Changes to Depreciation

[Brandon 426]

Great change BOG, exactly what was needed. Interesting point brought up by Gustav that I hadn't thought about though 

[Spartan 4,403]

I have been informed there is no way to currently figure out new depreciation since the depreciation tool on the portal isn't updated yet. So I updated the old hybrid Google Sheet with a tab for depreciation calculations. Go nuts.

 

Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oyj6T5O-bTH-CumYQR-Fe4oFz6cALWjWaRrGNBxNnrQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Example of my own build in the tool:

 

For the worried aspiring 9-season players, I already have 200 TPE banked for the upcoming regression. Which is already 30 TPE above what depreciation *would* be, and this is without any Jagrs factored in. A Jagr in my 9th season at would save me 67 TPE, so the post regression hit would really just be 285. So 171, 171, 271, 285. Considering you'd be overbanking for each of the first 2 hits, the last 2 are much more manageable. It's really just about making sure your build is 1. efficient and 2. not absurd in spending.

 

Let me know if there are any questions!

 

[Gustav 6,421]

5 hours 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.

It’s not necessarily “stop earning”; one can stay down without stopping their earning and it’s a decently uncommon case that someone comes in over the hard cap of 400. If anyone is stopping their earning to stay down, it’s really only going to be stopping a couple weeks or so—in the grand scheme of things, I don’t really care about that. It’s not like some other leagues where it’s optimal to not earn for an entire season, and I’m not comparing it to that. That said, I think you know how I feel about the E in general and you’ve definitely read my “max earners shouldn’t need the E and also shouldn’t be taking advantage of it” argument before—while it’s not “stopping earning”, I’d say purposely avoiding the VHL accomplishes just about the same thing and is problematic in many of the same ways. Our system doesn’t incentivize avoiding earning, but I think it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t make staying down look pretty appealing. 
 

I’d like to sit down and do the math on things when I have the time for it, but if I’m at 390 TPE…I think I should be in the VHL and I’d call what’s more or less an entire extra season to bank a much better investment TPE-wise. And the truth is that we’ll see lots of people take that route, not because they want to play in the E but because they want to be able to apply more. What has been a reasonably fair tradeoff before might be a bit harder to justify taking—and assuming I can justify it with numbers (something I’d like to get to after finals) it’s something I’d like to make easier. 

[Gustav 6,421]

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

I have been informed there is no way to currently figure out new depreciation since the depreciation tool on the portal isn't updated yet. So I updated the old hybrid Google Sheet with a tab for depreciation calculations. Go nuts.

 

Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oyj6T5O-bTH-CumYQR-Fe4oFz6cALWjWaRrGNBxNnrQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Example of my own build in the tool:

 

For the worried aspiring 9-season players, I already have 200 TPE banked for the upcoming regression. Which is already 30 TPE above what depreciation *would* be, and this is without any Jagrs factored in. A Jagr in my 9th season at would save me 67 TPE, so the post regression hit would really just be 285. So 171, 171, 271, 285. Considering you'd be overbanking for each of the first 2 hits, the last 2 are much more manageable. It's really just about making sure your build is 1. efficient and 2. not absurd in spending.

 

Let me know if there are any questions!

 

For the record, I do like this and hope your strategy is both realistic and accessible for those who want to take it. 
 

I still can’t help but think that an extra hit of 285 TPE is a lot, and would be completely avoided by killing your first season. Sure, you’re still finishing with a lot—and props to you for doing so—but I can still look at it from the lens of “I’m saving almost 2 full seasons of max earning by not doing this”, and I hope that doesn’t become the popular takeaway. 
 

What would you say to people who would rather play up, but consider your sheet an argument for staying down instead?

Edited December 12, 2022 by Gustav

[fishy 1,757]

why be upset about depreciation when you can simply retire and recreate

[Spartan 4,403]

27 minutes ago, Gustav said:

For the record, I do like this and hope your strategy is both realistic and accessible for those who want to take it. 
 

I still can’t help but think that an extra hit of 285 TPE is a lot, and would be completely avoided by killing your first season. Sure, you’re still finishing with a lot—and props to you for doing so—but I can still look at it from the lens of “I’m saving almost 2 full seasons of max earning by not doing this”, and I hope that doesn’t become the popular takeaway. 
 

What would you say to people who would rather play up, but consider your sheet an argument for staying down instead?

Frankly, it'd just be "do as you please." I have two reasons of saying so.

 

First is the selfish one - I am more than happy to be one of few 9 season career players. I know my own earning capability (which quite a few others in the league can also match or exceed) and I am confident in my ability to plan for success with a 9 season career. I willingly sacrificed a higher peak TPA even before hybrid was a thing, or this new depreciation system was a thing, for the absolute safest peak build that would perform at a fairly high level while also being able to handle any extreme regression changes. There was a chance for a few people who earned well enough to get to play an extra 72 games, I wanted to do so. One more season to (not) win the Continental Cup.

 

Second, which sort of ties into the selfish one but is more from a GM perspective, I know I can give my players and prospects a proper guide on how to handle their career as a 8 season player or a 9 season player. Even if they're less - as a 7 or less season player. As a GM, I am responsible for helping my prospects determine what career length is best, and if someone is thinking about doing a 9 season career, I have personal experience with Nico on how to handle it. If someone wants to do 9 seasons, I will do my best to help them do so. Too many players around the league don't properly prepare for regression now, and I attribute that to the lack of pressure that resulted from the hybrid change. Before the hybrid, everyone banked a full season in advance to prepare for depreciation. Now there just isn't that rush to bank since regression was so light.

 

So yeah if people want to stay down, fine with me. 9 season careers weren't for the figurative "faint of heart" anyways. I don't think anyone was happy with 7% when builds often had 4-5 99 attributes. The math behind the current numbers was designed (and other BoG members can confirm if they'd like) to mimic that sort of pre-hybrid hit but after factoring in TPE inflation with 9 season careers and the spread of hybrid attributes. There really isn't a massive difference here especially when you factor in that Jagr in the final season and when you actually plan your build and regression in advance. If you don't want to put in the planning or effort in advance, that's not a valid reason for the league to drop the 9th season regression percentage.

[Gustav 6,421]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

If you don't want to put in the planning or effort in advance, that's not a valid reason for the league to drop the 9th season regression percentage.

 

For sure. I'm just not sure "it's possible to do fine if you plan it out" invalidates the "you can avoid a 285-point depreciation hit by forgoing a rookie season that might not even be very impactful" argument. I think both of those can coexist, and I also think it's possible to work toward addressing the latter without making anything weird out of the former.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Gustav

[Beketov 9,025]

23 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

For sure. I'm just not sure "it's possible to do fine if you plan it out" invalidates the "you can avoid a 285-point depreciation hit by forgoing a rookie season that might not even be very impactful" argument. I think both of those can coexist, and I also think it's possible to work toward addressing the latter without making anything weird out of the former.

I mean the same could be said for literally every depreciation hit; it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Gustav 6,421]

46 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I mean the same could be said for literally every depreciation hit; it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

Maybe we just need some time to see how this plays out. If we go a bit into the future and either a) we almost never see 9-season players, or b) it's clear that 8-season players and people who stayed down are performing better and having better careers, then we need to fix something.

 

If it turns out that it doesn't make a difference, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong. I personally do see this becoming a problem but it seems to be a slightly unpopular opinion...I'll suggest some stuff nonetheless but if nothing goes through in the short-term future it's still something to keep an eye on.

[Steve 1,925]

So do we get more TPE when we recreate now? Since the value of earning a skill has gone up, regression rates have gone up to compensate for it, it seems if you are going that deep down the rabbit hole you guys changing everything should consider giving us more TPE percent from our previous player. You know, to make it in line with all the changes. 

[Spartan 4,403]

1 hour ago, Gustav said:

 

For sure. I'm just not sure "it's possible to do fine if you plan it out" invalidates the "you can avoid a 285-point depreciation hit by forgoing a rookie season that might not even be very impactful" argument. I think both of those can coexist, and I also think it's possible to work toward addressing the latter without making anything weird out of the former.

It definitely doesn't invalidate it, and it shouldn't. We don't want to be forcing every player to bypass the E by suddenly removing any tradeoff between 8 and 9 seasons. Personally, playing like shit in your rookie season is more of a decision driver than the 9th season regression, because as I've demonstrated using my own build as an example and my earning, it's definitely possible to end up with an overall successful player from a stats and individual award perspective. That's why going into the draft, I was fairly clear about what I wanted as a player and made the finals as a rookie. I figured I wouldn't be eligible for a rookie award due to my TPA in comparison to the S80 8 season players.

 

6 minutes ago, Steve said:

So do we get more TPE when we recreate now? Since the value of earning a skill has gone up, regression rates have gone up to compensate for it, it seems if you are going that deep down the rabbit hole you guys changing everything should consider giving us more TPE percent from our previous player. You know, to make it in line with all the changes. 

This regression change is moreso for the late career phase of players, has nothing to do with early season TPE/TPA. An extra season of earning + a plethora of weekly and seasonal uncapped TPE are allowing players to earn nearly 300+ more TPE in their careers. Even recent 8 season retirees are finishing in the top 5 of all time TPE, I really don't think TPE availability is an issue at all.

[Bojovnik 487]

Surely the point of being a max earner, to the extent that you can jump up to the VHL in your D+1 season, should allow you to spend excessively as your activity gives you the right to be a premier player, not just one that plays at a "fairly high level"

[Spartan 4,403]

20 minutes ago, Bojovnik said:

Surely the point of being a max earner, to the extent that you can jump up to the VHL in your D+1 season, should allow you to spend excessively as your activity gives you the right to be a premier player, not just one that plays at a "fairly high level"

TIL winning an MVP and a goal leader trophy isn't high level enough. Jokes aside, it's impossible to just say "high TPE = awards." Plenty of high profile high TPE players in history have had little to no individual awards, just look at one Ryan Kastelic for a great example. Max earners can fall flat in any system we implement. I'm just trying to point out that you can be just as effective and successful at a lower TPA (1000-1200) as someone at a higher TPA (1200+). Beyond like 900 TPA, it's really just marginal gains with like a 2-4 point spread per attribute.

[OrbitingDeath 3,183]

15 hours ago, Spartan said:

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.

 

Yes please

[OrbitingDeath 3,183]

1 hour ago, Bojovnik said:

Surely the point of being a max earner, to the extent that you can jump up to the VHL in your D+1 season, should allow you to spend excessively as your activity gives you the right to be a premier player, not just one that plays at a "fairly high level"

This basically

[OrbitingDeath 3,183]

15 hours ago, Spartan said:

. 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

 

Yes I know and was exactly the point of my post above. I already sacrificed my chances there to have a 9 season career. But felt like just a big stab in the back when you get another 12% hit in the last season.

Not being able to win a stolzy was something i came to terms with when wanting to try this 9 season thing, but I honestly start to think no one should bother with this in the future. 

[Bojovnik 487]

44 minutes ago, OrbitingDeath said:

 

Yes I know and was exactly the point of my post above. I already sacrificed my chances there to have a 9 season career. But felt like just a big stab in the back when you get another 12% hit in the last season.

Not being able to win a stolzy was something i came to terms with when wanting to try this 9 season thing, but I honestly start to think no one should bother with this in the future. 

With nine-year career you get

72 more games with terrible stats that tank your career point per game average

No chance to win the Stoltzy

Likelihood of being on a team full rebuild

In many cases lower first season salary as GMs unlikely to give the $3 million pity salary for going back down to minors.

 

We knew that going in, but now this depreciation on top of that. Yikes.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Bojovnik

[Steve 1,925]

I think it should have gone the other way. Drop it to 5% for 3 seasons and zero if you play a 9th season. Why punish players for working hard. To be fair, this sim isn't close to a real life hockey league so I would say it's better to treat the ones that are still earners with a bit of a reward and not a punishment. All I see are welfare players in the M except for a handful. Seems like we need something fixed that is keeping players from being active instead of regulating the ones that are. Just my take on the matter. I do what I'm told, most of the time.

[AdamEss 58]

I depreciate all the work yall do.

[mattyIceman 1,214]

On 12/12/2022 at 10:39 AM, Spartan said:

Not a single 9 season "straight to VHL" player has won the Stolzy since the hybrid attribute change.

 

I did...

[Spartan 4,403]

2 minutes ago, MattyFired said:

 

I did...

You won in S80, hybrid went into effect for S82

[Phil 5,119]

8 hours ago, Spartan said:

You won in S80, hybrid went into effect for S82

 

I was robbed last season.