Originally posted by Bojo@Aug 18 2015, 04:47 PM
Oh yeah byrde's idea is good too. Like mine but still allows somebody a chance to recover

Yeah but thing is with mine No one can recover from -500 TPE every season )


Numbers needs work though its just a concept. lol

Well you skipped 300 and went straight to 400. Lol. That would probably be a little better

Originally posted by Bojo@Aug 18 2015, 04:51 PM
Well you skipped 300 and went straight to 400. Lol. That would probably be a little better

KILL EVERYONE :ph34r:

Originally posted by ByrdeMan@Aug 18 2015, 03:22 PM

KILL EVERYONE :ph34r:

When I get back from Florida I will in rocket league. :D


Also if this was a good plan we have to figure out how this affects existing regression players.

Originally posted by Bojo@Aug 18 2015, 03:40 PM


When I get back from Florida I will in rocket league. :D


Also if this was a good plan we have to figure out how this affects existing regression players.

Bojo... Florida...WHERE IN FLORIDA?!

Originally posted by Underoath10@Aug 18 2015, 04:52 PM

Bojo... Florida...WHERE IN FLORIDA?!

Panhandle, unfortunately.

Jaden Tanner || RD || Calgary Dragons
Age: 20
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 220 lb
Number: 98
-----------------------------------
SHL Regular Season:
S74 | CGY | GP: 66 | G: 3 | A: 16 | P: 19 | +/-: -14 | H: 46 | SB: 98 | GA: 13 | TA: 48
S75 | CGY | GP: 66 | G: 2 | A: 11 | P: 13 | +/-: -21 | H: 48 | SB: 104 | GA: 17 | TA: 38
-----------------------------------
SHL Playoffs:
S74 | CGY | DNQ
S75 | CGY | DNQ
-----------------------------------
SMJHL Regular Season:
S71 | VAN | GP: 66 | G: 3 | A: 23 | P: 26 | +/-: 1 | H: 93 | SB: 112 | GA: 17 | TA: 52
S72 | VAN | GP: 66 | G: 5 | A: 25 | P: 30 | +/-: 27 | H: 112 | SB: 86 | GA: 32 | TA: 61
S73 | VAN | GP: 66 | G: 1 | A: 21 | P: 22 | +/-: 35 | H: 106 | SB: 91 | GA: 19 | TA: 57
-----------------------------------
SMJHL Playoffs:
S70 | VAN | GP: 5 | G: 0 | A: 2 | P: 2 | +/-: -1 | H: 6 | SB: 9 | GA: 4 | TA: 4
S71 | VAN | GP: 5 | G: 1 | A: 0 | P: 1 | +/-: -1 | H: 11 | SB: 4 | GA: 3 | TA: 8
S72 | VAN | GP: 5 | G: 0 | A: 0 | P: 0 | +/-: -5 | H: 9 | SB: 4 | GA: 1 | TA: 6
S73 | VAN | GP: 11 | G: 2 | A: 6 | P: 8 | +/-: 1 | H: 14 | SB: 18 | GA: 6 | TA: 15
Jakob Tanner || HoF Goalie || HoF GM || CGY Co-GM
4x Challenge Cup (S24, S26, S30, S31)
1x IIHF Gold (S23, Ireland)
1x 2nd All-Star Team (S29)
1x 3rd All-Star Team (S30)
1x John McBride Trophy (S29)
1x Anton Razov Trophy (S30)
1x Mike Honcho Trophy (S29)
1x John McBride Nominee (S30)
2x Joe McKeil Award (S24, S35)

The scary "too close to Alabama" part.

Destin, FL

Originally posted by ArGarBarGar+Aug 18 2015, 05:44 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (ArGarBarGar @ Aug 18 2015, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
What guys who capped out at 1500 TPE? You mean guys who also benefitted from TPE inflation?[/b]

I mean guys who entered the league in the seasons before you joined and before inflation became as ansurd as it is today, basically people from the S14-S19 or so era who, despite being super active, usually capped out at around 1500 TPE. Compare them to guys like you who were drafted only a few seasons later but are likely to break 2000 TPE... These guys didn't put in any less work than you did, yet they have about 500 less career TPE just for being from a different, yet fairly close to your era. You didn't work any harder than them.

They are a different group than those people from your draft class who just didn't earn as much TPE of course, in case that wasn't clear.

Wait, huh? If I have banked TPE I can put it into anything I want. I don't have to redistribute it from banked to something else. If you chose to go the route of "have to redistribute to go from banked to an attributes" then I wouldn't have to spend that much anyway since I just now have hit my "max". Once regression hits I would just take points out of those "useless" stats and wouldn't have to redistribute anything at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I've never done this myself) but but I thought that it'd cost money to take TPE out of an attribute and put them somewhere else or bank them? If it doesn't right now then we could easily change the rules so that it does from now on.

Well what exactly do the TPE whores utilize to get an upper leg on the competition? Equipment (should be completely scrapped or severely reduced), point tasks (should be revised), predictions (should be reduced), fantasy (should be reduced), and championship week (should be reduced). By reducing those things even a slight amount and getting rid of purchasing equipment altogether you are thereby giving TPE whores like me less to earn and the actual gap between how much an active makes and a slightly less active a little more reasonable.

I'm absolutely fine with things like that, not every detail of course but the general course of action is good with me. Getting rid of Championship Week (which seems more like a chore and not something that actually increases activity at this point) completely for example would already reduce TPE handouts by roughly 15-20 TPE each season, then reduce some other things and we could easily cut avilable TPE per year by 30 without hurting activity at all.

Couple that with a harsher regression, and I'm not able to have a player that will last for over 30 seasons (calculated that based on the current model unchanged, I would hit below 1000 TPE at S45 and below 750 TPE at S53)

Fine by me, and those numbers you calculated for your own player are pretty insane by the way and as you said, it's actually a conservative estimate :lol:. I still think we should do something about the ridiculous amounts of banked TPE though, it's only natural that once you are maxed out your development starts to somewhat slow down, even if it's not by much. Don't you think a yearly "tax" on your earned banked TPE of around 10% would be fair? Doesn't really take away much but still slows things down a decent amount over time.

Originally posted by Nike@Aug 18 2015, 06:04 PM<br />Winter, you know what sucks about the banked tax? It only affects people who have put work into their player to this point.

I'm all for regression that starts 7-8 seasons in. I'm all for harsher regression. I'm all for capping TPE earned per season. I'm all for just about any suggestion that affects the whole and not just a single group.

This is all similar to when shultzy suggested a tax on every TPE over 1000. It just makes there even less incentive to work on building your player to that "elite" status and it only affects the most active of the member base. I get keeping the league interesting for the semi-actives or those with more things going on IRL (believe me, I'm one of them) but it can't come at the expense of the most active, hard working people.

But those high TPE players, the elite are exactly the problem. It's not their fault at all but the problem aren't the guys with 600 or 800 TPE who are either pushed out of the league or don't even want to leave the SMJHL anymore because they have to go up against 1000+ TPE monster who are just a few seasons older. Also, what's elite about someone with over 1000 TPE if half the league has that much at this point?

Hell this league doesn't even have any legitimate superstars anymore it seems because every year the sim decides to make someone else the random superstar for a season. This is a really concerning trend imho. In goal there is no Prikulis or Aittokallio or FourFour in goal anymore, a guy like James wasn't able to follow up on his one awesome year and who knows if Weekes will? On Defense Scherbluk and Partlow are on their way out and nobody coming after them has even come close to being as consistently successful. The same goes for forwards, the last real superstars at that position were probably Merica, O'Callahan, McDavid and McZehrl. Three of these four are still in the league and just as good TPE-wise as they ever where, but none of them are able to consistently play at a top-level anymore because each season a new one of the dozens of 1200+ TPE players gets randomly chosen by the sim to get his chance to shine for a year. All these players I mentioned seem to be from the S14 and before era as well by the way... The league has seen plenty of super high TPE-people since then, starting with guys like Esa and now the whole S20 and beyond classes hitting their prime, but none of them have turned into perennial stars because the league is just so crowded with similar talent.

And I know I'm repeating myself but people nowadays don't work any harder than players from the past, they just get more TPE for it. Cutting down on these TPE isn't devaluing anyones work and it's not stopping any super active player from building a potential star.

<!--QuoteBegin-ArGarBarGar@Aug 18 2015, 07:05 PM
The problem is you don't need to go through with such a drastic option if you have ways of mitigating the problem with harsher regression and less TPE to be earned per year.

We aren't talking about VHL-levels of reducing TPE here, either.[/quote]

regarding another change to the update scale. There are other, way less drastic ways to deal with this problems that we haven't even remotely tapped into and I'd like to explore these options first.

Evan Winter
Edmonton Blizzard
Player Page - Update Page

Originally posted by Tanner+Aug 18 2015, 03:54 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tanner @ Aug 18 2015, 03:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Panhandle, unfortunately.[/b]

Pfft. He can drive to Tampa for a meet and greet. We'll all meet up in a very populated area and start screaming very loudly as we meet for the first time. Then we'll immediately part ways all heading in a different direction off into the sunset.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bojo@Aug 18 2015, 03:59 PM
The scary "too close to Alabama" part.

Destin, FL[/quote]

Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Aug 17 2015, 03:38 PM


That's what I was hoping for to be quite honest  :lol:

Something that needs to happen but I don't want it. Let's grandfather it in, people in regression are with the old regression rules and people aren't in the new tougher regression rules.

Sounds good? :ph34r:

Originally posted by McJesus@Aug 18 2015, 10:10 PM



Something that needs to happen but I don't want it. Let's grandfather it in, people in regression are with the old regression rules and people aren't in the new tougher regression rules.

Sounds good? :ph34r:

Any word on when an official announcement will be made?