|
2016 Planning: Crash Frequency
|
| Bjartne |
Posted on 22-11-2015 18:06
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2907
Joined: 15-07-2007
PCM$: 300.00
|
So if the option "Lower in stage races, higher in classics" is winning, but not going to be implemented, should we make a new poll without that alterative? There are 19 people currently voting for that, including me, so could change the other result quite a bit, if allowed to vote again. |
| |
|
|
| aidanvn13 |
Posted on 22-11-2015 18:44
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2797
Joined: 06-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Had to go with "always higher". As shit as it is to have it happen to your team, it's a part of the sport (/game). Imo there's too little crashes compared to the real-life sport. The added drama adds an extra level of immersion, suspense, and drama to a game we try to "calculate" with statistics and numbers. Unpredictability can be good thing. 
I would also favour the lower frequency in stage races due to the race day logic. Just thought that keeping it constant was a better bet for reporters and game logistics.
|
| |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 22-11-2015 21:05
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4200
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
In general, I would like to lower crash frequency a bit, but also add some different figures for stage races/classics. Something like 50/70 or so.
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| Silvio Herklotz |
Posted on 22-11-2015 22:50
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26-02-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
I might be one of a few here, but I'm in favour of no crashes at all. Yes, realism is nice, but from time to time we decide to make the MG different from reality - when it's in favour of fairness etc.
And I consider crashes pretty unfair. Favourites crashing out can do much harm. While good or bad form and some AI stuff has an impact on results there is still a big difference from crashes. The points supporting this were already made.
So I just want to point out that zero crashes would only follow the logic we use in other cases, from my point of view.
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 22-11-2015 23:25
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
aidanvn13 wrote:
Had to go with "always higher". As shit as it is to have it happen to your team, it's a part of the sport (/game). Imo there's too little crashes compared to the real-life sport. The added drama adds an extra level of immersion, suspense, and drama to a game we try to "calculate" with statistics and numbers. Unpredictability can be good thing.
I would also favour the lower frequency in stage races due to the race day logic. Just thought that keeping it constant was a better bet for reporters and game logistics.
These are exactly my thoughts.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 23-11-2015 00:05
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I agree with Aiden and Count, it felt like there weren't enough crashes this year as it was and raising the amount of them will only make it spread itself out between the team better over the season. To me lowering it would only make it far more of a punishment for those that are unlucky enough to have it happen to them which in my opinion is far worse, at least if we raise it then we can make it so it hurts less because it gets everyone.
@ Smowz. I play on 300% when I play PCM 15 and it is fun as you do see far more multiple rider crashes, even if it is still less than 20 max and normally less than 10 it is nicer than seeing it always only 1 rider crashes but at 300% they are too frequent for the MG even if I'm happy to play with them at that level on my own game I can't recommend going that high for the MG as it would frustrate others too much.
oh and I like Margh's point about the TOA, there's no way we should get through 21 days with everybody finishing, that would never happen IRL because we do get crashes and they definitely feel like they've happened far less in the MG than IRL, heck I bet Dan Martin alone has had more IRL crashes than a whole division of the MG has had this year.
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 13-08-2016 12:34
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
There's a discussion in the Tirreno topic about crash frequency. I think it's good to talk about this a bit more, so let's continue the discussion here.
I agree that the rather large risk of a GT champion crashing half his season's scoring potential away is well known to everyone involved and will therefore be made fair by the free market. No complaints from me about fairness.
There's another valid question we need to discuss though. From a game design point of view, do we want to have a 'high risk, high reward' gambling mechanic as a major part of the game?
In my opinion we shouldn't want that, because it's simply not a fun mechanic. I love the part of the MG that is about clever team management and careful planning. Chance/luck based elements are good to make a game less predictable, but too much of it makes the game uninteresting to me. And I think a team's entire season (spanning almost a year of real-life time) being ruined by one bad 'dice roll' is too much.
And it also works the other way around; GT riders will get cheaper on the free agency because everyone becomes more aware of the risk involved, which in turn makes the GT riders who do manage to stay on their bikes extremely efficient in terms of points per 10k wage (i.e. the high reward part of the 'high risk, high reward' mechanic). As a result the only way to win the PT is to take part in 'the big GT gamble' and be lucky. This also means that there is no way of avoiding this mechanic by simply not signing such riders. Its existence affects the entire game.
So I think for next season we should work on finding a way to reduce the amount of risk/reward in this mechanic while keeping it fair for everyone. If reducing the crash percentage for GT's makes GT riders overpowered compared to other types of riders, we have tools to rebalance that. Stuff like changing the algorithm which calculates the average and race days comes to mind. Or the amount of races being held on a certain type of terrain.
And the rest of the balancing will eventually be done by the free market...
|
| |
|
|
| valverde321 |
Posted on 13-08-2016 17:56
|
World Champion
Posts: 12986
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 530.00
|
DubbelDekker wrote:
There's a discussion in the Tirreno topic about crash frequency. I think it's good to talk about this a bit more, so let's continue the discussion here.
I agree that the rather large risk of a GT champion crashing half his season's scoring potential away is well known to everyone involved and will therefore be made fair by the free market. No complaints from me about fairness.
There's another valid question we need to discuss though. From a game design point of view, do we want to have a 'high risk, high reward' gambling mechanic as a major part of the game?
In my opinion we shouldn't want that, because it's simply not a fun mechanic. I love the part of the MG that is about clever team management and careful planning. Chance/luck based elements are good to make a game less predictable, but too much of it makes the game uninteresting to me. And I think a team's entire season (spanning almost a year of real-life time) being ruined by one bad 'dice roll' is too much.
And it also works the other way around; GT riders will get cheaper on the free agency because everyone becomes more aware of the risk involved, which in turn makes the GT riders who do manage to stay on their bikes extremely efficient in terms of points per 10k wage (i.e. the high reward part of the 'high risk, high reward' mechanic). As a result the only way to win the PT is to take part in 'the big GT gamble' and be lucky. This also means that there is no way of avoiding this mechanic by simply not signing such riders. Its existence affects the entire game.
So I think for next season we should work on finding a way to reduce the amount of risk/reward in this mechanic while keeping it fair for everyone. If reducing the crash percentage for GT's makes GT riders overpowered compared to other types of riders, we have tools to rebalance that. Stuff like changing the algorithm which calculates the average and race days comes to mind. Or the amount of races being held on a certain type of terrain.
And the rest of the balancing will eventually be done by the free market...
I agree with this. I already feel like there have been a bit too many crashes this season, and I've seen it ruin one of my races, as well as Intxausti's at Catalunya, among many others.
I dont think crashes should be eliminated altogether but it is very frustrating to have riders crash out, and as DubbelDekker said, if a rider crashes in a GT thats about half his season done, and with the way we plan the mangame we cant adapt to a crash and put them in a new race later on in the season like if a rider were to crash in real life, making it a waste essentially.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 13-08-2016 18:14
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
I can't help but agree. De Maar has crashed in all of his target races so far and though I know I'm not the only one being detrimented by it it certainly undermines team building and race planning, some of the only things we as manager can control.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 13-08-2016 19:02
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Hm the main concern are GT riders so imo it is better to talk about this after at least two GTs happened to actually know how it is there.
I remember in ICL there were two crashes in le Tour, involving leader Contador, other Pinot. No crashes in Giro or Vuelta.
Honestly I would be more concerned about super strong leader jersey boni. This can ruin your mood waaay more than a crash.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 13-08-2016 21:17
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
Shonak wrote:
Honestly I would be more concerned about super strong leader jersey boni. This can ruin your mood waaay more than a crash.
This!
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 13:59
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 13-08-2016 21:56
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
EPIC saw Purito abandon the Vuelta on stage 20 while in 2nd place, without even crashing. It's part of cycling, so I think the crash frequency bar shouldn't be touched.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 13-08-2016 22:24
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
EPIC saw Purito abandon the Vuelta on stage 20 while in 2nd place, without even crashing. It's part of cycling, so I think the crash frequency bar shouldn't be touched.
But that was PCM14, just for clarification
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 13-08-2016 22:33
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
@Shonak; was that with the same PCM we're using in MG now and on the same crash setting? It would obviously be great if we end up with hardly any big GT crashes, but looking at the number we've had so far that does seem pretty unlikely.
And sure, there might be other problems. But that's no reason to ignore this one.
@Ollfardh: sorry, but the argument "it's part of cycling, so it shouldn't be touched" is not a very good one in my opinion. If real-life cycling got the chance to magically stop crashes from happening they wouldn't hesitate for a second. We're playing a management game here, not a role playing simulation. By your logic we should also introduce doping and rider deaths into the MG.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 13-08-2016 22:40
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
The problem is both ways: strong leader boni makes it a high reward for leading riders. Crash frequeny is russian roulette for people.
If you play the game of Grand Tours, you either win or crash out. 
Yes ICL used PCM15
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 13-08-2016 22:45
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
Shonak wrote:
I remember in ICL there were two crashes in le Tour, involving leader Contador, other Pinot. No crashes in Giro or Vuelta.
No major leader crashes that is, was quite a few the Vuelta at least (can't remember about the Giro though)
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 13-08-2016 22:48
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Oh I may remembered that wrong then.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 13-08-2016 22:59
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Shonak wrote:
If you play the game of Grand Tours, you either win or crash out.
Hehe, yeah that's a nice way to put it.  I agree that the game is currently set up like this (high risk/reward in GT's) and everyone knows it, so it's not unfair.
The point I'm trying to make is that it is our choice whether we want to keep this high risk/reward mechanic in the game and that in my opinion we'd be better off without it.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 14-08-2016 08:09
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
DubbelDekker wrote:
Shonak wrote:
If you play the game of Grand Tours, you either win or crash out.
Hehe, yeah that's a nice way to put it. I agree that the game is currently set up like this (high risk/reward in GT's) and everyone knows it, so it's not unfair.
The point I'm trying to make is that it is our choice whether we want to keep this high risk/reward mechanic in the game and that in my opinion we'd be better off without it.
For me it adds another just another factor to transfer & team building planning, so I don´t mind the crash frequencies...only issue might be lowering the influence of goal races where the leader of yours crashed out - cause that is really a thing unable to handle in 1-race terms...on long-terms crashes only strengthen the value of second row riders, so I don't mind a lot of crashing for the worth of lower rated riders and the balance of the Man-Game transfer market...
|
| |
|
|
| fjhoekie |
Posted on 14-08-2016 08:14
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4476
Joined: 25-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Exactly what Croatia said! Crashes are never fun to have, and the punishment received in goal races should be lowered in terms of budget reduction and such, however if rider wages in genral would go down slightly we could finally see a better balance with 2nd tier riders ending up at PT teams as super domestiques in stead of wrecking the PCT.
Frequency is fine imo, crashes are less likely in stage races (at least from my experience), and whilst I'm personally using 120%, I feel even that´d still be acceptable for all races except the cobbled shit.
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game |
| |
|
