I don't see the problem for moving on to 18, we always moved to the next game that was fully patched and only stopped because of huge doubts over 16, now that we have skipped that and already started tests on 18 that from what I've heard so far have been successful I don't see any reason not to go back to advancing the game each year again.
Especially if we think there will be more available reporters on 18 than we currently have on 15.
I think a move to a much newer version would be a no brainer and from graphical standpoint - there'll be no need to resize jerseys so they can fit the PCM15 mold.
I'd like to make some suggestions regarding the transfer season that can shake things up:
Expansion and/or dispersal draft: If you don't know what I mean, here's a quick rundown - in North American sports leagues the expansion draft allows new teams to pick players from the already existing teams (the existing teams however will protect some of the riders), while the dispersal draft allows the already existing teams to take players from disbanded teams. I think this may work and to be in effect for CT teams only as a test for now.
Disbanding of the Amatuer division and replacing with with the all-new DevTour: The teams will need to be of maximum 12 U23 riders with an additional quota of 3 riders over the age of 23 which will going to be designated as "mentors". Only WT teams will be eligible to field DevTour teams. Also special DevTour calendar needs to be created in case the DevTour is created.
ivaneurope wrote:
I think a move to a much newer version would be a no brainer and from graphical standpoint - there'll be no need to resize jerseys so they can fit the PCM15 mold.
I'd like to make some suggestions regarding the transfer season that can shake things up:
Expansion and/or dispersal draft: If you don't know what I mean, here's a quick rundown - in North American sports leagues the expansion draft allows new teams to pick players from the already existing teams (the existing teams however will protect some of the riders), while the dispersal draft allows the already existing teams to take players from disbanded teams. I think this may work and to be in effect for CT teams only as a test for now.
Disbanding of the Amatuer division and replacing with with the all-new DevTour: The teams will need to be of maximum 12 U23 riders with an additional quota of 3 riders over the age of 23 which will going to be designated as "mentors". Only WT teams will be eligible to field DevTour teams. Also special DevTour calendar needs to be created in case the DevTour is created.
Terrible idea, people renew specific riders for specific reasons, no way some random new CT team should be allowed to come in and steal my domestiques that I level up and renew down to 50(for my team a rider like Gaspar woud most likely not be protected and would most likely cost more than 50k on FA). I do realize that you mean for disbanded teams, but I think that the same concept still applies, free agency works just fine.
ivaneurope wrote:
I think a move to a much newer version would be a no brainer and from graphical standpoint - there'll be no need to resize jerseys so they can fit the PCM15 mold.
I'd like to make some suggestions regarding the transfer season that can shake things up:
Expansion and/or dispersal draft: If you don't know what I mean, here's a quick rundown - in North American sports leagues the expansion draft allows new teams to pick players from the already existing teams (the existing teams however will protect some of the riders), while the dispersal draft allows the already existing teams to take players from disbanded teams. I think this may work and to be in effect for CT teams only as a test for now.
Disbanding of the Amatuer division and replacing with with the all-new DevTour: The teams will need to be of maximum 12 U23 riders with an additional quota of 3 riders over the age of 23 which will going to be designated as "mentors". Only WT teams will be eligible to field DevTour teams. Also special DevTour calendar needs to be created in case the DevTour is created.
Terrible idea, people renew specific riders for specific reasons, no way some random new CT team should be allowed to come in and steal my domestiques that I level up and renew down to 50(for my team a rider like Gaspar woud most likely not be protected and would most likely cost more than 50k on FA). I do realize that you mean for disbanded teams, but I think that the same concept still applies, free agency works just fine.
Free agency prevented me from grabbing the best availlable riders - I'm not willing to pump 400k (a third of the cap) for one overpaid rider. And when you are close to sign a rider, someone in the 11th hour inflates the wage.
Free agency prevented me from grabbing the best availlable riders - I'm not willing to pump 400k (a third of the cap) for one overpaid rider. And when you are close to sign a rider, someone in the 11th hour inflates the wage.
Well if someone is willing to pay 400k they should be entitled to get that rider over you. It happens to everyone, i think every single MG manager ever can think of at least one rider they wanted but where un-willing or un-able to pay for.
____
You definitely cannot take riders from other teams, just a real bad idea. I know how Expansion Drafts work, and in the closed single tier ecosystems of the North American leagues they make sense alongside regular Drafts.
But the MG is entirely different and it just doesn't work here.
It also would not work for disbanding teams, or at least it would be too complicated to set up. How do we decide which riders are "protected" to go to FA and how do we decide on the wage for a drafted rider? Does this only apply to CT? If so how do promoting and relegating teams factor into the draft order calculation? Are there multiple rounds, or is it a one-and-done draft? Pre or Post-renewals (mixes into my wage decision question)?
If you want to suggest a radical idea you need to give a lot more thought and detail to how it would actually work inside the game.
Free agency prevented me from grabbing the best availlable riders - I'm not willing to pump 400k (a third of the cap) for one overpaid rider. And when you are close to sign a rider, someone in the 11th hour inflates the wage.
I paid the price of that last season(DLC 388k :lol. Handing out participation trophies in free agency is not what transfers should be about. There is so much left to chance in how the game it self runs, adding in a draft to add another level of chance is not what we should aim for. Even if you were to add such a phase you would have to alter the budgets in some way, I think the 0 wage draft that was done for CT this year is just fine and gave CT managers options to invest their money more wisely during the real transfer window and add in filler once done.
Also as a CT team you should not be in the market for "the best available riders" those are for the PT/PCT or CT teams who are willing to spend that much like Delvaux was this year. Also Delvaux is not the first team to build a strong promotion team in their first season. In my first season Kulczyk and Repsol were both incredible teams that chose to invest their money in strong riders. Also Guarnieri is the only rider in CT who are within 50k of 400k a pay day.
If you look at the riders who did well this year in CT a bunch of them are on about 200k because their managers either have been invested in them for a long time or used their budget well to set up good transfers. Also sometimes you need to realize that you have to overspend to generate assets you can sell off to ensure that your team is set up nicely. Bjartne did a good job at setting up a lot of deal this year with Compal-Merida. There's a foodchain in MG that require you to choose what you want to do wisely, but the good thing is that come around renewals you can choose to sack your entire team and start over cleanly.
I think a move to a much newer version would be a no brainer and from graphical standpoint - there'll be no need to resize jerseys so they can fit the PCM15 mold.
I'd like to make some suggestions regarding the transfer season that can shake things up:
Expansion and/or dispersal draft: If you don't know what I mean, here's a quick rundown - in North American sports leagues the expansion draft allows new teams to pick players from the already existing teams (the existing teams however will protect some of the riders), while the dispersal draft allows the already existing teams to take players from disbanded teams. I think this may work and to be in effect for CT teams only as a test for now.
Disbanding of the Amatuer division and replacing with with the all-new DevTour: The teams will need to be of maximum 12 U23 riders with an additional quota of 3 riders over the age of 23 which will going to be designated as "mentors". Only WT teams will be eligible to field DevTour teams. Also special DevTour calendar needs to be created in case the DevTour is created.
Free agency prevented me from grabbing the best availlable riders - I'm not willing to pump 400k (a third of the cap) for one overpaid rider. And when you are close to sign a rider, someone in the 11th hour inflates the wage.
You don't need 400k to grab a great rider. Last season, my highest scorer was priced at 55k and he was the prime reason for our promotion. This season, my highest paid rider was outscored by someone paid less by more than 300k.
You cannot assume that the rider you want is not targeted by another team or multiple teams. In fact, even riders you want to buy from other teams often have multiple suitors. Finding the balance among those is the skill that is required. I found Saber this season, who seemed a very obvious pick to me when he was put on sale. Both myself and the selling manager were quite surprised that I was the only concrete bidder. Saber turned out to be my highest scorer, and a revelation in the PCT at a very reasonable price. I'm not saying these to boast, just an indication that it is possible to find bargains in the inflated market. On the other hand, I spent more than a million in transfer fees and training on Navardauskas which did not produce the desired result. There is always this balance that is required to find the perfect team combination.
As far the expansion draft is concerned, there is absolutely no way I'd agree to someone having a free pick on any of my riders, given how much time and effort I spent on building my team. My team is not just about my leaders but also about my supporting cast, and often that is as important as having a strong leader. The dispersal draft is not a bad idea in isolation, but since we already have a pool of riders going into the Free Agency, there's no need to add another layer to it and make it complicated.
Building a separate division for the Dev Teams is not particularly possible at the moment I think, with the MG a bit short on man-power and also mulling the change of PCM version. It would require a lot of new races to be created. However, there is a slightly modified version that we may want to look at, if not for 2019 season, than at least for the 2020 season. This is limiting the Amateur Teams to only picking unmaxed riders, so that they can maybe level up and become more promising to managers in the coming season. Maxed riders who are not picked by any team, are also very less likely to be picked the following season. With the number of teams probably reducing again, the chances for maxed riders to be picked get slimmer. Just to reiterate, I think the general idea of the Amateur Teams worked really well and hope they continue.
On a different topic, with the expected reduction in the number of teams, with a couple of managers now absent for nearly a year, is it time to reduce the number of teams in each division? Maybe not in PT, which has a good 22+2 wildcard rule going, and works well, but maybe for the PCT in general. Will the calendar planning, band selection and the rest of the collateral involved be impacted in a big way? Maybe that would help balance out the distribution of teams across divisions and prevent us pondering on whether two divisions will be necessary in the near future...
I see that I am easily outnumbered here. I disagree with the fact that you should always prepare for a change, but let it be...
Like I said I wasn’t concerned for me and my own team, but for others, so I’m fine with a change I guess... i just think it’s important that everyone get to know the game, and changes well before implementing.
Just to keep you updated on my thinking about any kind of OVL change for the upcoming season.
Main issue is to not have a too big change as we had last year as this might also impact long-term planning obviously.
So my actual considerations more tend towards fixing, what seems to be a bit "broken" only. Which isn`t the top riders really. Their balance looks pretty decent in terms of OVL, points scored, wages etc.
Main points could be:
- Elite Timetrialists might go a little bit up as they are on low wages for being top5-10 in TT of the game and this way they score a lot more in relation to their wages. (This goes for pure TT riders only, not the guys with other high stats!)
- 3rd tier sprinters could get lowered a bit. Basically means sprinters, that often not only are counted as sprinters by PCM or those that are just on the border to being sprinters in game.
- Some combo riders with sprint/cobble for example might get a bit lower as they are not really being counted as stronger riders in game in comparison to same stat pure sprinter/cobbler.
As you see, this mainly impacts the 73-76 OVL riders and not the top. And also it means that more riders actually might have reduced OVL such as sprinters or some combined riders while more or less only some top time trialists might go up a bit without changing the mid level time trialists.
If those changes are secured to be made, you will see the differences before renewals of course in the renewals DB.
One thing to keep in mind obviously is that whenever doing training and going over some specific gap the OVL could be upped a bit more as it`s going into the PCM rewarded stat area.
Changes in OVL I am talking about though is basically 0 for the top riders at the moment and up to +-0.6 for some other riders.
Riders like Fiedler, Vlatos, Kittel, Sütterlin, Zmorka, Durbridge etc. gets a bit less racedays, and get's a bit higher wage?
Something like from 125K to 200K for the likes of Vlatos, Kittel, Durbridge?
And riders like (Just taking my own team) Emerson Santos, Jocelyn Bar, Sascha Weber etc. will get more racedays and a lower wage, as they are basically leadoutriders, and not sprinters as such?
If that is the case, then I think it's a good thing. I can accept the fact that Vlatos is worth more than I currently pay, while I think I heavily overpay Santos, Bar and Weber.
Just to compare:
Panagiotis Vlatos | 475pts | €125.000
Sascha Weber | 121pts | €90.000
Jocelyn Bar | 105pts | €148.000
Emerson Santos | 61 pts | €95.000
I believe something like this would be more appropriate:
Panagiotis Vlatos | €175.000
Sascha Weber | €80.000
Jocelyn Bar | €80.000
Emerson Santos | €80.000
It would also reflect their ability to score points, and while I recognize the fact that they are important in terms of having your main sprinter scoring points, this should already being reflected in the leaders wage. Riders like Swift, Degenkolb, Coquard etc. already have a wage valued in the region of what their value is PPrD. And while TT'ers don't need good helpers to get results, I think it is a good thought to bring these riders further apart to level out the gap.
Very happy about that post. Both the idea of not wanting to change things up too dramatically as well as the things that are mentioned sound quite good to me
Sounds very good roturn. If the change to 18 is happening I'd also very much advocate to lower the acc influence for any rider, as the current state would be over the top imo. Especially looking at lower level riders.
Also: I think downhill had too much influence on stats this year. It feels like it had been a lex Sagan last year, but it just doesnt seem right for me as results this year have shown very little downhill influence across the board. It seems like acc/sta/res/flat/mo or hi should all have a lot more influence on puncheurs or climbers than the dh stat in terms of secondary influence.
And then: the hill stats should have far less influence for sprinters in the relations of 50-73 hill. A rider like Alaphilippe f.e. can almost never make use of his hill stat and will be almost as useful as a 60 hill rider, yet the acc difference would be out if the world. I'd be a fan of closing the gap dramatically. Best shown is the issue at a rider like Mansilla, who I most likely would've had to pay around 85k to renew but could've easily gotten back for 50 in FA. For these riders renewals just don't reflect the market value.
Been reading through and catching up. My summary thoughts:
* Still in the 'no crashes' supporting camp. Unnecessary randomness is not welcome, and previous indications that teams would be 'targetted' by the AI throughout longer races also was gash.
* In a similar vain, also not in favour of narrow roads, for exactly the reasoning Roturn outlined; AI does not seem to use anything worthwhile (e.g. Flat stat) for positioning prior to these points, hence any splits caused were entirely random, and often impacted whole teams unnecessarily back in the day when this used to occasionally happen.
* Agreed with the original post advocating a minor change to overall calculation for rider types most would see as f.e. lead-out domestique types that last season were caught up in OVR increases meant to dealt with the 'animal' multi-faceted rider types. Roturn's response above seems to most adequately respond to this reasonable request.
* Also agree that we should really only tinker minorly with any change to OVR this season; we have built up quite a good lot of experience/expertise with PCM 15 MG response, and this is now largely captured in renewal wage requests/race day allocations. Given if we move to PCM 18, next season with a season under our belt with a new AI, might need a larger response to balance rider types more/less favoured.
* If we are to move to PCM18, those with experience sharing general outcomes of differences in AI behaviour, and stat usage is most welcome/necessary to maintain a level playing field in the MG if there are quite major variations as some have suggestted or at least hinted at. Previous iterations generally had small changes that were well understood by the community. Not so clear to me that this is as transparent this time around. As some seem to be taking/have the opportunity to conduct extensive testing, this gives a feeling of a two-tier system - those 'in the know' and those not. If general outcomes shared, this feeling will be easily overcome.
* Final thought on moving to PCM18; I have no strong feeling one way or other, unless it creates a big hold-up inbetween seasons preparing, in which case I advocate sticking as we are with 15 (not perfect, but not 'broken' either!).
Scorchio wrote:
* If we are to move to PCM18, those with experience sharing general outcomes of differences in AI behaviour, and stat usage is most welcome/necessary to maintain a level playing field in the MG if there are quite major variations as some have suggestted or at least hinted at. Previous iterations generally had small changes that were well understood by the community. Not so clear to me that this is as transparent this time around. As some seem to be taking/have the opportunity to conduct extensive testing, this gives a feeling of a two-tier system - those 'in the know' and those not. If general outcomes shared, this feeling will be easily overcome.
It is easy for everybody that is interested to read about the PCM18 behaviour. In fact, there are story games on this site played on PCM18, which means that everybody has the opportunity to inform himself quickly. So everybody has his own chance to be "in the know", whether he'll make it or not is up to him. A small sample size to do the testing is necessary, but doing test reports just to make everybody feel comfortable in the same manner feels like way too much of a time-consuming task, especially when we struggle to find reporters last season for a long time at all. And if you're just looking for general outcome of AI then, as said, there are plenty of chances to have a read on this forum.
I think you misunderstand me Croatia, I agree that reporting test runs would not be a good/optimal use of reporter time.
While story games in PCM18 might in part be informative, they do not use the MG DB, and if I understand correctly, in general the author is 'playing', so the AI is not acting independently as in how MG operates.
In previous years when switching version as far as I perceived (in general), all the MG was made aware of certain oddities that had come to be understood about PCM AI we were moving to. Examples include when it became understood that a stat wasn't actually working/utilised (RES?) for a number of versions, this was highlighted, as was when it started 'working' again. Similarly it was highlighted when we moved to 14 or 15 (can't recall which off the top of my head) that it was now possible for 4 sprint trains to form, which was a development that was then exciting to see in action when it did (occasionally!) occur. That is the sort of information that I would hope would be shared. Those with the time/resources to test to the n-th degree to understand that +1 in stat X is 0.125% more important than +1 in stat Y after 19 days of racing, well good for them.
Things I infer from discussion thus far, but not explicitly clear are:
* Acc is of lesser importance than in the recent versions of PCM we have been using. The fact that Acc was pretty much a primary stat in terms of importance of late was not clear-cut for 1 of the MG seasons, where those 'in-the-know' benefitted, but the news quickly spread through the impacted season. The indications are that it is now back to being considered a more secondary start (but some are advocating that cobbles training needs more Acc which is perhaps counter to this??).
* I've seen various comments that sprints are different, but in what way? More lead-out trains?, more or less riders in the train? Lead-outs no longer important? Sprints are random?
* I have also read that stamina works differently (if I read correctly, now slowly accumulates impact throughout the stage length rather than just 'kicking-in' after 180-200km, although generally of minimal impact until these distancesreached anyway). If that is correct, seems only fair that a change in behaviour is highlighted
* Again, from what I read, in PCM18 Mon/Hill can more be inferred as climbing/intense climbing (which is in part where the impact of ACC has been reduced). Is this what is experienced with MG BD testing?
I would have thought that providing this sort of over-arching AI understanding would be of obvious benefit to all in terms of the health of the MG ecosystem.
I said earlier and this is my main experience, that PCM18 is very similar to PCM15 stat wise.
But due to AI being able to close gaps in shorter time and getting the 1:10 or something down scale from kilometer length and PCM length more accurate with riders that missed an attack having a chance to make it back still, a few stats are reduced in their strength.
Acc which obviously helps to create a gap in attacks still has value. But if a more diesel rider such as Nibali then speeds up, he still can come back. The peloton is less glued and on climbs stronger climbers that didn't follow an attack quickly can go into the chasing dropping other riders around him that would have been heavily glued in PCM15.
So less of a stat thing but more of an improved AI.
So imo with PCM 18 MGDB the same riders would be favorites to win as main stay is still the most important. Then only for similar/equal riders the secondary stat incl acc can/will make the difference. But riders with lower acc might be a bit better as with PCM15 as e.g. a 80mo/65acc rider would have lost against a 77mo/78acc in 15 but now wins or is more similar. Form obviously also comes into play, which imo works same as 15 with only difference being that it's displayed for the player now at least for the own team.
Scorchio wrote:
While story games in PCM18 might in part be informative, they do not use the MG DB, and if I understand correctly, in general the author is 'playing', so the AI is not acting independently as in how MG operates.
In case this helps, at least far as my Story Game goes, I play with a control team (just that it not called a Control Team, but Adria Mobil) on auto just like we do for MG, and that team is by far the weakest team on the startlist.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
. Handing out participation trophies in free agency is not what transfers should be about. There is so much left to chance in how the game it self runs, adding in a draft to add another level of chance is not what we should aim for. Even if you were to add such a phase you would have to alter the budgets in some way, I think the 0 wage draft that was done for CT this year is just fine and gave CT managers options to invest their money more wisely during the real transfer window and add in filler once done. 
