SotD wrote:
May I suggest that new riders will be added with a max stat of 79 in his highest stat? That would mean that he would have to undergo quite some training to make it to 85, which IMO is what we want. Also it can potentielle open up for some more versatile talents, and a more free training option. The first stats aren't that expensive to train, so the best talents would quickly get to 81.
1. Move that to the 2017 suggestions thread I'd say.
2. This is, as discussed there, in my eyes the worst of possible attempts to stop stat inflation. It would in first line majorly decrease the opportunities of newer team, as the base of top-riders stays the same. You would at the end of the day need around 5 million to make one rider competitive, which for new teams is simply not affordable.
It would also somewhat kill parts of the flow of the transfer period. Why would you sell a captain as a PT team, when you have to pay high wage for the best talents and then even have to pay at least 5 millions to make them competitive. Transfer season would be a lot slower, and it will be far harder for teams to work their way up. Do we really want that?
Talking about getting riders to 81. That stat is almost completely useless in PT when we'll be at that point, because riders wouldn't be enough to captain a team on that point.
You can not punish these generations for the "failures" (I don't see a big problem right now) of before. We do also want the riders from 95, 96, 97 in the upcoming years to be as competitive as the former ones were, just for the sake of similar chances. We don't want a static system of old beats new, but we want dynamic chances for managers to work their way up (and down) if they are good and caring (like f.e. Evonik and Strava are). Stopping to add great new riders would heavily decrease their opportunities tod o so.
Please do answer to this in the 2017 suggestions thread, where we already discussed about regulating options, and leave this thread for what it is: Rider suggestions
I very much agree with Croatia here. I'd also add that in my opinion the inflation isn't as bad as it used to be. A lot of the big guns will be declining soon so we will be left with less 82+ riders.
I think the way talents have been added in the past 2 seasons or so is a good way to balance things up. Only adding weak talents gives too much benefit to the teams with already established leaders that won't be worried about declining anytime soon. This means that we could end up with the same teams fighting for the top 5 places year after year, while the new promoted teams would have almost no chance of staying up, which is exactly what we wanted to avoid in 2010 when the salary cap was introduced.
In fact by no longer adding the youngest riders and having stricter rules such as 1996 maximum and then also not big talents of that year, this is solved in parts.
Back then when 16-18 year olds were added, they might have become overpowered.
Now when a rider being 21 or 22 or 23 only and then get`s added, this makes them a lot more balanced from scratch already.
Yeah, this year's Avenir had a few freaks amongst the start list. On the other hand, if you look at all the rookies in my team, I don't think any of them can ride a 2nd Avenir next year (unless I'm counting stuff wrong again), that shouldn't be the case either imo.
Maybe there should be some Avenir limit like Level 2 or 3 max only, would stop having really strong talents who obviously shouldn't be in a field like that.
I didn't say that adding riders with max 79 main stat would be something to do forever, but for this upcoming seasin it needs to be done imo. New teams will always have plenty of opportunity to make a good team as several strong riders + talents are coming up for free from disbanding/relegated teams.
This season it's more important than ever, as we go down in numbers.
There are a bunch of newly maxed riders and not yet maxed riders with a top level of 81-84 having 8-10 seasons as a top level rider. IMO that needs to stop. ASAP. Riders like Herklotz, Gaviria, Ahlstrand, The aussie sprinter, and many many more will all have a top stat that will make them 84-85 high stat as soon as they are training eligeble. Then what is the point if seeing Spilak, Schleck, Bewley, Pluchkin etc. getting worse? New riders with similar (or better) stats are coming from the free agents pool every season. It's a horrible mishap of the game, and as long as we don't make amends, the same discussion will come again and again. Why not learn? Is it really that important to get top top level talents? I love spending money on trainig, but it makes no sense to train Tom David or Yuriy Vasyliv because I have access to Lecuisinier and Coquard. If I didn't, that money would be used on those subtop riders. They would slowly get better and better results, like IRL, instead of Lecuisiner now making 4th in the Vuelta. Train him two seasons in a row and he will win a GT. Herklotz, Dombrowski etc. hardly needs any training to win a GT. Do we want that? IMO it takes away the concept of training if we just keep on adding riders that will beat the old training monsters. Mind you there have been put 7-10mio worth of training into riders like Pluchkin, Schleck and Spilak...
It's not like we're going to add tons of beast talents, i assume. But no need to artificially cap on all additions. Just add less of them will do as good a job of slowing inflation and keeping balance to the game.
Stop changing FA unsigned riders completely. Then hold off on bigger talents until age 21-22, not 19-20, and add 1-2 less and the game will deflate. Not fast, but in a controlled and manageable fashion that doesn't wildly fluctuate from the past.
And as ive said before, combine that with making declines faster and the DB will deflate noticably well in two seasons.
Heck i'd also rather see it be harder to get XP than capping additions potential. Even moving to a 4 year minimum development, combined with the above suggestions, will go a long way to pulling down the DB and generating greater future balance.
We need both. Why? Because 1) Reactions are made bases on real meassurable issues, and not problems we dont yet have (political way of thinking). And 2) When making drastical changes to the amount of teams in the game, drastical changes will be needed to the DB.
Changing the decrease age or the training rules will fuck with loyal managers who put YEARS i to the game, while my suggestions in worst case will make it more difficult for new managers to just get a double promotion like Metinvest, Evonik or Strava. IMO that isnt even a problem.
We need both. Why? Because 1) Reactions are made bases on real meassurable issues, and not problems we dont yet have (political way of thinking). And 2) When making drastical changes to the amount of teams in the game, drastical changes will be needed to the DB.
Changing the decrease age or the training rules will fuck with loyal managers who put YEARS i to the game, while my suggestions in worst case will make it more difficult for new managers to just get a double promotion like Metinvest, Evonik or Strava. IMO that isnt even a problem.
That is what I do not understand. Training should only be an extra if you have some money leftover in my eyes. If you have problems with riders trained up high, why don't you just really increase the training costs?
I disagree with all other terms you mentioned in the qouted post too, but I guess that's just two very different sights on it.
SotD wrote:
We need both. Why? Because 1) Reactions are made bases on real meassurable issues, and not problems we dont yet have (political way of thinking). And 2) When making drastical changes to the amount of teams in the game, drastical changes will be needed to the DB.
Changing the decrease age or the training rules will fuck with loyal managers who put YEARS i to the game, while my suggestions in worst case will make it more difficult for new managers to just get a double promotion like Metinvest, Evonik or Strava. IMO that isnt even a problem.
Don't get "not problems we don't yet have". I don't think Stat Inflation is as big a problem as others, hence my suggestion of slower term changes over sharp short term onces. And that inflation is easily managed with various small changes to the game, which i've listed before.
Unfortunately i can't comment on the last time the game size changed, being that i joined as part of that change. Although to my mind if we shrink the number of teams, the more obvious solution is to shrink the DB and not limit the stats of what goes in.
Never suggested changing the decrease age, and i wouldn't change that. I have said before that making declines sharper, i.e. riders decline faster at 33, combined with other changes would help keep the DB inflation balanced.
For this season, i don't think capping additions at 79 is a good idea. Limit additions yes, by only having a couple of 80+ that are 21-23yo. Then add in one or two other measures, like no FA changes and older less great additions in general etc.
Same outcome, just less drastic with time to adjust the changes to get them really right for the game as a whole.
There's no point swinging one way with a fairly reactionary idea, only to go too far and have to swing back in the future.
As you seem so keen on emphasising, this is a game of years so lets take the little bit of time to get it really right.
We need both. Why? Because 1) Reactions are made bases on real meassurable issues, and not problems we dont yet have (political way of thinking). And 2) When making drastical changes to the amount of teams in the game, drastical changes will be needed to the DB.
Changing the decrease age or the training rules will fuck with loyal managers who put YEARS i to the game, while my suggestions in worst case will make it more difficult for new managers to just get a double promotion like Metinvest, Evonik or Strava. IMO that isnt even a problem.
That is what I do not understand. Training should only be an extra if you have some money leftover in my eyes. If you have problems with riders trained up high, why don't you just really increase the training costs?
I disagree with all other terms you mentioned in the qouted post too, but I guess that's just two very different sights on it.
Training is a rule aswell as everything else. Managers who build their team from scratch and with training as a major point of development, shouldn't be punished because we aren't capable of shutting the problem down elsewhere. IMO that is definately not fair.
The problem isn't training riders to become good, but the fact that they are born too good. Otherwise we could just completely remove the training part, if we want to fully determine the amount of top riders in a certain category.
I'm not one that is hit the hardest. Sure, I have spent 4 years developping riders with training them as a key part - And yes, I would feel like I had wasted those 4 years if it was not possible anymore, but some other managers are hit WAY harder. I'll adapt. I always do. But it must surely suck for a team like Puma to have invested time, relegations and what not to get a talentpool that is eligeble for training in the future, if it all of a sudden becomes almost impossible.
I know that riders like Demare has been firmly scheduled in his progression, and it would kill the determination and motivation, if that is no longer possible - AND that for a loyal manager that have been in the game for several years. And IMO those managers are more important than managers that have been in the game for 1-2 seasons - no offense...
Anybody that thinks stat inflation is not an issue, have you checked any results lately? 82-84 guys in PCT teams speak a lot about stat inflation (and also few other things).
I just read through the ideas from last two pages and have to say that those "forced loans" to PT would be maybe the worst thing ever invented into this game...nobody forces PCT/CT teams to invest into talents and look at my guys and how i have developed them during 3-4 years, from lvl 1-2 talents to good/great PT riders - Zmorka, Grosu, Karnulin, Sosnitskiy, Bratashcuk, Tanovitchii and several others. You need patience, you need connection and good relations, you need to plan well, but you can perfectly do it without anything being forced. Plan and sign only who you want, that is basic rule and BBL had a very nice post and i agree fully with him. Dont put "socialist" glasses on, dont hinder PT teams for being in best division. Be like Metinvest and build slowly!
Just a question to understand the system, If i rider "grow stat" from avg. 77 - 79
will the owner also have to pay higher salery as in real live to keep him ?
Tamijo wrote:
Just a question to understand the system, If i rider "grow stat" from avg. 77 - 79
will the owner also have to pay higher salery as in real live to keep him ?
Most likely, but it depends on a lot of factors. It is decided during renewals
AVG rating, key stats, results, current wage and probably other things aswell play into that. Which is also why my riders went crazy in wages last season. Their results were a bit too good. This season I will have even bigger problems, as some have overperformed drastically.
In my opinion we should consider trying to make the game better with introducing form of riders. My idea is based around making a choice during off-season, when you have to decide in which month your rider will keep all his attributes. In all other months of the season the rider will get -1 to all his attributes.
The advantage of this system would be that it would bring in at least a small difference in racing fields during the season. Some changes to calendar would have to be made: for example cobble season in PT could then look like this: Januray EMCC, February Het Nieuwsblad, March Flanders, April Roubaix, May Appia Antica. In 4 of these races Bewley would have only cobble attribute 82. Summerhill or GVA could have an advantage over him in that race. I can even see a case of making an additional option, that you can decide your rider will get one +1 month, but he will then receieve -2 to all his attributes in all other months of the year. This could result into having bigger tactical options during the season and having more different races during the season.
The disadvantage would be that there would be a need for 10 extra DBs during the season, however I think it would not be a big technical problem at all if we can find a right way how to get the needed data from one excel table to another.
sammyt93 wrote:
Plus with the number of 1980 and 1981 guys not in the DB but on WT teams plus the ones still on teams in the DB like Boonen, Valverde, Cummings, Cancellara (who now retired was still at a WT team start of last Mg Season) Rogers (1979, released by Oz last year, was at a WT team start of previous MG season) it might be worth looking at the age decline and changing how it works so it lasts longer but is less harsh season to season.
I'm not saying it should definitely be changed but I think there is at least a discussion to be had about it even if we chose to stick with how it is now.
I like how this is almost the exact opposite of my arguements on Age of Decline, and that the rate of decline is too gentle currently and should be sped up to help combat stat inflation.
Making the Age of Decline later and/or slower will only make stat inflation problems worse. Already many riders are at peak ability for 6-7 years (not sure exactly, but this is around the average time a rider will be max'd for). Unlike real cycling, MG rider don't have good and bad years where their "stats" go up or down. And every year new riders are added which generates more stat increases, which requires decline to balance the DB.
Anyway, all explained and argued in the general 2017 Idea Suggestion thread.
I didn't mean making the age they start declining later, I said if anything bring it forward slightly, but make the decline less sharp and last longer so the age they stop declining and leave the DB is later as there are clearly some strong riders at their age in real life.
Michael Rogers came out of our DB at a level where he was still scoring points in the PT, imo he should have been left a little longer as he would still have been a more than decent rider for a CT team this year.
I think Frank Schleck would be coming out of the DB after this year, where he is still 77 hill, next year he would still have an impact in CT on 75/74 HIll as a road captain and good domestique.
Cancellara would be 77 Cob next year and would still be a great final man for a PCT leader, nevermind what he could do if paired with a similar strength rider but with better backups in CT.
Taking guys from the top to this level in 3 seasons doesn't feel right to me though, I think it should be a more gradual decline, over more seasons, but one that finishes later so they would still be worth picking up for a couple of years by a CT team rather than a 1 season wonder for them.
SotD wrote:
AVG rating, key stats, results, current wage and probably other things aswell play into that. Which is also why my riders went crazy in wages last season. Their results were a bit too good. This season I will have even bigger problems, as some have overperformed drastically.
More complex than I had expected, but fair enough that an overperforming rider, want more pay.
Tamijo wrote:
Just a question to understand the system, If i rider "grow stat" from avg. 77 - 79
will the owner also have to pay higher salery as in real live to keep him ?
Hey Tamijo. I think the answer to what you are asking is that in future a rider would expect more pay. However the timing of the off season means that a riders wages are set before training is set, hence for that season a trained rider is potentially costing (wages) less than might otherwise be normal for his abilities. The following season his wage demands will then reflect his new stats.This benefit is specific to training. The timing of stat gains due to XP from the previous season mean that young riders maturing already have their updated stats before wage negotiations.
In a more general sense, as others have stated, ignoring training, rider Joe Bloggs with an overall avg of X will command more wages than Joe Normal with an overall avg of X-5. Other factors like that seasons results can mean that two riders with the same overall avg. rating can have different wage expectations if one has been very successful, the other not.
Tamijo wrote:
Just a question to understand the system, If i rider "grow stat" from avg. 77 - 79
will the owner also have to pay higher salery as in real live to keep him ?
Hey Tamijo. I think the answer to what you are asking is that in future a rider would expect more pay. However the timing of the off season means that a riders wages are set before training is set, hence for that season a trained rider is potentially costing (wages) less than might otherwise be normal for his abilities. The following season his wage demands will then reflect his new stats.This benefit is specific to training. The timing of stat gains due to XP from the previous season mean that young riders maturing already have their updated stats before wage negotiations.
In a more general sense, as others have stated, ignoring training, rider Joe Bloggs with an overall avg of X will command more wages than Joe Normal with an overall avg of X-5. Other factors like that seasons results can mean that two riders with the same overall avg. rating can have different wage expectations if one has been very successful, the other not.
I wasent thinking about the timing, that was simply above me
I was just trying to get a general idea of how riders get their "price tag"
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
