Ton1Mart1n wrote:

Okay thanks. Is it realistic when you play the stages? How is the time gap etc?

canojuancho wrote:


I don't know, don't have the PCM16, i just giving you a general opinion about real climbers

Tafiolmo wrote:
2. I haven't done actual testing in this but I'm certain the higher the stats the higher the gap so 84-83 should see bigger differences than 83-82

TheManxMissile wrote:


It's been known for a while that stat's are non-linear with a much bigger gap between 83-84 than 73-74 than 63-64 than 53-54. It's not a huge exponential rise but one that is significant enough it has to be accounted for.

Tafiolmo wrote:
'@ToniMartin

There are a number of things that you really need to take into consideration when tinkering with stats:

1. Using 84 and having the top riders at elevated levels really leads to too much race dominance and the unrealistic situation with riders winning too many stages in GT's for example.

2. I haven't done actual testing in this but I'm certain the higher the stats the higher the gap so 84-83 should see bigger differences than 83-82 hence Olifardh's suggestion to drop everyone a -1 for starters.

3. The most important imo though is the use of a riders other stats. So for example, if we are looking at mtn stats flat, hill and res can really make a difference to how a rider performs so riders like Thomas and Dumoulin with big flat and res are going to perform better in GT's than their 78 and 77 in our DB, by at least a point better than they actually are and if you calculate what they're going to gain in the TT's it actually makes them GT contenders for a good top 10 position in a top class field.

In fact we've had these riders before a point better at 79 and 78 and they were just too good in GT's.

Valverde is another issue and his hill stat and other back-ups actually make him imo almost 2 points better in mtn which is a lot.

So what do we know about Valverde as a GT rider? well he doesn't race intelligently and attacks when he shouldn't, doesn't climb well on really big cols (above a certain altitude) and has only won 1 GT in his career. Now when we had Valverde on 81 mtn he was able to win the Tour in a field that included Froome. Even when he was at 80 mtn he could still win Giros and Vueltas in the game but now at 79 mtn he's more likely to be chasing podium positions which is far more realistic because with his 79 mtn he's probably going to be climbing like an 81 with his aforementioned stats and having the best hill stat in the game.

It's not just mtn riders but take a rider like Sagan we all know he's brute on the bike and capable of anything but we recently lowered his flat after raising it a few months earlier ss he was just too good winning monument after monument (not very exciting gaming) and I remember a few years ago in a Le Tour that I was playing he actually finished 10th in the Tour de France with just 73 mtn largely because his res was just so powerful and his rec being a sprinter was very high as well.

I find when doing good stats it really pays to take into consideration all of a riders stat potential.

Overall despite all of what I've said the game is also influenced by pre-race and daily form which will enhance everything as well.

Anyway good gaming!

gvarv wrote:
For completion, these were the stats I used for Quintana and Contador in the game:

Quintana: 68 83 73 65 74 74 62 77 75 75 84 77 77

Contador: 73 82 77 65 76 75 62 79 77 75 80 78 82

These stats are almost a carbon copy of google docs (and was totally based on google docs stats!), with Quintana having an important extra point of ACC. Looking at the current stats for Q on 'Docs, I think I'll keep my RES and ACC, but drop the TT like the Docs.

My Contador is probably too strong, and Ill be using the teams' stats for my next sim.

Arberg27 wrote:
- Contador is not super good more, Contadope was much better...
- Porte was second strongest in Tour last year after Froome.
- Quintana is super good, but Froome smash him always in first 1-2 weeks, last year all 3 weeks. He liver more on REC.

Froome: 83
Quintana: 82
Porte: 82
Nibali: 81
Contador: 81
Chaves: 81
Aru: 80
Bardet: 80
Valverde: 80

Naxela wrote:


Perfect stats. And yes Contador is not the same but he should have pretty good secondary stats opposed to Porte and even Quintana imo (besides REC). But maybe a little unsure about Chaves, he is a type of rider similar to Valverde, he can win too much time on the hilly stages but i don't disagree with his mountain stats but hope they test his stats carefully not to make him OP. What would you have him on Hill? 80?

Kalach wrote:


When we are talking only about MO stats Quintana is slightly better climber than Froome. I think Quintana should have 83 and Froome 82. Or they should be at least equal in MO imho.

Contador -1 to Quintana in MO. Contador is certainly stronger than Nibali