12-04-2021, 12:58 PMPremierBromanov Wrote: It's time for 4th lines and a middle league between juniors and major league.
While I personally like the idea of having a Swedish Hockey League/Allsvenskan setup, nobody would want to be in the 2nd tier league.
Honestly that sounds like something fun to play around with, even though it'd be tricky to naturally implement in any of FHM games currently. Though something like 16 SHL teams, and maybe 6 2nd tier teams. Something like worst four teams of SHL and best four from 2nd tier play round robin. Possibly have FA work the same, and draft working something like 6/16th first, next pick is the worst team of the other league, and have that alternate until we get to just SHL teams. Could end up with FA were players are deciding if they want to win a championship and help a 2nd tier team go up, or sign with a SHL team to help them fight the lower tier during round robin. Man stuff like this makes me wish FHM's fictional games were as robust as the OOTP games
12-04-2021, 12:48 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: Increased turnover is at least 1 piece of the puzzle, no? I don't think there's one single thing that will fix parity, I think we need to make multiple changes to different things to get the desired result and this is just part of it. I said the same thing about archetypes as well. Update scale changes could be another piece of the puzzle.
You’re agreeing with me though. Regression is 1 piece of the puzzle. But acting like it is the solution isn’t going to change anything, because of a myriad of other reasons that keep the top teams being top teams.
There needs to be a bunch of major changes to being the league into a healthy state. And unfortunately I’m not optimistic.
SHL in general is extremely slow to make changes, but Nour and his HO's have been pretty willing to explore change. I think we'll continue to see incremental changes.
I'd like to take the middle tier league discussion to Discord sometime, just to brainstorm what might be possible. That's if there is interest in it. No need to rush to try to make radical changes.
12-04-2021, 12:48 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: Increased turnover is at least 1 piece of the puzzle, no? I don't think there's one single thing that will fix parity, I think we need to make multiple changes to different things to get the desired result and this is just part of it. I said the same thing about archetypes as well. Update scale changes could be another piece of the puzzle.
You’re agreeing with me though. Regression is 1 piece of the puzzle. But acting like it is the solution isn’t going to change anything, because of a myriad of other reasons that keep the top teams being top teams.
There needs to be a bunch of major changes to being the league into a healthy state. And unfortunately I’m not optimistic.
You mean like tighter cap because of contract tiers, a scale change and now a regression change?
Credit to Ml002, King, Wasty, Carpy, Bruins10, Rum_Ham, Turd Ferguson, Ragnar and Enigmatic for the sigs.
12-04-2021, 01:29 PMFuzzSHL Wrote: You’re agreeing with me though. Regression is 1 piece of the puzzle. But acting like it is the solution isn’t going to change anything, because of a myriad of other reasons that keep the top teams being top teams.
There needs to be a bunch of major changes to being the league into a healthy state. And unfortunately I’m not optimistic.
You mean like tighter cap because of contract tiers, a scale change and now a regression change?
Playing with the numbers has done almost nothing to solve the issue the first two times, surely this third attempt to play with numbers will put a restriction on how dominant some forms of competitive advantage are.
12-04-2021, 01:29 PMFuzzSHL Wrote: You’re agreeing with me though. Regression is 1 piece of the puzzle. But acting like it is the solution isn’t going to change anything, because of a myriad of other reasons that keep the top teams being top teams.
There needs to be a bunch of major changes to being the league into a healthy state. And unfortunately I’m not optimistic.
You mean like tighter cap because of contract tiers, a scale change and now a regression change?
Read 7’s reply.
And also, no. I’m talking 4 lines, I’m talking salary cap changes, I’m talking limiting player and global sliders, and I’m talking limiting player roles from max of 3 to max of 2.
Hey everyone, so we in HO have spent the last 2 days listening to feedback and trying to figure out what the exact problem points are from those who have taken issues with this new regression scale. I think a big part of it has been a lack of clarity in our original post. It's on us to be as clear and as thorough as possible, so we hope this follow up response paints a clearer picture as to why we’ve arrived at this point. Let's get into it:
The Short Notice
The biggest and most valid concern we’ve seen this far has been from users, particularly those from the S53 class and some GMs, has been about how sudden these changes feel and that they feel a sense of whiplash from regression hitting harder and faster than they were prepared for. For starters, we’re empathetic to these feelings and we can understand why you all feel this way. I’d like to share our perspective in Head Office, in hopes that it’ll broaden your field of view to see why it’s shaken out this way. For starters, this was a discussion that has been really in conversation for a very long time now. 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. That all said, some of you may still say that even if all this is true, why not just push back these changes going into effect until next offseason, as opposed to getting them out immediately with the coming offseason only weeks away. The answer there lies in the problem these regression changes were implemented to address: parity. A lot of users have made note of the fact that these regression changes are killing their enjoyment for the site, which I can understand, but nothing has been more detrimental to the enjoyment of the site than the league’s parity (or lack thereof) over the last almost 15 seasons. 8 of the last 14 cups have been won by the same 2 teams, our playoff runs have grown stagnant, and we’ve heard concerns from more than enough people that don’t play on the league’s juggernauts regarding just how poorly this has shaped their view of the league. It has killed people’s drives to be competitive, to care about their team’s success, and has instilled a feeling of hopelessness in a large majority of the league. The simple answer is that we couldn’t afford to wait. We’ve expanded twice, we’ve made changes to contract minimums, reworked the update scale, increased the number of teams making the playoffs, broke up the Great Lakes to restructure the divisions, and still the parity problem has been a dark cloud over this site’s ability to be enjoyed. These are changes that have happened over the course of over a year now, and still the problem persists. Delaying this new scale to next season means we’re enduring another 2 seasons of this status quo before changes go into effect, and potentially even longer than that as these changes ripple out. We don’t believe that was sustainable for the health of the league at large.
Why Increase Regression in the First Place?
This is a concern we haven’t seen too much about (I assume because Tommy detailed our goals in the original post), but it’s worth elaborating on again for the sake of clarity. I delved into it in the section regarding the short notice, but continuing from there, the good teams and players on this site are remaining good for far, far too long. Rebuilding teams spend so long rebuilding that by the time they’re closing in on some semblance of a competitive window, they’re still barely scratching the surface of where the league’s top tier teams are at, and at that point their players become fed up, either walking in free agency to these powerhouses, demanding trades, or going completely disenfranchised with the site altogether, and this has been an issue since we moved to FHM, closing in on 2 years ago at this point I believe. While these regression changes aren’t the be all end all fix to these issues (we have other ideas in the work that we intend to poll you all about in the coming offseason poll), encouraging increased player movement and SHORTENING (not completely eliminating) the peak of players should see a massive impact in roster turnover, league wide, by both allowing players to be called up earlier with an increased chance at being viable, or by having users retire and recreate sooner, giving more users a chance at the top.
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? Absolutely not. The problem isn’t the gap, its how large the gap is. These changes are bringing the ceiling FOR EVERYBODY down, to something that we think will make for a much more competitive product for everyone, not just the site’s elite.
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.
Does this change really help anything?
Yes it does! While it maintains the gap between the league’s top 10% and the league’s bottom 10%, it makes that gap much less staggering, as well as adding some much needed turnover at the top. Players can no longer be consistently, absolutely dominant over the course of 6 seasons at their peak, which gives new players a chance at the top, and makes for a playing field that is shifting and moving at a pace that is far more interesting than the one we have in place right now. Players gradually rise to the top, experience a modest, but temporary time in the spotlight (ideally with more than 4 teams being able to viably provide these results for a player), and gradually fall over the course of a career. The graphs in the original post show that we’re not completely knee capping players, even during the fall experienced through regression, you’re still able to maintain a competent and serviceable player well into regression, we’re just stopping people from being the absolute best for a period that is frankly far too long.
I’m upset about my chances at hitting 2k TPE being taken from me
We completely understand that 2k TPE is a milestone that everybody wants to hit, it's something we all dream of when we join the site. It’s fun to be in such a prestigious club, and get the badge, and hit a milestone so few have hit before, and while we’re empathetic to players' desires to hit that mark, I think we also need a bit of a reality check regarding just how prestigious 2k TPE really is. Through our research and discussion, we found multiple instances of players on this site who went inactive for months at a time, and managed to claw back to either hit 2k TPE, or within 100 TPE or less away from it. Buffalo right as you’re reading this post is fielding 8 players who are at or just outside of 2k TPE. We don’t say all this to be dismissive of 2k as a milestone, it’s extremely important to us too, but the reality is that while 2k TPE is still viewed as being a prestigious milestone, in the league’s current state, it simply isn’t. 2k is a milestone that should be reserved for the cream of the crop from every class (hitting 2k is still very possible under this new system for max earners by the way), it shouldn’t be something you can claw your way back to after not being here for an extended period of time. We can’t continue to call it a prestigious point in someone’s site career, while also continuing to allow it to exist in it’s current state. These changes aren’t to kill 2k’s attainability, it’s simply to bring it back in line with the difficulty it's been associated with. And if you don’t care about the badge or the career milestone and just want to be at the top of the league? You have even less reason to be concerned, as the ceiling for the entire league is coming down. You’re not being denied a chance at the top, we’re just preventing those who DO hit the top to be there at such a large gap from everyone else, and for as long as they have been over the last while.
We hope this addresses some of the major talking points we’ve been seeing over the last little while, and lets you all in a bit on where we’re coming from. Your feedback and criticism is genuinely very important to us and we want you to feel heard and have your questions answered. We’re just doing what we can for the health of the league. I’m at work right now but should this follow up provide more questions, we’ll do our best as a group to get back to you all when we can.
On behalf of the SHL Head Office
nour
**First GM in SMJHL history to win 3 Four Star Cups back-to-back-to-back**
Quote:Your feedback and criticism is genuinely very important to us
Drop the bullshit. You asked for GM input and ignored it. A different scale was implemented than GMs were asked for input on. You hear concerns over moving it up a season instead of keeping it after 10 and you come up with this response?
honestly i feel like the only way a middle league would work would be if the SMJHL was reduced in size and players only play in the juniors for a few seasons, which i think would just upset most people. seems to me like players would rather stay with their J teams even if they can't fully uncap because its just a better experience.
12-04-2021, 03:04 PMAcsolap Wrote: You mean like tighter cap because of contract tiers, a scale change and now a regression change?
Read 7’s reply.
And also, no. I’m talking 4 lines, I’m talking salary cap changes, I’m talking limiting player and global sliders, and I’m talking limiting player roles from max of 3 to max of 2.
Oh, and cracking down on tampering.
I'd much rather play in an AHL style league than ever play on a fourth line again. Seeing my last player finish with 1 goal, 5 assists and 6 points while getting less than 8 minutes of ice time per game would just suck. That was the worst. The other changes I leave to the more knowledgeable. I own FHM 6, but I haven't studied it like many people here have.
12-04-2021, 03:04 PMAcsolap Wrote: You mean like tighter cap because of contract tiers, a scale change and now a regression change?
Playing with the numbers has done almost nothing to solve the issue the first two times, surely this third attempt to play with numbers will put a restriction on how dominant some forms of competitive advantage are.
Changes take time to come to fruition. You are seeing teams having to release higher tpe players now such as buffalo with Aumy and I would argue that while maybe not in championships there has been a narrowing between the top and the bottom due to the scale change.
Credit to Ml002, King, Wasty, Carpy, Bruins10, Rum_Ham, Turd Ferguson, Ragnar and Enigmatic for the sigs.
PremierBromanov![[Image: 5PYmCAe.png]](https://i.imgur.com/5PYmCAe.png)
![[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/doubtfulalpha.gif)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
![[Image: vHNIXVO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/vHNIXVO.png)
![[Image: 639861613880541184.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/639861613880541184.png)
Cal Juice ![[Image: RyzkmSj.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RyzkmSj.png)
![[Image: Eo2nBCt.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Eo2nBCt.png)
Tomas Zadina ![[Image: tkMQzhf.png]](https://i.imgur.com/tkMQzhf.png)
Brady McIntyre ![[Image: ice-level.svg]](https://cards.simulationhockey.com/images/ice-level.svg)
![[Image: embros.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/364939328046235651/904115330266333204/embros.png)
![[Image: ddIlIkT.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ddIlIkT.png)
![[Image: qzGJBye.png]](https://i.imgur.com/qzGJBye.png)
![[Image: 66624_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/66624_s.gif)
![[Image: 56096_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/56096_s.gif)
![[Image: wMGKypg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/wMGKypg.png)
![[Image: sve7en.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/sve7en.gif)
![[Image: 1tWWEzv.png]](https://i.imgur.com/1tWWEzv.png)
![[Image: 8zFnf2t.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8zFnf2t.png)
![[Image: 6Lj3x8E.png]](https://i.imgur.com/6Lj3x8E.png)
![[Image: xkAdpbO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xkAdpbO.png)
![[Image: xnZrhKU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xnZrhKU.png)
![[Image: 9YigPG2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9YigPG2.png)
![[Image: bpYxJ69.png]](https://i.imgur.com/bpYxJ69.png)
![[Image: lap-teamsig.png]](https://i.ibb.co/qk2zy1Z/lap-teamsig.png)
![[Image: 7MO9RpC.png]](http://i.imgur.com/7MO9RpC.png)
![[Image: bjobin2.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/277634797369556992/963247203244179456/bjobin2.png)
![[Image: 9tINabI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9tINabI.png)
![[Image: c97iD9R.png]](https://i.imgur.com/c97iD9R.png)
efiug
![[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: hexx55.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/hexx55.gif)
![[Image: mitochondriafigure1.jpg]](https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/mitochondria/images/mitochondriafigure1.jpg)
![[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: eMf7wNV.png]](https://imgur.com/eMf7wNV.png)
