PCM.daily - Discussion Forum: PCM 18 AI and Man Game DB

24-11-2024 17:47

PCM.daily

Main Navigation
- Home
- Search
- Contact
- Privacy
PCM Tools
- Shirt Database
- Tips and tricks
- Stage Database
Pro Cycling Manager 24
- News
- Downloads
Pro Cycling Manager 23
- News
- Downloads
Pro Cycling Manager 22
- News
- Downloads
Pro Cycling Manager 21
- News
- Downloads
Pro Cycling Manager 20
- News
- Downloads
Pro Cycling Manager 19
- News
- Downloads
Pro Cycling Manager 18
- News
- Downloads
Pro Cycling Manager 17
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 16
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 15
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 14
- Buy the game
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 13
- Buy the game
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 12
- Buy the game
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 11
- Buy the game
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 10
- News
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 09
- Articles
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 08
- Articles
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 07
- Database Reviews
- Articles
- Downloads
- Screenshots
Pro Cycling Manager 06
- Database Reviews
- Articles
- Downloads
- Screenshots

Users Online

· Guests Online: 42

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 161,803
· Newest Member: actronspareparts

Oh no! Where's the JavaScript?
Your Web browser does not have JavaScript enabled or does not support JavaScript. Please enable JavaScript on your Web browser to properly view this Web site,
or upgrade to a Web browser that does support JavaScript; Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome or a version of Internet Explorer newer then version 6.

View Thread

PCM.daily » PCM.daily's Management Game » [Man-Game] The Rules and Announcements

Page 2 of 17: 123 4 5...17

PCM 18 AI and Man Game DB

Ulrich Ulriksen

#21

Posted on 11-01-2020 03:38

Directeur Sportif

Posts: 3264
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00

A few thoughts:

@hillis: That is PCM riders not MG

@quadsas: Adjusting the slopes of the stages seems like a ton of work and sets up the stage designers to make a judgement about what is a fair slope. Plus it seems like the stages should dictate the racing and not the other way around.

I like Ollfardh's approach but the adjustments would need to be much more significant.

I also like Kentauras approach but the PCM DB prior to the HI/MO stat change was far closer to the desired post-change end point than the MG db is. The HI/MO gaps are bigger in the MG and there are more of them. It seems like you would end up creating a new distortion in the res stats. And wouldn't it be an advantage to cobblers or sprinters with good hill to suddenly get a big boost in res? I think you would have to pair this with some direct MT boost.

Developing on Olfardh's approach I calculated the average difference between the MT stat at each HI stat 77+ between the MG DB and PCM history (First table in spoiler). It is about 5.5 and it is relatively constant across all 77+ HI stats. Because it is relatively constant the adjustment wouldn't need to be that sensitive to the HI stat, just adding 6 to everyone's MT stat would get you close. I started from that and adjusted the top end to avoid values over 85 and get the average below 5.5. Ended up with the table in the spoiler.

The graph shows the MT stat distribution for riders over HI 77: in MG now, in the PCM DB and with my adjustment. A few big qualifiers:

1. Would need to address HI stat below 77
2. Not saying that it would be fair to do just showing what it would take to match the PCM DB as a proxy for what the AI expects.
3. This would fix the high HI riders being crippled by their MT stat but it would also increase the overall stat inflation.

i.imgur.com/4P92nBs.png

MG to PCM MT Diff at each HI Stat

Spoiler

Hill Stat	MG Ave MT	PCM Ave MT	Diff
77	70.8	75.9	5.15
78	71.4	77.1	5.73
79-81	71.2	76.8	5.55
82-85	70.6	78.2	7.62
Total	71.0	76.5	5.52

Test Adjustment Values by MT Stat

Spoiler

MT Value	MT Add	New MT
60	6	66
61	6	67
62	6	68
63	6	69
64	6	70
65	6	71
66	6	72
67	6	73
68	6	74
69	6	75
70	6	76
71	6	77
72	6	78
73	5	78
74	5	79
75	4	79
76	4	80
77	3	80
78	3	81
79	2	81
80	2	82
81	1	82
82	1	83
83	0	83
84	0	84
85	0	85

Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling

Ad Bot

Posted on 24-11-2024 17:47

Bot Agent

Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09

IP: None

Ollfardh

#22

Posted on 11-01-2020 09:07

World Champion

Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00

I kept it small so it wouldn't be too OP, I definitely don't want to bring 80HI 60MO riders back to their glory days. If you want more, you will have to pay for it

Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.

Tamijo

#23

Posted on 11-01-2020 09:46

Team Leader

Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00

Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
A few thoughts:

@hillis: That is PCM riders not MG

@quadsas: Adjusting the slopes of the stages seems like a ton of work and sets up the stage designers to make a judgement about what is a fair slope. Plus it seems like the stages should dictate the racing and not the other way around.

I like Ollfardh's approach but the adjustments would need to be much more significant.

I also like Kentauras approach but the PCM DB prior to the HI/MO stat change was far closer to the desired post-change end point than the MG db is. The HI/MO gaps are bigger in the MG and there are more of them. It seems like you would end up creating a new distortion in the res stats. And wouldn't it be an advantage to cobblers or sprinters with good hill to suddenly get a big boost in res? I think you would have to pair this with some direct MT boost.

Developing on Olfardh's approach I calculated the average difference between the MT stat at each HI stat 77+ between the MG DB and PCM history (First table in spoiler). It is about 5.5 and it is relatively constant across all 77+ HI stats. Because it is relatively constant the adjustment wouldn't need to be that sensitive to the HI stat, just adding 6 to everyone's MT stat would get you close. I started from that and adjusted the top end to avoid values over 85 and get the average below 5.5. Ended up with the table in the spoiler.

The graph shows the MT stat distribution for riders over HI 77: in MG now, in the PCM DB and with my adjustment. A few big qualifiers:

1. Would need to address HI stat below 77
2. Not saying that it would be fair to do just showing what it would take to match the PCM DB as a proxy for what the AI expects.
3. This would fix the high HI riders being crippled by their MT stat but it would also increase the overall stat inflation.

i.imgur.com/4P92nBs.png

MG to PCM MT Diff at each HI Stat

Spoiler

Hill Stat	MG Ave MT	PCM Ave MT	Diff
77	70.8	75.9	5.15
78	71.4	77.1	5.73
79-81	71.2	76.8	5.55
82-85	70.6	78.2	7.62
Total	71.0	76.5	5.52

Test Adjustment Values by MT Stat

Spoiler

MT Value	MT Add	New MT
60	6	66
61	6	67
62	6	68
63	6	69
64	6	70
65	6	71
66	6	72
67	6	73
68	6	74
69	6	75
70	6	76
71	6	77
72	6	78
73	5	78
74	5	79
75	4	79
76	4	80
77	3	80
78	3	81
79	2	81
80	2	82
81	1	82
82	1	83
83	0	83
84	0	84
85	0	85

This is very close to the suggestion I had in mind, besides that i would have all riders not only punchers.

1/ Hill - 7 = new mountain with a limit of 75 (if existing MO>75 keep)
2/ OVl - 7 = new mountain (no limit)
BEST OF THOSE SHOULD BE NEW MOUNTAIN

Originally working with -6 but i think it is too much, as is could potentially hurt natural hydrids too much - we are looking for a way too help low level MO riders, but not overpower them, and they should not be too strong climber in mountain stages

Result of top 100 OVL riders

Last name	F	M	H	T	St	Re	Rc	Co	Sp	Ac	F	D	P
TaaramÃ¤e	75	85	78	81	79	80	79	52	60	76	70	70	79
Bewley	78	76	71	71	78	76	85	83	83	83	68	77	71
Ponzi	76	75	84	68	77	72	76	68	76	80	77	74	68
Phinney	73	83	77	83	77	74	76	58	72	75	68	71	83
Hagen	77	75	85	72	81	74	72	55	73	79	75	66	72
Pluchkin	74	85	75	79	78	78	79	70	67	74	67	66	79
Madrazo	68	85	76	77	81	80	81	55	63	72	66	69	77
Spilak	71	84	81	76	79	80	77	69	66	73	70	67	76
Herklotz	72	84	77	74	79	80	78	67	68	76	80	76	78
Van Stayen	76	75	79	60	76	71	80	69	84	78	73	63	60
Sagan	72	74	83	68	78	74	70	62	73	76	71	78	68
Lutsenko	69	74	83	68	76	73	70	54	72	81	69	70	68
Bakelants	71	74	83	66	80	77	74	62	72	77	73	68	65
Tenorio	68	84	76	80	78	76	79	59	59	67	84	68	79
Demare	73	75	80	61	75	72	80	63	82	81	70	63	61
Lecuisinier	71	83	75	77	78	80	79	65	67	74	65	70	77
Dombrowski	70	84	75	71	80	78	78	55	60	75	67	72	71
Mohoric	72	74	83	64	78	72	72	50	67	77	71	79	64
Bobridge	73	74	83	77	74	74	69	53	69	80	66	66	77
Kritskiy	75	84	75	80	78	76	78	58	68	67	68	62	79
Van Garderen	73	75	82	69	78	75	72	67	70	79	80	75	69
Summerhill	78	74	73	59	76	72	69	83	70	73	81	73	59
Gesink	72	82	80	79	77	79	79	65	60	67	71	65	79
Degenkolb	76	74	69	67	73	71	74	72	84	81	70	61	67
Swift	74	74	68	70	73	70	82	69	84	82	64	61	70
De Bie	73	74	83	72	77	76	69	68	72	75	74	65	68
Coquard	73	74	66	65	71	74	84	56	84	83	60	65	79
Sicard	73	82	78	76	80	79	82	57	64	70	77	65	76
Ewan	75	74	71	60	73	71	80	70	83	81	63	71	73
Kinoshita	73	75	82	66	80	77	73	59	68	77	73	71	66
Kristoff	75	74	68	68	75	71	76	78	83	79	69	67	73
Skujins	70	74	83	59	80	77	73	67	68	76	66	66	59
Grosu	73	74	73	62	74	70	79	62	83	80	66	70	70
Keizer	72	81	71	81	75	79	79	59	57	73	72	61	81
Schleck	69	83	73	72	74	79	79	51	60	76	68	62	71
Morton	70	84	76	73	79	78	78	54	57	67	68	68	73
Kump	74	74	77	63	76	73	80	73	81	80	70	73	70
Amador	69	83	74	77	76	73	77	50	66	71	70	70	76
Uran	72	82	74	78	75	81	77	55	55	71	67	62	78
Wisniowski	80	73	71	74	75	76	71	81	73	76	74	73	77
Beltran	69	79	81	66	73	72	72	59	65	76	78	74	66
Alarcon	69	84	73	67	71	74	73	50	59	78	79	66	66
Stallaert	77	73	67	58	76	68	80	81	79	76	67	66	58
Ahlstrand	74	73	67	60	74	73	79	67	83	82	59	64	72
Cattaneo	70	82	70	79	76	80	80	54	51	70	62	64	79
Van der Lijke	73	73	76	66	73	71	78	64	82	79	66	63	68
Trentin	74	73	74	61	76	71	75	81	75	76	67	56	67
Blythe	76	73	66	68	76	71	77	82	76	73	72	72	71
Kelderman	70	75	82	70	80	75	73	62	67	72	77	71	70
Coppel	76	73	75	82	77	77	72	53	64	73	72	63	82
Hirt	70	81	74	73	77	79	79	52	65	76	74	67	73
Boeckmans	73	73	68	60	74	71	81	74	81	83	65	58	60
Guarnieri	76	73	66	51	77	76	83	64	82	81	68	62	75
Senechal	75	73	67	65	79	74	70	82	69	74	67	71	65
Barguil	70	81	75	70	77	77	82	55	64	75	66	76	70
Koretzky	73	75	81	63	77	70	71	63	71	79	73	70	61
Vanspeybrouck	76	73	71	62	78	71	72	82	67	69	74	79	62
Kudus	69	82	76	72	79	77	79	53	62	70	70	67	72
Monsalve	68	81	76	72	79	80	77	56	65	73	69	65	72
Guldhammer	68	81	77	71	74	75	74	69	70	76	71	65	71
Van Avermaet	76	73	74	59	75	72	73	80	76	75	69	59	70
Martin	69	81	76	72	76	77	76	54	64	75	71	62	70
Theuns	72	73	74	65	76	73	74	80	77	76	64	67	70
Kennaugh	77	73	65	63	74	71	80	58	82	81	70	63	63
Gastauer	69	75	82	66	78	70	68	59	67	76	62	62	66
Denifl	70	84	76	72	75	71	76	54	66	65	73	64	72
Saber	75	73	68	64	74	72	78	76	81	79	63	68	70
Fiedler	79	73	68	83	75	76	78	60	66	63	67	63	82
Haig	72	80	74	77	76	75	78	58	61	73	70	67	77
Groenewegen	73	73	66	64	74	71	85	59	82	81	59	64	72
Howard	76	72	68	68	75	70	79	63	82	79	64	65	68
Claeys	73	74	83	64	74	68	69	64	67	73	62	63	64
Yates	71	79	76	71	79	80	76	56	67	76	71	71	71
Henao Montoya	70	82	71	71	75	79	77	51	58	73	70	62	71
Lo Cicero	72	72	64	56	71	63	79	69	84	78	54	60	75
Holloway	78	72	69	71	77	77	78	65	80	82	69	66	71
Roglic	71	80	76	72	75	76	75	66	69	74	72	71	70
Di Maggio	65	75	82	62	73	68	65	51	65	75	67	73	62
Borges	70	74	80	60	75	73	70	54	71	81	75	65	60
Baugnies	78	72	72	62	80	73	73	80	65	73	74	65	62
McCarthy	70	75	81	58	80	75	70	69	65	74	71	71	58
Schreurs	70	75	81	67	76	72	71	62	71	74	69	66	66
Kwiatkowski	72	78	79	70	74	76	75	68	67	75	73	69	75
Jensen	71	74	80	67	77	73	71	55	66	76	81	73	70
Wellens	72	81	75	72	79	80	76	62	63	68	64	70	72
Marquez	68	80	71	70	70	78	77	51	61	80	75	64	70
Buchmann	71	76	80	67	73	74	74	57	65	73	67	70	67
Vanbilsen	78	72	69	63	80	74	75	80	72	71	72	61	63
Lopez	69	78	79	70	74	73	73	50	65	76	78	70	71
Guerao	74	72	65	57	71	64	81	68	83	76	71	78	57
Meintjes	71	80	77	71	77	76	78	57	61	69	71	74	71
Eastman	70	81	71	77	76	75	76	56	62	69	73	66	73
Yates	74	73	79	68	77	70	73	52	75	80	74	64	71
Daniel	73	72	69	56	76	76	74	80	76	72	69	74	64
Ulissi	76	74	80	62	83	71	72	51	74	75	75	63	62
Altur	75	72	70	63	75	70	70	81	72	68	70	63	63
Olivier	72	80	76	69	76	80	77	59	64	71	70	71	69
Cavendish	72	72	64	65	73	70	78	69	82	80	59	64	75
Gerts	77	72	78	67	76	80	74	78	72	70	69	67	72

My Stage Creations:
https://www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewth...d_id=66162

TheManxMissile

#24

Posted on 11-01-2020 10:02

Tour de France Champion

Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00

Alternatively you could have listened pre-switch to anyone talking about PCM18, or played it yourself, to know MO was going to be a more significant stat this season and plan your team accordingly.
You had the opportunity to transfer in higher MO riders, or to train them yourself.

Punishing those prepared managers for a well known scenario is just wrong in my eyes. Especially when the MO situation has not been ruining the majority of riders, stages and results.

Now there could be a discussion about whether PCM18 is the right game for the 2020 season, or going back to PCM15 or ahead again to 19. And as we now have results to discuss and base this on now is absolutely the moment to start that debate. Not to get sidetracked with a frankly ridiculous idea to re-write every rider the in the DB to benefit those unprepared managers with specificly weak riders. (and i say that as one of the weakest MO teams in the entire game who would get great stat boosts from this)

And again i push for this to generate a real discussion about stat inflation and how it's reaching a genuinely broken point for the MG which needs a more radical solution. Because it is this inflation i think is causing more of the AI issues than a dodgy stat matrix.

imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg

SotD

#25

Posted on 11-01-2020 10:29

World Champion

Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00

Koretzky at +1 MO over Coquard?

Iâ€™m definately not a fan of making sprinters 73-76MO... The game AI canâ€™t possibly be that crap, and how will we recover from these changes in the future?

I would think it was much better to just go back to PCM 15, if this version need this dramatic changes to the DB...

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2022/mghq.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png

pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png

Ollfardh

#26

Posted on 11-01-2020 10:34

World Champion

Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00

Bewley 76MO sounds horrible imo.

Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.

alexkr00

#27

Posted on 11-01-2020 10:44

World Champion

Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00

TheManxMissile wrote:
And again i push for this to generate a real discussion about stat inflation and how it's reaching a genuinely broken point for the MG which needs a more radical solution. Because it is this inflation i think is causing more of the AI issues than a dodgy stat matrix.

I agree with you. This is what is breaking the game, not stages and not not twitched stats. And I like the idea of a reset but my biggest concern with that is it will erase a lot of MG history which is a great fun part of the game. And then there's the whole thing of a reset would be actually made.

Then again, I think things will get better in 2-3 seasons at least at the very top of the stats when riders born in 86-88 will have been declined because those are the riders that got massive training and not a lot of talents with potential stats of over 82 have been added. This problem might be fixed with time at PT level, but I think for PCT and CT there will still be a lot of riders with similar stats that will cause somewhat strange results.

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2021/avatar21.png

Tamijo

#28

Posted on 11-01-2020 12:57

Team Leader

Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00

SotD/Ollfardh: It first glance some sprinters seems to get a lot of MO, but where is it usefull for them? They will survive a monutain mid stage - but you would not send a 74 MO 83 SP to a mountain race to beat 10, 79+ climbers, so it will only change things if we get a sprinter finish.

The worst option for me would be back to PCM15, with unrealistic fixed hills and tons of long cob's all that crap. PCM18 is so much better, we just created a shit database because we adjusted to a bad AI and unrealistic profiles.

Edited by Tamijo on 11-01-2020 13:04

My Stage Creations:
https://www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewth...d_id=66162

Aquarius97

#29

Posted on 11-01-2020 13:47

Grand Tour Specialist

Posts: 4191
Joined: 13-09-2015
PCM$: 300.00

Your "solution" really is making every rider a 72-75 climber?

Manager of [MG] Repsol - Netflix

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/newmember.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2017/newmanager.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2017/improved.png

Ollfardh

#30

Posted on 11-01-2020 14:03

World Champion

Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00

Some general thoughts about what's been said so far..

Midseason changes: Just no, it wouldn't be fair in so many ways
Postseason changes: Maybe, not convinced by the suggestions yet
Stat inflation: I think that problem will solve itself in due time as said above. If we can speed up the process by downgrading free agents in the offseason, I wouldn't mind that.
Going back to PCM15: No, as the Hi/Mo change seems to be here to stay, it would only delay the inevitable

Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.

Tamijo

#31

Posted on 11-01-2020 14:16

Team Leader

Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00

Aquarius97 wrote:
Your "solution" really is making every rider a 72-75 climber?

The top 100

My Stage Creations:
https://www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewth...d_id=66162

TheManxMissile

#32

Posted on 11-01-2020 14:42

Tour de France Champion

Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00

We were saying inflation would get better in 2-3 seasons 2-3 seasons ago. But then we weren't suffering such notable issues from the problem relating to the AI. Now it is becoming a real problem! We should never be in a situation where each team in an entire division could have an 80+ rider from the same main stat. And we are seeing the real result from that where the AI cannot handle this, and we are generating totally random results in various races as a consequence.

I know a reset would be hugely unpopular, i admit it's a really radical solution. But it would allow us to tackle some of the real problems the game is experiencing, and provide a base to restructure the game for continued long term health.
There are other solutions we can explore, but i struggle to think of one that won't in some way re-write the history of the game. Although not all history is good. We could downgrade a lot of FA riders or non-renewed riders. We could put an increase on the rate of decline and bring the age of decline forawrd. We could put a complete stop on FA increases and new rider additions. We could change the development system to slow growth.

_____

I could not support raising MO stats to fix some hilly riders. Not without serious testing of the impacts on all types of stages and races for all divisions!
I certainly can't back making changes to a select group of riders, either it's a solution for all or none. Otherwise you're putting a huge advantage to some managers and not others based on an arbitrary cut offf line.

Perhaps we need to admit the MG DB matrix does not work with PCM18 + 19. A solution is to go back to 15, or my idea of a reset looks more reasonable to bring the game up-to-date with newer versions following such significant changes.

Ulrich Ulriksen

#33

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:11

Directeur Sportif

Posts: 3264
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00

TheManxMissile wrote:

I know a reset would be hugely unpopular, i admit it's a really radical solution. But it would allow us to tackle some of the real problems the game is experiencing, and provide a base to restructure the game for continued long term health.

I am inclined to agree a reset might make sense, acknowledging I have no history.

The MG makes very little use of the lower ends of the stat range. My worst over 25 rider is a 70 OVL. My worst talent is a 66.5. And I was predicted to finish second to last in the lowest division.

You could just subtract 5 from every value and at least normalize the range. You would need to add some subtlety and randomization and address MO/HI but I think you could do a reset without radically changing the relationships between riders. There would be loss and there would be winners and losers but none of the options is perfect.

Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling

knockout

#34

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:18

Grand Tour Champion

Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00

@TMM: Can you explain which actions would be done in a "reset"? Not exactly sure what you are arguing for except that it is to counter inflation...

Evonik - ELKO pcmdaily.com/images/mg/micro/evo.png

A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters!

pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manteam.png

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/mgmanager.png

TheManxMissile

#35

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:22

Tour de France Champion

Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00

knockout wrote:
@TMM: Can you explain which actions would be done in a "reset"? Not exactly sure what you are arguing for except that it is to counter inflation...

Start over with a new DB. Obviously make some changes to fit a few nationality requirements and preserve some history and rider changes. But in essence start over with a brand new DB, one that works with the PCM18 stat matrix and removes all the inflation.

redordead

#36

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:26

Grand Tour Specialist

Posts: 4881
Joined: 18-10-2017
PCM$: 200.00

I'll add my own 2 cents on the subject.

As someone who took the risk of betting on the mountain stat influence, I'd like to think I haven't done anything wrong. As Manx has said it doesn't make sense to punish managers that adjusted better to the game change.

As an example in the off season there was 32 Hill trainings, most of those to riders who already had a good hill stat. Whether that was due to ignorance, I don't know and I'm not here to criticise those managers. Probably the mountain influence needed to be more discussed and better communicated.

So lets find a sensible solution. Changing the DB midseason is not good idea imo. Neither is simply adding mountain stat points to the riders most affected. I don't see how that's fair to the riders who received the mountain stat by normal development/training and I'm guessing that's gonna make the stat inflation only worse. It has to be a give and take situation.

My suggestion is to allow the effected riders to be redeveloped and retrained to a degree. So for example during the offseason before renewals a currently maxed rider would be reset to his original stats as they were when the rider entered the DB. Then the manager would decide how the rider's stats are developed to suit his' and the game's needs. Even some of the invested training could be swapped to a different stat, if needed.

There might need to be a slight upgrade to the stat gains files, but after reworking the rider, a new OVL would be calculated more based on PCM18, so a fairer renewals process can be had.

I think this solution could ease the problem of stat inflation as every rider's stats would be normally gained. Also since this is a management game, the fact that managers can decide how to rework the riders, it adds an extra layer to the game. It's up to the managers to make the right decisions for their riders.

Man-Game: Manager of Cedevita

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/PCMdailyAwards2018/mgnewmanager.png

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/mghq2.png

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2021/mgmanager21.png

"I am a cyclist, I may not be the best, but that is what I strive to be. I may never get there, but I will never quit trying." - Tadej PogaÄar

baseballlover312

#37

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:41

Tour de France Champion

Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70

TheManxMissile wrote:

knockout wrote:
@TMM: Can you explain which actions would be done in a "reset"? Not exactly sure what you are arguing for except that it is to counter inflation...

No way. Can't believe this is even suggested. I'd rather go back to PCM 15 for the next twenty years than destroy the DB. The DB is everything. The DB is the entire game.

There is no chance the game survives a full reboot with this forum in the activity state it's in. No chance.

RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2019/funniest.png

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/funniest.png

pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/forumthread.png

Dan Martin - Irish Pride | i.imgur.com/xom4RQU.png

Manager of Carlsberg - Danske Bank i.imgur.com/xom4RQU.png

baseballlover312

#38

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:44

Tour de France Champion

Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70

Tamijo wrote:
SotD/Ollfardh: It first glance some sprinters seems to get a lot of MO, but where is it usefull for them? They will survive a monutain mid stage - but you would not send a 74 MO 83 SP to a mountain race to beat 10, 79+ climbers, so it will only change things if we get a sprinter finish.

The worst option for me would be back to PCM15, with unrealistic fixed hills and tons of long cob's all that crap. PCM18 is so much better, we just created a shit database because we adjusted to a bad AI and unrealistic profiles.

Knowing that a sprinter will finish a 3 week race easily also affects decisions in MG to a huge degree. It doesn't make sprinters win races, but it takes a huge element out of planning.

Edit: This basically goes for any chance, to stats, game, rules, etc. TMM says it's unfair to punish players who planned ahead as far as stats go. Yet he suggests messing with the age of decline and their speed. That is an even larger, more defined area of planning that can determine a teams plans for multiple years. Someone is gearing up for a promotion push, and then suddenly their star is declining and they lose all that value. Absolutely ridiculous.

What is wrong with going back to 15?

Edited by baseballlover312 on 11-01-2020 15:48

RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy

Dan Martin - Irish Pride | i.imgur.com/xom4RQU.png

Manager of Carlsberg - Danske Bank i.imgur.com/xom4RQU.png

DubbelDekker

#39

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:45

Small Tour Specialist

Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00

So there's actually two mostly separate issues being discussed in this thread:

1) The importance of MO went up and it makes some riders perform worse than last year. My opinion is "deal with it". You could have seen it coming and you can adapt in the future. I say this as the manager of Ginanni, who is definitely one of the main victims.

The only "solution" I want for this is an OVL adjustment at the end of the season. I'm strongly opposed to measures like selectively adjusting MO or RES stats.

2) AI is producing results that are too random. I agree with the assessment that this is probably a result of stat inflation. This is an issue where some form of stat manipulation might actually be necessary to solve it (after the season of course). The challenge here is to do it in a way that is fair to everyone.

To me the MG DB basically looks like someone took a normal PCM DB and increased all values by 2. And this brought me to a possible solution. Only decreasing FA stats will not be enough to fix the problem, so we need to adjust contracted riders too. And there's only one fair way to do that: decrease every stat of every rider by 1 or 2 points.

If we do this the relative strength of riders will stay the same, but with values closer to what the race engine was developed for. And going forward rider training will widen the skill distribution, which should decrease random results as well. It's also a solution that's easily repeatable if inflation becomes a problem again in the future.

So far I haven't been able to come up with any game breaking issues that would be caused by this. Am I missing something?

SotD

#40

Posted on 11-01-2020 15:45

World Champion

Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00

Finding and effectuating a fair stat-re-organazation would require a HUGE amount of work, and I can't back that tbh.

As I see it we have 3 options:

1) Adapt to the new game without altering the DB
2) Switch to a game that deals properly with the DB
3) Make a complete MG reboot, where all teams start without riders and implement a new DB.

Page 2 of 17: 123 4 5...17

Jump to Forum:

Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.