S54: Update Scale Changes

[jRuutu 2,464]

3 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

The way you view the world is very juvenile. Yes it matters that nobody agrees with you, because your ideas are shit. If everyone did agree then it would change. That's how the BoG works. Most of us agreed to the new update scale and WOW new update scale!

 

So you run the two update scales, and someone uses both. That ends up with some really weird numbers for the updaters to keep track of, since the fractions will all change once you pass 70 in a stat. Logistically it'd be a nightmare and the gain is....fucking nothing. Make life difficult for the updaters at no gain is STUPID. You also can't punish people for not having a job, what do you do when people want jobs and there aren't any to go around? That's a double slap in the face for them.

 

Yes the farm league is a bad idea, we don't have the player base to support it. Where do you expect the players to come from?

 

You do understand that when we make decisions we don't just pull things out of our ass right? We did math when we made these decisions. Research was done. Test sims were done. We can't just cater to the 1% otherwise we will only have a 1%. I really don't feel like a league with 10 dudes sounds very fun, so I'd like to keep some of the older guys around. Call me crazy.

I´m not 100% convinced the new update scale will have a big enough effect, 95 might be the new 99 in the new scale. Is it? I guess we will see that in the future. 

 

You are not looking for a job if you don´t have the time to even do PT`s , that is a fact. Or well , I´m not sure what kind of jobs there are around the league, but I cant imagine there being too many that take less time than to write media spot for example? Sure, maybe there is users who are waiting for job opening and claim welfare/pension meanwhile, but I once again refuse to believe all of the 10-13 users that don´t have a job and who claim welfare/pension wait for a job.  

 

Maybe the ´double´ update scale is not the best or easiest of ideas, but I doubt it´s as hard or complicated as you make it sound to be. (The harder or second scale should be mainly used on users who don´t have a job and claim welfare/pension) 

 

VHL would have something like 8 teams, some welfare players would of course be in VHL, but not all. Those who are not, will play in ´AHL´. VHLM could be just for two or four teams where new players play for one year and then move to AHL or to VHL.

 

The league is catered for welfare/pension players. The time I have spent here, it´s always been massive army of welfare users fighting against anyone who wants to see something done to the welfare/pension system. Oh no no, we cant do that. What if they all leave? Player B has been with us for 28 years, we need to award him and give him free ride.Now, lets get together and find a reason why it´s hard to keep new players active? 

 

Would not surprise me at all if the most vocal BOG users are welfare/pension claimers as well. With a quick look there is at least 3 or 4 who claim welfare from the BOG, why?

 

 

 

 

[sterling 1,997]

Well you get your wish @jRuutu - I'm not recreating 

[scoop 3,432]

56 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Maybe the ´double´ update scale is not the best or easiest of ideas, but I doubt it´s as hard or complicated as you make it sound to be. (The harder or second scale should be mainly used on users who don´t have a job and claim welfare/pension)

I don't know at all what the idea is, but any idea with multiple update scales, I'm 95% sure it's shit (unless maybe it were separate update scales for Skater and Goalies, but I know that's now what you're talking about). How would you go about dealing with a player who sometimes does welfare and sometimes doesn't? You're focusing on the wrong thing. Multiple update scales is bad. If you want to nerf welfare, nerf welfare, but I don't think that's a good idea.

 

I do agree with what I believe you are trying to say regarding this new update scale though. It doesn't give advantage to the people who put in the effort, and rather lessens the gap between the top players and the bottom players.

 

I wish I had actually bothered to participate in the BoG discussions on the update scale, because I believe they got it wrong, but I'll have to live with that.

 

(And, speaking my piece, where I believe they got it wrong was attacking the high end of the attributes; I think the lower end should've been effected because that affects everyone).

Edited February 25, 2017 by Streetlite

[Kendrick 4,741]

56 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Would not surprise me at all if the most vocal BOG users are welfare/pension claimers as well. With a quick look there is at least 3 or 4 who claim welfare from the BOG, why?

That I can say is false.

[scoop 3,432]

1 hour ago, jRuutu said:

Would not surprise me at all if the most vocal BOG users are welfare/pension claimers as well. With a quick look there is at least 3 or 4 who claim welfare from the BOG, why?

I am one of those BOG members who claims Pension (with one of my players, anyway) and I was definitely not one of the more vocal members on this subject. I wish I had been, because I would've been arguing against the update scale that we ended up with even though it would've hurt my goalie.

 

I really feel like I have no right to talk about it in here, because I am someone on the BOG who didn't care enough to be vocal in there. I am a little conflicted on what my idea would've been, however. Now that I'm putting some thought into it, I think that the change that should've been made is starting the 2 TPE per point at 60. The problem with that, and I recognize this, is that new players are subjected to this earlier in their career, and (specifically for first gens) this could be very discouraging, especially having to go up against already established players. But the thing is, that's how this works. That's reality. This new change is going to allow younger players to be closer in skill to the older players, and if that's what the BOG was shooting for, then fine. But what I don't like is passing this new change off as something that doesn't favor lower TPE players.

[jRuutu 2,464]

27 minutes ago, sterling said:

Well you get your wish @jRuutu - I'm not recreating 

Why not? Me moaning about welfare was the final blow?

 

 

[eaglesfan036 4,603]

7 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Why not? Me moaning about welfare was the final blow?

 

 

I don't think it has anything to do with you. Sterling doesn't react well anytime a proposal is brought up in the BOG that involves change

[jRuutu 2,464]

26 minutes ago, Streetlite said:

I don't know at all what the idea is, but any idea with multiple update scales, I'm 95% sure it's shit (unless maybe it were separate update scales for Skater and Goalies, but I know that's now what you're talking about). How would you go about dealing with a player who sometimes does welfare and sometimes doesn't? You're focusing on the wrong thing. Multiple update scales is bad. If you want to nerf welfare, nerf welfare, but I don't think that's a good idea.

 

I do agree with what I believe you are trying to say regarding this new update scale though. It doesn't give advantage to the people who put in the effort, and rather lessens the gap between the top players and the bottom players.

 

I wish I had actually bothered to participate in the BoG discussions on the update scale, because I believe they got it wrong, but I'll have to live with that.

 

(And, speaking my piece, where I believe they got it wrong was attacking the high end of the attributes; I think the lower end should've been effected because that affects everyone).

The reason or idea behind all of my messages is the welfare/pension nerfing. So far just making it worth less has not received too much support, so I have been throwing few ideas out there. ´Easiest´ option would of course be making the welfare/pension be worth less.

 

I´m interested to see what kind of a effect the new update scale has on everything, I still worry that nothing really changes in the end, we all just drop down few levels, but I like the idea of changing the update scale!

 

[jRuutu 2,464]

33 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

That I can say is false.

 I guess it´s fair to have half and half from both worlds, but still. 

 

8 minutes ago, eaglesfan036 said:

I don't think it has anything to do with you. Sterling doesn't react well anytime a proposal is brought up in the BOG that involves change

Okey

[scoop 3,432]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

The reason or idea behind all of my messages is the welfare/pension nerfing. So far just making it worth less has not received too much support, so I have been throwing few ideas out there. ´Easiest´ option would of course be making the welfare/pension be worth less.

 

I´m interested to see what kind of a effect the new update scale has on everything, I still worry that nothing really changes in the end, we all just drop down few levels, but I like the idea of changing the update scale!

 

And the fact that the easiest option has been shot down should suggest that the large majority don't feel welfare/pension should/needs to be nerfed directly.

 

I agree, the new update scale probably won't change much. I think it will lessen the gap between the worst and the best players, but probably not by a whole lot. I'm specifically talking about seasons by season, though. The 1st/2nd year players will be a bit closer to players in their prime, but then those younger players will have to face the harsher update scales later on. So I think over the course of a career, what this does is normalize a players relative skill level; rather than players go from being bad to being great, they'll go from being a little better than bad to being a little less than great.

[jRuutu 2,464]

37 minutes ago, Streetlite said:

I am one of those BOG members who claims Pension (with one of my players, anyway) and I was definitely not one of the more vocal members on this subject. I wish I had been, because I would've been arguing against the update scale that we ended up with even though it would've hurt my goalie.

 

I really feel like I have no right to talk about it in here, because I am someone on the BOG who didn't care enough to be vocal in there. I am a little conflicted on what my idea would've been, however. Now that I'm putting some thought into it, I think that the change that should've been made is starting the 2 TPE per point at 60. The problem with that, and I recognize this, is that new players are subjected to this earlier in their career, and (specifically for first gens) this could be very discouraging, especially having to go up against already established players. But the thing is, that's how this works. That's reality. This new change is going to allow younger players to be closer in skill to the older players, and if that's what the BOG was shooting for, then fine. But what I don't like is passing this new change off as something that doesn't favor lower TPE players.

I´m glad you and other BOG people are talking about it here, the more BOG people answer questions and post around the forum, the better. 

 

12 minutes ago, Streetlite said:

And the fact that the easiest option has been shot down should suggest that the large majority don't feel welfare/pension should/needs to be nerfed directly.

 

I agree, the new update scale probably won't change much. I think it will lessen the gap between the worst and the best players, but probably not by a whole lot. I'm specifically talking about seasons by season, though. The 1st/2nd year players will be a bit closer to players in their prime, but then those younger players will have to face the harsher update scales later on. So I think over the course of a career, what this does is normalize a players relative skill level; rather than players go from being bad to being great, they'll go from being a little better than bad to being a little less than great.

Something should be done to it though. 

 

I can see the whole thing eventually being just Well Fare scoring 35 now to scoring 27 in the future or Ac Tive scoring 43 now to scoring 50 in the future.Some change, but nothing absolutely massive. Need to start from somewhere, so that is fine. Or maybe the difference will be bigger than I or anybody can expect. Test sims more than likely gave promising results, (which would be a excellent idea for media spot if the results are saved somewhere) so hopefully we see similar results with the ´real deal´ in the future!

Edited February 25, 2017 by jRuutu

[sterling 1,997]

1 hour ago, eaglesfan036 said:

I don't think it has anything to do with you. Sterling doesn't react well anytime a proposal is brought up in the BOG that involves change

I don't react well to poorly thought out ideas that don't target the real problems in the league, no. And I've been here long enough and led the league so my opinions are valid despite your ad hominems. I should also add that I personally helped to foster many of the changes that made this league successful for 10 years

[Devise 4,475]

1 hour ago, jRuutu said:

I´m glad you and other BOG people are talking about it here, the more BOG people answer questions and post around the forum, the better. 

 

Something should be done to it though. 

 

I can see the whole thing eventually being just Well Fare scoring 35 now to scoring 27 in the future or Ac Tive scoring 43 now to scoring 50 in the future.Some change, but nothing absolutely massive. Need to start from somewhere, so that is fine. Or maybe the difference will be bigger than I or anybody can expect. Test sims more than likely gave promising results, (which would be a excellent idea for media spot if the results are saved somewhere) so hopefully we see similar results with the ´real deal´ in the future!

 

From your view something should be done about it. Also if you dig through this thread the BoG and Blue Team have responded to several questions and concerns in here. At a certain point you have to consider for a difference of opinion. 

 

From our point of view welfare members and players are a vital part of this league. I'm sorry you feel that we "cater" to them too much, but in the grand scheme of things these update scale changes while they may not be as harsh as you like will help increase the gap of primarily or only welfare users and actives or welfare users with jobs. 

 

To your comment about which people who use welfare also have jobs, this past week alone these are the people with jobs that claimed welfare. 

 

Stevo (Welfare manager for 1 TPE per week. Since joining the league Stevo grinded his way from smaller welfare roles to higher as he created more players. He currently features a player in the rafters of both Cologne and Toronto. He's a valuable member to this site, as simple as that.)

 

Gregreg (Currently a VHL GM, a role which is in short supply, but he's been previously a higher active with other players in his career and given that he has two players he can only welfare 1 so his second player is a value added welfare player to the league, and in his specific instance his team.)

 

Tylar (Part of PT staff aka Grader)

 

Pablo (Claiming with Lincoln another member with two players, but he's a VHL GM and been around the league forever)

 

Streetlite (Another member with two players, seeing a trend here? A lot of members are super active with one and not the other. Street has had a litany of league jobs and I don't know for sure if he's getting paid anything right now, but he's obviously a valuable member to this community and his contributions all over the site speak to that. With Victor on haitus he's pretty much our best bet at a league historian at this stage.  )

 

That is on just one page of this weeks claim. I'm sure if I dug in the previous weeks I'd find almost every job under the sun. Claiming welfare wasn't and isn't the problem. Even at 4 a week. The problem was more that as a PT earner your extra TPE didn't matter as much as it should of. We wanted to make that the case without attempting to overly punish anyone side, because keeping people active regardless of their method of earning TPE should always be the priority. And while as Street has mentioned it will be harder than current to get the same amount of attributes to 99 as a high TPE earner, and also harder to keep them there, the fact is we'll see less players with lower TPE mainlinnig stats. Or if they do mainline the variety and diversity in build they have to sacrifice will counteract for that. 

 

Which kind of brings me to your points Street. You don't seem to account for the different types of earners, so I don't really know if your just saying that in the realm of super actives, super actives in their prime have the most advantage because they have yet to hit depreciation and will have the extra TPE to put attributes to 99. Or if your saying that once a super active gets old enough to hit depreciation, a super active who has 400 TPE and nearing their prime will be better because of that. 

 

All of that seems really speculative to me. How can you determine what decisions people are going to make under this new update scale? You could take a 300 TPE welfare earner, a 600 TPE elite earner, a 800 TPE depreciation last season player. It doesn't matter what template you pick, the types of decisions these members make on a week to week update basis will change with this new scale. Decisions like should I get more attributes to 85 and get more value out of my TPE or should I try to get stats to 90+ or 99? All of those come into play way more now just due to the numbers. And it doesn't matter which way you slice it, because at 90+ the TPE is worth a lot less it means those who earn less career TPE are at a disadvantage to those who earn more career TPE. More of a disadvantage than they were in the previous system. 

 

Even if your argument is that a depreciated player who got none of his stats above 90 or even above 85 to spend less TPE to maintain his stats than you do at 99, your still at 99 and he's not. Your getting the value of that extra TPE right there depending on how you chose to spend your extra TPE. 

 

 

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, sterling said:

I don't react well to poorly thought out ideas that don't target the real problems in the league, no. And I've been here long enough and led the league so my opinions are valid despite your ad hominems. I should also add that I personally helped to foster many of the changes that made this league successful for 10 years

 

For the record, can you explain how you believe this was poorly thought out? Remember if your argument is that this shouldn't be implemented due to needing to focus more on recruitment, nobody ever stated that this change is more important that recruitment or retainment. The issues are not interconnected, and the merits of why we wanted this are completely separate to recruitment or retainment problems. 

 

That is the thing that I don't get here. This is literally the smallest, simplest of changes guys. It's nothing but adding a 1 to the update scale math on a couple of places. It results in literally an extra 18 TPE per attribute and that is only if you got that attribute to 99. The amount this is going to affect people I think is being highly overstated, and once we are a few seasons in and the few faces here that are against this will see that it really wasn't that much of a change. 

[Devise 4,475]

And for the record I'd say the fact that more people in here seem to support this (if less vocally than some of the naysayers)  than those who are opposed is exactly another reason why this was the change we went with. Nerfing weflare was never an option. 

[sterling 1,997]

Again, I've stated my opinion many times that the league needs to be focusing on new members and not on changing things that have worked for the entirety of the league. Two players was a very cheap band-aid to a larger problem and when I noted these scale changes would alienate welfare players even more so my concerns were easily dismissed.

 

like I've said, when you've done point tasks and other roles in the league for ten years there should some understanding and respect of your former contributions

[Higgins 3,618]

2 minutes ago, sterling said:

Again, I've stated my opinion many times that the league needs to be focusing on new members and not on changing things that have worked for the entirety of the league. Two players was a very cheap band-aid to a larger problem and when I noted these scale changes would alienate welfare players even more so my concerns were easily dismissed.

 

like I've said, when you've done point tasks and other roles in the league for ten years there should some understanding and respect of your former contributions

 

The update scale was outdated. It was introduced when the league started and players would routinely have between 300 to 600 TPE. The new norm, even for welfare players, is 700+ TPE. There was probably no research behind the update scale it just seemed like a good idea, or was copied from some other sim league.

 

Unfortunately there are only a handful of attributes we get to work with on STHS.

 

 

[Kendrick 4,741]

3 minutes ago, Higgins said:

There was probably no research behind the update scale it just seemed like a good idea, or was copied from some other sim league.

Pure speculation on your part.

 

It was actually discussed before opening the VHL 10 years ago as something that was easy to follow for both updaters and players.

[Higgins 3,618]

3 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

Pure speculation on your part.

 

It was actually discussed before opening the VHL 10 years ago as something that was easy to follow for both updaters and players.

 

Okay, I don't pretend I was there. First two sentences still stand.

[sterling 1,997]

11 minutes ago, Higgins said:

 

The update scale was outdated. It was introduced when the league started and players would routinely have between 300 to 600 TPE. The new norm, even for welfare players, is 700+ TPE. There was probably no research behind the update scale it just seemed like a good idea, or was copied from some other sim league.

 

Unfortunately there are only a handful of attributes we get to work with on STHS.

 

 

I think we need to define a 'welfare' player because a lot of 'welfare' players contribute to the league in other ways (other than doing point tasks). I doubt a true welfare player could eclipse 700 TPE without other contributions. There is obviously a very bitter minority that sees welfare players as the league's main problem, which is unfortunate.

[jRuutu 2,464]

25 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

From your view something should be done about it. Also if you dig through this thread the BoG and Blue Team have responded to several questions and concerns in here. At a certain point you have to consider for a difference of opinion. 

 

From our point of view welfare members and players are a vital part of this league. I'm sorry you feel that we "cater" to them too much, but in the grand scheme of things these update scale changes while they may not be as harsh as you like will help increase the gap of primarily or only welfare users and actives or welfare users with jobs. 

 

To your comment about which people who use welfare also have jobs, this past week alone these are the people with jobs that claimed welfare. 

 

Stevo (Welfare manager for 1 TPE per week. Since joining the league Stevo grinded his way from smaller welfare roles to higher as he created more players. He currently features a player in the rafters of both Cologne and Toronto. He's a valuable member to this site, as simple as that.)

 

Gregreg (Currently a VHL GM, a role which is in short supply, but he's been previously a higher active with other players in his career and given that he has two players he can only welfare 1 so his second player is a value added welfare player to the league, and in his specific instance his team.)

 

Tylar (Part of PT staff aka Grader)

 

Pablo (Claiming with Lincoln another member with two players, but he's a VHL GM and been around the league forever)

 

Streetlite (Another member with two players, seeing a trend here? A lot of members are super active with one and not the other. Street has had a litany of league jobs and I don't know for sure if he's getting paid anything right now, but he's obviously a valuable member to this community and his contributions all over the site speak to that. With Victor on haitus he's pretty much our best bet at a league historian at this stage.  )

 

That is on just one page of this weeks claim. I'm sure if I dug in the previous weeks I'd find almost every job under the sun. Claiming welfare wasn't and isn't the problem. Even at 4 a week. The problem was more that as a PT earner your extra TPE didn't matter as much as it should of. We wanted to make that the case without attempting to overly punish anyone side, because keeping people active regardless of their method of earning TPE should always be the priority. And while as Street has mentioned it will be harder than current to get the same amount of attributes to 99 as a high TPE earner, and also harder to keep them there, the fact is we'll see less players with lower TPE mainlinnig stats. Or if they do mainline the variety and diversity in build they have to sacrifice will counteract for that. 

 

Which kind of brings me to your points Street. You don't seem to account for the different types of earners, so I don't really know if your just saying that in the realm of super actives, super actives in their prime have the most advantage because they have yet to hit depreciation and will have the extra TPE to put attributes to 99. Or if your saying that once a super active gets old enough to hit depreciation, a super active who has 400 TPE and nearing their prime will be better because of that. 

 

All of that seems really speculative to me. How can you determine what decisions people are going to make under this new update scale? You could take a 300 TPE welfare earner, a 600 TPE elite earner, a 800 TPE depreciation last season player. It doesn't matter what template you pick, the types of decisions these members make on a week to week update basis will change with this new scale. Decisions like should I get more attributes to 85 and get more value out of my TPE or should I try to get stats to 90+ or 99? All of those come into play way more now just due to the numbers. And it doesn't matter which way you slice it, because at 90+ the TPE is worth a lot less it means those who earn less career TPE are at a disadvantage to those who earn more career TPE. More of a disadvantage than they were in the previous system. 

 

Even if your argument is that a depreciated player who got none of his stats above 90 or even above 85 to spend less TPE to maintain his stats than you do at 99, your still at 99 and he's not. Your getting the value of that extra TPE right there depending on how you chose to spend your extra TPE. 

 

 

I will forever dislike pure welfare/pension users, or their players at least.  I´m hoping the update scale works as you guys have planned and it makes the cap between PT users and welfare/pensioners wider, so I don´t have to whine about welfare users as much in the future  

 

I´m looking forward to seeing what kind of builds people come up with and how they work in the sim. 

[Higgins 3,618]

8 minutes ago, sterling said:

I think we need to define a 'welfare' player because a lot of 'welfare' players contribute to the league in other ways (other than doing point tasks). I doubt a true welfare player could eclipse 700 TPE without other contributions. There is obviously a very bitter minority that sees welfare players as the league's main problem, which is unfortunate.

 

Could you list the reasons why this new update scale is bad for people that claim pension and good for people that do PT? I haven't seen any yet.

[jRuutu 2,464]

4 minutes ago, sterling said:

I think we need to define a 'welfare' player because a lot of 'welfare' players contribute to the league in other ways (other than doing point tasks). I doubt a true welfare player could eclipse 700 TPE without other contributions. There is obviously a very bitter minority that sees welfare players as the league's main problem, which is unfortunate.

Max Von Hohenzolleren (s50 player) is at 312 TPE, pure welfare player who I could see getting near 700? Not sure if he will, but even if he wont, his player is still bit too effective for pure welfare player. (at least now, maybe that changes with the new update scale)

 

[sterling 1,997]

1 minute ago, Higgins said:

 

Could you list the reasons why this new update scale is bad for people that claim pension and good for people that do PT? I haven't seen any yet.

Its very simple - people who earn less TPE have a reduced ability to make good players because it costs more TPE to add to attributes. AKA TPE is worth less. The people who have the least of it are affected the most. Why do you keep asking this question when it has been answered?

[Higgins 3,618]

Here's my take from the BOG thread because I don't feel like retyping my thoughts all the time. My main intentions for supporting a new scale was player type diversity and getting away from players with a bunch of 99's, it just fucks with the STHS decision making process. Everything is comparable, all players are moving to the new scale so it's apples and oranges.

 

-----

 

Fact of the matter is we have players that are reaching 99 attributes before their 3rd season. This change does not affect early TPE earning (up to 85), but takes aim at the high end TPE earners where 95 to 99 will now cost 8 TPE extra per attribute than it is currently. I think there are many spin off benefits of even this slight TPE updating scale change.

 

Players who are depreciated in their final 3 seasons will have a tougher time to instantly regain their TPE with banked TPE from the season. I think this is great, as top end players will actually decline especially in their 8th season where a 99 will be down to 94 and cost 29 TPE to get back to 99 (currently it would cost 20 TPE). There's many reasons to see this as a benefit, end of career players won't continue to dominate and the player field could actually level out with players in their primes and late rookie season.

 

This new scale will promote new members that actually put in work, as older players will lose more to depreciation, and if the new members are actually doing point tasks they will become more valuable. Pension plan is great for allowing our veteran members to create strong players in the sim, but why should a welfare be able to create the same player as a new member that puts in more effort?

 

I don't buy the argument that this hurts new members. It only hurts high TPE earners who have 99's who won't be able to maintain their current attributes. I also don't think this screws over players who only claim Pension TPE. Yes maybe they will only be able to update 4 attributes to 99's, but in reality there is only 4 attributes that are important in the sim, so it's not that big of a blow if they can't get their checking or one of passing/scoring to 99. It will still be easy as ever to get those to a good level of 85 anyways.