|
Suggestions for the 2017 season
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 01-05-2017 18:05
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Perhaps the NC's could use an overhaul as well? Too many small nation races where it comes down to attacking or not. Can we simul a few races?
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-05-2017 18:13
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
Perhaps the NC's could use an overhaul as well? Too many small nation races where it comes down to attacking or not. Can we simul a few races?
I'm of the view: Simulate them all, or simulate none. Just because an NC isn't important to you (royal you) doesn't it isn't important to someone else. I personally don't care much for the "bigger" NC's like Belgium or Netherlands but i wouldn't say sim them, because i know they are important to managers in the same way a smaller NC like Canada is to another one.
Plus, not being funny, NC's really don't take long to report. I can crack out 4 in an hour or less. A few more reporters would also massively help get through them fast (like the rest of the season, more reporters = better speed)
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 01-05-2017 18:17
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
I agree on most of your ideas scorchio. Your approach does tackle the problems that are valuable to deal with.
One thing that I do not agree with though is the "Stop improving existing riders" part. While I agree on the fact that creating new 78+ main stat captains is far from what would be needed, another point should be reviewed:
Riders should be able to be changed, if not done to 78+ captains. And that is exactly because of the Icelandic example you made. Why would you create those Icelandic riders, if their "real best" are in the db and not used because they are too weak? If now a new team from lets say Montenegro comes in, and their best 3 riders are already in the DB, but too weak to be used in a senseful way: Why then create new ones but not update the "unused ones"? If you put that option in, then I'd be with you there.
One more thing to the term of transparency: I don't think we should reach for full transperancy in this game. The mystery of for example the hidden wage formulas makes this game that mythique that it is, and eating into that would hurt the game more than a more transparent game would look like. I know that this not quite complementing your point on transperency in the last part of your post, but more of a general shoutout to keep this attitude in the man-game.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 01-05-2017 18:20
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
Perhaps the NC's could use an overhaul as well? Too many small nation races where it comes down to attacking or not. Can we simul a few races?
I'm of the view: Simulate them all, or simulate none. Just because an NC isn't important to you (royal you) doesn't it isn't important to someone else. I personally don't care much for the "bigger" NC's like Belgium or Netherlands but i wouldn't say sim them, because i know they are important to managers in the same way a smaller NC like Canada is to another one.
Plus, not being funny, NC's really don't take long to report. I can crack out 4 in an hour or less. A few more reporters would also massively help get through them fast (like the rest of the season, more reporters = better speed)
Doesn't change the fact that it takes over a month with all the preperation stuff and execution of NCs. I'd rather have a longer regular season that makes other manager tasks more exciting than have those NCs reported. For me we should cut out stuff at the NCs more than from the regular calendar.
|
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 01-05-2017 18:21
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
For the U23 races, it would be good if we had some sort of infrastructure to prevent have a couple level 4 riders who simply crush all the other riders, it makes no sense as it turns a very open race when we can see all the future talents competing to a race where we see riders who already are talented beating everybody else.
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-05-2017 18:32
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Croatia14 wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that it takes over a month with all the preperation stuff and execution of NCs. I'd rather have a longer regular season that makes other manager tasks more exciting than have those NCs reported. For me we should cut out stuff at the NCs more than from the regular calendar.
If we went to simulate all NC's, i wouldn't really have a problem with it. It would certainly be quicker. I am just saying we simulate every NC or we simulate no NC's. All NC's must be treated equally.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 20:14
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 01-05-2017 18:46
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
In the end the time of running the NC`s and WC`s is not only "garbage time".
It is a nice filler for offseason work behind the scenes, that needs to be done after the regular season.
So no matter if NCs take place or not, it would require those 3-6 weeks surely anyway. |
| |
|
|
| Scorchio |
Posted on 01-05-2017 19:25
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2073
Joined: 14-09-2013
PCM$: 4500.00
|
Thanks for your comments Croatia
Croatia14 wrote:
.......
One more thing to the term of transparency: I don't think we should reach for full transperancy in this game. The mystery of for example the hidden wage formulas makes this game that mythique that it is, and eating into that would hurt the game more than a more transparent game would look like. I know that this not quite complementing your point on transperency in the last part of your post, but more of a general shoutout to keep this attitude in the man-game.
Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I completely agree with this statement. I was specifically referring to a common understanding of how riders can sensibly be added to the MG DB given that we are all requested to make suggestions including stats. The mystique around stuff like wage formula is definitely one of the most fun/tense parts of MG management interactions.
Manager of ISA - Hexacta in the MG |
| |
|
|
| Scorchio |
Posted on 01-05-2017 19:33
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2073
Joined: 14-09-2013
PCM$: 4500.00
|
Also on NC's: I'd always been of the understanding as Roturn now makes clear that the NC races provide entertainment and interaction during a period of the off-season that still would require similar passage of time which would otherwise be 'empty'. Some years the NC races have had as detailed reports as the main races, I'm just as happy with the approach this year of short summaries given the underlying PCM AI generally struggles to cope - no point drawing out that the early break builds a 15 minute leads and fights out the finish!
(In saying that, nice to see a few of the 'bigger' nation NC's have avoided the AI problems, with e.g. Australia and today's Belgian race delivering good racing.
A final thought, just off the top of my head (more a comment really than anything else). Although there are accelerations and decelerations to the pace through a MG season, what approach would be taken if the game actually did move along much quicker in terms of new rider introductions - who would we identify these new riders? Seems almost optimal that a season takes about a year to ensure that we don't rush too far ahead of the IRL timeline (or too far behind either!). MG currently running around 6 months behind IRL gives some lee-way for a particular season or two to be a little shorter, but beyond that it would actually get real complicated!
Whatever the case, discussion is healthy and long live the MG! 
Manager of ISA - Hexacta in the MG |
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 01-05-2017 20:37
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
@Scorchio
Honestly I don't think we need such concrete rules for adding new riders, this would make this step in the off-season even more harder than it is. I think the main thing is to keep the DB somehow well-balanced to ensure we don't have too many/too few great riders to sign for every terrain. That's the main priority. Agree with you that riders should not be added too young, the lowest age for adding in a rider is 20 and I think it is quite ok, if these added in by this age are just potential domestiques, potential leaders should be definitely at least 21 years old, some good talents were not added in even when they were 22. Personally I believe this system is reasonable. Your system also misses one thing: we need to add in some great talents on a later lvl of development, because this allows us to ensure they are developed as unique types of riders. If we add these when they are too young, then they usually has to have much lower support stats etc.
Still, I wouldn't mind a change to U23 calendar: Avenir for 7 days and a classic race for HIL, COB and FL would be a nice change. I can also see the case for expanding U23 races for all riders aged 23 in that particular year, similarly like it is now with stagiares. But that is the maximum for me, U25 is good to have during the main season, I wouldn't expand it on that, we don't really want maxed out superstars in Avenir.
Also disagree with stopping improving existing riders. We need that for bringing in some needed unique riders when there is a need for them, similarly as well it allows us to react to actual real cycling, so some riders can get somehow better in MG as well. I think we all like to keep this game somehow semi-realistic.
And there are already some unofficial limits we have when doing DB stuff. But mainly we just try to keep it balanced, fun and semi-realistic at the same time.
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 01-05-2017 20:38
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
And also, copying here my idea for the next year's Nationals from NCs thread. Probably a better place for this idea to discuss it here:
I wonder if AI would work normal in all these small national championships if we would add in teams full of unnamed fantasy riders rated 50 in all attributes. Let's say these teams would be local ameteur teams invited to ride in MG. If the most unlikely scenario happens: an unnamed amateur wins a race, then still the best 'pro' from a MG team takes the jersey for the next year. Could be a small amount of additional work for a much better show.
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 01-05-2017 20:41
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11819
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Roman wrote:
I wonder if AI would work normal in all these small national championships if we would add in teams full of unnamed fantasy riders rated 50 in all attributes. Let's say these teams would be local ameteur teams invited to ride in MG. If the most unlikely scenario happens: an unnamed amateur wins a race, then still the best 'pro' from a MG team takes the jersey for the next year. Could be a small amount of additional work for a much better show.
Something I had in mind a few seasons ago. Or fill the startlist with unsigned riders from the DB, which wouldn't even be unrealistic. The guy could even keep the title and become interesting in the off season 
It depends though. The strongest riders would need a team capable of chasing. Three full teams with just 50's would not change too much, unless they ride for the favorites. AI works best with something like 10-15 teams, where the pre race favorites have a few domestiques at their side. Tricky thing.
EDIT: Moved post from NC discussion.
Edited by tsmoha on 01-05-2017 20:46
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-05-2017 20:43
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Roman wrote:
Also disagree with stopping improving existing riders. We need that for bringing in some needed unique riders when there is a need for them, similarly as well it allows us to react to actual real cycling, so some riders can get somehow better in MG as well. I think we all like to keep this game somehow semi-realistic.
If we are going to continue improving FA's, can we please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please match every increase with a decrease on a different FA? Otherwise all we get is inflation. Save FA editing for providing specific needs, such as a new team needs riders from an obscure nation, or there's a lack of X style of rider. please
Plus i don't get/like the realism argument when we can still have talents that bare little or no resemblance to reality.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 01-05-2017 21:13
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
I've said my piece on the changing riders debate. But if we will not get rid of changing the riders, Manx's compromise seems like a good option.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 01-05-2017 21:36
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Roman wrote:
Also disagree with stopping improving existing riders. We need that for bringing in some needed unique riders when there is a need for them, similarly as well it allows us to react to actual real cycling, so some riders can get somehow better in MG as well. I think we all like to keep this game somehow semi-realistic.
If we are going to continue improving FA's, can we please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please match every increase with a decrease on a different FA? Otherwise all we get is inflation. Save FA editing for providing specific needs, such as a new team needs riders from an obscure nation, or there's a lack of X style of rider. please
Plus i don't get/like the realism argument when we can still have talents that bare little or no resemblance to reality.
Please, Please, Please no downgrading FAs. That's just messing around with the history of MG riders.
Random thought: You keep calling out stat inflation as main argument against FA upgrading. Upgrading FAs can also be seen as a chance against inflation if done correctly. If instead of adding 10 new talents of a certain level you add only 5 and upgrade 5 older FAs then those will be around for a shorter period of time and thus, lead to less inflation in the long-term.
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-05-2017 21:55
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
knockout wrote:
Please, Please, Please no downgrading FAs. That's just messing around with the history of MG riders.
Random thought: You keep calling out stat inflation as main argument against FA upgrading. Upgrading FAs can also be seen as a chance against inflation if done correctly. If instead of adding 10 new talents of a certain level you add only 5 and upgrade 5 older FAs then those will be around for a shorter period of time and thus, lead to less inflation in the long-term.
But it's ok to mess with MG riders history by making them better? That logic doesn't hold for one and not the other i'm afraid.
Stat inflation is a larger series of events than just FA upgrades. But i view it that new riders/leveling up riders are balanced by retiring/declining riders, with FA's being unbalanced movement upwards. In a situation that we have where leveling-up + training causes more stat increases than declining causes decreases, adding unbalanced increase via FA editing is worsening the problem.
I've said that before (and probably in a clearer way). But XP gains are balanced by Declines, training balanced by financial cost, whilst FA editing is unbalanced and uncompensated and it should be balanced. The simple way to balance is to decline a different FA. And i don't know what other way there is balance FA editing.
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 01-05-2017 22:00
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
tsmoha wrote:
Roman wrote:
I wonder if AI would work normal in all these small national championships if we would add in teams full of unnamed fantasy riders rated 50 in all attributes. Let's say these teams would be local ameteur teams invited to ride in MG. If the most unlikely scenario happens: an unnamed amateur wins a race, then still the best 'pro' from a MG team takes the jersey for the next year. Could be a small amount of additional work for a much better show.
Something I had in mind a few seasons ago. Or fill the startlist with unsigned riders from the DB, which wouldn't even be unrealistic. The guy could even keep the title and become interesting in the off season
It depends though. The strongest riders would need a team capable of chasing. Three full teams with just 50's would not change too much, unless they ride for the favorites. AI works best with something like 10-15 teams, where the pre race favorites have a few domestiques at their side. Tricky thing.
EDIT: Moved post from NC discussion.
Well, the problem is that around a half of countries has just a total of 8 riders in the DB. So it really wouldn't help the AI too much. Plus it is always easier to have just pre-prepared 10 to 20 generic teams with 8 all-50 riders per team in the DB to easily allow reporters to use them for every NC RR needed. Similarly we don't allow in Nationals riders from inactive teams, so don't including FAs from the DB goes pretty much the same way.
This idea needs to be tested, but I guess it should work better. All-50 riders should have no problem chasing down all-50 breakaways. MG riders would be considered as favourites, so they won't go for breakaways and will try to make winning moves instead. Maybe I am wrong, who knows.
And yeah, I have already copied this to that appropriate thread. Clearly have a talent to post these suggestions to a wrong thread. 
TheManxMissile wrote:
AI would work better if we padded NC's out with 100 random riders, but i feel would somewhat take away from the fun of NC's by artifically changing the result.
We could acheive a similar result by setting the Control Rider on relay 40 for the day to keep the Peloton in reach of the break and if they are in reach the AI gets a lot more active with the peloton, but we wouldn't because it's artifical interfering.
You'd also alter the balance of an NC. Some teams have lots of riders from a Nation and by adding random riders you'd screw with that balance and you'd end up disadvantaging someone.
Well, how exactly would all-50 rated riders change the outcome of a race? These should have absolutely no chance chasing down a rider from a MG team even if they try their hardest. If a real MG team decides to change things, all these amateur riders should quickly drop from the peloton. I would really prefer if NC RR would bring us results based on abilities of riders. It is an absolute roulette right now, and tbh I hate that. And it is also better if good riders wear the jerseys, as it is then much easier to identify them on screens during the regular season.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Roman wrote:
Also disagree with stopping improving existing riders. We need that for bringing in some needed unique riders when there is a need for them, similarly as well it allows us to react to actual real cycling, so some riders can get somehow better in MG as well. I think we all like to keep this game somehow semi-realistic.
If we are going to continue improving FA's, can we please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please match every increase with a decrease on a different FA? Otherwise all we get is inflation. Save FA editing for providing specific needs, such as a new team needs riders from an obscure nation, or there's a lack of X style of rider. please
Plus i don't get/like the realism argument when we can still have talents that bare little or no resemblance to reality.
I agree that decreasing some of FAs could be a way to go, but at the same time these riders have some histories in this game. It is not really a perfect thing to do: just imagine Festina disbanding and then suddenly Coppel gets -3 downgrade. It just seems to be a wrong way. I can imagine it could be used as a help if a team longterm around disbands and their longterm stars become FAs. The great history of these riders would then stay with the team and it could somehow help us to battle with the inflation. I don't know though, imagine my team disbanding and Bewley becoming for example 80/80 COB/SP. I don't know about this...
Plus, I think we already try to upgrade just riders from small nations when there is a need, a rider when we could create an unique rider we lack in the DB. And we use it to upgrade some riders to become at least somehow decent in comparison to their quality in real cycling, but it has to work to keep the game balanced. For example I remember we upgraded free agent Fabio Aru a little bit on my suggestion, mainly because major Italian GT riders are all too old with one exception. In a similar manner Tony Gallopin was upgraded into an unique rider. But at the same time we haven't upgraded a rider like JJ Lobato, mainly because we already have so many great sprinters and especially a Spanish star.
And I think an argument for semi-realism is there for sure. MG was always about that, we try to involve real riders and somehow semi-realistically replicate their qualities for MG use. This has in my opinion stay in the game.
In my opinion the major problem with inflation is that we have added in too many great talents in the past few years that maxed out in 82+ territory with great support stats. I think we already do some good thing to ensure we slowly bring these numbers down in the future when some of current superstars will decline. Plus I think that inflation can be partially brought down by my suggestion of form of riders. This could potentially help us to balance the game a little bit more. More about this here: https://pcmdaily.c...st_1228581
And I agree with knockout.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 01-05-2017 22:00
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
knockout wrote:
Please, Please, Please no downgrading FAs. That's just messing around with the history of MG riders.
Random thought: You keep calling out stat inflation as main argument against FA upgrading. Upgrading FAs can also be seen as a chance against inflation if done correctly. If instead of adding 10 new talents of a certain level you add only 5 and upgrade 5 older FAs then those will be around for a shorter period of time and thus, lead to less inflation in the long-term.
But it's ok to mess with MG riders history by making them better? That logic doesn't hold for one and not the other i'm afraid.
Stat inflation is a larger series of events than just FA upgrades. But i view it that new riders/leveling up riders are balanced by retiring/declining riders, with FA's being unbalanced movement upwards. In a situation that we have where leveling-up + training causes more stat increases than declining causes decreases, adding unbalanced increase via FA editing is worsening the problem.
I've said that before (and probably in a clearer way). But XP gains are balanced by Declines, training balanced by financial cost, whilst FA editing is unbalanced and uncompensated and it should be balanced. The simple way to balance is to decline a different FA. And i don't know what other way there is balance FA editing.
This, it's not okay either way. In neither case does it make sense for history's sake, but I would argue that you can't have one without the other. That makes even less sense.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-05-2017 22:08
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
So people think upgrading to get closer to reality is god, but if we want to lower a struggling real life rider like Bewley or Coppel it'd be a massive no-no.... i'm sorry i just can't find the logic. Either it's MG history, and no FA's get edited, or it's not MG history, and FA's should go down as well as up.
I've said before, i can understand editing FA's to suit new team nation focuses. It's been done before and done well when a max stat is 75-76 so a rider won't be much more than a CT leader at best and more likely just a domestique for said focused team.
If we do this, then i don't see the harm in taking some riders from other nations that arn't so desired, and downgrading them to compensate and maintain DB balance.
But unique riders can be covered by additions starting at higher XP's with lowered Potential, and by a manager being brave with training combinaions and trainings. So i can only see a need for said unique editing when we need specific nationality riders, covered by the statement above i'm ok with it as long as there is a balance.
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 01-05-2017 22:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
knockout wrote:
Please, Please, Please no downgrading FAs. That's just messing around with the history of MG riders.
Random thought: You keep calling out stat inflation as main argument against FA upgrading. Upgrading FAs can also be seen as a chance against inflation if done correctly. If instead of adding 10 new talents of a certain level you add only 5 and upgrade 5 older FAs then those will be around for a shorter period of time and thus, lead to less inflation in the long-term.
But it's ok to mess with MG riders history by making them better? That logic doesn't hold for one and not the other i'm afraid.
Stat inflation is a larger series of events than just FA upgrades. But i view it that new riders/leveling up riders are balanced by retiring/declining riders, with FA's being unbalanced movement upwards. In a situation that we have where leveling-up + training causes more stat increases than declining causes decreases, adding unbalanced increase via FA editing is worsening the problem.
I've said that before (and probably in a clearer way). But XP gains are balanced by Declines, training balanced by financial cost, whilst FA editing is unbalanced and uncompensated and it should be balanced. The simple way to balance is to decline a different FA. And i don't know what other way there is balance FA editing.
This, it's not okay either way. In neither case does it make sense for history's sake, but I would argue that you can't have one without the other. That makes even less sense.
It can work with absolutely no problem at all if we add in less good talents than the amount of good old riders that are declining. And I believe we already try to do that. One possible change could be the pace of attribute declining of old riders so they get worse quicker. IMO it would be much better if they would lose their main attributes much quicker than now but they would lose their secondary stats slower than it is now. Old stars would then become unique domestiques and they would have a shorter life as stars.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
