Aight,

@nour, @"TommySalami", HO, I commend you guys for both sticking to you guns and hearing us out when we've had complaints. While I don't agree with the 9+D regression move, I can respect where you think it holds value and this change is a step in the right direction. To some extent this is just what I get for not applying for your job. The use of multiple transitional regression seasons was something I considered earlier today and I'm glad we are on the same page there.

That being said, while these changes are immensely appreciated, they don't exactly solve the whole issue.

I've compared the old plan and this new one on three similar metrics, sum of the percent TPE relative to the league's max over three, five, and seven seasons to track how this change affects peak (3 season max), plateau (5 season max), and time at the top (7 seasons, which comes out to 90% league max or ~2080/2280 on the old system and 83% league max or ~1740/2805 on the new). In the old plan you can clearly see the disadvantages applied to S53 and S54 and the subsequent rebound to the new norm that we called out as unfair. The peak players enjoyed (100/99/97) was skipped for these classes, this omission was felt at the longer scales as well obviously, but in those longer scales we can see the positive effect of less dominance over the 5 and 7 season time frames. The revised scale starts to amend this (while also marginally boosting the future arcs ironically due to the 9% allowing for essentially 100/100/97 seasons instead of 100/99/97), but the effects aren't incredibly impactful.

While my idea isn't perfected yet (low time to turn this back around, etc.) this shift in peak, plateau, and time at the top can be better managed still, and I hope we're not going to stop with the slight changes that we're making.

OLD


NEW


MY IDEA (forgive the conditional formatting at the bottom)