Create Account

Reduce training cost for send downs
#31

09-18-2020, 01:02 PMJKortesi81 Wrote: I mean, the whole point is that max earning is supposed to be hard and terrible. I know it was 4 years ago, but when i started here, the idea behind it was "you get what you put into it". if you wanted to be a psychopath max earner (Like I did), you had to get a job, churn out media, and make it work. Now everyone wants 2K TPE handed to them.

This is the problem with Everybody Gets a Trophy Day.

If you want to be the best player in the league, you have to go above and beyond. That's what this is all about. We shouldn't be making that easier for everyone.

They're talking about making it easier for new players to get acclimatized to the league. Nobody is arguing that 2K TPE should be handed to them, or for "Everybody Gets a Trophy Day." You're basically arguing with a phantom in your own head.

[Image: wopo0De.png]
Signature Credit: Wasty






Reply
#32
(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 03:25 PM by RomanesEuntDomus.)

Already posted this in the other thread but since apparently this one took over as the place for this discussion, I'm gonna shamelessly double-post this here:

I'm torn.

The way you describe it, some of the more casual players could definitely need some help and this would be a decent way to achieve that without creating inflation and throwing free stuff around like candy. It's a well thought out proposition that would give something to the people who need it without taking anything away from the people who don't, and it might be more relevant than ever in the FHM-era since the start can be tougher for lower TPE-tiers.

On the other hand I have to agree with Muted, being a high or max earner shouldn't be easy and I'm not sure we want to make it easier when so many people top out around 1500-2000 TPE already. Different tiers of activity and committment need to lead to different quality players, instead of making sure that there are no sub-1500 players anymore, we should look for ways to make the league enjoyable for them as well.

Also, if what you are saying is true about players hitting a wall after their first season, when training costs suddenly go up, wouldn't your proposal just move back that wall a few seasons while making it even higher? You rightfully point out that it gives players more time to build bonds and relationships that help keep them around in tougher times, but it also gives them plenty of time to get used to the more forgiving system and get hooked on the discounted training. Which will make the effects, the eventual withdrawal if you will, much worse when they are finally introduced to the real prices and will make it much harder for them to adjust because they have gotten so used to a different system. It is probably easier for a fresh player who is still in his first season or second season and excited about everything to get used to doing media or graphics when he needs some cash, than for a player who was coddled for four season and could get by without it so far.

So I am fairly critical of the idea right now but it certainly isn't without merit and the problem you describe is certainly legitimate. Maybe it would be worth to adress it from an income perspective instead of the expenses perspective? More contract money in the lower tiers, a slight rise to media pay either in general or for newer players. I could think of a couple of systems there, for example giving each new member three double media articles to be used on any piece he wants during his first 4 seasons or so. Maybe limit the eligible word-count to 5000 words or so so that it doesn't become expensive, but it would allow players to build a bit of a cushion early on while still requiring them to show their committment by doing some work. Or, as I said, just raise media pay in general, or be more generous with bonuses etc...

And regarding contracts, one idea that I have thought about a bit already that could apply to younger players, but might also work as a general concept for the entire league, is to detach cap-hits from actual salary to an extent. This would work through a simple multiplier, like x2 for example. That would mean that a player who counts with 2M against the cap actually gets 4M, a player with a 1.5M cap hit gets 3M etc. In the lower tiers it would give people some extra money but in the higher tiers it would probably be overkill, so we would probably need to have that multiplier only apply to lower tiers and either let the factor drop the higher we get in tiers or get rid of it altogether. It could look something like this

Tier 1M x 2 = 2M
Tier 2M x 2 = 4M
Tier 3M x 1.667 = 5M
Tier 4M x 1.5 = 6M
Tier 5M x 1.3 = 6.5M
Tier 6M x 1.25 = 7.5M

This would give people an extra boost early on when they need it without creating a wall that they hit at some point even as the multiplier drops. However keeping the multiplier consistent at x2 could also be something that spices up FA in higher tiers, after all, we want people to sometimes go out and chase bigger deals instead of always just taking team-friendly minimum contracts. If the difference between a 6M and a 9M contract would actually be 6M instead of 3M, that would probably help accomplish that. It would probably lead to a bit too much inflation though and throw too much money at the people who already have enough.

There also is a different version of this that is simpler but also more radical: Don't have a multiplier or anything, just raise the contract tiers to higher numbers in general and raise the cap accordingly. This would require quite a few calculations to find a new salary cap number that works and probably wouldn't be feasible in a system we just changed, but it would be the cleanest solution. I think having contract tiers be a bit more apart instead of being all in 1M steps could be pretty cool and add a bit more character to things if say tiers looked like:

2M
3M
4M
6M
9M
12M

The cap would have to be a good 20M higher or so than it is today. Superstar players would take up a bigger chunk of your cap than they do today, just as in real life, but overall all teams, even the good ones, would have a bit more money available and more flexibility to play around with and try different roster building approaches. Some might make a superstar heavy roster with some cheap filler players to complement them (kinda like Pittsburgh did with Crosby, Malkin and their linemates), while others go for a more balanced approach with strong players in every position at the cost of not being able to afford more than one or two 2000 TPE players.

And to add just a little bit to some of the things said in here: The idea of upping the TPE-amount for the lower TPE-training tiers sounds quite decent since it would make it easier for people to be serviceable, but not actually lower the requirements for becoming a superstar, which sounds like a good sweet spot. And even the big earners might benefit from it eventually when their try-hard days are behind them, but they would still like to stay around on a lower effort player.

Also yeah, no idea where that notion is coming from that our retention is bad or has gotten worse? Certainly doesn't feel like that is the case at all.
Reply
#33

09-18-2020, 10:39 AMZema Wrote: One argument I have yet to see is that efficiency of TPE has fallen down. Of what I've heard, a guy with 500-600 TPE could still not be complete garbage in the SHL, but with FHM that has changed. The goal should probably tbe to make the bottom players on a roster be at 800 TPE scaling up.

As someone previously mentioned, player retention is pretty bad. There is also a big thing in the community that if you aren't earning max you don't really have a place in the SHL.

I think lowering the costs for send-downs will help. But I also think slightly upping the TPE gain from the lower tiers of training could be worth looking into. instead of 1-3-5, making it 2-4-5 could be better.

This was one issue i was trying to solve with my "roles give bonus tpe" issue. It brings the floor up but only in the stats your role cares about.
Although that's probably moot since everyone would get the same boost.

[Image: premierbromanov.gif]




Fuck the penaltys
ARGARGARHARG
[Image: EePsAwN.png][Image: sXDU6JX.png][Image: eaex9S1.png]
Reply
#34
(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 06:37 PM by Mazatt.)

People in here really think that simply making the SHL more accessible is "gifting training." Huh? Since when did assisting one of the primary issues around league longevity (retention rates) become a bad thing? Would it not make more sense to ease draftees into getting comfortable with earning money instead of tossing them into x2 costs on training?


Legit, what is with the dissonance of opinions in this thread compared to what it's actually trying to accomplish? Does having 5 TPE cost 750k instead of 1mil somehow invalidate the fact they earned that money. There are people in here acting as though training is going to be free, no, fuck off with that, you still need to work hard it just so happens these changes allow you to actually get your foot in the door and realize "I'm going to need more money" instead of getting overwhelmed with needing to double your media production. Making it incrementally easier for players to be successful and impact the league is far from a bad thing. Being able to afford training is even possibly the lowest bar of entry to be 2k, not like there's PT's, fantasy, mPT's, 3on3's, and a lot of other factors that can impact the race to 2k. If you're gonna tell me 3 seasons of 5 tpe for cheaper is gonna ruin that accomplishment... idk.

Mathematically you aren't earning any different over a season, so let's just look at 3 seasons, maybe... what, 9-10 weekly training's in before the start of a new season. Going off of 250k saved (750k 5tpe training) you end up with 2.5 million bucks going off of 10 trainings/season. If you go for three seasons that saves you less than the top tier of SHL coaching (7.5 mil compared to 8.5 mil). So you get, maybe an extra 45 TPE off of this idea if you earn the exact same? That might just break the league tbh

[Image: mazatt.gif]

[Image: KhdDH3Q.png] [Image: q4PM2XX.png]
Reply
#35

09-18-2020, 06:27 PMMazatt Wrote: People in here really think that simply making the SHL more accessible is "gifting training." Huh? Since when did assisting one of the primary issues around league longevity (retention rates) become a bad thing? Would it not make more sense to ease draftees into getting comfortable with earning money instead of tossing them into x2 costs on training?
I hate to say it, but the site will probably always be like that.
Reply
#36

09-18-2020, 06:30 PMspooked Wrote:
09-18-2020, 06:27 PMMazatt Wrote: People in here really think that simply making the SHL more accessible is "gifting training." Huh? Since when did assisting one of the primary issues around league longevity (retention rates) become a bad thing? Would it not make more sense to ease draftees into getting comfortable with earning money instead of tossing them into x2 costs on training?
I hate to say it, but the site will probably always be like that.
Read those posts with this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0) playing, makes a lot more sense when you do it like that

[Image: mazatt.gif]

[Image: KhdDH3Q.png] [Image: q4PM2XX.png]
Reply
#37
(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 07:07 PM by Fitted2106.)

Let max earners go over 20 in a category and make starting out easier but make going over 20 cost like 100 tpe problem solved it allows the truly elite to be truly elite

[Image: Fitted_3.png]


2x 4Star Cup Champ s49 s50

1x commissioners excellence award s 50
Reply
#38

09-18-2020, 06:27 PMMazatt Wrote: People in here really think that simply making the SHL more accessible is "gifting training." Huh? Since when did assisting one of the primary issues around league longevity (retention rates) become a bad thing? Would it not make more sense to ease draftees into getting comfortable with earning money instead of tossing them into x2 costs on training?

I'm really not trying to come of as a douche even if i might have earlier, or might be in this post. I'm just not buying the argument, I personally have never heard anyone say they're leaving because training was too expensive.

Rookies can afford full training for their entire rookie season without any effort with contract and the bonus they get from HO when they create the player. Spending 2 minutes a week writing 3 tweets nets you about 2.4 million a season (300k x 8). Contracts are about 3 million for send downs.

There you have 5.4 million that you get for basically doing nothing at all. That leaves 2.6 million for maximum training. 1 million can be attained basically for free every season from fantasy too, so thats 1.6 million to go to get the full 8 million training every season as a shl player or send-down. If you can't put in the small amount of work it takes to make 1.6 million in 8 weeks to get to full training and therefore lose interest, after already being on the site for 8 weeks learning the ropes, then i would argue that you never will.

As a true rookie you get the 2x draft media bonus from your first article too, which is there to give new players an opportunity to make some bank. The lower costs for training/equipment your rookie season IS the easing into the costs of training.


But again, i wouldn't be totally against removing training and upping the TPE from ACs, but if we do that people will argue that we should lower equipment costs in a couple seasons because THAT is why people aren't staying on the site.

I'd say it would be much more important to make lower TPE players more viable, if you can't find the motivation to do media and shit to buy the best training or equipment you should still be viable on the bottom lines in the SHL after a couple seasons.

Though i don't know if the whole "you need to have 1200 tpe to be viable in the SHL" or whatever people are saying is really a thing or just things GMs say to not have to field a sub 1k player in their lines, weakening them seeing how we don't need to field full rosters. I joined my SHL team as a defenseman playing on the 3rd pair and still had 17 points as a defenseman at roughly 800 tpe, and i wasn't even in the ROTY talks. If GM wants to make it work, they'll make it work tbh.


I think the whole craze about what is a viable TPE count is a much bigger threat to retention than people not being able to afford equipment or max training every week, hearing people say that they wont be GOOD(not viable, good) in the SHL without like 1500 tpe is probably far more discouraging and intimidating. Perhaps we should've expanded the SHL with 2 more teams rather than expanding the J last season, forcing people to go up a little earlier, making the 6-700 TPE the norm to go up. And if that isn't viable then change the update-scale to fix that.

[Image: 41373_s.gif]
[Image: vhY18i8.png][Image: 7WSfxIG.png][Image: nBgNUTY.png]



Reply
#39

Get fourth lines

[Image: Fitted_3.png]


2x 4Star Cup Champ s49 s50

1x commissioners excellence award s 50
Reply
#40

Not everyone can be a first liner MVP. Gotta have some balance and role players on the roster.

[Image: Chocula22.gif]
Berserkers Wolfpack France
Reply
#41

What if we make lower TPE players, TPE decreasing slower than high TPE ones? It's kind of potential thing, because high TPE players will have much more longer career at the moment, compared to mid or low tier one. I think that would be fair if Mid- and Low tier players TPE decrease slower, so their player can be more useful than at the moment?

[Image: sig-500500.png][Image: ALFaRJc.gif]




[Image: lIYTYDN.png][Image: tCcIWQC.png]

[Image: seal1.png]
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)




Navigation

 

Extra Menu

 

About us

The Simulation Hockey League is a free online forums based sim league where you create your own fantasy hockey player. Join today and create your player, become a GM, get drafted, sign contracts, make trades and compete against hundreds of players from around the world.