Changes to Depreciation

[Beketov 9,021]

Hello @Members!

 

As discussed when we introduced the hybrid attributes a few seasons ago there’s a number of balancing “patches” that are likely to be required as things get sorted out. One of those we are rolling out today, to be put into operation for the S88 depreciation.

 

For a bit now it has become clear that depreciation is not hitting as hard as intended since hybrid attributes rolled out. Our initial estimations on how players would depreciate simply didn’t pan out which means that TPA numbers in later seasons are higher than intended. For that reason we will be adjusting the depreciation numbers and fighters to the following:

 

First year - 5%

Second year - 8%

Third/Fourth year - 12%

 

Additionally the depreciation fighters are being adjusted as well:

 

Still Kickin’

5% Depreciation

Old but not Forgotten

8% Depreciation

 

The effect of the Jagr purchase will not be changed, however we are making it possible to purchase a Jagr in fourth year (AKA 9th season) depreciation which was previously not possible.

 

As mentioned these changes will not affect the depreciation next season but will affect depreciation in S88 so plan accordingly.

 

Additionally these changes only affect skaters, goalie depreciation will remain the same including the block of purchasing the Jagr in year 4.

 

We hope these changes will bring depreciation numbers back to the expected amounts and make the fighting purchases worthy of their cost once again.

 

Sincerely,

@BOG

@Commissioner

[rory 1,915]

Thanks Bek!

[OrbitingDeath 3,181]

Is it too late to be send down and not let this season count for regression?  

Edited December 12, 2022 by OrbitingDeath

[Bojovnik 487]

Why should those who are active enough to get to play a ninth season get hit with such painful depreciation?

[Daniel Janser 2,165]

5 minutes ago, Bojovnik said:

Why should those who are active enough to get to play a ninth season get hit with such painful depreciation?

It is reinstating the status quo for ageing as it was before the hybrid change, I heard from several people that they do not need to buy fighters until maybe the fourth season of depreciation, because they could out-earn old age, which is probably not what the intention was for this mechanic.

[FrostBeard 2,049]

Really good changes, love it.

[Shindigs 1,771]

This change basically just undoes what the hybrid change broke. There were way harsher variants than this tossed around, but this was the best middle ground. The ability to Jagr the 9th season will really help take the edge off, as assuming you plan your build accordingly. That Jagr will save roughly 87-115 TPE in depreciation. That still makes it a massive final hit, but it's entirely possibly to still cap around 1200 TPA as a competitive max earner with it. And at that point, unless you're specifically a Center or willing to invest in meme attributes. You're so deep in diminishing returns adding another 100 TPA to your peak (which 8 season players can do) isn't doing much for you in the sim. More of a "I like big numbers" thing at that point.

 

That being said, I foresee @Daniel Janser having a bit of an interesting time with his depreciation management. 

[rory 1,915]

17 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

This change basically just undoes what the hybrid change broke. There were way harsher variants than this tossed around, but this was the best middle ground. The ability to Jagr the 9th season will really help take the edge off, as assuming you plan your build accordingly. That Jagr will save roughly 87-115 TPE in depreciation. That still makes it a massive final hit, but it's entirely possibly to still cap around 1200 TPA as a competitive max earner with it. And at that point, unless you're specifically a Center or willing to invest in meme attributes. You're so deep in diminishing returns adding another 100 TPA to your peak (which 8 season players can do) isn't doing much for you in the sim. More of a "I like big numbers" thing at that point.

 

That being said, I foresee @Daniel Janser having a bit of an interesting time with his depreciation management. 

Okay

[Daniel Janser 2,165]

20 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

This change basically just undoes what the hybrid change broke. There were way harsher variants than this tossed around, but this was the best middle ground. The ability to Jagr the 9th season will really help take the edge off, as assuming you plan your build accordingly. That Jagr will save roughly 87-115 TPE in depreciation. That still makes it a massive final hit, but it's entirely possibly to still cap around 1200 TPA as a competitive max earner with it. And at that point, unless you're specifically a Center or willing to invest in meme attributes. You're so deep in diminishing returns adding another 100 TPA to your peak (which 8 season players can do) isn't doing much for you in the sim. More of a "I like big numbers" thing at that point.

 

That being said, I foresee @Daniel Janser having a bit of an interesting time with his depreciation management. 

Yeah maffs are too difficult for me (and I do not care that much to be completely frank) but I really should refrain to push my player further and save TPE for bad times (i.e. next season when I will be hit for the first time with depreciation).  Albeit the first one will follow the present %-age so it could be worse...

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Daniel Janser

[Shindigs 1,771]

Just now, Daniel Janser said:

Yeah maffs are too difficult for me (and I do not care that much to be completely frank) but I really should refrain to push my player further and save TPE for bad times (i.e. next season when I will be hit for the first time with depreciation). 

Yeah, it looked like you started to bank at like 1240ish. Then you just had a massive update recently, but as long as you have money saved for fighters, you should be more or less fine. Having 4 attributes at 95 is just kinda painful from a depreciation perspective.

[leandrofg 1,156]

i havE an answEr to your troublEs

[Daniel Janser 2,165]

1 hour ago, Shindigs said:

Yeah, it looked like you started to bank at like 1240ish. Then you just had a massive update recently, but as long as you have money saved for fighters, you should be more or less fine. Having 4 attributes at 95 is just kinda painful from a depreciation perspective.

what can I say, the TPE kind of burned in my pocket... but should have probably saved them... ah spilled milk, will just save for the remainder and hope to be still a useful player in my autumnal days of my career

 

[Shindigs 1,771]

15 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

what can I say, the TPE kind of burned in my pocket... but should have probably saved them... ah spilled milk, will just save for the remainder and hope to be still a useful player in my autumnal days of my career

 

I mean you'll likely be fine since you did the one season in the VHLE anyways. Since you only take 3% instead of 5% on your first hit, as long as you have Jagr and % fighter money for your last 2 hits you should be alright. Even if you regress by a fair bit in that final season that'd still put you at above 1k TPA and then some anyways.

[Daniel Janser 2,165]

6 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

I mean you'll likely be fine since you did the one season in the VHLE anyways. Since you only take 3% instead of 5% on your first hit, as long as you have Jagr and % fighter money for your last 2 hits you should be alright. Even if you regress by a fair bit in that final season that'd still put you at above 1k TPA and then some anyways.

Yeah I am relying on @Ricer13 to put me on the pastures so I can Wrangle out my days in peace

 

[Spartan 4,398]

5 hours ago, Bojovnik said:

Why should those who are active enough to get to play a ninth season get hit with such painful depreciation?

We've done some projections using current max earners' earn rates and builds to figure out what depreciation levels would be more significant than the %'s we had in place before while also the least excessively punishing to 9-season players. Keep in mind that the 9-season career change and the addition of a 7% depreciation in the 9th season was done under the pre-hybrid system, where players having 4-5 99's in their attributes was common. 7% was considered "harsh" then as well, and the decision to play a 9th season meant having to give up a higher peak TPA build in exchange for a build that would last for all 9 seasons. At the same time, people figured out TPA builds that would still allow them to be quite effective and be considered a top player in the league.

 

This change just adjusts the % values to make more sense in a post-hybrid environment since we didn't change them during the attribute swap. At most, the 9 season players will just have to be a bit more mindful about not spending their TPE pre-first regression as loosely as an 8-season player. I guarantee you though, you'll still be able to have a peak build over 1.1k TPA.

[Gustav 6,401]

6 hours ago, OrbitingDeath said:

Is it too late to be send down and not let this season count for regression?  

 

Yeah this is a good point about it and it's something I somehow didn't realize until now--I hate anything that encourages people to stay down and this certainly does that.

 

Please know that I'll be trying to think of + advocate for a fair solution in the near future.

[OrbitingDeath 3,181]

5 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

Yeah this is a good point about it and it's something I somehow didn't realize until now--I hate anything that encourages people to stay down and this certainly does that.

 

Please know that I'll be trying to think of + advocate for a fair solution in the near future.

 

Still bump the regression levels for the first 3, but a less steep one in Season 9?  (Lets say another one of season 7's 8%). Might not be logical in how a player ages, but punishes the players that pushed slightly less, while still getting tinkaton'd in season 8.

 

 

Either way, appreciate that you will be thinking about a fair solution. 

Edited December 12, 2022 by OrbitingDeath

[Beketov 9,021]

5 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

Yeah this is a good point about it and it's something I somehow didn't realize until now--I hate anything that encourages people to stay down and this certainly does that.

 

Please know that I'll be trying to think of + advocate for a fair solution in the near future.

To be fair it was always a balancing act of spending longer in the VHL but knowing that the last season won't be as peak or spending a season in the VHLE and not having to face the 9th season depreciation. That hasn't changed.

 

At the end of the day even if you just let depreciation nail you you'll still get some VHL stats in that 9th season vs. none if you stayed down so for stats anyway it will always be more beneficial to go up.

[Gustav 6,401]

Just now, Beketov said:

To be fair it was always a balancing act of spending longer in the VHL but knowing that the last season won't be as peak or spending a season in the VHLE and not having to face the 9th season depreciation. That hasn't changed.

 

At the end of the day even if you just let depreciation nail you you'll still get some VHL stats in that 9th season vs. none if you stayed down so for stats anyway it will always be more beneficial to go up.

 

For sure, I'm just surprised that I never realized that this swings the decision more towards an easier "I'm staying down" more than it makes it a fair debate (as we've seen some players go up and some not so far).

 

IMO we should NEVER have a system that encourages someone who earns well enough to be over 350 TPE on draft day to not play in the VHL--something that I don't personally think is an issue under the current/old system but would give a lot of people some serious doubts under this one. That makes zero sense to me and I think there's room for improvement that I'll admit should have been caught earlier.

[Quik 4,113]

7 hours ago, Beketov said:

goalie depreciation will remain the same including the block of purchasing the Jagr in year

I feel personally attacked!

[OrbitingDeath 3,181]

Just now, Gustav said:

 

For sure, I'm just surprised that I never realized that this swings the decision more towards an easier "I'm staying down" more than it makes it a fair debate (as we've seen some players go up and some not so far).

 

IMO we should NEVER have a system that encourages someone who earns well enough to be over 350 TPE on draft day to not play in the VHL--something that I don't personally think is an issue under the current/old system but would give a lot of people some serious doubts under this one. That makes zero sense to me and I think there's room for improvement that I'll admit should have been caught earlier.

 

It definitly encourages staying down, also keep in mind by going up early, I also lowered my chances of winning a Stolzy, as i'm up against players with another year of earning. 

[Beketov 9,021]

12 minutes ago, Gustav said:

IMO we should NEVER have a system that encourages someone who earns well enough to be over 350 TPE on draft day to not play in the VHL--something that I don't personally think is an issue under the current/old system but would give a lot of people some serious doubts under this one. That makes zero sense to me and I think there's room for improvement that I'll admit should have been caught earlier.

I agree with you that nothing should ever encourage someone to stop earning but I would argue that if you are capable of hitting the threshold required for 9 seasons than you are more than capable of fighting off regression for that 9th season enough to make it feasible. Unless the argument is purely that TPA > All of course. Personally I’d rather have the extra season of stats than have more TPA but I usually stop lower and start banking anyway.

 

Like at the end of the day if you need to stop earning in order to not lose more later aren’t you just losing more now instead? It ends up at the same thing but you get fewer seasons worth of VHL stats.

[Spartan 4,398]

7 minutes ago, OrbitingDeath said:

It definitly encourages staying down, also keep in mind by going up early, I also lowered my chances of winning a Stolzy, as i'm up against players with another year of earning. 

Maybe this is my mindset and my overly-cautious approach to building Nico from the get-go knowing that depreciation was simply too easy to go untouched for a full career, but regardless of 7% or 12% - I know I would have gone up to get 9 seasons vs 8. I definitely could not peak at like 1.5k TPA like some of the 8 season folks, but clearly my 1.15k TPA build was good enough to win a Campbell and a Brooks.

 

In terms of Stolzy sacrifice though, I don't think regression changed anything. Not a single 9 season "straight to VHL" player has won the Stolzy since the hybrid attribute change. But that is something I think was fairly known even before hybrid changes. 9 season careers were designed to allow max earners to play an extra season if they can attain it in pre-draft earning, which is a very small portion of players. Now obviously it's a little more flexible since the cap is 300, but the goal was always for it to be for a smaller portion of members who could truly handle the at the time, 7% regression. It's just changed from 7% in pre-hybrid to 12% in post-hybrid, essentially finding the equivalent percentage under the new system.

 

Perhaps people who aren't willing to tentatively map out a build plan/regression plan will choose to stay down. Or even folks who aren't confident in their ability to maintain their earning for a full career. But having seen your earn rate on Idaho and how its continued on with Frenchman, I really don't think you're going to be in a position where this change is going to screw you over. If you'd like, I can show you some projections to give you some assurance.

[Daniel Janser 2,165]

8 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I agree with you that nothing should ever encourage someone to stop earning but I would argue that if you are capable of hitting the threshold required for 9 seasons than you are more than capable of fighting off regression for that 9th season enough to make it feasible. Unless the argument is purely that TPA > All of course. Personally I’d rather have the extra season of stats than have more TPA but I usually stop lower and start banking anyway.

 

Like at the end of the day if you need to stop earning in order to not lose more later aren’t you just losing more now instead? It ends up at the same thing but you get fewer seasons worth of VHL stats.

there is a good point there. It appears to me that the logic is 'Oh money depreciates over time (i.e. inflation)? So I will be richer if I do not earn money at all, ever?' (of course exaggerated for comedic effect, but a long these lines).

[Arce 755]