Simulation Hockey League
New Changes to Regression - Printable Version

+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: SHL Announcements (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=27)
+---- Thread: New Changes to Regression (/showthread.php?tid=120657)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: New Changes to Regression - Sean - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 02:59 PMNhamlet Wrote: Is it possible to get the Old/New Proposed graphs in the same size/resolution @"TommySalami"

I made this and tried to resize it but it's not quite 1:1

[Image: ezgif-2-9825862f1524.gif]

I'd need to get really accurate with snipping tool.

RE: New Changes to Regression - Merica - 12-07-2021

Ph

RE: New Changes to Regression - JURT - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 02:56 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: Strongly disagree with regression plateauing, but that’s always been a gripe of mine. At least now it’s up to 30%.

Glad we could work on finding a compromise in regards to the top end of the scale.

If my math is right you would become stagnant at ~630 TPE :

Reach 630
Regression by 30% (-190 TPE) = 440
Make up 190 TPE over the season which is the number they used I assumed it's some kind of average
Reach 630 again
Rinse and repeat

We might see infinite backup goalies but I don't see someone bringing in 190 TPE a season doing that either.

RE: New Changes to Regression - Zombiewolf - 12-07-2021

HO stealing my TPE still

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo

RE: New Changes to Regression - CementHands - 12-07-2021

Classic misdirection! Post the worse version so everyone can be mad at that, then show leniency and everyone is happy. I want to riot!!!!!1111

RE: New Changes to Regression - LordBirdman - 12-07-2021

Glad feedback was taken to heart by HO. I think it is a step in the right direction for improving player turnover which hopefully will lead to more roster parity, but these changes won't meaningfully improve actual parity because it doesn't address the FHM knowledge gap issues.

RE: New Changes to Regression - Sean - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 03:11 PMLordBirdman Wrote: Glad feedback was taken to heart by HO. I think it is a step in the right direction for improving player turnover which hopefully will lead to more roster parity, but these changes won't meaningfully improve actual parity because it doesn't address the FHM knowledge gap issues.

I do want to say we aren't ignoring this issue and we are trying to work towards a solution on the FHM side of things.

RE: New Changes to Regression - Ruggsy - 12-07-2021

I agree with however 7 ends up responding

RE: New Changes to Regression - brickwall35 - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 03:05 PMlespoils Wrote:
12-07-2021, 02:56 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: Strongly disagree with regression plateauing, but that’s always been a gripe of mine. At least now it’s up to 30%.

Glad we could work on finding a compromise in regards to the top end of the scale.

If my math is right you would become stagnant at ~630 TPE :

Reach 630
Regression by 30% (-190 TPE) = 440
Make up 190 TPE over the season which is the number they used I assumed it's some kind of average
Reach 630 again
Rinse and repeat

We might see infinite backup goalies but I don't see someone bringing in 190 TPE a season doing that either.
Anyone willing to be an infinite 630 TPE BUG is a crazy person and outlier. Let them do it.

RE: New Changes to Regression - Fluw - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 03:16 PMbrickwall35 Wrote:
12-07-2021, 03:05 PMlespoils Wrote: If my math is right you would become stagnant at ~630 TPE :

Reach 630
Regression by 30% (-190 TPE) = 440
Make up 190 TPE over the season which is the number they used I assumed it's some kind of average
Reach 630 again
Rinse and repeat

We might see infinite backup goalies but I don't see someone bringing in 190 TPE a season doing that either.
Anyone willing to be an infinite 630 TPE BUG is a crazy person and outlier. Let them do it.

*cough*

RE: New Changes to Regression - CampinKiller - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 03:16 PMbrickwall35 Wrote:
12-07-2021, 03:05 PMlespoils Wrote: If my math is right you would become stagnant at ~630 TPE :

Reach 630
Regression by 30% (-190 TPE) = 440
Make up 190 TPE over the season which is the number they used I assumed it's some kind of average
Reach 630 again
Rinse and repeat

We might see infinite backup goalies but I don't see someone bringing in 190 TPE a season doing that either.
Anyone willing to be an infinite 630 TPE BUG is a crazy person and outlier. Let them do it.

I mean he’d be better than you, so

RE: New Changes to Regression - NamelessNate - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 03:00 PMTommySalami Wrote:
12-07-2021, 02:52 PMNamelessNate Wrote: So uhhhh, what was the thought process from changing it from 10% to 9%? Is that even a significant number of TPE? At 2k that's like 20 tpe lmao

Really, it was just a slight necessary change. When going from 2200 to 2000 TPE, it's a 22 TPE difference in TPE lost in regression, adding the 1% difference on top of that (making a 42 TPE difference) helps bring class peaks back into line.
Ah, so it's that tiny tiny bit between 55 and 54 in S63? Wild lol.

Thanks for the explanation

RE: New Changes to Regression - Sean - 12-07-2021

12-07-2021, 03:23 PMNamelessNate Wrote:
12-07-2021, 03:00 PMTommySalami Wrote: Really, it was just a slight necessary change. When going from 2200 to 2000 TPE, it's a 22 TPE difference in TPE lost in regression, adding the 1% difference on top of that (making a 42 TPE difference) helps bring class peaks back into line.
Ah, so it's that tiny tiny bit between 55 and 54 in S63? Wild lol.

Thanks for the explanation

Yeah, the best way to see it is on the graphs. In our first proposed regression S55's line from 63 to 64 is going slightly down, in the new one, it's going slightly up.

RE: New Changes to Regression - JKortesi81 - 12-07-2021

Absolutely go fuck yourselves HO.


Am I doing this right? <3

RE: New Changes to Regression - Evok - 12-07-2021

[Image: 5x01b4.jpg]