|
Hill stat is not working at all right now
|
| river83 |
Posted on 22-06-2017 08:18
|
Amateur
Posts: 9
Joined: 18-06-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
matters in the final 3 km is trolling at its finest, and hearing it from a staff member is frankly insulting. (not even to mention that apparently, they don't even do that in this game)
Put sprinters on 60 flat and they don't win either, and rightfully so. Good sprinters have good flat stats, and by that logic good puncheurs have to have good mountain stats as well.
The problem is: giving a sprinter a good flat stat doesn't hurt anybody, giving a puncheur a good mountain stat ruins stage racing (->Sagan).
I'm not sure they're mocking us, rather they a) have a terribly flawed design philosophy and they're desperately sticking to it, or b) they have a terribly flawed knowledge of cycling.
This is the last year I pre-order a cycling manager. I really like to support small dev studios like Cyanide, but I draw the line at buying games I can't play due to flawed mechanics  |
| |
|
|
| sierramike |
Posted on 22-06-2017 11:40
|
Under 23
Posts: 69
Joined: 19-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's a phenomenon called creators pride :when you work on something for a year ,thinking ,working,tweaking it ,then you release & get said it's crap,broken .You are like what do they know..
People with creators pride won't even listen to clear cut proof of errors & will defend beyond reason.
In pcm 16 I did tests exposing problem with this system & got shot down for it by this community,funny how things are turned around now.
& I did warn this was going to give even more problems in the future ... and here we are now.
Anyway at last reply with game explan,ation of some game mechanics by someone from cyanide
At 85 effort is it 100% the mountain stat?
At 86 effort is it 99% the mountain stat and 1% hill? or is it 100% hill? A what effort is it 100% hill, only at 99 effort?
- effort 85%: 100% mountain
- effort 99% or attack/sprint: 100% hill
- the more you approach 99%, the more hill is used over mountain.
Tailwind would make things easier and the gaps smaller because it makes rides faster so the climbs take less time to ride and so it's beneficial for the hill specialists (short climb specialists)
With tailwind, the race is harder on flat zones because you must ride faster without more protection from air resistance (on climbs there is less air resistance due to the low speed so tailwind has less impact). So everybody is more tired. So if you have a better flat stat and a better endurance, you are helped.
the endurance stat only has an effect in the last kms (unless you've changed that this year)
This changed. Last year I think. Now: more endurance -> green energy decreases slower.
You're videos don't work. It's a shame because your screenshots are interesting. I'll make some tests myself.
Do you have replays ? They contain more information. I prefer. I can move the camera where I want.
He doesn't want the pcm 2015 system of setting a ratio for the stage.
He wants to be able to set different ratios for different climbs in the same stage.
That way you can set different ratios for the small climbs and for the long climbs.
So the speed of a rider on the first meter of a climb would depend on the length of the climb? This would not be very realistic 
The performance of riders depend on the speed of the climb, not on its length: if the Mont Ventoux is climbed very slowly, Gilbert can win thanks to his punch (his HIL stat).
In conclusion hill only works from 85% effort ,92.5 % still 50% Mo : it's just too high now.
No error bug,just very bad balancing.
Edited by sierramike on 22-06-2017 12:04
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 22-06-2017 12:48
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
Quick question: When we say "hill only works from 86 effort, below that it's the mountain stat only" - how does the gradient of the road play into that? Because I assume (you can never be sure  ), this doesn't apply on the flat. So when does the hill/mountain stat come into play? Is there a ratio with the flat stat, too?
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 22-06-2017 13:19
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
I remember something about 3% incline being the cutoff point from flat to mountain/hill, with a linear ratio similar to this one balancing them out between 0% and 3%. The same going for flat -> downhill.
Could have been several years ago though, so obviously there's no guarantee that hasn't changed since (or that it even was correct in the first place, considering how Cyanide never makes its game mechanics public unless dozens of people complain about them).
In the meantime, Cyanide seems to try and fix the issue, although the part in brackets makes it sound like maybe they won't.
Edited by cio93 on 22-06-2017 13:25
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 06:34
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 22-06-2017 13:35
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
People should wake up, at this point it does not even matter if this will get fixed or not. It cant be relased this way ffs!! They cant do a betatesting with AI of older edition, what earth do you live on that you are constantly happy with them shitting on your head? 
|
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 22-06-2017 14:05
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
People should wake up, at this point it does not even matter if this will get fixed or not. It cant be relased this way ffs!! They cant do a betatesting with AI of older edition, what earth do you live on that you are constantly happy with them shitting on your head?
Thats a big problem. The beta testers thought that they were up-to-date. So people who asked them, got the info that this game is better than PCM16.
|
| |
|
|
| Masterblaster01 |
Posted on 22-06-2017 14:16
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 362
Joined: 07-03-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, at least the complaints are listened to (in the end), so lets hope they manage to fix the underlying issues and the hill stat works like they intended it too. If we like it or not is another discussies from that point forward.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 22-06-2017 14:27
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
What abou those 99% of complaints that drag since 2010 or 2011? They dont care about your complaint, they just want to make you happy enough so you want to pre-order it next year, while ignoring majority of long lasting problems.
|
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 22-06-2017 14:46
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
Avin has a point. But on the other side, he doesn't. EVERY company does this. So in the end, you shouldn't buy anything.
|
| |
|
|
| sierramike |
Posted on 23-06-2017 13:28
|
Under 23
Posts: 69
Joined: 19-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think every year they add code to a program of which they don't know what the rest of the code does.
Also changing parameters without knowing what the real impact is.
like this:
hmm in pcm2016 punchers are doing way too well in mountain stages & general ,standing lets bump up that value that kicks in hill from 70 to 85 ... tadaa ,let's go have a drink.->community shouts hill doesn't work anymore at all.
the graphics guy said we can add leaning of riders into animations of game;to show them off let riders swing to sides way faster,wheres this value..done..let's go have a drink -> riders in peleton swirl all over the place & sprint-trains get broken up ->community shouts sprint-stat is broken.(yeahyeah bars-value gotten larger can ride flat99 very long now (pcm17)vs sprint that used acceleration from base speed (you drop speed) (pcm15) makes it better to just go flat 99 then actually sprint)
last year in Tour larger groups got away so our game must too,hey let's change the stat of allowed participants breakaway.lets have a drink,hey they keeps away let's change that little stat,& this one & this one,no don't change it back,i'm sure it's fine,can't remember exactly what we changed anyway& we are near release->community thinks what the hell happened,it's all messed up now.
Edited by sierramike on 23-06-2017 13:45
|
| |
|
|
| Gentleman |
Posted on 25-06-2017 11:40
|
Free Agent
Posts: 138
Joined: 12-02-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I was wondering if they could not simply add a 'Hill progress bar'. This one will decrease if the pace on a climb is higher than a particular margin. Say, 16km/h on a 8% climb. People with high HIL stats can keep that up easier before they have to sit down and ride on their own rhythm, whereas climbers with a high MON and a lower HIL stat need to sit down earlier and find their own rhythm.
This way it will separate climbers from each other between explosive climbers who can keep up a high pace for a while whereas other climbers cannot follow those explosive outbursts and need to climb at their own pace, sometimes catching up to the explosive climbers who have distanced themselves.
This will also make a difference on the hilly climbs where riders like Slagter, Gilbert, Sagan can propel themselves uphill while leaving the real climbers like Froome, Nibali slightly behind because the resl climbers need to pace themselves to reach the faster speeds.
I believe Cyanide has tried to do this by letting HIL specialists achieve a faster heartrate and therefore being able to boost themselves for a short time, but it burns them up too fast before they reach the top of the climb and it only gets active after 85%. Not to mention it has a ratio, where 90% is something like 70% MON/30% HIL.
So either they have to lengthen the boost for HIL specialists (which probably impacts a lower depletion of the red/yellow bar, which probably affects them on the flat as well) or they should change the initial percentage.
Either way, I think (especially after comments from others on the forum) that they should take the speed into account. A faster pace on a climb should be coming from the HILL stat whereas a slower ascend can slowly dig into the MON stat.
I still think it would be better to be showing a HIL progress bar, so it should be easier to see how well a HIL specialist can follow the real climbers until he burns up. But on the other hand it also makes the difference more clear on hilly climbs how HIL specialists can ascend faster whereas MON climbers need to clench their teeth and deplete their yellow/red bars earlier if they want to be able to follow those HIL specialists on a fast pace. This because HIL specialists won't deplete their yellow/red bars as fast because they have a long lasting HIL bar.
This also requires to have a new implementation for real MON riders with less HIL, because they will only reach their max. speed after a little while. Simply because they need to find their rhythm first before they can push on. This still allows MON riders to win hilly classics (Evans, anyone?) because they can still catch up at some point if they find their rhythm and use their MON to ride uphill on a faster pace than at the start of the climb.
What do you think of this idea?
Edited by Gentleman on 25-06-2017 11:45
|
| |
|
|
| Oggmeista |
Posted on 26-06-2017 04:33
|
Amateur
Posts: 11
Joined: 02-08-2016
PCM$: 200.00
|
river83 wrote:
I think this is a design philosophy problem as much as an implementation problem. Last year there was discussion about the mountain stat being essentially "slow climbing" and the hill stat being essentially "fast climbing". If Cyanide was indeed going toward this design, then while a racer is climbing the hill stat would naturally not come into play until that rider started riding quickly or with effort. Which means a racers hill stat wouldn't make much difference on a hilly stage until they started riding with more effort, whereas when riding slowly the "mountain" stat would make more difference. Which is counter-intuitive and causes all sorts of problems.
This is compounded with a really shitty implementation that makes the gaps between riders when riding quickly quite small. And that's without touching on recovery and resistance issues.
In short, while Cyanide persist with their philosophy of "hill" being "fast climbing" then they're going to struggle with implementing that system in a way that is intuitive and makes sense to the players. I prefer PCM 14, which wasn't ideal but at least the stats made sense (that is, hill stats mattering on hill stages.) Cyanide should scrap their "new climbing system" for PCM 18.
Quote "I think this is a design philosophy problem as much as an implementation"problem."
yeah i would agree with that why is when the AI wants to relay and you don't the effort needed to be accepted by the AI goes up the longer you leave it...
but conversley when you want to relay you have to relay at the requested by the ai if you try and go faster, you will simply do all the work...
surely the same rule should work for both you and the AI, also did you know you have to exert more effort than ai riders in a relay to achieve the same speed..check it out..
and 1 more driving in a breakaway at the fromt of a field at very high effort eg 85+ has no effect on the gap to the peleton..even though they are riding at a way lower rate....why?, this is all just fundamentally wrong.. |
| |
|
|
| sierramike |
Posted on 26-06-2017 04:34
|
Under 23
Posts: 69
Joined: 19-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
What do you think of this idea?
I think coming up with new ideas & badly implementing has gotten us into this mess.Returning to what worked is better;If it ain't broke don't fix it.
changed values of bars(can hold long+high efforts longer),of values of swinging left-right,of values of wind-influence(back wind),values of protection(trains) etc also led to impossible to catch breakaways and broken sprint mechanics. |
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 26-06-2017 08:50
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
sierramike wrote:
What do you think of this idea?
I think coming up with new ideas & badly implementing has gotten us into this mess.Returning to what worked is better; If it ain't broke don't fix it.
changed values of bars(can hold long+high efforts longer),of values of swinging left-right,of values of wind-influence(back wind),values of protection(trains) etc also led to impossible to catch breakaways and broken sprint mechanics.
It already was broken before, but now it just got worse.
|
| |
|
|
| sierramike |
Posted on 26-06-2017 14:46
|
Under 23
Posts: 69
Joined: 19-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
It already was broken before, but now it just got worse.
No,it wasn't 2 years ago ,the calculation system of hi/mo worked fine. |
| |
|
|
| Gentleman |
Posted on 26-06-2017 20:18
|
Free Agent
Posts: 138
Joined: 12-02-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
sierramike wrote:
It already was broken before, but now it just got worse.
No,it wasn't 2 years ago ,the calculation system of hi/mo worked fine.
I still remember a PCM if you finished outside the timelimit, the stage wasn't counted towards your total time ... and you ended up with an advantage of 20 minutes on the yellow jersey. I actually won the TdF with that at some point. If there's a PCM, there is something broken.
But I'm trying to be constructive here, hence my suggestions.
It's not purely a matter of how well they implement it, it is also what they want to achieve with it. Some ideas are not bad, but then it needs to be programmed properly. If we can at least get some good ideas out, perhaps they might implement it properly at some point. Which leaves us with a good idea executed well. At some point.
So please, comment on my suggestion rather than referring how an old version was better. |
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 26-06-2017 22:52
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
sierramike wrote:
It already was broken before, but now it just got worse.
No,it wasn't 2 years ago ,the calculation system of hi/mo worked fine.
Not trying to play the devil's advocate, but last year's system was very promising because it aimed to fix the lack of realism in stages with both mountains and hills. For example, having Cauberg and Mortirolo in the same stage would mean that the same riders would use the same energy in both climbs, which was an huge disadvantage for punchers with low mo especially.
It's good Cyanide introduced a new - obviously flawed, but with a high potential - system that looked like it could be fixed in a patch or a later game edition. Of course, it's sad that this situation has only worsened.
|
| |
|
|
| ruiribeiro |
Posted on 27-06-2017 11:22
|
Under 23
Posts: 55
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
New patch is out and this isn't mentioned in the change list.
|
| |
|
|
| Selwink |
Posted on 27-06-2017 11:28
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8856
Joined: 17-05-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't think that could realistically be expected. Making changes like this requires serious testing and changing. Not sure if that is even possible in such a short amount of time, but I don't find it likely.
|
| |
|
|
| Thatguyeveryonehates |
Posted on 27-06-2017 18:44
|
Domestique
Posts: 447
Joined: 01-05-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
interesting response from cyanide in the official forum
85% equals to +/- 24min of effort "in real life" (to empty the yellow bar), so it's already a long effort (24min, during this time a good climber can do a 7-8km climb with some good %).
If we lower the thresholds, we'll have the opposite problem: climbers will not be good enough against hilly riders in the mountains. We have to find the right balance, and as already said, it's not all about the threshold there were also other problems (that we're fixing/testing).
after that, as a player you also have to follow the other riders and I think you understand quite fast than in the last part of the race it's not a good idea to play at an effort of 70% otherwise it's done for a good result. So naturally you raise the value and see that it's a necessity if you want to keep up the wheels
about what we're doing to make the good HIL riders better on hilly classics, it's mainly:
* fixing position in the peloton problems (that didn't help some leaders to make good results if they were stuck at an important moment)
* enhance AI choice of leaders (in some teams, too many leaders, and AI was a bit generous with MO stat => could make hill specialists only (luxury) teammates in some big teams
* lower a bit the value when it's all about the HIL stat (before it was 100%, now it's more about 95%...those 5% makes already a big difference in our tests) |
| |
|
