Is the Update Scale outdated?

[Will 4,660]

Maybe. But, not necessarily because there's too many people with exceedingly high attributes:

 

# of attributes	>=85	% of players
8	1	1.30%
7	5	6.49%
6	6	7.79%
5	14	18.18%
4	20	25.97%
3	28	36.36%
2	37	48.05%
1	43	55.84%

 

# of attributes	>=90	% of players
8	1	1.30%
7	4	5.19%
6	6	7.79%
5	10	12.99%
4	16	20.78%
3	23	29.87%
2	33	42.86%
1	38	49.35%

 

# of attributes	>=95	% of players
8	1	1.30%
7	2	2.60%
6	3	3.90%
5	6	7.79%
4	10	12.99%
3	14	18.18%
2	16	20.78%
1	25	32.47%

 

Note: goalies not included

 

The above tables show how many players have X number of attributes greater or equal to 85, 90, or 95. The middle column shows how many players fit that criteria (Ex. row one on table 1 shows there is 1 player with 8 attributes at 85 or greater). The right column shows the value from the middle column as a percentage of the league - I have found there to be 77 human players in the league at the moment. 

 

As you can see, there isn't a TERRIBLE concentration of high attributes. Phil Hamilton is the only player with 8 attributes meeting the criteria in all 3 tables. For table 1 and 2, less than 10% of the league have 6 or more attributes above those thresholds. 

 

So, it's not as if we have a large portion of the league with nearly maxed player pages. But, there are still at least 2 'problems' that I can see: 1) The update scale is still easy enough to make player diversity very limited and 2) the small portion of players that is close to maxed attributes get to a point where there is effectively nothing useful for them to do with their TPE. (see Phil Hamilton, Hans Wingate).

 

One other tidbit: the attribute most frequently put at 95 or greater is Scoring by a long shot. 29.87% of the league has their Scoring attribute at 95 or above. I don't think that's really a good thing.

 

What do you guys think of these numbers? Not a complete representation since it's kind of hard to show how the scale effects player builds.

 

If there were changes to the update scale, it wouldn't be aimed to harm lower TPE or growing members. Most likely, it would be aimed only at the higher end of the scale like the thresholds shown above: 85, 90, 95. 

[Victor 10,831]

I suppose I wouldn't be completely against another increase from 95 to 99 but I do like the simplicity of the current one and not sure there's enough affected TPE whores.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

As a winger getting scoring, passing, defense, skating, puck handling and strength all to 90 takes just 480 TPE. That right there tells me the scale needs to be changed.

 

The scale and the resulting lack of variance in builds is what has made it hard for me to stick around since the end of Reikkinen tbh. It's just not all that fun to keep making the same build over and over with a difference of maybe 16-20 TPE in a couple attributes.

Edited July 31, 2016 by .sniffuM

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Just as a proposal from someone whose opinion on the matter probably doesn't carry much weight:

 

Currently it costs 116 TPE to max out an attribute. I think a scale that could work better would be:

 

40-60: 1 point

60-70: 2 points

70-80: 3 points

80-90: 4 points

90-95: 5 points

95-99: 7 points

 

That's 163 TPE to max out one attribute. The 40-60 allows for more build variance in the VHLM and the overall scale would work better IMO.

 

Here's a balanced defenseman with 800 TPE and the current scale:

 

CK = Checking: 99
FG = Fighting: 40
DI = Discipline: 40
SK = Skating: 99
ST = Strength: 99
PH = Puck Handling: 99
FO = Face Offs: 40
PA = Passing: 99
SC = Scoring: 96
DF = Defense: 99
PS = Penalty Shot: 40
EX = Experience: 40
LD = Leadership: 40

 

Here's that same defenseman with my proposed scale:

 

CK = Checking: 94
FG = Fighting: 40
DI = Discipline: 40
SK = Skating: 95
ST = Strength: 90
PH = Puck Handling: 90
FO = Face Offs: 40
PA = Passing: 90
SC = Scoring: 80
DF = Defense: 95
PS = Penalty Shot: 40
EX = Experience: 40
LD = Leadership: 40

 

It's not a huge difference and it forces players to specialize a bit more. With second players creating more depth on rosters in the future I think that's a good thing.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Obviously with this the league would need to give out a little more TPE, but that's not too hard. Maybe run a doubles week every season and/or bump the cap to 10 TPE per week.

[solas 1,947]

As someone who's making a defensive forward my initial reaction to the possibility of a new update scale was negative because I already plan on adding TPE to a lot of attributes.  But I wouldn't be against an adjustment to the update scale like Damien suggested.  More variety in player builds would certainly be nice (although I hope the second player system changes that).

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

how low could the attributes go really? i mean bumping it back to 30 starting attributes would be to bad would it?

 

30-40 = 1 tpe 

40-50 = 2 tpe 

50-60 = 3 tpe 

60-70 = 4 tpe

70-80 = 5 tpe

80-90 = 7 tpe

90-99 = 8 tpe

 

or something more drastic would be to switch to the SBA model and go Adam Oates archtype etc etc

[Higgins 3,618]

Bump down to 0 so I can make the ultimate sniper with no passing

[Devise 4,475]

I still maintain that some type of system where certain attributes are more light on the update scale, and certain ones aren't is better. This encourages people to be flexible, since their TPE would go further, but then makes it so if everyone wants to just do passing, scoring, skating and the few primary ones they'd have to pay more TPE. I'd even say that the update scale could be different depending on if you pick a forward, or a defender. Even if we just did it with one or two single attributes, I think it could have an impact. 

 

Skating is probably the most important attribute in the sim, so it would make sense to make it's update scale harsher for all non goalie players. Even just adding a 95-99 on an attribute like skating to make it 5 instead of 4 could have an impact. I do think though Draper that the update scale, and changing how we view forward and defender player builds is something we should take a look at. I always thought it was silly that we have skater tempaltes and goalie templates. When it should be forward, defender, and goalie templates. A forward and a defender at the start should have different starting attributes as well in my mind, not like something extreme. But something noticeable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[.sniffuM 1,741]

So is this something that actually has a chance of happening? That would be awesome.

 

Also another possibility with it if it gets implemented for S51: 10 season careers, regression starts after 7. That could be a different way instead of adding more TPE opportunities to make it work in the long run.

[Kendrick 4,741]

40-70 = 1 TPE 

70-80 = 2 TPE

80-85 = 3 TPE

86-90 = 4 TPE

90-95 = 5 TPE

95-99 = 6 TPE

 

Anything more is too drastic and you'd go full blown SHL and screw it up. Anything less and there is no point. I swear to god if I have to go by the SHL scale in both leagues you will find many people doing nothing around here because it's not worth it.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

5 hours ago, Kendrick said:

40-70 = 1 TPE 

70-80 = 2 TPE

80-85 = 3 TPE

86-90 = 4 TPE

90-95 = 5 TPE

95-99 = 6 TPE

 

Anything more is too drastic and you'd go full blown SHL and screw it up. Anything less and there is no point. I swear to god if I have to go by the SHL scale in both leagues you will find many people doing nothing around here because it's not worth it.

 

Your opinion was one of the ones I wanted the most since you've been here from the start and have built a ton of players. I disagree with your scale though. To get 6 skills to 90 goes from 480 TPE to 510. That's just not a big enough change imo, and especially so because it's also only an extra 13 TPE to get a rating from 90 to 99.

 

My biggest issue with the VHL has always been that there isn't enough to do with your points and, as someone who admittedly isn't a big hockey fan, there isn't enough to keep me around consistently because of that. I agree that the SHL's scale is very harsh and the VHL shouldn't take that on, but I believe that there needs to be some relatively significant change in the scale because it's just too easy to fill out your stuff. I think that my proposed scale (or something similar) paired with either a raise in the weekly cap to 10 or slightly longer careers would be enough change to see variance in builds both at the VHLM and VHL levels and would help me want to keep active here again.

[Kendrick 4,741]

1 hour ago, .sniffuM said:

 

Your opinion was one of the ones I wanted the most since you've been here from the start and have built a ton of players. I disagree with your scale though. To get 6 skills to 90 goes from 480 TPE to 510. That's just not a big enough change imo, and especially so because it's also only an extra 13 TPE to get a rating from 90 to 99.

 

My biggest issue with the VHL has always been that there isn't enough to do with your points and, as someone who admittedly isn't a big hockey fan, there isn't enough to keep me around consistently because of that. I agree that the SHL's scale is very harsh and the VHL shouldn't take that on, but I believe that there needs to be some relatively significant change in the scale because it's just too easy to fill out your stuff. I think that my proposed scale (or something similar) paired with either a raise in the weekly cap to 10 or slightly longer careers would be enough change to see variance in builds both at the VHLM and VHL levels and would help me want to keep active here again.

Extending a career past 8 seasons would kill this league, just know that that is one suggestion I will never back. You extend careers past 8 years, forget the history and statistical records; the drafts will be watered down even more than they are.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

25 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

Extending a career past 8 seasons would kill this league, just know that that is one suggestion I will never back. You extend careers past 8 years, forget the history and statistical records; the drafts will be watered down even more than they are.

 

But with the addition of 2nd players... Plus we could fight that by making more carryover incentive to retire earlier. Make the max after 7 or 8 seasons and make 10th season carryover like 3 or 4 percent lower than 7th/8th season retirement.

 

And there's been plenty of fight to make a second record book era for Season 51 and on anyway. I know you said that's not your primary concern but I know it would be for a lot of members.

[Kendrick 4,741]

10 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

 

But with the addition of 2nd players... Plus we could fight that by making more carryover incentive to retire earlier. Make the max after 7 or 8 seasons and make 10th season carryover like 3 or 4 percent lower than 7th/8th season retirement.

 

And there's been plenty of fight to make a second record book era for Season 51 and on anyway. I know you said that's not your primary concern but I know it would be for a lot of members.

I think people are reading into the 2 player thing too much. Will it add extra players in the draft? Yes, no doubt. Will all those players be high TPE whore impact players? Very very very uncertain. All extending careers past 8 years does is spread out the "1st priority players" a member has.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

9 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

I think people are reading into the 2 player thing too much. Will it add extra players in the draft? Yes, no doubt. Will all those players be high TPE whore impact players? Very very very uncertain. All extending careers past 8 years does is spread out the "1st priority players" a member has.

 

Obviously the second players won't add a ton of star players, but they don't really need to from what I see. I know some members (you, Alfie, Draper, etc.) would likely build their second players to be beasts as well, but ultimately they serve to add depth to rosters and a more realistic sense to the VHL. I think that the amount of strong players they will add (again, you, Alfie, and so on) is enough to balance out the longer careers, but maybe that's just me.

 

My other suggestion was, instead of lengthening careers, to either have a doubles week every season or increase the weekly cap to 10 TPE per week with something at least similar to my scale as players would need some extra points. What's your take on that?

Edited August 3, 2016 by .sniffuM

[Kendrick 4,741]

1 hour ago, .sniffuM said:

 

Obviously the second players won't add a ton of star players, but they don't really need to from what I see. I know some members (you, Alfie, Draper, etc.) would likely build their second players to be beasts as well, but ultimately they serve to add depth to rosters and a more realistic sense to the VHL. I think that the amount of strong players they will add (again, you, Alfie, and so on) is enough to balance out the longer careers, but maybe that's just me.

 

My other suggestion was, instead of lengthening careers, to either have a doubles week every season or increase the weekly cap to 10 TPE per week with something at least similar to my scale as players would need some extra points. What's your take on that?

I wouldn't be opposed to either of the last two suggestions at all. Regarding the update scales level of "harshness" though I'd like to see a healthy medium between now and the SHL way. I was honestly very very close to retiring in the SHL because I found their new update scale to be rather useless and not needed at the time.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Just now, Kendrick said:

I wouldn't be opposed to either of the last two suggestions at all. Regarding the update scales level of "harshness" though I'd like to see a healthy medium between now and the SHL way. I was honestly very very close to retiring in the SHL because I found their new update scale to be rather useless and not needed at the time.

 

Not sure if you saw this post I made, but if not take a look and see if it's a workable scale (or at least a starting point for a discussion).

[Baozi 1,658]

16 hours ago, .sniffuM said:

 

Your opinion was one of the ones I wanted the most since you've been here from the start and have built a ton of players. I disagree with your scale though. To get 6 skills to 90 goes from 480 TPE to 510. That's just not a big enough change imo, and especially so because it's also only an extra 13 TPE to get a rating from 90 to 99.

 

My biggest issue with the VHL has always been that there isn't enough to do with your points and, as someone who admittedly isn't a big hockey fan, there isn't enough to keep me around consistently because of that. I agree that the SHL's scale is very harsh and the VHL shouldn't take that on, but I believe that there needs to be some relatively significant change in the scale because it's just too easy to fill out your stuff. I think that my proposed scale (or something similar) paired with either a raise in the weekly cap to 10 or slightly longer careers would be enough change to see variance in builds both at the VHLM and VHL levels and would help me want to keep active here again.

 

Hang out in chat more and chill with us?

[.sniffuM 1,741]

2 minutes ago, tfong said:

 

Hang out in chat more and chill with us?

 

95% of my time here is on mobile tho :\

[Baozi 1,658]

3 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

 

95% of my time here is on mobile tho :\

 

Great thing is you can login to chat on mobile  Just switch to desktop website.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

Here's the thing: I do think there's a slight problem. I am at 452 TPE and have Puck Handling, Skating, and Scoring at max, plus Passing above 85. That being said, I do still have a bit to go before I hit God status (read, @Phil status).

 

To me, the pro of this is obviously that it makes TPE mean more and add separation, but as a league that seemingly is split between TPE whores like myself and semi-active welfare guys, I think the lack of separation might help the league. That way it's not like the SBA where the best player TPE-wise can just dominate no matter what. Just look at Lord Karnage.

 

the con to the change is that this is no small feat. When would this change take place? How would we implement it? This would create a big rift in the league for a few seasons between the top earners in the new update scale vs. the top earners in the old scale. I think @Victor had a possibly good idea with extra bump at 95-99, as well as @Mr. Power when he mentioned making archetypes, but I feel like any big shifts in the update scale right away would cause some problems

[Victor 10,831]

1 hour ago, ADwyer87 said:

That way it's not like the SBA where the best player TPE-wise can just dominate no matter what. Just look at Lord Karnage.

devil's advocate here but Lord Karnage really didn't dominate which is why I never max out.

[Molholt 2,185]

3 minutes ago, Victor said:

devil's advocate here but Lord Karnage really didn't dominate which is why I never max out.

 

But O'Malley was essentially maxed, no?

 

Max has never been, fwiw.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Molholt

[Victor 10,831]

27 minutes ago, Molholt said:

 

But O'Malley was essentially maxed, no?

 

Max has never been, fwiw.

essentially is the key word

 

never bring passing to 99 kids