|
PCM 18 AI and Man Game DB
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 11-01-2020 15:58
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
I know a reset would be hugely unpopular, i admit it's a really radical solution. But it would allow us to tackle some of the real problems the game is experiencing, and provide a base to restructure the game for continued long term health.
I am inclined to agree a reset might make sense, acknowledging I have no history.
The MG makes very little use of the lower ends of the stat range. My worst over 25 rider is a 70 OVL. My worst talent is a 66.5. And I was predicted to finish second to last in the lowest division.
You could just subtract 5 from every value and at least normalize the range. You would need to add some subtlety and randomization and address MO/HI but I think you could do a reset without radically changing the relationships between riders. There would be loss and there would be winners and losers but none of the options is perfect.
Oh haha I got distracted while typing my post and forgot to check for new posts once I got back.
So yeah we have the same idea. A simple subtraction across the board should do wonders. And I actually think no additional tweaks and randomizations are necessary. They would only make it more complicated, work intensive and potentially unfair.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 11-01-2020 16:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Taking 1/2/3 off all stats doesn't actually solve the problem of inflation. All you do is change the stat cap from 85 to 84/83/82, but still leaving the same number of riders at the same stat level relative to the cap. You don't actually change anything.
Equally stats are non-linear (i assume this is still the case, although i don't know for sure on PCM18), so a drop from 83 to 81 has more of an impact than from 72 to 70, which means stronger riders are more negatively affected.
So yes at first glance it seems like an easy solution to inflation, but does nothing to solve the underlying problems! What you would need to do is something like drop the stats of a random 75% of riders by a random range between 1 and 3 to create the differences in the DB for the game AI to work with.
____
I knew the idea of a reset would be radical and strongly opposed by some. But you can't deny it would solve the problems of inflation and a stat matrix that doesn't fit the current game. (Yes i know there would be a lot of other things to work out for it to happen, but at least we have plenty of time to think about it).
I would rather have another solution: like a forced stat drop on all FA's and non-renewed riders, changes to declines, a total stop on FA increases, slowing XP gain/rider development (or summed up as what i've been asking for years: to make sure any +1 gain to an FA or from a new rider addition is balanced by two -1's to another rider, worked out on a per rider basis to make sure we end up with a deflating FA DB at the very least)
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 11-01-2020 16:28
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
In terms of sprints (which is annoying me the most) the real issue is that riders within the range 82-84 are basically performing the same. There was a big difference in the previous game... Of course riders with 82 SPR should beat the best ocasionally, but not this often. And the big issue here is that either the big gun wins or he is outside the top 10.
Coquard have 2 sprint wins, another 2 top 5’s and 6 outside top 10.
Will that be corrected by lowering all stats?
EDIT: I am a huge fan of lowering all stats by 2 though, as I have suggested myself numerous times in the past. It opens for new riders getting up high, but it will take time.
|
| |
|
|
| valverde321 |
Posted on 11-01-2020 16:44
|
World Champion
Posts: 12986
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 530.00
|
1. Ok, so just adding 6MO to every rider, is an absolutely horrible idea. Adding just to HILL riders and sprinters is also horrible. The MO stat needs to be lower for sprinters or else they will win literally everything. I've already seen it first hand. If you give Sagan 75 MO he can finish on the podium of the TDF.
2. Re-starting the db. If this really comes to fruition, I wont be continuing in the game. Im guessing it would be the same for others. I agree with what BBL said. If I wanted to play with an "ultra-realistic" db I'd just play PCM or join a different Human vs Human cycling manager game. This DB is so unique and the reason I still play.
3. Going back to 15 wouldnt be ideal but if its the easiest solution Im open for it.
4. Just reducing -2 to all stats, as Manx says is unfair as it affects top riders more.
5. Sprint works slightly differently. SPR is how long a rider can keep sprinting now (a rider with 85 sprint can sprint for longer, while a sprinter with 75 will run out of energy quicker), while ACC is how quickly a rider gets to top speed, so in a way ACC is actually more important now. Sprints are much more random because the SPR starts later now. Before you wanted to sprint at 1.5km, now even an 85 Sprinter will not win if they start that early. This way a 75SP/85ACC rider can beat an 85Sprinter if they time it right for example.
6. As someone that was against the change to 18, I left my opinion that moving to 18 would see all the problems we are seeing now, but I accepted the decision once it was decided since I dont contribute much to the game. Seeing all this anger now is bit annoying, as I tried to adapt to the new game. Changing the db now helps "bail" people/specific riders out that didnt plan for the change. If I had known we were planning to making changes to the db, I may not have sold certain riders, so I dont really think its fair to make any changes at all.
|
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 11-01-2020 17:15
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
valverde321 wrote:
5. Sprint works slightly differently. SPR is how long a rider can keep sprinting now (a rider with 85 sprint can sprint for longer, while a sprinter with 75 will run out of energy quicker), while ACC is how quickly a rider gets to top speed, so in a way ACC is actually more important now. Sprints are much more random because the SPR starts later now. Before you wanted to sprint at 1.5km, now even an 85 Sprinter will not win if they start that early. This way a 75SP/85ACC rider can beat an 85Sprinter if they time it right for example.
So basicly all sprinters have the same top speed now?
Reset is also not an option for me, I spent oo much time training riders just for PT teams to steal them now cause I can't compete with their budget.
To be honest with all the crazy ideas going around (I seem to be the moderate guy for once  ), I think just sucking it up and continuing might be the best way to go.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 11-01-2020 17:33
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Im i correct in asumming that 85 is max under any circumstance, so a 82 riders with a form boost of 3, is just as strong as a 85 with a form boost of 3 ?
If that is the case lowering stats with -2,-3,-4 would be best for the highest level riders (too close to max) or what ?
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 11-01-2020 17:43
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2518
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
My problem with the reset is that I assume that a few of less active managers would simply quit. I am also in the camp of 'deal with it' as we all said that MO should be prioritised as it has a much higher impact in PCM18.
Stats change is possibly the most 'unfair' option, punishing people who participated and paid attention, but 'unfair'is usually the best option.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 11-01-2020 18:18
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
What is the max stat for each terrain in non MG DB's?
If we took a -5 on every rider in the DB, then we would be safely under that limit that the game is designed to work with, we would likely still see the best riders under it even with daily form, which they will now be able to better benefit from rather than it only allowing the subtop riders to catch them as they are not already at the limit like they currently are.
To stop older riders getting overly punished we could say the new max is 80, next year it's 81, the year after is 82 etc.
That would mean we can slowly allow more separation at the top without screwing over any of the existing top guys that wouldn't have the ability to grow to the extra points their younger rivals will.
Also does anyone remember what was the main issue(s) with PCM16 that made us stay on 15 for so long? I feel like instead of continuing to move forward with the game every year and choosing to stagnate instead has resulted in the DB seeing the young riders that have come through in that time get focussed more towards that 1 game than the more solid all round rider and is part of the problem.
We've gone from a game where HI/ACC low MO was overpowered and HI/MO low ACC underpowered to the exact opposite, I personally feel like that is short sightedness to develop riders into that mould because it's what 1 game wanted rather than continue to develop riders into varying moulds knowing we change game and it could change like we used to do in my first few seasons where we went from PCM12 to PCM 15 with one season on each game in between, with varying strengths, weaknesses and broken stats in each one to contend with. e.g. Broken Res in one of them
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 17:29
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 11-01-2020 18:19
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
btw, changing the DB or game mid season is not an option, that effects people differently based on what percentage of their riders and teams race days have been used so far.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 11-01-2020 18:20
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
sammyt93 wrote:
What is the max stat for each terrain in non MG DB's?
If we took a -5 on every rider in the DB, then we would be safely under that limit that the game is designed to work with, we would likely still see the best riders under it even with daily form, which they will now be able to better benefit from rather than it only allowing the subtop riders to catch them as they are not already at the limit like they currently are.
To stop older riders getting overly punished we could say the new max is 80, next year it's 81, the year after is 82 etc.
That would mean we can slowly allow more separation at the top without screwing over any of the existing top guys that wouldn't have the ability to grow to the extra points their younger rivals will.
Also does anyone remember what was the main issue(s) with PCM16 that made us stay on 15 for so long? I feel like instead of continuing to move forward with the game every year and choosing to stagnate instead has resulted in the DB seeing the young riders that have come through in that time get focussed more towards that 1 game than the more solid all round rider and is part of the problem.
We've gone from a game where HI/ACC low MO was overpowered and HI/MO low ACC underpowered to the exact opposite, I personally feel like that is short sightedness to develop riders into that mould because it's what 1 game wanted rather than continue to develop riders into varying moulds knowing we change game and it could change like we used to do in my first few seasons where we went from PCM12 to PCM 15 with one season on each game in between, with varying strengths, weaknesses and broken stats in each one to contend with. e.g. Broken Res in one of them
THIS was the main issue with PCM 16. The mtn/hill changes.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 11-01-2020 18:36
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I find it worrying that so many seem to know that MO is overpowered, and that sprint stat working differently, because I did nothing besides asking for these kind of input before the season.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 11-01-2020 18:45
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
SotD wrote:
I find it worrying that so many seem to know that MO is overpowered, and that sprint stat working differently, because I did nothing besides asking for these kind of input before the season.
I agree. A lot of questions were brought up, and it seemed to be that most of the answers were "everything has been tested, the differences in results are negligible." Now it seems that the difference are very much definitive, and either they were not properly tested, or as it appears, a few PCM 18 players knew this from the beginning. Had this been presented up front, I would have voiced my opposition more strongly.
If "testing" was done with normal DB's, it's not testing. We all know the MG DB is especially strange and volatile. That should have been the main focus of testing and discussion.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 11-01-2020 19:18
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I felt ACC was OP in PCM15 compared to what you would expect and that MO was undervalued, I expected MO to get stronger and be undervalued by others but didn't expect it to be as OP as ACC was, I just thought it would be a part of the market where I could find better value/ more likely to find some riders that would gain value rather than lose it.
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 11-01-2020 23:27
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Taking 1/2/3 off all stats doesn't actually solve the problem of inflation. All you do is change the stat cap from 85 to 84/83/82, but still leaving the same number of riders at the same stat level relative to the cap. You don't actually change anything.
Equally stats are non-linear (i assume this is still the case, although i don't know for sure on PCM18), so a drop from 83 to 81 has more of an impact than from 72 to 70, which means stronger riders are more negatively affected.
So yes at first glance it seems like an easy solution to inflation, but does nothing to solve the underlying problems! What you would need to do is something like drop the stats of a random 75% of riders by a random range between 1 and 3 to create the differences in the DB for the game AI to work with.
It seems to me that the problem we call "inflation" consists of two parts: 1) actual stat inflation and 2) rider nivellation.
1) Stat inflation is the fact that over the seasons the average stats of riders with a contract has gone up considerably. This is undesirable for reasons I won't go into now. To showcase I'll grab the post-transfers DB of my first season (2013) and compare. Here's some numbers for the hill stat:
| 2013 | 2019 | 2019 -2 | | 75+ HI | 144 | 317 | 136 | | 80+ HI | 21 | 39 | 15 |
The amount of 75+ HI riders more than doubled! And as you can see the -2 modifier to every stat actually does a very good job of bringing this back to acceptable levels.
2) Another effect of having 317 riders in the 75 to 85 range instead of 144 is that rider skill is less spread out (what I call nivellation). There's a truckload of riders of every skill level so daily form is the big decider and the game engine also wasn't designed to handle this amount of big guns in every race.
Now I agree with you that this nivellation isn't directly changed by the -2 action; you still have 317 riders between 73 and 83. But once managers start training some riders back up, the skill level actually does get spread out compared to the current situation. You'd end up with a similar outcome to (randomly) lowering a subset of the rider's stats, but achieved in a way that is more fair: by lowering everyone and then giving managers the option to voluntarily train back up using their money.
So to summarize: this solution sets inflation back to 2013 levels and is the first step in gradually fixing the random results from too many riders having the same level of skill.
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 11-01-2020 23:31
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Stats being non-linear might be an issue with this solution though. I'll think about that.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 11-01-2020 23:52
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Non-linear is a problem (also an issue with the +MO idea), and what happens for riders 50/51?
It also does not solve the second problem as you say, relying on enough diversity in training to create a working game. I don't think we'd see enough training changes to bring us back to a fully working AI, especially when the matrix does not match well to the game version.
I think that it also has different impacts on riders in other ways. It heavily disadvantages maxed riders vs unmaxed who can get the +2 back in a season. It heavily disadvantages those declining or about to decline who can't be trained. So managers with an older or less development focused squad are hit harder than others.
Going forward to the off-season it's also a harder hit on those struggling with Goals who have less money available to recover some of the damage, or in lower divisions who have less spare cash anyway.
|
| |
|
|
| Kentaurus |
Posted on 12-01-2020 02:24
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3999
Joined: 26-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Honestly, this mostly just sucks for this season. Next season managers will have a vastly better idea what to value, and how it runs. You will see many of the pure punchuers released or MO trained. Those will also become far cheaper in the FA market as well.
When everyone knows how the game is going to function, things will get back to normal pretty fast.
AZTECA - NBCSN  |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 12-01-2020 10:26
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
While I agree with TMM that maxed riders that can’t be trained will be hit the hardest, those riders are also the only temporary guys, as they WILL start to decrease rather soon, only to vanish from the DB completely. For me that is something acceptable. I have had riders like that in the past, and the market value adjusts to their level.
And like DD says, it is important to get “back” to where diversity can actually be created. For me it’s also much more important than to keep status quo.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 12-01-2020 12:27
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
SotD wrote:
And like DD says, it is important to get “back” to where diversity can actually be created. For me it’s also much more important than to keep status quo.
This is where a reset works perfectly! Tackles all the inflation issues AND brings in a stat matrix that works properly with the current game versions. Fixing BOTH the problem of inflation and struggling AI. As well as allowing us to restructure the game a bit to prevent future inflation issues and try to fix the rapidly vanishing CT division in some way.
If we're still looking at something to work over a few seasons, then don't a blanket drop but work more drastically in the other ways stats change. Increase/earlier declines, slow stat growth, lower FA's and released riders to remove some inflated stats. These methods also would be adjustable in between seasons if something was still not working as we hoped. (put these together in combination with some force and we could drop us back to a working level in 1 or 2 seasons without issue)
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 12-01-2020 12:37
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Yup, but if a reset effectively kills the game, then that isn’t really an option...
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
