Team HQ could be probably transformed into an Man-Game Press Centre or something like that. Team threads, MG archive, race winners archive, a place for awards threads that have a function for all divisions or any other ideas of this type of things.
And also I would merge PT/PCT/CT threads for discussion, rankings updates during the year and predictions before the season to one subforum, similarly as race reports subforums. I feel for a long time that the current format of the forum supports to create bigger gaps between divisions than needed. One big forum for results means that when your want to find out about MG TdF result, you may also then click to find out about Tour of the Czech Republic results. If these are in their own subforum, some people may not care then. And it would make the life easier when you are here from your phone, it is really annoying.
And when I am into it: Admins, please, merge all these PCM14/13 subforums into only a big one for a game, it takes a long-time to scroll down on my mobile all the way to MG threads, once again, it is really annoying.
Roman wrote:
Team HQ could be probably transformed into an Man-Game Press Centre or something like that. Team threads, MG archive, race winners archive, a place for awards threads that have a function for all divisions or any other ideas of this type of things.
And also I would merge PT/PCT/CT threads for discussion, rankings updates during the year and predictions before the season to one subforum, similarly as race reports subforums. I feel for a long time that the current format of the forum supports to create bigger gaps between divisions than needed. One big forum for results means that when your want to find out about MG TdF result, you may also then click to find out about Tour of the Czech Republic results. If these are in their own subforum, some people may not care then. And it would make the life easier when you are here from your phone, it is really annoying.
And when I am into it: Admins, please, merge all these PCM14/13 subforums into only a big one for a game, it takes a long-time to scroll down on my mobile all the way to MG threads, once again, it is really annoying.
The middle one is a must for me I've gotten lazy checking the C2 results this season to the point were I saw a team earlier and had to check they were real, Having them all in one place would stop my and others being lazy and only checking the one forum
Roman wrote:
Team HQ could be probably transformed into an Man-Game Press Centre or something like that. Team threads, MG archive, race winners archive, a place for awards threads that have a function for all divisions or any other ideas of this type of things.
Don't mind HQ's and Archives being merged. Would be quite good actually and make a lot more sense than the current set-up.
Would probably also mean they are kept more up to date, like the "At a Glance" threads which are like 2 years out of date.
And also I would merge PT/PCT/CT threads for discussion, rankings updates during the year and predictions before the season to one subforum, similarly as race reports subforums. I feel for a long time that the current format of the forum supports to create bigger gaps between divisions than needed. One big forum for results means that when your want to find out about MG TdF result, you may also then click to find out about Tour of the Czech Republic results. If these are in their own subforum, some people may not care then. And it would make the life easier when you are here from your phone, it is really annoying.
I would be ok with merging the race Discussions and rankings updates into one subforum. Put them all into Man-Game General.
But i would still separate Results from this subforum and keep the Division results separate.
Results threads will massively outnumber Discussions etc and make them hard to keep track of and find, especially for people that miss a month or two. Then inside that the higher divisions have more race days and for example the PT GT's would be 66 results threads and hugely overshadow everything else.
And in a busy month with, lets say, 6 or 7 stage races AND 5 or 6 classics, you'd very very quickly find recent results on a second page and that is not a good motivator to read other divisions results.
If clicking on a separate forum is too much effort, scrolling back pages to find your divisions races, which are the ones you will care more about, is not going to be easier.
In favor of merging Discussions to one subforum, but very very much against merging Results together.
And when I am into it: Admins, please, merge all these PCM14/13 subforums into only a big one for a game, it takes a long-time to scroll down on my mobile all the way to MG threads, once again, it is really annoying.
I'm sure we can look into it, because it does kinda need doing anyway.
Is it possible to change the XP system next year to give
C1 and C2(C2HC) all 0.5 points xp at level 4 like the HC races give
1. I don't think this will effect the loan market as the max race days a PCT guy can ride is 79. so without wildcards the max xp gained would be 40xp meaning a rider would already need to be above 4.60 to max without wildcards. and 82xp the max with 1 GT wildcard.
2. Offers a 2nd 2/3 year development option to teams wanting to keep there riders obviously meaning a loan would be a long term benefit adding a bit more strategy to the game
3. Could lead to more riders getting maxed that would otherwise be of no interest to the PT (Bakari)
Roman wrote:
I like the idea about 'Year Founded' column as well. It could link to MG archive post of that particular team. Also MG archive could be moved to some other subforum, Race profiles category is the last place where I would look after that archive.
I also like that idea, and it probably should be in either this subforum or ManGame General.
I think it's even in last years race profile forum not the one we are now finishing so it definitely needs to be moved.
I think it should be a sticky in the Team HQ subforum. I'll move it there once I'm done with it (if Roturn allows me that is).
Also, I think he should have threads with historical rankings for each division so we don't have to look through endless pages of the General subforums to see the rankings for a certain division or year.
This. I recently searched for old (2007-...) PT ranking threads and it took me ages to find that there was indeed a PT archieve thread for the first season. Would be cool to see them updated and sticky somewhere. ( https://pcmdaily.c...ost_870202 and https://pcmdaily.c...pid=870171 for PT ranking achieves.)
And also I would merge PT/PCT/CT threads for discussion, rankings updates during the year and predictions before the season to one subforum, similarly as race reports subforums. I feel for a long time that the current format of the forum supports to create bigger gaps between divisions than needed. One big forum for results means that when your want to find out about MG TdF result, you may also then click to find out about Tour of the Czech Republic results. If these are in their own subforum, some people may not care then.
This is certainly true to some extent and i can see advantages in merging race discussion subforums. But, I'm against merging the actual results subforums. I like to look at the history of a single rider over the years and the current structure of the results forums allow me to filter out all races a rider might have raced a lot quicker than without the structure. (The forum search cannot be used for riders with lots of history because it only shows 100 posts for any search term / 200 if you use ascending and descending.)
knockout wrote:
This. I recently searched for old (2007-...) PT ranking threads and it took me ages to find that there was indeed a PT archieve thread for the first season. Would be cool to see them updated and sticky somewhere. ( https://pcmdaily.c...ost_870202 and https://pcmdaily.c...pid=870171 for PT ranking achieves.)
I think we could have one sticky thread per division with the individual and team rankings in the same post (or consecutive posts) rather than two different threads since it would be easier to see exactly which riders had a big impact on the team rankings.
I'll get to work on those tomorrow since it will also help me while updating the teams archive to have all the rankings in one place (even though only the information for the teams created in the last 3 seasons needs to be added so there's shouldn't have been a lot of division changes there).
Sorry for responding in the other thread. Anywho...
alexkr00 wrote:
(even though only the information for the teams created in the last 3 seasons needs to be added so there's shouldn't have been a lot of division changes there).
Ok, actually sounds reasonable to keep results subforums splitted.
jt1109 wrote:
Is it possible to change the XP system next year to give
C1 and C2(C2HC) all 0.5 points xp at level 4 like the HC races give
1. I don't think this will effect the loan market as the max race days a PCT guy can ride is 79. so without wildcards the max xp gained would be 40xp meaning a rider would already need to be above 4.60 to max without wildcards. and 82xp the max with 1 GT wildcard.
2. Offers a 2nd 2/3 year development option to teams wanting to keep there riders obviously meaning a loan would be a long term benefit adding a bit more strategy to the game
3. Could lead to more riders getting maxed that would otherwise be of no interest to the PT (Bakari)
Fully agree that we need a change in this area. I have already suggested a change in this area as a part of my masterplan revamp. I suggested to give full 1 XP point for HC/C1HC/C2HC races.
Well what if we just give out 1 XP point in all HC, C1HC and C2HC in lvl 4?
HC = category for both PT and PCT teams; 40 RDs for PT, 40 RDs for PCT
C1HC = category just for PCT teams; 40 RDs
C2HC = category just for CT teams; 60 RDs
HC would be a new expanded PT category that would replace the presence of PCT teams as wildcard teams in PT. From EXP point of view, it should give PT teams a chance to receive RDs for lvl 2 riders. C1HC would be an old HC category, with PCT having only 24 teams, this would be a mini-PT-like PCT calendar. Similarly as C2HC for CT. No bands in these races. Bands would remain just in HC.
In addition to that, we should have these race categories:
GT/PT/M = PT calendar reduced to something like 140 RDs in total
C1/C2 = similarly as now both PCT/CT teams have 50 RDs to select races they like. This could be potentially done in bands as well.
PT would then get 180 RDs, PCT 130, CT 110. Now it is 204/140/120 (if I remember right). The final result of reports needed would be 350 instead of 430 with only a small loss for all teams. Go for 24-24-24 PT-PCT-CT to max the potential of the game.
The clear advantage of this would be that with a tweaked XP system, both PCT and CT could have an easier time to max out their lvl 4 riders without loaning out them. It should be IMO somehow doable in PCT in one year and in two years in CT. My system would result in PCT teams having 80 RDs when their riders receive 1 XP on lvl 4, CT teams would have 60.
The clear disadvantage would remain with PT teams: clear need to loan out lvl 1 riders, the need to loan out lvl 4 riders would remain mainly for CT teams.
And outside of EXP point of view: we have a new exciting racing between both PT/PCT while it would remain only just a small part of calendar for both categories. A lot of PCT teams have riders capable of competing with PT teams, it could be more of similar between PCT/CT. Just add some extra wage cap money to CT teams, but I can see some extra money for PCT as well to give them bigger chances for better riders to really compete. Also I can see a case for expanding minimum roster sizes for teams in all divisions. Extra team depth should result in better racing, similarly it feels really weird that PCT teams have a similar size as PT teams and so on. And lastly: no stat restrictions. These are always making the game unfair to some teams.
And to be honest I don't really like giving some XP points in C1/C2 for lvl 4 riders. We should IMO try to keep these races as mainly developmental races for lower lvl riders. Give XPs to lvl 4 riders in PCT/CT's own mini-version of PT calendar instead. Plus in HC races, that should IMO replace these opportunities for wild-cards in PT races for PCT teams and bring in much needed real racing between PT and PCT at similar time.
It has been implied that there might be changes due to alterations of the system governing races involving both the PT and PCT. One thought I've had a number of times (don't think I've written anywhere though), along the lines of offering a little more opportunity for PCT and CT teams to (slowly) develop lvl 4 riders without needing to use loans would be to make the Tour of America XP awards in line with the PT Grand Tours (still a C1 category race, this would be only change, i.e. XP) - the pros all say that a 3 week race is a major development step!
This might help bring some more 'shine' to the Tour of America, that generally is an undersubscribed race - not good value in terms of reporter time when 21 RD's to be reported; might help fill up the field. Would also add additional tactical detail in both PCT and CT, as currently most teams attending ToA do so more for RP value than potential points haul - most of the top teams in both divisions avoid. Would create an interesting extra dynamic, and does not need any fundamental change to existing systems.
And when I am into it: Admins, please, merge all these PCM14/13 subforums into only a big one for a game, it takes a long-time to scroll down on my mobile all the way to MG threads, once again, it is really annoying.
PCM 13 was gonna be done anyway once PCM 17 came out, I guess we could do the same for 1 more edition that is basically deserted anyway, has anyone ever cared about PCM 14?
And also I would merge PT/PCT/CT threads for discussion, rankings updates during the year and predictions before the season to one subforum, similarly as race reports subforums. I feel for a long time that the current format of the forum supports to create bigger gaps between divisions than needed. One big forum for results means that when your want to find out about MG TdF result, you may also then click to find out about Tour of the Czech Republic results. If these are in their own subforum, some people may not care then. And it would make the life easier when you are here from your phone, it is really annoying.
I'm all for putting PT, PCT and CT general discussion in one forum, but I think that merging results as well would result in downsides that at least equal the advantages you listed, whilst getting rid of the more organisation that comes from 2 different subforum for 3 different divisions.
Quick example, for 6 days in total in February and August there's 4 different races clashing, in the first case 3 of the PT races would already be in the same subforum and the PCT ones would just add to it, making it a lot harder imo to find the results you're looking for on mobile.
It has been implied that there might be changes due to alterations of the system governing races involving both the PT and PCT. One thought I've had a number of times (don't think I've written anywhere though), along the lines of offering a little more opportunity for PCT and CT teams to (slowly) develop lvl 4 riders without needing to use loans would be to make the Tour of America XP awards in line with the PT Grand Tours (still a C1 category race, this would be only change, i.e. XP) - the pros all say that a 3 week race is a major development step!
This might help bring some more 'shine' to the Tour of America, that generally is an undersubscribed race - not good value in terms of reporter time when 21 RD's to be reported; might help fill up the field. Would also add additional tactical detail in both PCT and CT, as currently most teams attending ToA do so more for RP value than potential points haul - most of the top teams in both divisions avoid. Would create an interesting extra dynamic, and does not need any fundamental change to existing systems.
I really like this suggestion. ToA is a weird race right now to be avoided for anyone caring a great deal about the points scored. Getting some proper XP would surely change that.
In full support of moves in recent seasons away from introducing 18, 19, 20 year olds (y/o) to the DB. Prevents riders maxing at 22/23 then having decade long dominant careers. Given that the game runs at around season/ real calendar years, 5-7 years for each rider at the ‘top’ of their game is plenty (not looking at e.g. Bewley, or emergents like Herklotz and Ewan here at all!). Although full on realism in the DB is not a fundamental objective, not having to guess how a teenager will develop when introduced to DB also offers better chance in introducing riders more in line with how they might evolve IRL.
Thoughts to help formulate this:
21 years old category:
Riders introduced at 21 y/o must be level 1.
If a rider already looks to be on course to be a potential ‘hitter’ IRL, delay addition until at least 22 to enable assessment of potential strengths/weaknesses.
21 y/o added more for flavour/RP purposes/value, hence maxed stat in terrain focus of 74/75/76 seem appropriate upper limit. More likely then that e.g. riders introduced for national focus in obscure nations will end up with the team they are added to support in the DB, as no need for lots of transfer season competition due to future + long-term high scoring potential.
22 year old category:
Riders introduced at 22 y/o generally lvl 1.
If a rider already part of ProTour IRL with outstanding results, or a dominant U23 pedigree across multiple of the key races for their terrain type (e.g Avenir, Valle d’Aosta, etc., or U23 PR, Flanders, G-W, U23 WC + U23 nation cup races), lvl 2.0 can be warranted. This would also help assuage managers very excited about a 21 y/o talent, as some development benefit in waiting to introduce to DB. Examples from this season IRL that would then fit this kind of criteria would be e.g MA Lopez (Tour of Swiss winner).
23 year old category:
Riders introduced at 23 y/o generally lvl 1, but 2.xx and even 3.0 possible along the same lines of example justification in U22 category.
24 y/o +:
Limit introduction of riders 24+ into the DB. This helps manage the DB size and balance by focussing on 21-23 as input years. Only riders who appear from obscurity late on in IRL careers at PT and PCT level warrant consideration as additions at older ages. Maybe a couple of older basic domestique level riders if a new team appears and is particularly keen to set up in an unusual market
Spoiler
The way this was done for instance when Verkefnid Iceland came along was very well done imo - a number of riders were introduced that that team picked up simply due to nationality, but after they disbanded, only 1 managed to find a new home without the draw of RP flavour, thereby not upsetting the DB ecosystem at all.
Consequences:
U23 races:
Propose that for Avenir and U23 Worlds, in the MG universe we realign to become U25 races – perhaps increase the age criteria slowly over a few seasons. Think majority of managers enjoy these races as an opportunity to see the future stars of the MG have their first major battles over titles. Would also align with U25 being the ‘white jersey’ competition cut-off. Realise this diverges from IRL situation, but as MG now moved away from introducing 18, 19, 20 y/o, the window for U23 races is artificially small – this would rectify. Would also enable most riders to have 1 season of racing these events as maxed if their development carefully looked after.
Stop improving existing riders in the DB in off-seasons - riders ‘base’ stats should be fixed when introduced to DB:
Does mean that in some situations the original stat decisions will not reflect how a rider develops IRL, but that is actually part of the charm of the MG. Nobody is worried that our ‘stars’ are the likes of Pluschkin, Bewley and Madrazo, or that e.g Froome and Kittel are completely different rider types to what we see IRL. Reasons for this proposal are numerous including:
* This is a major source of stat inflation, as balance of riders originally introduced becomes skewed.
* We don’t downgrade riders when turn out to have been over-rated.
* Dedicated and engaged managers are planning for the future in terms of rider selection, development and investing in training using the existing DB and understanding of how existing riders will develop -> increasing stats of riders already in the DB impacts long term planning by again skewing the DB balance, and hence seems unfair.
* Overall, managers may then pay more attention/better see the value of developing riders (many do (and good work then undone by then tinkering with DB)), but some don’t – this should have long term consequences, but currently doesn’t.
Max stat that ‘star’ riders can naturally achieve of 82. This means that headroom still available for development through training, and partially limits very long term career ‘dominance’ as takes an extra year or two if training to become a new ‘king’. Would also hopefully help avoid having too many '85' riders in the DB - this should be the absolute pinnacle!
Perhaps in each terrain type, try to limit the number of 80+ potential ‘natural’ stat riders to 2 or perhaps 3 in a season if a particularly strong year in that terrain. Would seem desirable to have a ‘pyramid’ of riders in the DB from the few obvious ‘stars’ at the top down to many options for domestiques. If this type of approach is adopted long term, is also just as important to continue the pyramid down through the other stats -> no point limiting 80+riders if then dozens of 78-79 introduced instead on each terrain. Similarly at each level below – manage the ‘pyramid’ at the ‘input’ years of 21-23, then the DB can evolve organically as managers make stat increase then training decisions as riders mature.
In closing, we are all entitled to our opinions as MG participants – comments in support, dissent or dispute most welcome. My main purpose is (i) to potentially help laydown a framework to ensure the MG continues to deliver excellent enjoyment in a transparent way for all involved, and (ii) spark further debate (!). I realise that just such a set of guidelines may actually already exist in the background used by the main admins to manage the DB, but if such exists I am not aware of it. Given that anyone can suggest riders for future inclusion, a shared understanding of the approach used would surely be beneficial.
To me, such a "framework" exists just in a very unofficial capacity. In that riders are not commonly added with stats 83/84, and that in recent seasons younger riders are less good and overall the db is somewhat rebalancing. A lot of the existing problems of "monster" riders around for a decade stems from the early game years where systems were, with hindsight, sort of broken.
I'd certailny be against setting "hard limits" on riders additions based on age. And when you can be unique with adding riders with higher stats and XP but lower potential i think such limits would harm the unique development of the game world. It would bring too much of a restrictive structure to the DB, when slow changes/improvements are already in place in a more free form way.
U23 should also NOT change. I think they are great unique events for riders who would not feature in Elite competitions. A rider added at 21 can still get from lvl1 to lvl4 at age 23 when his stats are good, but unlikely to feature against Max'd riders who've had years of training. It gives younger riders a chance to shine that is fun.
Making it U25 would allow Max'd and trained riders in, taking away that chance to have the young guys shine and just replicating the Young Rider competitions already in Stage Races.
Expanding the U23 to have a couple of classics would be preferable, so we could see the cobbles, sprinters and punchers more at that level in their own competitions.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
I suggested to give full 1 XP point for HC/C1HC/C2HC races.
