|
[Vote] MG Crash Ratio 2017
|
| roturn |
Posted on 03-10-2017 13:55
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Just a quick vote for the 2017 crash ratio before races start soon.
In the end there are basically only the two options 100% as last year or 0%.
Hence default or none.
I add 50% twice, once if you`d like to have it more towards 0% and once more towards 100% for the trend. |
| |
|
|
| matt17br |
Posted on 03-10-2017 14:03
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 10525
Joined: 28-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think that at this point it's too late to change the crash ratio because of managers that might have based their planning on the notion that the ratio would be kept the same as last year. That said, I'm voting 0% anyways because that's what I prefer for reasons that I've stated quite a few times both here and on Skype.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 19:15
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 03-10-2017 14:07
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
100% all the way.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Vien |
Posted on 03-10-2017 14:56
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2322
Joined: 16-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I couldn't care less honestly. But I voted 0% so I won't regret it when one of my leaders crash  |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 03-10-2017 14:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
100%, reasons covered in last years thread and skype.
If enough people are interested, i'm open to doing a bigger study of crashes in the 2016 season. You can see what i did in my previous HQ, going through a random selection of races and counting up reported crashes. Although this time around i'll cover more race days, and give a more detailed breakdown of how crashes impacted the race (# of crashes, # of riders involved, any leaders involved, did it cause a split etc)
|
| |
|
|
| Scorchio |
Posted on 03-10-2017 15:35
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2073
Joined: 14-09-2013
PCM$: 4500.00
|
As discussed recently in the Skype forum, I have a preference for 0% (even although I am one of those who has explicitily planned decisions this year based on trying to minimise the potential impact of crashes on my own squads chances).
Have stated reasons elsewhere, but for those not on the Skype channel, basic summary from my perspective is:
1) Crashes do not add to the 'fun' factor in MG (imo). I'd be surprised if many managers when reading any race reprot thinks 'Yay, what fun' when they see a crash, involved or otherwise, or even as just a neutral observer.
2) When crashes do occur, they have a potentially bigger impact on riders riding longer (stage) races. My preferred example is to compare the best one-day rider (Bewley), vs the top stage racers (e.g. Pluschkin, Taamare, Schleck, et al.). Bewley crashes (out) in a northern classic, is a blow, but he is still likely to finish in the top 10 of the individual standings at the end of the season. The stage racers have no chance to fight for high up the individual standings if they crash (out) of a race. If that race is a GT, they won't even be troubling the top 100 individual standings. As this is not factored into wage renewals for example, is an inequality in the system that removing crashes would thereby also remove.
3) Realism. This is a reason that people often state for keeping crashes. I think the opposite, related to point 2 above. In real life, a crash leads to an injury that then potentially impacts weeks/months of a race season. We do not capture this aspect, hence compounding the inbalance introduced by (2) above.
4) Crashes are an extra way to introduce randomness to the results. If PCM AI was perfect, and hence unusual results a large anomaly, then crashes might be a benefit to avoid the fact that the DB spreadsheet would then be the only basic determination of rider results. HOWEVER, the PCM AI already has lots of tics and throws the occasional tantrum. Hence I believe we already have plenty of randomness in the MG universe.
As I wasn't a participant in last year's discussion, just wanted to take the opportunity to air my thoughts (in large part themselves informed by last seasons discussion!).
Manager of ISA - Hexacta in the MG |
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 03-10-2017 15:57
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
I voted 100% and would like it to remain that way, crashes are a part of racing and they reward teams who plan with the thought in mind that a crash could ruin some races, benefitting depth and potentially allowing a choice between 'safe' and 'more risky' planning.
Secondly, it gives outsider leaders a chance when events turn their way, it's an entirely different kind of 'randomness' to PCM AI glitches and I think that the season benefits for it overall.
Finally, the only races where a rider's season is dependent on one race are GTs and then only for the best leaders, it seems like a bad plan to impact all the races just to make GTs less risky. If your rider misses out on a 6 day race, it's a shame but not the end of the world, if he misses out on a 21 day race it's bad, but there are only 4 of them and one of those isn't even what rider seasons hinge on. I'd hate it if all the PCT and CT races were impacted on the basis that a rider's season can be ruined by a single crash, when that's only really true in PT.
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| Djordje96 |
Posted on 03-10-2017 16:01
|
Stagiare
Posts: 171
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
What 100% actually mean? Every race must have some crashes?
I would ask all the people from the Balkan to contact me so that we can create our community.
List of Balkan countries:
- Albania
- Bosnia & Herzegovina
- Bulgaria
- Croatia
- Greece
- Kosovo
- Macedonia
- Montenegro
- Romania
- Serbia
- Slovenia
- Turkey
|
| |
|
|
| Selwink |
Posted on 03-10-2017 16:07
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8856
Joined: 17-05-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nope, it's just the standard value in game. It's 100% of the standard value basically
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 03-10-2017 16:14
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Would it be possible to set this ratio per division?
In CT and PCT crashes are relatively harmless and should mostly balance out over a season.
But a leader crashing out of a GT can ruin an entire team's season and possibly even cause relegation. I would really hate for that to happen to anyone. And it's only a matter of time before it does. Unless we act.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 03-10-2017 17:21
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
I really still argue that 50% is the worst option here. All it does is make the crashes that do happen injure the manager of the rider far more than before. That's just making the situation worse on all account.
I'm also against making it different between classics and regular stages races (GT's aside). Classics already cost more race days than a stage and are worth more points, so for a team that specializes in them, it can be just as bad to see your leader crash out given the relatively few opportunities throughout the year of a specific classic terrain.
As far as 100% vs. 0%, I'm fine with either to be honest.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 03-10-2017 17:23
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
DubbelDekker wrote:
Would it be possible to set this ratio per division?
In CT and PCT crashes are relatively harmless and should mostly balance out over a season.
But a leader crashing out of a GT can ruin an entire team's season and possibly even cause relegation. I would really hate for that to happen to anyone. And it's only a matter of time before it does. Unless we act.
I'd think even better would be all races including PT 100% except for GTs with 0% or maybe slightly more. GTs are risky enough as it is with 21 race days but as you said, shorter races won't kill a team if they crash.
It seems to be the main concern with crashes that they could ruin a team's season but imo only a GT crash would fully ruin a teams season.
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| ryant |
Posted on 03-10-2017 18:23
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2322
Joined: 15-08-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
crashes happen, in every race blah blah blah
Go play tiddlywinks if you want to play a game with no risk involved
 John St Ledger in Team Bunzl-Centrica and Team U25Red Bull Driver in RFactor
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 03-10-2017 18:43
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11819
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
100% against the idea to favor GTs over all other races in terms of crash ratio.
There should be only one ratio for all.
|
| |
|
|
| hillis91 |
Posted on 03-10-2017 18:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5897
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 1500.00
|
Crashes happens. Just ask Evans, Froome, Beloki, Contador and so on.
100% Seems fair
|
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 03-10-2017 19:36
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
Whilst I sympathise completely with the whole GT leader thing and how it can ruin a season I don't mind 100% personally or for the game. However agree with bbl that 50% is bad, very good point I hadn't thought of.
Didn't somebody find/say that classics naturally crash more than stage races as well? Or I am imagining it
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT]  Xero Racing
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 03-10-2017 19:48
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
What Matt said.
It's absolutely pointless to raise the question now, after people have sent in their planners.
Something like this needs to be decided even before the transfer season start IMO so that everyone can change leaders if they feel it fits with the gamble of crash ratio.
It would make sense to make the poll for 2018 soon, but for 2017 everything else than keeping the same would be a bad call.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 03-10-2017 20:11
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
SotD wrote:
What Matt said.
It's absolutely pointless to raise the question now, after people have sent in their planners.
Something like this needs to be decided even before the transfer season start IMO so that everyone can change leaders if they feel it fits with the gamble of crash ratio.
It would make sense to make the poll for 2018 soon, but for 2017 everything else than keeping the same would be a bad call.
Very good point here, I agree.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 03-10-2017 20:36
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
I have to agree with Matt as well, although I would definately go for the 100% option, since crashes are a part of cycling and they can give smaller teams a lucky chance as well. Luck should always be a minor factor in management games. Also everyone has to face the same "trouble", when an important rider crashes out, but I think that it can shuffle alot of things well, since it can happen to anyone.
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 03-10-2017 21:52
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I agree with many different points raised so far:
- No 50%
- No change right before the season; make this the discussion for 2018.
- 100% is the way to go in CT and PCT, because it adds just the right amount of randomness and realism.
- No different ratio for just the GT's, as that would favor GT riders over other types of riders.
A 0% ratio for all races in PT would be fair though. And it would remove a game mechanic that (on the PT level) adds the wrong kind of randomness.
A game like this needs its randomness to be high frequency & low impact so that the effect more or less evens out over a season. In CT and PCT, this is the case with crashes.
But a GT leader crashing out is a very low frequency & super high impact event that completely skews season results if it happens. And it only evens out over the span of a decade or two.
If you're a PT manager and disagree with the above please let me know why.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
