en.)
12-05-2021, 03:29 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I strongly contest your point though that the S53/54 classes haven't benefitted of the FHM scale changes yet. Some players from the S53 class are at what, 2200 TPE now? At around 200 to 250 TPE available per season thats about 3 seasons that they already got to perform at above 1500 TPE which was the amount that previous players capped out at - and even with the new regression system they will be able to stay above that mark for a lot more seasons.
None of the S43-49 players got to "dunk" on their competition the same way that the S50-55 classes did. Previous classes did their "dunking" with 1500 TPE applied, S50-55 did their dunking with up to 2400 TPE. And you could even argue that an 800 or 1200 TPE player in the old engine was better than their equivalent in the new engine, so the edge that the high TPE players have in the new sim is even bigger, although that is probably taking that whole discussion a bit too far into the hypotheticals.
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. At the same time Season 47 went from 1400 at the to over 2k in that range, and the players between you and them had 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.
12-05-2021, 04:30 PM(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 04:41 PM by leviadan.)
12-05-2021, 04:06 PMSymmetrik Wrote:
12-05-2021, 03:02 PMleviadan Wrote: I think it's a little harsh to say it's only about wanting people to keep shiny badges or whatever. Regardless of how you feel about TPE, like I said in my first post, those 400 points represent tangible work that was done. I can't fault people for feeling like some of the hours they've put in to media or PTs or whatever was for nothing when, in S53s case, they're losing around 10% that they have no chance of earning back.
This is just how regression is though? Like yes there's tangible work done but you were always going to lose that work when you are in regression. You're losing TPE that you can't get back.
It isn't entirely the same situation though. With the regular regression you could earn back some of that. In this case, for S53s at least, the extra regression penalty means we're being hit with what is essentially a season of regression that we can't fight. That's why it feels like wasted work, because we're getting 10% or so dinged without any chance to fight it.
At least with normal regression you know the TPE you're earning is to put you in a better spot to earn it back throughout the season. Here it's a one-time cut that just... happens.
It might have been more correct of me to say that "200" TPE represents tangible work, because that's the bonus penalty.
12-05-2021, 05:20 PM(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 05:32 PM by RomanesEuntDomus.)
12-05-2021, 04:13 PMsve7en Wrote:
12-05-2021, 03:29 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I strongly contest your point though that the S53/54 classes haven't benefitted of the FHM scale changes yet. Some players from the S53 class are at what, 2200 TPE now? At around 200 to 250 TPE available per season thats about 3 seasons that they already got to perform at above 1500 TPE which was the amount that previous players capped out at - and even with the new regression system they will be able to stay above that mark for a lot more seasons.
None of the S43-49 players got to "dunk" on their competition the same way that the S50-55 classes did. Previous classes did their "dunking" with 1500 TPE applied, S50-55 did their dunking with up to 2400 TPE. And you could even argue that an 800 or 1200 TPE player in the old engine was better than their equivalent in the new engine, so the edge that the high TPE players have in the new sim is even bigger, although that is probably taking that whole discussion a bit too far into the hypotheticals.
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.
12-05-2021, 05:27 PM(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 05:28 PM by Mook.)
12-05-2021, 01:40 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I know correlation isn't causation, but this is exactly when our parity problems started. And who were the biggest benefactors of that change? The people who created in about the S50-S55 range, who spent their entire careers in the FHM era and are now at or reaching their peak - the very ones who are now upset about this regressions change. You are upset about something being taken away from you that nobody who came before you even had in the first place. Nobody who came before you had the chance to beat up on 800 TPE players with 2300 TPE, that basically started with you and if the last seasons are any indication, this is one of the main factors that has been ruining peoples enjoyment of the league. That's why HO wants to change this and tackle players career "peaks", because those peaks are so much higher than ever before.
S53/54 Humbled real quick.
Nicely put RED
EDIT: I'm behind in the thread, too busy for drama that isn't happening in the offseason
12-05-2021, 05:56 PM(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 05:59 PM by sve7en.)
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.
12-04-2021, 07:00 PMZema Wrote: Maybe the problem isn't actually fully about the regression changes, and more about just how long in real life years a career is. I find it pretty ridiculous that you have to spend two years of your life not missing a beat for a week or two to reach the cream of the crop in this league. The seasons simply take far too long to get through.
I think this regression change would be better received if the S53/54 guys didn't spend 2 years of their lives on their players, and instead around 14 months.
Thanks for coming, I'll be going back to inactivity now.
This might not be the point of the thread, but I agree with you. I think this is a personal preference question, because I've heard some people say they like how long a career is because of the effort put into a player.
I think careers are too long in every aspect, spending 6-8 months in the J is too long, taking a year and a half to two years to become a good/great player in the SHL is too long, having a player for 3+ years is too long, and the IRL time it takes to rebuild a team through the draft takes too long. IDK what the solution would be, but speeding up career progression/season times would IMO lead to a better experience.
12-04-2021, 07:00 PMZema Wrote: Maybe the problem isn't actually fully about the regression changes, and more about just how long in real life years a career is. I find it pretty ridiculous that you have to spend two years of your life not missing a beat for a week or two to reach the cream of the crop in this league. The seasons simply take far too long to get through.
I think this regression change would be better received if the S53/54 guys didn't spend 2 years of their lives on their players, and instead around 14 months.
Thanks for coming, I'll be going back to inactivity now.
This might not be the point of the thread, but I agree with you. I think this is a personal preference question, because I've heard some people say they like how long a career is because of the effort put into a player.
I think careers are too long in every aspect, spending 6-8 months in the J is too long, taking a year and a half to two years to become a good/great player in the SHL is too long, having a player for 3+ years is too long, and the IRL time it takes to rebuild a team through the draft takes too long. IDK what the solution would be, but speeding up career progression/season times would IMO lead to a better experience.
I think the discussions are somewhat related. One of the big reasons for this change in regression seem to be wanting a higher player turnover. Making the seasons shorter would really help with that.
I agree with you on all points. I don't like that some teams have been dominating for some seasons now. But the biggest problem I've have with it is just how long irl it has been.
Shortening the regular season in half would be a good start. Would earn another 3 or so seasons in a calendar year on that change alone.
12-05-2021, 10:57 AMslothfacekilla Wrote: I'm confused, haven't Bromanov and 7 suggested concrete alternative solutions that don't rob an entire draft class of one of their peak seasons? Bromanov even posted charts he made I'm not sure how you missed it.
I've only seen suggestions that either don't target the problems, or create bigger problems.
Reducing the number of TPE available doesn't help reduce the gap between the absolute peak and rookies. I feel like that's an important point not being focused on by alternative solutions. It's not about the difference between 1900 and 2300. It's about the difference between 800 and 1900. That's a lot better for rookies than going up against 2300 TPE. Reducing TPE opportunities reduces TPE for everyone and does nothing to bring the level of rookies closer to the peak (unless you want rookies to spend more time in the minors). It also takes a LONG time to be seen. "Just don't give out so much TPE 3head" doesn't help because it doesn't address one of the big problems. I believe it was RED (I could be wrong) who mentioned that while you could earn more, STHS basically maxed out your useful attributes at ~1500 TPE (and let's not forget we had "archetypes" so you were limited with 1 attribute at 85 and it cost twice as much). FHM doesn't have that, you are actively improving your player still at 2000 TPE and it's led to an absolutely massive gap for rookies. If that's the case, you've got to make things closer between rookies and peak and that starts with reducing the overall TPE available at peak. That's one of the most important parts of moving up the start of regression IMO.
doesnt the re-factored update scale play into the staggering difference between 800 and 1900?
and, to what degree are we fine with that difference? why should an 800 TPE player put up 40 points (or 30, or 20)? Where's the actual line?
Maybe this is speaking past you rather than at you (more directed at others at large), but sometimes it seems like people want a flat league with no high scorers or dominant teams. Whats the reward for building a player up for two years? 60 points at 2k and 40 points 800? This is where I'd like some clarity. The proposed scale is one I will work with, but i see it as a well crafted arrow fired at the wrong target.
leviadan![[Image: pin1_1.gif?ex=665ea534&is=665d53b4&hm=80...8cd6be61d&]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/548291024103931905/1180379100750286879/pin1_1.gif?ex=665ea534&is=665d53b4&hm=80d742d356c9b8e0852d083d9a8e787dc086bb881ec6b518e7a57e58cd6be61d&)
![[Image: symmetrik.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/symmetrik.gif)
![[Image: XtyrY3M.png]](https://i.imgur.com/XtyrY3M.png)
sve7en![[Image: sve7en.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/sve7en.gif)
![[Image: 1tWWEzv.png]](https://i.imgur.com/1tWWEzv.png)
![[Image: 8zFnf2t.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8zFnf2t.png)
![[Image: 6Lj3x8E.png]](https://i.imgur.com/6Lj3x8E.png)
![[Image: xkAdpbO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xkAdpbO.png)
![[Image: xnZrhKU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xnZrhKU.png)
![[Image: 9YigPG2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9YigPG2.png)
![[Image: bpYxJ69.png]](https://i.imgur.com/bpYxJ69.png)
![[Image: creller_dragons.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/831282703767830599/903291231524761640/creller_dragons.png)
![[Image: Pythonic.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Pythonic.gif)
![[Image: Championship_Sig.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/256499331765501952/807015790431698944/Championship_Sig.png)
![[Image: Eo2nBCt.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Eo2nBCt.png)
![[Image: QtEp67y.png]](https://i.imgur.com/QtEp67y.png)
![[Image: 2sRs0Cq.png]](http://i.imgur.com/2sRs0Cq.png)
![[Image: 64377_v.gif]](https://signavatar.com/64377_v.gif)
/ 
![[Image: iUd7IJE.png]](https://i.imgur.com/iUd7IJE.png)
![[Image: rhodes.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/694020619620188191/997234193056665711/rhodes.png)
![[Image: winter-500.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/709471992100945974/1109520965404201021/winter-500.png)
![[Image: BirdmanSHL.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/BirdmanSHL.gif)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/668218443115397133/962504023796224030/unknown.png)
![[Image: K6ykz0o.png]](https://i.imgur.com/K6ykz0o.png)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
PROFILE
![[Image: luketd.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/luketd.gif)
![[Image: premierbromanov.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/premierbromanov.gif)
![[Image: EePsAwN.png]](https://i.imgur.com/EePsAwN.png)
![[Image: sXDU6JX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sXDU6JX.png)
![[Image: eaex9S1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/eaex9S1.png)
