+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: SHL Discussion (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+---- Forum: Suggestion Box (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: Regression Compensation (/showthread.php?tid=8951)
- RomanesEuntDomus - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by Jesster@Jun 12 2012, 10:27 PM
Then what would be wrong with giving S1 and S2 players a push on when they begin regression in the new scale?
That is what I'm suggesting here.
That certainly makes sense, but keep in mind that you guys also got to play a bunch of seasons, some maybe even 4-5, with 99s in all major attributes. This isn't possible anymore for new players thanks to the update scale or at least takes a lot more time.
So you guys having spent two season under the effects of some minor regression (regression doesn't really affect a player anyway in the first 2-3 years) is a very little price to pay for that big advantages you had earlier, imho.
- Jesster - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by OcAirlines@Jun 12 2012, 05:04 PM
That certainly makes sense, but keep in mind that you guys also got to play a bunch of seasons, some maybe even 4-5, with 99s in all major attributes. This isn't possible anymore for new players thanks to the update scale or at least takes a lot more time.
So you guys having spent two season under the effects of some minor regression (regression doesn't really affect a player anyway in the first 2-3 years) is a very little price to pay for that big advantages you had earlier, imho.
I feel like that idea is just over stated far too much. I actually have more 94+ now then I did back in Season 7 and definitely before season 5. I see plenty of players who are 90s almost everywhere. I know I was no Honcho either though, I didn't have 99s everywhere. It may be harder but it is not a whole lot harder.
- GroupMeIsKindOfOkay - 06-12-2012
the new one is more harsh imo
you dont get to choose what attributes you want to lower
- Jesster - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by Alex@Jun 12 2012, 05:07 PM
the new one is more harsh imo
you dont get to choose what attributes you want to lower
Maybe for key stats specifically but if you look at total or average numbers it may be very close and hard to say. You can sort of decide your own fate with the old system (which I am VERY glad that has changed, I do prefer the % off everywhere). At the same time if the same amount of points are taken away from people it still has the same affect. Lowering stats are going to completely change decision formulas, especially for forwards.
- Jesster - 06-12-2012
By the way for those of you who have posted so far, thank you for the intelligent discussion and contributions.
+Rep to all.
- Otrebor13 - 06-12-2012
Just found it
Regression
S9-10: 3%
S11-13: 5%
14-15: 10%
16+: 15%
- Otrebor13 - 06-12-2012
So this regression works how exactly? I'm a little confused reading up on the previous comments. Can somebody give me a good explanation?
- Jesster - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by Otrebor13@Jun 12 2012, 05:23 PM
Just found it
Regression
S9-10: 3%
S11-13: 5%
14-15: 10%
16+: 15%
This would work by losing 3% of each attribute I thought.
- Otrebor13 - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by Jesster@Jun 12 2012, 05:51 PM
This would work by losing 3% of each attribute I thought.
I don't think it would make sense... Because if a stat is 99, that's 49 TPE. 3% of 49 is like 1.4. That's just 1 point lost...
- Aaron "AAA" Allen - 06-12-2012
I just want to make sure you realize how this would affect everyone.
As a NWJHL goalie looking for a job in the SHL, if the S1 and S2 players (includng 3 goalies - Garcia (if he unretires), Jesster and Honcho), got to play 2 years longer because of reduced regression what would be available for goalies like myself and Serpe coming out of the NWJHL?
I love being a goalie, but I also made one knowing that some goalies were getting older and sooner then later there would be positions open, this would drastically change if we pushed regression back for 2 years for all S1 and S2 players, not just goalies, but other people looking for decent playing time in the SHL.
I am all for people getting compensation, but it needs to work for everyone, or you fix one thing only to break another.
Hope this makes sense.
- Shutout - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by OcAirlines@Jun 12 2012, 06:04 PM
That certainly makes sense, but keep in mind that you guys also got to play a bunch of seasons, some maybe even 4-5, with 99s in all major attributes. This isn't possible anymore for new players thanks to the update scale or at least takes a lot more time.
So you guys having spent two season under the effects of some minor regression (regression doesn't really affect a player anyway in the first 2-3 years) is a very little price to pay for that big advantages you had earlier, imho.
Good point. But the competition was on a level playing field as well.
- Jesster - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by Aaron "AAA" Allen@Jun 12 2012, 06:27 PM
I just want to make sure you realize how this would affect everyone.
As a NWJHL goalie looking for a job in the SHL, if the S1 and S2 players (includng 3 goalies - Garcia (if he unretires), Jesster and Honcho), got to play 2 years longer because of reduced regression what would be available for goalies like myself and Serpe coming out of the NWJHL?
I love being a goalie, but I also made one knowing that some goalies were getting older and sooner then later there would be positions open, this would drastically change if we pushed regression back for 2 years for all S1 and S2 players, not just goalies, but other people looking for decent playing time in the SHL.
I am all for people getting compensation, but it needs to work for everyone, or you fix one thing only to break another.
Hope this makes sense.
It makes sense but we're still playing the same amount of time as before. We've already had to sit through 2 seasons of regression were younger guys were the next ones to take our place then it was extended. We shouldn't have to have 1-2 extra seasons were we're playing as regressed players.
- Wadester - 06-12-2012
Makes no sense, every player who regressed in the old scale got those points back in the re-distribution process. We made this so everyone would be on an even playing field, can't really change that now.
Anything that happened in the old system should be totally unrelated to what we have now.
- Witz - 06-12-2012
I would be against it personally.
- Shutout - 06-12-2012
Quote:Originally posted by ♕Wadey♕™@Jun 12 2012, 08:52 PM
Makes no sense, every player who regressed in the old scale got those points back in the re-distribution process. We made this so everyone would be on an even playing field, can't really change that now.
Anything that happened in the old system should be totally unrelated to what we have now.
Got the points back sure, but had to play 1-2 seasons of regression when no one else, aka worse in comparison to everyone else.
I couldn't care either way too much. But I understand Jesster's point.