12-20-2021, 09:11 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote:

12-19-2021, 01:23 PMsve7en Wrote: Fun fact, it's also incredibly obnoxious to explicitly state how something is unfair and then have people claim your argument is a different one. 

Some have continually ignored that I've condemned some of the S53 and S54 backlash that's actually self interested, and I've been a supporter of steeper regression despite it negatively affecting my goals regarding player length. I want this new curve that has less time at the top and while I don't think 9 season regression is the way to deal with TPE inflation I'm accepting that HO believes that to be the better solution.

I both explained the flaw in the current idea and provided  alternatives that still achieve HO's goals while not unfairly skipping a season of the timeline that players were looking forward to. I do this because I see the value and want the effects of the changes, so don't try and tell me that I don't understand what compromise looks like. That I came up with alternatives does make me think they didn't do everything perfectly, yes, but I respect the work they put in and the opinions they have. You don't have to blindly throw yourself in front to protect them and I've had it with this idea that we're all trying to put our careers first over this league.

I'll be honest, I don't quite understand what your actual alternative suggestion is based on the post you linked, maybe other people feel the same hence why it wasn't referred to more in the discussion? Is it just the change of the transitional period to S63-65 or is there something else that I'm missing?

It's adding an extra season and also changing the numbers to allow for simultaneous reduction of the league's top tpe numbers and shift to the new curve that limits longevity and time at the plateau while also allowing for every class to have equal time at the top. The implementation HO offered doesn't allow for the latter.

HO's plan is to cut time at the plateau and the top of the league, represented by the newer classes having less relative tpe compared to the classes of old, while still giving them a similar peak. This is seen in the bottom right of my charts where I sum the relative tpe over different time periods. The implementation HO has shown us comes with the effect of effectively removing top seasons from specific draft classes (the red part of the bottom right summations where S53-54 fall off hard).



My plan was to change how this implementation worked, effectively by restricting tpe levels to the same amount and implementing the same scale (compare the S58+ power levels across both plans), while also allowing a smoother transition for some classes that both allow for them to have the same peak that classes before and after them would have while also bringing them down to the new timeline that HO wants (equal numbers over 3 season stretches while bringing 5 and 7 year stretches down to the new levels). 

I've since tweaked the numbers and improved the formatting, though it was still unoptimized when I sent it to HO and I haven't changed it since. 



And these are the regression numbers to make this happen