|
Suggestions for the 2019 Season
|
| hillis91 |
Posted on 27-07-2019 10:43
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5897
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 1500.00
|
I like that we are moving to PCM18, as we can not stay on PCM 15 forever.
We should allways stay one game back from the current.
So next year we should move to 19.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-07-2019 10:54
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
"So next year we should move to 19"
Well not if it does not change anything.
Regarding the always active crash debate, I think MG need them, simply to make it less predictable or rather less boring to read reports, it is a game and luck is a factor just as in real life. Maybe not at 100% due to the larger crashed but something like 0,7 or 0,5
As this is very important to most suggest a vote tread where all manager can vote
Yes - No - dont care : running for at least 14 days.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 27-07-2019 11:10
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Daily form already has luck elements. Even without crashes. |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 27-07-2019 11:18
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
Please please please don't bring back crashes. A crash in a GT can potentially ruin a team's entire season.
As for more randomness. We already have the daily form. Have been playing PCM18 for a few weeks now you can clearly see that daily form can make or break someone's race. That's enough randomness for me. This is a management game not a roulette game. The transfers and the race planning should come as the primary elements and not luck which is already covered by daily form.
Edited by alexkr00 on 27-07-2019 11:18
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 27-07-2019 11:18
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
roturn wrote:
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.
This was indeed my point originally, when I said that riders such as Herklotz (Could also be Schleck, Alarcon, Dombrowski and Dan Martin) would suffer from this change. Instead of them posing a serious threat to the GT win (or at the very least the podium (maybe not Martin as much)), they are suddenly on par with riders such as Denifl, Morton, Tenorio, Kritskiy, Sicard etc. whom they are basically always beating looking at the current version!
Like I said, I don't mind much as I think Lecuisinier with his stats is basically unchanged from this, but I do think it's important that we (next time atleast!) argue over these things and make a final decision, before people level up their riders.
I could see riders such as Sam Oomen, Mark Padun, Miguel Angel Lopez (maybe), Latour, Godoy etc. would perhaps benefit from picking a different route than they have done. Several of those riders have probably gone for the popular Mountainv1 to ensure that they get as high ACC as possible, over the importance of TT, stamina and resistance, which are probably now more important!
So if there isn't much difference between a rider with 71 and 75ACC I think that is of huge importance, as I would expect there to be quite a big difference between 71 and 75TT for instance, and definately the gap between these training paths would make for some changes in level.
Let's go with Sam Oomen as an example:
His main stats are now 75MO, 72HI, 70TT, 74STA, 73RES, 73REC, 67ACC.
If I was to train him for the PCM15, I would go with the mountainv1 to ensure his ACC went up, as that stat is easily more important/powerful than TT, Stamina and resistance for a rider going for GC races!
This would make him gain +2HI, +2ACC and +4FIG in comparisson to Stage Race. But in that trading session he would lose -1FL, -3TT, -1STA, -2RES, -1REC and -3PRL.
Looking at the PCM15 way of riding, I would take that, as I would value him much higher having 71ACC rather than 69ACC. Even if it made him less versatile, and on paper a weaker rider. The ability to stay with the favorites is just much more important, than clawing back some time on a TT for instance. Having 75 or 77HI I think had less significance, but would still be a better option than having +/-4TT.
I'm not so sure that is the case in PCM18!
Hence my original shoutout! Like said - I don't have a ton of riders to develop, and I believe Giannoutsos would still go with the climberv1 option in my head - same with Matteo Fabbro - but I would consider it important to know which of these riders are in fact the better solution!
| FL | MO | HI | TT | STA | RES | REC | COB | SPR | ACC | FIG | DH | PRL | | 66 | 78 | 75 | 66 | 72 | 76 | 73 | 57 | 64 | 72 | 83 | 69 | 71 | | 68 | 78 | 72 | 72 | 76 | 78 | 75 | 57 | 64 | 68 | 75 | 67 | 77 |
If we weren't playing PCM15, but rather the versions we had before, I would without hesitation go with option #2 over #1, as I get numerous better stats! But in terms of PCM15 the HI and ACC combination easily outpowers the TT, Stamina and resistance I think!
This example is Giannoutsos, who is the rider I'm looking to train the most in the future, in order to keep the greek roleplay option alive. With PCM 15 I would immidiately make him 74ACC, and then probably even 75/76 in the future once I made him 81-82MO and 77HI. This would make him a very strong rider to finish top 10GC races and also do well in the hills...
Had we not raced with PCM15 I would never train his ACC, and instead would focus solely on MO and a bit of HI!
I basically have a similar rider in Matteo Fabbro, who will be looking like this rather than the below option:
| FL | MO | HI | TT | STA | RES | REC | COB | SPR | ACC | FIG | DH | PRL | | 65 | 78 | 75 | 67 | 71 | 72 | 74 | 50 | 61 | 73 | 74 | 70 | 70 | | 66 | 78 | 73 | 70 | 73 | 73 | 74 | 50 | 61 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 73 |
So what I'm really saying here is, that if we do make the switch, I would really like to reconsider those development stats once more after having gotten some key info from the PCM18 version. And like said before, I'm definately not one of those with the biggest headache looking at this - some just accept/ignore it, which is fine by me. But for me this tinkering with stats is 80-90% of the game.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-07-2019 11:21
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Daily form adds randomness.
Yes I know - but it has not the drama of a crash - reporting wise.
He crash: was he injuried ? - will he get back in time before the climb ?.
In my opinion it add a lot to the suspense that is not comparable to other factors, and that I why I like it even considering that it is clearly unfair to the unlucky.
Edited by Tamijo on 27-07-2019 11:25
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 27-07-2019 11:25
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
Tamijo wrote:
Yes I know - but it has not the drama of a crash - reporting wise.
He crash: was he injuried ? - will he get back in time before the climb ?.
In my opinion it add a lot to the suspense that is not comparable to other factors, and that I why I like it even considering that it is clearly unfair to the unlucky.
This could be an argument when it comes to one day races or one week races since the blow of a crash wouldn't potentially be season breaking.
It's a totally different thing when your leader crashes in a GT and half of his race days are ruined.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 27-07-2019 11:32
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I could also show the example of me picking Bryan Coquard way back. Obviously he was a good sprinter with his 81 when maxing, but it was infact this 83ACC that made me go for him rather than a sprinter such as Vanderbiest, Lavoine, Bouhanni and Petit who were also all on my "create a french supersprinter"-list. I had both Lavoine and Bouhanni for a while, but sold them again despite them being easy to train already back then. But I noticed that riders such as Swift, Degenkolb, Bewley, Mohs, Kennaugh etc. performed better than riders such as Lo Cicero, Kristoff, Ciolek, Avelino, Guerao, Goss and Vantomme while all having similar stats - except for lower ACC.
So rather than picking a sprinter whom I had to train in both SPR and ACC, I picked one where only SPR was needed to become a world class sprinter. Vanderbiest was the better sprinter, but to make him 84SPR and then also raise his ACC by atleast 3 points to compete regularly was too much. The same story with Lavoine who I had for quite some time.
For sprinters the ACC stat was already very important to be consistently winning before the PCM15 were implemented.
How is PCM18 working? Will Lo Cicero be on par with Coquard, Swift and Degenkolb now?
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-07-2019 11:34
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Tamijo wrote:
Yes I know - but it has not the drama of a crash - reporting wise.
He crash: was he injuried ? - will he get back in time before the climb ?.
In my opinion it add a lot to the suspense that is not comparable to other factors, and that I why I like it even considering that it is clearly unfair to the unlucky.
This could be an argument when it comes to one day races or one week races since the blow of a crash wouldn't potentially be season breaking.
It's a totally different thing when your leader crashes in a GT and half of his race days are ruined.
Ya I see that point - but if we bring crashes back should be able to fix, either by remove it from GT / Cutting down on the race-day count of GT's or something similar.
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 27-07-2019 12:46
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Another thing I'd like to suggest: The PT is the only division that demands to make a team goal on a specific terrain (all GTs are for the stage racers) while all other divisions only have that clause by category. For stuff like XP we already use GT/MON so i would love to see the mandatory GT goal changed to a mandatory GT/MON goal.
I know it doesnt influence other teams as much as mine and im heavily biased on this and also MAL's development should make sure that it will not bother me as much in future years as in past seasons but i still would love to see it implemented in case another manager prefers to go without a climbing leader in the PT which imo should not be punished more than it is already due to the schedule being climbing heavy.
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 13:14
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 27-07-2019 13:26
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
@SotD: I see your points. However, while developing a rider you develop him for the next 10 years, and as the game used to change it's PCM to be played on you have had to have that in mind while developing. Otherwise it's on you that you made a mistake while doing long term plans by not calculating for obviously coming long term changes which is the inevitable change to a newer PCM (I made the mistake as well with riders).
That's why I also very much disliked the extend of change to the overall formula last year, focussing so heavy on acc (and dh). Points outcome can't be the only measurement, it should be the general looks of stats as well (if the overall formula shouldn't be changed drastically for every new year). That's why I am also in favor of cutting down wage demands by a little in general and let the free agent market speak more about real values of riders: We know a lot less than last season, we have a lot more guessing to do.
To the sprinter question: Nobody knows (I guess). But you'd expect them to be better going the logical way. And from my experience of general racing in PCM18 (by just playing the game in normal career) I'd expect it to be similar, in fact, I guess for sprints it may become slightly more important as it`s often decided on positioning and the final punch from slipstream in the last 300 meters. Leadout matters more, and it's a lot more realistic than just everybody sprinting from 1.5km out their own sprint. Whether that translates to the mgdb in the long run, that's up to you, me and all other managers to guess.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 27-07-2019 13:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
@Croatia
I know that the game changes, but you can't call it a mistake to develop a rider in a way that the current game handles the best possible. It was never a mistake to train Herklotz the way he was trained. That's not my point. I'm just saying that a switch like this could need some preparing rather than a last minute "go", in order to know what kind of wage a rider like Herklotz should now have rather than looking at the way he performed previously. I suspect his wage will easily clock the 1mio mark, much like similar riders have done. And if Herklotz moves back into the 5th place GT region, he would be heavily overpaid for cio.
I'm not suggesting that cio might be doing something different, but we would have had the time to talk it through and alter the OVL and wage system so it matches the new system better than now, where we can't really do anything but guess. If we had a season in advance to talk it through and look at common previews/testings, then we could probably come as close to a "good switch" as possible.
If Herklotz comes out with a wage demand on 1,3mio I would not hesitate to accept it with the PCM15 game, but it might be too much in the PCM18. And I know Herklotz is probably a bad example as cio will renew him no matter what and stuff, but his stats argue that he could be hit harder than others.
And then also this "how do we develop our own riders". We can't expect PCM versions to change the way stats work, even if PCM 15 rely more on ACC than previous versions. But having a latency period of a season or so, we can adapt the entire MG community.
Anyway, I'm OK with the game changing, but I would still like to get a 2nd look at my development after some testing results with our current DB has been updated... It's a bit important for especially that one greek rider that isn't utter bullshit 
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 27-07-2019 14:04
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
SotD wrote:
And I know Herklotz is probably a bad example as cio will renew him no matter what and stuff, but his stats argue that he could be hit harder than others.
Well, let's just say I will try to renew him no matter what...
With no feedback in renewals anymore, I'm somewhat scared since I've never had to deal with a rider in this wage region before.
But that's off-topic here atm. Thanks for using me as an example though. 
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 27-07-2019 15:05
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
@SotD: While I totally see your point, we had time to talk it through imo. At the end of the day the mg organization will decide what's best, but there are quite some people involved in the mg that could elaborate on avg changes if necessary. I also trust into the mg team to work on this already, though I have no clue at all at which state of the decision making process they are.
And then also this "how do we develop our own riders". We can't expect PCM versions to change the way stats work, even if PCM 15 rely more on ACC than previous versions.
While we can't fully expect it, we have to heavily consider it though. Having played each and every PCM since the 2009 version for I guess more than 100 hours, I can tell you that each game has it's own riders that emerge to be stronger and weaker, same for each stat combinations. F.e.: Our current system uses to have riders like Koretzky massively overperform in comparison to their normative stats, while riders like van der Hugenhaben massively underperform. Each year we play, players with riders like Koretzky have an advantage while players with riders like van der Hugenhaben have a disadvantage.
By changing to another version, these disadvantaged riders have a new chance that has to be examined by each manager to be re-evaluated. Which type of riders do I invest in? Do certain gamble riders work out? These questions, including the wage process of Herklotz f.e., add to the value of the game imo. But they also are the reason why I'd like to see slightly lower demands, to offer space for these decisions and don't have past results on different AI and their favorization of certain riders (that may or may not have changed, to find out) mis-set the settings for any rider too much.
As riders will be better in one game and worse in another, imo development should be aimed at having the normative best riders untied to the game that is currently played on. Hence I see why you'd potential mind past development, but especially with young riders you clearly couldn't expect each stat to main the same throughout the long mg career of one rider. At least my point of view, though I failed to meet my own thoughts on this in the past (selling Katrasnik, Svab development, training Kump in the sprint stat instead of another hill point, selling Roy Jans,...) |
| |
|
|
| hillis91 |
Posted on 27-07-2019 17:00
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5897
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 1500.00
|
Tamijo wrote:
"So next year we should move to 19"
Well not if it does not change anything.
Of course it does. Cyandie normally makes certain small changes. I don't see a reason not to do so, unless it's a workload issue for the MG Team. Then i could see the problem with moving game edition each year if the changes are only small ones.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-07-2019 17:05
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
hillis91 wrote:
Tamijo wrote:
"So next year we should move to 19"
Well not if it does not change anything.
Of course it does. Cyandie normally makes certain small changes. I don't see a reason not to do so, unless it's a workload issue for the MG Team. Then i could see the problem with moving game edition each year if the changes are only small ones.
Without knowing for sure, I can imagine that it will always be some extra work.
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 28-07-2019 13:13
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
In my opinion (PT)HC band selection should happen at the same time as C1/C2 selection when at least a part of transfers is done. For PCT teams these races give the most points and selecting these races before transfers heavily favors teams that already have a strong core of riders.
The same could be argued about goal selections. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 28-07-2019 13:27
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Bikex wrote:
The same could be argued about goal selections.
But we need Goals for budget, and you need budget before transfers.
Although shifting Band selection to match up with C1/2 selections i can agree with.
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius97 |
Posted on 28-07-2019 13:42
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4191
Joined: 13-09-2015
PCM$: 300.00
|
Not sure of that. Select most of your calendar pre-transfers allows you, in case you have to make a big rebuild, like when coming up from CT, to build your roster around your race selections. It's much worse to have those during transfers because if you miss on a band you want once you have your team built, it heavily affects your race planning without margin of changing things.
According to my calculations my team is going to finish as the top scorer in PTHC races between PCT teams, and you could safely say that i started the transfer period with only one rider that didn't even continue in the team for this season.
I feel like the balance of race selections timing is perfect as it is now
|
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 28-07-2019 15:48
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2933
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Aquarius97 wrote:
Not sure of that. Select most of your calendar pre-transfers allows you, in case you have to make a big rebuild, like when coming up from CT, to build your roster around your race selections. It's much worse to have those during transfers because if you miss on a band you want once you have your team built, it heavily affects your race planning without margin of changing things.
According to my calculations my team is going to finish as the top scorer in PTHC races between PCT teams, and you could safely say that i started the transfer period with only one rider that didn't even continue in the team for this season.
I feel like the balance of race selections timing is perfect as it is now
I feel that all C2HC races being madnatory should be abolished.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
