|
2016 Planning: Rider Form
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 22:04
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 21-11-2015 22:43
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
This was an idea suggested by Roman last year, and that I've discussed with him during this season too.
The basic idea is this: All riders get a month where all of their stats are +1. But to counteract this, they get 2 months where all of their stats are -1. Our initial thoughts would be that this is the months before and after the +1 month. (With a restriction that you can't make January or October a +1 month). Alternatively, it could be that the -1 months have to be months in which the rider is definitely taking part in races.
It would be quite easy to incorporate into the race planner file a Monthly column for you to put a '1' in for your rider's +1 month, and a '-1' for the other two, and to then use Excel formulas to help create separate monthly databases. So from an administrative side, it's not a problem.
And I think from a strategy point of view, this offers a really interesting new element. Do you go for top form in an obvious month, or look for an advantage elsewhere in the season, or not bother with using a form month at all?
The idea of form is something that could be expanded and made more complicated in many different ways, but it is important to be clear that if introduced, the first season would use a fairly basic format such as above - just to see if it works or not.
There's 2 points of discussion, initially:
1. Do you think that the concept itself is a good idea, or would you prefer all stats to be constant throughout the season? (See the thread vote. If no then I would be interested to hear a reason why)
2. If yes, then do you agree with the implementation idea listed above, or would you suggest a different format?
Edited by SportingNonsense on 21-11-2015 23:15
|
| |
|
|
| sgdanny |
Posted on 21-11-2015 22:45
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3591
Joined: 18-03-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
I have mixed feelings about this
Firstly because it would make things more complicated and MG is already a very complicated game. I say I prefer the stats constant throughout the whole season.
EDIT : But I would use it, if it became a thing 
Edited by sgdanny on 21-11-2015 23:01
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 21-11-2015 22:54
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I feel like it'd be very easy to game this system.
Take for instance Rein Taaramae. I'd boost him in July for the Tour.
I'd then just not enter him in June or August. Yes he'd miss the Dauphine, but there's plenty of other stage races, and I've basically got a free +1 for no harm.
Ditto for Bakelants in the Ardennes triple header
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:06
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, hence:
Alternatively, it could be that the -1 months have to be months in which the rider is definitely taking part in races.
And yes, it may well be that there is an obvious way to play the system for particular rider types. But if 9 of the Top 10 puncheurs go + 1 for the Ardennes, then the 10th could get a great advantage in Vuelta al Pais Vasco by going +1 for that month instead. That's where the Game Theory kicks in, and makes for such an interesting tactical decision.
|
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:09
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Alternatively, it could be that the -1 months have to be months in which the rider is definitely taking part in races.
The problem with this could be that riders could peak for example the three Ardennes classics, and then in a month that they wouldn't otherwise score well in race a classic and put their -1 for that, meaning they have a bigger advantage than disadvantage.
Maybe there should be a minimum racedays for the -1 month and a max racedays for the +1 month? |
| |
|
|
| sgdanny |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:16
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3591
Joined: 18-03-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
FroomeDog99 wrote:
Alternatively, it could be that the -1 months have to be months in which the rider is definitely taking part in races.
Maybe there should be a minimum racedays for the -1 month and a max racedays for the +1 month?
I just said this in the Skype Chat.
It could be a percentage of max RD's.
f.e A rider with 40 RD's have to use 20% of his race days in the two -2 months. So basically that would be 8/40 RD
Then the percentage rises with the more RD's a rider have
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:19
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
It sounds interesting, would it be compulsory or optional? I imagine in the lower divisions you would get the positive month spread out a lot more than in the top division because teams would likely use it to make sure they reached their goals.
Also at what point would it be announced which riders are on form or out of form for that month? at the start of the season? when we reach that month? in the individual race threads? or would it be left up to the managers to reveal that?
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:19
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I like this idea. I think it enriches the game in a simple way without having too much impact.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:24
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
But a bigger advantage/disadvantage compared to what? The same system would be available to all riders.
sammyt93 wrote:
It sounds interesting, would it be compulsory or optional? I imagine in the lower divisions you would get the positive month spread out a lot more than in the top division because teams would likely use it to make sure they reached their goals.
Well if you were to take a +1 month then you would need to take the -1 months. But you can also just take all months as '0', with no form changes.
The revealing of rider's form months would be something to discuss if the idea goes ahead.
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:26
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
I'm not too sure about this idea. I have nothing against if other people want to use it on their riders but I personally would prefer it the stats of my riders stayed constant throughout the season.
Maybe you could make it an optional thing? In which case those that use it will have riders who may be better during one part of the season than those who don't but then in other parts they will be worse off than those who kept their stats constant.
|
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:33
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
SportingNonsense wrote:
But a bigger advantage/disadvantage compared to what? The same system would be available to all riders.
Well if there's a problem with the system that everyone can exploit, I still view it as a negative.
For example, for a GC rider you could use the +1 month on a whole GT for example or a month with several stage races and then get rid of the -1 months on one irrelevant classic in a month where you don't want to ride any stage races.
This would mean some riders could use up 50% of their racedays with higher stats while having 10% or less with lower stats.
I'd rather see a more equal proportion of +1 days and -1 days I guess to make it more of a choice and gamble whether to use the form system or keep it constant. |
| |
|
|
| sgdanny |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:40
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3591
Joined: 18-03-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
LLS it is optional
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:51
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I think it would need to be balanced so that for every RD a rider +1's they must have at least 1 RD that is -1.
You still pick a month for the +1 and the pick -1 months until the RD's at least balance out, you can only pick whole months so the chances are you have more -1 days than +1 days.
I imagine that can be forumla'd, or at least it can be very easily checked manually if not.
For a new idea i think it's worth trying out. Keep it simple for a season and see how it works. I think it is a good idea, but it will obviously need serious balance checking.
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 21-11-2015 23:54
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
I have a slight tendency against this idea but i cant come up with any arguments that speak against it.
It might be a good idea though to stop those riders that seem to win everything on their terrain and gives a bit more rotation in the favourites. It would certainly strengthen teams that have a good depth of top riders instead of only a few stars.
Should it be implemented though then i would vote for simple and not too overpowered (as in no "+2" for the first season to test it) rules for the racedays like " he has to race in -1 months " and not something with percentage of RDs or so.
A few questions that come to my mind that could be important for this rule:
1) What happens with 85 riders? Will they go to 86? Does this even work in 2015? (The tests for this were with PCM 2014, weren't they?)
2) How does the rule affect riders who only race in 2 different months? Can they use it, too? (a.k.a. The Pluchkin rule)
3) Which stats will be deciding for HC eligibility (for PT teams) and C2 eligibility (for PCT teams)? The "normal stats"? The "monthly stats"? Sth else?
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 22-11-2015 00:02
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
FroomeDog99 wrote:
SportingNonsense wrote:
But a bigger advantage/disadvantage compared to what? The same system would be available to all riders.
Well if there's a problem with the system that everyone can exploit, I still view it as a negative.
For example, for a GC rider you could use the +1 month on a whole GT for example or a month with several stage races and then get rid of the -1 months on one irrelevant classic in a month where you don't want to ride any stage races.
This would mean some riders could use up 50% of their racedays with higher stats while having 10% or less with lower stats.
I'd rather see a more equal proportion of +1 days and -1 days I guess to make it more of a choice and gamble whether to use the form system or keep it constant.
What FroomeDog is saying here does make pretty good sense. A leader in say mountainous stage races will presumably use his form in a month where he has a lot of mountainous stage races so he will gain somewhat of an advantage here. Whereas he will use his out of form month in a month where he plays less of a role in races where he won't lead and so effectively becomes a rider who wasn't going to do a hell of a lot to a rider who will be doing even less than that.
But to counter this it does mean that the PPRD of top riders, assuming form and out of form months are used, will be an interesting tactical issue for managers of said riders. He may have an advantage over riders who are 'normal' in the month where he is +1 but in the month where he is -1 his race days will be less effeectively used.
Really, I'd say it makes little difference to those who choose not to use it at all and it will be an interesting tactical challenge for those that do. So, at least with the planned system for the first season, it will spice up the planning a bit more.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 22-11-2015 00:10
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
I think it would need to be balanced so that for every RD a rider +1's they must have at least 1 RD that is -1.
You still pick a month for the +1 and the pick -1 months until the RD's at least balance out, you can only pick whole months so the chances are you have more -1 days than +1 days.
I imagine that can be forumla'd, or at least it can be very easily checked manually if not.
For a new idea i think it's worth trying out. Keep it simple for a season and see how it works. I think it is a good idea, but it will obviously need serious balance checking.
Ok, so there actually seems to be a simple solution that would satisfy what seems to be the main concern. Nice idea TMM.
So if you have a month at +1, then you must have enough months at -1 such that you have at least as many -1 RDs as +1 RDs.
This is something that could be formatted into the files easily enough.
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
What FroomeDog is saying here does make pretty good sense. A leader in say mountainous stage races will presumably use his form in a month where he has a lot of mountainous stage races so he will gain somewhat of an advantage here. Whereas he will use his out of form month in a month where he plays less of a role in races where he won't lead and so effectively becomes a rider who wasn't going to do a hell of a lot to a rider who will be doing even less than that.
Well for most top riders, they are leading their team in every single race. They don't have enough race days to enter races where they are less useful, besides maybe a GC rider taking part in a hill classic because they can't fit any more stage races into their schedule.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 22-11-2015 00:29
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
knockout wrote:
1) What happens with 85 riders? Will they go to 86? Does this even work in 2015? (The tests for this were with PCM 2014, weren't they?)
2) How does the rule affect riders who only race in 2 different months? Can they use it, too? (a.k.a. The Pluchkin rule)
3) Which stats will be deciding for HC eligibility (for PT teams) and C2 eligibility (for PCT teams)? The "normal stats"? The "monthly stats"? Sth else?
1. Well PCM2014 showed the scale went up to 100. Would be great if somebody wants to test that in PCM2015. Regardless, they still get the advantage of all other stats going up 1.
2. Probably addressed above. If Pluchkin was only doing Giro and Tour, and wanted to go +1 for the Tour, he would have to go -1 for the Giro.
3. My preference would be to use normal stats for this.
|
| |
|
|
| Kentaurus |
Posted on 22-11-2015 01:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3999
Joined: 26-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm mostly concerned with the integration of this rule. And the difficulty it could pose. Here are my thoughts:
1: What happens in races that cross months? (IE Veulta) I like that tactically you could chose to be better in a particular part of the race, but this also puts a strain on reporters who would then have to go in and manually adjust riders stats mid race.
2: I think if incorporated you would pick one month for which to gain the bonus, but must also then select a number of months (minimum of 2) with equal or greater race days than the positive month. This would mean that if a rider races more than half their race days in one month, they cannot chose that month.
3: I do really like the concept as it means that perhaps a support rider could be boosted to become a more capable leader for a different race in which a teams main star isn't riding.
EDIT: Also this rule sucks because it could mean other teams take turns boosting their classics riders to stand a chance against Summerhill.
AZTECA - NBCSN  |
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 22-11-2015 01:09
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
There aren't any races that span two months. All start and end in the same month.
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 22-11-2015 01:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Kentaurus wrote:
Also this rule sucks because it could mean other teams take turns boosting their classics riders to stand a chance against Summerhill.
I actually think absolutely the opposite. For example Bewley was so dominant this year. But well if I would not select any + months for him, it would be likely he would not be the biggest favourite in some of races he would be participating in. And isn't that exactly what we want to see? To see same riders always predictably winning, that is not the greatest thing to see. So I think it would be more fun to see way more riders having a chance to go for a better result if they decide to do so. +1 or -1 would likely not change things too much after all, but if we give it a go and it works, we may go for options for +-2 or even 3 in the future, if we set the system right. And that would bring in way more strategic options which may bring us even more fun. But well, for first it is better to keep it simple and we will see...
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
