Since we're in the TDF, which I'm lead to believe is the time to post this, and I'm done writing up this lot of proposals, I thought I'd open this thread. Hope I'm not going against any plans of the gamerunners in doing it now
jandal's proposals and stuff
One thing to preface this with: I mention the forward planning of older teams in this a lot as a reason I don't discuss revolutionary ideas to the system. I don't mind changing it a bit more than I propose here as adaptability is an important skill for any manager. In my eyes, I really want changes to the development and overall stat system but don't see the need for big sweeping changes which would be a kick in the guts to any long-serving team. They're also not necessary - but change itself is definitely necessary.
#1: Stat Gains
I have a couple of cents to chuck into the discussion for next season, mostly my gripes with the current layout of the MG are with the undynamic, rigid development system. I don't have the most expertise on this matter but as much as I love developing talents I wish it were better. The system feels like overall it will never change as it's unfair on somebody in the end, be it teams who started developing in years previous if we start now or teams now if we plan to implement it in the future. Some proposals to do with stat inflation (which I'm not talking about here) clearly affect the current (i.e class of maybe 15, and 16-17) and future generations, such as limiting main stat maxes to 79/80, which just sees Herklotz, Morton, Dombrowski and Lecusinier monopolising the mountains and other guys in other terrains doing the same.
However I have three concrete changes, that may be a little unfair on some guys who just missed out on them (including myself who started developing last year), but I think need to be done.
#1.1: Hill Stage Racer
The hilly stage racer training type could be one of two things. It could be customized a bit more, or just a straight swap of MON-HIL from regular stage racer. There is no reason not to have this really and creates an interesting rider type to have around as well as an option in combo-training.
#1.2: Classics Type Upgrade
The option of a classics rider is very appealing to many but the training type isn't to me and others because of one thing in particular: the low ACC gains. The acceleration stat is key in both cobbled and hilly races and it just makes the classics type unfairly weak. I think with the absence here of MON/SPR as secondary stats for these riders it's only fair they have a good acceleration stat to make them competitive.
#1.3: Fighter Type Upgrade
I completely understand that the flat stat is the main stat for fighters. But the fact that they gain not much in SPR, COB and HIL is an injustice in my eyes. I know I talk about him a lot but a good example is my lvl2 rider Novardianto:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Novardianto
Jamalidin
72
61
68
68
69
74
71
69
67
75
74
68
71
He currently has a great (expect FL is too high...) skillset for CT breaks with decent skills on different terrains and in a sprint. Currently the best way for him to be trained to become an alright P(C)T level barodeur is Track-SPR, to give him flat skills, a decent sprint, good flat and a nice acc. But the fact is he'll never be a good to great barodeur because the fighter type, which is absolutely what he needs, offers him no weapons in his arsenal. Every good fighter should either be multifaceted with low 70s stats in cob/hi/spr (as he is but at a CT level) or really good in one terrain - like a KoM hunter with mid 70s MON and high acc/ftr. Classics is not an option even with sacrificing sprint as it gives no acc (above). Currently track-spr turns him into a good flat rider and domestique:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Novardianto
Jamalidin
76
61
68
68
70
78
74
69
73
79
74
68
75
Thanks to his current skillset but doesn't do him justice as an all-around barodeur - he doesn't even get to have a high 70s fighter stat as he should for a good barodeur. I get he isn't destined to be one of the best, given he is pot2, but surely (even sacrificing RES and SPR slightly) he deserves something like this:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Novardianto
Jamalidin
76
61
71
68
72
77
72
71
70
79
78
69
71
That is the fighter training for him, with two more points on hill, cobbles and sprint. I would give more but he's a pot 2 so any more could be making the category kinda OP and useful for leaders. With these stats he's not going to win anything in any level from the favourite's group but becomes a good barodeur without being one of the best - I doubt in anything but FLA, RES, and ACC he'd be the best in whichever breakaway he joined as this would (hopefully ) be in PCT or PT for his career, which hurts me but if I make him with the stats I want you'd laugh off every one of my suggestions
Obviously this change won't affect Jams as much as I am saying here as I guess it won't be available for this year if it does get implemented and so he'll be training track-SPR again. So this is certainly not be being upset one of my riders isn't going to be as good as I want him to be.
I am not sure exactly what the upgrades here would look like - that'd be for the people making these to decide. But I think none of these are rocking the boat, and improve the system without being anywhere near overpowered.
#1.4: Secondary Training Types
This is just an idea I'd be interested to hear opinions on, but in a way to create more rounded or niche riders I could see an option to have a secondary training type mixed in with the primary one on a slider on a lever from 20-50% influence. With the MG progression system this may not work so well as with rounding between, for example, a upgrade of +1 and +2 the rounding could under or overpower some combos at different potentials. But something along these lines would fix a big gap of being dynamic and less rigid in the development system.
As I said above basically one of the big problems I have is the lack of dynamism and the rigidity of the system that won't be changed, this would help a bit without solving it I guess.
#2: FA Adjustments
It seems we'll never actually get anything done about this because of the two very conflicting opinions. My two cents is: much like global warming, stat inflation is an issue, we need to talk about it, and action needs to be taken quite quickly. However there are things that many humans cannot do without carbon emissions, and one of our things that requires high stat emissions is adjusting FAs.
I like to see the riders like Roglic and GVA "rewarded", I really do. But I think it's not worth the damage to the game (maybe GVA has done more good than harm - not going there ) it causes. I like the point I think someone last year made about different rider types being added (because I have no clue how to make an all-arounder from lvl1 or 2 without potential for abuse in this system...) but unless the quantity and quality is knocked back a notch from GVA-level and maybe even Roglic too, it's a no from me.
In my eyes there is only one other reason to raise up FAs: that is when a new region comes up in a new team or gets overcrowded. This is because maybe sometime four years ago people added, say, all the world's Sudanese cyclists. Maybe they were even decent CT domestiques... four years ago. But due to stat inflation they are now useless. There are no new Sudanese cyclists around that we can find in the darkest depth of google searches, pcs or firstcycling. So then these older Sudanese guys should be upgraded so the new Sudanese team can have a few decent riders from their home country. Alternatively, as with Poland not too long ago and was almost going to happen to NZ (Schreurs was the start, if more came/Spark stayed, I could see more happening), there is too much demand even for a decent sized cycling country to hold at a good level.
Otherwise I don't see how upgrading FAs without real need is going to help with the stat inflation problem. Basically I agree with nationality based upgrades and unique rider upgrades in part, but not just realism upgrades adding new top riders.
#3: More Uses for Money
Right now a lot of the stat inflation is caused by training. I'm not saying change training. I might be but I very much appreciate the effort guys put into planning years in advance and we shouldn't screw them over like this. However what I will say is that too much training is going on. This is obvious. The reason this can happen is because money flows upwards. This is not a new concept to MG or to real life. CT teams have one use for money: buying riders. Training is rare in CT for a good reason. So all the money from the CT (minus 1.2mio for salary) goes up to PCT or PT. Then it all pools to a few teams by the end of transfers, who make beasty riders even beastier and screw the DB up a bit more. Some create riders who are works of art, some create monsters. Some are both, some do both. It doesn't matter. These PCT or PT teams have ungodly amounts of money that they can spend on worthwhile training. They do that, riders get better, let's add youngsters who can beat them, youngsters becoming training eligible, rinse and repeat.
Like I said I appreciate why this has never changes: people have plans for years ahead which rely on the same systems and it's "unfair" to make training cost more, decrease overall money, or change up the system. But what we should be able to do is give options for CT teams (and PCT as well) to spend money elsewhere:
#3.1: Training Camps
This would be a nice way for home-grown and loaned in riders to become easier to take on for CT teams but also to handle the loan cap for PCT teams who have to develop their own level 1 riders. For a cost, a certain amount of riders would receive a certain XP bonus to their season total. As still a relative newbie I'm not familiar enough with the value of money to propose the format, but this is an idea I believe knockout had last year and I could see being quite nice. Of course PT teams can use this as well
#3.2: Training Costs
Another option is: make training more accessible for CT teams. This would be, I guess, through lowering the costs, especially in the mid 70s region and maybe slightly in the higher 70s. I think with an overall team cap on training this wouldn't benefit PT teams too much as they'd sacrifice a chance to create a new leader by upgrading domestiques, niche riders or backup stats (always nice to see ).
#4: Declines
One way to make any changes to combat the stat inflation problem more successful quicker is speed up declines, either for a few seasons or permanently. This is one of the ideas that hurts managers but can be adapted to. I'm not sure if this is good or not yet but would certainly clear out the massively (in the "new" system) OP riders quicker. To clarify this is increasing the decline rate to get broken riders out of the top levels quicker (even if not for their whole time so they are useful doms for a while), not decreasing decline age, which screws teams' planning over a lot.
One downside to this is like the limiting stats on new riders to 78 or 79 (I prefer 81 as the cutoff but that is generally there anyway) idea this hugely advantages the generation just maxed and the young leaders (Herklotz, Dombo, Morton, Lecusinier in the mountains f.e.) as they have an extended period of being very good and likely the next 85 MON riders to dominate. That issue is part of what makes stat inflation so tough to handle and in my eyes riders like those four can't be hurt - that completely screws with the plans of Puma, Pendleton's, Jayco and Festina and is unfair. I think in terms of not adding riders too young we're in the right direction for the future at least.
#5: Rider Additions
This is a hard one for me, and I have to seperate my team from what's best for MG. But to stop rider inflation we do need less top additions - I think the current batch we just received was good. MAL is the pinnacle of what should be allowed in future years - scary good with no training in just three years (potentially), especially in a less inflated world. If we want to slowly phase out stat inflation we can't keep adding very good riders, and this is more just my thoughts than a suggestion as I don't mind the batch just in. The "easter egg" guys in the post-training DB need looking at I guess, though some were riders who'd otherwise be up in the rider suggestions thread so that's fine.
#6: Stagiare League
I had this idea before the U23 races were introduced, so this kind of crosses over with that and takes more time to run, which is a pain I guess. This is something I'm proposing to run/co-run, so not something I'm asking for but expecting others to do. I'm not even sure if it would happen, but I'll throw it out there.
It would be a mini league in the january - july months with a few classics, maybe a couple of 2-4 day stage races. It would not interfere with anything with proper MG taking precedence, especially if there was any talk of using the bad but professional U23 riders as well over unsigned guys
Probably national or nation-focused teams, so if there was two Iberian teams so be it, then maybe a mixed Asian team or two, Scandinavia, Oceania, etc. Could do trade teams as well I guess. Fill them with either:
- Unsigned, sub 65 or maybe 66 OVL youngsters from those focuses
- Or (probably not) sub 65 or maybe 66 OVL full time riders who don’t have races then (problems with this include inconsistency in who is available when taking away the mini-league aspect)
If it was to be less “officially run” then I’d take all the help I could get but since they wouldn’t deter from reporting or running much it’d just be people with ability/small knowledge of how to compile the DB, which shouldn’t take long, and stages as well which might (would be pre-existing stages ofc) My editors are busted Other than that it’d be voluntary to help with reports, etc. (I could do it)
Possibly looking at 12ish race days across 6-7 races to be conservative with it first year and not to require lots of effort but it could well be more or less. Calendar is undecided but with that it would have been five classics across 4 terrains maybe, a hill/mon/tt/flat tour four days and another tour for three days, possibly hill/cobble/flat.
They’d be quite low maintenance and length reports but even that takes away some time I guess. Wouldn't provide any rewards or anything, just a fun thing to do with stagiares and just an idea - again, not sure if I'd go ahead with it but would like to hear thoughts given the pace that this season had.
#7: The CT Calendar
I hate to say it, but this year the CT calendar was pretty boring. It had a distinct lack of niche races and planning obstacles (mandatory races didn't help,) meaning that there weren't many surprises or variable startlists: You knew Valls and Penasa would be the top climbers, and Anacona, Cataldo, Karnulin, Bardet, Bennett, Solis, et al would always be there to challenge them. Eastman was a rider who went to C1 a lot and Suaza went to hilly and flat races because why the hell not, but asides from that no variance. They were all stock standard stage races too: if you look in the mountains they maybe had a short ITT (except Bulgaria which is longer) or a MTT, and then just mountains or sprint stages. No real medium mountains, or tricky hill stages (last stage of Tachira maybe, but not that much). San Luis evidently didn't have a long enough TT to let the likes of Reus and Dennis have a look-in to make that interesting - Roux won it with a disastrous ITT! Britain will go the same way I "fear" Benelux Challenge is the only really interesting stage race, none of them even have tricky flat stages, or the like.
One way to combat another issue, that of startlists repeating, is to limit RDs, at least in CT, or bring back the bands at the least. For a rider like Thwaites or Havik there isn't much dilemma whether to use their cobbled or sprint skills more - they can fit in all of both. Even both. The downside to that is limiting C1 exploration, especially for Valls and co. who a -6 RD count would just see riding a full C2 mountain calendar. Niche races will also do this, f.e. for me, given Bennett rode an exclusively C2(HC) calendar this year, medium mountain races or hard hilly and mountain stage races could see him gone from Tachira/Langkawi or other mountain races to have a go there.
I'm not sure how the format will look next year given the rapid pace of this season but be C2HC mandatory or bandatory for the love of god please give the CT some varied races, niche routes and more variety.
#8: Discussion Forums Merger
As has been suggested before, there's only positives that would come out of merging the general forums of the PT and (P)CT. It would allow for easier tracking of other divisions for many, especially on mobile, and a more positive, active, cross-division community in MG. It shouldn't get too cluttered (which is why I'm against doing it for results) and would just be a nice change. Also then weird things like the PTHC bands being posted in the CT subforum wouldn't happen
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
1- Stat gains: I like your suggestion of changing some things in the StatsGain file, and while i don't think having secondary training would work with the idea of making things easier, i think that adding a few extra possible training, like the one you suggested of a hilly stage race, which could create a rider like Trofimov, which is now impossible to do
2- FA Adjustments: I don't care too much of this, but agree that it's better to only do it in case of nationality issues, and not do it for the sake of doing it
3- More Uses for Money: Tbh, i would never use it unless i would get only a few XP short of reaching the next level, which normally can't happen if you plan well unless you have a Lvl 3 rider in a CT team. So CT teams will continue to use that money to buy riders, as it's not worthy to train anyone in CT, unless you can train your star
6- Stagiare league: It can be a nice idea, but if it doesn't give any XP, for me it's not really worthy, because, maybe it's only my opinion, but i don't care too much about my stagiares, as they are too bad to get a full contract, and are only signed to make planning easier if you are short of riders to fill your planner
7- Calendar: I won't comment much on this, because i'll be posting my own suggestions on the 2018 calendar, but i agree that maybe more variety in CT mountain stage races would be nice, although probably would have helped even more Valls if some races had hilly stages
Some good points by jandal7 and some that i disagree with. My short takes on them:
#1: Stat Gains
I like the idea of improving some things in the stat gains file (Acc for CB training, Hill - tt combo, the "Fabian" option, etc) but it might be difficult to make it fair for everyone. e.g. balance the changes so that riders like Pedersen are neither benefitting too much or being punished. Sometimes the consistency of slightly worse stat gain options is better than changing to slightly better options to allow longterm planning (which is also the reason why the general system will stay).
#2: FA Adjustments
i think i told my opinion before:
- i don't like upgrades for RL reasons ( i don't really care whether Froome, Taaramae, Schleck or Yannick Stoltz is the best climber )
- i like upgrades for increasing variety in types of riders (e.g Stoltz update) or demand of nationality (some Polish riders next season?).
- riders who do well in RL are good options for the 2. category though (although i prefer if they are kept closely to their MG speciality for history reasons so maybe someone like Baugnies should have got the GVA update instead)
- imo around 10th best rider on the terrain should be the maximum strength after an upgrade if even that strong.
#3.1: Training Camps
I proposed this as an alternative to those forced PT loans that was discussed strongly last season but I'm not not entirely convinced about them myself (though still 1000% better than forced loans). If you want to implement it the best way would probably that you pay a certain sum to give up an amount X for Y XP.
#3.2: Training Costs
Only the bests are trained and we should allow lesser riders to be trained. To get there two steps should be taken:
1. Remove 5 trainings per team rule (This rule basically forces to teams with lots of training budget to train their stars further instead of spreading it around for domestiques. I'm sure SotD will give a good example once again)
2. Reduce the lower half of the training cost budget a bit. (the slightly less important part)
#5: Rider Additions
Yes, we have inflation but that should not stop us from adding strong talents. If we stop adding guys better than 78 in the max stats then the Herklotz - Ewan generation would dominate for years and that would be a much bigger problem than just the inflation. Additions like MAL are important to keep a balance.
Spoiler
Imo we should try to keep the current balance instead of trying to deflate the stats too hard.
#6: Stagiare League
I know that my opinion is very unpopular and my suggestion on this won't be followed so no need for you to argue against my "extreme suggestions":
Imo a stagiare league adds nothing to the game. I'd remove all gimmick races (races that dont give points -> U23 incl. Avenir, NCs, CCs, Worlds (B-World and TTT events)) and instead increase the calendars again a bit. Ofc that's a decision that is for reporters to make but i feel like that benefits the game more.
#7: The CT Calendar
Absolutely agree with you. Prior to the season I thought comments (i think it was ivan) complaining about not finding any races he'd like for goal races were pretty funny and stupid but after looking at the calendar more closely i can fully understand him and I hate this season's CT calendar. Nearly the entire calendar consists of races that are extremely specialized, e.g mountain races only include mountain stages and perhaps a few pan-flat stages but hardly any mountain races include important TTs or hilly stages. The same on other terrains. This makes the calendar boring and repetitive and wasn't as extreme in past seasons. It seems as all the interesting races where you don't know pre-race who the favourites are were removed in the calendar shortening. That definitely should change.
Also, if the calendar gets a bit longer (or if you cut down on gimmick races as i mentioned above) the CT should have priority because i want race planning to be more important again (no climber should be able to ride all mountain races , no puncheur all hill races, ...)
#8: Discussion Forums Merger
I don't see any need for that. Managers who want to discuss other races do so already and with the long time that discussion threads last on the front pages people will notice those races.
Also it would make it more difficult to find old threads again. I regularly look at old ranking threads, etc and i already have to scroll through several pages to find them and it would be harder to find those if you merge the forums.
My own suggestions
Changelog for last minute transfer-DBs updates
What: If you update the DB in the last days prior to the start of transfers please post a changelog (IDs of added riders, etc). https://pcmdaily.c...d_id=48026 in this update there were still some final riders added or changed. Those should get a changelog.
Why: I think managers who make the work to go through the entire DB once it looks like pretty much the final DB (so last season this: https://pcmdaily.c...owstart=0) are harmed by last minute additions because the managers who didnt prepare early by going through the entire DB are more likely to find those last minute additions. That should not be the case imo.
Early posted transfer rules
What: Transfer Rules should be posted before renewals.
Why: Rules like minimum transfer fees or the possibility for a 1->3 loan can be important factors in deciding whether to renew a talent or not. It would not have changed anything for me last season but this year those can impact how i deal with my stagiares. Posting rules before renewals helps people to avoid negative surprises.
Remove minimum transfer fees
What: There shouldnt be a minimum transfer fee to buy a rider.
Why: The question is "Why should there be a minimum?". If two (or more) teams believe that a deal is a deal they like then the deal should be possible. No need to regulate possible deals.
If i want to renew one of my riders and pay another team to sign him because i want to make sure that he doesnt end as FA then that should be possible as well. (Reason why one would do it = give the other team an incentive to help developing riders from your own country) It should be only my problem if i pay money so that a rider will find another team.
RD scale
What: Remove the gaps in between the RD categories.
e.g.:
currently:
OVR
RDs
83
31
82,33333333
32
81,66666667
34
81
37
80,33333333
39
idea:
83
31
82,33333333
32
82
33
81,66666667
34
81,444444
35
81,22222
36
81
37
80,66666
38
80,33333333
39
Why: The difference between 81,6666 OVR and 81,6667 OVR is worth 3 RDs. That's too much imo.
@Ollfardh - Way to beat my entire long post in four lines!
@Aquarius - Well that idea is that CT would have access to worthwhile training, but I do see your point.
Stagiare league is just an idea and I can see your point - I didn't want to attach any XP but if stagiare development was getting an overhaul it could certainly be done
@knockout - I don't mind weaker stat gains options - SP vs Track-SP, or CV2 vs CV1, but when you weaken fighter it disservices a whole new generation of barodeurs and heavily advantages those that have been adjusted in FAs. But I see your point for sure, and I know you weren't specifically talking about fighter. I know it'll never be fair but it could be fairer
I don't mind taking away the training per team rule, but I thought it would make PT teams take advantage of letting costs be more accessible by CT teams - maybe I'm wrong though
Also, I didn't propose limiting additions to 78/79 - for the same reason as you I'm against it. And I do see the appeal of the idea of not doing so much for stat inflation but I don't like the fact that with that we get lazy and then do nothing about it, and that we've already hit the ceiling for a lot of stats.
Without hearing the other opinions, I do agree with your other three suggestions atm
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
Acceleration boosted in the Classics stat increase seems reasonable. Would come at the expense of the Fighter gains, I guess.
I designed a 'Fabian' category at the start of the season. A few of the less obvious 'easter egg' riders were designed with it in mind. It's in there as a cobbles alternative, for those preferring TT secondary stat to Sprint. (i.e. all I did was change Sprint with TT/PL).
Otherwise, combo categories need to be careful to not be too good, to make the previous categories redundant. A Hill/TT category would be better as based off the Classics category rather than Stage Races, I'd suggest - shifting the Cobbles gains to Hill, and the Hills gains to TT. This is one where consequences may need to be particularly checked for, on riders currently developing.
And indeed, any changes would only come into play for XP earned in the 2018 season.
---
Agree that RD scales need to be more fluid.
---
In terms of new ways to spend money, rider XP makes sense as an option - would just need some thought as to how.
Linked to that, can be a new approach to the Lvl 1 to Lvl 3 rider development. A fixed fee, to the MGUCI, being necessary in order for any rider to develop both levels in one season. With perhaps that fee being larger if you are loaning out to make that happen - maybe the loan in team could take a cut.
---
If any change were to happen for Stagiares, I'd say it would be to get rid of them. Better to have discussion on current merits vs not having them; rather than changing or expanding them in any way - in my opinion.
I wouldn't say I agree with knockout that all of those races are gimmicks; and many of them are taking place when other behind the scenes work is taking place, and are being done by different people - while also adding something to the game. But I do agree that there isn't any need for additional extra-curricular races.
---
CT calendar is probably the trickiest one to plan in advance, as the amount of teams involved is always the last to be finalised. I'm very happy with how PTHC has gone, so can be confident in expecting 22 PT and 26 PCT teams. But how many CT teams? It feels like there are more inactive teams in CT than elsewhere, and I don't know how many new managers we can expect to come in. I imagine that we may eventually return to 2 divisions, but that won't be next season.
Yes, the CT calendar could have been better this season, but I wonder if the problem is more fundamental with the division itself. At the moment, PT has the most races and the prestigious races; PCT has the most amount of race planning options and decisions; and CT is just .... worse? So how can we make it better?
My feeling is that bringing CT closer to PCT would help. If it's more reasonable to expect CT teams to be competitive in C1 races, then that opens a lot more options in terms of the calendar - for both PCT and CT teams. e.g. More races to choose from, more team RDs in total - without necessarily increasing the reporting workload. Or if so, then not by too much.
It brings more planning options, more variety of races, more race clashes - and can help PCT and CT teams to catch up with PT, in terms of number of RDs they get each season. And if the PCT/CT gap is smaller, then should open up C2 races to more/all PCT riders too.
For this, increasing the salary cap for CT teams is somewhat overdue, and the easiest thing to change. We might want to adjust minimum/maximum team sizes too - which would mean a further increase in salary cap. Perhaps a cap of 1.8 million, with a team size of 18-25?
---
And in general on the calendar, just to note that I've starting looking at it already, rather than do any further reporting myself; and tsmoha has been creating some new races too, which will help to address either calendar gaps, or races that don't currently work as intended; so we should be much more prepared on this front once the current season ends, than was the case last season. Suggestions on this of course welcome.
Remove minimum transfer fees
What: There shouldnt be a minimum transfer fee to buy a rider.
Why: The question is "Why should there be a minimum?". If two (or more) teams believe that a deal is a deal they like then the deal should be possible. No need to regulate possible deals.
If i want to renew one of my riders and pay another team to sign him because i want to make sure that he doesnt end as FA then that should be possible as well. (Reason why one would do it = give the other team an incentive to help developing riders from your own country) It should be only my problem if i pay money so that a rider will find another team.
The minimum transfer fee prevented me from buying affordable riders wihile I was virtually stuck with unsellable riders. Thus, I was limited in my market opportunities and the result - an appaling season.
However I may not drop the transfer fee, but instead lowering the minimal fee a manager has to pay - it shoud be 25% of the rider's wage. I.e. Rider A has wage of 75000, so anyone who wants to buy him will need to pay at least 18750 as a fee.
I have another suggestion that may help lower tier teams from the CT division - affiliate/satelite teams. CT teams can enter in an seasona agreement with team from WT or PCT division thus becomming their affiliate. Regarding transfers the agreements could feature "First Option" clause allowing the affiliate to match any bid should the manager of the affiliate team chooses to invoke so. The clause can extend to loan deals. But this idea may seem too silly to some.
This season we have seen a heavy reduction of the total number of RD across all divisions, in order to easy to reporting burden. But seeing how great are we going this season with the reporting pace, i think it can be a good idea to increase again the RD's, although not to the level of past seasons.
My idea for this would be to both increase the total number of RD's and the number of RD's that every team rides during the season. This way it would mean that we wouldn't see several races with only 10-14 teams in C1 races, but also gives the chance to have a more varied calendar, which is something i know that some managers have complained, about the lack of some type of races in some divisions, which kills some types of riders
In 2016 there was a PT/PCT/CT race days of 204/140/120 and in 2017 we are having a 176/140/120.
With my idea for 2018, we could be back to 200 RD in PT and increasing PCT to 160 and CT to 135.
The first thing would be to add a few races to the PTHC calendar, with all four PTHC bands having 20 RD's instead of this year's 15. So we would already be in 186/150/120. So there would be another 14 RD in PT races. This is just personal opinion, but i would add a short mountain stage race (4-5 RD), a 6-7 days stage race focused on hilly sprints, and then a couple of classics.
In CT, i wouldn't keep the strict C2HC calendar, as it would allow to have more than 24 teams in CT next season. With this idea i see a fittable CT with 28 teams at most. Although i would make bands in a way that there can't be a band with less than 20 teams, just because you would have to choose five bands out of six, either each band with 12 RD or 15RD (to make 60 C2HC rd's or 75). I would make each band to be more focused on a specific terrain (mountains, hills, sprints, cobbles and tt) and one all-rounded. Then CT teams would have 75 or 60 RD (depending on how big would be the C2HC bands) to choose from C2 and C1 races. I have liked to idea of forcing CT to ride at least a few RD in C1 races, so i would still keep the number of C2 RD's lower than the amount of remaining RD's for CT teams, so the C2 races aren't undersuscribed.
At this point you have already reached the 135 RD's for CT, so there's only a need to go from 150 to 160 RD's for PCT. The only way is the way that i think most teams would like, as it allows to have more "free" RD's is to not change HC bands, and those 10 extra RD's would be used in C1 races, so PCT teams would have 60 RD's left to ride in C1 races. It would need a little extension from the current C1 calendar, probably 15-25 more RD's.
I estimate that with an increase of 50-70 RD in the total calendar, which would make a total of over 550 total RD to report (actually around 400 stages to report, as one-day races counts as 2 RD), which is still around 30-50 RD's less than in 2016 but with the difference that the teams would actually ride more than in 2016
2. Increase of mininum riders in PT teams
This isn't something i feel necessary, but it gives a little of realism i believe, as forcing all PT teams to have a mininum of 25 riders looks more logical, at least me. It doesn't feel good to have the same rider limits in PCT and PT.
Obviously it would an increase in the wage cap for PT teams to fit those 5 extra riders they are forced to have, so i would suggest that 4M would be the new wage cap for PT. As this might "kill" the hardness of the triple-clash, i would have suggest increasing the limit of riders sent to a race for PT teams to 7, as having to make 21 riders out 25 to race "at the same time" i think it can be hard to plan, as i believe that the idea of the triple-clash is to make the planning harder.
Acceleration boosted in the Classics stat increase seems reasonable. Would come at the expense of the Fighter gains, I guess.
I designed a 'Fabian' category at the start of the season. A few of the less obvious 'easter egg' riders were designed with it in mind. It's in there as a cobbles alternative, for those preferring TT secondary stat to Sprint. (i.e. all I did was change Sprint with TT/PL).
That Fabian category sounds awesome!
As wtih Classics and Cobbles though, imo it needs more acceleration, it's such an essential stat in PCM now.
---
Also, what would be the chance of changing the time gap setting for flat races? We'd have to have zcts files, but it'd finally mean that PCM actually gave a gap for late breakaways and echelons.
I have two suggestions to make and they are kind of inter-linked, at least how I'm imagining it.
1. Increase the Wage Gap between PCT and PT
The gaps between the wage caps is too low at the moment. This is the reason we have guys like Hagen, Sicard and TVG as affordable in the PCT, when they truly belong to the PT.
The PCT wage cap should be down to 2.4m while PT increases to 3.6m.
2. Increase the Number of Riders for PT
This is similar to what Aquarius mentioned.
The number of riders for PCT and PT teams should not be the same. It goes against the flavour of PT being the elite division. As many teams have a long-term outlook on their teams, I would suggest this to be implemented over a course of three seasons - first year increase to 22, then to 24 and finally to 25. This should be accompanied by a wage cap increase too.
Merging the two suggestions together...
This is the crux of my suggestion.
New Wages
CT
PCT
PT (2018)
PT (2019)
PT (2020)
1.2m
2.4m
3.8m
4m*
4.2m*
*The gradual increase in wages is to factor in the team size suggestion mention in Point 2.
Another important point as to why I think this should happen is because currently, most relegating teams can keep hold if all their stars without much difficulty by picking up the lowest wage riders in the FAs. This does not seem realistic. Supposing a Orange relegates in real life, guys lke Sicard and Quintana would walk out immediately. I don't want to get into the MG vs IRL debate, but this justification seems sound to me. Realistically, with a strong enough wage negotiation, if Nemiroff relegates, they can keep Pluchkin and build a decent PCT team. That is ridiculous!
Replying to some of the things mentioned earlier...
Each division should be the fore-runner in races meant for them. We have seen teams like In-n-Out win in Slovenia and Valls and Penasa do well in Costa Rica, so they are quite competitive already. Not to mention WCC's steady collection. Similarly, the CT is where new teams start off and no way should a new team be able to be as competitive as the likes of Grieg, Orange or Newton, who have been recently relegated from the PT (using the same teams as example here). Teams from the lower division should have to work hard to climb up a division and not be pulled closer by the MGUCI. So I don't agree with the squad size and budget increase proposed for CT...
Training costs should be more non-linear with increase in stat levels than it is currently. As has already been mentioned, training is more or less out of reach of CT now. Till stat level 70, the trainings should be a lot cheaper and should not depend on avg...
All transfer fees should start from 0 instead of 50k. The market has a way of finding the right price for a rider...
'Fabian' training would be a very good addition. Something like the hilly stage racer training would be good as well, similar to what Jandal mentioned. A 'hilly-sprinter' training would also be nice. However I don't agree with adding secondary trainings...
Stat inflation looks like a problem but the current lot will start to decline from next year and more stars will decline every year for 2-3 years. However, we cannot absolutely stop adding 81-82 maxed level guys as that would make the field noncompetitive...
Agree with Jandal on the Discussion Forums merger, would be easier to find stuff. But this is not a pressing issue...
And yes, I fully support making the CT races a bit more diverse. We almost knew who would win every race this year, barring crashes!
Stagiere's
I'm not someone who's really looked at stagiarareseas before, i've not seen the point. I think if you want a rider you should just go for it and pay the $50k minimum. Perhaps i've missed the point of them but i just don't get it. As such i wouldn't mind seeing them disappear from the game as a thing.
Certainly i don't see the need to add extra side races for them, i think the slightly added U23 calendar has covered that area of interest nicely this season and is worth continuing for the time being as somewhere else to see Stagiearaeres. You're not signing a stagiarare to see them race, otherwise just sign them as a full rider.
Also stagiereerare is hard to spell.
Stat Combos
Yes more freedom/variety would be a good adition. I like the CB/TT idea but to me this is where training should be the go-to option. You've got a multi-talented rider, with statgains you boost one aspect more than another, but then you train up that second option.
Using a personal example: Simon Yates is a really interesting combo of HL and SP stats, i've used statgains to kind of balance both stats with a preference on HL. Then i want to make a dual-weapon rider i will pay extra for that extra benefit.
This encourages spending on training which helps get money out the system.
Want a multi-talented rider, pay more by having to train him. It's also an area where later, higher lvl additions can help by allowing less statgain growth but the rider is more versatile.
CT
This years calendar has been a bit average, but there isn't the scale there to fit in tons of interesting clashes and options.
Yes i think the CT can do with a cap boost, and that can in turn make C1 races more appealing with more depth of riders. That would help make the CT more interested and tempt away more riders/teams to C1. Although i think part of the repetition of startlists is down to managers focusing on C2HC over C1 and not taking that risk against PCT teams. A CT team could still have gone more heavily on a certain discipline and attacked C1 more aggresively because there are big gains to make there.
Stagieres are quite interesting imo, I know I got a lot out of them by signing guys like Veyhe and Rekita and with my latest two - Rekita and Bengston, the stagiare feature way to get them up a level without having them for a whole season (which wouldn't have been sustainable for my squad).
When they aren't able to be leveled up, I like to think of them as kind of a stake in next year's youth, you pay 10k for a guy - usually one from your focus nation and then you can work out next year if you want to keep him or you think there are better things you can/want to do with your 50k. So imo it'd be a shame if the system disappeared, it has it's merits.
---
Also, it'd be great if Maxed, Level 4 and maybe Level 3 riders couldn't race U23 races, we go from having a super open field with the best guys at like 70-73 in their main stat to a race dominated by those two guys who already have 79, I don't really mind if they get an XP bonus or not, but for the sake of the racing.
I've said it before. Stat inflation is a thing, and it's also not crazily hard to get ontop of. When does inflation happen? It happens when more stats increase than decrease. So what's the solution? Don't have more increases than decreases. How can we make that happen? A couple of ways.
Make declines happen faster or earlier.
Don't increase Free Agent stats, unless other Free Agent are lowered.
Less additions in general, and at lower/more controled levels.
Basically, look at the DB. How many riders will increase in stats this season? X riders by Y stats. Excellent, then we need X rider to decline by Y stats. And thus inflation stops.
Sounds rather simplistic but it's not a massively complex problem.
Declines - Now we don't want to unfairly hurt teams with older riders by suddenly declining their riders. One way to do this is to say a season or two ahead, the new declines will be X and give managers time to plan. Another is to make declines worse for FAs than contracted riders.
FAs - I've been against changing them to fit real life for a while now. But we can still change FAs quite easily, they just have to be balanced against an equal drop of another FA. Bump up a Roglic or GVA, drop another rider who's unsigned. Need to boost Iceland for a new team, drop Mongolias riders to compensate.
Additions - We've already started doing this by being a lot more careful on new riders, making them less good and adding them older. All good stuff. Keep ontop of this as the primary way to combat crazy future growth.
Put all three together and we can easily be ontop of stat inflation without really harming anyone. It's not going to deflate the DB from its current level but lets stop it going up first, then we can look at what the ideal level is and bring the DB down to that.
Training - I've not mentioned it so far. I don't count training inside inflation, because training is one of the ways money leaves the game. So it's inflation at a cost and a manager decision.
I think stat inflation was handled in the last years by adding less OP talents. Of course this will take some time to get into full effect, but I think we're doing well there.
Training: It would definitely be nice with more different possibilities for training. Hill-stage racer, "Cancellara" and especially a fighter upgrade would also be my choices.
As it is now it's very hard to build the solid allround helper capable of handling himself in a breakaway - something that several of my Finnish youngsters would have as the ultimate career path.
Low level training for low level riders could also benefit from a price cut allowing CT teams to take part in that element as well to some extent.
Training camps as suggested could be a nice way to spend money as well as it's hard to develop more than one or two lvl 1 riders without massively compromising your leaders need for support. Being able to buy for example 50 XP would make development of local domestiques much easier.
FAs & Stat inflation: I don't have a problem with the occasional FA upgrade when it is to benefit the game. GVA is in my opinion justified by the need of another to cobbler to challenge Bewley.
Also I wouldn't mind if sometimes a point is taken of the top stat for riders in areas where the inflation is worst. E.g. knocking on of Mtn/TT on Pluschkin as FA. It won't ruin the game or the riders history and since it's on FA's it won't ruin anyones planning either.
Stagiaires: I love them, but see no need for additional races. For me they are a way to case out how the AI handles different riders that are candidates for being future helpers for the team and it have had concrete effect on contract negotiations. I think the current level of U23 races is just perfect.
Transfer fees: Minimum transfer fee should definitely be removed/lowered massively. As a roleplaying aspect I enjoy being able to "help" my talents find a good home if they don't quite fit in with me anymore or has characteristics that would be more fun to follow in CT. An example is when I helped Hungarian champion Lovassy get to the new Hungarian team for a low price as I wanted to see that NC on that team.
I don't see what problem it's supposed to fix either.
Division gaps: I support the idea of larger gaps between divisions. Riders like EBH really should be in the highest division. Also I would like to be able to snd slightly stronger riders to C2 races as a PCT team. Those races are important in terms of talent development but as it is now it's barely even possible to send someone capable of doing well in a breakaway.
Stat inflation:
While I agree with TMM that we need stat decreases to compensate for the increases available (XP and training), I don't think that decreasing some random mongolian's stats will do anything because that won't affect the population of riders which get contracts with teams.
I think a reasonable solution would be to limit the number of years top riders can enjoy their maximum stats. For instance we could implement a system: once a rider hits 80 OVR (either by lvl gaining or by training) he would hit a first stat decrease in say 5 years and continue until he's 33 when his "natural decrease" would take place. When someone hits 82 OVR a first decrease in 2-3 years.
This would prevent riders like Bewley, Cunego dominating the scene for years and years and make the dynastics of MG more fluid. This could mimic real life better as we see most riders being at their very top in a limited amount of years. Managers would face another tactical hurdle in planning their squads ahead.
We could also make managers pay for previous training, i.e. if last yea I had payed 1M€ for a stat increase this year I'd have to pay 50% (500.000€) to keep said stat increase.
Gustavovskiy wrote:
We could also make managers pay for previous training, i.e. if last yea I had payed 1M€ for a stat increase this year I'd have to pay 50% (500.000€) to keep said stat increase.
I don't fully agree with your suggestion about declines for OVL, but I like the bit I quoted, maybe you'd have to bring training prices down a tad, but I'd like this (in theory), especially if it had a greater impact on higher stats and a lesser impact as you went down.
The bit that trekbmc likes is what I like the least in Gustavivskiys post. I think it would make things overly complicated in relation to transfers and trained riders going to FA. Then temporary training would be better, but not good as the concept brings the mind to close to doping.
Making decline age variable to a riders development to some extent could be an interesting idea though. Possibly even with a clause allowing riders maxed late in life a couple of years extra at max as is often seen IRL with late developers. The numbers probably need a bit of tinkering but I really like the idea!
Minimum Transfer Fee
I like it, the rule does a really good job of closing a loophole in the old rules, where instead of having to pay to sack an unwanted rider you could scrabble around and offload them for nothing to someone else.
The big problem with it this season was that we only found out it was being introduced after renewals, and several managers would have changed their renewals plan with that change.
Now we all know it's coming we can plan for it and make sure we renew riders we want, or know we can sell for that minimum fee.
@Gustav - Don't take that example too litterally, mongolia just came to mind. But think of it like: New team wants to be from X nation, therefore needs FAs boosting. Old team was from Y but is no longer active, so lets drop those riders to compensate. The number of riders worth contracting stays the same as it's one-to-one change in the FA.
And that's how FA changes should work, for every change up there has to be an equal change down somewhere else.
And how do we work year on year training fees for riders moving team? Does the old manager keep paying the 50%? Or does the new manager have to absorb that cost? Seems like a good way to massively devalue transfering trained riders. Or what if they then hit the FA, does the new signing manager have to pay that cost?
I don't like variable declines based on OVL. Benefits riders who max earlier as they will get more years at full strength. Eg Rider X reaches 4.100 and gains from OVL78 to 81, he now has 4 years at maxed strenght. Rider Y reaches 4.00 and gains from OVL78 to 80, triggers decline in 4 years, then reaches 4.100 next season and gains to OVL81. He's lost a year at max strength compared to Rider X, but hasn't gained anything in ability over the other rider.
I'm always more in favor of simplicity, and the more simple solution there is just to add big talents at an older age. That will reduce the amount of time they can be at full power before decline kicks in. Combine that with a faster decline, make it harder to do 1>3 leveling, and we've solved that problem or riders dominating.
) be in PCT or PT for his career, which hurts me but if I make him with the stats I want you'd laugh off every one of my suggestions 
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
