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.
Most riders considered for an upgrade have very little MG history because they are weak enough to be considered for a big upgrade anyway. Riders that will be considered for a downgrade will mostly have a rich MG history because they have been good enough to win sth / race a lot because that's the reason why a downgrade will actually change sth. See Romans example earlierin this thread which reflects 100% my opinion.
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.
That exactly was the point of my previous post. If you reduce new talent addition to keep updating FAs then you can balance (FA updating + leveling up ) Vs (Declines). The post was just intended as aquick post that
And to clarify: (I'm pretty sure I posted my General opinion before: ) I'm not one of those who want the MG to resemble the reality and unlike e.g. Ollfardh I actually prefer that it's only semi-realistic. I don't need "realism upgrades". I like FA upgrades as a way to create some more unique riders ( e.g. i really liked the upgrade Stoltz received last off-season and that is hardly realism based ) and obviously as a method to raise rider numbers because of focus.
Imo nearly all posts in discussions for FA upgrades need to be more precise whether they mean "realism based FM based upgrades", "nationality based upgrades" and "unique rider upgrades". ( i don't exclude myself from this. See earlier post ) From my pov: yes to the later two type of upgrades (if balanced with new talents and declines ), no to the first type of upgrade unless they fall into one of the other categories as well (and they often represent a good option for those)
For clarity:
As you can probably tell from my team, i'm not big for the reality aspect. MG is unique and that's what is so fun for me. So i won't get the argument of "Rider X needs upgrading because he did something great irl" becauase to me the MG isn't real life. Or at least i can't get the argument when the opposite, "Rider X needs downgrading because he sucks irl", is not also applied to the game.
MG History i get as an argument. It exists and is wide and it is important to some people, less so to others. But i don't see how some rider's history is more important than anothers. There needs to be a certain respect for all the game as whole. "Oh don't downgrade X rider because he rode in a team for 3 years. But that rider who also rode for 3 years, he can get an upgrade." I can't follow that logic.
Equally i'm not advocating for downgrades to deflate the DB. I'm saying that an upgrade should be matched by a downgrade. Especially in the current state, as mentioned already, of the DB where there are lots of good young riders who'll exist for years at the top level we really don't need to make more top riders from nowhere. And certainly if we did taking one away will not hurt the game at all.
And if we use the history logic downgrading a domestique won't matter because their history is limited and not important to the game. So upgrading to make a new domestique can easily be matched by lowering another one.
Overall in the game we do need to tackle inflation. I've said before my ideas on how to move in that direction. Ultimately we need more decreases than increases, and we have far more increases (by XP gains, training and FA editing) than decreases (by decline only). Balancing FA upgrades with FA downgrades would really help slow inflation, and then the work on adding less star riders would help further. Make declines faster and we can stabilise the DB in just a year or two.
But if we keep upgrading FA's without balancing them that work is somewhat negated. I guess FA upgrades can be balanced by adding less riders, but it would be much easier to balance by making a directly equal decrease of another rider.
I can't see the problem with making it easy to balance like that, whilst we could keep the realism by downgrading a struggling rider as a good one goes up. The only potential loss is MG history, but then all we have to do is either A) not edit any FA's to start with, or B) not edit anyone to a stat over 76 or so as those riders tend not to be leaders and thus won't build a history beyond participation.
Personally as I have stated previously in this thread, MG shouldnt be realistic it's a canon world that builds on data from the real world. We have Kittel as a TT specialist, Pilusckhin of all people as a one of the best GT riders in the world. I can understand a certain amount of realism in terms of who get added to MG, but once they are in MG they are at the mercy of the game.
Riders are added based on real world perspective at the time of their arrival on the scene. Then, they develop as we thought they would. Interfering with that is just stupid to me. MG is an alternate reality based on original projections. I really like that aspect of it. I just don't understand why people care so much about realism when you could play any other story game for realism, or just play PCM with a realistic DB. It makes no sense to me. To each their own, but I don't see a reason to mess with ten years of history to retroactively match things up with real life.
Personally as I have stated previously in this thread, MG shouldnt be realistic it's a canon world that builds on data from the real world. We have Kittel as a TT specialist, Pilusckhin of all people as a one of the best GT riders in the world. I can understand a certain amount of realism in terms of who get added to MG, but once they are in MG they are at the mercy of the game.
This exactly.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
knockout wrote:
Imo nearly all posts in discussions for FA upgrades need to be more precise whether they mean "realism based FM based upgrades", "nationality based upgrades" and "unique rider upgrades". ( i don't exclude myself from this. See earlier post ) From my pov: yes to the later two type of upgrades (if balanced with new talents and declines ), no to the first type of upgrade unless they fall into one of the other categories as well (and they often represent a good option for those)
Quoting this to back it up, exactly agree with that opinion!
knockout wrote:
Imo nearly all posts in discussions for FA upgrades need to be more precise whether they mean "realism based FM based upgrades", "nationality based upgrades" and "unique rider upgrades". ( i don't exclude myself from this. See earlier post ) From my pov: yes to the later two type of upgrades (if balanced with new talents and declines ), no to the first type of upgrade unless they fall into one of the other categories as well (and they often represent a good option for those)
Quoting this to back it up, exactly agree with that opinion!
I agree with this quote as well, but I can see the case for "realism based upgrades" as well. For example a rider like Fuglsang: he clearly deserves an upgrade as he is one of the best Danish riders in the real world. There is a way bigger chance he may have fans here who would enjoy way more having that rider in their team than a rider like Garby, who already retired. The real question here is, if it is seen as a problem to upgrade him, which rider should be downgraded to allow that upgrade for him if the case is that we don't need another great climber? For every rider in the DB with the history of being signed there is a case against downgrading him. Nobody would probably like to downgrade Garby, if he would become a FA. On the other way there is not a major case against upgrading a rider, mainly because we already boost riders stats via training. This is a delicate question, but I think our system should allow to upgrade some of the best real riders that become FAs.
What about this: if a team disbands, all riders signed by that team permanently will receive a permanent downgrade by -1. "The riders are shocked by the news and are hugely stressed because of the fact that they are unsure about finding a place for the next year." The main point of this would be that it would somehow help with stats inflation, but the riders would still have almost the same quality as they have right now. Then we have some extra space to potentially upgrade a rider. Maybe a rider like Fuglsang as well or even some of these downgraded riders, especially if they are popular or we need it for MG balance reasons.
Or maybe there could be a case for a massive downgrade for a rider as well, if there is a big inflation in a particular area. But well, what do you think about downgrading un-real rider Guerao or just deleting him from the game and partially replacing him by upgrading Lobato? What about removing Van Heerden, because he is dead (what about Frederik Nolf?) in reality and we have too many sprinters as well. Pluchkin? Zmorka? Both too OP. Deleting Costagli, non-real rider? Where to find balance?
Roman wrote:
Or maybe there could be a case for a massive downgrade for a rider as well, if there is a big inflation in a particular area. But well, what do you think about downgrading un-real rider Guerao or just deleting him from the game and partially replacing him by upgrading Lobato? What about removing Van Heerden, because he is dead (what about Frederik Nolf?) in reality and we have too many sprinters as well. Pluchkin? Zmorka? Both too OP. Deleting Costagli, non-real rider? Where to find balance?
Talk about going round in circles
As i've said, i don't think FA's should be edited based on real life.
Thus: Guerao should not be downgraded, Lobato should not be upgraded, Pluchkin should not be downgraded, Zmorka should not be downgraded, Fuglsang should not be upgraded.
Costagli should be kept, and Garby. Not real and retired riders, i don't mind because it's MG and not real life. It's unique in the same way we add some really obscure riders from places like Madagascar or Indonesia.
Van Heerden and Nolf, tricker question. I know some people might well mind we have them. Personally i don't, because again it's not real life and we're not being disrespectful.
Anyway, we're just going in circles. Points are laid out throughout the thread, and in better context/clarity.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Anyway, we're just going in circles. Points are laid out throughout the thread, and in better context/clarity.
Nope, these are not circles. This is about the history of this game. We are upgrading riders at least somehow based on their results in real world since the start of this game. And some other managers actually like this thing myself included and some managers would even prefer the game to be more semi-realistic than it is now. This thing in my opinion still has to find some place in this game, but it has to be used in a way where it is for the good of the game. Some manager may like a new exciting rider from Barbados, some other could love to see an upgrade for a clearly underrated real rider like Lobato or Fuglsang. Both of these cases should have some place in this game and there should be no reason to remove a good thing we have in this game just because we are lazy to find another solution to help us in our current situation.
We shouldn't really remove these riders I have mentioned in my previous post for sure, that was just a try to get a more imaginative reply. Still your initial reaction on me was that you would like to match every increase with a decrease on a different FA. So then tell me - who? How exactly should we select a rider that should be downgraded? I think there is no simple solution and we just can't downgrade a rider with a history in this game.
And even without adding new riders we likely still have an inflation - training and some big talents are just only getting maxed out. My idea about downgrading riders from disbanding team or some similar idea to be fairly used could be a decent help, similarly as a change to decline of old riders. Any other ideas?
Roman wrote:
Nope, these are not circles. This is about the history of this game. We are upgrading riders at least somehow based on their results in real world since the start of this game. And some other managers actually like this thing myself included and some managers would even prefer the game to be more semi-realistic than it is now. This thing in my opinion still has to find some place in this game, but it has to be used in a way where it is for the good of the game. Some manager may like a new exciting rider from Barbados, some other could love to see an upgrade for a clearly underrated real rider like Lobato or Fuglsang. Both of these cases should have some place in this game and there should be no reason to remove a good thing we have in this game just because we are lazy to find another solution to help us in our current situation.
Just because something has happened in the MG before doesn't mean it can't change. Lots of aspects of the game have changed from the start to now, even year to year adjustments happen.
If making the game better, in terms of controlling inflation, means to stop editing FA's then i'm all for making the change. And certainly it's a less drastic solution than some of the other inflation controlling suggestings such as: everyone -1, adding no riders for a year or two, or placing an artificial cap at 82/83 on all growth and trainings for a year or two.
We shouldn't really remove these riders I have mentioned in my previous post for sure, that was just a try to get a more imaginative reply. Still your initial reaction on me was that you would like to match every increase with a decrease on a different FA. So then tell me - who? How exactly should we select a rider that should be downgraded? I think there is no simple solution and we just can't downgrade a rider with a history in this game.
Actually my initial suggestion is to stop upgrading FA's. The downgrade is my idea on a compromise to keep the DB balanced and help tackle inflation whilst still allowing FA editing.
And i don't see how we can just upgrade a rider with a history in this game. I still can't follow the logic that some history is more important than others, and therefore upgrading is fine but downgrading is not.
Either every rider has history we protect, which means no FA editing at all, or we ignore history and can edit FA's either direction. If you can better explain why some riders history is more important, or how upgrading FA's doesn't alter history, i might be more in favor of editing FA's.
And even without adding new riders we likely still have an inflation - training and some big talents are just only getting maxed out. My idea about downgrading riders from disbanding team or some similar idea to be fairly used could be a decent help, similarly as a change to decline of old riders. Any other ideas?
Yes i have ideas on stat inflation, i've put them all in this thread before. And they are: Add less star additions, Faster declines and Stop FA Editing.
Now, FA Editing could still happen with even less FA additions. Because to stop inflation we need more decreasing stats than increasing stats. As it stands XP Gains are countered by Declines. Training is countered by Financial Cost. FA Editing doesn't get balanced, hence the suggestion of downgrading.
FA Editing can be balanced if we added less rider for each edited FA (as well as making Declines faster and less additions anyway), i suggest downgrades purely because it's easier to match 1:1. Make a rider go 67 to 76, then make another go 76 to 67.
how about making those changes also dependent on the effort that is put in their suggestion? from my standpoint nobody gave a good reason why f.e. Fuglsang should be added to the game, while for others there are much better reasons given in that thread (f.e. the upgrade of Schreurs or stuff like that)
I have read through all the posts from last two-three pages and one feeling is major one: confusion. I think that some of you guys are complicating things too much or have megalomaniac visions. I think that best thing on MG is its simplicity, to be precise simplicity in complexity.
The rules behind the game were plenty, but still simple and well thought, so why to play with fire and touch the core rules, like XP gains, divisions, same form whole year and several other things that are perfectly functional. I think that major reson for this madness is ofc the departure of one big "general" of things in person of SN. Too many clever heads does not always lead to best result and where i am for opennes in many things, i think that core rules does not need to be revised by all paeople in MG. They are good as they are, why broke functional machine that man-game is.
I dont see major problems apart from thounsand times mentioned stat inflation (well, broken engine is biggest issue, but people dont wanna adress it), but you dont need to change half of things to acvhieve better balance here, at least i think so. There were some very good suggestions like later additions of talents (21 years of age seem like ideal for me) or not giving them more than some 81-82 as maxed stat. I agree that decline age can be looked at, to balance things during span of next few years, someone would need to make deep analysis of top riders for next 2-5 years, so it could be decided how to cope with inflation and age of decline.
About FAs and change of theirs stats, i see different categories here, as was also mentioned before:
(1) National based additions/upgrades: No problem here, as long as guys are not world beaters, but rather domestiques at PT level, or max semi-leaders for PCT/ leaders for CT.
(2) Talent FAs upgrades: I can see sense in improving lvl 1-3 riders (existing FAs without team) to strengthen certain focuses or rider types, but only for the long term and with maxed stats under 80s. You can plan with these guys being added, because they will max only in 2-4 years from now. Does not destroy game balance
(2) Top level upgrades for FAs: big NO NO NO for me for the sake of the game balance and long term planning and management. No GVAs please! That singkle addition totally broke the PT balance of power in cobbled racing and there was no benefir from it. Bewley was still dominant, but guy from nowhere was always second. And destroyed plans of several other teams and catapulted Evonik to place they would never achieve with any other available rider from the market. Very very bad idea and one of the reasons i have decided to quit: serious touch of game balance and long term management of your team, which is frustrating.
And I don't understand how massive upgrading to a rider doesn't messes up with history, but downgrading does. Then again, I don't want to see downgrading.
If we really want to avoid stat inflation, we should have a better look at how and when we add new talents.
I think we should stop messing with upgrades out of nowhere just because someone is doing well in real life.
alexkr00 wrote:
If we really want to avoid stat inflation, we should have a better look at how and when we add new talents.
I think we should stop messing with upgrades out of nowhere just because someone is doing well in real life.
This is the short-hand version of what I took about 10 paragraphs to say!
Part of what I was interested in was other folks opinions and thoughts, which there has certainly been an out-pouring of! All views are valid, hope we can avoid a punch-up though, that not the intended outcome .
My personal view is that there isn't anything wrong with upgrading FA's to add depth to nations, (Switzerland needs it due to riders ageing and weakening quicker in MG than IRL)
I think an FA upgrade like GVA's is too much but I don't see anything wrong with FA upgrades based on real life if they are handled similar to Tony Martin's.
He got boosted to a level where he would be a strong rider at PCT and a good one for PT but where he would still need 1-2 years of training to get to his RL level.
Riders like Fuglsang could be handled similar, where they are boosted to a level that sees them become useful but needing training to have the same sort of results and impact as in real life.
Or someone like Kruijswijk, if he was boosted from 76MO and not great backups to something in the region of 79MO and backups that are similar to what he showed in the Giro then he would still need a season or 2 of training to be able to replicate that in the MG so we've not messed with balance too badly (as it saves someone else getting that training) and allows anyone who is a big fan of him to get him to that level if they would prefer him over another dutch rider of that level e.g. Olivier, Slagter or even training him instead of picking up Dekker who is slightly above that level but also that bit older.
Ollfardh wrote:
How about we upgrade riders to 77-78 levels only, so we won't get a gamechanger like GVA?
I like that idea! No limited borders (Sprinter have different working borders than climbers f.e.), but from the idea I also wouldn't make rider adjustions better than PCT super-domestiques
Ollfardh wrote:
How about we upgrade riders to 77-78 levels only, so we won't get a gamechanger like GVA?
I like that idea! No limited borders (Sprinter have different working borders than climbers f.e.), but from the idea I also wouldn't make rider adjustions better than PCT super-domestiques
It still inflates the market, especially at a CT level where in any terrain, bar sprint, a 78 would be a leader.
Would still like to see that balanced with someone else getting downgraded.
Whilst GVA was a specific error (depending on your point of view, i'm sure someone is ok with it), we shouldn't get caught on him as an example alone.
Because inflation isn't just about 82+ stat leaders, it's all the way down. If every rider was 78 we'd still have a problem.
Ollfardh wrote:
How about we upgrade riders to 77-78 levels only, so we won't get a gamechanger like GVA?
I like that idea! No limited borders (Sprinter have different working borders than climbers f.e.), but from the idea I also wouldn't make rider adjustions better than PCT super-domestiques
It still inflates the market, especially at a CT level where in any terrain, bar sprint, a 78 would be a leader.
Would still like to see that balanced with someone else getting downgraded.
Whilst GVA was a specific error (depending on your point of view, i'm sure someone is ok with it), we shouldn't get caught on him as an example alone.
Because inflation isn't just about 82+ stat leaders, it's all the way down. If every rider was 78 we'd still have a problem.
This.
Inflation doesn't only apply to PT leaders. It goes all the way down. On some terrains, even adding a guy had 76 could have a significant impact on the outlook of the Continental Tour. I don't understand the point of doing that.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I have read through all the posts from last two-three pages and one feeling is major one: confusion. I think that some of you guys are complicating things too much or have megalomaniac visions. I think that best thing on MG is its simplicity, to be precise simplicity in complexity.
The rules behind the game were plenty, but still simple and well thought, so why to play with fire and touch the core rules, like XP gains, divisions, same form whole year and several other things that are perfectly functional. I think that major reson for this madness is ofc the departure of one big "general" of things in person of SN. Too many clever heads does not always lead to best result and where i am for opennes in many things, i think that core rules does not need to be revised by all paeople in MG. They are good as they are, why broke functional machine that man-game is.
I dont think I have posted in this thread at all yet, but I've been reading most of it, and I agree with what Avin has said here, especially the part of the quote I left (removed the rest for less confusing scrolling)
Minor rule changes can be helpful and sometimes necessary, but i think introducing too many new rules at once isn't a good idea for the most part. Of course for those that actually help with the running of the game they probably have a better opinion on some of these proposed changes to help make running the game easier, and maybe its unfair for me to chime in when I myself dont help and dont know the "behind the scenes situation" as well
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
.
