What Scorchio and me earlier are trying to say is that the gaps between the wage cap of each division is too low. If CT is 1.2m and PCT remains 2.5m, PT, should be at least 3.8m but more realistically 4m.
But why are the gaps too low?
Why shouldn't i be allowed to be smart as a manager and sign up a PT level leader to a PCT team? Or PCT leader to a CT team?
I gotta say, I think making divisions closer is completely the wrong way to go. As it is PCT and PT are almost even in some disciplines. CT has gotten WAY WAY stronger since I started in it. PCT now has a some of the best former PT leaders. If we are aiming to combat inflation, why would we want to fuel this further? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. PT should be getting more money I think. I don't think anything else needs to change. Not sure why CT managers are complaining about lack of funds right now when they have far superior riders than a few years ago. If you couldn't build a good CT team with the current cap, no one would promote because everyone has the exact same cap in the division. And teams are not supposed to compete equally with higher divisions. That's the entire point of having different divisions, isn't it?
I don't know, that's just my fast take. I'll do a full write up on all the suggestions mentioned when I have a little more time.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
TheManxMissile wrote:
But why are the gaps too low?
Why shouldn't i be allowed to be smart as a manager and sign up a PT level leader to a PCT team? Or PCT leader to a CT team?
Because it's realistic!
One can still be smart with limited resources too. Maybe like me signing Marcel Wyss for 55k wage. You can see what he has done. Probably one of the best points/wage riders in the division. Definitely among FAs. So higher cap is not necessarily required.
I guess i'm just of a different opinion that close divisions are not a bad thing.
They are still clearly distinct: the PT carrying the biggest and most prestigious races and still has the games best riders, the PCT having range from PT-esque teams down to guys who'd be more comfortable in the CT as well as a varied calendar, the CT being a division of more specialized teams and surprising approaches from new/rebuilding managers.
Whilst certain riders can compete in a level above there's very few teams who would be able to instantly go up a division and be competing regularly and for a title without making noteable additions (and those couple who could step up deserve recognition for doing a better job than their competing managers).
But the relative level of the divisions allows promoting teams a good chance at being competitive in the new field (just look at how well some of last years CT promoters are doing in PCT with a core of CT riders, and again to PT with strong PCT promoters) after just a few transfers. It makes for a fluid game where good managers can make their way quickly up the tiers, and old managers have to stay awake or face being shuffled down the order.
But you can't just fluke your way up divisions or win everything without putting in the effort and being something of a good manager.
There's a really nice balance to me that makes the game fun and dynamic.
baseballlover312 wrote:
And teams are not supposed to compete equally with higher divisions. That's the entire point of having different divisions, isn't it?
No. The entire point of having different divisions is to allow more people to be part of the game.
And the point of any improvements to the game should be about making the game better, and for players to get more enjoyment out of it. For me, that isn't about aspiring to preconceptions of what a division should look like. I agree with TMM in that respect, and find it odd that there can be a belief that some riders are 'too strong' for a division, if a manager has been successfully able to sign them. It's why I don't agree with a larger PT squad size also, as cio has said. It being 'realistic' is irrelevant, as it doesn't improve the game to seek it - without us having to change other things to adapt to it. And it's also why I'm not a fan of crashes, as the main negative, uncontrollable and plan-disrupting influence on racing. Being 'realistic' doesn't necessarily mean a better game.
But obviously, different people will enjoy different things, so threads like these are useful in understanding that.
My feeling is that most teams in CT want to promote; most in PCT want to avoid relegation; and some of the weaker CT teams appear to be the least-engaged teams in the game. Is that only because the general objective is to do as well as possible, or is it something more?
And if the biggest problem with the CT is currently the calendar; and the only realistic way to fix that is more PCT/CT mixed racing; is the current level of CT teams good enough that this would actually work?
Both in terms of quality, to the extent that targeting C1 over CT-only C2HC is more of a viable strategy; and in terms of having the squad size to handle race clashes more comfortably. Quite a number of CT teams wanted to take on a triple race clash this season, after all.
A wider gap between PT and PCT isn't likely to have a material impact on what goes on in PT, in anything other than it becoming harder for promoting PCT teams to establish themselves in PT. And that's not good for the game.
This basically tells me that the gaps will not get bigger but only smaller in the coming seasons. So no point arguing further. Atleast I tried.
Btw, about recently promoting CT teams doing well in the PCT...the best among them is Isostar, who have just one rider the same from last season. So even with the small gaps between divisions, a complete team overhaul is required it seems
AbhishekLFC wrote:
This basically tells me that the gaps will not get bigger but only smaller in the coming seasons. So no point arguing further. Atleast I tried.
Btw, about recently promoting CT teams doing well in the PCT...the best among them is Isostar, who have just one rider the same from last season. So even with the small gaps between divisions, a complete team overhaul is required it seems
What?
The entire point of this thread is to discuss, and gauge what the consensus seems to be. See what the different opinions are, and say why if you disagree. It certainly isn't about making decisions within a couple of days of the thread being open. Nor is it about giving up once a couple of people have disagreed with you.
I've tried to lay out why I think what I do, and what assumptions I've made, and I certainly welcome any counters to those points!
--
The CT to PCT transition hasn't really come in to anything I had to say. But, I'd actually argue that your statement rather proves my point. If more PCT/CT racing is the answer to calendar issues; and a competitive CT team needs to have a complete overhaul to become a competitive PCT team; then the gap between PCT and CT is too big as it stands, for the calendar changes to work. But maybe you interpret that differently?
And if keeping (or extending) the gap is felt to be more important than having more PCT/CT racing, then what other ways are there to improve the CT calendar?
SportingNonsense wrote:
The entire point of having different divisions is to allow more people to be part of the game.
And the point of any improvements to the game should be about making the game better, and for players to get more enjoyment out of it. For me, that isn't about aspiring to preconceptions of what a division should look like. I agree with TMM in that respect, and find it odd that there can be a belief that some riders are 'too strong' for a division, if a manager has been successfully able to sign them. It's why I don't agree with a larger PT squad size also, as cio has said. It being 'realistic' is irrelevant, as it doesn't improve the game to seek it - without us having to change other things to adapt to it. And it's also why I'm not a fan of crashes, as the main negative, uncontrollable and plan-disrupting influence on racing. Being 'realistic' doesn't necessarily mean a better game.
But obviously, different people will enjoy different things, so threads like these are useful in understanding that.
My feeling is that most teams in CT want to promote; most in PCT want to avoid relegation; and some of the weaker CT teams appear to be the least-engaged teams in the game. Is that only because the general objective is to do as well as possible, or is it something more?
And if the biggest problem with the CT is currently the calendar; and the only realistic way to fix that is more PCT/CT mixed racing; is the current level of CT teams good enough that this would actually work?
Both in terms of quality, to the extent that targeting C1 over CT-only C2HC is more of a viable strategy; and in terms of having the squad size to handle race clashes more comfortably. Quite a number of CT teams wanted to take on a triple race clash this season, after all.
A wider gap between PT and PCT isn't likely to have a material impact on what goes on in PT, in anything other than it becoming harder for promoting PCT teams to establish themselves in PT. And that's not good for the game.
Completely agree with the exception of squad sizes. I think bigger squad sizes allow bigger specialization for each terrain. I believe more teams with a stronger depth result into a better AI, as less lucky breakaways are then happening, the best example of this in my opinion was the result in last year's LBL. In addition to crashes. My opinion about them has changed this season as well. They are not making this game more fun.
SportingNonsense wrote:
The CT to PCT transition hasn't really come in to anything I had to say. But, I'd actually argue that your statement rather proves my point. If more PCT/CT racing is the answer to calendar issues; and a competitive CT team needs to have a complete overhaul to become a competitive PCT team; then the gap between PCT and CT is too big as it stands, for the calendar changes to work. But maybe you interpret that differently?
And if keeping (or extending) the gap is felt to be more important than having more PCT/CT racing, then what other ways are there to improve the CT calendar?
And agree again. I have some suggestions in my long post. But main way to improve CT is surely via making the division really competitive in all races they attend. PCT already has that advantage, even though I would not be against bringing them further closer to PT. AFAIK CT teams have a much harder job to compete against PCT teams in C1 races.
I really like the current gap between PCT and PT teams in terms of wage. Building the team base for PT through years in PCT is a nice option to have atleast.
With the current AI and how much 100% crash ratio actually affects almost every race I hope more people will consider lowering it a bit. Watching some unlucky teams get their entire seasons get ruined by crashes is not fun, especially as we have the option to decrease the amount of those.
I haven't read through it all yet, but one thing have annoyed me for years.
Stagiares really don't like to level up. IMO the point of adding stagiares IRL is to test them against the Real thing and make them develop as a rider. A rider that is not yet ready, but will be.
Why not make it possible for stagiares to level up, not matter what their XP is, if you want to pay 2K pr missing XP? I mean, what's the harm? It is riders that no one wants to pay 50K for, most of them max out with key stats of 75-78.
For me, it would be a great way to get that development team, that I cant have. I could buy 8 stagiares and pay whatever fee to develop then 1 level, and I would have a great joy in doing so, without it in any way interfering with the level of competetiveness. Also a way of getting rid of excess money, which seems to be important for some.
Even better for me would be to get a development team and just simulate some races with it, to develop them. I have a long list of riders (from my key areas) that I would have loved to sign, and Where their final stats could be OK for me (domestiques), but Where the development process is making me not do so, because I don't want to waste 200K of wages on 4 riders that will become 76MO, 75COB, 77SPR and such for 3-4 seasons.
If I could spend 10K wage pr. rider and 100K for stat development that would be very interesting for me.
Personally I'd like to see the gap between divisions be bigger than it is now and riders like Valls not be in CT or riders like EBH or Amador not be in PCT.
As a team that came into the game with a long term plan I deliberately targeted young riders in my first 2 seasons, making sure the best of them would max out at a level that at the time was where decent CT leaders were, thinking I'd end up with a well rounded team where I have one of the top 10 riders in multiple terrains.
Out of those I signed and developed this way only Salleh could still be considered a strong CT leader and he was always going to be our Marquee Leader anyway, but the addition of guys like Valls, Eastman, Boily, and Klemme and Dowsett last year are such a level above the potential of any talent you could realistically sign as a CT team that developing your own leaders is impossible.
I now feel like I will either have to get lucky with disband placements or rip apart the core of my squad to promote to PCT as the level of riders in the CT is far superior to what I expected it to be.
I feel like if I had the squad I do now, back in my first season then instead of fighting in the lower top 10 of the rankings I would have been able to fight for a promotion place, although not guarunteed one and been 1 leader upgrade away from the podium fight/ outsiders in a title fight depending on how the season went.
I would still love to see a major reduction in rider race days so we won't know going into a season every mountain race at C2 or C2HC level will be dominated by the same 2-3 riders, same with the hills.
Sprints are inherently more competitive anyway and more open to the best riders getting beaten, hence how Salleh and Haller aren't racking up 5-6 wins each but are getting beaten by weaker sprinters, but still having the better consistency over them throughout the season so I'd argue that sprinters should get less of a reduction, however a reduction in race days is probably still needed for them aswell to stop them then being able to score more that Mountain or Hill riders.
Last year we favoured race clashes over a big reduction in rider race days but I don't feel like that has had any significant impact, and it seems more artificial to say you have to choose between race a or race b when alternatively you could have 20 race days to spend but 35 race days worth of options which would balance riders out more and create weaker and stronger fields rather than knowing roughly where everyone will be already.
I think of it comparable to the PT's hilly triple clash vs the 3 GT's, the triple clash you can guess where most leaders will go but not so for the GT's hence how the GT fields have been more varied in terms of quality level.
I'll have to read through the rest and respond to it in detail later as I'm about to head out, but I wanted to get my main issue of the increase in rider strength making long term planning near impossible addressed now and to hopefully open the discussion on that.
P.S. Lowered training costs for CT level riders would be beneficial, but nowadays the top CT leaders are arguably stronger than bottom tier PCT leaders and it's only really leaders that CT teams have the cash to train if anyone at all.
Roman wrote:
I think bigger squad sizes allow bigger specialization for each terrain. I believe more teams with a stronger depth result into a better AI, as less lucky breakaways are then happening, the best example of this in my opinion was the result in last year's LBL. In addition to crashes. My opinion about them has changed this season as well. They are not making this game more fun.
Yes, good point, that is a way that larger squads can improve the game, as it helps the teams of other favourites too. Particularly in PT, where you can't really avoid a terrain, it's more likely that you could have a leader, but a weak squad in that terrain - so being forced to have more riders could improve that.
It won't always work - talents need XP, so will be used in races not suited for them - and you can never force a team to bring good depth to a race - but it could well help more than hinder.
SotD wrote:
I haven't read through it all yet, but one thing have annoyed me for years.
Stagiares really don't like to level up. IMO the point of adding stagiares IRL is to test them against the Real thing and make them develop as a rider. A rider that is not yet ready, but will be.
Why not make it possible for stagiares to level up, not matter what their XP is, if you want to pay 2K pr missing XP? I mean, what's the harm? It is riders that no one wants to pay 50K for, most of them max out with key stats of 75-78.
Contrary to my previous opinion on stagiares, I do think this is a good idea that would work. Could even take it to the extreme and say, all stagiares will level up, regardless of race days and xp required - without the need of an extra fee. Because while it is good to have more ways to spend money, I'm not sure of the reality of many people wanting to spend money in this way.
If you allow any unmaxed riders to be stagiares, except for any riders sacked during transfers, then I don't really see any issue with it. These are riders that otherwise would not level up at all - nobody can afford to offer them 50k, and the team who takes them will still need to offer them a 50k wage at the end of the season, if they want to really benefit from it.
baseballlover312 wrote:
And teams are not supposed to compete equally with higher divisions. That's the entire point of having different divisions, isn't it?
No. The entire point of having different divisions is to allow more people to be part of the game.
Surely that's important, but I'm missing the correlation between these concepts. Then why not have one big division with a completely different schedule alignment and the same wage cap for all? The current 3 division structure in itself would seem to be based on realism more than productivity from that perspective. Furthermore, if all divisions are supposed to be able to compete with each other, what is the point of even attempting to promote? Why do we have divisions at all? From what I see here, a hierarchy is built into the game - it's what makes the competition and promotion/relegation system make any sense or have any meaning in the first place. As a CT team, I wanted to promote so that I would be able to get more of the premier riders from my region and compete at a higher level. I don't think I'm alone in that.
For me, it's not a question of realism, it's a question of the competitive structure of the game. I think when we say all divisions should be able to reach the same talent, it makes the infrastructure of the game seem needless in its own right. In any case, I find it difficult that realism is considered a crutch when it comes to basic game foundations, but we constantly make needless upgrades to riders already in the DB in order to mimic real life on a cosmetic level. That makes much less sense to me, but seems to be a prevailing opinion.
Your point on promoting teams establishing themselves in PT is taken, but they would be given the same wage cap as the other PT teams once they promote, so I see that problem only arising from the additional budget algorithms, which would have to be adjusted a little more to favor promoting teams. But to be fair, that's already something we deal with as promoting teams. The budget algorithms are secret, and I understand why, but I'd already argue that the way goals and goal completions affect them seem unbalanced from a purely anecdotal perspective.
Edit: Actually, I'm not quite sure what reason goals creation has for being a part of the budgets, except for first year teams. Surely, the goals themselves that are riskier in point values should be rewarded a greater amount when completed for the next season, but why should choosing riskier goals give you a bigger budget in the first place? I might just be misunderstanding the elements at play because, as I said, I don't know the algorithms, but that system seems peculiar if it is like I think it is. It limits goal options by making cautious goal completions barely as beneficial as simply making riskier goals. So it makes more sense just to make riskier goals every year, even if you fail them.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 13-02-2018 19:34
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
And if the biggest problem with the CT is currently the calendar; and the only realistic way to fix that is more PCT/CT mixed racing; is the current level of CT teams good enough that this would actually work?
Both in terms of quality, to the extent that targeting C1 over CT-only C2HC is more of a viable strategy; and in terms of having the squad size to handle race clashes more comfortably. Quite a number of CT teams wanted to take on a triple race clash this season, after all.
Hold your horses a little here SN . Personally speaking I think the general balance of CT calendar is absolutely excellent. There is plenty of option for racing up in C1 (and even HC racing). Also 120 RD's seems like a good number, I was sceptical season or two back when reduced, but it still plenty. Also the C2HC 'forced' calendar introduced has been great imo. Lots of different terrains. Lots of different choices. Good planning/strategy is well rewarded.
Small tweaks that would benefit is that currently the stage races with mountains are all either mountains only or mountains + TT (in terms of deciding GC). Hence the hill stat is never of consequence. Minor changes to make some of the stage races suit the mtn+TT (as current) and others Mtn+hill (+/- TT) would widen the variety of rider types that are of interest + competing. In total this might mean altering 3 or 4 stages across the calendar. That's all that be needed to improve even further, move along, nothing else to see here .
On a separate note, my feeling (above) that PT might benefit from higher wage cap is that I think (most) PT teams are struggling to deal with the variety of terrains, and e.g. some of the GT teams turning up are very weak. It also makes sense to me that it is reasonable (and welcome) that a PCT should be able to compete with PT teams in their focus terrain. Similarly for a CT team vs PCT. For a squad in a lower division to be all-round competitive in higher divisions seems a bit wonky (although that is just my take on how thee is a MG pyramid from PT --> PCT --> CT). Absolute star riders in PCT (e.g. EBH, Amador, etc) is not wrong, and does not need to be explicitly regulated, however the consequence of this should naturally pan out that the cost of such a star to an extent hamstrings the rest of that PCT teams recruitment. At the moment the balance feels almost right, but my own feeling is that there are slightly too many of the top stage racers ending up in PCT from the perspective of weakening GT fields in PT. If PT teams had a little more wage cap, they would be more likely to hold onto one or two more of their 2nd tier leaders that they instead currently sell down to PCT to generate training funds.
To finalise on this, the number of 'PT quality' stage and hilly classic racers in PCT does also make it nigh on impossible for CT teams to compete effectively in that terrain when riding C1, even if that CT teams strength lies in that terrain (CT strategy tip: hence race appropriate lots of C2 races). It is possible to be closer in cobbled, TT and (to an extent) sprint races (CT strategy tip: hence race appropriate C1 races!).
In all my comments, please note that I think this is a brilliant MG season, the best since I've gotten involved. The game keeps improving which given how great it already is/was continously surprises me. What we are all discussing is how best to polish this diamond, not smash it to bits!
@trekbmc Surely it should not be forced, but it should bring in some hard decisioning - you either decline one of your best riders for a compensation - or - you pay a fine. I have no big problem that it would be a much harder decision for PT teams than for CT teams - that +1 thing as a compensation is optional, may have to be better thought. Point 2 may be the problem that lies with this suggestion, as -1 in all attributes may be a too hard declining of a single rider.
Agree about stagiares part, but I think roturn hits the point perfectly here - you should not be able to abuse the system via signing stagiares. A solution here could be - if you sign stagiares that have a total wages higher than 50k, then they count together as one rider to the overall minimum/maximum limit. Make them available to ride during all season long according to my suggestion, could be worth it.
I think that form of riders would be fun even in lower divisions - the point about no obivous peaks for riders makes it actually better there than it PT IMO. In addition to that I think that having a choice to have one +1 month and then suffer -1 months during all other months could be also a nice idea. But not really sure about more than one form month, in that case riders like Velits could easily spend both Giro and Vuelta in form, and then be in minus months without any actual racing.
@roturn PTHC catagory is a lovely one. Really a great addition for the game, it is a much better one than the old solution of letting restricted squads of PT teams to HC races. Don't like a restiction for riders like cobble specialists though. They already have too low number of races where they can use their best stat. IMO it would actually be better to include more cobble races in each PTHC category, so more riders have a chance to race somewhere without Bewley.
Agree about crashes.
@Atlantius My point about lvl 1-3 clause is exactly about loans. Luxury tax bit was just a brainstorming idea to maybe invent a fun system that could move money down the divisions, while top teams are forced to pay money to keep their dominant teams. Maybe would not work our would not be liked, I don't know.
@TheManxMissile The basic solution to PCT/CT is quite clear - use the maximum of 24 spots in all C1/C2 races, in that way I am quite sure PCT/CT teams could get more RDs than they receive right now.
I agree that we need to keep some challenge in developing riders, but would you really exchange Ewan's or Yates' RDs for XPs? Don't think so, you either loan him out or keep him like now. This would be mainly a thing for domestiques, primarily for CT teams to allow them to find an easier way how to max out their lvl 4 domestiques.
+1/-1 thing was intended with pre-renewals OVL-average without stagiares, Atlantius was right there. My idea was to tackle both stat inflation and same guys winning all the time as well. My second idea about forced -1 in the best stat for top 25 riders from PT rankings tackles that probably in a better way though.
And about minimum fee - I have no problem to keep the current system, but my idea was about how maybe we could improve the current situation to make the system somehow a little bit more flexible for some guys other than me.
@knockout You are probably making a right point here. There would need to be some other restriction than just OVL. On the other way if you would have to downgrade a rider like Siskevicius for it, it is not as easy decision as it looks... for example, I would have a decision to downgrade Velits or Vakoc to improve a rider like Habtom or Zhupa or pay 1M fine. Not an easy decision at all.
@cio93 I am all for decreasing RDs for riders. IMO it is great to have to use your team depth during the season and have races without your top leaders present during the season. Was great to root for a rider like Vysna doing wonders during Dauphine this year for example.
@Scorchio I think your idea for 'form only in PT' could work nicely, but it is IMO not really good to involve in this game things that can be used only in some divisions. It should IMO be for all managers or for nobody.
And btw we did not do any major changes in last few years, as it was hard enough to start the new season already. I think it is relevant to try to think about ways how to improve this game. Don't agree with your opinion that PCT has too many PT caliber riders. How could PCT teams compete with PT teams in PTHC races if you would give PT teams a bigger advantage?
@sammyt93 A nice point about the need for lowering RDs available to riders. I think the basic plan to improve CT should be like this:
1. Higher wage cap for CT to create a bigger chance for CT teams to compete in C1 races, while opening C2 races to all riders.
2. Use all/almost all places available in C1/C2 races, give PCT/CT teams maximum available RDs.
3. Decrease RDs for riders for a higher diversity in startlists.
4. Increase team sizes to create bigger team depths to improve AI in races.
5. Create more double-headers in C2HC. Maybe involve new unique races like a mini CT GT.
@SotD Quite a lot agree. Would love to take on some young Czech/Slovak riders to help them to have a career. I am not really sure about stagiare teams though. Maybe PT teams could get a spot for their stagiare team in a C2HC band if we go again for them? Maybe could work. SN's idea on this also could be an improvement IMO, maybe even combined with my idea of giving stagiares as many RDs as is his wage.
@SN Agree about the point about talents, but for example I am quite sure that I could do with one extra rider for my TTT squad or hills. Maybe if domestiques have less RDs than they have now, combined with my idea about buying XPs (this time without that RD penalty), then you would actually be forced to spend some money to bring some of your talents to the next level. Could be both another way how to spend money as well as it would somehow help to restrict the use of domestiques in so many RDs as now. IMO riders like Hirt or König should not have almost enough RDs available to race all three GTs during one season.
@baseballlover312 The proposed scenario from me or SN is about giving CT around half of wage cap of PT teams. Currently they have around third. Is this really something close to any suggestion to disband divisions or cancel the differencies between divisions? Difference between a promotion to the next division would still be huge.
Anyway, from what I have read here, I think that much more interesting idea than that -+1 would be auto -1 in best main attribute for top riders in the last season of PT rankings. This could be the best way how to tackle dominating riders like Bewley and shuffle things - as a compensation for having to decline Bewley I would get back money for training him into 83. I would then have to use these money pre-renewals to train some of my other riders. Riders eligible to be trained could then be re-trained later after transfers. But as Bewley is over 30 now, he would start to decline early. Happy times for everyone.
My biggest issue with the CT calendar was mainly the profiles itself. That the profiles were extremely suited towards the specialists. That there were barely any races for any hybrid riders (climbers with TT, mo/hi hybrids a la Kwiatek, punchy sprinters, TTers with good hill stat, etc.). I don't enjoy pan flat races or those extreme Andorra-like climbing races at all but prefer the races where it is not super obvious what kind of rider wins (like MSR, ToNE, Hainlaite, etc). That's a matter of taste but isnt hard to change. Should others think similar that could be solved rather easily by looking a bit more at that in calendar building by picking other routes like e.g. the old Romandie route instead of Andorra.
The general look with a fixed calendar and C1 + some C2 races is alright. It would be good to have some more C2 races to pick from but that would require either 1. more CT teams (obv waiting for the application process to see whether thats possible which i kinda doubt) or 2. raising the PCT limits for those races (which i'd suggest). Maybe make the fixed calendar with 5 bands where teams can drop one band to have a small specialization part there.
If we keep the current schedule in a similar size then my prefered option would be to simply reduce the number of race days good CT riders have to get at least a bit variation in start lists.
I don't like bringing the divisions closer together to each other. Realism has nothing to do with that but has entirely different reasons:
1. I see the MG in the first place as a management game where i can compete with others to "win". The most fun part for me has been the rebuild transfer seasons directly after a promotion because you're challenged to improve your team a lot. The size of the challenge looks good when i look at past seasons where the best promoted teams can finish on or near promotion places in PCT / top 5 in PT and the less successful teams fought against relegation. That's how it's supposed to be imo and I would want to keep it that way.
2. Relegation is supposed to be a punishment for teams. As a PT / PCT team i have to focus on being strong enough to compete right now because relegating would be a big set back in terms of leaders / supertalents i can keep. I want to build a team that one day can win the PT crown. I felt I wasnt ready for the attack on Festina/Moser so the best way to do that is to be competitive enough to not relegate while spending as much as possible on developing talents.
If we'd bring the salary caps closer to each other (e.g. 2/3/3.5 for a rather radical change) that opens the door on tanking NBA-style. Teams could decide to not bother being competitive for one season and they would benefit big time from this strategy in the long-term. Big gaps between the divisions stop this from being a good strategy and we should absolutely keep it as well. And yes, not every manager would game the system that hard but there are managers who will try to exploit such things if that would look like a better longterm strategy ( ) and personally, i don't want to open the door for tanking-to-relegation as a great longterm strategy.
Spoiler
I have no problem with someone like EBH in the PCT as the team gave up a lot of depth and flexibility to get him. It just shouldnt be turning into the norm to have these riders in PCT.
Also the gaps are already reducing naturally (stat inflation). I compared the average OVR of the top 10/25/50/100/200 riders of this season and last season for each division for my season predictions and the average OVR in PT remained very similar (only Taaramae training had some influence on the top ones), PCT was slightly raised by about 0,1 OVR points iirc and CT was heavily raised by about 0,5-0,6 OVR points (all values very rather similar no matter which top X number i looked at). While one could surely discuss whether stat inflation is the only reason for that which i dont want to do right now, that is surely an indicator that the gaps are getting smaller already without change of salary cap. I'm not sure whether one should change the salary cap gaps but I definitely prefer raising them over reducing them. And imo this is more important than "fixing" the calendar.
Squad sizes: I don't think increased squad sizes are necessary but i am not opposed to raising them as long as the salary cap rises accordingly.
Spoiler
(Eventhough unused RDs are so super unsexy )
Crashes: I've been previously in the "100% crashes" camp but my opinion changed over the course of the season. This is closely connected with the reduction of RDs for PT stars. Previously, every star could ride two GT so he could at least save his season somehow if he crashed out of one GT. However, if a rider like Taaramae/Spilak/etc abandons his only GT then he lost more than half of his season points and only few PT teams are able to survive this. So i would now go for "no crashes at all". I'm still for keeping the crash ratio the same for classics and tours though.
Roman wrote: @TheManxMissile
I agree that we need to keep some challenge in developing riders, but would you really exchange Ewan's or Yates' RDs for XPs? Don't think so, you either loan him out or keep him like now. This would be mainly a thing for domestiques, primarily for CT teams to allow them to find an easier way how to max out their lvl 4 domestiques.
I've exchanged Yates XP for RD last year in the CT. And this year i've sacrificed a good number of Ewan RD to make sure he gets the needed XP. So i've got both side covered in experience, and that guides my thoughts.
+1/-1 thing was intended with pre-renewals OVL-average without stagiares, Atlantius was right there. My idea was to tackle both stat inflation and same guys winning all the time as well. My second idea about forced -1 in the best stat for top 25 riders from PT rankings tackles that probably in a better way though.
I don't mind the same guys winning all the time, so probably why i don't see that as something that needs altering.
And as for stat inflation i think less radical methods are better options. I really don't think the game is that bad to require forced -1 stats on riders.
And about minimum fee - I have no problem to keep the current system, but my idea was about how maybe we could improve the current situation to make the system somehow a little bit more flexible for some guys other than me.
I'd like a complete off-season with the current minimum fee system. It was only announced post-renewals last year which didn't allow managers to prepare. I think it will work better this time around with proper awareness of the rule well in advance.
@knockout I am sorry, but I can't really understand how exactly would a proposal like 3.6/2.7/1.8M wage caps with something like 24/22/20 min riders would take us any closer to 'NBA tanking'. In reality PCT would be 100k closer to PT and CT 350k closer to PCT. That's an extra rider like van der Hugenhaben for a CT team and a rider like Scully to a PCT team. You would also still have to rebuild after a relegation/promotion, this is just about decreasing the difference a little bit. Nowdays PT teams can decide to 'tank' as well. Just take a look on that one Ayubowan's season after Sicard debacle. Cio tried to somehow tank as well for some time. Is that tactic somehow successful than rebuilding during winning? I don't think so.
And CT got closer to PCT mainly because we have 4 less PCT teams in this season. But in reality teams there can't really compete with PCT teams in majority of their C1 RDs. If they could, way more managers would send their leaders into these races. Not really happening for majority of teams. I can imagine a lot of C1 races are a lot boring for a lot of CT managers.
@TMM: But well, you still race riders like Ewan and Yates in actual races. You would not use this buying XP option for them exactly as I write. But I think for a rider like Stoenchev, this could be a perfect thing. Would be hard to loan out him, you would likely still want to use him in a few races. But you would likely be interested in exchanging some of his RDs for XPs. Still wouldn't be possible to max out him in a season though.
And I hear a lot of whining about Bewley winning all the time during the season. So ok then, I am ok with Bewley winning all the time.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
. Personally speaking I think the general balance of CT calendar is absolutely excellent. There is plenty of option for racing up in C1 (and even HC racing). Also 120 RD's seems like a good number, I was sceptical season or two back when reduced, but it still plenty. Also the C2HC 'forced' calendar introduced has been great imo. Lots of different terrains. Lots of different choices. Good planning/strategy is well rewarded. 
) and personally, i don't want to open the door for tanking-to-relegation as a great longterm strategy.
)
