02-28-2019, 11:38 AMteztify Wrote: Nobody is assuming that all semi-actives hit the cap. The idea that removing the cap is worse for semi-actives who only do 10% or 50% of the PTs than it is for semi-actives who hit the cap is wrong. Bojo is right here.

How can you assert it isn't worse when removing the cap literally provides more TPE for those who would have hit the cap compared to semis who wouldn't get close? The gap is literally increasing by doing this. And it would have been even worse if we went from a 35 cap to no cap (and I still don't understand why we increased the cap in the first place when PTs didn't increase)

02-28-2019, 11:38 AMteztify Wrote: Of course removing the cap increases the disparity between max earners and semi-actives who earn less. But it increases that disparity by the same amount for everyone, regardless of whether Semi-Active A earned 10 capped TPE or Semi-Active B earned 30 TPE, that doesn't matter. The gap between them and the max earner only grows by between 3-10 TPE per season. The extra 20 between A and B is mathematically meaningless for the purpose of considering this - that gap is already in place regardless of what we do.

Given the graph earlier in this thread that shows the minimal impact of dropping the cap, and how much easier it makes our updates, I think it's entirely worth it.

This is why I would advocate dropping the cap back to 35 and/or adding more PT opportunities. Again, the entire point was to give semi-actives more opportunities to hit the cap and be competitive with those who were super active, and by only having a minimal amount of TPE to earn from PTs above the cap, that supposed support for semi-actives is non-existent.

02-28-2019, 11:38 AMteztify Wrote: I think some folks are misunderstanding how problematic it is for some updaters to work with the Marius rule. Many semi-actives aren't aware of the Marius rule, forget it, don't know the cap, or how much TPE they have that is capped. Do you think that making them include it in every update helps keep them active? That's what the concern is after all. I think that simplifying the updating process for those players who don't stay on top of everything is the way to keep those players more active and less confused. Not by rejecting their updates.

And sure we can continue to say "reject their updates and tell them how the cap works." Great in theory but some updaters are more lenient. They say "I'll allow this update but remember this rule", which is a problem because then you have teams being treated differently.

I don't know, do you think we have lost members from this? Updaters shouldn't be giving that kind of leeway, and if anything should be demonstrating how it works themselves if they want to be lenient.

If you remove the cap, do we continue to let super-actives run roughshod over semi-actives or do we actually try to implement a system that the PT cap was put in place to begin with? Doesn't seem like anyone actually cares about that.