Login

***hockeyiscool*** · 12-03-2021, 04:11 PM

12-03-2021, 03:13 PMTommySalami Wrote:
12-03-2021, 09:37 AMleviadan Wrote: I guess what confuses me the most is why regression needs to start earlier at all? Why not just stick with the change to the steepness of the curve or make the curve a little steeper than what's described in your post?

Losing 12 then 15 for 3 seasons is already 22% more TPE than I expected to be losing over my first 4 seasons of regression but it's a lot easier to stomach and feels like much less of a destruction of two years of work than an immediate and direct 20% kneecap.

Doesn't doing that also accomplish the same goal? I guess I just don't fully see why some inflation is so bad as long as the fall off is quicker. I think we can all agree four seasons of 10% was insane, but this seems like a massive over correction that devastates people's effort and engagement with the league.

I think it's been fairly clear a goal of ours has been to improve parity. We have done so with our build change which made it easier for lower-TPE players to be good.

When we were an STHS league, the scale of the league was effectively 800 - 1500. Yeah, you could go above 1500 TPE but the attributes you were improving had extremely little affect on your performance. Once you hit 1200 TPE in STHS, in the right situation you could be a star player

In FHM, you can increase valuable attributes well above any conceivable amount of TPE you can earn. Players who actively participated in the league at above 2000 TPE are getting full advantage of that 2000 TPE. That creates further disparity in the league so we wanted to bring the max TPE in the league down so there's less difference between a rookie and a max-earner. This is what moving regression up one season accomplishes.

S53s are feeling this the hardest because they are getting hit with the leveling out of the field and their first regression all at once but this isn't an "unfair" situation to S53s as we've accounted for the earning potential of earlier classes and added on to their regression as needed and all future classes will regress a season earlier lowering their earning potential.

The fact that you think S53 are feeling this the hardest is flat out incorrect...and makes me question your judgment.

*roastpuff* · 12-03-2021, 04:13 PM

I'm a S53, I feel upset for personal reasons.

The S54s have more valid reasons - non-personal - to feel very upset at the implementation done here.

They got fucked over harder than us S53s did.

***sve7en*** · 12-03-2021, 04:22 PM

12-03-2021, 03:13 PMTommySalami Wrote:
12-03-2021, 09:37 AMleviadan Wrote: I guess what confuses me the most is why regression needs to start earlier at all? Why not just stick with the change to the steepness of the curve or make the curve a little steeper than what's described in your post?

Losing 12 then 15 for 3 seasons is already 22% more TPE than I expected to be losing over my first 4 seasons of regression but it's a lot easier to stomach and feels like much less of a destruction of two years of work than an immediate and direct 20% kneecap.

Doesn't doing that also accomplish the same goal? I guess I just don't fully see why some inflation is so bad as long as the fall off is quicker. I think we can all agree four seasons of 10% was insane, but this seems like a massive over correction that devastates people's effort and engagement with the league.

I think it's been fairly clear a goal of ours has been to improve parity. We have done so with our build change which made it easier for lower-TPE players to be good.

When we were an STHS league, the scale of the league was effectively 800 - 1500. Yeah, you could go above 1500 TPE but the attributes you were improving had extremely little affect on your performance. Once you hit 1200 TPE in STHS, in the right situation you could be a star player

In FHM, you can increase valuable attributes well above any conceivable amount of TPE you can earn. Players who actively participated in the league at above 2000 TPE are getting full advantage of that 2000 TPE. That creates further disparity in the league so we wanted to bring the max TPE in the league down so there's less difference between a rookie and a max-earner. This is what moving regression up one season accomplishes.

S53s are feeling this the hardest because they are getting hit with the leveling out of the field and their first regression all at once but this isn't an "unfair" situation to S53s as we've accounted for the earning potential of earlier classes and added on to their regression as needed and all future classes will regress a season earlier lowering their earning potential.

As it's been alluded to a few times, I don't understand how deleting seasons from the timeline is ideal when we've demonstrated alternative solutions that work (the update scale change) and theorized others (controlling TPE levels with proper scheduling, frontloading and increasing regression percentages). This solution feels crude and lazy which is ironic because it's more work for everyone than just staying at 10 seasons before frontloaded regression or capping total TPE you can apply.

Additionally fairness and parity keep getting thrown around to justify this and I hate it. Yes, the math checks out, that's not in doubt or the complaint. This does not equally affect people and teams. This also doesn't solve the source of disparity, just mixes things up and moves us further down the timeline to when some teams were aging out and some others will peak. That's not parity when the same competitive advantages that teams have will continue to run unbalanced and we likely end up returning to this point.

DELIRIVM · 12-03-2021, 05:03 PM

Simple solution. Let S54 (post regression) claim 100 TPE and S53 claim 50 TPE. Honestly might go a long way. There is precedence as I believe PBE did something similar in the past.

***sve7en*** · 12-03-2021, 05:09 PM

12-03-2021, 05:03 PMDELIRIVM Wrote: Simple solution. Let S54 (post regression) claim 100 TPE and S53 claim 50 TPE. Honestly might go a long way. There is precedence as I believe PBE did something similar in the past.

This just punts the issue, then s55 loses their peak.

*roastpuff* · 12-03-2021, 05:10 PM

Also, as has been pointed out before, this is going to do jack shit about parity. The good teams will still be good, the bad teams will still be bad.

The difference between good teams and bad teams is not in the players but the network, the culture, the sim knowledge and the buy-in that good GMs can generate.

ByrdeMan · 12-03-2021, 05:16 PM

12-03-2021, 10:35 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
12-02-2021, 03:02 PMByrdeMan Wrote: Disagree bad GMs will still be bad GMs

I'm tired of hearing this "bad GM" take. Let's just make it clear when we hear this what is being said. These people right here:

@JKortesi81 @Pythonic @JayWhy @Citizen of Adraa @Ace @Bayley @Thatguy91 @AgentSmith630 @Mutedfaith @spooked @notorioustig @reid @FuzzSHL @TheDangaZone @Inf1d3l @TheFlash @kenvald @39alaska39

Are you telling me that these are all shit GMs? Or am I just interpreting this wrong? Maybe not shit GMs, that'd be mean. Just bad. Right?

What a load.

I agree with the rest of the post but come the fuck on with that absolute garbage.

Why did you tag those guys, I actually have no idea who GMs and who don't. Is this you calling them bad GMs?

***Inf1d3l*** · 12-03-2021, 05:19 PM

12-03-2021, 05:16 PMByrdeMan Wrote:
12-03-2021, 10:35 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: I'm tired of hearing this "bad GM" take. Let's just make it clear when we hear this what is being said. These people right here:

@JKortesi81 @Pythonic @JayWhy @Citizen of Adraa @Ace @Bayley @Thatguy91 @AgentSmith630 @Mutedfaith @spooked @notorioustig @reid @FuzzSHL @TheDangaZone @Inf1d3l @TheFlash @kenvald @39alaska39

Are you telling me that these are all shit GMs? Or am I just interpreting this wrong? Maybe not shit GMs, that'd be mean. Just bad. Right?

What a load.

I agree with the rest of the post but come the fuck on with that absolute garbage.

Why did you tag those guys, I actually have no idea who GMs and who don't. Is this you calling them bad GMs?

Its a pasta from a few weeks back, and I assume it'll keep going lol

(I am shit tho)

***luke*** · 12-03-2021, 05:25 PM

12-03-2021, 03:11 PMbrickwall35 Wrote:
12-03-2021, 02:47 PMluketd Wrote: Can you count the people in this thread for me?
I can count the more than 12 people you mentioned that I've seen upset with this decision on Discord. And you choose a shitty way to gauge this considering the majority of posts here are just people meme'ing.

i chose a way that HO would get the most amount of people to gauge from. Now me meming doesnt help lmao. but HO can't see every discord, so in order to get an accurate account of who is mad and such. Forum is still the premium place.

Sean · 12-03-2021, 05:57 PM

12-03-2021, 04:11 PMhockeyiscool Wrote:
12-03-2021, 03:13 PMTommySalami Wrote: I think it's been fairly clear a goal of ours has been to improve parity. We have done so with our build change which made it easier for lower-TPE players to be good.

When we were an STHS league, the scale of the league was effectively 800 - 1500. Yeah, you could go above 1500 TPE but the attributes you were improving had extremely little affect on your performance. Once you hit 1200 TPE in STHS, in the right situation you could be a star player

In FHM, you can increase valuable attributes well above any conceivable amount of TPE you can earn. Players who actively participated in the league at above 2000 TPE are getting full advantage of that 2000 TPE. That creates further disparity in the league so we wanted to bring the max TPE in the league down so there's less difference between a rookie and a max-earner. This is what moving regression up one season accomplishes.

S53s are feeling this the hardest because they are getting hit with the leveling out of the field and their first regression all at once but this isn't an "unfair" situation to S53s as we've accounted for the earning potential of earlier classes and added on to their regression as needed and all future classes will regress a season earlier lowering their earning potential.
The fact that you think S53 are feeling this the hardest is flat out incorrect...and makes me question your judgment.

I was speaking to him specifically in that moment because he's S53

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points

***FuzzSHL*** · 12-03-2021, 05:58 PM

12-03-2021, 05:25 PMluketd Wrote:
12-03-2021, 03:11 PMbrickwall35 Wrote: I can count the more than 12 people you mentioned that I've seen upset with this decision on Discord. And you choose a shitty way to gauge this considering the majority of posts here are just people meme'ing.

i chose a way that HO would get the most amount of people to gauge from. Now me meming doesnt help lmao. but HO can't see every discord, so in order to get an accurate account of who is mad and such. Forum is still the premium place.

HO sure was able to see how many GMs were upset with the proposed scale they brought up in GM chat and not only did they go through with moving it up a season, they put out a completely different regression scale than the one they brought up to us.

Aleksi Kettu

***Tomen*** · 12-03-2021, 06:25 PM

I would still be interested in seeing the thought process/reasons why the proposal of keeping the same regression free seasons but having higher regression percentages + culling any participation TPE at the SHL level (which is 22 TPE per season) was seen as inferior. It still lowers the amount of peak TPE available albeit only gradually (S63 would be the first draft class that would completely miss out on 198 TPE coz 22*9 in the duration of their regression free seasons) so it would only gradually trickle down the peak TPE but it would have most likely seen less backlash overall from the community since S54 would have lost out on 22 TPE, S55 on 44 TPE and so forth. You can tinker with the regression %s enough to have players in regression at the wanted lower TPE levels as well as "high TPE seasons".

Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany

3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)

*leviadan* · 12-03-2021, 06:26 PM

12-03-2021, 05:57 PMTommySalami Wrote:
12-03-2021, 04:11 PMhockeyiscool Wrote: The fact that you think S53 are feeling this the hardest is flat out incorrect...and makes me question your judgment.

I was speaking to him specifically in that moment because he's S53

The fact that you'd speak to me at all makes me question your judgement.

[Image: pin1_1.gif?ex=666c7cf4&is=666b2b74&hm=ab...694e07b12&]

caltroit_red_flames · 12-03-2021, 06:34 PM

12-03-2021, 05:19 PMInf1d3l Wrote:
12-03-2021, 05:16 PMByrdeMan Wrote: Why did you tag those guys, I actually have no idea who GMs and who don't. Is this you calling them bad GMs?

Its a pasta from a few weeks back, and I assume it'll keep going lol

(I am shit tho)

The only question is do we keep tagging them?

ACapitalChicago · 12-03-2021, 07:11 PM

12-03-2021, 06:34 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
12-03-2021, 05:19 PMInf1d3l Wrote: Its a pasta from a few weeks back, and I assume it'll keep going lol

(I am shit tho)
The only question is do we keep tagging them?

Yes

S66 Damian Littleton

||

||

|

|

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us