|
Hill stat is not working at all right now
|
| river83 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 14:54
|
Amateur
Posts: 9
Joined: 18-06-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a good idea for the interaction of hill and mountain stats, and when what stat comes into play? Something that could realistically be implemented?
Well ideally you’d scrap the hill and mountain stat and have a single climbing stat modified by power to weight and how large the hill/mountain is (so big fat blokes can’t get over a mountain  ) If you have a decent climbing stat but too heavy, you can’t get over big mountains really well. A sprinter with a decent climbing stat can punch over short hills, but will tire very easily on big mountains, but if he can punch over hills and reach the sprint finish in front of his sprinter colleagues he might snag a win.
For accelerating, an acceleration stat modified by a climbing or a flat stat. How quickly a rider accelerates will depend on their acceleration ability modified by their flat or climbing attribute (so a climber will accelerate badly on the flat because they can’t generate the raw power, but well on a climb because of their power to weight.)
Sprinters are muscular, climbers are very light. On short hills you get hybrid fellows who are not as powerful as sprinters (but lighter,) but not as light as pure climbers (but more powerful) that can punch over short hills with power to take the prize. Froome began his career weighing about 75 kilos, but cited in his biography that he weighed 66 kilos when he started winning the Tour de France. It’s why he often looks skeletal. I still reckon that’s a bit too heavy for a pure climber, but Froome seems to make it work. Quintana weighs 58 kilos.
Of course sprinters on the road are also hybrid cyclists and are not pure sprinters. Road sprinters need endurance to get through many hours of racing, may need to see their way through any hills (or in the case of a grand tour, drag their butts over many mountains,) and then produce maximum power for a few seconds at the end. Because of this, a track cyclist like Chris Hoy would be quite a bit heavier and more muscular than a road sprinter.
Anyway, categorising things as “fast climbing” and “slow climbing” is horrible. It’s all about power to weight ratios. To climb faster you need a higher power to weight. The trick is retaining power while losing weight. This opens the possibility for a very engaging training regime. You should be able to modify your riders weight and figure through training.
But this would completely change the direction of the series so I doubt they’ll do it. At the moment they’ve just replaced one unrealistic way of climbing in the game with another, and to be honest I preferred the old way.
It should be noted that sprinters and powerful riders on the flat can easily catch a climber on the descents. Climbers descend worse than sprinters and once again it’s to do with power. On mountain stages, sprinters will usually take it real slow on the climbs, but then power like madmen on the descents. So having climbers with better descending stats than sprinters is a bit silly, btw xD |
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 14:59
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
That would mean, that the db team would need to set the proper height and weight for over 5000 riders.
|
| |
|
|
| Thatguyeveryonehates |
Posted on 18-06-2017 15:02
|
Domestique
Posts: 447
Joined: 01-05-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
river83 wrote:
Well ideally you’d scrap the hill and mountain stat and have a single climbing stat modified by power to weight and how large the hill/mountain is (so big fat blokes can’t get over a mountain ) If you have a decent climbing stat but too heavy, you can’t get over big mountains really well. A sprinter with a decent climbing stat can punch over short hills, but will tire very easily on big mountains, but if he can punch over hills and reach the sprint finish in front of his sprinter colleagues he might snag a win.
For accelerating, an acceleration stat modified by a climbing or a flat stat. How quickly a rider accelerates will depend on their acceleration ability modified by their flat or climbing attribute (so a climber will accelerate badly on the flat because they can’t generate the raw power, but well on a climb because of their power to weight.)
Sprinters are muscular, climbers are very light. On short hills you get hybrid fellows who are not as powerful as sprinters (but lighter,) but not as light as pure climbers (but more powerful) that can punch over short hills with power to take the prize. Froome began his career weighing about 75 kilos, but cited in his biography that he weighed 66 kilos when he started winning the Tour de France. It’s why he often looks skeletal. I still reckon that’s a bit too heavy for a pure climber, but Froome seems to make it work. Quintana weighs 58 kilos.
Of course sprinters on the road are also hybrid cyclists and are not pure sprinters. Road sprinters need endurance to get through many hours of racing, may need to see their way through any hills (or in the case of a grand tour, drag their butts over many mountains,) and then produce maximum power for a few seconds at the end. Because of this, a track cyclist like Chris Hoy would be quite a bit heavier and more muscular than a road sprinter.
Anyway, categorising things as “fast climbing” and “slow climbing” is horrible. It’s all about power to weight ratios. To climb faster you need a higher power to weight. The trick is retaining power while losing weight. This opens the possibility for a very engaging training regime. You should be able to modify your riders weight and figure through training.
But this would completely change the direction of the series so I doubt they’ll do it. At the moment they’ve just replaced one unrealistic way of climbing in the game with another, and to be honest I preferred the old way.
It should be noted that sprinters and powerful riders on the flat can easily catch a climber on the descents. Climbers descend worse than sprinters and once again it’s to do with power. On mountain stages, sprinters will usually take it real slow on the climbs, but then power like madmen on the descents. So having climbers with better descending stats than sprinters is a bit silly, btw xD
this wont work because the difference between good in short climbs and good in long climbs is not in power to weight
if they implemented what you suggest samuel dumoulin would be the best climber in the game. 56kg and a sprinters power
the real difference is fast twitch fibers vs slow twitch fibers
its the same difference of a sprinter versus a tter
reality is too complicated to be accurately simulated without technology advancing a few centuries
the best or least worst compromise we can have is exactly the pcm16 system but more fine tuned in effort values |
| |
|
|
| Gentleman |
Posted on 18-06-2017 15:14
|
Free Agent
Posts: 138
Joined: 12-02-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Not to mention Tom Dumoulin, who happens to be pretty heavy for a climber due to his timetrial nature. He has to push more weight to tackle climbs, but he does manage to do so, otherwise he wouldn`t be able to do well in the mountains.
Perhaps it`s time to actually start using the power-values the riders all claim to generate to determine how much or how long they can push the limit.
Also, while sprinters are generally good on a descent, don`t forget about people like Nibali who`re good in that category as well. So it`s not something you can simply drop on a climber or a sprinter. |
| |
|
|
| river83 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 15:26
|
Amateur
Posts: 9
Joined: 18-06-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
this wont work because the difference between good in short climbs and good in long climbs is not in power to weight
if they implemented what you suggest samuel dumoulin would be the best climber in the game. 56kg and a sprinters power
the real difference is fast twitch fibers vs slow twitch fibers
its the same difference of a sprinter versus a tter
Twitch fibres have less to do with a climber's ability than a good VO2 max reading. In fact I would argue it has less to do with a climbers ability. It's why mountain climbers go around boasting about their VO2 max, and not their awesome twitch fibres.
To compensate for Sam Dumoulin is an easy fix. The difference between a mountain climber and Sam Dumoulin is his physique, similar to how endurance runners have much less muscle than their sprinter counterparts. He's actually able to punch over small hills, so once again merely a climbing attribute modified by a figure which represents his physique (all mountain climbers are thin, no exception.) Which will preserve his ability to punch over hills.
I would argue the PCM 16 system is worse than the PCM 14 system. Both are unrealistic, but PCM 14 is more intuitive and more fun to play. That is, I can build a squad with riders great in a mountain stat and I know they'll great on mountain stages.
Edited by river83 on 18-06-2017 15:30
|
| |
|
|
| river83 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 15:28
|
Amateur
Posts: 9
Joined: 18-06-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gentleman wrote:
Not to mention Tom Dumoulin, who happens to be pretty heavy for a climber due to his timetrial nature. He has to push more weight to tackle climbs, but he does manage to do so, otherwise he wouldn`t be able to do well in the mountains.
Perhaps it`s time to actually start using the power-values the riders all claim to generate to determine how much or how long they can push the limit.
Also, while sprinters are generally good on a descent, don`t forget about people like Nibali who`re good in that category as well. So it`s not something you can simply drop on a climber or a sprinter.
Nibali is a good descender FOR A CLIMBER. He's not a good descender when compared with sprinters.
Tom Dumoulin recently lost weight to be a GT contender. Same with Richie Porte and same with Chris Froome (who I also think is still heavy for a climber.) |
| |
|
|
| Masterblaster01 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 15:34
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 362
Joined: 07-03-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gentleman wrote:
Not to mention Tom Dumoulin, who happens to be pretty heavy for a climber due to his timetrial nature. He has to push more weight to tackle climbs, but he does manage to do so, otherwise he wouldn`t be able to do well in the mountains.
Perhaps it`s time to actually start using the power-values the riders all claim to generate to determine how much or how long they can push the limit.
Also, while sprinters are generally good on a descent, don`t forget about people like Nibali who`re good in that category as well. So it`s not something you can simply drop on a climber or a sprinter.
This.
Just a few examples:
Nairo Quintana: 58 kg's.
Philippe Gilbert: 70 kg's.
Tom Dumoulin: 71 kg's.
Andre Greipel: 82 kg's.
With your theory, you would get these stats.
Quintana would be the best climber, lets say 85 mountain stat.
Greipel would be the worst uphill, let's say 60 for easy math.
That's a difference of 25 points in 25 kg's = 1 point per kg.
That would mean that Tom Dumoulin has a mountain stat of 72 (13 kg's heavier than Quintana).. Quintana wasn't in his best form in the Giro, but this difference? Never.
Also: Gilbert is 1 kg lighter than Dumoulin, so 73 mountain stat... So Gilbert is a better climber than Dumoulin?
river83 wrote:Tom Dumoulin recently lost weight to be a GT contender. Same with Richie Porte and same with Chris Froome (who I also think is still heavy for a climber.)
True. They all lost weight and it makes absolute sense, no doubt about that, but he's still 71 kg's!
I like your thinking and the idea you mention, but the idea of making the mountain stat related to weight is too simplified.
|
| |
|
|
| river83 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 15:42
|
Amateur
Posts: 9
Joined: 18-06-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
This.
Tom Dumoulin: 71 kg's.
If I google Chris Froome's weight it also says 70 kgs, despite Froome himself stating he was 66kg when he won the Tour de France.
Dumoulin no longer weighs 70kg. He's been losing weight to be a GT contender, gradually ... for a while now. He was inspired by Wiggins apparently. You're operating off old info.
With your theory, you would get these stats.
Quintana is often quoted as being the best climber in the world after Froome, and that Froome is only better because he's older. But let's say he isn't. You're not taking into regard a) his power output, b) Froome's better time trial nature, and c) Quintana's reluctance to attack and his general lack of racing IQ.
They all lost weight and it makes absolute sense, no doubt about that, but he's still 71 kg's!
No, he's not  |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 06:27
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Gentleman |
Posted on 18-06-2017 16:00
|
Free Agent
Posts: 138
Joined: 12-02-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
They all lost weight and it makes absolute sense, no doubt about that, but he's still 71 kg's!
No, he's not
Apparently he's now 69 kg (procyclingstats), a few kg less than mentioned (wikipedia 71, procyclingweekly 71). Which is still pretty far behind when comparing to Quintana. iirc he used to be 76 or something.
I suppose he's somewhere he can't lose any more weight unless his timetrial might suffer. And honestly, looking at his Giro performance in both mountains and timetrial, I feel this might be a good weight for him.
But wasn't this thread intially about the Hill-stat? |
| |
|
|
| Masterblaster01 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 16:08
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 362
Joined: 07-03-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
river83 wrote:
This.
Tom Dumoulin: 71 kg's.
If I google Chris Froome's weight it also says 70 kgs, despite Froome himself stating he was 66kg when he won the Tour de France.
Dumoulin no longer weighs 70kg. He's been losing weight to be a GT contender, gradually ... for a while now. He was inspired by Wiggins apparently. You're operating off old info.
Yeah i know he's been losing weight. Could be he's a lot lighter than those 71 kg's, but still.. He's no 62 kg's either and still able to keep up with Quintana in the mountains when looking at the Giro.
Same with Froome what you're stating. If he was 66 kg's when he started winning TdF's, that's still 8 kg's heavier than Quintana so this would mean when both in form he would just not be able to keep up with him ingame and that shouldn't be the case.
Plus, Quintana could lose weight too
Like i said, i like your thinking and the idea, but it's (still) too simplistic.
You're right 
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 16:10
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
Most realistic idea: have all riders in your race go on zwift whenever you want to play and use their real time performance to simulate the AI in your game.
|
| |
|
|
| river83 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 16:11
|
Amateur
Posts: 9
Joined: 18-06-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
Apparently he's now 69 kg (procyclingstats), a few kg less than mentioned (wikipedia 71, procyclingweekly 71)
Yeah, don't go by those they're generally inaccurate. How inaccurate? Well, 4 years ago his weight was apparently 71. 2 years ago he had apparently been dropping weight for a couple of years. People were speculating back then he was 69 kilos. This year he's apparently "2 kilos lighter than 3 years ago" but people were saying he was already losing weight at that stage. Which means his exact weight is anybody's guess :S I would probably put him close to Froome's weight though?
And yeah, he's petrified of losing his time trialling ability xD. Looks like he's kept his power though. There were some awful jokes about Dumoulin, that rest stop by the side of the woods, and his new "weight loss program" btw xD
But yeah, this thread is about the hill stat. I'm hoping it gets fixed. At the moment I'm playing PCM 17 purely as a pro cyclist grand tour racer (mountain stat still works ... ) but on career mode I still default back to PCM 14  |
| |
|
|
| Thatguyeveryonehates |
Posted on 18-06-2017 16:59
|
Domestique
Posts: 447
Joined: 01-05-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
river83 wrote:
this wont work because the difference between good in short climbs and good in long climbs is not in power to weight
if they implemented what you suggest samuel dumoulin would be the best climber in the game. 56kg and a sprinters power
the real difference is fast twitch fibers vs slow twitch fibers
its the same difference of a sprinter versus a tter
Twitch fibres have less to do with a climber's ability than a good VO2 max reading. In fact I would argue it has less to do with a climbers ability. It's why mountain climbers go around boasting about their VO2 max, and not their awesome twitch fibres.
To compensate for Sam Dumoulin is an easy fix. The difference between a mountain climber and Sam Dumoulin is his physique, similar to how endurance runners have much less muscle than their sprinter counterparts. He's actually able to punch over small hills, so once again merely a climbing attribute modified by a figure which represents his physique (all mountain climbers are thin, no exception.) Which will preserve his ability to punch over hills.
I would argue the PCM 16 system is worse than the PCM 14 system. Both are unrealistic, but PCM 14 is more intuitive and more fun to play. That is, I can build a squad with riders great in a mountain stat and I know they'll great on mountain stages.
"Twitch fibres have less to do with a climber's ability than a good VO2 max reading. In fact I would argue it has less to do with a climbers ability. It's why mountain climbers go around boasting about their VO2 max, and not their awesome twitch fibres."
vo2max measures how good you are over 5 minutes. if you're testing track pursuiters it tells you exactly how good someone is
for longer efforts it is meaningless. for road cycling its meaningless because endurance matters. thats why pro road teams dont test for it.
if you were correct about that the best climber in the world would be a light guy with really high vo2max like cameron meyer. but he isnt. because mountain stages aren't 5kms long
kurt arvesen is lighter than ullrich froome dumoulin etc. and has the highest vo2max of a pro cyclist ever
cant climb. never could
"To compensate for Sam Dumoulin is an easy fix. The difference between a mountain climber and Sam Dumoulin is his physique, similar to how endurance runners have much less muscle than their sprinter counterparts. He's actually able to punch over small hills, so once again merely a climbing attribute modified by a figure which represents his physique (all mountain climbers are thin, no exception.) Which will preserve his ability to punch over hills."
so a light skinny sprinter like oscar freire would win grand tours
again your system doesn't work
"I would argue the PCM 16 system is worse than the PCM 14 system. Both are unrealistic, but PCM 14 is more intuitive and more fun to play. That is, I can build a squad with riders great in a mountain stat and I know they'll great on mountain stages."
the reason that was abandoned is it only works if a stage has only small climbs or only big climbs
look at this
https://www.cyclin...rofile.jpg
with the pcm14 system you have to decide if the punchers like gilbert van avermaet etc are going to be the best on the long climb or if the climbers like quintana nibali etc will be the best on the short final climbs
both choices are unrealistic
but with the pcm16 system nibali and so will be one of the best on the long climb and lose time on the short finishing climbs just like happened in the real stage
you can say you prefer it and have fun with it and thats absolutely fine
but you cant say its more realistic than pcm16
even if like i said before pcm16 needs the hillvsmountain effort ratio to be adjusted |
| |
|
|
| Thatguyeveryonehates |
Posted on 18-06-2017 17:02
|
Domestique
Posts: 447
Joined: 01-05-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
meanwhile, Dumoulin said his weight remained between 70 and 71kg.
https://www.cyclin...nbeatable/
and i agree dont use procyclingstats heights and weights they are almost always wrong |
| |
|
|
| Mateo4 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 18:59
|
Free Agent
Posts: 108
Joined: 14-03-2015
PCM$: 200.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a good idea for the interaction of hill and mountain stats, and when what stat comes into play? Something that could realistically be implemented?
I think the best solution would be to cancel the division in two stats. I edited myself the pcmdaily database in the way that i made average between the two climbing stats for every rider and put the average in both stats (for example when he has 73 mnt and 69 hills, I made him 71/71 or 71/70 if he was 73/68).
Thanks to the importance of backup stats, it was still nicely balanced and worked quite well. Punchers had big enough advantage in hilly classic thanks to higher Acceleration, higher Stamina, and higher Resistance. On the other hand, punchers couldn't keep up with the climbers in the stage races thanks to the Recovery stat.
I am satisfied with the change, and the matrix could be edited even more with bigger differences in the backup stats to get even more realism.
I don't think we need two different stats, hence what's the difference in reality? It's still same climbing as a climbing. In reality punchers are just worse climbers, with a better ''kick'' or explosivity on the other hand.
Edited by Mateo4 on 18-06-2017 19:09
|
| |
|
|
| suigfdhuibsyret |
Posted on 18-06-2017 19:25
|
Amateur
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think we definitely do need two stats. Right now, the hill stats seems to be able to distinguish Ivan Basso from Alejandro Valverde if that makes sense. We need a hill stat to distinguish Phillipe Gilbert from Alberto Contador,
I can guarantee that any hill rider without decent climb stat is 100 pct useless right now. 85 pct effort is way too high of a cutoff point to ever be relevant and even then... The hill stat doesnt really make you a better rider uphill, it only makes you able to get a higher heartrate and effort for a short amount of time since you burn through your yellow and red bar way quicker.
I agree you can change the database to make it more realistic but 1. That makes the game lose lots of depth and 2. you shoudn't need to alter the game to make it playable. Their own standard db clearly works against their hill stat implementation ingame. |
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 18-06-2017 19:26
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a good idea for the interaction of hill and mountain stats, and when what stat comes into play? Something that could realistically be implemented?
One idea I thought might be possible to implement would be to allow stage makers to set the default mo/hl ratio like in PCM14 for the stage but then to also be able to adjust it for certain splines in the stage.
So for example I might have a multi-mountain stage and be able to, when designing the stage, to say the default for the stage is a hill/mo ratio of 0, but for between kilometres 87.2-99.6 it has a ratio of 0.7 and between kilometres 112-131.7 it has a ratio of 0.9 using the spline function.
It would be a tiny bit more work for the stage maker (although they could just choose to just set a default like in PCM14 and have that be it) but could allow them to establish the importance of the hill and mo stats very precisely. It's win-win in terms of keeping things realistic and keeping things simple.
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| Mateo4 |
Posted on 18-06-2017 19:53
|
Free Agent
Posts: 108
Joined: 14-03-2015
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, as I said, the stats which distinguish Basso from Valverde or Gilbert from Contador are Acceleration, Recovery, Stamina and Resistance which can make different types of climbers and separate climbers from punchers. I see that the effect of majority of stats is simply overlooked here. And the differences they make are quite big. |
| |
|
|
| suigfdhuibsyret |
Posted on 18-06-2017 19:56
|
Amateur
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mateo4 wrote:
Well, as I said, the stats which distinguish Basso from Valverde or Gilbert from Contador are Acceleration, Recovery, Stamina and Resistance which can make different types of climbers and separate climbers from punchers. I see that the effect of majority of stats is simply overlooked here. And the differences they make are quite big.
i agree, and they should be distinguished like that, not by the hill stat like it is now. |
| |
|
|
| Thatguyeveryonehates |
Posted on 18-06-2017 20:07
|
Domestique
Posts: 447
Joined: 01-05-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
you guys ever wonder why sites like cym italy are called cym not pcm?
pcm used to be cym
and the stats used to be like you say
i was too young to play it but they tell me it was changed from 1 climbing stats to 2 because it didnt work well
gilbert winning grand tours etc |
| |
|
