|
ICL16 - General | Development
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 27-11-2015 15:53
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
trekbmc wrote:
Sorry, but are the riders meant to use race days for Chronos des nations and the World TTT championships? because they aren't on my sheet, I really need to know to complete my planning. 
This was a mistake in the first version of the sheet. The actual sheet doesn't have that anymore. Quickest to update your one would be to open the updated sheet and copy the formulas out of column H in your already fillled out planning sheet. If you have troubles with that PM me.
If you have the same issue please do the same, but it should only happen to teams that are entered in more than 42 races.
@knockout: I'll make a detailed post about the focus races soon. |
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 27-11-2015 17:02
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
The Rider wrote:
I get Ollfardh's opinion ie that if Mollema outshines the likes of Froome/Contador in a stage race, comparatively, then there are grounds for him being more rewarded.
However, I feel that something like that would be very hard to add to the game/ not worth the effort. So I'd prefer to keep it the way Bikex has in mind. Focus races involving at least two different types of riders is a great move.
Though I would like to know if you get more rewarded for targeting a monument or a stage race.
Adding that mediator money to the research budget, I am good with that.
I get Ollfardh s opinion as well but I disagree with him. ICL has implemented focus races as a way to determine the future budget so basically as a sponsor goal. A sponsor is more likely to invest into a successful team than into a unsuccessful one. If it wins the tour de France than its not that important who wins it for them. Maybe the nationality of a rider plays a role due to PR reasons ( Froome / Wiggins or Aru / Landa ) but not whether it was the favourite or an underdog. And since nationality is too difficult and unfair to implement it should not matter who wins it for you a.k.a. how good your team is for the goals.
In EPIC we had an entirely different implementation of goal races. There the accomplished goals were tied to the progression of riders. In that case, it makes sense to tie the strength of your rider / team to the goals since overperforming players / riders can get a lasting push from a surprise result and / or are generally considered stronger.
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| krisa |
Posted on 27-11-2015 17:57
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3962
Joined: 12-04-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
knockout wrote:
The Rider wrote:
I get Ollfardh's opinion ie that if Mollema outshines the likes of Froome/Contador in a stage race, comparatively, then there are grounds for him being more rewarded.
However, I feel that something like that would be very hard to add to the game/ not worth the effort. So I'd prefer to keep it the way Bikex has in mind. Focus races involving at least two different types of riders is a great move.
Though I would like to know if you get more rewarded for targeting a monument or a stage race.
Adding that mediator money to the research budget, I am good with that.
I get Ollfardh s opinion as well but I disagree with him. ICL has implemented focus races as a way to determine the future budget so basically as a sponsor goal. A sponsor is more likely to invest into a successful team than into a unsuccessful one. If it wins the tour de France than its not that important who wins it for them. Maybe the nationality of a rider plays a role due to PR reasons ( Froome / Wiggins or Aru / Landa ) but not whether it was the favourite or an underdog. And since nationality is too difficult and unfair to implement it should not matter who wins it for you a.k.a. how good your team is for the goals.
In EPIC we had an entirely different implementation of goal races. There the accomplished goals were tied to the progression of riders. In that case, it makes sense to tie the strength of your rider / team to the goals since overperforming players / riders can get a lasting push from a surprise result and / or are generally considered stronger. My team is more based on teams like Bardiani, Topsport Vlaanderen and Roompot supporting one nationality |
| |
|
|
| OZrocker |
Posted on 28-11-2015 08:47
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1280
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Me too, but I do get that most of the big teams have a mix of many countries represented.
That's a real shame that teams aren't taking part in their own nations' races. My first priority in planning has always been to show up for every race important to the major sponsors (NED/JPN last year, NED/USA this year) even if it we don't really stand a chance to do well like in the Virginia Chrono Tour or Tour of Mount Fuji.
The CT.2 problem is an interesting one, since WT teams have already been capped on the amount of those they can compete in. Maybe the restrictions need to be harsher for them? Either way, if needed we can switch out of races like RideLondon or Kigali and into some CT.1 races if that helps.
It's starting to look like Rheden GP will be this season's Vuelta a Colombia with not many teams entering, but that's fine by me! 
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 28-11-2015 10:14
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Other than nationality, there's really no reason why Illes Balears should attend Vuelta a Mallorca since we hardly will score significant points there.
I fully agree with bikex and knockout on the issue with the focus races.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Scatmaster111 |
Posted on 28-11-2015 14:48
|
Domestique
Posts: 409
Joined: 07-11-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
 I only just saw the Race Planning post. Will get that done as soon as possible.
|
| |
|
|
| Silvio Herklotz |
Posted on 28-11-2015 22:33
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26-02-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
It feels good to have a sponsor understanding himself as global 
On a more serious point, I think it's up to the teams which races they choose. Reality isn't the biggest point here, so I understand why people don't choose their home races.
The CT.1 problem could be solved pretty easily:
a) Don't allow WT teams to race in CT.2 (which would be bad for my team as I have a nice number of <76 AVG guys, but from an overall view that would sound reasonable)
b) Decreasing the number of CT.1 races
Oh and I don't really care about focus races. I'm not even sure if it is good that your performance in some races will change next year's budget, because it kinda supports teams staying either strong or weak and makes the whole system less fluid. (Having good riders is already rewarded by the way renewals are done and we implemented steals to break this up).
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 01:04
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 29-11-2015 13:34
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Focus Races
Before we start, I still need you to send in 3 focus races. How you perform in these races have an influence on your budget for next season. Within these races has to be at least one stage race and one one-day race. Also these three races will have to be designed for at least two different leader types. So e.g. sending in two mountainous stage races and a mountain classic won't work. Other than that you are free to choose from every race you are participating in, no matter if WT or CT team/race. This task has only to be done for your main team, not the U23 team.
As I was asked to present clearly how the races affect the budget, here is the formula on what's added to the budget, that was before determined by your division and rankings in the past season:
For every focus race this formula determined the value added to the budget:
((points/total)/(total/#teams)-1)*(RV+1)*50
points = ranking points awarded for team in race
total = all ranking points given in race
#teams = # of teams taking part at race
RV = Race Value:
| WT | 2,5 | | CT.1 | 1,5 | | CT.2 | 1 | | GT | 3,5 | | Mon | 3,5 | | TDF | 4 |
The money added is capped by (RV+1)*50 and (RV+1)*(-25)
This might be hard to understand so I'll show you some examples in the spoiler:
Spoiler Ex 1:
Ecopetrol at TDF 2015. The team got 11,61% of all achievable points.
22 teams took part so (total/#teams) is 4,55%.
The RV of TDF is 4 so RV+1 = 5
(11,61/4,55 - 1) * 5 * 50 = 389 -> capped at 250.
Ex 2:
SAP at Tour de Romandie. The team got 1,81% of all achievable points.
23 teams took part so (total/#teams) is 4,35%.
The RV of TDF is 1 so RV+1 = 2
(1,81/4,35 - 1) * 2 * 50 ~ -59 -> capped at -50.
Ex 3:
Smartone at LBL. The team got 8,76% of all achievable points.
22 teams took part so (total/#teams) is 4,55%.
The RV of TDF is 3,5 so RV+1 = 4,5
(8,76/4,55 - 1) * 4,5 * 50 ~ 209
----
As for a deadline for this and the planning, I'd suggest Tuesday night/ wednesday morning. Please try to get it in by then. Even though I haven't received much yet, I think that's doable.
If you don't think you can make it please at least send in your startlists for January/February by then. For the rest you'll then get time until the end of the week.
Also if you think you don't think you are able to do the planning, please let me know in time so I have enough time to take care of that. |
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 29-11-2015 16:57
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
Silvio Herklotz wrote:
The CT.1 problem could be solved pretty easily:
a) Don't allow WT teams to race in CT.2 (which would be bad for my team as I have a nice number of <76 AVG guys, but from an overall view that would sound reasonable)
b) Decreasing the number of CT.1 races
I would think of changing this system a little might be good. CT managers are surely fear of facing the big guys of the WT-Teams in CT.1...so how about changing the borders to maybe 76.5/77 for CT.1 & 74.5/75 for CT.2 for the WT-Teams.
There could be also a f.e. +1/+2 in the borders for regional focus races...I´m thinking of letting riders like Ser. Henao ride South American CT.1 races and Kristoff Scandinavian or similar examples...
In terms of realism that might be a step forward, as the main riders from the WT focus on the WT...but I don´t know whether most of the participants like this or that might be too hard to implicate in ICL, so feel free to dislike and critizise 
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 29-11-2015 17:26
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
two other things I thought of:
1. What is the influence of loyalty in ICL?
2. Increasing the riders decrease age should be much more expensive. Otherwise we will have an armada of 37-40 year olds stars in a couple of seasons.
Spoiler I don´t like the manually changed "ages where a rider starts to decrease" either, because that seems to be pretty "unfair" for the managers of teams having these riders, f.e. looking at the Quintana-Froome, Nibali, Contador difference. But I guess this it´s irrelevant as it might be untouchable because that would directly issue teams without their managers fault...
All that is not in favour of mine, as two of my three main man are near to decrease/decreasing already and I have no issues with changed ages, but I just wanted to ask whether we should rethink these points.
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 29-11-2015 17:30
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Croatia14 wrote:
Silvio Herklotz wrote:
The CT.1 problem could be solved pretty easily:
a) Don't allow WT teams to race in CT.2 (which would be bad for my team as I have a nice number of <76 AVG guys, but from an overall view that would sound reasonable)
b) Decreasing the number of CT.1 races
I would think of changing this system a little might be good. CT managers are surely fear of facing the big guys of the WT-Teams in CT.1...so how about changing the borders to maybe 76.5/77 for CT.1 & 74.5/75 for CT.2 for the WT-Teams.
There could be also a f.e. +1/+2 in the borders for regional focus races...I´m thinking of letting riders like Ser. Henao ride South American CT.1 races and Kristoff Scandinavian or similar examples...
In terms of realism that might be a step forward, as the main riders from the WT focus on the WT...but I don´t know whether most of the participants like this or that might be too hard to implicate in ICL, so feel free to dislike and critizise
I'm against a bonus for regional focus races. Why? Because regional focus is so undefined. e.g. I count central European (GER, AUT, SWI, FRA, CZE), benelux states, Scandinavia and Eastern European states (e.g. SLO, SVK, UKR, LAT,... ) to my focus region. Quite a lot of countries and there are tons of definitions for every region and many countries could belong to different regions ( e.g. CZE can count towards central europe or east europe / LAT could count to East Europe or make for a new region with EST & LTU / Turkey could be Europe or Asia / ...).
Same goes for the riders. Which riders belong to which region?
I also dislike such a system as riders from regions that are with few races are disadvantaged in comparison with riders from e.g. France.
I'm open for changes in CT eligibility of the top stars although I think that a balanced WT calendar and good top-heavy point scales are the ways to keep the top stars out of CT.1 races.
The reason why I had Sagan and Kittel in CT so often in the first season was that the WT and especially the GTs were very sprinter-unfriendly and that CT races were OP in terms of scoring potential.
Bikex has improved both points over the years to make it rather unattractive to let top stars ride WT races mainly and i think that should be good.
Last year, the amount of top stars in CT races was already reduced in comparison to the first season and i expect that tendency to grow further.
I agree with lowering the AVG for CT.2 races. When a WT team can send the top favourite for a race then that's not good for the game and should be looked at. Although one has to say, that we have seen much better cobblers in CT in the past than Senechal. 74,5-75 AVG seems a lot better
EDIT: Of course, such changes have to be made before the transfers so changes would count only from next season onwards.
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Silvio Herklotz |
Posted on 29-11-2015 20:05
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26-02-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Did I miss the planning sheet? Otherwise that's a pretty hard deadline..
|
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 29-11-2015 20:10
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
Do you mean this?
https://pcmdaily.c...st_1131773
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| bwiggins |
Posted on 29-11-2015 20:56
|
Domestique
Posts: 673
Joined: 10-12-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
How do you determine if it's a mountainous, flat or hilly race?
And my two biggest team leaders is Demare (sprints) and Breschel (Cobbles), so will it be two different type of focus races if I take a flat race and a flat cobbled race? 
Edited by bwiggins on 30-11-2015 01:02
Wiggo and Simon Gerrans!
 |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 30-11-2015 09:02
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
You have to check race clashes and CT.2 eligibility manualy, correct?
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 30-11-2015 09:27
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
You have to check race clashes and CT.2 eligibility manualy, correct?
Race clashes are in one of the tables, and the CT.2 ability shouldn´t be too hard as the AVG is directly beneath the riders/race planning table. But I´m pretty sure the races aren´t automatically set in their category in the planning sheet so that´s to check for yourself...
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 30-11-2015 12:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
On the stat limits for WT teams in CT races: I also figured that 76 might be a little bit too high, but I only thought of it once we were already far into the transfer season and felt like it would be unfair to make changes like that so short before the start of the season. Next season I'll definitely drop this border to at least 75 maybe further.
I don't want to limit CT.1 races though. The top stars will anyways hardly ride CT races, as the WT calendar gives opportunities for all kind of riders now. To me it's also fair to give WT teams a chance to win prestigious CT races, like for example trying the Ardennes triple or Paris - Tours. Also irl in these kind of races often WT teams are also strongly represented.
I also thought about weakening the CT.2 border for regional riders, but also decided against it for reasons like knockout said and also it would be more work for me.
@Croatia: Loyalty has only an influence uring renewals. The biggest when someone tries to steal that rider. The longer the rider is in the team the higher the chance is that he'll accept a lower wage to not go to the other team. Also it might have a small influence on the money all riders demand.
On the decreasing age of riders: I agree in the first year increasing the AoD was very cheap. Shonak took the chance and that's why RodrÃguez and Contador have such a high AoD already, but with the prices of the second season increasing the AoD by 4 years costs 875, which is already a lot of money, but when presenting the prices for research for this season we can have another discussion about it.
Also I think the manually decreased AoD is fair rather than unfair. It prevents having riders dominating too many years. Quintana won the last two Tours already and still has 5 years to go on full stats, if his AoD isn't highered through research. Look at Contaor, Nibali and Froome. Despite not having changed their AoD they still have less years to go until their natural AoD is reached. Contador even is already over it. In a long run this will balance the database.
@Silvio: Seems like you missed the planning sheet. Can you try to send in the January/February startlists at least until the deadline. For the rest you'll get until the end of the week, which should be enough.
@bwiggins: Just look at the profiles in the calendar thread, I think everyone can judge quite good what a race is like.
Yes flat and flat cobbled race are okay to be sent in.
@Ollfardh: Yes, I still haven't developed a formula for that. I'd suggest just mark race clashes and CT.2 races in the planner, that way it's easier to have an overview. |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 30-11-2015 13:38
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Only Purito got AoD increase in its first season, really saved my team there. For Contador I already paid some serious cash for him to stay on this level the next few seasons. Just a correction thrown in there.
I also overlooked the planning sheet but most of it was done within an hour anyway.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| OZrocker |
Posted on 30-11-2015 14:29
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1280
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Some nice points made, but I think overall the game doesn't need to be changed much at all because it's a lot of fun and already quite detailed. Either way it seems like Bikex has it all under control with some of the issues already set to be improved on by next season.
I should have the planning done in a couple of days time, but if not then feel free to send me a PM because I might have forgotten to do it again
|
| |
|
|
| brewers90 |
Posted on 30-11-2015 17:14
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm trying to get the planning done but I'm spending most of my evenings at hospital with my terminally ill Nan. I've done half of the planning and should, maybe, hopefully be able to finish it tomorrow. If not, then I'll try for Wednesday but who knows.
I also have jack shit in my squad. Can you just double my leader's racedays?
|
| |
|
