This devaluation at at 'aspirational' properties really give us no good place to use points, as Hilton had long has had generally bad redemption rates at mid-scale and upscale properties, but for some of us the hope was to save-up for a stay at a luxury property and get a better value.

Another way of looking at is how many nights you have to stay to get a free room, and its looking ugly:
An average mid-scale property like a Hampton or Hilton Garden Inn or Tru may cost you 45,000 points these days (up from 25,000 ten years ago), to save $160 cash rate. Even with a Surpass card and gold or diamond status, it will take you 9 nights cash stays to get a free night at that same hotel. If you are at a Tru or Home2Suites, which only pay 5 points/$, it will take you 18 nights cash stays to get one night free at that same hotel. Is this worth brand loyalty?
An average upscale property like a normal Hilton or Curio may cost you 80,000 points these days to save $300 cash rate. Even with a Surpass card and gold or diamonds status, it will take you 9 nights cash stays to get a free night at the same hotel. At some point, what's the point of brand 'loyalty'?
With room upgrades being so rare, the daily food-and-beverage credit no longer covering the cost of even basic breakfast, there is less and less incentive to be brand loyal and not just shop by price on a booking site.

I've been debating this myself whether it is worth it to be 'loyal' to a hotel chain, and am interested in what everyone else is saying on this topic. Maybe it will be better to get a cash-back or good travel-card, and just use booking sites or the travel card's portal to book based on price, not brand, and occasionally paying more to get a suite. I'm actively mulling this over myself, and interested in what other former Hilton loyalists are thinking.