Let’s talk TPE inflation

[Devise 4,475]

@Beketov Don't take whore offensively, but you are a top TPE earner. Like literally the top one on the leaderboard. The fact that you can handle depreciation fine and think that is indicative of "where everyone is at" is entirely part of the problem. I'm sorry that like 15 members have no problems handling depreciation because for everyone else it's working exactly as intended.

[Beketov 9,033]

Just now, Devise said:

@Beketov Don't take whore offensively, but you are a top TPE earner. Like literally the top one on the leaderboard. The fact that you can handle depreciation fine and think that is indicative of "where everyone is at" is entirely part of the problem. I'm sorry that like 15 members have no problems handling depreciation because for everyone else it's working exactly as intended.

I’m not taking it offensively at all, it’s the word we’ve always used. I’m just curious if the definition has changed over the years. The fact that I’m at the top to me just showcases that the draft before me didn’t have people earning the cap quite as often and the guys younger than me haven’t had enough years yet. I honestly don’t recall a time in league history where hitting the cap alone would make you a top earner of the league. I’ve done nothing more than I ever did which is far less than guys like @Enorama or @Beaviss tend to do.

 

So yeah, maybe I just didn’t notice the definition change? I’m not sure but I definitely earn far slower than a lot of people on this site. That’s where my concern arises. I don’t feel like I’m going above and beyond and yet depreciation doesn’t touch me. Maybe I’m just more prepared for it than most? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s because I whore more than most though, that’s for sure.

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Beketov said:

I’m not taking it offensively at all, it’s the word we’ve always used. I’m just curious if the definition has changed over the years. The fact that I’m at the top to me just showcases that the draft before me didn’t have people earning the cap quite as often and the guys younger than me haven’t had enough years yet. I honestly don’t recall a time in league history where hitting the cap alone would make you a top earner of the league. I’ve done nothing more than I ever did which is far less than guys like @Enorama or @Beaviss tend to do.

 

So yeah, maybe I just didn’t notice the definition change? I’m not sure but I definitely earn far slower than a lot of people on this site. That’s where my concern arises. I don’t feel like I’m going above and beyond and yet depreciation doesn’t touch me. Maybe I’m just more prepared for it than most? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s because I whore more than most though, that’s for sure.

 

But you do? I looked at your updates, you have fantasy zone stuff on top of your weekly cap plus you hit the cap every week. Tons of members settle with 7-9. Hell we have a slew of members who affilate and take that 6 from elsewhere and a little more. There is like 90 players in the league, this isn't the old days where everyone cares about maxing this shit out. You can build a 1000 TPE career player without maxing, and even then depreciation matters. By 7th season most players who took the hit were a good 200 TPA worse off than they used to be. Again cool that people who earn a lot are banking for that but most are actually making the hard decisions to fight it off your talking about.

[Beketov 9,033]

1 minute ago, Devise said:

 

But you do? I looked at your updates, you have fantasy zone stuff on top of your weekly cap plus you hit the cap every week. Tons of members settle with 7-9. Hell we have a slew of members who affilate and take that 6 from elsewhere and a little more. There is like 90 players in the league, this isn't the old days where everyone cares about maxing this shit out. You can build a 1000 TPE career player without maxing, and even then depreciation matters. By 7th season most players who took the hit were a good 200 TPA worse off than they used to be. Again cool that people who earn a lot are banking for that but most are actually making the hard decisions to fight it off your talking about.

Go back a few weeks, to the actual season, and you won’t see fantasy zone stuff. My regular weeks are 13 TPE. I barely ever do anything else.

 

Maybe I’m out of touch though, it’s very possible. I’m not of the mindset that things haven’t changed from the old days; I just know I haven’t. So maybe what used to be average at best is pure TPE whore now? If so that’s fine, I’ll continue to not be depreciated. It’s just gonna be harder on those 9-10 a week guys to make an impact when depreciation isn’t really working against top people.

[Devise 4,475]

5 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Go back a few weeks, to the actual season, and you won’t see fantasy zone stuff. My regular weeks are 13 TPE. I barely ever do anything else.

 

Maybe I’m out of touch though, it’s very possible. I’m not of the mindset that things haven’t changed from the old days; I just know I haven’t. So maybe what used to be average at best is pure TPE whore now? If so that’s fine, I’ll continue to not be depreciated. It’s just gonna be harder on those 9-10 a week guys to make an impact when depreciation isn’t really working against top people.

 

Yeah but look at Will, perfect example. He retroactively claimed 12 a week same season as you and he's at 800+ TPE and is a 600 TPA player. He wasn't around as much to do extra stuff but he called his weekly. I'm telling you it's the VHFLs and other things the high earners nab that helps make the difference. And player salary too, you bought still kicking before 7th depreciation. Which while only a a percentage, your 99 attributes went down 4 points instead of 5 but that still runs you 40 TPE per attribute that high. Like even with the player store purchase you need like 200 banked to handle it at those levels. I just don't see how increasing the update scale somehow makes it better for those members? They have less everything to spend than the top earners, it only makes their overall attributes worse in the long run and depreciation even harder to fight. 

[Beaviss 4,957]

1 hour ago, JeffD said:

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.

 

That is a big thing for me as well. Players only have an identity until their 3rd or 4th season then they all blend together.

[JeffD 648]

3 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

That is a big thing for me as well. Players only have an identity until their 3rd or 4th season then they all blend together.

One way to fix that although it may be hard to implement at this point would be the archetypes I have seen in other leagues.

[Beketov 9,033]

3 minutes ago, JeffD said:

One way to fix that although it may be hard to implement at this point would be the archetypes I have seen in other leagues.

See my response to DT from this morning.

[Beaviss 4,957]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

See my response to DT from this morning.

 

Im also against archetypes as it limits people too much. I do think a great alternative would be making stats harder to earn overall and very hard past 85.

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

A harder update scale only benefits the ones on top and makes the gap between casual players even more, you really won't want to exclude them. I think we are in a fine place as it is.

[Devise 4,475]

15 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

I do think a great alternative would be making stats harder to earn overall and very hard past 85.

 

"Hi my name is Paulo Nano. I show up to earn every week, I'm nearly a 600 TPE player despite only earning welfare most weeks, but I try to do trivia and other things when I can. I also make sure to get my off-season stuff done. Right now though with depreciation I'm fighting to maintain a 500 TPA player, despite my efforts. Wait...are you saying you want me to be reduced to a 200-300 TPA player in my final seasons? Why do this to me? Do you not want me in the league?" 

 

One of many testimonials that could be made if we do anything your suggesting here. 

[Beaviss 4,957]

Just now, Devise said:

 

"Hi my name is Paulo Nano. I show up to earn every week, I'm nearly a 600 TPE player despite only earning welfare most weeks, but I try to do trivia and other things when I can. I also make sure to get my off-season stuff done. Right now though with depreciation I'm fighting to maintain a 500 TPA player, despite my efforts. Wait...are you saying you want me to be reduced to a 200-300 TPA player in my final seasons? Why do this to me? Do you not want me in the league?" 

 

One of many testimonials that could be made if we do anything your suggesting here. 

 

Or lower depreciation...

[Beketov 9,033]

3 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

Or lower depreciation...

Kinda have to wonder what the point is then? If you make it harder to get attributes up but then make them not come down nearly as far what have you changed? It’s change for the sake of it.

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Beaviss said:

 

Or lower depreciation...

 

Which puts us right back in the same situation we are in now. With high TPE earners not having to worry about depreciation because they earn a lot, oh wait no we'd be in a different situation, because a harsher update scale would mean players like Nano wouldn't even be able to dream of having a 90 attribute and trying to maintain that TPA because you want it quote "very hard" after 85. Yeah like 8 from 90-94 and 10 from 95-99 isn't high enough already. 

 

 

[Enorama 2,038]

It sounds like the problem is boiling down to making it harder to get elite talent without making it harder to get depth talent? The "easy" answer is just to crank up the TPE scale at 90+ then make 95-99 ridiculously expensive to the point where you can only have 1-2 99s if you're an absolute TPE whore.

[Beaviss 4,957]

2 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

Which puts us right back in the same situation we are in now. With high TPE earners not having to worry about depreciation because they earn a lot, oh wait no we'd be in a different situation, because a harsher update scale would mean players like Nano wouldn't even be able to dream of having a 90 attribute and trying to maintain that TPA because you want it quote "very hard" after 85. Yeah like 8 from 90-94 and 10 from 95-99 isn't high enough already. 

 

 

 

What about having depreciation steeper for people over a certain TPE level?  Also the lower the # the lower the depreciation. So that doesn't really make it harder for average members.

 

1. Very few people would get to that point unless sacrificing every other stat in a perfect world.

[Beaviss 4,957]

Just now, Enorama said:

It sounds like the problem is boiling down to making it harder to get elite talent without making it harder to get depth talent? The "easy" answer is just to crank up the TPE scale at 90+ then make 95-99 ridiculously expensive to the point where you can only have 1-2 99s if you're an absolute TPE whore.

 

99's "break" the engine so turn that into a low - mid 90's and yes.

[Beketov 9,033]

1 minute ago, Beaviss said:

 

99's "break" the engine so turn that into a low - mid 90's and yes.

They don’t break V1 and V2 has never been proven to be worth its few advantages for the amount of required changes to make it function.

[Matt_O 897]

Making 90s and 99s hard to reach will increase player build diversity. Everyone forward will likely end up having 99 scoring, 99 defense and 99 skating at least when they peak. If you can get 2 99s max because of re-scaling of TPA, more players will invest in different attributes. If you want to be a pure playmaker, that can be done. Obviously it can be done now, but why be a pure playmaker when you have 99 in passing and also 99 in scoring and defense? If it was hard to get 99's, having different player types will add more to GMing when it comes to making lines, and will diversify the league. This is a good thing. I think 40-70 and 70-80 ranges are ok. Maybe do 80-85 is 5, 86-90 is 10, 90-95 is 15, 96-99 is 20?

Edited July 8, 2019 by Matt_O

[uphillmoss 134]

48 minutes ago, Matt_O said:

Making 90s and 99s hard to reach will increase player build diversity. Everyone forward will likely end up having 99 scoring, 99 defense and 99 skating at least when they peak. If you can get 2 99s max because of re-scaling of TPA, more players will invest in different attributes. If you want to be a pure playmaker, that can be done. Obviously it can be done now, but why be a pure playmaker when you have 99 in passing and also 99 in scoring and defense? If it was hard to get 99's, having different player types will add more to GMing when it comes to making lines, and will diversify the league. This is a good thing. I think 40-70 and 70-80 ranges are ok. Maybe do 80-85 is 5, 86-90 is 10, 90-95 is 15, 96-99 is 20?

This makes perfect sense. As I have been saying, the amount of TPA people have is way too much. If you make it harder to reach the elite attributes, you will see much more diversity. It will also make line combinations more important 

[Matt_O 897]

1 minute ago, uphillmoss said:

This makes perfect sense. As I have been saying, the amount of TPA people have is way too much. If you make it harder to reach the elite attributes, you will see much more diversity. It will also make line combinations more important 

Yes, it adds more to GMing and draft strategies, and trading to find the right peice

[uphillmoss 134]

1 minute ago, Matt_O said:

Yes, it adds more to GMing and draft strategies, and trading to find the right peice

It will definitely make pure playmakers a whole lot more valuable 

[frescoelmo 1,276]

17 hours ago, Beketov said:

Realistically we have two options. The first is to lower the amount of TPE we’re giving out on a regular basis but realistically no one wants to receive less of something when they’ve gotten used to it. Governments don’t fight inflation by giving out less money right? The other option is to increase the update scale to make it harsher and thus make the TPE -> TPA conversion a bit rougher. It might make it seem harsh but at least then people would get the numbers they are used to without us having players that are finished their build and ready to fight depreciation in their 4th season like I was.

 

Late to the game, but lowering the amount of TPE would have a minimal, if any, impact, and you would certainly risk the possibility of alienating the soft activity base.  I would argue, though, that there seems to be almost an unheard-of amount of ways to gain TPE now, and I'm not really sure how much of it is part of the weekly cap...  at least compared to this league a few years ago.

 

Adjusting conversion rates certainly could help, but what about making regression considerably harder.  If players are accumulating 1000+TPE by their 5/6th seasons, making it cost more to sustain that level of attributes would help curb the ongoing dominance.

 

To your point, governments usually fight inflation by increasing tax rates haha.  You could also entertain negative interest on banking TPE for players who are holding over for re-adding to their attributes after regression.

 

I guess, what is the long-term goal? 

[Devise 4,475]

As a GM, I can tell you guys right now all this shit your talking about exists. Are you only looking at the overall attributes of the top 10 players? Look at the league, across the board. People do build with diversity. You guys keep bringing up these players who have and maintain 99 TPA in Skating, Scoring, Passing, and Defense and act like it's the majority of the league.

 

Prove that. Again, I'm a GM who uses lines/strategies I know several other GM's who also build for chemistry, and we all see the players that are available at large, not just this selection of top names you guys are using. Which I state again...like...

 

Of the top 10 in TPE, even of the top 25 of the "elites" you guys are using to skew this, these are how the 99's in attributes break down, minus goalies who have way less attributes to update so by proxy the high tier goalies will have 99 in a bunch of things. It's always been that way for goalies. 

 

4 Players with 5 99's (Bea Louth, highest TPA player to my knowledge, other 3 being Cast, Thompson and Borwin who have enough to have 5 99's with currently unspent banked)

1 Players with 4 99's (Randoms with uspent banked)

2 Players with 3 99's (Dan Wilinsky, Ryan Kastelic although Kastelic has enough banked to have more, likely saving for banking/happy with his build diversity as well) 

7 Players with 2 99's (Davis, Bailey, Glade, Peace, Dragomir, Arroyo, Crosby has 1 but he has enough banked for 2) 

1 Player with 1 99 (Palo) 

5 Players with 0 99's (Edwin, Ironside, Twinger, Crimsson, Kovalchuk) 

 

Ignoring the fact that you can see a ton of build diversity among this isolated top 25 list alone, 13 of the listed players have over 1000 TPE. 3 of the overall 1000 TPE players actually aren't mantaining a single 99 attribute at the moment. There are only a couple retiring players on this list too, so that means more depreciation gaps for the players a couple seasons away. It's simply that it's not easy to get and mantain 99 in 4-5 main attributes...as was suggested above. The facts do not bear that out at all. 

 

 

[Quik 4,113]

3 hours ago, Green said:

A harder update scale only benefits the ones on top and makes the gap between casual players even more, you really won't want to exclude them. I think we are in a fine place as it is.

 

TBH, it would basically make the average earners average players, and lessen the distance between stars and average players, considering it would likely be an exponential change, vs. straight across.

 

I do think that, if we were to make a harsher update scale, a lesser depreciation makes sense. On the surface, it would effect players less, but it would cost just as much, if not more, TPE to regain what was lost. Like, right now 90-95 = 8, and 95-99 = 10. If we changed that to something like 15 and 30, so that it was a real deterrent to adding to them, then 3% on a 99 goes from costing 30 TPE to get back, to a much higher cost of 90, 5% goes from 48 > 135, and 7% goes from 64 > 165. The same would be true with increasing the cost of attribute points in lower brackets, as well.

 

At the point that we'd be grouping people closer together with a much harsher scale at the top, then I think the tradeoff of being able to fight depreciation makes sense.