Login

st4rface · 01-10-2022, 12:37 AM

Okay. It's again that time of the season you have to buy an equipment and you don't have enough money for it, because you haven't done anything in this league except earning contract money. I have to buy that equipment. Probably one of the last ones for my player, so I have to do it. Still have a tiny piece of me believing that I could get to 2K TPE club. However, I don't have any ideas what to write about, so I will write about a topic which was pretty hot some time ago and is now just a pee warm, but still important in my opinion. It will be about new regression scale and why in my opinion it's worse than the previous one.

''OTHER SIMULATION LEAGUES HAS REGRESSION EVEN FASTER!!!''

When I first made my comments about new regression scale, I had multiple complains from mostly HO related users. ''This is to make SHL like a real life league!'' I heard from them that we should be grateful here, because other simulation leagues have regression even faster. It made a bit question how this league works, because I never knew this is such a ''race'' between simulation leagues. I've never seen IIHF having the same rule changes as NHL ''to keep up with them''. It just sounds ridiculous. Like - if other has thing like this, we have to have it too. Life doesn't work like that though.

''IT HELPS WITH PARITY!''

I heard comments that this is to get parity back in this league too and that sentence made me laugh. Just few minutes ago I talked about how they wanted this league to be similar to real life. Like, we are acting now like there's parity in real life leagues between best and worst teams. Okay, maybe difference isn't that huge in real life sports as here, but it's still very big. Plus, you have to have different powers of teams, so there is a reason to get better. Would HO be finally happy if we would have 20 SHL teams which has the same amount of points going in to Play-Offs? Is that what parity looks like?

I just wanted to prove that parity isn't such a thing in real life leagues too, so I will show some examples. Let's take a look at few most known sports leagues in the world. Let's start with the hockey, because it's hockey league.

First one is NHL. Most related to SHL, so you can't say that they are two different sports or anything else. NHL is almost in the middle and you can see the real parity here. All teams are similar, right? Well, I think I was pretty obvious to show you my sarcasm. ''Florida Panthers'' leads the league with 51 points while ''Arizona Coyotes'' are the last (who would've thought) with only 17 points. Three times more wins for ''Panthers''. Plus, I want to remind you that their regular season is just in the middle, so it will probably get even worse.

[Image: thumb_show.php?i=nk3t4qkqk]

Let's continue with hockey. For those who are thinking about AHL... AHL has a bit better situation than NHL though, but let's be honest - AHL is pretty random. It's based on call up's, sent down's and mostly random. However... As y'all know - technically, I am a Latvian and KHL is the most popular hockey league here. I think it's pretty popular in other countries too and well known, so let's use them as a second example.

Regular season here is closely to an end, so let's take a look at it. League's leader is ''Magnitogorsk Metallurg'' with 71 points. You wonder which team is the last one and how much points they have? ''Kunlun Red Star'' - 25 points and almost -100 scored/allowed goals ratio. Definitely a parity here.

[Image: thumb_show.php?i=s48skgq57]

Let's change sports for a bit. Let's jump in to the NBA. We will definitely find a parity there, right? Well, actually... People who follows NBA, knows well what's going on there. Best team this season is ''Golden State Warriors'' with 30 wins in 39 games. Worst team? ''Orlando Magic'' - 7 wins in 41 games and they have lost last 9 games in a row. I don't have to continue to prove my point with this one, right?

[Image: thumb_show.php?i=vcfvytxcf]

''PLAYERS IN REAL LIFE GETS WORSE MUCH FASTER!!!''

Then I heard comments that regression scale changes were invented, because our players here are good for too long time. In real life - players are getting bad much faster. And once again - I was shocked to hear such a wack statement. Saw multiple comments that hockey player's peak is at 25 years old and then they are just getting worse very fast. Damn. Alright, yes - they are getting worse, but not that fast as here. Let's take a look at some of the best active hockey players.

Alexander Ovechkin - currently 36 years old, playing in NHL for ''Washington Capitals''. Still averaging 1 point per game, recently had arguably best season in his career and won a Stanley Cup.
Sidney Crosby - currently 34 years old, playing in NHL for ''Pittsburgh Penguins''. Had 100 points season 4 years ago while being 32 years old and still averages a bit over 1 point per game.
Evgeni Malkin - currently 35 years old and injured, but playing in NHL for ''Pittsburgh Penguins''. 4 years ago (being 31 years old), he had 98 points in a season. Still averaging a bit over 1 point per game.
Patrick Kane - currently 33 years old, playing in NHL for ''Chicago Blackhawks''. Had 100 points in a season just 3 years ago (being 30 years old). He is still averaging over 1 point per a game too.
Marc-André Fleury - currently 37 years old, playing in NHL for ''Chicago Blackhakws''. I don't have to really add anything here. You all know damn well how good he is at this age and how he performed just recently when played in Vegas. Still one of the best active goalies.

You know what's the funniest thing here? Even Jaromír Jágr is still playing at the age of 49 in Czech league for ''Rytiri Kladno'' team and has 19 points in 29 games this season. HE PLAYED IN NHL FOR ''CALGARY FLAMES'' WHILE BEING 45 YEARS OLD TOO ASWELL! And there are even more examples. These six players isn't the only ones. I just don't want to make list of dozens of players. It will take too much long time and y'all can search it up by yourself. I just needed to prove a point here and I clearly did it.

''YOU ARE SO DISRESPECTFUL!''

The most funniest thing for me was when I posted a comment that HO truly doesn't care about users. Do not get me wrong - they do... But much less than they actually should. They listen to opinions about not so important topics, but has enough talent to ignore them about topics who are actually important. I received multiple ''- reputations'' and comments that I am a troll, shouldn't be in this league and even more. I should've showed respect to them instead of judging - that's what I heard. Funny is the fact that I made that comment to make HO actually care about users and not to show disrespect. I just assume that you all saw what you wanted to see and not what I actually said. It's about how you want to translate it, because you can translate anything you read to what you want.

I really liked @sve7en post about this topic. You can find it here HERE [CLICK].

He showed how HO literally didn't listen to many complains from users about new regression scale, but in off-season asked to users complete a survey... WHERE YOU HAVE TO SHARE YOUR QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS ABOUT THIS LEAGUE. For real? He talked about regression scale there aswell, plus, showed how HO kinda ignored him and every suggestion he did. They were like ''Yeah, we will take care of it'' and later just didn't respond. Funny that this topic isn't really watched on commented a lot. Looks like people almost ignored it, because why you actually should look at posts. This is what I mean by saying that HO doesn't really care about users. They will listen to some opinions about things that affects league only a bit, but won't listen when there's actually a big changes. It was an important change which wasn't talked with all users about. And that's it.

REGRESSION SCALE IS ALREADY WRONG FROM THE BEGINNING!

The point is that regression scale is bad from the beginning itself. It's built to destroy best and most active players who are holding this league together like a glue. What do I mean by that? Look: regression is based on percentage and not the exact amount.

Example:
Imagine there are two players and both are going in to their second season of regression. One of them is good (has exactly 2000 TPE) and is very active while other one is a decent 4th line player (with exactly 1000 TPE) and coming here like once per week to do weekly routine. They will both lose 15% of their TPE which means - good player will lose 300 TPE while decent player will lose only 150 TPE. Good and active player will lose twice as much TPE as other. So, who's the real winner in this situation? That user who comes here to boost community, has spent here a lot of time and stil does his best to improve his player or that one who's here like once per week and is already under the average? Yeah. I don't have to keep explaining this.

It's just stupid that I want to create another player after this, but at the same time - don't want to. I like this league and I still wanna have a player here, but what's the point of creating another player and investing as much time as I did with this one when my player will be destroyed just few seasons in? My player just played just his sixth SHL season and already has his first regression which resulted in losing 139 TPE. And you can see how it affected (for example) growth of my player. Okay, I continued to do basic PT's and earned all easy TPE, but I didn't do any media or earn money in different ways. Skipped multiple weekly trainings, because why should I waste so much time if my player will anyway get destroyed? You can check my activity before - I did almost every possible training. I skipped like 2 trainings maximum in my career just because of suspenssion I had. And you know what's sad? I still didn't get to 2K TPE club before my regression. And I still don't know if I ever will. You do almost everything what's possible and still don't get there. Such a small thing, but still stupid for a user who invests so much time. Plus, S64 my player will probably be already at 1600 TPE already. Damn.

But yes... ''YoU sHoUlD bE gRaTeFuL, bEcAuSe OtHeR lEaGuEs...'' Yeah, you can just stop your sentence here. ''BuT pArItY...'' Ehmm, no. ''aT lEaSt ThEy ArE dOiNg SoMeThInG...'' Still no. There will be users who think just like me and users who will cuss on me now just because I showed many proof that this regression thing is broken. I'm okay with it though.

RESUME

However, my resume is short, but straight. I still think that HO doesn't really care about users and their opinions. You can call me disrespectful or anything else, but I think it's a fact! I think these changes were invented while not thinking about users who actually spends most of their time here. A lot of users were complaining, but nothing changed and (probably) won't change in the future too. No one was asked about new regression scale and it was just invented. All I can say - well done! You used so many reasons why this new regression scale system was invented, but all of them are so contradictory. Plus, I just proved that all of them are just a complete mess. Just decide what's the real reason then why y'all invented this or find a better way to lie. Or even better - try listening to people who keeps this community together - SIMPLE USERS. This is just getting ridiculous.

That's it for this time. I would love to see what everyone else is thinking. Will something change soon? Or not? Will I get suspended about showing facts? Will see. I hope I didn't miss any other things about new regression scale. I'm not so active as before here anymore, so it may happened, but I think everything was mentioned here. No bad energy. I just don't like to see this league falling apart and this is my way showing you that there are some issues in this league. And I hope they will be fixed. This topic is not so hot anymore, because time has passed and already everyone who had their regressions has done it, but it's still important topic to talk about. And I know that many users feel similar about this situation. Good luck to everyone in the new season though and I hope everyone will have a blessed new year!

Around 2200 words

***boom*** · 01-10-2022, 12:53 AM

Gonna point something out here that caught my eye:

> “Imagine there are two players and both are going in to their second season of regression. One of them is good (has exactly 2000 TPE) and is very active while other one is a decent 4th line player (with exactly 1000 TPE) and coming here like once per week to do weekly routine. They will both lose 15% of their TPE which means - good player will lose 300 TPE while decent player will lose only 150 TPE. Good and active player will lose twice as much TPE as other. So, who's the real winner in this situation? That user who comes here to boost community, has spent here a lot of time and stil does his best to improve his player or that one who's here like once per week and is already under the average? Yeah. I don't have to keep explaining this.“

That’s just…not how it works. The active player loses more raw TPE, but they’ll still be able to earn a good chunk of it back over the course of the season, and they’re starting from a higher TPE level so they’ll stay good longer. The less active user will still die off faster since they’re both starting from a lower baseline and earning less to offset it. I think the new system still allows for users to have long careers if they’re willing to work for it, but it speeds up the cyclical nature of the league which is a good thing imo. I’m really pumped about my next recreate, but if it was viable to keep Hartmann around forever I might feel more guilt/pressure into keeping him alive forever for the good of the time. Instead I can get a natural segue into my next one.

To point out the KHL and NBA examples, some teams in the KHL are basically owned by oil billionaires (oiligarchs?) meaning they have assloads of money. The NBA is also a very star-driven game where one player can make or break a team so I don’t think that’s the best example to use. STHS might have been too random, but FHM isn’t random enough to reflect the true nature of the NHL.

DeletedAtUserRequest · 01-10-2022, 01:00 AM

I get why this issue has hit home for a good portion of the user-base. This topic will be discussed and debated by league historians for years to come.

|

|

|

|

***aleks*** · 01-10-2022, 01:03 AM

GOOD SHIT STARFACE GREAST MUSIC

@nour FUCK U

st4rface · 01-10-2022, 01:04 AM

01-10-2022, 12:53 AMboom Wrote: Gonna point something out here that caught my eye:

> “Imagine there are two players and both are going in to their second season of regression. One of them is good (has exactly 2000 TPE) and is very active while other one is a decent 4th line player (with exactly 1000 TPE) and coming here like once per week to do weekly routine. They will both lose 15% of their TPE which means - good player will lose 300 TPE while decent player will lose only 150 TPE. Good and active player will lose twice as much TPE as other. So, who's the real winner in this situation? That user who comes here to boost community, has spent here a lot of time and stil does his best to improve his player or that one who's here like once per week and is already under the average? Yeah. I don't have to keep explaining this.“

That’s just…not how it works. The active player loses more raw TPE, but they’ll still be able to earn a good chunk of it back over the course of the season, and they’re starting from a higher TPE level so they’ll stay good longer. The less active user will still die off faster since they’re both starting from a lower baseline and earning less to offset it. I think the new system still allows for users to have long careers if they’re willing to work for it, but it speeds up the cyclical nature of the league which is a good thing imo. I’m really pumped about my next recreate, but if it was viable to keep Hartmann around forever I might feel more guilt/pressure into keeping him alive forever for the good of the time. Instead I can get a natural segue into my next one.

To point out the KHL and NBA examples, some teams in the KHL are basically owned by oil billionaires (oiligarchs?) meaning they have assloads of money. The NBA is also a very star-driven game where one player can make or break a team so I don’t think that’s the best example to use. STHS might have been too random, but FHM isn’t random enough to reflect the true nature of the NHL.

But the question was - who is the winner with regression in this situation? Worse players are getting treated better in these situations. And KHL + NBA owners doesn’t change the fact that just some time ago y’all wanted this to be like some real life leagues. You see, some of these sentences doesn’t make a sense, because - you want to accomplish one thing with this change, but then I prove with facts that it’s not working like that and then you bring up another thing. And it keeps going. Regression is needed, but this system isn’t even near to good now.

***boom*** · 01-10-2022, 01:09 AM

Except the regression system doesn’t “target” high earners vs low earners from the same draft class - they just get hit with the same percentage. Making it a flat number would either allow the top of the top to just skate by if it’s too low since they could just earn it back, or it would absolutely bury the lower end of the class if it’s too high. You’re still getting to be on top in the new regression system at the peak of a career, it just isn’t for as long a time. Making a percentage at least allows the top earners to actually lose TPE while not murdering the mid-earners.

If you earn more, you’re going to lose more. A flat number would either let careers go on far too long or destroy anyone who wasn’t a max earner within a few seasons.

Mazatt · 01-10-2022, 01:14 AM

01-10-2022, 01:04 AMst4rface Wrote:
01-10-2022, 12:53 AMboom Wrote: Gonna point something out here that caught my eye:

> “Imagine there are two players and both are going in to their second season of regression. One of them is good (has exactly 2000 TPE) and is very active while other one is a decent 4th line player (with exactly 1000 TPE) and coming here like once per week to do weekly routine. They will both lose 15% of their TPE which means - good player will lose 300 TPE while decent player will lose only 150 TPE. Good and active player will lose twice as much TPE as other. So, who's the real winner in this situation? That user who comes here to boost community, has spent here a lot of time and stil does his best to improve his player or that one who's here like once per week and is already under the average? Yeah. I don't have to keep explaining this.“

That’s just…not how it works. The active player loses more raw TPE, but they’ll still be able to earn a good chunk of it back over the course of the season, and they’re starting from a higher TPE level so they’ll stay good longer. The less active user will still die off faster since they’re both starting from a lower baseline and earning less to offset it. I think the new system still allows for users to have long careers if they’re willing to work for it, but it speeds up the cyclical nature of the league which is a good thing imo. I’m really pumped about my next recreate, but if it was viable to keep Hartmann around forever I might feel more guilt/pressure into keeping him alive forever for the good of the time. Instead I can get a natural segue into my next one.

To point out the KHL and NBA examples, some teams in the KHL are basically owned by oil billionaires (oiligarchs?) meaning they have assloads of money. The NBA is also a very star-driven game where one player can make or break a team so I don’t think that’s the best example to use. STHS might have been too random, but FHM isn’t random enough to reflect the true nature of the NHL.
But the question was - who is the winner with regression in this situation? Worse players are getting treated better in these situations. And KHL + NBA owners doesn’t change the fact that just some time ago y’all wanted this to be like some real life leagues. You see, some of these sentences doesn’t make a sense, because - you want to accomplish one thing with this change, but then I prove with facts that it’s not working like that and then you bring up another thing. And it keeps going. Regression is needed, but this system isn’t even near to good now.

In that case the question is inherently disingenuous. Who is the winner? That's not the point. Each player is given the same opportunity to earn and the player that loses less TPE is only doing so because they didn't earn more. The 1000 TPE goes towards the level of a replaceable 850 TPE player that, given they have earned 1000 TPE thru regression, would mean the player is in a spot where they could easily be usurped by young talent if they aren't some form of elite locker room presence. On the other hand, 1700 TPE from the example is still a top 6 or 1st line player who is going to earn more, and doesn't have to worry about a rookie just up and taking their spot because they lose 10% of their TPE.

The whole argument on whether or not it's fair to base regression off a percentage or a set amount is just creating a point to complain about either though there is no real merit behind saying it's unfair to someone who has earned TPE to lose more TPE as if that's not the point in creating a percentage system that puts players closer to a baseline TPE as careers go on.

Who's the winner in regression when an 800 TPE player and a 2000 TPE player both have to lose 300 TPE?

st4rface · 01-10-2022, 01:29 AM

01-10-2022, 01:14 AMMazatt Wrote:
01-10-2022, 01:04 AMst4rface Wrote: But the question was - who is the winner with regression in this situation? Worse players are getting treated better in these situations. And KHL + NBA owners doesn’t change the fact that just some time ago y’all wanted this to be like some real life leagues. You see, some of these sentences doesn’t make a sense, because - you want to accomplish one thing with this change, but then I prove with facts that it’s not working like that and then you bring up another thing. And it keeps going. Regression is needed, but this system isn’t even near to good now.
In that case the question is inherently disingenuous. Who is the winner? That's not the point. Each player is given the same opportunity to earn and the player that loses less TPE is only doing so because they didn't earn more. The 1000 TPE goes towards the level of a replaceable 850 TPE player that, given they have earned 1000 TPE thru regression, would mean the player is in a spot where they could easily be usurped by young talent if they aren't some form of elite locker room presence. On the other hand, 1700 TPE from the example is still a top 6 or 1st line player who is going to earn more, and doesn't have to worry about a rookie just up and taking their spot because they lose 10% of their TPE.

The whole argument on whether or not it's fair to base regression off a percentage or a set amount is just creating a point to complain about either though there is no real merit behind saying it's unfair to someone who has earned TPE to lose more TPE as if that's not the point in creating a percentage system that puts players closer to a baseline TPE as careers go on.

Who's the winner in regression when an 800 TPE player and a 2000 TPE player both have to lose 300 TPE?

If everyone has the same opportunity then why hard workers lose more than users who do nothing? Why it isn’t exact amount of TPE which are lost per regression season with the limit you can’t go under or you are automatically retired?

Yes, you are still good even with 1700 TPE, but it’s a TPE robbery from users who work hard with their players. It just seems like HO already knows they will grind again with their next player like they did with a previous one, so why would they not invent this new regression scale system.

The winner in a regression is still a user who has less TPE, because he lost less while doing less. Example… It’s like you are a racer who’s doing nothing in off-season and finishes in the 2nd place in a race. In 1st place finishes dude who is a hard working fella who spent entire off-season grinding while second place still got on a podium by doing nothing. Both are arguably winners and doing similar, but 2nd place did less and still achieved almost the same numbers. You can put it next to this case.

If they both lose same amount - wins user who invests more time and has worked harder. Because they lose same amount and then better player is the one who has worked more. It’s like earning wage. Imagine if 2 different persons are each earning 1000 USD per week by doing two different jobs - one is working an easy job, other a difficult one. But it’s cool, because both of them are winners, right? Similar way to look at it.

Plus, this isn’t complaining. It’s showing the truth. And you still ignored real life players being good old and other points. I understand and respect your opinion. I just haven’t read anything which is better than I wrote facts wise yet.

***boom*** · 01-10-2022, 01:43 AM

st4r, you’re overthinking this. The user with more TPE still gets to be a good player for longer, so it’s advantageous to earn more. It’s not just about the raw numbers, but what they actually mean in the context of the sim.

Mutedfaith · 01-10-2022, 02:24 AM

01-10-2022, 12:37 AMst4rface Wrote: I've never seen IIHF having the same rule changes as NHL ''to keep up with them''.

Actually, they just did exactly that last offseason/summer. IIHF had a huge rulebook rewrite, adapting most of their rules to the NHL rulebook.

Mazatt · 01-10-2022, 04:18 AM

01-10-2022, 01:29 AMst4rface Wrote:
01-10-2022, 01:14 AMMazatt Wrote: In that case the question is inherently disingenuous. Who is the winner? That's not the point. Each player is given the same opportunity to earn and the player that loses less TPE is only doing so because they didn't earn more. The 1000 TPE goes towards the level of a replaceable 850 TPE player that, given they have earned 1000 TPE thru regression, would mean the player is in a spot where they could easily be usurped by young talent if they aren't some form of elite locker room presence. On the other hand, 1700 TPE from the example is still a top 6 or 1st line player who is going to earn more, and doesn't have to worry about a rookie just up and taking their spot because they lose 10% of their TPE.

The whole argument on whether or not it's fair to base regression off a percentage or a set amount is just creating a point to complain about either though there is no real merit behind saying it's unfair to someone who has earned TPE to lose more TPE as if that's not the point in creating a percentage system that puts players closer to a baseline TPE as careers go on.

Who's the winner in regression when an 800 TPE player and a 2000 TPE player both have to lose 300 TPE?
If everyone has the same opportunity then why hard workers lose more than users who do nothing? Why it isn’t exact amount of TPE which are lost per regression season with the limit you can’t go under or you are automatically retired?

Yes, you are still good even with 1700 TPE, but it’s a TPE robbery from users who work hard with their players. It just seems like HO already knows they will grind again with their next player like they did with a previous one, so why would they not invent this new regression scale system.

The winner in a regression is still a user who has less TPE, because he lost less while doing less. Example… It’s like you are a racer who’s doing nothing in off-season and finishes in the 2nd place in a race. In 1st place finishes dude who is a hard working fella who spent entire off-season grinding while second place still got on a podium by doing nothing. Both are arguably winners and doing similar, but 2nd place did less and still achieved almost the same numbers. You can put it next to this case.

If they both lose same amount - wins user who invests more time and has worked harder. Because they lose same amount and then better player is the one who has worked more. It’s like earning wage. Imagine if 2 different persons are each earning 1000 USD per week by doing two different jobs - one is working an easy job, other a difficult one. But it’s cool, because both of them are winners, right? Similar way to look at it.

Plus, this isn’t complaining. It’s showing the truth. And you still ignored real life players being good old and other points. I understand and respect your opinion. I just haven’t read anything which is better than I wrote facts wise yet.

I think the big thing being missed here is that the SHL isn't built to cater to the top group of people--there has been a recent movement, going back to the build scale changes, that are intended to create a more welcoming environment to the 'middle-tier' earners. Conversely, what I am reading here is that TPE is all that matters, and being in "1st place" the longest is the incentive to earning, and that inactives-low-mid level earners shouldn't get to be "2nd" because they don't put in the same effort (even though if we go to the prior example there, even though a player in regression at 1000 TPE ala Rex Kirkby is literally in 254th place compared to a 2000 TPE player like Liam Slate being 3rd in the entire SHL in earning). But that incentive just isn't how the league works. As Boom noted above, the whole point of earning is to preform well for your team/individually on a sim basis. It isn't just about having the highest count in the offseason, and players who are losing 300 TPE vs those who would lose 150 TPE are advantaged because they are earning higher base contracts, producing more in the sim, are likely to have more team success based upon leverage/contract status/other factors, so the incentive clearly goes well beyond base TPE. I'm not sure that will hit home because you were in that top 2000 TPE grouping and want to stay there, so the argument that people at the bottom aren't winning won't be seriously considered, but frankly that's just the way regression works.

Saying on a flat basis that the people with less TPE win, even though you are here advocating for wanting to keep TPE is inherently hypocritical. If TPE holds no inherent value those who are at lower TPE values because they didn't earn it, then why should it get to matter they 'keep' more? You're still twice as good as them, you're still going to see more success with your player, you still have bargaining power, why would it be better for the lower earners to suffer more so losing the same TPE doesn't feel as unfair for others? It's the difference between equality and equity. It's equal for everyone to lose the same TPE, but it's equitable and therefore more ideal for the amount lost to be relative to the amount earned. I could go through every argument and debunk it on a paragraph basis but it comes down to being as simple as equity driven regression to maintain a userbase, with other reasons sprinkled in there.

As far as the comment towards " some players can play longer than others," yeah? Like, there's guys like Jagr who played til 45, but those are outliers. And guess what, outliers are still going to exist in the new regression scale too. There are literally players like Tony Pepperoni and Luke Thomason who are going to be hitting 38-39 years old in a season-year scale. Guys like Ovi (literally Tony Pepperoni) are going to continue existing because the active people who are max-earning can fight regression out of this one anomalous year.

Also, presenting an opinon and saying it's the truth makes no damn sense to me, which makes me think you don't respect my opinion because it's apparently going against the truth.