Fair enough, i was trolling a bit, but somehow got the impression that we are already on the way to implement it and only are discussing minor things.
I have two main issues with it, both are selfish.
a) I now have an 85 climber, which means he is the best you can get and someone can ony equal his mountain ability, not be better. If he should be lowered to 84 and i would like two GTs plan again, i will not use the new form idea, because i dont wanna risk having him 83 in his off month (one of the two GTs) and 85 in other. I would rather go 84 in both.
But someone will decide that his 84 climber, lets say Spilak, will tackle the Tour with bonus, thus 85 and will have his off month in some less important race or classic. And what happened? Pluchkin is suddenly not equally best climber, someone is better even when i spent more than 1.5 million on wages for climber who will be always at least equally best.
So yeah, i am basically saying that with implementation of this rule, you are ruining my long term plan and if i knew that, i would make different moves.
b) Time issues for me as the manager. I know that race plannig is maybe for someone an easy thing and something that he thinks about for months. But i am busy person and race planning combined with other off season things is already very time consuming for me. I had struggles to send everything in time last year and i expect even bigger struggles this year, so every other thing that i should think about and spend my time on is increasing the chance of vuluntary disbandment of Metinvest. Of course i could ignore that and not use the new system, but i need to think about that as that could mean disadvantage for my team.
But someone will decide that his 84 climber, lets say Spilak, will tackle the Tour with bonus, thus 85 and will have his off month in some less important race or classic. And what happened? Pluchkin is suddenly not equally best climber, someone is better even when i spent more than 1.5 million on wages for climber who will be always at least equally best.
What TMM suggested would prevent this problem, as for every +1 raceday you would have to have at least one -1 raceday.
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.
Thanks for the reply, but does not that mean i was basically right and we will have it implemented in some way, regardless the poll?
Other thing is that we already have form in the game, daily form, which varies from -5 to +5 and is absolute game changer in some races. Now we are thinking about second system, this time with a chance to actually influence it, but in much lesser scale of 1 point, so that brings me to question, if it has any deep sense at all? Sorry, but i see it as one more thing to bother about without actually bringing anything with real impact on the game. But that is hard to tell without long term testing, i dont know how should i decide if use it or not for my team. I would know only after season maybe and that is a bit too late.
I like this as an idea, but I'm not convinced it would work as intended, for a variety of reasons:
- Firstly, the discrepancy between riders' race days in different months. Although there are moves to try and find a solution, it'll be tricky to find something that is fair and balanced. Ideally it would be that for every +1 RD, you get a -1 RD, but that isn't really possible due to the complexity that involves - but is a better solution than going month by month. While doing it month by month works, what's to stop managers - especially in the PCT and CT where they can choose races - simply giving their rider say 20 RDs in one month, and then 2 RDs in every other month? How do you then make that fair, without making their rider out of form for 9 months. If say Prio sent Machado to the ToA on a +1 month, then they would never have enough -1 RDs to actually make that balanced.
- Another issue is how we deal with this in relation to the Worlds and Nationals. Obviously we don't know what the routes will be in advance, and therefore whether it is worth upgrading our riders for September or October. This could be dealt with my removing the +1 for those races, but I know that I would likely take a +1 with Gautier in October due to the number of HC and C1 hilly races, plus the fact he would then be guaranteed favourite for a hilly French NC - so I'd be a bit miffed if he didn't get the full benefit in the NC, but then from the other side I'd be annoyed if I was say SotD who has no incentive to give Koretzky +1 that month, so doesn't and as a result is far less competitive in the NC.
- This will take a lot of time for managers, and slow down the planning process. Now that's not an issue for me personally - it adds a nice tactical dimension so it's worth making time to plan for - but I know some of the managers don't have that level of spare time. While obviously it being optional changes that a little, I don't think it's fair that others should benefit in a way from simply having more spare time - even as someone who would stand to benefit.
- We've seen how daily form likes to mess things up in TTs already - by adding in another variable to the game, we could end up with even more bizarre and random results. Now of course some randomness and luck is good, but part of me fears that this would make luck even more of a factor than it currently is - what happens if you crash out during your +1 race/month for example? While it could be argued you'd be making your own luck through managerial skill, it's still ultimately dependent a lot on PCM being benevolent.
In conclusion then, I like the concept, but I'm not convinced it would be beneficial to the game overall - and that's why I'm against it. If it is implemented I'm sure SN will find a way to make it work as well and as fairly as possible and I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but the issues above are just what I can see - I may be completely wrong
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Thanks for the reply, but does not that mean i was basically right and we will have it implemented in some way, regardless the poll?
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Thanks for the reply, but does not that mean i was basically right and we will have it implemented in some way, regardless the poll?
Other thing is that we already have form in the game, daily form, which varies from -5 to +5 and is absolute game changer in some races. Now we are thinking about second system, this time with a chance to actually influence it, but in much lesser scale of 1 point, so that brings me to question, if it has any deep sense at all? Sorry, but i see it as one more thing to bother about without actually bringing anything with real impact on the game. But that is hard to tell without long term testing, i dont know how should i decide if use it or not for my team. I would know only after season maybe and that is a bit too late.
I can easily understand your points, but I think you are speaking yourself out of your own arguments.
You would have chosen not to buy Pluchkin, yet he is a long term plan. This idea fucks up the long term plan, yet you think it won't change much.
As I see it Pluchkin can win 2 Grand Tours by changing nothing, or he could win 1 or none. Just like he could have this season, but managed to do differently - Also because other managers didn't go for those races.
If Spilak had been in, if Andy Schleck had been in - If Taaramae is trained next season. There are so many if's, and no matter what you can't just expect to win the races. This actually makes it possible for you to have an even bigger chance to win the goal you have - But maybe not achieve two extreme goals.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Thanks for the reply, but does not that mean i was basically right and we will have it implemented in some way, regardless the poll?
Other thing is that we already have form in the game, daily form, which varies from -5 to +5 and is absolute game changer in some races. Now we are thinking about second system, this time with a chance to actually influence it, but in much lesser scale of 1 point, so that brings me to question, if it has any deep sense at all? Sorry, but i see it as one more thing to bother about without actually bringing anything with real impact on the game. But that is hard to tell without long term testing, i dont know how should i decide if use it or not for my team. I would know only after season maybe and that is a bit too late.
I can easily understand your points, but I think you are speaking yourself out of your own arguments.
You would have chosen not to buy Pluchkin, yet he is a long term plan. This idea fucks up the long term plan, yet you think it won't change much.
As I see it Pluchkin can win 2 Grand Tours by changing nothing, or he could win 1 or none. Just like he could have this season, but managed to do differently - Also because other managers didn't go for those races.
If Spilak had been in, if Andy Schleck had been in - If Taaramae is trained next season. There are so many if's, and no matter what you can't just expect to win the races. This actually makes it possible for you to have an even bigger chance to win the goal you have - But maybe not achieve two extreme goals.
Well, i thought about that when writing it, that i am actually raising some points against my former point, but that is,for me, point of writing things down and thinking about them during that. I dont have problem with argumenting myself out
But i was not saying it is not worth much for sure, i said i will know just after the season, which is not ideal. And maybe i am just way off.
And yeah, there are many "ifs", much more than i would like already, so i dont wanna one more "if" introduced.
Btw. i am planning training that will move Pluchkin another step closer to being unbeatable in GTs bar crashes, but that will prove hard when we will frequently introduce new rules that conflict with long term plans.
Pluchkin being a long term plan was not ment like i planned to buy him for years, but that once i decided for that, he is centre of Metivest universe for the future years until decline, he costs me more than half of teams wage budget you know. So it should not be surprising that i am against rule that can make him the guy with not at least equally best climbing stat in some races.
@Avin
In the nba or formula 1 there are regular rule changes every few years in case of dominant guys/teams.
See this as an attempt to avoid a Bewley massacre again.
So this also means Pluchkin domination.
Anyway all those top riders at the moment should still be too damn good to really score much less. But it allows a bit more planning and manager impact and this way some interesting moves by some managers to surprise here and there.
In the end Pluchkin with -1 is still a beast.
And if such change means planning would be given another 7 days, then this should help you as well I guess.
I am far from sure this can do something about Bewley, problem with him is that he should have higer overall thanks to dominating several terrains, this cant stop him, he is too good in terms of stats and has great gap to others. While stage racers are much more closer to each other. Roman will just give him +1 for races where he had or can have biggest problems and -1 in races where he will dominate anyway even with that -1.
He should be even better with this system,when even possible -3 day is not stopping him.
Pluchkin is not dominant among other stage racers in terms of stats, i just very closely monitored who is saying what here on the forum and thus avoided Spilak and Schleck on purpose.
New rules require all team to rethink their planning. Not just the few teams to have an 85 rated rider.
A 1 time downgrade of the whole db is fine, as long as it set's up ability to implement a new strategy. Keep in mind along with a -1 across the db you will also have to change the cost of training.
How this is implemented will be the difficult part. High level stage racers can derive the "On Form" benefit for 20+ race days while high level classic riders will get the "On-Form" benefit for 5 maybe 6 race days based on race calendar that is an impact that will be very difficult to balance.
Take that one step further to their "Off Form" Months I stage race may miss another 20 but very likely he would have many less race days. A Classics rider would be more likely to have more "Off Form" race days. Again a benefit to a Stage racer and a deficit to a Classics rider.
Another caution is when we possible combine the Rider Form rule change with the Crash probability implementation. Now if you place a star rider "On Form" and he crashes you have 100% destroyed your season.
I like the concept very much, but please implement this slowly in a controlled fashion. Maybe try the "On-Form" in 1 division and the Crash % in another division.
========================================= Team Manager of AMEX - Navigon
Editor of the Cobbler
roturn wrote:
He then though could struggle to be very dominant in gt stages or Sprint classics when having form in cobbles.
Well, Roman would be mad to give him +1 form for cobbles. With Burghardt and Cancellara declining, he would be still dominant cobbler even with -1, given his far superior secondary stats. And then he can use +1 for other race days to dominate them too.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:he costs me more than half of teams wage budget you know. So it should not be surprising that i am against rule that can make him the guy with not at least equally best climbing stat in some races.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Pluchkin is not dominant among other stage racers in terms of stats, i just very closely monitored who is saying what here on the forum and thus avoided Spilak and Schleck on purpose.
Well, to be honest I said A and did B - And I did that on purpose, just to see if people would plan differently if they knew the big guns would be somewhere specific. It seemed like most people didn't care.
This time I have said that Spilak and my best possible helpers will all be present at the Tour de France - but will they really?
roturn wrote:
He then though could struggle to be very dominant in gt stages or Sprint classics when having form in cobbles.
Well, Roman would be mad to give him +1 form for cobbles. With Burghardt and Cancellara declining, he would be still dominant cobbler even with -1, given his far superior secondary stats. And then he can use +1 for other race days to dominate them too.
But some of the good cobblers are just maxing out now - and they are not that strong elsewhere, so they are likely to be +1 in the cobbled season.
So going from this season:
Burghardt 84
Bewley 83
Summerhull 82 (PCT)
Blythe 82
Cancellara 82
Vanspeybrouck 82 (PCT)
This is what it would like like next season:
Burghardt 83
Bewley 83
Blythe 83
Vanspeybrouck 83
Kamyshev 83
Senechal 83
Summerhill 83 (PCT)
Teunissen 82
And a whole bunch of 81 cobblers.
So where he had 3 competitors last season, he is likely to have 6 next season - and that is before people start training.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Roman will just give him +1 for races where he had or can have biggest problems and -1 in races where he will dominate anyway even with that -1.
He should be even better with this system,when even possible -3 day is not stopping him.
Pluchkin is not dominant among other stage racers in terms of stats, i just very closely monitored who is saying what here on the forum and thus avoided Spilak and Schleck on purpose.
I think I probably would not give any +1 races to Bewley at all if we go for a system where he has to have same number of -1 race days in other months. Better to have him really good everywhere and not a system where he is superb somewhere and not good in some races. The bigger use would be for his rivals that could be specifically better for example in Roubaix and so have a way better chance to beat him in that month. Bewley even with the rise and potential training of his rival will still likely going to be a big favourite for these races for the years coming no matter what. Same could be with Pluchkin - you really want to win a GT with him, fine, you can give him a form month for that GT. But it is not like he would not have any chance with 84, his chances would be still indeed high even against other 84 riders that would go for a form month. And you could may have an advatage in other races against these riders. Still form months may only give better chance for GTs to riders like Amador or Alarcon, it is not like Velits will have any real chance with any new system.
I think the idea of having the need to use RDs for a rider if that rider is in -1 form month is good, but how I wrote earlier, I am not sure, if it would not make the rules of this too hard to understand, if formula in excel could handle it not to bring in any mistakes, and if it really would not bring in some problems we may not have a chance to see before actual racing. I think my concept of -1 form all year long with the exception of one 0 ; +1 ; 0 rise is good and could be usable. This would mean all riders would have to race some races in -1 months as the only real big problem I see with the greatest GT riders that don't have the needed amount of race days during another months of the year if they race 2 GTs per year to use then these -1 months on their RDs. So ok, add in a rule that you have to use the same number of RDs as in your form month in -1 months and that could be it.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:he costs me more than half of teams wage budget you know. So it should not be surprising that i am against rule that can make him the guy with not at least equally best climbing stat in some races.
No he doesn't
1,5mio isn't more than half of 3,5mio
I ment "third" instead of half, sorry.
Spoiler
About that GT planning, i dont remember exact source, but i remeber on 100% that i was sure both Schleck ans Spilak wont do TdF and thus send Pluchkin there and set a goal Maybe i just though you are bluffing for sure, as i think now about your Spilak plan for 2016.
We also had some bluffing PMs going with Alak, so Madrazo was biggest question mark for me.
As i dont enjoy much being gangbanged and nobody else does not seem to be bothered so much as i am with new system, i will take a break and suck it up when it is introduced, like i always do with decisions i cant really influence. Thanks for some nice discussion anyways.
And thanks for a good laugh with listing opponents for Bewley, they cant touch him though. (and some of these figures are wrong).
I wouldn't even put the focus too much on top riders as I feel such change is being overestimated here. Also who knows how many to riders even go the new form way in the end.
What I like about such system is another thing. 2nd tier riders, who mainly are support riders in most races could work well with such system.
For example Krieger is too weak for PT as leader. But when I want to have him lead in one GT, then I could give him +1 there to see him a bit better. Then he would have lots of -1 days of course where he will lose value and won't be able to support as good as usually. In my team possibly a bad example. But imagine another team with a top sprinter who would lose an important leadout rider this way when he has -1 in many races making the whole train suffer.
There are just so many different tactics possible so that many new things could see differences.
That all said, strong riders will still be strong no matter what and individual rankings should not be far off from other years. But it's small impacts you can make then.
