trekbmc wrote:
Wow, if that table is true as I've interpreted from your post, that is really worrying, classic Cyanide - does fit what we've seen so far though.
Needs more investigating and testing surely, although looking through the equipment thread to compare teams who crashed often I noticed that Tinkoff and Jayco both ride the same bike brand (Cervelo) but aren't equally affected (afaik).
The Cervelo thing is actually random.
I think both or at least one has custom equipment and hence not the same is used.
And the table I found is having different IDs for all teams and hence there would be no clash at all between teams no matter their equipment choice.
I don't know what fields the equipment have in the db. My best guess would be that the "crashing" table is generated based on the attributes/stars of the equipment. But as roturn said, all equipment have the same number of stars, which means that the "crashing table" is randomly generated meaning giving same equipment to everybody would not fix it.
I was against removing crashes in the previous seasons despite having a few episodes of my own with Gesink, but the way roturn described the problem, it just doesn't feel right and I think crashes should be removed from the game for GTs at the very least.
First of all, thanks to Roturn for the feedback re: C1/C2 calendar 'statistics' responding to my previous post.
Now for something different (I know, I know, I advocated earlier for minimal tinkering this upcoming off-season, but think this is a nice idea that might find quite a lot of support, and has limited overhead).
Concept: At seasons end, every existing team gets a 'free' +1 to a chosen stat to permanently add to one of their riders. Only 'domestique' level riders are eligible (restriction suggestions below). First thought was that only riders from a teams primary sponsor region are eligible (this might be overly restrictive though, but I really like it from a flavour perspective). Basically this is a nice way for teams to help develop their local riders, whether that be towards 2ndary leader status in PCT/CT, or handy domestiques that are actually usable in PT. Is a type of stat inflation, but restricted to lower level riders, and overcomes the current 'expensive' cost of developing low-mid range riders without also impacting on how easily top riders can be developed using the existing training constraints.
Restrictions: Only riders already eligible for training are eligible (so maxed, and under 31). Rider overall must be less than 'X' to reflect 'domestique' status. (My feel is around OVR 74 would be quite reasonable, open to other interpretations though. Maybe start low and can raise in response to a season or two's experience?). Stat selected for permanent +1 increase must be less than 'Y' (around 77, 78 sort of region?).
Timing: At end of season (could be as part of the team confirmation post?). Reason would be so that rider upgrades are reflected in renewals negotiations. If selected after transfers, might end up skewing the db for those that have planned ahead (really only CT relevant in terms of rider quality). In terms of the RP impact, it reflects that a team has to have been operating in that country for a minimum of the current season to have a meaningful impact on local 'talent' levels.
Atlantius wrote:
And now for something completely different: Small fields.
What about throwing together a bunch of regional teams with unsigned riders to fill up in these races. Could even count for XP for the riders who end up riding. Say the 2 best unsigned riders of the area and the best unsigned talents to fill up.
Could be a fun way for these riders to impress their way to a contract and get closer to levelling up (and this more interesting to sign). Much similar to when national teams and even amateur teams start low-ranking races IRL.
I am massively against this.
Finding unwanted races and send your strongest riders to those is one part of tactical planning.
And just because other teams didn`t want to ride that race, doesn`t mean that it can`t be an advantage for those being there.
Those free agents would disturb the balance in scoring. As it is now all teams have same amount of race days and cap to find riders with a specific amount of race days.
By adding free agents to races, we would suddenly have a scenario where some teams ride against those unbalanced teams often and others not at all. In my opinion this would be an unfair move for some teams.
It isn't any less fair then riders like Amador only getting a Wildcard to 1 GT making that field harder for PT teams to score in compared to if he wasn't there, or guys like Burghardt on the cobbles or EBH on the Hills.
And surely these are riders that are unsigned by even CT teams so they shouldn't be strong enough to compete for wins with how strong the CT division has now gotten, if you wanted to limit their ability to stop CT teams from scoring further then you could limit it to unmaxed riders so they gain the xp from it and become more attractive to teams the following season.
As a CT team I wouldn't have a problem against it, especially as it would boost rider numbers in some races which could help for better AI.
Atlantius wrote:
And now for something completely different: Small fields.
What about throwing together a bunch of regional teams with unsigned riders to fill up in these races. Could even count for XP for the riders who end up riding. Say the 2 best unsigned riders of the area and the best unsigned talents to fill up.
Could be a fun way for these riders to impress their way to a contract and get closer to levelling up (and this more interesting to sign). Much similar to when national teams and even amateur teams start low-ranking races IRL.
I am massively against this.
Finding unwanted races and send your strongest riders to those is one part of tactical planning.
And just because other teams didn`t want to ride that race, doesn`t mean that it can`t be an advantage for those being there.
Those free agents would disturb the balance in scoring. As it is now all teams have same amount of race days and cap to find riders with a specific amount of race days.
By adding free agents to races, we would suddenly have a scenario where some teams ride against those unbalanced teams often and others not at all. In my opinion this would be an unfair move for some teams.
It isn't any less fair then riders like Amador only getting a Wildcard to 1 GT making that field harder for PT teams to score in compared to if he wasn't there, or guys like Burghardt on the cobbles or EBH on the Hills.
And surely these are riders that are unsigned by even CT teams so they shouldn't be strong enough to compete for wins with how strong the CT division has now gotten, if you wanted to limit their ability to stop CT teams from scoring further then you could limit it to unmaxed riders so they gain the xp from it and become more attractive to teams the following season.
As a CT team I wouldn't have a problem against it, especially as it would boost rider numbers in some races which could help for better AI.
As someone, who has been thinking of doing similar stuff for the messy NC AI, I must admit, that I do have some love for Atlantius/sammy's ideas on this.
Also Scorchio's latest idea of boosting a domestique's stat sounds fairly good to me. At least better than all other ideas of buying XPs or switching rider stat losses and gains. I've never been a fan of too much possibilities to train riders too excessive. I'm pretty sure, I wrote it somewhere in the previous years: my only suggestion for riders' training would be, to limit the extend of how far you can train a rider's stat from his original maxed stats - maybe related to a rider's potential.
For example:
Pot 1-3 riders can only gain 1 more stat on the rider's maxed stats (e.g. MO 76 maxed, only MO 77 possible with further training)
Pot 4-5 riders can only gain 2 more stat gains on maxed stats (e.g. MO 76 maxed, only MO 78 possible with further training)
Pot 6-7 riders can gain 3 more stats on maxed stats (e.g. MO 78 maxed, only MO 81 possible with further training)
And I'm speaking of the entire career for this specific rider. I would also limit a total amount of training per rider per career.. probably not easy to do this stuff, as you would need to take care of the rider's maxed stats all the time. The total amount of training per rider per career though could be "easily" added/counted in the DB, I assume.
So, let's say a rider can be trained "only" 5 times in his career.. let's have a look at how far I could go with Jack Haig:
maxed - MO 78 HI 74 TT 77
5 trainings - MO 81 HI 75 TT 78 (e.g.)
unlimited trainings - MO 83 HI 75 TT 78 (and believe me, I would go that far, if there's any chance to do so ...)
The problem I have with training is, that I don't see any realistic reason for riders to excessively breaking through their original potential. Why would someone, who maxes at MO 78 become a MO 82 at some point?
It's also a way to avoid any monsters like - let's say the future Demare It's hard to add such polyvalent hilly sprinters to the DB without opening a opportunity for HI 81 SP 83 monsters, if training has unlimited opportunities over several years of PT success. The 2 trainings per year/rider is a good rule, but as said - I would prefer to limit the trainings per career/rider.
Will share some more thoughts on other ideas at a later point.
Limited training per career seems like a fair idea to me to be honest. It would make it a lot easier to prevent sudden stat inflation, however, options would be kinda limited, however when weaker high potential riders would get added, like a climber who would max at around 74MO, who would actually become a very solid PT domestique after the maximum of say 5 career trainings, or low pot riders who get added with higher stats could be the unique kind of riders we kinda want, I wouldn't be upset to see a level 1, pot 1 rider with 72MO, 72HI, 69TT, 71CB or something the limited options would be far less limited already.
Also, to the PT > PCT > CT thing...
I feel the game would be much more healthy if the gaps were increased by quite a bit. I would not be angered to see the PT getting 5M wage, the PCT getting 3M and the CT staying at 1,2M. Mostly because rlegating teams would be challenged far more, and promoting teams would therefore be given more options, especially if disbanding teams are close to none. This kind of change would have to be somewhat gradual though, to prevent current relegating PT teams to keep all their riders. An increase of 100-300k per season would be more than enough already.
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game
The current training option ensures that things can be shuffled.
If there was a 5 stat max, the top riders would never switch teams, and would just sit on their thrones forever.
I really dislike that idea. Also from a roleplaying aspect it doesn't matter what stat a rider maxes out with, and what he ends up with. The storyline basically is this:
All riders progress. Some more than others, but while most stop progressing after 3-4 seasons, a few continue to develop and breaks the barrier for what people expected from that said rider.
I do, however think that top level training should stay expensive, but training lesser riders should be significantly cheaper, aswell as making it possible to train riders more versatile without having to pay for the OVL stat. It doesn't make sense that a 74OVL rider have to pay 2x 74 stat if he wants to go from 64 to 66 in Hill. Atleast make that rule count for 76+ OVL riders or such.
Here's my full thoughts with an altered version of Croatia's format. Apologies for the onslaught of upcoming spelling mistakes.
- C2HC: I don't have too great of an opinion on this except that there should be at least a little choice involved. Others have discussed solutions for this already. - Crashes: In the past, I've been one of the most adamant supporters of crashes because I thought they were random and part of the game. Well, as we see by Roturn's finding, they are not random, but tied to arbitrary equipment stats that can penalize specific teams for an entire GT. That is something I think is unacceptable. I think we've all see that crashes have had a poor effect on racing this season. Putting crashes at a lower frequency just penalizes those who do crash even more, so that is worse to me. Crashes have to stay the same or go away all together in my opinion, and at this point, I'm willing to get rid of them. - Team Size: I am not in favor of increasing team size for CT teams. I think that it's fine already. I would be in favor of having two different distinguishing team size ranges between PCT and PT. Obviously there would have to be race day and perhaps budget adjustments in order to complement this and keep it balanced. Overall, I am in favor of it, but it's not something that needs to be done. We should focus on intangibles first. - Stagiares: My ideal stagiares system would be to actually have a signing period in July in order to have tryouts for some of next year's rider additions. Obviously, that isn't something practical which could be implemented for a variety of reasons. I do think stagiares have a fun niche in this game, so I don't want them removed. I think they're fine as they are. - Stagiares League: This is unnecessary honestly. We've already expanded the U23 calendar, which is fun, but I think a stagiaare league is a little too much. I'd much rather see a slight expansion of the overall calendar than creating more races for domestique U23's with no rankings implications. - Stagiares Min Salary: As Croatia notes, any wage alterations would require changes to the stagiares roster spot rules, or exploitation will occur. I think they're fine the way they are. - Closing Division Gaps: I've already expressed in previous posts why am firmly against this, and would even favor a slight expansion. Knockout articulated these reasons a lot better than I did, so I'd refer back to that post. - Removing Over-Cap Renewals: This would go a long way towards leveling the playing field of relegating teams so that they are not instantly carrying an upper division budget into lower divisions with them. The penalties already in place aren't enough to prevent that right now. If teams really want to keep a leader or identity, they'll have to sacrifice other parts of their squad, and I think that's fair. - Minimum Fee: Like Croatia, I think the abolishment of this would be fine, with the conditions he's already mentioned. I think the explanation should be public as well if possible, just so we're transparent and the rulings as to fairness do not seem arbitrary or bias. In addition, some adjusting would need to be done to make sure this doesn't become an easy out for people once the sacking period is over. Another option could be to have a minimum fee of 50k or another amount for every rider, rather than going by salary. In general though, it's the free market, so I think it'd be rare to have any problems. Mangers generally won't make transactions that don't benefit them in some way. - +/- Idea: As others have said, it's a fun idea, but it rewards those with low averages and high outliers too much. It also just needlessly upsets the DB in my opinion. - PT Race Days: I'm all for some diversity in race types for PT. I see that as a fun idea. But that can be implemented via race routes, and the size of the PT schedule already allows for quite a bit of choice in regards to leaders, so I wouldn't want to see PT race choosing become more like CT. I think PTHC was enough of a compromise in that regard. - FA Upgrades: I'm completely against them. In all cases. Especially for "realism" purposes. It undermines the integrity of the universe we've created within the game, as well as the development and training systems in place. There's no use for it. If you want more interesting riders, development options are the way to go. And if for some reason you do want to upgrade random FA's in order to make more interesting riders or cater to a certain region (which I also usually don't agree with too much), other riders must be lowered to reciprocate. - Stat Gains: I'm all for some additions to development in order to create more even and dynamic rider types. I just hope they don't overdo it to the point that every rider has a development option completely based around their exact strengths, so there's no nuances involved. I think a fun part of the game is choosing several different training types over the course of development with a rider in order to craft your maxed talent, and I wouldn't want that completely lost. - Buying XP:I think that kind of defeats the purpose of managing your race days for talents, or at least damages it. So I'm not in unless it is somehow tied to the U23 calendar or something similar. - Lvl 1 -3:I have no problem with Lvl 1-3 clauses, but I don't really remember the history as to why they were removed. Compensation should be higher for these loans, that's all. But feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. - Training Costs: Training costs have gone up and up in recent seasons, and rightly so considering stat inflation being the issue it is. Max trainings per career could be an option. Another option I could think of is raising the price of training for a specific rider the more they are trained. If someone is 80 mtn and is trained to 81, perhaps it could be twice as expensive to train that stat to 82 the next year. Algorithms would have to go into that, and that's not my forte, but you get the idea. Additionally, I agree that their should be more, cheaper exceptions for training lower level riders and secondary stats. That's way more fun than seeing the same few riders getting top stat boosts every year. - Declines: Declines are fine the way they are. Right now the very best of all time become irrelevant just at retirement age, which is perfect. See Boonen this year for example. In any case, I think this is the wrong way to go about stat inflation, and would negatively affect the market too much with declining riders, causing imbalance of attributes, wage, and transaction fees. - Rider Forms: I see this as one of those really fun ideas that might be too difficult or unbalanced to implement in real life. Roman had an interesting plan for it, but I would still need assurance as to how it would be convenient for things like reporting. I can see a lot of errors being made in the first season of such a policy. - CT Lvl 4: I don't think this is necessary. The whole point of loans as part of the game is that a PT team can't train lvl 1's well and a CT team can't train lvl 4's well. That way, loans become a fun and intriguing necessity. Part of this just goes back to closing the gap between divisions. Since I disagree with that, I disagree with this wholeheartedly. - Small Fields: I am completely against adding free agents, who have no team to represent or score points for, to races where those types of things are at stake. Unlike PT wildcards, there isn't even a manager behind them to appreciate success, let alone points. For really small NC's where AI is completely nonexistent, that seems a little bit more plausible, but not for real races.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
I actually like tsmoha`s idea a bit with the limited career training options. Would probably lead to more balanced training with several riders getting small gains.
That said, I think it could come handy with a stat limit.
e.g. Limiting career training for 80+ stats to let`s say 2-4 per career.
But still allow 75-80 stat trainings to 3-6 per career and 70-75 stats still 4-8 or something like this.
This way "weaker riders" could still close the gap a bit and become better domestiques. Or even going from PT domestique level to PCT/CT leader level.
Obviously would need some thinking about going over those areas, e.g. a 78 rider who goes to 80 and then above to make it balanced between both limits.
roturn wrote:
I actually like tsmoha`s idea a bit with the limited career training options. Would probably lead to more balanced training with several riders getting small gains.
That said, I think it could come handy with a stat limit.
e.g. Limiting career training for 80+ stats to let`s say 2-4 per career.
But still allow 75-80 stat trainings to 3-6 per career and 70-75 stats still 4-8 or something like this.
This way "weaker riders" could still close the gap a bit and become better domestiques. Or even going from PT domestique level to PCT/CT leader level.
Obviously would need some thinking about going over those areas, e.g. a 78 rider who goes to 80 and then above to make it balanced between both limits.
I really think that this needs some very careful consideration before applying (if applying).
In my oppinion training is the only thing that avoid this game from having the same winner each season. Of course Bewley could have been trained even stronger, but I suspect that Roman have thought "Hmm, but he already wins a lot, would it be worthwhile to add another 10mio into training him?". Others can then train their riders to shuffle things, and make it more difficult for Bewley to win everything.
Same goes for Phinney, Dombrowski and Herklotz. Who can possibly beat those guys if training for subtop riders like Yates, Lecuisinier, Wellens etc would become limited? At the current situation it is extremely expensive to make those guys capable of winning GT's, but not impossible. You suggest that it should be impossible, because they didn't start out with maxing to be one.
I think we take away a HUGE part of the game by adding such a limit, and it could well be the switch-off button for me.
roturn wrote:
I actually like tsmoha`s idea a bit with the limited career training options. Would probably lead to more balanced training with several riders getting small gains.
That said, I think it could come handy with a stat limit.
e.g. Limiting career training for 80+ stats to let`s say 2-4 per career.
But still allow 75-80 stat trainings to 3-6 per career and 70-75 stats still 4-8 or something like this.
This way "weaker riders" could still close the gap a bit and become better domestiques. Or even going from PT domestique level to PCT/CT leader level.
Obviously would need some thinking about going over those areas, e.g. a 78 rider who goes to 80 and then above to make it balanced between both limits.
I really think that this needs some very careful consideration before applying (if applying).
In my oppinion training is the only thing that avoid this game from having the same winner each season. Of course Bewley could have been trained even stronger, but I suspect that Roman have thought "Hmm, but he already wins a lot, would it be worthwhile to add another 10mio into training him?". Others can then train their riders to shuffle things, and make it more difficult for Bewley to win everything.
Same goes for Phinney, Dombrowski and Herklotz. Who can possibly beat those guys if training for subtop riders like Yates, Lecuisinier, Wellens etc would become limited? At the current situation it is extremely expensive to make those guys capable of winning GT's, but not impossible. You suggest that it should be impossible, because they didn't start out with maxing to be one.
I think we take away a HUGE part of the game by adding such a limit, and it could well be the switch-off button for me.
In fact imo you are wrong and right with this.
Yes, training unlimited helps lower guys to close the gap to the better potential guys.
But then again Herklotz, Angel Lopez, Dombrowski etc. also get trained and hence keep that gap.
The limit then would be 85 and then 1-3 seasons later the gap can be closed of course but only as we have multiple 84+ riders to get this.
Of course I'm quite for fighting stat inflation but see both sides here. Maybe slow implementing (along with the current additions recently which as opposed to Herklotz et al are a step in the right direction) will do the trick for 80+ training limits if that's what you want?
I guess otherwise we get trapped in a loop of: "let's fight stat inflation with this plan" - "no, teams have been planning this for years/certain riders will dominate" - "ok let's not implement this plan" - "hey we need a plan to fight stat inflation". Valid points but a vicious cycle if we determine it as a key thing to change. So gradual implementation so teams don't get screwed and f.e. Dombo/Herklotz/Phinney/Morton don't dominate the next 6-8 years
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
I am totally against a further limitation of training options and I share my opinion here with SotD. In my opinion training is already overregulated, another limit like that would just take any fun element out of it for me. This game really should not be just about who can sign 'this year's MAL' that max outs as a star already, these riders could be easily impossible to beat with such training ideas. Please keep things and options open, training is what makes this game the most fun for top PT teams. Rather involve something against these superstars so they can't dominate for years so easily. I again mention my -1 idea to the best main stat for top 25 in individual PT rankings with a compensation of getting money back to train pre-renewals other riders of that team. In this way it would be a lot harder to keep a guy like Bewley dominating for such a long time - and these riders would start declining earlier than in 32. This would also partially help to solve the problem with stat inflation.
Further thoughts:
- Buying XP idea was based on exchanging RDs and paying money for getting XPs. Because of RDs limit for all riders in different divisions and RD gaining system, where you can get more than just 1 XP for 1 RD, I don't know why this system would 'defeat the purpose of managing your race days'. The thing is it wouldn't.
- Small fields are a great idea for NCs RR. I am totally for having 24 teams in all of them, free spaces should be taken by teams of unnamed 8 riders with all 50 stats, let's say random 'local amateur scene'. In that way we should hopefully get a functioning AI in all NCs, while pro riders should still win everywhere.
- Both PCT and CT should get at least 10 extra RDs in C1/C2, free capacity is there. IMO we could even go for giving PCT teams extra 10 RDs and CT teams extra 20. In that way selecting races via priority system should be much more interesting for all teams, there should be some real sort of competition for places. Selecting races should be splitted into two phases: in phase 1 all teams get spots to the maximum capacity of races. As few races should be oversubscribed, in phase 2 then teams complete their calendars - who was the most unlucky team in phase 1 gets in all races they want, then the next team with most free RDs selects their remaining RDs, etc.
- I think C2 category could be easily incorporated into C2HC without any loss for the game. Why exactly need PCT teams to race in C2? They can easily get riders from lvl 1 to 2 in C1 races, while there is no other real reason for them to race in C2 than developing riders. This would allow to plan CT calendar much more freely - could be comeback to bands, could be way more balanced PT-like calendar.
- I like Scorchio's +1 idea for domestiques. Could work.
- Roturn's post only confirms that we should remove crashes from MG. I believe punctures would still stay, so some unlucky aspect like that would be present.
- To me free agent team idea makes sense just only for full season. Could be an interesting thing if we have a free space in CT, if we put together a team of the best available FAs to see where it would end up in the rankings. I am sure a long-term dedicated PT manager like SotD would love to put together a team like that.
- I am absolutely against banning going over the cap in renewals (current fine system is fine as it is) or moving divisions even more apart financially, if nothing else, I think CT should be a little bit closer to PCT. I really believe they should be able to use their C1 RDs more efficiently. If there is a 1M gap between PT and PCT, to me it also makes sense to have a similar gap between PCT and CT.
I do think it should be possible to put rediculous ressources into training a specific rider. To me that is part of what makes the MG special. I think it's much better to increase the cost for high-end training instead.
If the limit was applied it would also make the talent prices go up hugely since the only way to get a potential GT winner is to sign them young. No way to train and no incentive to sell once signed as you won't be able to make another rider you feel more for stronger with the money.
My take on what the training costs should look like going ahead...
Stat
Cost
Avg Factor Applicable
85
3,500,000
Y
84
2,800,000
Y
83
2,200,000
Y
82
1,800,000
Y
81
1,500,000
Y
80
1,250,000
Y
79
1,000,000
Y
78
800,000
Y
77
600,000
Y
76
500,000
Y
75
400,000
N
74
350,000
N
73
300,000
N
72
250,000
N
71
200,000
N
70
150,000
N
69
100,000
N
68
80,000
N
67
60,000
N
66
40,000
N
≤65
25,000
N
No need to put in further training limits if the top trainings are taken up to levels like these. Also, the average factor can be brought in from trainings taking a stat from 75 -> 76 and not below that. Also, instead of only allowing stats to be taken to 67 in cases where they are 10 less than the average, all stats should be opened up for the same (Taaraame has an avg of 82.4, which only allows a max of only 72 stat exempted training by opening up this rule). Current training limits of two per rider a season and five per team can stay.
roturn wrote:
I actually like tsmoha`s idea a bit with the limited career training options. Would probably lead to more balanced training with several riders getting small gains.
That said, I think it could come handy with a stat limit.
e.g. Limiting career training for 80+ stats to let`s say 2-4 per career.
But still allow 75-80 stat trainings to 3-6 per career and 70-75 stats still 4-8 or something like this.
This way "weaker riders" could still close the gap a bit and become better domestiques. Or even going from PT domestique level to PCT/CT leader level.
Obviously would need some thinking about going over those areas, e.g. a 78 rider who goes to 80 and then above to make it balanced between both limits.
I really think that this needs some very careful consideration before applying (if applying).
In my oppinion training is the only thing that avoid this game from having the same winner each season. Of course Bewley could have been trained even stronger, but I suspect that Roman have thought "Hmm, but he already wins a lot, would it be worthwhile to add another 10mio into training him?". Others can then train their riders to shuffle things, and make it more difficult for Bewley to win everything.
Same goes for Phinney, Dombrowski and Herklotz. Who can possibly beat those guys if training for subtop riders like Yates, Lecuisinier, Wellens etc would become limited? At the current situation it is extremely expensive to make those guys capable of winning GT's, but not impossible. You suggest that it should be impossible, because they didn't start out with maxing to be one.
I think we take away a HUGE part of the game by adding such a limit, and it could well be the switch-off button for me.
In fact imo you are wrong and right with this.
Yes, training unlimited helps lower guys to close the gap to the better potential guys.
But then again Herklotz, Angel Lopez, Dombrowski etc. also get trained and hence keep that gap.
The limit then would be 85 and then 1-3 seasons later the gap can be closed of course but only as we have multiple 84+ riders to get this.
I disagree. My point exactly is, that these top level maxing out riders will receive less training that others as it is now.
I doubt that cio is going to make Herklotz 85MO, 80HI and 78TT just because he can. Simply for the reason, that it would cost A LOT, and doesn't really improve Herklotz significantly as he would probably be better of with just 85MO and 78HI to become the new Schleck. More racedays, lower cost - basically same output.
The money saved on Herklotz will then be spent on Demare (for cio) but otherwise would go into riders like Bongiorno, Nerz etc.
But no matter what the top level riders would receive the sufficient amount of trainings to reach the needed level, while the subtop just doesn't have the possibility to be trained further.
I am quite confident that tsmoha will train Jack Haig more than cio will train Silvio Herklotz. But there is a reasonable chance that both will train them a total of +5 stats atleast.
Crashes
That table is interesting, but doesn't come as a surprise to me. Obviously there's something coded in the game for crashes and that it is adjustable. So a table relating to equipment makes sense (especially as PCM has no mental work for riders, and it's stats barely function).
But i don't see why that suddenly makes crashes worse. They are still random events, now we just might have slightly better understanding of that.
I like them in the game, i think they add something different and unpredictable. My study of them has pretty much concluded they are random, and ultimately the decision on them should just be about personal taste and opinion.
I'm ok putting it to a vote again on whether people like them or not, i'll go with whatever the majority decision is. (Seriously not worth throwing a hissy over them)
Training Caps
I'm heavily against career training caps. If i want to plough 20mil into Kristin Vanderpool and make her fantastic i should be allowed. But if you're saying all my riders have training caps i'm better off spending money on the top rirders still, not in spreading lower around where the benefits are minimal. At least uncapped it can be worth putting money into a bad rider to make them good.
I'm not hugely into the per-season cap, because it makes it take ages to get a rider up if they are not a good talent. But i can get behind it as a way to manage inflation.
Scorchios +1 Domestqiues
I'm not going to be in favor of anything that gives out free stats until inflation in general is better controlled. It might not be a big damaging increase, but boosting 60ish riders for nothing does impact the game, and it's not like the DB is short of riders that can be domestiques.
Equally i'm not enticed by the idea of doing it for role-play regional help. Partly because my team has no regional identity anymore (although i still have riders i'd like to grow), partly because i struggle to think of other concepts in the game we have for regional role-play (adding FA's and races, although that helps everyone).
I'd be more in favor of the +1/-1 Idea (romans?), as that balances with a decline for every increase.
cio93 wrote:
Please consider doing something about TTs. Sorry tsmoha and others.
Any suggestions?
For the one day TTs, we could turn them into 2 stage TT stage races, to attempt to even out the randomness. Not sure what can be done about TTs within stage races though.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
