|
Tour of the Czech Republic Discussion
|
| ember |
Posted on 14-11-2016 18:44
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6849
Joined: 27-03-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
Thank you for the report, Croatia14!
Though, sad to see a great puncheur and a race favourite like McCarthy loose more than nine minutes and be left without a chance of a decent GC after a what was supposed to be a hilly stage. Did voice my concern for situations like this earlier this season when it happened in the PT, and I truly feel for those who brought a great puncheur here to fight for the top placings.
For our own performance, happy to see Dyrnes, Hoelgaard and Aasvold do very well, and eventhough a top 10 from Dyrnes now looks difficult, they all proved they can mix it in the top 20. Hopefully Dyrnes or even Hoelgaard can have a great day and thus fight for a stage top 5., as Aasvold shouldn't be in contention in the upcoming stages, as this one looked like the most mountainous of them, and he was obviously one of those getting an advantage due to that. |
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 14-11-2016 19:33
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
@Margh I actually didn't realise such a discussion took place last year, you are completely right that you got misled. I just based myself off the profiles pics thinking that stage 2 and 4 would have a heavy mountain influence!
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 15-11-2016 07:49
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
To inform you.
At the moment replaying this race is considered.
Problem is: While the profiles clearly show some kind of mountain influence on some stages, last years discussion as Margh pointed out, was a hill race. Also all 5 stages are hill rated.
And while a mix of both would still be acceptable, the H/M ratio for the 2nd stage was towards mountain, which clearly isn`t ideal in any way.
As also another stage is a lot more towards mountain, a replay needs to be discussed.
Obviously this is never anything that I like to do after so many have seen the original outcome as far too many will be disappointed with the new result for obvious reasons.
Hence why I would like to get some feedback on it. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 15-11-2016 08:19
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Stage 2 and 4 are mountain stages looking at the profile, messing with the HI/Mo ratio is stupid in my opinion. No pure puncheur should survive those stages.
Anyway, as some people are hurt because of the MO ratio, I suggest keeping the results but upping the Hill ratio in stage 4 to compensate.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 15-11-2016 08:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Losing my stage win like poof! ;( To me, st 2 and 4 look mountaineous but 100% of mo-ratio is clearly too much and not justified. I'm fine with either decision really.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 15-11-2016 08:36
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
Stage 2 and 4 are mountain stages looking at the profile, messing with the HI/Mo ratio is stupid in my opinion. No pure puncheur should survive those stages.
Anyway, as some people are hurt because of the MO ratio, I suggest keeping the results but upping the Hill ratio in stage 4 to compensate.
Problem is that those stages were already played and have been written for a long time, changing stage 1 or stage 4 doesn't make a difference because the whole race would have to be replayed!
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 15-11-2016 09:02
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
SportingNonsense wrote:
This race is quite clearly on the calendar as a stage race for hill riders, and so of course hill stat is what counts and not mountain stat. It has always and will always be done whatever is necessary in the DB settings to ensure that. The whole point of the calendar is to have a variety of race types, it just so happens that particular effort needs to made for hills because the default PCM settings are skewed towards mountain stat.
From last season's Tour of the Czech Republic. It was clearly stated that this is a hilly race and that a 100% mountain ration on any stage is not okay. The decision to replay last season's race imo is an example which imo doesnt leave much of a choice and suggest that a replay is needed.
Spoiler However, since I'm not involved I'm obviously fine either way
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 15-11-2016 09:04
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
Even if they do look mountainous, if the profile shows hilly, it should be more hillier than mountainous, so even though a replay would be more hassle, I think it's the right decision.
|
| |
|
|
| fjhoekie |
Posted on 15-11-2016 09:09
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4476
Joined: 25-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
I am very biased, but my General thoughts say not to replay the race. I am surprised with the 100% Mo -ratio, and it obviously is far from ideal. That said though, the profiles indicate enough imo, and the pure HI riders should surely struggle on stages like these. There is a reason why riders like Cunego are considered to be better than a Guy like Di Maggio, and it should show from Time to Time. A hi/mo of say 50/50 would've been More ideal, but I am in favour of not manually adjuasing any of them.
Sorry for any spelling errors, on the phone with autocorrect...
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 12:46
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 15-11-2016 09:33
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4200
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Even if they do look mountainous, if the profile shows hilly, it should be more hillier than mountainous, so even though a replay would be more hassle, I think it's the right decision.
T-A stage 4. Did someone consider replaying whole race there?
Settings of Hi/mo ratio at 100% is definitely wrong, but I'd keep results as they are atm.
Imo, what we need to do before next season is making public hi/mo ratios together with stage profile in race calendar thread. Not only because of the equal conditions for all nanagers during planning, but also for extra control and avoiding of such kind of mistakes.
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 15-11-2016 09:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
I don't want to derail too much, but how did some people know about the ratio?
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 15-11-2016 09:45
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
I don't want to derail too much, but how did some people know about the ratio?
I checked the ratio after the result and posted it above. |
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 15-11-2016 09:45
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
No one knew about the ratio, more like most of the people weren't aware of the discussion that took part last year and assumed there would be a mountainous component in both stage 2 and 4.
|
| |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 15-11-2016 10:17
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4200
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
I don't want to derail too much, but how did some people know about the ratio?
I don't know. I expect most races/stages are available for everyone together with DBs downloadable here on PCMdaily, not only for MG purposes.Thus ppl can find ratio themselves in their DB files. Or am I wrong?
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| Margh Norway |
Posted on 15-11-2016 10:42
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1507
Joined: 23-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
As a manager I would say:
A re-run would be nice , but I wouldn't dare to ask for one.
First for the reporting done in vain and less (but still) for the lucky overperforming managers.
As a commissioner I would say:
Our bad, guys. No question, same mess as last year, same replay as last year. And exactly the same MO/Hill ratio as last year, obviously because these are the same stages.
Switching a 5-day-pure-puncher-wins-HC-race into a climber-wins-race hurts the balance of the game.
Whatever comes, please make it a decision one can rely on in the future and don't look for compromises, like adding/subtracting MO-value on certain stages.
p.s.: Values are changed to many stages in man-game and it won't help much when you've learned to read PCM profiles over the years, but as there're no other informations, it's still the best shot.
|
| |
|
|
| tastasol |
Posted on 15-11-2016 11:16
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2889
Joined: 11-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
As someone who actually raced this race last year, I was certainly expecting this to be a race for the puncheurs.
I don't know exactly how the hill-mountain ratio works, but if it was set to 100 per cent mountain, that's obviously a big mistake. I don't have any problem with that kinds of stages if it's marked as a mountain stage, but that's not the situation here.
A lot of riders, yes, including my riders, have lost many minutes and all hope for a good result in the GC. That will also include goals for some.
Others have gained an unfair advantage. No doubt that this needs a re-run.
I agree with Margh that it would be an good idea to mark these things better in the future.
Anyway, when a stage is marked as hilly, you excpect a stage where the hill stat is by far the most important. That has not been the case here.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 15-11-2016 12:11
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
Then something from the reporters point of view: I've already played this race half a month ago, and I guess I did put in around 10 hours of effort into reporting this race.
So obviously a huge motivation issue for me to replay this race.
To the case. Stage 4 wouldn't have a Mo/Hi ratio of 60/40 I guess, where 50/50 or 45/55 should be accurate. Not too far off I'd say. Also: From playing this race again I guess there wouldn't be major differences in having played stage 2 with 50/50 (which should've been the right thing). Time gaps between the first 3 and the rest might be more spare, but in fact these 3 should still be the strongest. Riders like di Maggio and McCarthy would have trouble still and surely loose a big amount of time on that stage if the race is as agressive on the climbs as it was (with attacks right from the beginning), especially looking at the other issues they had (bad luck with positioning, crashes, form (just look at Waeytens).
And then there is obviously the Tirreno reference, where Nibali dominated something hilly that surely had a similarly wrong ratio too.
I can understand the point of view looking back from last years results, but comparing to the course they are just stupid and let me think that their set-up was at 0% MO 100% Hill which looks so wrong here for every careful planner.
This profile was always going to be suiting a Cunego much more than a McCarthy, no matter how the racing went last year. Remember: We play on a different PCM than last year that has, even if you don't want to see it, improved. Just take a look at the short breakaways.
So to conclude it from my point of view:
What stands for a replay?
- a clearly unwanted Mo/Hi ratio, leading to huge time gaps
- communication from last year about last years route that is the same this year
What stands against a replay?
- no big changes through this result: no major shuffle-up in terms of GC in comparison to a 50/50 ratio, riders at the wrong places have plenty of time to loose positions --> no major loss/won of points; big stage points only rewarded for the first couple of places, that most likely wouldn't have changed (the Top3 should be the strongest on this terrain here anyway)
- no other stages majorly involved via wrong ratios
- around 8 hours of reporting time & motivation of reporters lost (don't know if that should be a factor for you guys)
- the re-running point of view comes from a different game version with a different gameplay
- managers that got lucky with good form on already shown results have an unfair disadvantage
So from me a clear no to a rerun, but I can already feel the hate incoming. I can somehow understand if the wrong Mo/Hi ratio is a too strong point and due to that a replay is needed in your eyes, but from my eyes there wouldn't be major changes if the ratios of the repective stages are set properly (to the max Mo stat a Hi stage can have: 50/50), so I only see minor points from here involved and wouldn't agree to the futher work a rerun would take.
|
| |
|
|
| dev4ever |
Posted on 15-11-2016 13:18
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2282
Joined: 13-03-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
what, rerace this and not tirreno? :/
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 15-11-2016 13:28
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
This is what should be discussed here.
Back at Tirreno I wasn`t at home for couple days and hence didn`t realize it until too late.
Here I noticed in time. So yes, suerly worth a discussion if Czech needs a replay while TA didn`t.
Obviously the profiles here look like a bit in between. Though I didn`t remember the discussion of last year before Margh posted it.
So it`s a bit between those, that had a pure hilly race in mind and those, that had a 50/50 even in mind just by looking on the profiles.
So I`d like to here a clear yes or clear no from you guys. I know it`s a shit decision no matter what and surely needs a better way for the future to avoid those.
Apparently some other factors also play a role here which made such preparation a bit difficult to do. |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 15-11-2016 13:41
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Well, this is all about "what's in it for me" I guess. Would I like to see this race re raced? Yeah. I find that fair.
Would I want Tirreno-Adriatico to be re-raced? Nope. Because I know what I got, and I'm satisfied with that, despite being all hilly should probably suit my GC rider there even better.
It's really difficult to decide, and IMO it should be decided by either the race organizers or by someone not involved, as managers here either lost or won the race and clearly is going to argue in their own interests.
Well 9 out of 10 will anyway...
|
| |
|
