|
Suggestions for the 2017 season
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 14-01-2017 22:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
PCM stats aren't linear? Really? How the hell did they manage that? When did this happen?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 14-01-2017 23:33
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's always been like this and it makes a lot of sense IMO, bbl.
Think about real life and how results are a lot more unpredictable in a CT field compared to a WT one, that's the same in PCM, where stats differences are very similar between top tier riders and lower tier ones, but scenarios more varied in a division and another.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 15-01-2017 02:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
matt17br wrote:
It's always been like this and it makes a lot of sense IMO, bbl.
Think about real life and how results are a lot more unpredictable in a CT field compared to a WT one, that's the same in PCM, where stats differences are very similar between top tier riders and lower tier ones, but scenarios more varied in a division and another.
I always figured this was simply due to the greater amount of riders at similar stats the lower you go, not that the stats were actually different in value between each other at different points on the matrix.
Has anyone made some sort of key on how that all scales?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 15-01-2017 09:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I am aware of the arguments against changes, but changes should be made in favor of the game not as a favor/disadvantage on certain managers. BUT changes cannot be made without it having an effect on certain riders and thus managers.
We need to forget about our own teams when we debate on the changes, as it is simply not possible to create big changes to the game without it having an effect on the current status quo.
The problem with adding too strong riders, and getting a higher top level stat from season to season is evident, and we need to do something about it. Period. The only thing we need to solve is how to fix it. And to be honest I'm not looking at my own team when offering suggestions to this.
By lowering all rider stats by 1 we clearly make the younger riders better - in theory, as older riders might not be training eligeble. If we don't add a 85 training stop for one season then riders like Spilak, Schleck, Gesink, Coppel, Bakelants, Ginanni, Trofimov and so on, would be hurt the worst.
If we add a 1 season 85 no training period only Dombrowski will be hit as he is the only rider with 83-84 in a key stat that is becoming training eligeble next season. (83MO after the minus 1 stat). If we make it a 2 season period, then we start interfering with quite a lot of riders, like Herklotz and several riders that have been trained to 83 in the first "No 85 stat season".
So we need to look at the Pros and Cons from a wider perspective. Where do we lose the most, and where do we lose least? Does that suck for Pendleton's in this example? Absolutely. But can we do it a better way? I'm not sure.
If we add this we obviously want to change the traning fees to follow aswell. So the fee from going 81->82 will now be changed to match 80->81, as that would be the new similar stat.
We don't want to (Speaking for myself of course) just increase training fees again and again as that hits several teams/managers very hard. Teams like Puma, Aegon, Aker, Becherovka, my own team - and several others, who have put in a lot of time developing riders that fits the team would suddenly be served a kick in the face, and the idea of long term planning would fade away - There have been quite some restrictions in that area already and to be honest I don't think that is the problem. The problem is that we keep adding riders way too strong (79-84 key stat maxed), and because we have done that we now have to fix the problem. Otherwise we are likely to see 10 riders with 85 Key stat in all areas within the next 5 seasons.
By lowering all stats by 1, not allowing anyone to hit 85 in that season and adding riders with the max stat of 79, we are likely to see very few 85 key stat riders at all. We would see the first one in two seasons time, but only a few riders would actually get there, and only for a brief period of time before getting decreased/non training eligeble again. Only 20 riders of each category would be able to hit 85 in their key stat as opposed to 50 or so as it is now. And a lot of those 20 would need to be trained only in their key stat and being trained +2 each possible season. A few would max out at 85MO or so as 27yo, but after 5 seasons we would have the stat situation under control. By lowering all riders with -2 we would solve the problem much faster.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 00:57
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 15-01-2017 10:00
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
matt17br wrote:
It's always been like this and it makes a lot of sense IMO, bbl.
Think about real life and how results are a lot more unpredictable in a CT field compared to a WT one, that's the same in PCM, where stats differences are very similar between top tier riders and lower tier ones, but scenarios more varied in a division and another.
I'm not sure the problem is non linear progression, but the fact that helpers are not nearly as strong in the CT, aswell as there being far less riders in the races...
If we take Volcan de Agua Classic as an example there are only 117 riders at the start, while there would be 195 or so in a similar PT stage. GP Liechtenstein will probably feat 70-80 more riders than a similar CT stage.
The same goes for the flat stages, where the PT are often having 8-10 strong sprinters and 8-10 strong (relatively) teams to help them control the peloton. In the PT there might be 6 strong sprinters and 4-5 strong (relatively) teams to control the peloton. Clearly that is a huge difference.
This is also the reason why national championships are so unpredictable. Not because of non-linear stat evaluation, but because of teams not co-operating for the same goal - Much like IRL...
So I don't think the reality lies within the non-linear algorythms (To be honest I think they are linear), but the combination of setups, and amount of riders present.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 15-01-2017 14:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
SotD wrote:
I am aware of the arguments against changes, but changes should be made in favor of the game not as a favor/disadvantage on certain managers. BUT changes cannot be made without it having an effect on certain riders and thus managers.
We need to forget about our own teams when we debate on the changes, as it is simply not possible to create big changes to the game without it having an effect on the current status quo.
I agree, sort of, with this initial viewpoint. Changes won't always be completely fair to all. But there is no need to make a giant, sweeping change, that affects most riders and managers diferently without exploring the alternatives first.
The -1 Idea, to my eyes, has too many flaws and ultimately doesn't actually solve the underlying problem.
Stat Inflation is caused by having more riders increasing in stats than decreasing. So we end up with more stats at a higher level each year. To solve Stat Inflation we need to have an equal number of stats going up as going down.
For the rest of this i will be ignoring Training, because it's a different problem to me and has a different unrelated solution.
The -1 Idea will generate more decreasing than increasing stats, can't argue that. But it does nothing to solve the problem that causes Stat Inflation.
Add in a limit of training and you don't make any difference at all. Because the cap becomes 84 rather than 85 and after the intial season inflation is back at the same level as before.
Without a training limit you don't make any difference at all for the same reasoning. The cause is not tackled so you immediately go back to an inflation state.
I would prefer initial changes to try and tackle the cause of the inflation. Which is pretty simple (on paper).
Decline riders - Either more drastically or earlier, or both. This will create more decreasing stats.
New riders - Look at what riders will decline. Add upto that number of new riders, ideally less for a few seasons. This will create less increasing stats.
Free Agents - Don't edit their stats. This will create less increasing stats.
Simple changes, and the inflation cause is tackled. We will get more declines than increases per season and that will deflate the db, or at least balance the inflation at neutral.
That would tackle the cause of inflation, which is much better in the long run. It's also smaller changes that are less drastic and "damaging". Adding less riders and not editing FA's doesn't damage any manager at all. Decline does, but given that new FA's come in then those affected managers will have the ability to buy new riders and/or train existing ones to work around it how they want to as a manager.
As i said, this ignores training completely in solving the problem. I'll write up some more detailed thoughts on training at another time, because i link it to other concepts that don't impact inflation.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-02-2017 18:16
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Nothing is decided yet, but for now we consider some stuff behind the scenes. Main issue was teh amount of races to report and the lack or new reporters and hence the main part of the season being handled by a very small pool of the same guys.
Hence cutting the amount of races is definitely needed and absolutely vital to keep that game running well.
One idea, that is getting more and more concrete would be some kind of change to the calendar system, which offers lots of advantages though as also lots of interaction between managers of different divisions but most important is reducing the amount of reporting. Obviously having a lower amount of race days comes with such changes but I think it still is easily enough for a well run season with lots of clashes and excitement.
So basically the idea in short:
- PT teams are riding a reduced amount of their regular schedule. GT/M/PT (No more wildcards!)
- PCT race HC races without PT teams around. Then have choices of C1/C2 events
- CT race a strict schedule of C2HC races similar to PT system. They can choose from C1/C2 events to fill their calendar then.
- A new PTHC or whatever it might be called category is a mix between PT and PCT teams instead of the clash in HC events this season. A band system with a few race days per team will see a clash of the two highest divisions. No more stat restriction. PCT teams can score there, which is different to the old wildcard system while PT teams will have stronger riders as in 2016. Planning of course needed there, which is a bit of a new thing for PT managers as their schedule was more strict so far
It`s not 100% decided yet if such changes take place but it`s a good chance for a change with good advantages I think.
Also there will appear question of talent development of course when race days are reduced. This is something that will be calculated later once the final system is secured. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 20-02-2017 18:39
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I like the sound of reducing the PT calendar a bit, it's an obvious place to cut a few races as there's a lot of them.
PTHC sounds fine, and a better way of doing things than the current system which has some clear flaws.
Don't like the idea of CT becoming more like PT in a strict schedule. These are the teams with the least money and ability to be flexable in their squad as a result. I'd rather see one less C2HC Band and cut some C1/C2 races than this. If going this way is the idea, then why doesn't the PCT go a similar way as well? (or am i misunderstanding?)
I assume the WildCards for PT races will remain unchanged. And yes obviously will need to take a serious look at XP gains.
________
As for a lack of reporters, same old problem and there is no solution it seems.
I hope to give a bit more time to it, but my schedule is a touch erratic which makes commiting time to it awkward. Especially for stage races. And as such it makes me reluctant to claim races.
At least i chipped in with the Olympics, and i will chip in something else before the season is over.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-02-2017 18:49
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Ah. Obviously a few races are cut in all divisions.
But PT a bit more than others.
Think from a 204/140/120 rd system we would be around 165/120/100 or something.
And wildcard system would change. No more wildcards then as PCT teams get their PT xp from the new PTHC category.
CT isn`t 100% strict. It`s strict in one half and then free choice for other half.
PCT can`t work like this as with 30 teams, you can`t have strict schedule as you are above the team per race number. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 20-02-2017 19:29
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Can i suggest re-structuring the divisions a bit as well based on the above suggestions?
If Wildcards wouldn't be a thing, then expanding the PT wouldn't hurt. Currently it's 22 teams and could grow it to 25. This can bring the PCT down to 27, although 26 makes more sense from a neatness viewpoint. That would then allow the PCT calendar to fall more in line with the PT and CT set-ups of half-set and half-choice (even if i don't like that idea for the CT). And you could trim more races off the PCT schedule as a result.
Might seem rather drastic changes, and a sizable change to the structure which has been stable for a few years. But then a few more teams get a chance to ride PT races and the PCT can be more comparitive to the PT and CT in terms of calendar.
Promote a couple of extra teams from the PCT to PT. Promote an equal number of CT to PCT, without replacing a disbandment higher up.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-02-2017 19:36
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
In fact PCT+PT would probably need to exactly 48 teams together to have the PTHC bands filled.
PT at 22 is fine, 25 is not possible with control team. Was even considered to have it down to 20 and then 28 PCT teams. Could be 22 and 26 as well.
Another option is/was a full band system. But imo a bit of "freedom" to plan in PCT/CT is a nice element and shouldn`t be taken from the game. Hence there should still be all the C1/C2 selection process imo.
Reason for stricter schedule is simple. In theory a full band system would have the lowest amount of reporter work as races would be full for sure. This season lots of races had 16 teams only. While a full band system would bring this to 24 even, this half/half system might bring it to 20 teams in average.
And it`s not like the changes are that drastic really. Only big change is the PTHC category. And this is pretty much what didn`t work to 100% with previous PT in HC bands system. It`s about 30rd or so per team. So not the big game changer, that could take away stability.
The PCT would need to be also down to 24 to have a strict line as in PT or planned in CT. But this is simply hard to do. Then we would need to "relegate" teams, that were not in the bottom 5 and I think, this is not a good idea.  |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 20-02-2017 19:48
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Good reasoning, can't argue with that 
|
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 20-02-2017 20:28
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
But please don't turn both the PTHC and HC into bands, because more mandatory races we do not want is definitely not an improvement.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-02-2017 20:33
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
But please don't turn both the PTHC and HC into bands, because more mandatory races we do not want is definitely not an improvement.
HC was always in a band system I think. Quite hard to make it without bands and still make sure it`s balanced with same race days in that category. |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 20-02-2017 20:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Perhaps it would be an idea to also decrease the number of teams? There are several teams each year that goes without a manager for a major part of the season. Perhaps disbanding a little bit more harsh, and not taking in as many would be an option, to also crowd the teams a bit more in fewer races?
Imo there's no need for the PCT to be as big as it is. And the CT currently works as a "every team that wants a promotion gets on" more or less. Was it 9-10 teams that were promoted last season?
I'm fine with changing the calender, although it deems quite a lot of work with racedays and such, as if we cut the division by 40 races (20%) it is likely that the big guns will become even more important. Should it be impossible for the GC riders to ride only one GT then? If that is the point then you are likely to see less variation in the smaller GC races that includes mountains, which will be PACKED, and then the GTs will be the less interesting races. If it's still possible to have your Pluchkin, Schleck, Spilak in two Grand Tours then you inflate the specific riders value over riders from the subtop.
So definately needs some thinking... But i'll adapt, so no worries
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 20-02-2017 20:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
roturn wrote:
The PCT would need to be also down to 24 to have a strict line as in PT or planned in CT. But this is simply hard to do. Then we would need to "relegate" teams, that were not in the bottom 5 and I think, this is not a good idea.
Just disband some teams. There are plenty to pick from. Both in the PT and the PCT.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-02-2017 20:50
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Amount of rd obviously would go down as well. Not sure yet if riders will definitly drop below the chance of 2 GTs. Definitely needs a lot more thinking as you say.
Amount of managers surely will go down. Hence also teams as I think we won`t reach a 22/30/26 again and it`s more likely something like 22/26/15 or something next year. Just numbers yet as nothing we know by now. |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 20-02-2017 21:01
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
To keep it short, most changes proposed by roturn sound really good. Awesome to see you develop the MG further! Cool to see the racing schedules getting a fresh treatment. PT is overcrowded with races, little choice for managers to mix it up now and then. Reduction of team managers? Why not. Maybe reducing race limit to 7/8(GT) (as in ICL) could also be an option.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 20-02-2017 21:03
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
roturn wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
But please don't turn both the PTHC and HC into bands, because more mandatory races we do not want is definitely not an improvement.
HC was always in a band system I think. Quite hard to make it without bands and still make sure it`s balanced with same race days in that category.
Well yes, keep one of them in bands, but if you make both bands it's going to be very hard to keep PCT teams competitive unless they get an allround roster, which isn't realistic in my opinion. Sport Vlaanderen doesn't have stage racers and Caja Rural don't have cobblers. It's not the PT.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-02-2017 21:12
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
roturn wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
But please don't turn both the PTHC and HC into bands, because more mandatory races we do not want is definitely not an improvement.
HC was always in a band system I think. Quite hard to make it without bands and still make sure it`s balanced with same race days in that category.
Well yes, keep one of them in bands, but if you make both bands it's going to be very hard to keep PCT teams competitive unless they get an allround roster, which isn't realistic in my opinion. Sport Vlaanderen doesn't have stage racers and Caja Rural don't have cobblers. It's not the PT.
If it`s 40rd in HC and 30 in PTHC for example.
You would still have like 30-40 or so via your own choice.
Of those ~70 in bands, you surely can select bands with ~40-50 suited rd.
Then 20-30rd would need a bit of balanced roster if you want to perform to the best. If you only have a weaker squad there, you should still do rather well in the whole picture if you do great in the races, you can pick on your own.
Last year it was 80/140 in bands. So pretty much remains similar as in 2016. |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
