|
2016 Planning: Crash Frequency
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 21-11-2015 11:27
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
A new feature in PCM15 is that we can alter the frequency of crashes occuring in a race. The default is 100%, but the scale goes from 0% to 300%
This poll is to gather a MG manager preference on how to use it.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 21-11-2015 11:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Nice idea to seperate the both. Preferably 100% in stage races but due to the hectic of the classics I'd prefer to have it (way) higher in one-day races then.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| sgdanny |
Posted on 21-11-2015 11:33
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3591
Joined: 18-03-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
I really like the "low in stage races, high in classics"
Mostly cause Classics are really irl a crash fest and really classics should be the most unpredictable races 
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 21-11-2015 11:34
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Good that you mention this. I planned to do as soon as the first 2016 season threads go up.
I haven`t tested enough to really give the best impression. But in those tests, I did after stage creating I was shocked by the amount of crashes at 160% already.
I mean it might be more to realism when there are multiple crashes, but is this what we want for the MG?
Last couple of races in PCT and PT already showed how much influence crashes can have for the rankings and it could be a big demotivation if it happens too often.
So I would say 100% maximum but would also like the idea of close to 0% (This is if 0% does not mean zero crashes at all of course as without any, I feel, it would be bad as well).
Also mixing it in stage races and classics is not ideal imo. First you could mix it and use the wrong one while reporting. And also I would prefer a consistent value in all races.
Edit: With 160% for example I saw hilariously many crashes when it is raining. This was already more than in real life I felt.
Edited by roturn on 21-11-2015 11:39
|
| |
|
|
| Miguel98 |
Posted on 21-11-2015 11:36
|
World Champion
Posts: 10497
Joined: 23-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
100% for sure.
I've test this out quite a bit, and 100% gives individual crashes not that often, and it gives big crashes from time to time in twisty sessions |
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 21-11-2015 11:45
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't get why it shouldn't be 0% to be honest.
We have a new cool feature that could avoid something that I feel every MG manager hates: why not take advantage and use it? I mean the PT crown was decided - also - by a crash, same can be said for PCT. The AI deals with leaders crashing in an unrealistic way, and almost never the domestiques manage to get the leader back to the peloton, and we've seen that.
Look at Gazelle: they had like 6 riders capable of winning Japan Cup, still, their leader crashed and every single rider got dropped because of him.
Definitely we should run some tests before though. Surely lower than 100% for me, as that is more than the rate of crashes of PCM 14... I'd say between 0 and 50%.
@roturn, yes, 0% means 0 crashes.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 20:14
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 21-11-2015 11:53
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
Just pointing out here that 100% seems to be slightly more than what they had in PCM14. 
Anyway I love the higher in classics lower (or 100%?) in stage races idea. 
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| Stromeon |
Posted on 21-11-2015 12:10
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3507
Joined: 06-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
I like the "lower in stage races, higher in classics" idea but we definitely don't want too many crashes. I think the best compromise is to keep it at 100% for classics and lower it for stage races to somewhere between 50% and 75%.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 21-11-2015 12:19
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I would pick as low as possible. It shouldn't be ruled out of course, but I think the amount of crashes we had this season was plenty. Even worse in other seasons.
The game is about having fun, to about realism. We get a hint of realism, and to me that is fine. We get as realistic rider levels as we can, but then alter it with training and stuff.
Imo we don't want any more randomness than we do now - Rather a bit less. We don't want frustrated managers that lose everything due to crashes. Rather by doing a poor job in the off season.
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 21-11-2015 12:29
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
I follow most people here.
In stage races, I'd love 50-60% or something.
In classics, 110 or 120 would be nice |
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 21-11-2015 12:38
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I am all for 0%. Crashes/injuries are realistic, but absolutely not fun. And I guess punctures would still happen with zero setting, right? That would be more than enough as an option for a bad luck for me.
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 21-11-2015 12:49
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm in the "fun over realism" camp. Crashes are nothing but frustrating both for the victim and the person who wins thanks to a crash.
If real life cycling got the option of turning off crashes they wouldn't doubt for a second.
I prefer 0 crashes across the board, but since there are also people who want to keep them, my proposal would be the following:
Stage races: 0%
Classics: 50%
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 21-11-2015 12:51
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
DubbelDekker wrote:
I'm in the "fun over realism" camp. Crashes are nothing but frustrating both for the victim and the person who wins thanks to a crash.
If real life cycling got the option of turning off crashes they wouldn't doubt for a second.
I prefer 0 crashes across the board, but since there are also people who want to keep them, my proposal would be the following:
Stage races: 0%
Classics: 50%
Hmmm actually you make a good point.
Also, we have AI screwing things up enough mostly so we don't need too many crashes, too.
I change my vote and your proposal seems fair. We still need that screenshot of a rider on the ground every now and then so we have the classics for that 
Or, the argument of reporting several races and forgetting to adjust is is also quite valid: so bring it level and ride with 20-30% crashes, so will happen very rarely. |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 21-11-2015 13:35
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
I watched a Youtube series where somebody played the Vuelta with 150% crashes, and already half the peloton crashed out by the end.
I hate the idea of splitting it between classics and stage races. If a team focuses on classics, they're really getting the short end of the stick if their guys crash out more then a team focused on climbing.
I'd be in favor of keeping it at 100%, or even moving it down to 50% for everything. Yes, crashes are part of the game, but everyone should have the same amount of chance to crash. I don't want more Koep Mid East season ending injuries.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 21-11-2015 13:39
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
DubbelDekker wrote:
I'm in the "fun over realism" camp. Crashes are nothing but frustrating both for the victim and the person who wins thanks to a crash.
If real life cycling got the option of turning off crashes they wouldn't doubt for a second.
I prefer 0 crashes across the board, but since there are also people who want to keep them, my proposal would be the following:
Stage races: 0%
Classics: 50%
Hmmm actually you make a good point.
Also, we have AI screwing things up enough mostly so we don't need too many crashes, too.
I change my vote and your proposal seems fair. We still need that screenshot of a rider on the ground every now and then so we have the classics for that
Or, the argument of reporting several races and forgetting to adjust is is also quite valid: so bring it level and ride with 20-30% crashes, so will happen very rarely.
I'd still say 30% for stage races and 50-70% for classics at the least (although I'd prefer more) I feel like we should at least have some.
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 21-11-2015 14:47
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
I hate the idea of splitting it between classics and stage races. If a team focuses on classics, they're really getting the short end of the stick if their guys crash out more then a team focused on climbing.
The idea behind splitting is that in a stage race the manager has more race days invested, which makes a crash and/or injury have way more impact than in a classic which only costs 2 RD. A big expensive leader crashing in a GT for example can ruin someone's entire season.
We could also let the crash percentage scale with the total amount of RD a race has.
Imagine we'd make it 80 - (5*RD) for example. That'd give you:
| 2 | 70% | | 3 | 65% | | 4 | 60% | | 5 | 55% | | 6 | 50% | | 7 | 45% | | 8 | 40% | | 9 | 35% | | 10 | 30% | | 11 | 25% | | 12 | 20% | | 13 | 15% | | 14 | 10% | | 15 | 5% | | 16+ | 0% |
Edited by DubbelDekker on 21-11-2015 21:52
|
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 21-11-2015 14:50
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
@DD, not like anyone would remember about changing it for each race day
It's a nice idea though, I like the scale as well.
|
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 21-11-2015 14:51
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
DubbelDekker wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
I hate the idea of splitting it between classics and stage races. If a team focuses on classics, they're really getting the short end of the stick if their guys crash out more then a team focused on climbing.
The idea behind splitting is that in a stage race the manager has more race days invested, which makes a crash and/or injury have way more impact than in a classic which only costs 2 RD. A big expensive leader crashing in a GT for example can ruin someone's entire season.
We could also let the crash percentage scale with the RD of a race.
Imagine we'd make it 80 - (5*RD) for example. That'd give you:
| 2 | 70% | | 3 | 65% | | 4 | 60% | | 5 | 55% | | 6 | 50% | | 7 | 45% | | 8 | 40% | | 9 | 35% | | 10 | 30% | | 11 | 25% | | 12 | 20% | | 13 | 15% | | 14 | 10% | | 15 | 5% | | 16+ | 0% |
I would say still 5% for 16+ but aside from that I definitely agree with this.
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 21-11-2015 15:06
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Whilst I'm not voting on this as I won't be taking part, the thought process of a stage race holding more significance over a classic is faulty. Good Energy's entire seasons were built around the classics. Having an increased chance of ruining our season compared to those teams focusing on stage races is unfair.
Keep the percentages the same for one day or stage races. If I recall in real life, the crashes at the start of Grand Tours far outnumber the crashes in non-cobbled single day races. And the game programming will have that altered for anyway (as in cobble race = more crashes).
[url=cleavercycling.co.uk]  [/url] |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 21-11-2015 15:09
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Don't classics have a higher crash chance already? I see no need to increase it even further.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
