12-06-2021, 05:01 PM(This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 05:11 PM by PremierBromanov.)
12-06-2021, 05:13 AMZema Wrote:
12-05-2021, 06:44 PMLordBirdman Wrote: 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.
i think this speaks to the core of the issue. Dunking 25% on S54 and S53 wouldnt be half as bad if they had started these players in January. Faster seasons would be a great alternative to the current problem, and gives us more data to work with in terms of where the issues actually lie. It's contracts, wait no it's testing wait no its regression hold on this will definitely fix it. That pitfall is present for each one of us
Ill edit here at the risk of triple posting
@RomanesEuntDomus You had mentioned that S50-55 are benefiting from a system no one had the pleasure of enjoying themselves (beating up on rookies) and I think that's a great perspective to bring to the conversation.
However, to what degree does it matter what happened before S50? I hope i'm not being too rude when i say that it was over 2 years ago. This league is not the same as it was when i joined and when i joined it was not the same as it was 2 years prior. Again, the length of seasons rears it's ugly head. I understand that maybe S53/54 may sound selfish when their opportunity to dominate was taken away but...that's what has been happening for awhile now. We switched in like S53 right? I will remind the court that march will mark 2 years since the offseason for S53 began.
How many new users have joined the site in 2 years? This is their reality, but it sounds like some of the counter-arguments are "Well STHS was like this, so lets go back". What if we didnt go back?
12-06-2021, 05:03 PM(This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 05:03 PM by Samsung virtual assistant.)
12-06-2021, 04:59 PMPremierBromanov Wrote:
12-05-2021, 12:55 PMSymmetrik Wrote: 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.
i demand that my future 800 TPE rookie scores at least 20 goals in his first season or else the TPE scale is flawed
Just came back to this topic to remind that this update is a complete BS and I won't recreate after this player. Hope to see users doing the same thing until this mess is fixed. Disrespect to people who actually put a lot of effort in their player.
12-05-2021, 12:55 PMSymmetrik Wrote: 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.
I keep having the same thought. The HO keeps trying to be realistic in some regards and then unrealistic in others. Shorten careers cause real player don't stay good that long. Yet Makeup TPE was introduced so rookies didn't feel like they were left behind. Well players in the NHL aren't all going to be 1st line super stars. Rookies aren't going to come in and put a franchise on their shoulders and win an MVP or scoring title. There should be a gap between the best of the best and younger players. They need to pick if they want to go more realistic or not. Not pick and choose whenever they feel like it.
12-06-2021, 05:13 AMZema Wrote: 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.
i think this speaks to the core of the issue. Dunking 25% on S54 and S53 wouldnt be half as bad if they had started these players in January. Faster seasons would be a great alternative to the current problem, and gives us more data to work with in terms of where the issues actually lie. It's contracts, wait no it's testing wait no its regression hold on this will definitely fix it. That pitfall is present for each one of us
Ill edit here at the risk of triple posting
@RomanesEuntDomus You had mentioned that S50-55 are benefiting from a system no one had the pleasure of enjoying themselves (beating up on rookies) and I think that's a great perspective to bring to the conversation.
However, to what degree does it matter what happened before S50? I hope i'm not being too rude when i say that it was over 2 years ago. This league is not the same as it was when i joined and when i joined it was not the same as it was 2 years prior. Again, the length of seasons rears it's ugly head. I understand that maybe S53/54 may sound selfish when their opportunity to dominate was taken away but...that's what has been happening for awhile now. We switched in like S53 right? I will remind the court that march will mark 2 years since the offseason for S53 began.
How many new users have joined the site in 2 years? This is their reality, but it sounds like some of the counter-arguments are "Well STHS was like this, so lets go back". What if we didnt go back?
You are absolutely right that how good someone had or didn't have it 15 seasons ago shouldn't matter. But it wasn't me who brought the comparison to the older classes into this discussion, it was the people who are upset about the changes. I don't really care how good my player had it in S48 compared to someone in S62, but the core argument brought up by a lot of people was the comparison of their peaks under the new system to the peaks of the players that came before them, hence why I adressed that. I didn't insert my own player into this discussion either, he was brought up by someone who tried to use his example to counter my arguments.
12-06-2021, 07:27 PMCount Chocula Wrote: I keep having the same thought. The HO keeps trying to be realistic in some regards and then unrealistic in others. Shorten careers cause real player don't stay good that long. Yet Makeup TPE was introduced so rookies didn't feel like they were left behind. Well players in the NHL aren't all going to be 1st line super stars. Rookies aren't going to come in and put a franchise on their shoulders and win an MVP or scoring title. There should be a gap between the best of the best and younger players. They need to pick if they want to go more realistic or not. Not pick and choose whenever they feel like it.
I don’t think makeup TPE is a great example here. NHL players also don’t discover hockey two days before their draft and find themselves at a disadvantage early in their career due to that, or decide to start playing hockey halfway through a season - real players work towards their draft their entire life, and putting people on an even playing field at the start is more realistic than just “congrats on discovering hockey halfway through a season, sucks you’re way behind everybody else.” Catch up TPE is imo important for keeping users engaged and feeling like they’re on equal footing in their rookie class in the early days after they first join, which is a crucial turning point when it comes to retention.
12-06-2021, 07:27 PMCount Chocula Wrote: I keep having the same thought. The HO keeps trying to be realistic in some regards and then unrealistic in others. Shorten careers cause real player don't stay good that long. Yet Makeup TPE was introduced so rookies didn't feel like they were left behind. Well players in the NHL aren't all going to be 1st line super stars. Rookies aren't going to come in and put a franchise on their shoulders and win an MVP or scoring title. There should be a gap between the best of the best and younger players. They need to pick if they want to go more realistic or not. Not pick and choose whenever they feel like it.
I don’t think makeup TPE is a great example here. NHL players also don’t discover hockey two days before their draft and find themselves at a disadvantage early in their career due to that, or decide to start playing hockey halfway through a season - real players work towards their draft their entire life, and putting people on an even playing field at the start is more realistic than just “congrats on discovering hockey halfway through a season, sucks you’re way behind everybody else.” Catch up TPE is imo important for keeping users engaged and feeling like they’re on equal footing in their rookie class in the early days after they first join, which is a crucial turning point when it comes to retention.
The only thing with catch-up TPE im against is that re-creates can claim it, lol.
12-06-2021, 07:34 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: I don’t think makeup TPE is a great example here. NHL players also don’t discover hockey two days before their draft and find themselves at a disadvantage early in their career due to that, or decide to start playing hockey halfway through a season - real players work towards their draft their entire life, and putting people on an even playing field at the start is more realistic than just “congrats on discovering hockey halfway through a season, sucks you’re way behind everybody else.” Catch up TPE is imo important for keeping users engaged and feeling like they’re on equal footing in their rookie class in the early days after they first join, which is a crucial turning point when it comes to retention.
The only thing with catch-up TPE im against is that re-creates can claim it, lol.
12-06-2021, 07:34 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: I don’t think makeup TPE is a great example here. NHL players also don’t discover hockey two days before their draft and find themselves at a disadvantage early in their career due to that, or decide to start playing hockey halfway through a season - real players work towards their draft their entire life, and putting people on an even playing field at the start is more realistic than just “congrats on discovering hockey halfway through a season, sucks you’re way behind everybody else.” Catch up TPE is imo important for keeping users engaged and feeling like they’re on equal footing in their rookie class in the early days after they first join, which is a crucial turning point when it comes to retention.
The only thing with catch-up TPE im against is that re-creates can claim it, lol.
While I totally get this, we don't want to turn away people who went IA for whatever reason and are now rejoining in the middle of the season and are down for the long haul
12-06-2021, 08:15 PMSamsung virtual assistant Wrote: The only thing with catch-up TPE im against is that re-creates can claim it, lol.
While I totally get this, we don't want to turn away people who went IA for whatever reason and are now rejoining in the middle of the season and are down for the long haul
Yeah i was going to write that but i didn't include it, lol. I also have no problem with returning members that were IA, it's moreso with active players that waits with re-creating and still get TPE that they have no business getting because they made an active choice to not re-create sooner.
12-06-2021, 08:30 PMACapitalChicago Wrote: While I totally get this, we don't want to turn away people who went IA for whatever reason and are now rejoining in the middle of the season and are down for the long haul
Yeah i was going to write that but i didn't include it, lol. I also have no problem with returning members that were IA, it's moreso with active players that waits with re-creating and still get TPE that they have no business getting because they made an active choice to not re-create sooner.
somebody wasn't a fan of gunnar's retirement tour huh
12-06-2021, 08:40 PMSamsung virtual assistant Wrote: Yeah i was going to write that but i didn't include it, lol. I also have no problem with returning members that were IA, it's moreso with active players that waits with re-creating and still get TPE that they have no business getting because they made an active choice to not re-create sooner.
somebody wasn't a fan of gunnar's retirement tour huh
12-06-2021, 05:01 PMPremierBromanov Wrote: i think this speaks to the core of the issue. Dunking 25% on S54 and S53 wouldnt be half as bad if they had started these players in January. Faster seasons would be a great alternative to the current problem, and gives us more data to work with in terms of where the issues actually lie. It's contracts, wait no it's testing wait no its regression hold on this will definitely fix it. That pitfall is present for each one of us
Ill edit here at the risk of triple posting
@RomanesEuntDomus You had mentioned that S50-55 are benefiting from a system no one had the pleasure of enjoying themselves (beating up on rookies) and I think that's a great perspective to bring to the conversation.
However, to what degree does it matter what happened before S50? I hope i'm not being too rude when i say that it was over 2 years ago. This league is not the same as it was when i joined and when i joined it was not the same as it was 2 years prior. Again, the length of seasons rears it's ugly head. I understand that maybe S53/54 may sound selfish when their opportunity to dominate was taken away but...that's what has been happening for awhile now. We switched in like S53 right? I will remind the court that march will mark 2 years since the offseason for S53 began.
How many new users have joined the site in 2 years? This is their reality, but it sounds like some of the counter-arguments are "Well STHS was like this, so lets go back". What if we didnt go back?
You are absolutely right that how good someone had or didn't have it 15 seasons ago shouldn't matter. But it wasn't me who brought the comparison to the older classes into this discussion, it was the people who are upset about the changes. I don't really care how good my player had it in S48 compared to someone in S62, but the core argument brought up by a lot of people was the comparison of their peaks under the new system to the peaks of the players that came before them, hence why I adressed that. I didn't insert my own player into this discussion either, he was brought up by someone who tried to use his example to counter my arguments.
my mistake, but thanks for bringing it up at any rate
PremierBromanov
![[Image: Chocula22.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Chocula22.gif)
sköldpaddor![[Image: gunnarsoderberg.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/gunnarsoderberg.gif)
![[Image: xJXeYmQ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xJXeYmQ.png)
![[Image: DG0jZcS.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DG0jZcS.png)
![[Image: 7MO9RpC.png]](http://i.imgur.com/7MO9RpC.png)
: .![[Image: 59269_s.png]](https://signavatar.com/59269_s.png)
![[Image: CsnVET2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/CsnVET2.png)
|| ![[Image: wu5MVvy.png]](http://i.imgur.com/wu5MVvy.png)
|| ![[Image: c8B2LE3.png]](https://i.imgur.com/c8B2LE3.png)
| 
| 
![[Image: crying-tony-tony-chopper.gif]](https://c.tenor.com/MVJgufQqD3oAAAAC/crying-tony-tony-chopper.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)
![[Image: winter-500.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/709471992100945974/1109520965404201021/winter-500.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/477951418158809089/912414697985277972/unknown.png)
| ![[Image: specterspp.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/537644128066994197/593600679130431523/specterspp.png)
![[Image: spectersupdate.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/537644128066994197/593594692164255784/spectersupdate.png)
![[Image: cainbanner_35.jpg]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/763788165953355846/879485847517429760/cainbanner_35.jpg)
