(03-10-2023, 11:41 AM)aeonsjenni Wrote:

(03-10-2023, 11:27 AM)infinitempg Wrote: i think rich users should be allowed to bribe away the regression man 13 seasons is honestly pretty long already. ignoring the realism concerns - 13 seasons is over 2 IRL years. like, my last player Busch Goose was an S28 create - the creation date was December 21, 2020. Wolfie Jr (S41 create) was created on January 19, 2023. Goose played 12 seasons in the ISFL and 1 in the DSFL, for just barely over 2 years. I could have pushed him one more season too to probably get to March 31, 2023, putting Goose at 2 years and 3 months - that's a long time!

at a certain point, you could argue a user needs to be almost forced to start over and make a new player. it creates a new type of engagement for lots of users and allows them to explore the league again - or it could force users to take a short break between players and restart fresh.

maybe it's just because i've been here for a while, but i've found that careers have gotten pretty stale after a while and recreating allowed me to join new teams without feeling disloyal to the team that drafted me.

Thanks for the input, I am glad to see it! How do you feel about a change to the regression rates? What strikes me in particular is that the raw regression goes up over time, taking more from less in the later years. Do you think a 13 year cap with a softer regression rate would be beneficial? Do you think there might be ways to encourage re-creation while still letting users stick with their players a little longer if they want?

Edit: If this feels like I'm grilling you or anything I'm sorry. I'm just curious what people think.

(03-10-2023, 03:13 AM)aeonsjenni Wrote:

(03-09-2023, 03:52 PM)dreamSloth Wrote: I'm a big fan of model #1:

After 7th season 20% TPE loss
After 8th season 25% TPE loss
After 9th season 35% TPE loss
After 10th season 35% TPE loss
After 11th season 35% TPE loss
After 12th season 35% TPE loss
After 13th season 50% TPE loss
After 14th season 60% TPE loss
After 15th season 75% TPE loss (irrelevant, retirement is forced regardless of TPE)


The raw regression chart is the one that sells it for me. On top of what you already mentioned, I think there are two key benefits for employing a model like this:

1. Players who are active and enjoy their current player and/or LR's have an opportunity to stick around longer.
2. I think we offer a necessary solution to two complex problems: a. drastic variation in quality of some draft classes, and b. smaller draft class sizes.

For #1, I like how we can continue to create a positive experience for a given user by extending the length of their current experience. I'm especially fond of the sentimental benefit for first-time creates like myself who are near-max earners and enjoy being on their current team.

For #2, when we run into situations like the past couple seasons where talent has been a much more shallow pool, having long-time players continue to be meaningful contributors offers teams a way to mitigate the damage done by regression. I'm not sure whether or not it would make the league more competitive, though at the very least I don't see any downside to any of this.

Additionally, I think having a regression system with a longer tail will more or less force teams to improve the quality of their draft scouting. Quality has varied by team and GM for what seems to be the entire history of the league; if there's additional incentive to draft players that could max earn (or at least appear like they'd stay active over time), I'd hypothesize that teams will have to step up scouting efforts. That then creates more competitive teams and a better experience for users during the draft process.

In summary, I think you should genuinely push for the adoption of that first model. Also, your analyses are amazing and I hope you continue to do this kind of work.

I'm a fan of model #1 as well, though I'd like to see some adjustments made to it, perhaps. I slapped it together in a couple hours and I think there are improvements to be made on the exact numbers. A part of me feels that the percentages should be abandoned in favor of fractions, but that's another thing. I definitely agree about your first point. I like my player! I'm already attached, and I genuinely enjoy writing little point tasks and interviews for her. I'm sure I'll feel a different way a couple years down the line but I really feel that since going through regression is entirely optional it's totally feasible to make it a little more fun! I really can't comment so much on your second point as I'm a new player and have never been involved in the drafting process, though I feel like from a competitive balance standpoint there will definitely be upsides and downsides, which could definitely be looked into.

All-in-all I'm very glad you think the model is worth genuinely worth pushing for. I really don't know what the process would be for pushing for this but I'd appreciate any support.

(03-10-2023, 02:55 AM)aeonsjenni Wrote:

(03-09-2023, 11:07 AM)br0_0ker Wrote: 13 seasons is actually pretty long compared to the NFL average, e.g. there's about 30-50 active NFL players with more than 13 seasons played, across 1500+ active players.

I understand why a lot of people think 13 seasons is long enough for a sim player, but this is really making the opposite point that you're trying to make. There are more than 30 active NFL players who have played more than 13 seasons, plus hundreds who retired after 13 seasons, and zero sim players. There will never be any sim players to play more than 13 seasons, barring a rule change. 13 seasons is a long time, of course, but it doesn't make any sense as an absolute upper limit.