In Which I Rework Depreciation and Then Decide I Don't Like My Own Idea

[Gustav 6,425]

Some people whine a lot about the league; some people do something about it. Let's do something about it.

 

It's been about 8 months since the league rolled out its improved depreciation schedule to a lot of mixed feedback. Though @OrbitingDeath  was the first to comment in a negative way, the sentiment of "I'd rather stay down in the E for the specific purpose of avoiding depreciation" wasn't even new then and only strengthened after that announcement. It is my opinion that this should never be encouraged by league policy (and, further, that you shouldn't even be able to reasonably back that statement up). Our development leagues are doing their job right if members stay in them for as little time as possible before they get where they need to be, so it's something that's stuck with me forever that we have a system that works in the opposite way. I've gone off about this before, so I won't keep going--but I hope you're well aware of my opinion on this.

 

Because of this, I said this in that same thread:

Quote

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

 

...and while this isn't as "near" as I'd like it to be, I'm here to try to propose something I see as a fair solution. Disagree with me if you'd like, but don't try to tell me I don't care.

 

Gustav's New and Improved Depreciation System should ideally do three things:

• Be tougher on super-earners while still serving the same purpose that the "you depreciate less if you stay down" system was supposed to be for (i.e., lower earners who take longer to build shouldn't be too screwed over by it)
• Completely eliminate any reason to decide "I'm not going up because I'll lose more TPE"
• Serve my own selfish purpose of holding up on its own without needing to be changed should we eventually get rid of the E

 

So, because I'd like to make this league's accountant demographic (you know who you are) do one of two things: either nerd out and die from happiness if I explain this correctly, or lose your shit and throw your phone on the ground if you lack the empathy necessary to understand that maybe it's OK if I miss some technicality that only you're aware of; I'm going to propose something based on the idea of progressive taxation.

 

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (and I believe quite a few other countries as well, before the Canadians start talking shit) uses some form of this concept. Basically, you're probably aware that you'll (ideally) be taxed more if you make more, but it isn't just "they'll take 10% of my money if I earn below this number but 15% of it if I earn above it"--there's a misconception that earning just above the cutoff for some bracket will leave you with less money than if you earned just below it. That's not true at all, really--if the cutoff is $100,000, for example, and you earn $105k, your first $100k will be taxed at one rate and the next $5k at another. Someone who earns $101k will still have more money than someone earning $99k. 

 

So, why not apply this to the VHL?

 

Gustav's New and Improved Depreciation System is inherently challenged by something that I unfortunately realized while I was writing this: you can't just decide to depreciate different TPE brackets at different rates, because the places where that TPE is spent spread across different attributes that will all depreciate on their own. And you can't just decide to depreciate things wholesale because, well, the way we have things up just makes it a little bit more complicated than that. If we were just adjusting one number, it would be simple, but we have 10 or more numbers to adjust. So, we can't do that.

 

It's still possible to approximate that, though--I think so, at least. I think it's a bit difficult to write up the rules concisely, but here goes.

• Hypothetically, a number would be calculated for depreciation based on total TPA + banked. We'll have to figure out what actually works at some point later (because it's late and I may or may not have gotten slightly drunk), but let's say our depreciation works like:
  • 0-250 TPE is not depreciated
  • 250-400 TPE is depreciated at 3% of TPA + banked (flat rate)
  • 400-499 is depreciated at 5%, except in the 9th season, at 7%
  • 500-599 --> 7%; 8th and 9th seasons --> 9%
  • 600-699 --> 9% in 6th season/10% in 7th season/11% in 8th season/12% in 9th season
  • 700 - 799 --> 10/11/12/13%
  • 800 - 899 --> 11/12/13/14%
  • ...and so on.
• "But Gustav," you say, "those percentages are really, really, high! How will I live?
  • First of all, again, I make no claim that these are usable numbers and will have to figure out what actually works at some future date.
  • Second, notice how a lot of super-earners get depreciated something like 400 TPE--we'd probably have to make these numbers even higher to keep depreciating people at the same rates. It's really just an example to show you how it could work.
• Once a number has been established for how much TPE each player hypothetically should be lost, attributes will be decreased in order down the list (one point off of A, one point off of B, keep going, repeat) until that number is met.

 

And I think this would work! It makes it so that players in the E (or lower earners in general) don't have to deal with much, that those who earn a lot have to deal with a lot, and is entirely independent of any development league. There's no staying down to avoid it, and we wouldn't have to redo depreciation in a situation where we didn't have the E present.

 

 

Alternatively--flat rates to depreciation are already a progressive system. I'd be completely OK with scaling back the magnitude a little bit and just getting rid of the no-depreciation-in-the-E thing, because any consistent earner should really be able to make it to VHL rosters before that starts to hit anyway. 

 

And, if that isn't the case, why not just delete the E? I suppose that's a different article.

 

I'd honestly be more in favor of that last paragraph than anything else--make depreciation a bit less severe and have it apply to everyone--but I had the idea and needed the TPE for the week. I hope you'll consider that part yourself (along with deleting the E), especially if you have the power to make that happen.

 

 

>1000 and <1500 words; good for 2 weeks.

[Gustav 6,425]

Week 2

[Alex 3,202]

While I do agree that the current depreciation does directly impact players who made it through the developmental leagues quickly, and does incentivize people to stay in developmental leagues for longer. My overall take would be to rework fighters  to be more usable in later that 9th season and in doing so reduce the cost as it would not be affordable, in addition to this, keep it so that players do not depreciate in the VHLE (to eventually force players out), but once they graduate from the E, depreciation will still be the same. For example say player Joe Flow has made it to the VHL after spending 7 seasons in the M/E, going into their first VHL season they will not face any depreciation, however, going into their 2nd VHL season (9th career season), they would face the same amount of depreciation as a player who had spent all 9 seasons in the VHL.

While the current percentages were chosen to mimic the approximate TPE lost pre-hybrid, the 9th season is very difficult to deal with and just punishes people for doing what they are supposed to do. Something does need to change here.

[Spartan 4,403]

9 hours ago, Gustav said:

the sentiment of "I'd rather stay down in the E for the specific purpose of avoiding depreciation" wasn't even new then and only strengthened after that announcement.

I mean wasn't the whole point of adding a 9th season to compensate for the E's addition as a new natural stage through a player's career? Before the E, you could reasonably be expected to hit 250 TPE by the time of your VHL draft as long as you created around the TDL, and you'd get 8 VHL seasons. If you created any later though (like 4/5 weeks after the deadline in my case with Letang), you wouldn't cross that hard cap and would get only 7 VHL seasons.

 

With the inclusion of the E, obviously we had some changes around call-ups and eligibility over the seasons, but it just wouldn't be realistic that you get drafted and immediately play in the VHL for 8 seasons. The E was expected to be a stepping stone after the M, hence the extension to player careers from 8 seasons to 9. 9 seasons isn't just some guaranteed thing everyone should be able to accomplish, and if people do opt into 9 seasons, it should understandably be more difficult since they're effectively getting a bonus season over the majority of their draft class.

 

So if people feel that preparing for 12% depreciation (with a Jagr) in their final season isn't worth it, then sure, stick with the typical career path of 1 E season after being VHL drafted and have the same 8 VHL seasons you'd have under the old system without the E. At the end of the day, even if someone stays down for 1 season in the VHLE to avoid that 12%, they're still getting a full 8 season VHL career - which is still a more forgiving system than the old 250 cap that was harsher for first gens and anyone not creating at the optimal time.

 

27 minutes ago, Alex said:

For example say player Joe Flow has made it to the VHL after spending 7 seasons in the M/E, going into their first VHL season they will not face any depreciation, however, going into their 2nd VHL season (9th career season), they would face the same amount of depreciation as a player who had spent all 9 seasons in the VHL.

So he comes up at 410 TPE, earns 20 more TPE that season (since he's a very casual earner) and then gets slapped with 12% depreciation? Why? Who does this help? The 1000+ TPA players are worried about 400 TPA, 2 season VHL players?

[Beketov 9,025]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

the 9th season is very difficult to deal with and just punishes people for doing what they are supposed to do

FWIW the 9th season was always more of “above and beyond” rather than “what they are supposed to do”. It was created with the assumption that you’d spend 1 season in the M and 1 in the E; thus to get the “normal” VHL 8 we added a season. The ability to do 9 is really just for the crazy earners that can manage it and really want that extra season to go for a cup or awards or records or whatever. It shouldn’t be looked at as “the norm” since that’s not what it was ever designed to be.

[AJW 2,156]

If you do a 9th season you should have the knowledge and understanding of what you’re getting in to. People don’t just skip the E, you have to work hard and consistently for that. If you complain then that’s just your fault for jumping into something you didn’t prepare yourself for.

 

I want my final build to be 1200 TPA, which is over the max salary bracket and considered an elite player. 12% depreciation on that with no depreciation purchases isn’t even 150 TPE, and it’s not like I’ll have 100’s of banked TPE sitting around every single off season. You can earn 96 capped TPE in a season (12 TPE x 2 months (8 weeks)). 150 TPE in a season isn’t hard and shouldn’t be hard to achieve for someone who wants to do 9 seasons. If you max earn you get around 200 a season. 

 

I like your ideas and as a 9 season player I wouldn’t be mad about an increase in depreciation. I do the work every week and push myself to have the best player I can. If the numbers work out and I do what I need to do, then there will be no problem. If I don’t do the work I need to do every week and start complaining, then I am literally just saying “this is not fair because I didn’t do enough and now I’m suffering consequences of my own lazy actions.”

 

I think that all makes sense^ very tired after footy but like I said I like your ideas.

Edited August 21, 2023 by AJW

[Triller 1,663]

For me it isn't so much about the amount of depreciation or how big of a hit it is, it is the task of trying to plan for it that sucks.  I currently enjoy doing all the earning tasks but the moment they start to feel like homework is when I will start to pull back.  Planning for depreciation is homework.  It may be fun to some but I am not looking forward to it.  Planning to buy the fighters and how much I will earn as well as my final build isn't an enjoyable prospect to me.  I like earning and applying.  This next step just isn't fun.

[leandrofg 1,159]

51 minutes ago, Triller said:

For me it isn't so much about the amount of depreciation or how big of a hit it is, it is the task of trying to plan for it that sucks.  I currently enjoy doing all the earning tasks but the moment they start to feel like homework is when I will start to pull back.  Planning for depreciation is homework.  It may be fun to some but I am not looking forward to it.  Planning to buy the fighters and how much I will earn as well as my final build isn't an enjoyable prospect to me.  I like earning and applying.  This next step just isn't fun.

 

Welcome to VHL-adulthood.

[Gustav 6,425]

2 hours ago, AJW said:

If you do a 9th season you should have the knowledge and understanding of what you’re getting in to. People don’t just skip the E, you have to work hard and consistently for that. If you complain then that’s just your fault for jumping into something you didn’t prepare yourself for.

 

See, I really disagree with this mindset because it's not that I don't have the knowledge or the understanding--not that I think you're saying that, but I like to think I'm more than a little informed on the subject. Notice that my article comes from a place of "I disagree with the system working in this way", not "my player is depreciating and now I'm angry". I'm allowed to not like something, and not liking it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

2 hours ago, AJW said:

12% depreciation on that with no depreciation purchases isn’t even 150 TPE

 

Also, this is completely wrong--it's 12% off each attribute, not 12% off your total. If I were complaining about a 150-TPE hit, then yeah, who cares? But I'm not--I'm talking about what's over 300 in some cases (with fighters purchased!) and ends up being a thing you can get out of entirely if you decide you'd rather not deal with it.

 

 

6 hours ago, Beketov said:

FWIW the 9th season was always more of “above and beyond” rather than “what they are supposed to do”. It was created with the assumption that you’d spend 1 season in the M and 1 in the E; thus to get the “normal” VHL 8 we added a season. The ability to do 9 is really just for the crazy earners that can manage it and really want that extra season to go for a cup or awards or records or whatever. It shouldn’t be looked at as “the norm” since that’s not what it was ever designed to be.

 

A lot of the time when the "this wasn't the intent of the policy" is brought up, it's something I really disagree with (I've seen people, not you, completely backtrack on things they said about the E in BoG to call me stupid in public), but I'll confirm this is true--the 9-season career was in fact brought about to account for the extra season a lot of players would spend outside the VHL. 

 

I don't think that disqualifies any disagreement with the way it works anyway, though--I think that, all things considered, that extra season is a good thing. I also think it's entirely possible to have that extra season available and work with it in a way that doesn't push people not to work with it. I know you're very against players being encouraged to stay in the M any longer than they need to, so why is the E any different? Lots of people apply what I consider a huge double standard to the situation and it confuses me.

 

 

 

As for the argument that it's a trade-off that someone consciously chooses to make, and that it should be a sacrifice to go up, why? I still have yet to hear actual reasoning for this other than "this is the way it is and I'm OK with that". What if it weren't? Why would that not be OK? What is wrong with suggesting that we should change it? Heck, even if we made that 9th-season hit less severe, or did something more adventurous (what about a simple "your TPA + banked is recorded at your 8th season's depreciation and you drop back to that point at the start of the 9th"?), I'd consider it a win. I think there's no way it can be argued that the system as is gives people reasons to stay down, and I'll never not see that as an issue.

[AJW 2,156]

 

7 minutes ago, Gustav said:

Also, this is completely wrong--it's 12% off each attribute, not 12% off your total. If I were complaining about a 150-TPE hit, then yeah, who cares? But I'm not--I'm talking about what's over 300 in some cases (with fighters purchased!) and ends up being a thing you can get out of entirely if you decide you'd rather not deal with it.

 

 

I honestly did not know this.. wtf?! LOL okay time to reconsider my plans with my player

[AJW 2,156]

4 minutes ago, AJW said:

 

I honestly did not know this.. wtf?! LOL okay time to reconsider my plans with my player

 

This is actually hilarious and I'm kinda dying laughing...

 

3 hours ago, AJW said:

If you do a 9th season you should have the knowledge and understanding of what you’re getting in to.

 

Apparently I don't know what I'M getting into LOL  

Edited August 21, 2023 by AJW

[v.2 1,406]

inb4 Bobandy retires early

[Beketov 9,025]

14 minutes ago, Gustav said:

I know you're very against players being encouraged to stay in the M any longer than they need to, so why is the E any different? Lots of people apply what I consider a huge double standard to the situation and it confuses me.

I'm not saying the E is any different. I also don't think that having the 9th season be tough depreciation is inherently telling people to stay in the VHLE. To me if you're capable of hitting that 9th season then you are capable of managing that depreciation. This isn't the sort of ting that your average first gen (who may not save for depreciation well) is going to encounter as the VHLE by design is meant to be hard to skip.

 

Personally I think the idea that the VHLE must be more easily skippable is what created more of an issue because everything around the 9th season was MEANT to be difficult, not something the average user could easily achieve. That's not to say people should spend extra seasons down that they don't need to but 1 season, to me, is not "extra" seasons it's the expectation.

[Beketov 9,025]

19 minutes ago, Gustav said:

As for the argument that it's a trade-off that someone consciously chooses to make, and that it should be a sacrifice to go up, why? I still have yet to hear actual reasoning for this other than "this is the way it is and I'm OK with that". What if it weren't? Why would that not be OK? What is wrong with suggesting that we should change it? Heck, even if we made that 9th-season hit less severe, or did something more adventurous (what about a simple "your TPA + banked is recorded at your 8th season's depreciation and you drop back to that point at the start of the 9th"?), I'd consider it a win. I think there's no way it can be argued that the system as is gives people reasons to stay down, and I'll never not see that as an issue.

Should have finished reading before I hit submit on the last comment.

 

I want to be clear that I'm not saying "nope, this is the way it is, suck it up", by all means things can change. Hell the 9th season got more severe because people pushed for it to be more severe; it's not as if I proposed that; unless I did and just forgot haha. All I was doing was pointing out the flaw in @Alex's logic that people "did what they were supposed to do" when there isn't really any such thing as what people are "supposed to do" but the EXPECTATION would be 1 M season, 1 E season. That is how it's designed to be. Ultimately depreciation is meant to simulate the idea of players getting older. It's not like you see 40 year old NHL players that just play the same as they did at 20. We offered an extra season and if people are taking that extra season in the VHL to get those records and to get those cups and to get those awards then, IMO, it should be a bit of a challenge. That's the trade off for getting the extra season of play.

 

Can it be adjusted? Sure. But is it meant to be easy? Not really.

[Alex 3,202]

6 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I want to be clear that I'm not saying "nope, this is the way it is, suck it up", by all means things can change. Hell the 9th season got more severe because people pushed for it to be more severe; it's not as if I proposed that; unless I did and just forgot haha. All I was doing was pointing out the flaw in @Alex's logic that people "did what they were supposed to do" when there isn't really any such thing as what people are "supposed to do" but the EXPECTATION would be 1 M season, 1 E season. That is how it's designed to be. Ultimately depreciation is meant to simulate the idea of players getting older. It's not like you see 40 year old NHL players that just play the same as they did at 20. We offered an extra season and if people are taking that extra season in the VHL to get those records and to get those cups and to get those awards then, IMO, it should be a bit of a challenge. That's the trade off for getting the extra season of play.

I'll admit my wording wasn't the best. However, the regression model isn't perfect and does punish people who do go straight to the VHL more than it potentially should, especially when you consider that there have been drafted players that were not able to play in the VHLE for a season due to being over 400 TPE. While most people who do make the jump to the VHL are more experienced members and should be able to plan for it, having a very hard regression going into your final season as a result for simply not electing (or being able to in some cases) to play in a developmental league for an additional season is something that could be improved upon. If regression is meant to simulate age, should all players in a draft class experience the same regression? I do know how long the regression discussions took in BOG, and by no means am I saying that the values need to change, my suggestion was simply a suggestion at that and would allow for regression to more accurately simulate aging while still not hindering people from making it to the VHL.

[Beketov 9,025]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

If regression is meant to simulate age, should all players in a draft class experience the same regression? I do know how long the regression discussions took in BOG, and by no means am I saying that the values need to change, my suggestion was simply a suggestion at that and would allow for regression to more accurately simulate aging while still not hindering people from making it to the VHL.

It used to, and it's far CLEANER is if does. The problem is that more heavily punishes lower earning players. Yes it's all a percentage but we were having players taking so 4 or 5 seasons in the VHLM and then getting hit with depreciation as soon as they came up to the VHL which hardly seems reasonable enough if it's "more realistic." It's rare realism works perfectly, I was just pointing out why it's harsh. You are an older player, you have a harder time.

 

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

While most people who do make the jump to the VHL are more experienced members and should be able to plan for it, having a very hard regression going into your final season as a result for simply not electing (or being able to in some cases) to play in a developmental league for an additional season is something that could be improved upon.

I mean as a general reminder to people, you don't HAVE to play a full career. Like if saving for that last season of depreciation just doesn't sound fun for you but you also want to skip the VHLE then why not just retire at 8? There's kinda a mindset recently that you have to play your full career and you don't. People used to retire early all the time.

 

I'm not saying "well just retire" is the perfect solution or anything, I'm just saying that absolutely no one is being forced to deal with it. You could choose to stay down instead of earning at an insane rate (which again, I always advocated for it to be very difficult to skip) or if you do just get lucky and have insane earning and don't want to do 9 seasons then don't do 9 seasons. Nothing is being forced here.

[Gustav 6,425]

24 minutes ago, Beketov said:

To me if you're capable of hitting that 9th season then you are capable of managing that depreciation.

 

Sure, you won't be absolute garbage in your 9th season, but if you're trying to make the HoF, then why would you accept 300+ TPE off your total (and lots of money out of your finances) if you can just as easily...not? Especially if what you're giving up isn't a season that really ever plays into evaluating people for HoF worthiness. I don't even buy the argument that being up that extra season helps with stat padding, because per-season averages will presumably go up and I'd imagine that a 550-TPE rookie is better situated for ROTY than someone at 350.

 

IMO, the "difficulty" in skipping the E should be limited to lying in the process of skipping the E in the first place. You've earned enough? Cool, you've gotten past that difficulty. "Depreciation should be realistic" is fine, but loses its meaning when you can cheese your way into making it not work that way.

 

6 minutes ago, Beketov said:

It used to, and it's far CLEANER is if does. The problem is that more heavily punishes lower earning players. Yes it's all a percentage but we were having players taking so 4 or 5 seasons in the VHLM and then getting hit with depreciation as soon as they came up to the VHL which hardly seems reasonable enough if it's "more realistic." It's rare realism works perfectly, I was just pointing out why it's harsh. You are an older player, you have a harder time.

 

...what if we moved the "you don't depreciate for time spent in the E" back a season or two? For example, players who take one season in the E are hit with the same schedule as players who don't, players who take two seasons get out of that last-season hit, players with three seasons in the E are exempted from depreciating in their last two seasons. It removes the incentive to take one season down intentionally after the draft (because there's far less reason to take two at that point) and still caters to players who naturally take much longer to come up. And if we don't like the strength of depreciation under this system, then who says we can't adjust it back down a little? The highest TPA out there will still probably be lower than it is now, because we don't have people who don't need to avoid depreciation doing so untouched.

 

^I think I prefer that to other things I've brought up here, so please consider it.

[Nykonax 1,564]

people already can't understand progressive taxation and this seems even more confusing.

would it just be better to depreciate a fixed value of each attribute depending on the bracket it's in? ex. if dk is above 95, you lose 2/3/4 depending on season. if it's 90<dk<95 you lose like 1/2/3 depending on season. if it's below 90 you lose like 0/1/2 depending on season. Obviously these numbers don't make sense as is, but something along these lines could possibly be good and seems way more straightforward.

[Gustav 6,425]

1 minute ago, Nykonax said:

people already can't understand progressive taxation and this seems even more confusing.

would it just be better to depreciate a fixed value of each attribute depending on the bracket it's in? ex. if dk is above 95, you lose 2/3/4 depending on season. if it's 90<dk<95 you lose like 1/2/3 depending on season. if it's below 90 you lose like 0/1/2 depending on season. Obviously these numbers don't make sense as is, but something along these lines could possibly be good and seems way more straightforward.

 

I really like this at first glance but then it brings in the thing that people think progressive taxation is--why have a 96 in something when you can have a 95? I think you have a good idea but it would also have the unintended consequence of builds changing in very specific ways to better fit depreciation.

[Nykonax 1,564]

1 minute ago, Gustav said:

I really like this at first glance but then it brings in the thing that people think progressive taxation is--why have a 96 in something when you can have a 95? I think you have a good idea but it would also have the unintended consequence of builds changing in very specific ways to better fit depreciation.

I mean ideally it'd be properly designed to avoid this. like even in my example if you have 96 dk and in 2nd season of regression you'd go down to 93. if you have 95 you'd go down to 93. either way it's the same result after regression and you get to play the season with 1 higher dk. if there does end up opportunity for regression planning with this and keeping attributes lower that's fine to me as well, since it involves actively thinking about a build, and already happens with salary cap brackets.

[Spartan 4,403]

1 hour ago, Gustav said:

I know you're very against players being encouraged to stay in the M any longer than they need to, so why is the E any different?

I would want to clarify that there's a difference between people halting their earning to stay under a threshold, vs choosing not to go up if they're between the 300-400 bracket to be called up. No player in our most recent draft class was over 400 TPE (Doom is 413 TPE after 3 weeks) so no one is stopping their earning to play in the E after their draft season. When we had people "accidentally" going over 200/250 TPE and asking to get TPE revoked, it was a massive annoyance since the M culture also encouraged it.

 

Personally, I don't think choosing to follow a natural progression of 1 full M season, getting VHL drafted and then 1 full E season means that we need to change depreciation to encourage more people leave the E sooner. And I say that as someone who has skipped the E for 9 seasons and dealt with the depreciation, and now as a recreate who plans to take it easy and just get 8 VHL seasons instead of 9 (though I am a goalie). I think the benefit of the current system is the choice to flex within the range, and no one sacrifices TPE for a decision. If it's too easy to get over 400 TPE before a threshold, then we need to revisit how much uncapped we hand out imo.

[Daniel Janser 2,170]

I do not think one should be able to eat the cake and keep it.

 

If one decides to skip a league (and let's be honest, one would need to severely grind to do that), that is one's prerogative. It is not that it is a well kept secret that depreciation will hit you like a truck in year 8 and 9 respectively. If one is willing to push for a 9 season VHL career, they ought to be aware that it comes at a price.

 

I also dislike a notion of 'staying longer than necessary'. The league as it is now, was designed for 1 season VHLM, 1 season VHLE and then swing for the big league. If one skips one of the build up leagues then technically they are staying less than necessary. 

 

Let's not forget that is a problem only competitive earners will face (not saying that this makes the concern per se irrelevant) and the majority of players will never know a 9 season VHL career (also for cap reasons). 

 

Marcel, my brother was a clicker (with few exceptions) and he never suffered regression. He had a five season VHL career (2 seasons in the VHLM, 3 seasons in the E). 

[Gustav 6,425]

10 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

I do not think one should be able to eat the cake and keep it.

 

Ironically, this is exactly how I would explain "I don't think you should be able to earn well enough that there's a legitimate place for you in the VHL and then choose to back out of a big depreciation hit by not taking it." There are just different perspectives out there on what exactly that cake is and how one would go about eating it.

 

10 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

Let's not forget that is a problem only competitive earners will face (not saying that this makes the concern per se irrelevant) and the majority of players will never know a 9 season VHL career (also for cap reasons). 

 

You're correct about this, but I think there's something to be said about how this affects non-competitive earners as well. Giving competitive earners the chance to shoot that much higher also makes it so the highest-TPA players in the league will be even higher up than they would be in a system that treated them, IMO, fairly. I think someone with 400 TPE is just a little bit more valuable in a league where the top isn't 1400 but 1100 or so. 

[Daniel Janser 2,170]

8 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

Ironically, this is exactly how I would explain "I don't think you should be able to earn well enough that there's a legitimate place for you in the VHL and then choose to back out of a big depreciation hit by not taking it." There are just different perspectives out there on what exactly that cake is and how one would go about eating it.

 

 

You're correct about this, but I think there's something to be said about how this affects non-competitive earners as well. Giving competitive earners the chance to shoot that much higher also makes it so the highest-TPA players in the league will be even higher up than they would be in a system that treated them, IMO, fairly. I think someone with 400 TPE is just a little bit more valuable in a league where the top isn't 1400 but 1100 or so. 

fair point on the first one. My assumption was that the 9 season career is the cake and the depreciation the price to pay. Also since the 'default' case is one season VHLM, one season VHLE and then 8 seasons of VHL bliss. I think sticking to the default is not milking the system but navigating within the rules as intended. Also one could also grind the first few months to either skip the M or the E (as per personal preference) and than more or less become a welfare/PF earner to mitigate the impact of the depreciation. I do not know how appealing a 9 season career of mediocricy is.

 

on the second one I would actually argue the opposite. (and I am a little confused as well, as you make it sound as if after your desired revision the TPE total of the top players would be lower. this seems counterintuitive, given that you seem to wish to mitigate the fourth depreciation which would lead to a higher TPE/A of the said top earners then in the existing system). If a nine season career becomes more 'affordable', I suspect that more users would go for it. Which means that slower earners (with a maximum eight season VHL career) will get less opportunity to shine (or at least get icetime) when the nine season career players keep on hogging the spots... especially in the netminder position, where hybrid attributes are not a thing and an effective build is much less TPE thirsty than with skaters (and the spots are limited to maximum 32).

[Gustav 6,425]

2 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

on the second one I would actually argue the opposite. (and I am a little confused as well, as you make it sound as if after your desired revision the TPE total of the top players would be lower. this seems counterintuitive, given that you seem to wish to mitigate the fourth depreciation which would lead to a higher TPE/A of the said top earners then in the existing system). If a nine season career becomes more 'affordable', I suspect that more users would go for it. Which means that slower earners (with a maximum eight season VHL career) will get less opportunity to shine (or at least get icetime) when the nine season career players keep on hogging the spots... especially in the netminder position, where hybrid attributes are not a thing and an effective build is much less TPE thirsty than with skaters (and the spots are limited to maximum 32).

 

So in this case I'm arguing for a mitigated 9th season depreciation over a complete lack of one. I hope that makes sense--any depreciation at all in that regard is more than what quite a few max earners end up getting. Yes, 9-season players will be able to have more applied, but the hypothetical "peak" build is currently one that's reached with an 8-season career. Take that difference away, and the peak goes down because you close the loophole of staying down to completely avoid a hit.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean about rosters becoming overcrowded. I can see isolated incidences of what you're describing going down, but I'm not sure that's a huge issue. I hardly think that (and I know this isn't what you're saying) max earners staying down are simply doing what's right for the lower earners.