|
[Vote] MG Crash Ratio 2017
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 03-10-2017 22:00
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
The problem with having one setting for PT, and one for PCT and CT is the new PTHC Bands.
Do you use the PT or PCT ratio in these points scoring races which involve both PCT and PT teams? Because either way you're then impacting on other PT races or PCT races. Either making them more risky for PT teams because they have falls, or more valuable for PCT teams because they don't have falls. You could argue for it changing CT as well, if PTHC had no crashes they become better for PCT teams, drawing them away from HC which CT teams can take part in thus impacting CT as well.
It's an extra impact i think is unessesary and wider ranging than you first think. (as well as being slightly annoying for a reporter to change settings between each race)
|
| |
|
|
| Scorchio |
Posted on 03-10-2017 22:16
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2073
Joined: 14-09-2013
PCM$: 4500.00
|
I think DD's arguments are strong, the only point of disagreement I have is that do not see why reasoning is any different in PCT/CT. The PCM AI introduces plenty enough randomness without need for crashes. In PCT and CT there are 10+ day races and riders who this would represent 1/3rd of their RD's. Crashing out in one of those still has a significant impact on that individual rider and hence his team. Not all impacts are as obvious as missing a championship (as has happened previously), but still hurt the enjoyment or 'fun' of those managers who are the unwitting victims. The point of participating in a game is to have fun, anything that reduces that for all and can be easily rectified seems a no-brainer to me.
I also think the sentiment that perhaps now is a bit late for 2017 season is reasonable, and potentially impacting the vote. Agree with SotD that we should let a couple of months of regular season go by, then re-visit this discussion well in advance of 2018 season. Majoriiy view should always be the way forward. (Also believe new MG participants may change view once have more in game experience!)
Manager of ISA - Hexacta in the MG |
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 03-10-2017 23:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
I still don't get the arguments. Crashing is a part of cycling, so why take that mechanic out of the game? I would understand it, if we were fighting for actual prize money, but for a game, were none of us pays for or even gets paid, I think, that this is unnecessary. I also don't get how this is "the wrong kind of randomness"...
Crashes can happen to anyone or everyone. It's totally fair. Also it creates more interesting storylines.
And when you guys talk about crashes "reducing your fun", maybe I'm just different, but they enhance my fun. Obviously I'm like "fuck!" when my guys crash, but when others do, it can create a plottwist. The guy, who was dominating all race long, can crash out and give others the possibility to score big. Sometimes big stories are written on the misery of others. That's a part of the sport.
I joined, when also Ollfardhs EPIC happened. I really liked the real teams and stuff. I was asked to join the MG. I refused first, since I'm not a fan of too much fantasy and I basically only accepted, since I was told, that it's basically only the teams where the difference is. Otherwise it's realistic. And seeing that we cut more realism away to make the game more sterile, is not a good thing in my opinion. Maybe I'm just the weirdo, but I like it when games have as much realism as they can.
|
| |
|
|
| Kentaurus |
Posted on 04-10-2017 00:37
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3999
Joined: 26-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
So I'm generally for the realism of crashes, but I fully understand the primary argument against this (GT guys are hurt vastly more by crashes). Which brings in the question of how to balance that if you keep crashes in the game.
Could it be balanced by simply stating if a rider crashes in a classic (and is DNF at that point.. doesn't start riding again) he misses his next race as well to recover?
I add the part about not continuing to ride because GC guys can crash and keep going as well. This would only be for guys who do not continue to race in any way.
AZTECA - NBCSN  |
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 04-10-2017 01:22
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
Kentaurus wrote:
Could it be balanced by simply stating if a rider crashes in a classic (and is DNF at that point.. doesn't start riding again) he misses his next race as well to recover?
I add the part about not continuing to ride because GC guys can crash and keep going as well. This would only be for guys who do not continue to race in any way.
Would mean that the reporters had to race those races in order and communicate it (latter part shouldn't be a problem especially but could end up forgetting) which could be a nuisance if in the same month and especially if they are on a weekend or something but I understand how that could be a nice idea.
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT]  Xero Racing
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 04-10-2017 01:32
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
Yeah, but on the other hand, that is the thing in a long tour. Don't crash. It's basically a high risk, high reward situation. Classic riders would have time between their races to recover, whilst a GT rider needs to keep on going. Pretty realistic if you ask me.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 04-10-2017 05:27
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
GTs aren't really "Big reward" though. Unless you win or get atleast 2nd it's easy to score bigger when not racing it all together. The limited amount of racedays make it an even bigger gamble for top 5 GC riders.
And I believe crashes in GTs have already cost relegations like DD suggest it could
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 04-10-2017 06:08
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
I may be wrong, but based on the arguments provided, it may be better to limit the race day cost of a GC with a few days, than remove the crash.?
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 19:11
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 04-10-2017 08:46
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
Tamijo wrote:
I may be wrong, but based on the arguments provided, it may be better to limit the race day cost of a GC with a few days, than remove the crash.?
No. It's every managers decision to take a rider wherever he feels that he might perform best. You, of course, have to consider the risks of crashes (already when purchasing/renewing a stage racer). There is absolutely no harm in the current crash ratio. If teams fear the influence of crashes, don't send your team to GT. Other teams with minor leaders will thank you for that. It is a normal part of the risk & reward system, which schould definitely be kept.
And with the possible amount of points scored reducing RDs for GTs (I don't talk about ToA here) is a no-go for me.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 04-10-2017 09:29
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Croatia14 wrote:
Tamijo wrote:
I may be wrong, but based on the arguments provided, it may be better to limit the race day cost of a GC with a few days, than remove the crash.?
No. It's every managers decision to take a rider wherever he feels that he might perform best. You, of course, have to consider the risks of crashes (already when purchasing/renewing a stage racer). There is absolutely no harm in the current crash ratio. If teams fear the influence of crashes, don't send your team to GT. Other teams with minor leaders will thank you for that. It is a normal part of the risk & reward system, which schould definitely be kept.
And with the possible amount of points scored reducing RDs for GTs (I don't talk about ToA here) is a no-go for me.
Guess this is too complicated for me, I will keep my thoughts to myself.
but I will be against 0 crash, I think is ads to the race reports that anything may happen, even if it will hurt some managers hard.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 04-10-2017 10:05
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
sorry Tamijo, wasn't meant as a direct reaction to yours but more of a kickstart shamelessly using your point for starting to present mine
looking at the previous decisions you indeed have a point; and I'd prefer to listen to all your ideas on this - especially as you have earned some experience as a reporter and generally with the PCM15 AI I rate your opinion on this very high
|
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 04-10-2017 12:16
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
Croatia14 wrote:
Tamijo wrote:
I may be wrong, but based on the arguments provided, it may be better to limit the race day cost of a GC with a few days, than remove the crash.?
No. It's every managers decision to take a rider wherever he feels that he might perform best. You, of course, have to consider the risks of crashes (already when purchasing/renewing a stage racer). There is absolutely no harm in the current crash ratio. If teams fear the influence of crashes, don't send your team to GT. Other teams with minor leaders will thank you for that. It is a normal part of the risk & reward system, which schould definitely be kept.
And with the possible amount of points scored reducing RDs for GTs (I don't talk about ToA here) is a no-go for me.
Well, that's basically what I wanted to say all the time, but I didn't find the right wording. Thanks. 
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
