jandal7 wrote:

And Chaves 80

Arberg27 wrote:

marcoplv95 wrote:
Formolo is still better than Jungels in MON, in my opinion.
I'd make both 77 for now

Paul23 wrote:


But didn't Formolo basically got beaten day in and out by Jungels?

matt17br wrote:

Not in the mountains, considering that if we didn't count the TT Formolo would be ahead of him.

Spilak23 wrote:


Formolo also did not have the luxury of being pushed over the dolomites by his team car

marcoplv95 wrote:
In my opinion these should be more or less the changes after giro:
Quintana 75 ACC (-1), 74 DHI (+1), 83 REC (-1)
Nibali 71 ACC (+-0), 78 DHI (-1), 66 SPR (+1), 79 STA (+1), 84 REC (+1)
Pinot 75 TTR (-1), 67 SPR (+1)
Landa 76 DHI (+7), 78 FTR (+1)
Kruijswijk 78 MON (-1), 78 REC (-1) (difficult, because he had sickness)
Zakarin 80 MON (+1), 75 TTR (-1), 74 REC (+1)
Dumoulin 79 MON (+1), 74 DHI (+1), 73 STA (-1), 73 REC (+1)
Pozzovivo 79 MON (+1), 71 TTR (-2), 76 REC (+1)
Formolo 70 TTR (+1), 73 REC (+1)

Selwink wrote:
@Marco: Keep in mind that Kruijswijk has already had a downgrade already. Reducing his MO and REC by -2 while he was riding around first slightly injured and then sick seems a bit harsh to me. Also I don't see why Nibali needs that sprint upgrade. Also no way Formolo should have that TT upgrade, he came 85th today and lost over 4 minutes in the first TT as well.

One thing I'd really like to advocate myself is to push Hirt's REC stat even further than 78. He seemed to get better and better compared to the others, so I'd say he needs 80 or more.

First of all, for ITTs in a GT, recovery plays a big role as well as the fact that riders spend energy in very different ways (comparing GC guys with domestiques and free riders saving energy for a particular stage like the ITT).

The fact that ITT gaps are too small in PCM is enhanced by the fact that gaps in regular stages are usually quite big.

One possible marginal improvement would be to spread out the ITT stats a bit more. Then one might lose some resolution at the bottom of the spectrum though, like with cobble stats for example.

Croatia14 wrote:
Giving Jan Hirt a REC of 80 or more might be reasonable, but would hinder the PCM gameplay for sure. For single racing this might be a very interesting option, but taking in mind that this should also be a database that is for long lasting careers doing so is dangerous for 1 reason that causes 2 issues: The PCM average calculation lays too much worth on back-up stats! Like this Hirt would receive an (in comparison to similar riders) average that is far too high. That means:

- His wage demands in career will be far higher than they should be for a rider of his quality. This will cause some damage for the transfer flow and authenticity of the transfer system in further years. The more types of riders we have directing in riders that should have these high back-up stats (looking at this Giro f.e. Mühlberger would be another candidate), the more balancing problems will occure.

- His development will be affected. Riders with too high average also will have problems to develop in their main stats according to what their potential should bring to them. A rider with a Potential of 6 f.e. has a much higher chance to hit a higher main stat when his back-ups are lower, because he'll reach his average minimum later.

Giving Jan Hirt a REC of 80 would make it (with my understanding of the PCM system) almost impossible to see him to develop to f.e. 80 or even 79 Mountain in a career if he is on potential 6 (which is the maximum he should be on). With a REC stat of 77 however, the chances of him developing like it is most likely projected from his real life development are much higher, hence the chance of seeing him as a possible rider with 79/80 Mountain in the game after 2-3 seasons is much higher.

All in all what I want to say is that giving Jan Hirt a recovery stat of 80/81 might be a really interesting (and possibly right option) for a short term view/single player mode. On a medium- or long term view, especially taking on career dynamics, I would highly recommend to be very careful with stattings like this and see a 77/78 recovery stat as the option to go with for balancing the system.

Taking this on a broader level for statmaking in general these thoughts might show that statting riders for PCM is not just statting main stats like it is often talked about here. Transforming performance into PCM stats does require three levels of thinking:

1. main performance (main stats, framework) - How do a riders results look like? How good does a rider do in a certain part of cycling in comparison to others.

2. styles (back-up stats, patterns) - In which manner does a rider achieve these results? How do we compose the riders main, supportive and back-up stats together that it draws the real abilities of a rider in game and also enhances the games engine to let riders behave in a manner they do behave in reality?

3. compatibility (matrix, engine) - Do the planned stats fit into the stat matrix/arise any difficulties? Are any career mechanics clashing with the pattern in both short- and long term?

I hope that this may have given you a deeper insight in what stat-making is about and why some stats may look different than you'd suggest in first line. You can be sure that Tafiolmo and our whole team spend loads of our free time discussing all these points to give the best possible stats for you. What I hope now is that you guys when talking about stats keep in mind that the pure performance of a rider is just what you see from the iceberg.

That said: It would be very helpful for the suggestions and discussions here that you keep in mind to also take a dive in the water to review the hidden parts of the iceberg which are points 2 and 3 drawn right above. On that base, we can evolve our statmaking in the best possible way as well as decisions for stats may become more clear if you ask the given questions to yourself.

Cheers