I'm sure Avin will be happy to hear that there's not a single difference between 85 and 86/87. All the stuff below confirms trek's tests. Here the test DBs I've used.
First test: any difference between 85 and 87?
I gave to every rider in the DB the exact same stats, the only difference would be the Mountain stat. All the 22 teams in the DB had the exact same 11 riders, with mountain stats going from 77 to 87:
I then simulated a Tour de France (2015 variant), here's the results (random day form was off, obviously):
The GT was won by a 85 mountain rider, as you can see. All the 87 mo and 86 mo riders acted as if they had an 85 stat.
Second test: any difference between 85 and 89?
To be sure about it, I tried adding 88 and 89 mo riders to the DB with 86/87 riders in it. Simulated a Tour de France, same variant, with random form off, and there's the results:
Still no difference at all. The GC is won by an 87 mo rider this time around. Each of the 22 89 mo riders came out of the top 15, while there was an 88 mo rider in the lower half of the top 10.
Third test: any difference between 85 and 99?
Last but not least, I tried running a similar test to the one I ran with PCM 14. I finally added 22 riders with 99 mo to the db, simulated a TDF, 2015 variant, with random form off, and it gave me these results:
No difference at all. Conclusion: Cyanide fixed the weird development in PCM 15.
Btw, before you think there might be a difference between Simulating and 3D racing, there's not. Proof:
I 3D raced the Alpe d'Huez stage of the 2015 variant with the 79-89 db. 86 mo rider won, no riders with 88 or 89 in the top 20.
+2 is not going to happen. +1 in more than one month is not going to happen. For a season after 2016, that can maybe be discussed, but this thread is not about then, so bringing them up is unhelpful.
Form not affecting all stats is certainly an option that can be considered.
Avin, besides the fact that you are saying no because of +2 option, which would not be an option, the 2015 salary of Pluchkin is imaterial. If form is introduced, and you are feel Pluchkin is now worth less, then that is a decision for you to make in renewals.
Reducing all stats by 1 in order for Form to work at the top level is not a problem. It would require mental adjustment having become so used to the current levels, but would change nothing regarding the relative strength of all riders. Obviously everything would be shifted down, including training costs and race eligibility levels.
As it stands there are more No votes than Yes votes, but where are all the posts from the people voting no to explain why?
I like this idea a lot. This would add a whole additional layer of strategy. I see just a couple of issues that need to be worked out.
1. having (-1) in the moths before and after the (+1) month would eliminate the ability to use (+1) in the first and last months of the season.
2. I also think some limit on the number or % of a team's riders who could be "On Form" at one time needs to be considered. Without a limit the Grand Tours would be filled with all 8 riders at (+1). Not at all realistic. Maybe a limit of 5 riders boosted per month would be more realistic.
Finally in many major sports league new radical ideas are often tested in the lower level leagues before being implemented at the highest level. Maybe in 2016 will have the PCT & CT test this new option.
Very happy to see the MG looking to implement new ideas.
========================================= Team Manager of AMEX - Navigon
Editor of the Cobbler
I think +1 form in CT could add something to the races. Add a bit more predictability and the planning towards your goals would be really interesting. As some have highlighted already, it would be similar to peaking for races IRL
But isn't Matt's post basically say it's not possible?
When 85 riders never get the advantage?
Yes, but all of that discussion is really going off on a tangent from the main point of this thread, when we can just apply a permanent -1 shift to all stats for all riders.
Ah okay. Still not the biggest fan of permanent decrease other than age reasons. Can't really say why. Possible due to lacking the knowledge of riders a bit then.
Also I would hate for example to develop a talent 3 seasons and then he loses that quickly again when not spending big money.
Another thing could be that a rider is not losing -1 every year but for example two three times in his career. Like with 23, 26, 29 years. This way you would not have the whole team go down. Bit it would neither help with the form issue and also leads to new problems when 29+ riders wouldn't lose it until age.
In my opinion it's the complexity of the game that makes it absolutely outstanding, and given how this is described from those (SN) who will need to do the behind the scenes work, not demanding a lot of extra work, I only see good things from such an idea.
It adds another managerial challenge, and in the same time it doesn't look like an addition that will confuse, as I can't imagine anyone struggle to understand the concept and find out when they want their leaders, domestiques and protected riders to peak.
SportingNonsense wrote:
+2 is not going to happen. +1 in more than one month is not going to happen. For a season after 2016, that can maybe be discussed, but this thread is not about then, so bringing them up is unhelpful.
Form not affecting all stats is certainly an option that can be considered.
Avin, besides the fact that you are saying no because of +2 option, which would not be an option, the 2015 salary of Pluchkin is imaterial. If form is introduced, and you are feel Pluchkin is now worth less, then that is a decision for you to make in renewals.
Reducing all stats by 1 in order for Form to work at the top level is not a problem. It would require mental adjustment having become so used to the current levels, but would change nothing regarding the relative strength of all riders. Obviously everything would be shifted down, including training costs and race eligibility levels.
As it stands there are more No votes than Yes votes, but where are all the posts from the people voting no to explain why?
I voted "No", because 85 stat riders would receive only 90% effect, and still receive 100% punishment. But if it is possible to lower all stats by one and make 84 the highest stat you could train while all training costs are adjusted to that, then my vote should in reality be "Yes".
So looking at your post here, I'm leaning towards a yes indeed. I like to play with more strategic aspects, and I don't think this is necessarily that difficult to play with. Of course I would need to know exactly how it is planned out to see whether or not I would want to use it - Or for which riders. Having a rider such as Spilak I am really unsure it would be wise to use it, but that is the part of this I really like.
roturn wrote:
Ah okay. Still not the biggest fan of permanent decrease other than age reasons. Can't really say why. Possible due to lacking the knowledge of riders a bit then.
Also I would hate for example to develop a talent 3 seasons and then he loses that quickly again when not spending big money.
Another thing could be that a rider is not losing -1 every year but for example two three times in his career. Like with 23, 26, 29 years. This way you would not have the whole team go down. Bit it would neither help with the form issue and also leads to new problems when 29+ riders wouldn't lose it until age.
It's not losing 1 stat EACH season, but only once. And then make 84 the new highest training level.
So all riders are still the same level compared to eachother, but you can now train to 84 at max, hence giving the current 85 level (new level 84) riders the same benefit from +1 throughout the season.
roturn wrote:
Still not the biggest fan of permanent decrease other than age reasons. Can't really say why. Possible due to lacking the knowledge of riders a bit then.
Also I would hate for example to develop a talent 3 seasons and then he loses that quickly again when not spending big money.
It would be only one-time mass permanent decrease only because of these rider forms. The new maximum stat would be 84 then. I guess it would be no problem to then change needed values for OVL, wages, race days or training costs and so on to comply with these changes. I absolutely don't see any way how it would hurt your talent.
And well so what about a system where if you give a rider a form month for example in May, then that rider is +1 in May, and would have to be +-0 in April and June, but -1 in all other months in the year. Still some calendar tweaking would be needed, but if we spread out races of a similar type during all 10 months of the season, especially for cobbles or hills, things are suddenly getting interesting.
I don't like the idea that there should be limits with riders in a form from a team for one month. In my opinion it should be totally up to the manager how to handle this thing and if somebody really wants the best possible team for a GT, then I don't see any problem why that team should not be possibly stronger. Similarly the form in first/last month of the season, IMO it should be possible, but it may not be worth it as you would lose one +-0 month. And I have to say I don't like limits around RDs as well, I think it would get thing a little bit more complicated than needed. If the real need is to keep this simple, then I am really unsure how this RD thing could be handled by keeping it simple at the same time.
Some examples:
- I want Bewley to be in form for Ronde, and that race is in March. He gets +1 in that month and for Lisbon. If we move Roubaix and East Midlands to April, he then gets 0 for these races. He gets 0 for February too and so he would get it for OHV and San Remo. He would have to race with -1 in Qatar, Appia Antica, TdF, Moscow or Praha.
- I want Velits to be in form for Giro, he then gets +1 for May. If we move TdF to August, he then has to be in -1 there, similarly in September for Colombia/Liechtenstein. I would likely have to go for Dauphine or California instead of Colombia/Liechtenstein combo and so he would get at least 0 there.
- I want Sagan to be in form for Lombardia. He then gets a form month for Lombardia, Tasmania and Praha and 0 month for ToNE. Suffers in Deutschland, a GT, Ardennes, Pais Vasco, San Remo or Badaling.
Well, I think +/- months would cover itself pretty nicely.
Correct me if i am wrong, but it seems that both SN and Roman, you are already decided that this is fantastic improvement and you are ready to implement it, so why even ask? If those voting NO should say why, shouldnt it be same for those also voting YES?
I would like to know, if the poll will be a decider, or it is just there to gain a knowledge about general opinion and some YES votes wil be enough to pull it through.
I know, bit of a douchebag question, but we are all adults and can be honest.
I have voted no mostly on gut instinct.
I see the logic behind it and it would perhaps make a nice addition, but I feel this would only increase difficulty on logistics (correct me if I'm wrong). And simply that I'm not sure a change like this is necessary.
Of course, that's just my opinion, a feeling, no facts or real reasoning behind it.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Correct me if i am wrong, but it seems that both SN and Roman, you are already decided that this is fantastic improvement and you are ready to implement it, so why even ask? If those voting NO should say why, shouldnt it be same for those also voting YES?
I would like to know, if the poll will be a decider, or it is just there to gain a knowledge about general opinion and some YES votes wil be enough to pull it through.
I know, bit of a douchebag question, but we are all adults and can be honest.
The difference for me is, that people say yes feels it is a good idea. The idea is presented, so if you like the idea what is more to say?
If you don't like it, it is nice to hear what aspects of it that's bad. Because you can say no, and still feel that parts of the idea could work. But that is not reflected by just saying "no".
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Btw does it mean -1 decrease for all riders in DB in all stats, or i am missing something?
All riders in the DB will get -1 in ALL stats. But only this one time. So the difference between riders will still be the same. Well not entirely. Those having 55 in a stat will be hit a bit less, but yeah...
Ian Butler wrote:
I feel this would only increase difficulty on logistics (correct me if I'm wrong).
It would be quite easy to change needed columns in DYN_cyclist table via formula. 10 extra DBs would have to be used and I am fully prepared to prepare these needed DYN_cyclist tables for these DBs. For managers it would only be needed to fill in extra few things in their race planner.
And Avin, no. As you can see here, I am suggesting quite a lot of things SN disagrees with or only partially agree. It is the same with this thing. The thing is, if we should make this a go, it firstly needs to be discussed. And if you only tick no option in the poll, then it absolutely does not help the discussion at all. I believe the poll is not the absolute decisive factor for this matter, I think it is the discussion and then SN's veto opinion if it would really help the game.
SotD wrote:
I voted "No", because 85 stat riders would receive only 90% effect, and still receive 100% punishment. But if it is possible to lower all stats by one and make 84 the highest stat you could train while all training costs are adjusted to that, then my vote should in reality be "Yes".
Well there's the problem then. The poll was intended to be about the concept, but you voted no because of a specific. That's why I'm keen to hear why people are voting no - to see how much relevance I should place on the results of the vote.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
If those voting NO should say why, shouldnt it be same for those also voting YES?
Well, from the first post of the thread
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?
It's an extra tactic, to add to the race planning process, and I think that is a good thing to have. There's a potential reward, but also a potential penalty - it's up to the manager to weigh up that decision, and decide whether to use or not - and if using it, then how.
Form is a very real factor in cycling, and I see a +1/-1 method as a way to model that in such a way that it does not have too extreme an impact to detrement the actual skills of a rider, and the benefit that training can bring. Hence, why I am very wary of any suggestions that would increase either amount of top form races available to a rider, or the size of the form increase.
I don't think it's a complicated idea that you have a choice to make a rider better for some races, but as a consequence, you have to make him worse in other races. Or a choice to do neither.
It's something I've thought about including at various points in the past, but never found a logistical way to implement it. Through the use of months, this is a way that it can be implemented logistically without any issue for me.
There have been concerns about the balancing of +1 or -1, but if a level is specified in terms of how many -1 RDs are required in order to have X amount of +1 RDs, then I believe that should cover that, and would be easy for me to format in the race planner file. Maybe that would mean it is not possible for a Top GC rider to use it on a GT without hindering the rest of their season. Maybe if we were to say you must have at least 1.5 times the amount of -1 RDs as +1 RDs, then the top GC riders wouldn't be able to use form with a GT at all.
So I see it as a good thing to add to the game. The question is, is there a strong reason I am missing why it would not be a good idea.
And even if those who think no can't convince me that this should not be implemented in some way, then the points they make can certainly influence the format which is decided upon. For example, from discussions on this thread, I no longer think that the best way would be to directly attach the -1 months relating to the position of the +1 month.
Edited by SportingNonsense on 22-11-2015 13:14
