Login

*roastpuff* · 12-05-2021, 03:19 AM

@nour thank you for your response. However, I think most of what you wrote has been covered by @"TommySalami" before, and I don't think you really answered some of the other questions that came up in the thread.

1. Why was the scale that was implemented different than what was proposed in GM chat? Why did the GMs not get a chance to comment on the scale that ended up being implemented before it went live?

2. What made HO determine that 53/54 was the class to implement the cut-off, and what other alternatives other than double regression and moving the regression to D+9 were explored? Why not front-load regression instead of eliminating a season entirely?

3. I understand that HO felt an urgency to get this project done and implemented - if so, why was there not more attention paid to when the announcement would be and how it would impact the league? Why this rushed feeling announcement, as if you guys ran out of time and went "Oh shit the off-season is in a couple of weeks, we need to get this out?" If it was as important as you said it is in order to alleviate stagnation, shouldn't more care and thought be put into the way this whole situation is handled?

4. Are you sure this is going to create parity in the league? I think that HO is focusing on TPE to the detriment of the other pillars of success in the league. Teams who have FHM knowledge and skill, who are able to attract and retain talent - they will all simply compress their schedule and go on their merry way. Like what was mentioned in HTT, they already have contingency plans for situations similar to this. The strong teams will stay strong, the weak teams will struggle to find their way out of the situation that HO is creating. Take a look at the J as an example of the future that you are trying to create.

5. PTs for engagement - I think I speak for a majority of players when I say that PTs are not what keeps us engaged in this league. In fact, if you look at this season's PT - how many people bothered to do Prompt 1 and create a scenario for their player? Most people take the easier prompt, blather 150+ words, and check it off their list. How many people actually read others' championship week entries? I doubt any do if they were not tagged in it. If you guys are worried about TPE inflation, bring back the TPE cap - I guarantee you a lot of players will be happier for it. We'd get to take a week or two off, and not have a checklist of stuff to do in a week before the deadline.

I think that there still exists a lot of questions to be answered before this matter can be put to rest. Let me re-state that I am in agreement with a steeper regression curve, and that player careers are too long.

However, I think that the way this matter was handled is not appropriate with something that has been touted as "super-important" and "necessary," and has caused a lot of heartache, distrust, and diminished the goodwill held by many players towards HO.

jtam · 12-05-2021, 03:37 AM

I don't post much, and I know I'm not a max earner of S53 or anything. (I might hit 2k! Won't ever play in it most likely with this change, but at least I might hit it?)

I won't pretend I know how to run a league like this, nor do I have the knowledge of how things ran before (or even presently), I'm uber casual about this league. I am sure a lot of what is in this post have likely been said before but I thought I'd throw some words up. (I shoulda just made this a media piece, at least earn some money lol).

I don't mind the regression increase. What I do mind is that I suddenly have to regress twice at a go. Like... maybe ease it up a bit, instead of going big hammer on S53 and S54. Like an easing into the earlier year of regression should have been considered instead of BAM DOUBLE REGRESSION (based on previous regression amounts). I dont even mind if its like S53s get a 15% regression (which is 5% higher than what we would originally be regressing) and then go forward with the new scale. S54s, maybe get like a 5% regression this year, because they suddenly went from 0 regression to 10% regression. Like.. ease it in. S55s would then get 7-8% regression their first year, cause they got surprised too. S56s would get 10% when they reach d+9. That way, there would have been 3 seasons of heftier regressions, making players a bit more bunched up together TPE-wise. No matter what, everyone is going to feel it, but at least its not just double regression right from get go.

I also don't get why we moved up regression from D+10 to D+9? I think that raises a HUGE host of problems, and probably the reason for the double regression. Why not just increase the regression percentages to age players out faster? We all want to build a player that gets to play at their peak for at least a season or two, I think that's one of the joys of a sim league. I think an explanation of that was that S53 and S54 benefited a lot from the TPE inflation. That's not our fault, and in fact, everyone in the league received that same benefit in TPE inflation.

The core crux of the parity problem i believe is that good GMs and Coaches attract/keep/bring in higher TPE Talent into the roster through shrewd trades, drafting, and free agent signings. Or form cliques because they have a fun time together. Winning is fun, seeing yourself on the top of the leaderboards is fun. And then on top of that good coaches create a strat that works best for their team. Nuking TPE isn't going to change that. Everyone likes to blame TPE, because its the easiest thing to point at and change. Honestly, spreading out High TPE players to more teams will help parity more than bunching all the players into a blob of the same TPE. Sure you get "parity" because everyone has around the same TPE, but you also get super boring player builds because once someone finds an "optimal" build, everyone will be the same, every other build is going to be sub-optimal. To spread out High TPE players around, its all about salary and salary cap. Right now...the McDavids (top tier, top flight players 2200TPE+) of the league are making the same amount of salary as second-line supplementary players (Pierre Luc-Dubois/Sam Bennet/Bo Horvat/Ryan Nugent-Hopkins). Maybe a decoupling of money actually paid out vs Salary Cap impact needs to happen. Like you earn 6m in actual cash, but your salary cap impact is 12m cause you are 2200+. Or maybe increase / add more tiers of Contracts above 1600+ TPE = 6m.

But to be honest, salary means nothing when there are users out there with hundreds and millions of dollah billz, which they earned through their hard work, and it should not in anyway be removed from them or adjusted.

But yeah.... I am not going to lie, I got pretty bummed out when I got told about this change. Real life has ramped up for me, but I'm still trying to do what I can to keep growing Hammarberg (I am so sorry for everyone that picked me in fantasy, I failed you this year.) Making a change like this, ramming it through... I suddenly go from where I am at right now to 1600 TPE which would be around the top earners of S57 4 seasons my junior... Not only is it not fair for me as a player, but for teams that invested heavily into players that are max earners, traded for max earners with huge packages (heh...heh...heh..phrasing?) I'm debating in my head if I want to just retire, or just go inactive and be deadweight, which is super unfair to Hamilton as they were expecting a at least 1800-2000TPE player for one, or two more seasons after this one. But yeah, boohoo, stick it to Hamilton right?

Just some random thoughts from a clueless guy.

st4rface · 12-05-2021, 04:26 AM

No one cares about this “update”… It really isn’t even an update. It’s just a long way to say “yeah, this still stays and y’all can’t do nothing about it”. League just going downhill.

*Carpy48* · 12-05-2021, 05:52 AM

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way, but at the moment I don't see a reason why I should even consider recreating. When I joined the league almost 3 years ago it was a fun hobby and I thought if you stayed decicated enough (I have not missed a single AC or PT since joining and I don't even know how many hours of work I've put into the league) you could build a good or even great player and have a chance to win something in the end. That's how it's supposed to work and STHS was random enough so it worked. In comes FHM and if you're not on a top team, forget it, no chance. That hasn't really changed much. Those that were lucky and ended up on the good teams win cup after cup, award after award even if they aren't max earning. Of course they enjoy the league.

We found out that either you have a management group on your team that's super into FHM and has tons of time to test, or you don't. The only option is to leave your team and go to one of the 'good' teams to even have a chance to win. That's what it looks like right now, it might not seem that way to younger players, but it's reality for those that are deep into regression and still haven't won anything. Rebuilding means nothing, we've done that with Toronto, it took a good 2 years and were one of the top teams on paper and did it change anything? No. The new regression scale just mean that I have fewer seasons left to win a cup and I simply don't WANT to leave my team - that's my own decision (and part of the storyline that I would like my player to have).

As long as we can't have real parity - yes, that word again - the league isn't fun anymore, it's broken. And in that case I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this way. Why would you even try to max earn and be active every week if in the end it's not up to you anyway?

***nour*** · 12-05-2021, 06:01 AM

Hey y'all, late night reply post-work, gonna try to reply to some of these follow up questions and comments as best as I can, and will try to have more conversations, both here and one on one with various users, tomorrow (no work woooo)

12-04-2021, 04:22 PMToast Wrote:
12-04-2021, 03:53 PMnour Wrote: 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.

This is crap. I've been active all of Klompus' career and GM'd for majority of it. Being called someone who wasn't here for an extended period of time is infuriating. It's the same boat for the handful of 54s caught in this.

Hey Toast, so I just want to clarify because I think you're misunderstanding me, maybe that's my fault for not being more clear. I'm not saying that EVERYONE currently at 2k or closing in on 2k didn't work to get there, not even remotely. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are examples in recent years of users who DID take time away from the site for an extended period of time and were still able to hit a milestone that used to be something ONLY those who worked for it could hit. I'm 100% not accusing you, or any S54s of not working hard to get where you're at right now, I'm just saying that there are examples of what I was talking about, not at all saying anyone in that tier coasted there or didn't work for it. I hope that clears things up, I really didn't mean to offend, I just wanted to highlight that we wanna bring back some prestige to the milestone everybody wants to hit. Even under this new scale, we expect those who are perennially active and engaged here to hit the 2k milestone with no asterisks, you are not an example of what I was talking about because you're somebody who I believe SHOULD hit the 2k and has obviously worked hard to hit it. That goes for a lot of you in S54.

Shl

12-04-2021, 04:25 PMPremierBromanov Wrote:
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.

Hey Bromanov, there's a lot to respond to here so I'll try not to drag on too long in my replies, I'm gonna number each reply to show which point I'm specifically addressing:

1. You are reading this wrong I believe. What I'm trying to say is not at all that we rushed this decision, we've actually been discussing it for months across various different HO Groups, with users coming in and out. Rather, the point I'm trying to make is 1. the reason this decision didn't at the beginning of the season, where you all would have had more of a heads up, is because it plain and simply wasn't ready by then and 2. the reason was feel it HAS to come out now, is because now that everything HAS run its course, and we finally reached a conclusion we were happy with, we didn't want to drag our feet on it or delay things further. It was ready after months of hammering away at it, we wanted to get it out as soon as it was ready, because we feel it is vital the league's health as a whole. I also wanna stress with this reply that I'm not trying to discredit people's anger or deny them the right to be upset, I'm just highlighting, at least in this post, what I meant further to hopefully clarify the concern you raised in your first comment.

2. Addressing this second point, you're right in saying that we could make players regress harder without making their peaks shorter. However, making players' peaks shorter was something we WANTED to tackle. It's not just a sorry consequence of the other changes we introduced, we as a whole believed the length of players' peaks, in its current state in relation to parity and the overall health of the league, was too high. You're also correct in saying that we introduced scale changes to lessen the impact that high TPE players are having, but its grown increasing clear that while it has caused an improvement, it hasn't been the day and night difference maker we hoped it'd be. Did it shorten the gap a bit? Yeah, but very marginally so, a quick look at the standings and the league's statistical leaders shows this pretty clearly, not to mention the playoff results over the course of the last 10+ seasons. In regards to the claims over nuking classes and that we're only focusing on the 2300s, we researched these changes and their impact on all types of earners at various levels to ensure we weren't effectively killing anybody not on pace for 2k. Our results showed that mid to max earners were still able to maintain an SHL career (and when I say maintain, I mean be a realistically functioning and contributing teammate, not just barely roster-able) anywhere between 14-18+ seasons (subject to earning pace), which is still a career length spanning 2 years and 4 months to 3 years of IRL time, which is about what the average career length for most people on this site. Nobody is getting nuked or becoming unviable overnight, we're just trying to dial back what the peak is defined at, how easy it is to get to various peaks, and how long those peaks should be maintained, all in the spirit of improving parity and increasing systems people have told us they want to see more of, such as increased player movement and shorter juniors careers, to name a few. Again I wanna stress we're not barring people from ever hitting 2K, we've crunched the numbers ourselves on various earners and we can see plainly that 2k TPE is still an achievable milestone, it's just become more work to actually hit it and maintain it, keeping up with the prestige associated with that milestone, creating a greater balance between those that do hit that milestone and those who don't, and bringing it more in line with how it's almost always been, before inflation escalated things to the point its at right now, which is frankly out of control.

3. Again I will reiterate that no, we did not skip discussion and research, we've actively been engaged in both for many, many months now across the tenure of various HO members who have come in and out. I also wanna say, like I said in the reply that you're responding to, that we are more than well aware that there are issues beyond regression that we need to work on. We're actively working on shortening season length as we speak, and are hoping to implement a set schedule that has been discussed between SHL and SMJHL HO that will trim things down to avoid 75+ day seasons with extras ACs and Trainings. We've also discussed (and are continuing to discuss) the addition of 4th lines, changes to FHM Coaching and Testing, making using FHM easier for those who still feel uncomfortable with it, and so much more. So in short, yes we're aware that there are other avenues to take, and just because we tackled regression first doesn't mean we're ignoring those other avenues, but like all broad issues with anything in life, the response and solution is almost always going to be a multi-faceted one. Regression is only the first step to improving things, we not only hear everyone's ideas, but we're actively discussing ways to put them into action following this. It's our job to do so, and we fully intend to continue doing so in a way that will hopefully make you all feel heard. Lastly for this response, I will say that in regards to the state of parity, to call it a wound would be an understatement. Again I want to stress that these regression changes aren't a "panic response", we've been discussing them for a very long time, and once they were ready, we got them out because we didn't want to drag our feet on it at its completion. Parity is a problem on this site that frankly needed fixing season's ago. We recognize regression isn't going to be the sole reason it gets fixed, but it is the first step.

Shl

12-04-2021, 05:18 PMsve7en Wrote:
12-04-2021, 03:53 PMnour Wrote: 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

Hey nour, I appreciate you looking to give a comprehensive response. I know that you guys have acted in good faith with respect to having the league's interest at heart, but I also think that the conversations in HO initially and in the last few days have been insulated from the userbase's (both GMs and players) perspectives. I'm going to break down each of these topics and responses you set up, including my own questions and ideas.

Re: The Short Notice (the first part, not the talk about parity)
You guys acknowledge the relative urgency in making changes. There are issues facing the league and you guys have plans to fix that, to implement them any time later than immediately would be flawed of course. This ignores a few components of this category of complaints, and touches on other complaints as well. There's a general frustration with the ability for HO to actually manage the timing of their announcements, the proximity of the announcement to the end of the season isn't ideal, and the logic you use for immediate implementation is rooted in a boogeyman argument that you've set up in a way to be resolved by these changes.

The current and recent HO's have left a sour taste in the mouths of many users after the last few waves of punishments, specifically in the last few and the timing involved in some of these. The punishments this year related to Toronto, Winnipeg, and Montreal all came down the pipeline late, the latter two having additional ramifications in the draft that will have perpetual ripple effects. I believe HO has acknowledged that these delays were an issue, but if they were or weren't that complaint was definitely raised. HO's tendency to leave a decision until an inopportune moment to announce it has been a problem recently, which plays into this other idea that the decision to change the scale has been in progress for a while and it's finally revealed and immediately put into effect just weeks before the offseason. This timing hurts players in S53/S54 who have had long term plans and are losing massive amounts of TPE as well as GMs of teams who have been planning out seasons in advance and are now suddenly seeing a season of that time vanish - for better or worse.

Re: Why Increase Regression in the First Place?
I overall agree with this one, in that the update scale change was going to have this effect. Shortening the length of the plateau is reasonable, and while it hurts to be a team missing out on some of our expected plateau (S51-S54), the math checks out - something I referenced early after the release on HTT and something that most GMs agree on (because it seems like that's what the conversation with GMs was about, and nothing really was discussed about implementations while also having backlash about moving it to 9 season regression). Overall, the math and scale makes sense, and I think that does help deal with an issue that people might be playing a single player too long.

Re: Why Does Regression Start at Season 9 Now Instead of Season 10? and 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?
Despite complaints about unfair effects of implementation, you look to focus on the overall TPE inflation and the gap between young and old players. This is frustrating because it ignores the complaints that the classes of S53 and S54 have, ignores alternative solutions that have been implemented before to positive results, and ignores alternatives that could have been used. As I detailed HERE, and HERE (to an impressively quiet response) these changes affect S53 and S54 in a different way. Each class before and after these two classes will have two seasons at the peak TPE possible in the league, but each of these two classes only have one season. This function of moving the regression forward a season is fundamentally unfair and alienating to everyone in those classes. This is more difficult to swallow because we've seen other ideas for dealing with the gap between good and bad players be suggested and some of them even be noted by you in your post as successfully being utilized. I understand the logic behind not wanting to limit TPE earning because that might hurt the levels of engagement if people start to check out by then end of the season when they can't earn (I also think this is mitigated if every team has closer to 50% win rates and can actually engage with their team's performance, but I understand that's a risk you might not be able to take). The idea of allowing for a peak season and frontloading regression - I've suggested that 18-20%, something that you're actively planning to do to S53 - allows for an identical scale to the one you want to implement while also allowing for a single peak season in the 10th. Alternatively, we've seen the positive effect and successful implementation of an update scale change, something that we know can be used to bring rookies closer to the players at the top of the league. Both of those are more reasonable options than deleting a season from the timeline of the league. TPE inflation is a failure on HO and PT teams to manage the earning available per season, but as I said before I can understand why you're not interested in pursuing these pathways. It overall is a poor argument for moving the regression calendar earlier though, when better scheduling and update scale changes could have a similar effect.

Re: I’m upset about my chances at hitting 2k TPE being taken from me.
I think this is a fair argument, but I understand both sides. To have the league celebrate an individual milestone like that to the point where there's an all time leaderboard that represents your commitment to a player, team, and league, makes it an incredibly attractive goal. TPE inflation has made this easier, and max numbers have been climbing, but when a person who has no concept of TPE inflation joins the league and sets their sights on that, earns for 7 seasons or so at a pace that will let them hit that mark, and then get told that they won't be able to make it there because of a decision in the context of all the other flaws facing it, they're more than validated in being pissed. In your response to them you even allude to the idea that you left it there because you recognize it's value, yet instead of managing a TPE schedule or implementation other changes already mentioned it appears to many that a crude and lazy solution was chosen.

Re: Does this change really help anything?
Finally, my biggest issue with this is that it begins to set up the idea that this will help parity. Parity has grown into this buzzword used by different people to mean different things, but the general premise of this is that teams that are good have a stranglehold on the league right now, which you reference. This change to the regression scale does two things, the implementation of the new numerical scale demands a traditional season of heavy regression and makes older players worse and the transition from 10 season regression to 9 season regression removes a season from the timeline of players and GMs (just not for contracts). By nature of the old scale, the teams that have been successful for a while generally have had older players, the youngest might be Buffalo who has 4 S53 players and 4 S50-52 plateau players about to be affected by this, Chicago has 10, Hamilton also has 8, Chicago has 9, Batlimore (the newcomer who has rebuilt during the last few seasons) has 7, and Tampa (the fringe threat) has 6. Kneecapping these old players while also advancing the TPE timeline of the league by a season is setting HO up to call this a successful change when you define this issue just on cup winners and division winners over the last few seasons and is only treating the symptoms of parity while doing nothing to actually address the core cause of parity - the effects of competitive advantages that teams have are notably increased in the FHM era. Teams who are good at tactics, good at testing, good at acquiring TPE, or good at drawing and retaining talent are more powerful than they once were and are more powerful when compared to dominant teams in the NHL or other real sports. The top teams in the SHL are dominant to a point where the odds of winning are incredibly slim sometimes, and the lack of randomness leads to incredibly deterministic results where the teams with these ever present or current advantages win more than anyone feels like they should be able to. This change doesn't affect that, it only scrambles the existing situation while ignoring the likelihood that the league will quickly re-stratify to this once again. Pressing fast forward on the league won't change anything long term.

Nour, the math makes sense, I'm not denying that. I can see where the increased turnover has it's benefits both in game and in the community. To push crude changes that didn't consider the effect that it had on the career paths and timelines while continuing to insist that this will help parity, is offensive to the point where people who would recreate might not and are causing people deeply committed to the league to leave it behind either for other leagues or other hobbies. The unfortunate reality is that the league might not be able to move from the 10 season regression formula without losing a substantial part of the userbase affected by this move. There are solutions that do help career length and turnover, and many of us are for them, I just want to see it done with fairness in mind, not parity misconstrued as such.

Hey Sve7en, thank you so much for the thorough and civil reply. There's a lot to unpack here, so I'm again going to try to keep my response concise and not ramble on too long, and I will say there are a few points I'm going to leave till the very end of this mega reply to address, not just to you but to everyone. That said, let's get into it:

Short Notice - A major, glaring flaw of the HO groups most recently under my tenure has been slowness and inefficiency. Gonna come out right now and say that the fault for this falls on nobody who has been involved in Head Office but myself. I would say that over the course of my tenure I've done a good job being this site's leader, but as of late I have taken a backstep in the quality of my leadership and that has affected everyone who depends on me for strong leadership. I'm gonna address this more in this season's State of the Union, detailing where things have gone wrong, why they went wrong, and real, practical change I want to implement to repair the damages my subpar leadership these last 2 seasons has caused. I'm sorry I can't detail more of that right this moment, but I promise I will have a real, earnest and detailed commitment for the entire site regarding this problem within 2 weeks from now as I work on hammering out the SOTU. In regards specifically to the regression changes and their impact on the S53/S54 class, as well as their feelings on this, I will touch on this at the end.

Why Increase Regression - Thank you for meeting me in the middle here, we're really glad to hear that you see the practical benefits of these changes in a vacuum, even while taking issue with their implementation so far.

Why Season 9 Regression - So my response here is twofold: One half is gonna be rooted in acknowledging where you're coming from and actually agreeing with a lot of what you're saying, the other will just be to add some perspective regarding some issues I have with this. For starters, I will say that reading through your perspective, I think I can totally agree that there is at least enough of an argument to be made that the severity of S53 and S54s lost peak season is worth another look by Head Office, I can't say much more beyond that but you've raised a point here that warrants HO taking a second look at things. I do wanna stress that this isn't what's spurring us on to take a second look, we've been actively doing that since the initial responses to these changes started pouring in, but I just wanna highlight that you have made a concise, understandable and reasonable point here, and while I can't give you a direct answer without a full conversation in HO, I want you to know that conversation is happening right now and will continue to happen, with an answer hopefully coming in the immediate future. Now just to quickly touch on my concerns, I highlighted that update scale changes have worked in the past, and to a marginal effect they have, but the reality is FHM's more limited scale really prevents us from exploring that avenue again. STHS boasted a 40-99 scale, which allowed for a lot more nuance when shifting things around because it was easier to space TPE earning tiers out. FHM's 1-20 system on the other hand really handcuffs us from exploring further update scale changes as a viable solution because we've sort of milked it for all it's worth in the last change. That said, scheduling is another great point from you that, like I mentioned in my reply to Bromanov above, we're actively working on fixing sooner rather than later, in conjunction with SMJHL HO (SHL GMs have actually already gotten a look at the first (but not final) iteration of the new, properly plotted, consistent schedule, and we're excited to share that with you all too.

Upset about missing out on 2K - I can respect your balanced take on the matter, and a lot of the negative perception definitely is rooted in perspective, where older users are gonna more clearly recall a time where 2k's prestige means it should be a more exclusive club, and newer members are upset because all they've ever known is the earning pace that has more recently existed on the site. I'll address here like I said above that we are looking actively to implement scheduling fixes soon too, so that is something that has well surpassed the "we'll discuss it and see" phase. In terms of players feeling like they're being gatekept out of that milestone, I again wanna stress that even under this new scale, 2k is attainable for max earners, as it always has been throughout a majority of the site's history. I know that doesn't address the issues with the heftiness of the hit or the implementation of this system (again I will try to address that towards the end of this mega reply), but I do want to really stress that for those who have seriously worked hard and max earned, we have done the math to ensure 2k TPE as a milestone isn't being robbed from them

Does this help - Again another great response, my reply to this won't be very long as I've already touched on a similar sentiment in concerns above, but I wanna again highlight that regression is 100% not seen by HO as a be all end all fix, and while parity is something we're tackling, these regression changes are also in place to make positive impacts on roster turnover, shortening juniors careers by opening more spots on SHL teams for them to hop into, and theoretically player movement, all non-parity issues that we've had raised to HO over the course of the last 5+ seasons. Without dragging this section too much longer, I'm again going to re-iterate that we are looking to tackle parity in more ways than just this, and to your point about FHM coaching and tactics, we actually began discussion at the beginning of this season regarding how to tackle that, with the goal of giving the entire site a response in this season's SOTU. Trust me when I say we recognize there is more to fixing parity than just "make players bad faster", and I hope you, along with everyone else, will be able to see that we recognize that in changes/developments we're about to announce very shortly. While I won't be able to give full details on everything (there's an idea or 2 that I'm not fully at liberty to share just yet), we fully plan to show you all that the heart of the parity problem is a multi-faceted one, and we're tackling it from more angles than just what you see in front of you right now.

Thank you again for your reply Sve7en, you and plenty of people on this site have given us a lot to think about and discuss, and when I say I'm empathetic I promise you it's not hollow words, we are empathetic to the point of having discussion internally and seeing what we can do to buy back some faith and good will from you all, not 2 seasons from now, not 1 season from now, but in the immediate.

Shl

@roastpuff hey roast thanks so much for your reply, so I'm going to feel like a real dick doing this but it's unfortunately almost 5am here and I can't quite get to this right now, but I do hope some of my replies above at least begin to touch on the points you've brought up here. Your entire reply has already been pasted in the HO Discord for discussion courtesy of @Keygan (I actually typed up a rough draft of a reply to it just an hour ago), and we're all working as a team to assemble a response that addresses your concerns, further explains our side of this story, but most importantly, makes you feel heard and not like your reply to this has been falling on deaf ears. Again I'm really sorry I can't answer this right now, it's really late here and I do really wish I could stay up all night addressing everything in one go, but I've had a bit of a longer day than normal and I don't want to half ass a response to you, you deserve better than that.

Shl

I'm going to be putting this last part in big text so it hopefully doesn't get lost in this already gigantic post:

The concerns and issues raised by those these changes most negatively affect are being actively heard and listened to by HO. We are not telling you to suck it up and deal with it, we've received a lot of feedback and it's just taking some time for us to sift through it all. I can't promise you all right now that things are going to be completely changed, but I do want you all to know that we are discussing your criticisms, plenty of which are more than valid enough for us to take a serious second look at the changes we're making. We still do truly at our core believe that the foundation of these changes are ones that are a net positive for the site as a whole, but we can see and hear where you all are coming from regarding their implementation, and we are at the very least discussing the concept of altering that implementation in a way that is more fair to everyone, while still tackling the problems we feel we need to tackle. There's a middle ground here, it's our job to find it, and we hope you can just be a little more patient with us as we seek it out and finalize things going forward. These changes have been officially announced, but the first regression following these changes isn't here yet. There's still time, just allow us the opportunity to use that time to continue to hammer away at this very, very important topic. We're doing our best, we're only human.

SHL Commissioner, and your friend,
nour

**First GM in SMJHL history to win 3 Four Star Cups back-to-back-to-back**

***nour*** · 12-05-2021, 06:03 AM

12-05-2021, 05:52 AMCarpy48 Wrote: Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way, but at the moment I don't see a reason why I should even consider recreating. When I joined the league almost 3 years ago it was a fun hobby and I thought if you stayed decicated enough (I have not missed a single AC or PT since joining and I don't even know how many hours of work I've put into the league) you could build a good or even great player and have a chance to win something in the end. That's how it's supposed to work and STHS was random enough so it worked. In comes FHM and if you're not on a top team, forget it, no chance. That hasn't really changed much. Those that were lucky and ended up on the good teams win cup after cup, award after award even if they aren't max earning. Of course they enjoy the league.

We found out that either you have a management group on your team that's super into FHM and has tons of time to test, or you don't. The only option is to leave your team and go to one of the 'good' teams to even have a chance to win. That's what it looks like right now, it might not seem that way to younger players, but it's reality for those that are deep into regression and still haven't won anything. Rebuilding means nothing, we've done that with Toronto, it took a good 2 years and were one of the top teams on paper and did it change anything? No. The new regression scale just mean that I have fewer seasons left to win a cup and I simply don't WANT to leave my team - that's my own decision (and part of the storyline that I would like my player to have).

As long as we can't have real parity - yes, that word again - the league isn't fun anymore, it's broken. And in that case I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this way. Why would you even try to max earn and be active every week if in the end it's not up to you anyway?

Hey carpy, my most recent reply is a long one but it contains some points in there addressing the frustrations with gaps in FHM knowledge between GMs. Long story short, its something we are very very seriously working on, we actually began work on it at the stat of this season. I hear your frustrations, and want you to know that while the outlook is not great right now, you have my word that it's being addressed and hopefully fixed in the very near future. Stick with us my friend, I promise it'll be worth it.

**First GM in SMJHL history to win 3 Four Star Cups back-to-back-to-back**

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 12-05-2021, 08:37 AM

It's good that HO is taking the concerns seriously and is looking to alleviate some of the pain that people have been feeling. But at the same time, I have to ask: What are the alternatives that you guys who hate this change are suggesting? Because so far I have mostly seen people paying lipservice to the concept or "parity" while presenting measueres that either are completely ineffective or would make the whole league a lot less enjoyable for everyone. Cutting back seasonal TPE a bit while adding higher regression percentages later in players careers? That does absolutely nothing to fix the problems we have right now and even 5-10 seasons down the line will only have a rather small effect. Getting rid of TPE opportunities or an even harsher update scale where you end up only being able to improve like two attributes a season? How is stuff like that that actively makes everything less fun and engaging for everyone better for the league than having one or two draft classes have a little less of a peak (and the difference isn't nearly as big as you make it sound) than their predecessors?

People are trying to hide it behind big posts that are even longer than mine and some might not even be doing it conciously, but it's ultimately a very selfish approach. It's "my peak > the overall health of the league". It's "why us, why not some other class?". It's "I want all the benefits of the new era of inflation, new engine and what not, but none of the costs". And ultimately it's "I'd rather have less engagement for everyone or an update scale that slows progression almost to a halt than giving up a small portion of my peak and a largely meaningless TPE number next to my player name".

I would be curious to know which of these groups some of you see yourselves falling into:
Do you you think parity is a problem that needs to be tackled asap? Then why is all that I've been seeing for seasons now people giving big talks about how parity is important - until the measures start affecting them, then they'll be fought tooth and nail.
Or do you think parity is a problem but this isn't the aspect of the leagues infrastructure to tackle it with? If so, what else is? The stuff I mentioned above all won't do shit for this issue in the short-term, the only real other valid suggestion I remember from this thread is limiting tactical options and players roles in the sim, but maybe I'm missing something.
Or do think parity is just a strawman used to justify everything these days and we shouldn't do anything, or the measures implemented already are enough?

This is a really tough issue for me right now because on the one hand I understand people being upset and the devastating emotional effect of this change being dropped on people like that. But at the same time, I really hope that we won't be looking back at this situation in a few months or years as the day where S53 and 54s sacrificed the health of the league so they could keep their shiny 2k badges.

***hhh81*** · 12-05-2021, 09:43 AM

12-05-2021, 08:37 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Getting rid of TPE opportunities or an even harsher update scale where you end up only being able to improve like two attributes a season? How is stuff like that that actively makes everything less fun and engaging for everyone better for the league than having one or two draft classes have a little less of a peak (and the difference isn't nearly as big as you make it sound) than their predecessors?

People are trying to hide it behind big posts that are even longer than mine and some might not even be doing it conciously, but it's ultimately a very selfish approach. It's "my peak > the overall health of the league". It's "why us, why not some other class?". It's "I want all the benefits of the new era of inflation, new engine and what not, but none of the costs". And ultimately it's "I'd rather have less engagement for everyone or an update scale that slows progression almost to a halt than giving up a small portion of my peak and a largely meaningless TPE number next to my player name".

I totally agree. Seems like a lot of people are centering themselves as if this is actively malicious by HO despite that being an insane take.

I've always argued for focusing on process, not results/outcomes detached from the process.

*slothfacekilla* · 12-05-2021, 10:57 AM

12-05-2021, 08:37 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: It's good that HO is taking the concerns seriously and is looking to alleviate some of the pain that people have been feeling. But at the same time, I have to ask: What are the alternatives that you guys who hate this change are suggesting?

I'm confused, haven't Bromanov and 7 suggested concrete alternative solutions that don't rob an entire draft class of one of their peak seasons? Bromanov even posted charts he made I'm not sure how you missed it.

***luke*** · 12-05-2021, 11:26 AM

12-05-2021, 03:03 AMhockeyiscool Wrote:
12-04-2021, 11:20 PMluketd Wrote: Welcome to the grind. I think almost everyone that is on the site dealt with the burnout. Maybe it’s just grind of PT’s for 100+ weeks. Maybe it’s your player not doing well. Maybe it’s just the repition of doing the same thing week after week. Maybe it’s just 2 years has gone by haha. Fuck I deal with it like 5 times a year. I’m kinda dealing with it now with PT’s. It’s why I stepped down from being Co-Commish, the grind. Sometimes you find ways on why you fell in love with the league. Other times you might disappear for a month or forever. But we are always welcomed back
Imagine the first comment after the original post is someone who was a past member of HO doing the exact thing of presenting an excuse as to someone feeling the way they do.

Honestly don’t know what this is suppose to mean. I’m trying to relate with him because everyone hits the wall

***luke*** · 12-05-2021, 11:45 AM

12-05-2021, 05:52 AMCarpy48 Wrote: Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way, but at the moment I don't see a reason why I should even consider recreating. When I joined the league almost 3 years ago it was a fun hobby and I thought if you stayed decicated enough (I have not missed a single AC or PT since joining and I don't even know how many hours of work I've put into the league) you could build a good or even great player and have a chance to win something in the end. That's how it's supposed to work and STHS was random enough so it worked. In comes FHM and if you're not on a top team, forget it, no chance. That hasn't really changed much. Those that were lucky and ended up on the good teams win cup after cup, award after award even if they aren't max earning. Of course they enjoy the league.

We found out that either you have a management group on your team that's super into FHM and has tons of time to test, or you don't. The only option is to leave your team and go to one of the 'good' teams to even have a chance to win. That's what it looks like right now, it might not seem that way to younger players, but it's reality for those that are deep into regression and still haven't won anything. Rebuilding means nothing, we've done that with Toronto, it took a good 2 years and were one of the top teams on paper and did it change anything? No. The new regression scale just mean that I have fewer seasons left to win a cup and I simply don't WANT to leave my team - that's my own decision (and part of the storyline that I would like my player to have).

As long as we can't have real parity - yes, that word again - the league isn't fun anymore, it's broken. And in that case I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this way. Why would you even try to max earn and be active every week if in the end it's not up to you anyway?

Hey Carpy, idk if Nour responded to you or not. But I would like to thank you for what you have done on the site. You really stabilized the graphics department, which can not be understated. You create fun tourneys and that’s also important. After I got me thanking you out of the way. Since I joined HO in 57, parity was the number 1 issue, and still is from talking with Sean and Nour. I know and feel the same frustrations as you. That’s why Atleast when I was in there we did step 1 of trying to help that parity. The increase in cap for higher tpe players, an update change, trying to see if pulling those levels would help. And they did a little bit, but not enough to the extent from what we saw. Regression changes from when I was in HO was always going to be around this time, if we didn’t see significant changes. And I’m sure there are more being worked on in HO now. Idk really know why I’m typing this. Maybe to get my own frustrations out, idk really know. But youve been a good member of the shl

Symmetrik · 12-05-2021, 12:55 PM

12-05-2021, 10:57 AMslothfacekilla Wrote:
12-05-2021, 08:37 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: It's good that HO is taking the concerns seriously and is looking to alleviate some of the pain that people have been feeling. But at the same time, I have to ask: What are the alternatives that you guys who hate this change are suggesting?

I'm confused, haven't Bromanov and 7 suggested concrete alternative solutions that don't rob an entire draft class of one of their peak seasons? Bromanov even posted charts he made I'm not sure how you missed it.

I've only seen suggestions that either don't target the problems, or create bigger problems.

Reducing the number of TPE available doesn't help reduce the gap between the absolute peak and rookies. I feel like that's an important point not being focused on by alternative solutions. It's not about the difference between 1900 and 2300. It's about the difference between 800 and 1900. That's a lot better for rookies than going up against 2300 TPE. Reducing TPE opportunities reduces TPE for everyone and does nothing to bring the level of rookies closer to the peak (unless you want rookies to spend more time in the minors). It also takes a LONG time to be seen. "Just don't give out so much TPE 3head" doesn't help because it doesn't address one of the big problems. I believe it was RED (I could be wrong) who mentioned that while you could earn more, STHS basically maxed out your useful attributes at ~1500 TPE (and let's not forget we had "archetypes" so you were limited with 1 attribute at 85 and it cost twice as much). FHM doesn't have that, you are actively improving your player still at 2000 TPE and it's led to an absolutely massive gap for rookies. If that's the case, you've got to make things closer between rookies and peak and that starts with reducing the overall TPE available at peak. That's one of the most important parts of moving up the start of regression IMO.

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 12-05-2021, 01:06 PM

12-05-2021, 10:57 AMslothfacekilla Wrote:
12-05-2021, 08:37 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: It's good that HO is taking the concerns seriously and is looking to alleviate some of the pain that people have been feeling. But at the same time, I have to ask: What are the alternatives that you guys who hate this change are suggesting?

I'm confused, haven't Bromanov and 7 suggested concrete alternative solutions that don't rob an entire draft class of one of their peak seasons? Bromanov even posted charts he made I'm not sure how you missed it.

Pretty much all the alternative solutions that I saw presented so far would either be completely ineffectual or would have had even more collateral damage than the current measure. But of course there has been a lot written in here at this point and I don't remember every detail so if there is anything specific that I missed, feel free to highlight it again.

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 12-05-2021, 01:40 PM

12-05-2021, 12:55 PMSymmetrik Wrote:
12-05-2021, 10:57 AMslothfacekilla Wrote: I'm confused, haven't Bromanov and 7 suggested concrete alternative solutions that don't rob an entire draft class of one of their peak seasons? Bromanov even posted charts he made I'm not sure how you missed it.

I've only seen suggestions that either don't target the problems, or create bigger problems.

Reducing the number of TPE available doesn't help reduce the gap between the absolute peak and rookies. I feel like that's an important point not being focused on by alternative solutions. It's not about the difference between 1900 and 2300. It's about the difference between 800 and 1900. That's a lot better for rookies than going up against 2300 TPE. Reducing TPE opportunities reduces TPE for everyone and does nothing to bring the level of rookies closer to the peak (unless you want rookies to spend more time in the minors). It also takes a LONG time to be seen. "Just don't give out so much TPE 3head" doesn't help because it doesn't address one of the big problems. I believe it was RED (I could be wrong) who mentioned that while you could earn more, STHS basically maxed out your useful attributes at ~1500 TPE (and let's not forget we had "archetypes" so you were limited with 1 attribute at 85 and it cost twice as much). FHM doesn't have that, you are actively improving your player still at 2000 TPE and it's led to an absolutely massive gap for rookies. If that's the case, you've got to make things closer between rookies and peak and that starts with reducing the overall TPE available at peak. That's one of the most important parts of moving up the start of regression IMO.

Thank you for bringing that up again because I wanted to touch on the "1500 TPE was the cap in STHS" argument as well, as it wasn't me who brought it up the first time but Tommy I think? This really is a crucial point that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention in the discussion so far. The problem with FHM and parity as a whole isn't necessarily that certain players or GMs are "too good". It's that the engine rewards relatively small differences in roster quality and GM skill with way too big of a result. A good team should be beating a team that is a bit worse than them but not all that much maybe 65% of the time, not 80-90% as we've seen in recent years. The gap between the top-tier of the league and the good to average teams should be 30 points or so, not 50 or 60. So if the differences in player quality have too big of an impact in the sim, we need to look into lowering this discrepancy which is exactly what this change does.

Some people, especially those who only joined in the S50s, don't realize how much bigger the gap between the best and the rest has become since our change to FHM. The reason for bringing up the fact that you could only apply around 1500 TPE or so effectively in STHS before you had to put TPE into stuff that was barely useful or bank it for regression, is not to point out how tough the poor older players have had it in the past. No, the point is to show that after the engine switch, we went from a league where people who competed with each other were all in about the 800 to 1500 TPE range to a league where 800 TPE players suddenly have to compete with people with over 2300 TPE, so three times their TPE. Even the gap between 1500 TPE and 2300 TPE players is as big as the entire TPE gap from the very top to the very bottom was in the previous era. The differences in the update scale between the different engines do negate some of that of course, but not all of it.

I know correlation isn't causation, but this is exactly when our parity problems started. And who were the biggest benefactors of that change? The people who created in about the S50-S55 range, who spent their entire careers in the FHM era and are now at or reaching their peak - the very ones who are now upset about this regressions change. You are upset about something being taken away from you that nobody who came before you even had in the first place. Nobody who came before you had the chance to beat up on 800 TPE players with 2300 TPE, that basically started with you and if the last seasons are any indication, this is one of the main factors that has been ruining peoples enjoyment of the league. That's why HO wants to change this and tackle players career "peaks", because those peaks are so much higher than ever before.

***sve7en*** · 12-05-2021, 02:25 PM

12-05-2021, 01:40 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote:
12-05-2021, 12:55 PMSymmetrik Wrote: I've only seen suggestions that either don't target the problems, or create bigger problems.

Reducing the number of TPE available doesn't help reduce the gap between the absolute peak and rookies. I feel like that's an important point not being focused on by alternative solutions. It's not about the difference between 1900 and 2300. It's about the difference between 800 and 1900. That's a lot better for rookies than going up against 2300 TPE. Reducing TPE opportunities reduces TPE for everyone and does nothing to bring the level of rookies closer to the peak (unless you want rookies to spend more time in the minors). It also takes a LONG time to be seen. "Just don't give out so much TPE 3head" doesn't help because it doesn't address one of the big problems. I believe it was RED (I could be wrong) who mentioned that while you could earn more, STHS basically maxed out your useful attributes at ~1500 TPE (and let's not forget we had "archetypes" so you were limited with 1 attribute at 85 and it cost twice as much). FHM doesn't have that, you are actively improving your player still at 2000 TPE and it's led to an absolutely massive gap for rookies. If that's the case, you've got to make things closer between rookies and peak and that starts with reducing the overall TPE available at peak. That's one of the most important parts of moving up the start of regression IMO.

Thank you for bringing that up again because I wanted to touch on the "1500 TPE was the cap in STHS" argument as well, as it wasn't me who brought it up the first time but Tommy I think? This really is a crucial point that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention in the discussion so far. The problem with FHM and parity as a whole isn't necessarily that certain players or GMs are "too good". It's that the engine rewards relatively small differences in roster quality and GM skill with way too big of a result. A good team should be beating a team that is a bit worse than them but not all that much maybe 65% of the time, not 80-90% as we've seen in recent years. The gap between the top-tier of the league and the good to average teams should be 30 points or so, not 50 or 60. So if the differences in player quality have too big of an impact in the sim, we need to look into lowering this discrepancy which is exactly what this change does.

Some people, especially those who only joined in the S50s, don't realize how much bigger the gap between the best and the rest has become since our change to FHM. The reason for bringing up the fact that you could only apply around 1500 TPE or so effectively in STHS before you had to put TPE into stuff that was barely useful or bank it for regression, is not to point out how tough the poor older players have had it in the past. No, the point is to show that after the engine switch, we went from a league where people who competed with each other were all in about the 800 to 1500 TPE range to a league where 800 TPE players suddenly have to compete with people with over 2300 TPE, so three times their TPE. Even the gap between 1500 TPE and 2300 TPE players is as big as the entire TPE gap from the very top to the very bottom was in the previous era. The differences in the update scale between the different engines do negate some of that of course, but not all of it.

I know correlation isn't causation, but this is exactly when our parity problems started. And who were the biggest benefactors of that change? The people who created in about the S50-S55 range, who spent their entire careers in the FHM era and are now at or reaching their peak - the very ones who are now upset about this regressions change. You are upset about something being taken away from you that nobody who came before you even had in the first place. Nobody who came before you had the chance to beat up on 800 TPE players with 2300 TPE, that basically started with you and if the last seasons are any indication, this is one of the main factors that has been ruining peoples enjoyment of the league. That's why HO wants to change this and tackle players career "peaks", because those peaks are so much higher than ever before.

Kinda want to take this on because I think we are legitimately on the same page about this regarding parity - the level of randomness in results, the slant in win percentage for a single game is too steep. Additionally, the competitive advantage of a good roster is massively impactful and we're both well aware of that, but if that was the only function of team success we'd see TBB among others as way more successful at this point. Parity goes beyond numbers and players at this point.

I agree that these users with peaking players right now feel shorted out of success that they think they've earned, and agree that there's a lot of selfishness in there from some. I'd contest a part of this though, because the most vocal about this (S53-54, 55 has been notably quieter) are mad about the loss of peak seasons and these are people who haven't yet benefited from the FHM scale changes. When we came into the league, seasons 53-58 on the new engine as J players and as rookies, there was a different wave of people at the top. Those players, S43-49 were the ones that got to spend a full career dunking on lower TPE players and it has the perception that now that they're done benefiting from it they're ok with leaving that system in the past. Both sides are arguing from a more selfish side than they might want to admit.

There is an issue with how low TPE players, both young and old, compared to the elite of the league, but this idea which caps top end TPE has a similar effect to making the update scale different and frontloading regression. The former brings lower TPE players up to a higher percentage of the league's skill ceiling just as it did before and the latter halves the number of people playing at that level which leaves the top end weaker on average. Both of these are even possible at the same time to multiplicative effect. Beyond those changes, we've seen effective use of a cap on applied TPE in the STHS days, and that also didn't obliterate engagement, though I'd not like to see this.

This is not the total fix for parity, which Nour acknowledged, and it's not the only fix for lower TPE player performance.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us