Let’s talk TPE inflation

[Motzaburger 1,590]

1 minute ago, Quik said:

 

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.

This is the most sensical option in here tbh. 

[ConnorMcdavid 180]

Is there a way to do a more dynamic depreciation where if an attribute is not “trained” for so many weeks it begins to depreciate? And this would start almost immediately in a players career