12-04-2021, 03:53 PMnour Wrote: The Short Notice
Having it out sooner would have been ideal, but when we’re dealing with systems that impact the entire site, and stand to make a large impact, these decisions can’t be rushed. The discussion, research, and testing has to take its due course until it reaches a conclusion we’re happy with.

Are we saying that we DIDNT let the discussion, research, and testing take it's due course in the interest of "we want to make changes quickly anyway"?? Am i reading this right?

12-04-2021, 03:53 PMnour Wrote: Why Does Regression Start at Season 9 Now Instead of Season 10?
This is another pretty common concern we’ve heard, and again I think it comes down to us not properly elaborating on why this change has been made. The reality of the situation is that TPE-earning is at an all time high right now. Users on the site are surpassing or closing in on 2k TPE in their draft + 8 or draft + 9 seasons, who are competing against players being called up in their draft + 2 or draft + 3 seasons. S59’s top earner is sitting at 875 TPE, and the majority of call ups are entering the league at around 650-700 TPE. All this taken into account, this means the league’s absolute peak (around 2300 TPE), has the best players on the site at over THREE TIMES the TPE that rookies entering the league have. Should the league’s best players be way ahead of rookies? Absolutely, they’ve worked hard to get where they’re at right now. Should they be 3x ahead, and able to maintain that gap over multiple classes of rookies before regression seriously hits them, seriously harming their ability to be viable?

So what i dont get about this argument is that, while we all recognize the same problem (players last forever and dominate the league year after year), it doesn't really explain why the regression year moves up. We can make players regress harder without shortening the window in which they are powerful. And, while superstars are indeed 3x the TPE, we've already changed the scale to lessen the impact of high amounts of TPE. The argument that a player is too powerful too long doesn't hold water because we've already dampened the curve.

Furthermore, those 2300s represent a small fraction of each class. Canadice's tool shows that the vast majority of players are under 1900, with the largest group being 1700-1900. What does eliminating literally 5 defensemen and 14 forwards from the 2100+ pool at the cost of nuking 2 classes really achieve in the interest of...what, making 800 TPE rookies feel better?

Like your argument is that players hang out in the 1800s+ for too long, therefore lets eliminate the 2100+s? This doesn't hold water. We can solve the issue of longevity without nuking 2 classes, without shortening the amount of seasons to climb.

12-04-2021, 03:53 PMnour Wrote: If people are earning too fast, why not reduce TPE opportunities (like participation TPE)/Reintroduce a TPE Cap, alongside maintaining regression starting at season 10, but harsher, as opposed to adding a 9th season?
This was a really great suggestion and it was brought up to us when we first pitched these regression changes to the GMs, so we want you to know it is something we liked and seriously considered. Obviously we ultimately didn’t end up going with it, and I’ll elaborate why. For HO, there were 2 main issues that soured us on this idea. Firstly is that it’s our belief that limiting TPE is limiting engagement on the site. Whether its a seasonal TPE Cap that forces max earners to skip tasks towards the end of the season, or the removal of participation TPE, we had concerns that these are changes that actively ask players to engage with the site and it’s systems less, on top of adding back some tedium to updating that we saw as a benefit to remove at the start of the FHM era. The second reason, and the one that I think is the most important, is again that these changes needed to go live as soon as possible. Whether its adding back the TPE Cap, or removing participation TPE, at best these solutions will reduce the max amount of TPE you can earn per season by about 12-18 TPE. Over time, and over the course of a full career, this will obviously add up to a lot of TPE reduced, especially for younger and younger classes, but the heart of the issue is that we don’t have the luxury to wait and see how impactful these changes are over time. We can’t wait 6+ seasons until these changes really start to make a dent and then see what the league’s competitive field looks like. The health of the league is in such a poor place right now and we needed something that would hit harder and faster. The solution we opted for does just that.

Do you guys know that, every season we're dumping ~20+ more TPE into each player in the last 5 seasons versus the previous 15? We've gone from an average of about 55 days to well over 70 for each season. If you want to reduce TPE, but not remove tasks, there are many simple ways to accomplish this. This point in particular says to me "We tried nothing and we're out of ideas". Again, ill direct you to my first point: did you guys skip discussion, research, and testing because you were panicking about the state of the league?

I feel like you guys saw a wound in the SHL and rather than finding out the best way to heal it, you hacked off a limb because of some perceived imminent danger.