TPE Re-Scale: Let's Propose This Idea for the Hundredth Time (Part One)

[ColeMrtz 574]

     Recently the Blues/BOG/I'm not really sure who was wholly responsible incorporated a new limit on VHL pension in the name of "fighting TPE inflation". Since they are now actively taking steps to right a known issue, I'd like to reintroduce the concept of a new TPE scale. To start, let's look at some of the big names in the NHL and see what our lord SimonT says they're attributes should be. 

 

THE ELITE

     These guys cap every week, donate, take advantage of every TPE opportunity available to them, you get the gist. These are the top players in the league, and so my example players will be Connor McDavid, David Pastrnak, Alex Ovechkin, Brent Burns, and Victor Hedman (arbitrary guys considered to be among the league's "best", goalies will be covered separately). 

     So apparently the league file being used in the web client I found is from several seasons ago (Datsyuk, Jagr, Sedins still playing, McDavid not drafted yet, etc.) so INSTEAD we will look at Steven Stamkos, Sydney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Erik Karlsson, and Roman Josi. 

 

80+ // 90+ // 95+ // 99

 

Steven Stamkos

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

63   40   79   85   71   88    76    70   96    64   90   64   75

 

Sidney Crosby

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

55   36   77   90   68   93    79    92   90    64   88   70   86

 

Alex Ovechkin

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

74   46   77   80   85   91     30   64   99    61   93   74   88

 

Erik Karlsson

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

55   36   79   87   68   78    30    74   69    77   68   64   61

 

Roman Josi

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

56   39   82   82   73   74    30    73   66    84   66   64   67

 

     As we can see, the best offensive players in the league only have 1 attribute cross the 95 threshold, and doing so only results in a 2-3 90+ build. Trying to round out a player may reward you with 4 90 attributes, but that's really all that is attainable outside a couple of minor attributes achieving 80s. What's also interesting to note is the heavy emphasis on defensive difficulty. I pulled these 5 players off of the web clients Top 50 by points, so I may have missed a true defensive defenseman, but these guys have substantially lower attributes across the board, except for defense which only reaches the 80s once in Roman Josi. After poking around a little more Alex Pietrangelo has an 87 DF rating, but even he only has 3 80s in his build, much like Roman Josi. Drew Doughty has 1 80 and its his DF stat.

 

     Okay so what we've learned is SimonT smokes meth. After seeing a gross disparity of offensive stats compared to defensive stats, I checked player point totals expecting blown out of proportion numbers, yet the career high (Steven Stamkos) out of all players was 201 pts in 207 GP. So it must be goaltending, which surprise, it was. Goalies have AT MOST 2 stats under an 80 with about half in the 90s. I am just shocked that this is how this system was meant to be set up.

 

     Also I really don't like it.

 

     So scratch all of that, I refuse to propose that DF is an impossible stat to build while goalies have stupid high attributes, so instead let's take what was reasonable from SimonT.

          1. Elite players should have AT MOST 2-3 stats in the 90s, maybe 4 if you get a ridiculous amount of teep.

          2. Not all attributes are created equal, some have a greater effect than others.

          3. Even the best of the best suck at some things.

 

     Which leaves us with the fun part: math.

 

     Let's set some new standards, shall we?

 

     Generally a star player will EARN 1000 TPE, so we will base our scale on a 1000 TPE build. We will also start stats at 30 TPE, to make things a little more work. We can call SK, CK, PH, PA, SC and DF our "Primary Attributes" as they seem to be the ones with the most direct affect, while FG, DI, ST,  FO, PS and LD will be our "Secondary Attributes". Starting with a Crosby/Ovi comparison, Ovi has maxed out a Primary Attribute and hit 90s in 1 Primary and 1 Secondary. Crosby hasn't maxed anything, but has hit 90s in 4 Primary Attributes. Now to call the difference between 4 90s and 1 99/ 1 90 equal is ridiculous (as is calling Crosby and Ovi equal), so we're going to tone that back slightly. Assuming a 75/25 split in spending TPE on Primaries and Secondaries, we can use 750 TPE to break down our Primary Attribute scale.

 

TPA: 30 // Spent TPE: 0 // Cost per Level: 0

TPA: 50 // Spent TPE: 20 // Cost per Level: 1

TPA: 65 // Spent TPE: 50 // Cost per Level: 2

TPA: 70 // Spent TPE: 70 // Cost per Level: 4

TPA: 80 // Spent TPE: 120 // Cost per Level: 5

TPA 85 // Spent TPE: 155 // Cost per Level: 7

TPA: 90 // Spent TPE: 205 // Cost per Level: 10

TPA: 95 // Spent TPE: 265 // Cost per Level: 12

TPA: 99 // Spent TPE: 361 // Cost per Level: 24

 

     This scale forces a 1000 TPE player to specialize more, and limits their building capability. If you attempt to round out all five Primaries, you could hit 85 in all of them assuming you stole 25 TPE from your secondaries, but assuming a player would build their 90s, they can only hit 3 of them reasonably while docking the last 2 at 70s. For example, a 90 SC, SK and PH build would only be able to get PA and CK to 70 if they were to round it out. Even leaving CK at base 30 would only get PA into the low 80s. But with Primaries being so cost intensive, what about Secondaries?

 

TPA: 30 // Spent TPE: 0 // Cost per Level: 0

TPA: 60 // Spent TPE: 30 // Cost per Level: 1

TPA: 70 // Spent TPE: 50 // Cost per Level: 2

TPA: 80 // Spent TPE: 80 // Cost per Level: 3

TPA: 90 // Spent TPE: 130 // Cost per Level: 5

TPA: 95 // Spent TPE: 165 // Cost per Level: 7

TPA: 99 // Spent TPE: 205 // Cost per Level: 10

 

     The Secondary scale is slightly more forgiving, but a lot more aggressive at the same time. With the exception of some RP players most Secondary Attributes aren't built that high, and as such they are much easier to build than Primaries, i.e. the 50 TPE difference in getting to level 80 and the 70 TPE difference in getting to 90, however staying true to the 75/25 model you won't be able to build these very high, with a fully rounded build achieving just 70 TPA in five of the 6 attributes while a specialized one would be broke at a 1 95/1 80. 

 

     So what would an elite player look like in the new TPA scale era? Let's look at our current league's elite, namely Hunter Hearst Helmsley or HHH himself. Due to his (practically) straight 99s I am going to assume the goal was a physical two-way player, so let's focus on CK, SC and DF first, with a secondary focus on ST.

 

Hunter Hearst Helmsley - 1243 TPE - 1243 TPA

 

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

85   30   50   70   80   70    85    85   95    95   30   30   75

 

     HHH would have (if I built him which is probably horribly wrong sorry @Beaviss) 2 Primaries at 95, 2 Primaries at 85 and 2 Secondaries at 80+. This not only seems more balanced but sounds like a reasonable build to expect of an elite player. The scale's early forgiveness allows for a quick development to being average (70s/80s) but a grind to get to a truly elite level. This scale should not only be good for reigning in TPE inflation but also should help bring more competitive/realistic sims. Obviously this is just my 2 cents and I know well the comments are going to be in flames but I think this is a step in the right direction should the league choose to take it. 

 

1,407 words

[Gustav 6,407]

I like.

 

Maybe not scale it back this drastically, as the current norm of "being able to max stuff out if you whore" has been a thing for a while, but definitely scale it back. Garcia shouldn't be able to have 4 things at 99 and HHH shouldn't be able to have 5. We should get to a point where a 99 is really significant, not normal and expected.

[Beketov 9,025]

I don’t have time to read this all right now but I will later.

[gorlab 4,321]

Simon T. does indeed smoke crack. 

[Nykonax 1,564]

3 hours ago, ColeMrtz said:

     Recently the Blues/BOG/I'm not really sure who was wholly responsible incorporated a new limit on VHL pension in the name of "fighting TPE inflation". Since they are now actively taking steps to right a known issue, I'd like to reintroduce the concept of a new TPE scale. To start, let's look at some of the big names in the NHL and see what our lord SimonT says they're attributes should be. 

 

THE ELITE

     These guys cap every week, donate, take advantage of every TPE opportunity available to them, you get the gist. These are the top players in the league, and so my example players will be Connor McDavid, David Pastrnak, Alex Ovechkin, Brent Burns, and Victor Hedman (arbitrary guys considered to be among the league's "best", goalies will be covered separately). 

     So apparently the league file being used in the web client I found is from several seasons ago (Datsyuk, Jagr, Sedins still playing, McDavid not drafted yet, etc.) so INSTEAD we will look at Steven Stamkos, Sydney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Erik Karlsson, and Roman Josi. 

 

80+ // 90+ // 95+ // 99

 

Steven Stamkos

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

63   40   79   85   71   88    76    70   96    64   90   64   75

 

Sidney Crosby

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

55   36   77   90   68   93    79    92   90    64   88   70   86

 

Alex Ovechkin

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

74   46   77   80   85   91     30   64   99    61   93   74   88

 

Erik Karlsson

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

55   36   79   87   68   78    30    74   69    77   68   64   61

 

Roman Josi

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

56   39   82   82   73   74    30    73   66    84   66   64   67

 

     As we can see, the best offensive players in the league only have 1 attribute cross the 95 threshold, and doing so only results in a 2-3 90+ build. Trying to round out a player may reward you with 4 90 attributes, but that's really all that is attainable outside a couple of minor attributes achieving 80s. What's also interesting to note is the heavy emphasis on defensive difficulty. I pulled these 5 players off of the web clients Top 50 by points, so I may have missed a true defensive defenseman, but these guys have substantially lower attributes across the board, except for defense which only reaches the 80s once in Roman Josi. After poking around a little more Alex Pietrangelo has an 87 DF rating, but even he only has 3 80s in his build, much like Roman Josi. Drew Doughty has 1 80 and its his DF stat.

 

     Okay so what we've learned is SimonT smokes meth. After seeing a gross disparity of offensive stats compared to defensive stats, I checked player point totals expecting blown out of proportion numbers, yet the career high (Steven Stamkos) out of all players was 201 pts in 207 GP. So it must be goaltending, which surprise, it was. Goalies have AT MOST 2 stats under an 80 with about half in the 90s. I am just shocked that this is how this system was meant to be set up.

 

     Also I really don't like it.

 

     So scratch all of that, I refuse to propose that DF is an impossible stat to build while goalies have stupid high attributes, so instead let's take what was reasonable from SimonT.

          1. Elite players should have AT MOST 2-3 stats in the 90s, maybe 4 if you get a ridiculous amount of teep.

          2. Not all attributes are created equal, some have a greater effect than others.

          3. Even the best of the best suck at some things.

 

     Which leaves us with the fun part: math.

 

     Let's set some new standards, shall we?

 

     Generally a star player will EARN 1000 TPE, so we will base our scale on a 1000 TPE build. We will also start stats at 30 TPE, to make things a little more work. We can call SK, CK, PH, PA, SC and DF our "Primary Attributes" as they seem to be the ones with the most direct affect, while FG, DI, ST,  FO, PS and LD will be our "Secondary Attributes". Starting with a Crosby/Ovi comparison, Ovi has maxed out a Primary Attribute and hit 90s in 1 Primary and 1 Secondary. Crosby hasn't maxed anything, but has hit 90s in 4 Primary Attributes. Now to call the difference between 4 90s and 1 99/ 1 90 equal is ridiculous (as is calling Crosby and Ovi equal), so we're going to tone that back slightly. Assuming a 75/25 split in spending TPE on Primaries and Secondaries, we can use 750 TPE to break down our Primary Attribute scale.

 

TPA: 30 // Spent TPE: 0 // Cost per Level: 0

TPA: 50 // Spent TPE: 20 // Cost per Level: 1

TPA: 65 // Spent TPE: 50 // Cost per Level: 2

TPA: 70 // Spent TPE: 70 // Cost per Level: 4

TPA: 80 // Spent TPE: 120 // Cost per Level: 5

TPA 85 // Spent TPE: 155 // Cost per Level: 7

TPA: 90 // Spent TPE: 205 // Cost per Level: 10

TPA: 95 // Spent TPE: 265 // Cost per Level: 12

TPA: 99 // Spent TPE: 361 // Cost per Level: 24

 

     This scale forces a 1000 TPE player to specialize more, and limits their building capability. If you attempt to round out all five Primaries, you could hit 85 in all of them assuming you stole 25 TPE from your secondaries, but assuming a player would build their 90s, they can only hit 3 of them reasonably while docking the last 2 at 70s. For example, a 90 SC, SK and PH build would only be able to get PA and CK to 70 if they were to round it out. Even leaving CK at base 30 would only get PA into the low 80s. But with Primaries being so cost intensive, what about Secondaries?

 

TPA: 30 // Spent TPE: 0 // Cost per Level: 0

TPA: 60 // Spent TPE: 30 // Cost per Level: 1

TPA: 70 // Spent TPE: 50 // Cost per Level: 2

TPA: 80 // Spent TPE: 80 // Cost per Level: 3

TPA: 90 // Spent TPE: 130 // Cost per Level: 5

TPA: 95 // Spent TPE: 165 // Cost per Level: 7

TPA: 99 // Spent TPE: 205 // Cost per Level: 10

 

     The Secondary scale is slightly more forgiving, but a lot more aggressive at the same time. With the exception of some RP players most Secondary Attributes aren't built that high, and as such they are much easier to build than Primaries, i.e. the 50 TPE difference in getting to level 80 and the 70 TPE difference in getting to 90, however staying true to the 75/25 model you won't be able to build these very high, with a fully rounded build achieving just 70 TPA in five of the 6 attributes while a specialized one would be broke at a 1 95/1 80. 

 

     So what would an elite player look like in the new TPA scale era? Let's look at our current league's elite, namely Hunter Hearst Helmsley or HHH himself. Due to his (practically) straight 99s I am going to assume the goal was a physical two-way player, so let's focus on CK, SC and DF first, with a secondary focus on ST.

 

Hunter Hearst Helmsley - 1243 TPE - 1243 TPA

 

CK   FG   DI   SK   ST   PH   FO   PA   SC   DF   PS   EX   LD

85   30   50   70   80   70    85    85   95    95   30   30   75

 

     HHH would have (if I built him which is probably horribly wrong sorry @Beaviss) 2 Primaries at 95, 2 Primaries at 85 and 2 Secondaries at 80+. This not only seems more balanced but sounds like a reasonable build to expect of an elite player. The scale's early forgiveness allows for a quick development to being average (70s/80s) but a grind to get to a truly elite level. This scale should not only be good for reigning in TPE inflation but also should help bring more competitive/realistic sims. Obviously this is just my 2 cents and I know well the comments are going to be in flames but I think this is a step in the right direction should the league choose to take it. 

 

1,407 words

this would also allow a switch to 2.0 or 2.1 sths. I did some test sims with the STHS made NHL File and used 2.0 and players were putting up similar points to what they would in NHL, while from what I've heard if we use 2.0 players score like 500 points

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

6 hours ago, Nykonax said:

this would also allow a switch to 2.0 or 2.1 sths. I did some test sims with the STHS made NHL File and used 2.0 and players were putting up similar points to what they would in NHL, while from what I've heard if we use 2.0 players score like 500 points

 

And while we switch to 2.1 we can all create players without passing and only scoring and bug out the simulator like Hamilton did in the SHL, giving them basically a free championship

[Nykonax 1,564]

2 hours ago, OrbitingDeath said:

 

And while we switch to 2.1 we can all create players without passing and only scoring and bug out the simulator like Hamilton did in the SHL, giving them basically a free championship

SHL uses 1.5, dunno if it works on 2 or 2.1 

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

2 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

SHL uses 1.5, dunno if it works on 2 or 2.1 

 

Always thought they switched to 2 around S11, did they change back in the last years or?

[Nykonax 1,564]

13 minutes ago, OrbitingDeath said:

 

Always thought they switched to 2 around S11, did they change back in the last years or?

No clue, joined mid 40's and I didnt hear of an sths engine switch

[ColeMrtz 574]

Claim part 2 electric boogaloo