roturn wrote:
Why do PT teams need to compromise heavily?

It`s a tiny thing to do imo. Plan 3 GTs with 7 of your riders. Done.

roturn wrote:
To balance this chances for all teams in PCT, such system would clearly help as all teams have 3 riders with a defined xp gain.

roturn wrote:
1) You basically can still decide by bidding on the rider, that suits your ideas the most.

2) They did decide as they wanted him or his future maxed version. But being PCT it is hard to max themselves. Just like level 1 riders in PT are usually loaned to CT. So nothing different in that direction.

PCT->PT loans though tend to be a lot in favour towards the PT teams. Cheap money, Rider Spot filled, decent rider a lot of times. And then only a small amount of PCT riders get this loan chance. Many more are offered from day 1 in transfers without success. So many remain unmaxed for yet another season.

To balance this chances for all teams in PCT, such system would clearly help as all teams have 3 riders with a defined xp gain.

Of course discussion is good and might lead to another system. But this just my points for such system.

How about allowing narrow roads? I mean, PCM handles them pretty decently now, and having spare space left is part of the normal racing circuit, so why don't we just allow them?

That does not mean that I deperately want them in any race, but more of a thing for reporters motivations: To not have to replay stages where narrow roads are discovered afterwards, eventhough they have no unrealistic influence.

roturn wrote:
Well Crash Ratio is another topic, that can be discussed to be changed!

My initial thought was that "eventhough nothing has happened there we have to rerun a stage of a race because we ever do so", which did sound rather stupid to me - and my intention was that we don't "have" to do a re-race due to that even if there is no influence measured

First key question from me is has there been a decision on whether or not MG is moving from PCM15 -> PCM16 or not? I recall there was quite a bit of chat at the beginning of this season around '16 treating some of the stats differently. Is there a definitive decision, and if moving to '16 is there some generalised learning from those who have experience of testing the MG database what influence these changes have so that we are all on a level playing field of knowledge.

Think this is now put to bed, but thought I should contribute to the discussion about PT rider quality in PCT. For reference, when I had Nutresa in PCT (who managed a mid-table finishing position), in each of the categories my best rider was either only just meeting the existing PT rider limit, or in a number of categories was lesser. I would therefore suggest that increasing the PT quality limit further was not advisable.

Is a different part of the discussion, but (to me, imo), there are a number of riders in PCT who are obvious PT quality who arrive in div 2 due to either teams relegating and hanging on to leaders (which is reasonable), or being sold by PT to support raining costs. Looking at e.g. the GT's, PCT leaders managed as high as podium overall; this might suggest that PT teams should be holding on to more of these riders rather than selling them on (!).

Referencing earlier discussion in the thread, a 24/24/24 league structure solution to me seems to be very sensible, and worthwhile in maximising use of reporters time productively. Although a lot of fun is derived in PCT and CT in the strategising around race selection, I would understand completely if more streamlining of the calendar led to a more fixed race programme. This would potentially address something that I am not so keen on in that part of a successful strategy is to identify under-appreciated events with low numbers of teams on start line to hoover up points. Full race fields seem a good idea to me from both a competiton perspective, and better use of limited reporters availability (by allowing further streamlining of calendars).

I like the thought process that in PCT & CT there would become more of a strategy/conflict arising between teams choosing to specialise in 1 or 2 terrains, and those trying to compete across all terrains.

On discussion around changing approach to XP and Loan system, I like the existing model a lot, and seem to have missed the specifics as to why major changes appear to be desired.

If lack of loans available into PT is the concern (which I would strongly sympathise, having had trouble and failed to get PT loans for solid lvl 4 riders that can't then get maxed), then a small tweak of rules might help. E.g. All PT teams must use a minimum of XYZ RD's (maybe 100) on unmaxed loaned-in riders. PT teams still have freedom to choose which races to use in. Specifying RD's would be better than a number of riders, as prevents them just being left on the bench! This would be a smaller change than some of the radical overhauls that have been listed.

DIscussion on narrow roads. I'm completely against this. Generally the issue here is that early in races, where riders are in bunch is pretty random, hence narrow roads impact is a lottery; already enough randomness in the AI. In real life, teams would respond to narrow roads by fighting for position in advance, PCM AI is not doing this. So around this, I support the current MG approach of removing narrow roads where they do occur.