|
Tirreno-Adriatico Discussion
|
| knockout |
Posted on 11-08-2016 16:06
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Good final stage as nothing major changes for me. Hoped to see Skujins 2-3 position a higher but having 4 guys in the top 30 makes it a great race for me.
Thanks for the reports. Well written and fantastic pace! Thanks!
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Atlantius |
Posted on 11-08-2016 18:40
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6795
Joined: 21-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Thanks for some nice reports.
Had hoped/expected to see my guys more active in the break. Especially Paajanen would have been coll to see in a break as he didn't do all that bad considering he's a PCT-helper in a lading role in a PT-race.
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 11-08-2016 20:30
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
First off, thanks for the reports, great stuff and speedy too. Secondly, congrats to Oleg on the win. Thirdly, feels like a bit of a disappointment as I firmly believe that without the crash Nibbles would've won overall but I'd have bitten your hand off if you offered me second before the race so I can't be too pissed. Finally, when it comes to the discussion of the mountain stat, it just requires a look at the profiles and some knowledge of cycling, it was clear from these that this was for a guy who was pretty much halfway between hills and mountains; Amstel Gold it was not.
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 11-08-2016 22:41
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Thanks for the reports and congrats Oleg.
A bit of a shame to not win the bunch sprint at the end but I won't complain about a decent stage finish. A couple of decent if unspectacular GC results is fine too.
|
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 11-08-2016 22:48
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Thanks for the reports. A race which showed promise soon turned into a nightmare for us with Kwiatkowski's crashes. Any more bad luck with crashes and our time in the PT will be short lived. |
| |
|
|
| ember |
Posted on 11-08-2016 22:52
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6849
Joined: 27-03-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
CountArach wrote:
cio93 wrote:
ember wrote:
PS on paper there were a Hil/MO ration on the stage, even though the result doesn't showcase that. So seems the crash was the end for Nibali here.
Is the hill/mountain ratio possible to change in PCM15? If yes, I thought it should be changed to a ratio where only the hill stat mattered/a ratio where the hill stat mattered as much as possible considering the stages (4 & 6) were rated hilly. That has at least been done with mountain stages in earlier seasons when the ratio has been wrong compared to the profile rating.
I would like to heavily disagree, everybody who knows a tiny bit about the ratio (and the game) will have been aware while planning that these stages are likely to be very close to 0.5 and therefore nothing for di Maggio, just like Gilbert would be nowhere on such profiles irl.
IF we alter the ratio artificially for stages like this, it needs to be announced before planning that any hilly stage is 0 ratio.
I specifically put Bongiorno into this race and Kelderman into Grand-Duché because this was somewhat going to suit Bongiorno and not suit Kelderman, and the result proves me right. This is part of the planning intricacies and maybe one point where experience comes into play (and we need those in the MG imo).
100% agree. As for people who know nothing about the game being disadvantaged, I haven't played a PCM title without it being for reporting the Man Game in 3-4 years and I still understand quite well that stages which are rated hilly can still have mountain stats as a huge influence, and estimating these things is just part of planning.
And I don't disagree with any of you that there should be a difference in how difficult the various hilly stages are. My point is that there's a line though where hilly stages could be more mountain stages than hilly stages, and that line the MG has always been clear on that it will not cross. Judging by how stage 4 played out, it felt like the climbers were given the upper hand, after all Nibali and Machado dominated what was supposed to be a hilly stage.
I have no problems with this if it was a deliberate choice from the people behind the game, but then it would have been nice to know pre planning that this year the most difficult hilly stages could potentially favour the climbers, not the puncheurs. Because previous seasons, that has never been the case. Of course some hilly races and stages will suit a rider like Kwiatkowski more than a rider like Claeys due to difficult profiles. But still, based on previous seasons, I've always understood that the hill stat should play the most important role compared to the MO stat on difficult hilly stages. That's kind of underlined with the example Smowz put out in a previous post, Pais Vasco an earlier season was played again because the mountain ratio played too much in favour of climbers on a hilly stage.
Based on that I think it could be argued that the mountain ratio played too much of a role on stage 4. If you look at the hill stats for the top six on that stage, excluding the two breakaway riders, they were: 77, 77, 75, 83, 83 and 70, and they combined it with the following mountain stat: 82, 84, 79, 78, 70 and 80. That's a total of 473 vs. 465, in favour of the mountain stat, in a race where only Machado, Nibali and Cattaneo (I think) of 80+ climbers participated. And they were all top six excluding the breakaway riders on stage 4.
I'm not saying it should be re-run or anything like that, but I do think it raises some concerns for future similar stages. Has the MG changed in the way that it will allow the hill stat to be equal to/play a lesser role on the most difficult looking hill stages compared to the mountain stat?
-------------------------------------------
Cool to see future great Boswell claim the final stage win, congratulations, alexkr00!
Also happy to see the top GC riders get safe through it, and I'm happy with 4th overall, a stage win and the points jersey considering how the race played out.
Thank you for the reports, sgdanny. Great pace! |
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 12-08-2016 06:25
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Regarding your concern that the mg changed.
I will check future stages a lot closer to avoid a similar scenario again.
I am a lot on mobile only at the moment and missed this at first here.
I am quite sure that most stages will have a fair ratio depending on profile and this here might have gone a bit too far which isn't ideal. |
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 12-08-2016 07:31
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I do see ember has a fair point really - stage 4 and 6 did look mountainous but it would appear as if the ratio was biased too heavily in favour of climbers.
Anyway RBH had an okay race here given that we had no GC expectations racking up three guys in the top 20 is great. Cav failling to grab a top 5 in either sprint is Meh though.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 12-08-2016 10:50
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I agree with ember. Also I don't have a problem with the fact that there is a MO/HI ratio. I only find that good. But if last season saw a very different way of interpreting those ratios, then I feel like it should have been spoken very thoroughly.
Also this crash thing where a different scale was decided, than the one that won in the poll, is really not good - especially not when it isn't publicly announced. To be honest, I would have not sent Spilak to the Tour de France had I known the risk was high. Then I would have done a similar planning to last season, which ended up in me winning the rankings. I certainly wouldn't have put my strongest 2nd tier there along with the leader neither. As it stands I could potentially lose 42 racedays for Spilak and Lecuisinier if they crash in the Tour de France, while the risk was significantly lower had I put them elsewhere.
So I do feel like changes to the metrics HAVE to be publicly announced well before the transfer period begins as it certainly have an impact on how managers (atleast some of us) will play our hands.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 12-08-2016 10:52
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
And on the race.
Great pace, great reports, and great results... We have to be very pleased with the fact that Koretzky did so well here, Tzortzakis took a stage podium and Le Gac ending the race in 2nd place on the final stage. That was better than anticipated for sure, and much better than feared when seeing how the stage 4 panned out.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 12-08-2016 11:02
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
SotD wrote:
I agree with ember. Also I don't have a problem with the fact that there is a MO/HI ratio. I only find that good. But if last season saw a very different way of interpreting those ratios, then I feel like it should have been spoken very thoroughly.
Also this crash thing where a different scale was decided, than the one that won in the poll, is really not good - especially not when it isn't publicly announced. To be honest, I would have not sent Spilak to the Tour de France had I known the risk was high. Then I would have done a similar planning to last season, which ended up in me winning the rankings. I certainly wouldn't have put my strongest 2nd tier there along with the leader neither. As it stands I could potentially lose 42 racedays for Spilak and Lecuisinier if they crash in the Tour de France, while the risk was significantly lower had I put them elsewhere.
So I do feel like changes to the metrics HAVE to be publicly announced well before the transfer period begins as it certainly have an impact on how managers (atleast some of us) will play our hands.
Sorry. But I can`t agree with you here.
First: The H/Mo ratio should be just as last season. Yes, as said, the one TA stage might have been a bit above, but this hopefully is an excemption as many stages are checked to make it in the common way.
Second: Well, the poll can say more than one thing. Yes, the absolute winner was to change from stage races and classics. Though in total there was only 1/5 to vote for such difference. 3/5 were to vote for one setting. So in the end counting all the 3 options was clearly more managers, who wanted to have it with a fix setting.
Of those the 100% was absolutely in the balance.
Plus you can now obviously say that you would have done differently. Though this is always easy to say afterwards. In the end the "absolute winner" of the poll does not say, that stage races would have been less risky! It could have been 100% stage races and 200% for classics. So now it`s 100% for all.
Seeing that the frequency goes from 0-300%, the now used 100% is even on the "less crashes" half and was supposed to work out okay. For next year, we can surely discuss if it should be lowered.
But in the end a 21 stages GT is always offering more chances to crash and fail this way. 2-3-4 seasons back, teams around Pluchkin experienced this quite a lot and hence it`s always a bit risky.
Regarding more discussion. Yes. Could surely be worked on in future. Though the circumstances and all the off-season stuff sometimes also let some things being forgotten at times. Though as others pointed out, most stages and H/M ratios are quite readable out of the profiles itself and it surely can`t be posted for every single stage as this would be some hell of extra work and would require quite a bit of support as well whereas other things are just a lot more important. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 19:26
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 12-08-2016 13:06
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Sorry for the off-topic
I agree with ember. Also I don't have a problem with the fact that there is a MO/HI ratio. I only find that good. But if last season saw a very different way of interpreting those ratios, then I feel like it should have been spoken very thoroughly.
Where did you get this from? No one ever touched ratios, nor did the way they acted in PCM 15 change compared to earlier games and it is not even possible to change them if people don't have zcts files.
So I do feel like changes to the metrics HAVE to be publicly announced well before the transfer period begins as it certainly have an impact on how managers (atleast some of us) will play our hands.
So I take it that the default setting of the crashes would have changed the way you would have planned your season? Basically everyone thought it would be exactly the same as PCM 14.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 12-08-2016 13:23
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
Superb performance by Bongiorno to get that Top 10, making up for a somewhat disappointing Ciolek who tried in the last stage, but that stage was always going to be very susceptible to a breakaway win with the way PCM treats those flat rated profiles with a lot of up and down in the end.
Felline stupidly losing time to drop 10 GC positions in the end (crash related?), annoying but that's minor stuff.
On the whole discussion thing, I see the point that a stage race without a mountain stage maybe shouldn't favor climbers over puncheurs, especially since this three-way clash is supposed to lead to a tough decision whether to send your puncheurs to the classic or the one stage race that's designed for them.
Climbers dominating both TA and PN therefore isn't ideal, but that's more of a route selection issue than a ratio issue imo. Once the profiles were released, it already was too late.
Apart from Trofimov on the one side and Cattaneo on the other, the general trend is that climbers have better hill stats than puncheurs have mountain stats, so this is just what a significant ratio does to the results.
The solution would rather be to make hilly stages in these kind of races harder and more selective by increasing the amount of hills, not the length, or at least be very upfront about altering ratios before planning starts.
On the crash issue, I have no real opinion other than saying it's still random, with 100% it's exactly what the game gives us as the standard, and GTs are always a risk.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 12-08-2016 13:39
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
I "love" how people are saying that GTs are always a risk, so what should i do with top GT rider, send him to flat classics to avoid the risk?
GT potential winners have biggest OVRs, thus the least race days and also the biggest wages. And they have the biggest potential risk coming from crashes. And even absolute total domination in two GTs (you cant race more races then) cant secure you a PT individual crown against a guy who can crash out at some point and still rack 3000 points. 
So as a manager of top top GT material rider, should i feel encouraged to avoid GTs at all, because these are a biggest risk? Not sure if that is the way to go...demotivate the managers from sending best riders to best races.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 12-08-2016 13:44
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
You make it sound a lot worse than it is imo.
He was 2nd in the individual rankings. A lot ahead of the 3rd actually and just a bit behind Bewley (who obviously got close to a perfect season with monument and PT wins everywhere). Also Bewley got a bit higher OVL just like most sprinters while Pluchkin more or less stayed the same. So rd wise Pluchkin could now have a fair chance to win the individual ranking if he repeats his double GT.
Schleck as top stage racer was only 55% of Pluchkin`s score.  |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 12-08-2016 13:53
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
roturn wrote:
You make it sound a lot worse than it is imo.
He was 2nd in the individual rankings. A lot ahead of the 3rd actually and just a bit behind Bewley (who obviously got close to a perfect season with monument and PT wins everywhere). Also Bewley got a bit higher OVL just like most sprinters while Pluchkin more or less stayed the same. So rd wise Pluchkin could now have a fair chance to win the individual ranking if he repeats his double GT.
Schleck as top stage racer was only 55% of Pluchkin`s score.
If Bewley got close to perfect season, what would you call the season of Pluchkin, that was a perfect season, he wont come even close this year and i think that a climber can never repeat it.
And i TOOK the risk, that is why he was so good points wise and still lacked something on Bewley.
And last paragraph actually supports my point, Schleck has much bigger risk of loosing season/points by the crash, while he is happy for 50% of Bewleys points...
Edit: I cant add more of my view here, it is pointless discussion anyway, when the things are already set.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 12-08-2016 13:55
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
I know it's tough and I know I'm in a comfortable and biased position never having had a top climber, but I believe the root of this issue is not in season planning or settings but in transfer planning.
If you don't want to risk wasting half your cap on a rider that might not deliver because of a single unlucky day, don't bid half your cap on anyone, or bid it on a rider who spreads his scoring potential across the season. The risk is inherent and well-documented.
Them having the biggest wages doesn't derive straight from their high overall or their little race days, but from their flashiness on the market and in the season recaps.
I'd never bid as much on Madrazo as I would on Bewley or GVA.
You apparently liked taking the risk (which I don't blame you for at all), or the way transfers went forced you to.
That's what the game is about, not the PCM settings.
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 12-08-2016 22:32
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
The market should correct for such considerations Avin. If not, it's our/your fault for over-investing in stage racing talent.
|
| |
|
|
| OlegTinkov |
Posted on 12-08-2016 22:55
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2666
Joined: 31-12-2007
PCM$: 450.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
... Finally, when it comes to the discussion of the mountain stat, it just requires a look at the profiles and some knowledge of cycling...
Exactly the whole mo/hi discussion doesn't make sense at all! Nibali was my favorite to win it, too bad he crashed (i still celebrate the win though, because like i said earlier it will eventually will happen to all of us)
The randomness and crashes seems to much to handle for some managers, for me it is ok like this, mathematically decide the winner isn't fun neither is total random results, in the end this is pcm15 and we all have to deal with it. I do like the discussions though but it won't change/lead to something i think.
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 13-08-2016 09:11
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think that we can all agree by now that having and using Trofimov is some form of cheating.
And for Bouygues it looks like a second season of Roelandts being baffling bad, failing to make easy sprint finishes.
Nice to see our young fellow Dylan Teuns get involved in the breaks to try and make up for it.
But Most importantly, he had my slightly worried towards the end theree, but Bos did eventually manage to finish dead last. Nothing but pleased for the lad.
|
| |
|
