Let’s talk TPE inflation

[Rayzor_7 741]

43 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

Increase the TPE needed to increase stats across the board and make it super harsh at the high 80's and stupid high getting into the 90's and then you stop the dice rolling the simulator does and fix TPE inflation.

 

Side note: increase player build diversity also.

If we are going to make it that harsh then odds are we start looking at the newer version of the engine. Make like 95 the cap or something. 

 

I feel like goalies aren't being talked about so I'll chime in. If we are going to make it harder on players, I feel like goalies shouldn't be hit with the same amount of harshness. Not saying to skip them complete just something a little lighter. Watching the league it's still offence oriented hugely so if you cut back goalies and players I feel like we could see a increase in offence as goalies have more stats to cover. 

[Beaviss 4,949]

2 minutes ago, Rayzor_7 said:

If we are going to make it that harsh then odds are we start looking at the newer version of the engine. Make like 95 the cap or something. 

 

I feel like goalies aren't being talked about so I'll chime in. If we are going to make it harder on players, I feel like goalies shouldn't be hit with the same amount of harshness. Not saying to skip them complete just something a little lighter. Watching the league it's still offence oriented hugely so if you cut back goalies and players I feel like we could see a increase in offence as goalies have more stats to cover. 

 

I'd say it would be harsher but just half as harsh. In reality we would run several test Sims regarding different stat levels and see where it aligns with. If goalies get lit up in one version we are not going to use that. The league runs test Sims regarding changes before hand to make sure it's actually what we want.

[Devise 4,475]

19 minutes ago, Victor said:

But in reality is there much of a different in sim between 1350 and 700 TPE? Think 700 is enough to hit 90 in key attributes, anything above that is a luxury really.

 

True, but as I said all this really acconplishes is that everybody who earns 7+ a week can build a player good in the sim. However only for so long. The harsh update scale means that the max earners maintain that elite status longer while the lower earners wind up playing more depth roles on teams/stats in final seasons. 

 

Isn't that how it should be? If a player is only hitting 700-900 in their final seasons they may only have a couple of 90+ attributes their final seasons. Meanwhile all the top earners are literally complaining that depreciation is so easy they want more of a gap? It just seems silly to me. 

 

Like @Kyle I think you need to look at the sim results. The huge TPE gap doesn't translate into the huge sim gap your implying. If anything lots of players seem to have best seasons years 3-5 regardless if they earn max or not. But I do agree with Victor/Beketov in that the benefits of earning max are really only to handle depreciation, and even still you have too much TPE. And you have to deal with watching players who earn less being able to have good sim results at least for some seasons. I just don't see how harshening an update scale that literally works as intended for most of the non max earners is the answer. Hell find something else to spend TPE. Make endurance a stat but start it at like 70 with a harsher update scale on it only. That way you tier out big minutes to only the top earners but still allow the mid tiers the ability to try and build and maintain good players.

[uphillmoss 134]

4 minutes ago, Rayzor_7 said:

If we are going to make it that harsh then odds are we start looking at the newer version of the engine. Make like 95 the cap or something. 

 

I feel like goalies aren't being talked about so I'll chime in. If we are going to make it harder on players, I feel like goalies shouldn't be hit with the same amount of harshness. Not saying to skip them complete just something a little lighter. Watching the league it's still offence oriented hugely so if you cut back goalies and players I feel like we could see a increase in offence as goalies have more stats to cover. 

Preach. You have to be a complete tpe whore to survive at goalie. And I don’t think goalies stats break the sim as much. Although I could be completely wrong on that

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

As someone who usually agreed that there was too much TPE in the past...I actually agree with @Devise that I don't think we're in a bad spot right now.

 

If you've been around for awhile, the TPE numbers look insane, but sim-wise and results-wise, I don't think we're in that bad of a spot.

[uphillmoss 134]

1 minute ago, flyersfan1453 said:

As someone who usually agreed that there was too much TPE in the past...I actually agree with @Devise that I don't think we're in a bad spot right now.

 

If you've been around for awhile, the TPE numbers look insane, but sim-wise and results-wise, I don't think we're in that bad of a spot.

The problem is that sims have become more of a dice role then anything else

[Rayzor_7 741]

5 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

I'd say it would be harsher but just half as harsh. In reality we would run several test Sims regarding different stat levels and see where it aligns with. If goalies get lit up in one version we are not going to use that. The league runs test Sims regarding changes before hand to make sure it's actually what we want.

 

3 minutes ago, uphillmoss said:

Preach. You have to be a complete tpe whore to survive at goalie. And I don’t think goalies stats break the sim as much. Although I could be completely wrong on that

Glad to hear this from both of you. 

 

It's possible we move to the new engine if we are already messing with stats. Maybe a 99 on site becomes 90 in STHSv2 and adjust from there. Make the starting floor 30 instead of 40 etc.

 

Goalies have 4 main stats that are important and 3 more that are still heavily required. The idea of about half as harsh I could live with. Or maybe even just increasing the TPE required for players.

 

Again, I don't think we need change. I just want to give my 2 cents on if there is going to be.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

54 minutes ago, uphillmoss said:

The problem is that sims have become more of a dice role then anything else

 

They always have been, and to be honest, this is much better than basically being able to accurately predict the Continental Cup winner at the beginning of the season.

 

This is in general and not directed at you, but everyone complains when there are huge upsets, especially in the playoffs, but this league would be a lot more dull if the expected winner happened every time.

Edited July 8, 2019 by flyersfan1453

[uphillmoss 134]

9 minutes ago, flyersfan1453 said:

 

They always have been, and to be honest, this is much better than basically being able to accurately predict the Continental Cup winner at the beginning of the season.

 

This is in general and not directed at you, but everyone complains when there are huge upsets, especially in the playoffs, but this league would be a lot more dull if the expected winner happened every time.

I see the argument for both sides, I just personally think it is a little too random right now. 

[uphillmoss 134]

2 minutes ago, Sonnet said:

 

Yeah, this is exactly what I've always thought. It looks like a problem if you use the most active, TPE whoring players as examples, but even then they're going to have a hard time completely fighting off depreciation in their later years.

 

We're at a great spot right now, where the guys who update frequently and push to earn everything they can will have the best career path, while everyone else is going to have to make compromises somewhere down the line.

Again, the big problem is that everyone has too much tpe. We have broken the sim, and so it is basically a dice roll now. And while hockey does need some randomness, gms still need to be able to make a difference 

[Bushito 1,945]

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

FWIW I don’t think people who hit the cap should really be considered TPE whores. I basically just hit the cap + practice facility every week without anything else major and have 1350 TPE in 6 seasons plus a VHLM season. That seems like a lot from basically just hitting the cap plus the extra free stuff everyone gets.

The cost of attributes inlated and what we earn has not went up to match so we are doing just fine in that regard TPE whore

 

[Devise 4,475]

19 minutes ago, uphillmoss said:

Again, the big problem is that everyone has too much tpe. We have broken the sim, and so it is basically a dice roll now. And while hockey does need some randomness, gms still need to be able to make a difference 

 

How do people universally across the board have too much TPE though? Do some people have too much? Sure, arguably. But it's not like everyone has so much TPE they don't know what to do with it. Take a look at the TPE leaderboard. https://vhlportal.com/players/tpeleaders

 

14 players have over 1000, 2 of those players are in their final season with 5 others in their second to last season. Further, 6 of those players just experienced either the easiest depreciation or have yet to experience it. Keep in mind too this is just TPE, not TPA. So if any of those names even in the top 14 who have all earned a career over 1000 had spurts of less activity, depreciation will have mattered. For sure. Look at Sebastian Ironside perfect example. Over 1000 TPE. Right now a 700 TPA player due to depreciation. Yet the Thompsons and the Louths of the world are like 900-1000 TPA. The point though is that there are several players even among our top earners TPE right now who are sometimes 200 TPA less than their TPE count, even despite being the same age as players. And they currently don't have anything banked to deal with it either in the case of names like Twinger, Ironside or Preencarnacion. 

 

Sadly the TPE leaderboard doesn't go past 25, but I'd argue with several players mantaining the 700-900 TPA range for their careers already in the top 25 TPE earners, and @Victor is right imo in that a 700+ TPA player is basically considered good enough. But I promise you once you get off the top 25 TPE earners your going to see tons of names who if they are lucky hit that 700+ TPA threshold for a season or two in their careers. If depreciation can hit the 1000+ earners for 200 TPA to TPE deduction if they don't stay on it what do you think it does to people who have less TPE to begin with? 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Devise

[uphillmoss 134]

6 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

How do people universally across the board have too much TPE though? Do some people have too much? Sure, arguably. But it's not like everyone has so much TPE they don't know what to do with it. Take a look at the TPE leaderboard. https://vhlportal.com/players/tpeleaders

 

14 players have over 1000, 2 of those players are in their final season with 5 others in their second to last season. Further, 6 of those players just experienced either the easiest depreciation or have yet to experience it. Keep in mind too this is just TPE, not TPA. So if any of those names even in the top 14 who have all earned a career over 1000 had spurts of less activity, depreciation will have mattered. For sure. Look at Sebastian Ironside perfect example. Over 1000 TPE. Right now a 700 TPA player due to depreciation. Yet the Thompsons and the Louths of the world are like 900-1000 TPA. The point though is that there are several players even among our top earners TPE right now who are sometimes 200 TPA less than their TPE count, even despite being the same age as players. And they currently don't have anything banked to deal with it either in the case of names like Twinger, Ironside or Preencarnacion. 

 

Sadly the TPE leaderboard doesn't go past 25, but I'd argue with several players mantaining the 700-900 TPA range for their careers already in the top 25 TPE earners, and @Victor is right imo in that a 700+ TPA player is basically considered good enough. But I promise you once you get off the top 25 TPE earners your going to see tons of names who if they are lucky hit that 700+ TPA threshold for a season or two in their careers. If depreciation can hit the 1000+ earners for 200 TPA to TPE deduction if they don't stay on it what do you think it does to people who have less TPE to begin with? 

What I mean is, the dev has straight up said that anything above 95 isn’t supposed to be in the game, and breaks the sim. And that anything in the 90s should be very rare

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, uphillmoss said:

What I mean is, the dev has straight up said that anything above 95 isn’t supposed to be in the game, and breaks the sim. And that anything in the 90s should be very rare

 

That is with the newest version of STHS. We still actually run with like a 1.2 version for our sim engines, we just use the output of the newer STHS client as well. There is a box you can check for which version of the sim you use. Whenever we've tried to run newer versions it has messed with our stats. Players in the VHL have always hit 99 in attributes, even before now. Even when they were maxing out in TPE around 1000. The reason for this is because we used to have a far easier update scale. The easier update scale also meant that you needed to spend less TPE after depreciation to keep your 99's up. So the bigger deductions in your 7th and 8th seasons were nothing. Bank 50-60 TPE and your good usually. Now you need like 20-30 TPE just to recover a single 90+ attribute after a big season of depreciation. It's actually rough. 

 

I'd also listen very little to Simon in regards to how we use STHS. When we have tried to contact him for support or our advice we've basically been given the "STHS is meant to work with NHL size teams" or "I don't support using the older version of the client that you guys use." 

[Beaviss 4,949]

13 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

That is with the newest version of STHS. We still actually run with like a 1.2 version for our sim engines, we just use the output of the newer STHS client as well. There is a box you can check for which version of the sim you use. Whenever we've tried to run newer versions it has messed with our stats. Players in the VHL have always hit 99 in attributes, even before now. Even when they were maxing out in TPE around 1000. The reason for this is because we used to have a far easier update scale. The easier update scale also meant that you needed to spend less TPE after depreciation to keep your 99's up. So the bigger deductions in your 7th and 8th seasons were nothing. Bank 50-60 TPE and your good usually. Now you need like 20-30 TPE just to recover a single 90+ attribute after a big season of depreciation. It's actually rough. 

 

I'd also listen very little to Simon in regards to how we use STHS. When we have tried to contact him for support or our advice we've basically been given the "STHS is meant to work with NHL size teams" or "I don't support using the older version of the client that you guys use." 

 

He also stated that we shouldn't have alot of stats above 90 as it turns the sim engine into a rng instead of a sim engine.

[Gooningitup 1,290]

Sadly if we make it harder to level up skills my time will be done here. Im a semi active as it is in terms of TPE whores. I already cant compete with the all stars will just make that gap worse for me

[Devise 4,475]

1 hour ago, Beaviss said:

 

He also stated that we shouldn't have alot of stats above 90 as it turns the sim engine into a rng instead of a sim engine.

 

Again though, under the implication we are using the newest version of STHS's engine when we simulate. Which we do not. It's probably a good reason why stats are so wild when we use it. It'd likely be less so if we had full on rosters + a harsher update scale, but again...as has been discussed privately and on the site, that is an entirely different discussion. Aruging that the sim is RNG in terms of team success somehow leads to TPE inflation doesn't hold weight to me. The sim has been RNG for team success to a degree the entire time I've been in the VHL. Especially in the playoffs. Further, the current leader in TPE finished the regular season leading in points. Is that RNG too? You guys make it sound like players with elite TPE get zero success sometimes, and that isn't the case at all. There is no RNG to having a lot of TPE, your still going to be good, it's just other factors influencing how many of those elite players have the great seasons. 

 

I should say, all this is sans goalies who I agree are out of whack in terms of the TPE required to hit the competent stage. They feel a good 200 TPE almost behind where goalies used to be. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Devise

[Rayzor_7 741]

I agree with everything Devise is saying here. You will still be good if your TPE/TPA is high, the rng comes from people around you and then some other factors.

 

29 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

I should say, all this is sans goalies who I agree are out of whack in terms of the TPE required to hit the competent stage. They feel a good 200 TPE almost behind where goalies used to be.

I can especially agree with this part, looking at stats, goalies seem even weaker than ever. Although they seem to be recovering a bit.

[Victor 10,550]

2 hours ago, Devise said:

I should say, all this is sans goalies who I agree are out of whack in terms of the TPE required to hit the competent stage. They feel a good 200 TPE almost behind where goalies used to be. 

Although I know @Advantage wrote an article highlighting this, I'm still not sure how skewed things were by the fact that most of the league's goalies (except Stopko) this decade were still on their entry-level deals before last season while the slightly older crop wasn't anything special TPE-wise (Iseult, Sterling, Carison).

 

3 hours ago, uphillmoss said:

I see the argument for both sides, I just personally think it is a little too random right now. 

I don't know how much of that is due to attributes and how much it is just having more players. We basically spent 60 seasons with 3-4 non-playoff teams per year who you beat 8/9 times out of 10 because they had 6 players, none of them particularly good. Now the worst teams in the league run 2 lines filled with 400-500 TPA guys. Every team has a competent goalie as well, not CPUs or placeholders like most rebuilding teams used to.

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

7 hours ago, Devise said:

Am I the only one to hard disagree here? The hard earning of TPE whores allows them to handle steep depreciation. But did you see how hard depreciation with our update scale hits across the board? Especially in the final seasons. I actually think we are in a good spot. The heavy earners will have the excess to handle the steep falls in 7th/8th season while everyone else settles with the hard decisions of prioritizing attributes.

 

Agree with this.

 

But with added 'free' stuff like lotteries, i think they should only be applicable to one player. Otherwise if a guy wins a doubles week and is a GM, he basically wins 2 double weeks at once....  Let them choose between their players and not have a double extra.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Green

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

6 hours ago, Beaviss said:

Increase the TPE needed to increase stats across the board and make it super harsh at the high 80's and stupid high getting into the 90's and then you stop the dice rolling the simulator does and fix TPE inflation.

 

Side note: increase player build diversity also.

 

On that note, I have preached archetypes.

[Beketov 8,646]

10 hours ago, Rayzor_7 said:

 

Glad to hear this from both of you. 

 

It's possible we move to the new engine if we are already messing with stats. Maybe a 99 on site becomes 90 in STHSv2 and adjust from there. Make the starting floor 30 instead of 40 etc.

 

Goalies have 4 main stats that are important and 3 more that are still heavily required. The idea of about half as harsh I could live with. Or maybe even just increasing the TPE required for players.

 

Again, I don't think we need change. I just want to give my 2 cents on if there is going to be.

 

The point of this was 100% to be a discussion about TPE in relation to our current engine, not pushing for V2. V2 IMO has far too many issues to be worth using. It’s a huge pile of changes that haven’t been proven to be effective at getting normal results all for the sake of having 2 extra stat lines; that’s basically all it adds. There’s no real point.

 

9 hours ago, Sonnet said:

 

Yeah, this is exactly what I've always thought. It looks like a problem if you use the most active, TPE whoring players as examples, but even then they're going to have a hard time completely fighting off depreciation in their later years.

 

We're at a great spot right now, where the guys who update frequently and push to earn everything they can will have the best career path, while everyone else is going to have to make compromises somewhere down the line.

 

I don’t deem myself a TPE whore at all. Maybe I am and I just don’t realize it but I haven’t donated with my last 3 players, I haven’t written a single HoF article, I basically never win the lottery, and the only uncapped stuff I ever get is the ridiculously easy stuff everyone gets. Personally I don’t find that’s a TPE whore, that’s just using the cap basically. I say all this because my build is definitely affective while only needing 990 TPA and I earn enough TPE to 100% fight depreciation. It didn’t touch me in S6 or s

S7 and considering I’m already over 1/4 of the way done what I’ll need for S8 it isn’t likely to hit me there either.

 

That’s kinda the bigger issue for me. Depreciation was never designed to be 100% fought. It’s supposed to hit people, that’s the point of it. It’s our way of artificially aging players so the younger guys can come in and replace them. With the inflation this high I feel like that is too easy to dodge but maybe I’m just more of a whore than I thought?

 

8 hours ago, Beaviss said:

 

He also stated that we shouldn't have alot of stats above 90 as it turns the sim engine into a rng instead of a sim engine.

 

Not in practice for V1 though. We’ve always had good success and our attributes have always been high. V2 is only where things go completely off the rails.

 

5 hours ago, Da Trifecta said:

 

On that note, I have preached archetypes.

I’ve always responded the same way and I will continue to do so: archetypes add nothing. Any diversity they create is artificial and temporary. They just add BS limitations for no reason. I have even assists to goals basically despite not touching passing until last season and it only being at 70 compared to 99 scoring. Therefore why would anyone who wants a playmaker be incentivized to go for that over a 2 way when they’ll get a bunch of assists and goals to boot? People will figure out which one works the best and we’ll have a meta anyway just with more extra limits for no reason. Archetypes don’t make sense with how STHS is, period.

[JeffD 648]

12 hours ago, Beaviss said:

Increase the TPE needed to increase stats across the board and make it super harsh at the high 80's and stupid high getting into the 90's and then you stop the dice rolling the simulator does and fix TPE inflation.

 

Side note: increase player build diversity also.

I'm still relatively new around this new system and am still getting a grasp of it but the build diversity is my biggest issue. People are asking me what type of build I'm going to do with my defenseman and my thought is does it really matter if I choose to be active? All of my stats are going to end up high.

 

Making a harder update scale would probably allow for greater diversity of builds which would be nice. But also I am still new here so I am probably offside with this.

[uphillmoss 134]

28 minutes ago, Beketov said:

 

That’s kinda the bigger issue for me. Depreciation was never designed to be 100% fought. It’s supposed to hit people, that’s the point of it. It’s our way of artificially aging players so the younger guys can come in and replace them. With the inflation this high I feel like that is too easy to dodge but maybe I’m just more of a whore than I thought?

This is a big problem. Because of the success of the recruitment team, space is at a premium. Especially as a goalie, I will probably have to spend several seasons as a backup. This is a problem, because a lot of first gens can barely even find a spot on teams. This is something we need to fix by either expansion or switching to a three line system 

[Beketov 8,646]

9 minutes ago, uphillmoss said:

This is a big problem. Because of the success of the recruitment team, space is at a premium. Especially as a goalie, I will probably have to spend several seasons as a backup. This is a problem, because a lot of first gens can barely even find a spot on teams. This is something we need to fix by either expansion or switching to a three line system 

Creating more space doesn’t exactly solve the issues of the top players never getting worse, it just waters down the overall ability for teams to succeed.

 

I’ve also never said teams can’t have 3 lines, they are more than capable of it. However I have no interest in telling GM’s that they HAVE to have a certain amount of players.