SotD wrote:
Yup, but if a reset effectively kills the game, then that isn’t really an option...
Well the stat inflation and dud AI are doing a pretty solid job themselves on that front. Definitely the least fun season i've been a part of, and this is my first PT season and i just can't get into it at all...
I'm just struggling to see how a reset doesn't kill the game. You're effectively trying to start a game the size of the man game on a dying forum. There's no way the game would survive that turnover at this point imo. You would probably lose at least half of the managers, with no one to replace them. Enough people are invested in the current DB and universe to stick around. Without it, what's the point?
Personally, losing the DB would take most of the fun out of the game for me. I'd like to think I'd continue anyway, but I'm not sure I would. MG history is what keeps me involved. Without it, it's just any other "story game."
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
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.
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)
Suddenly introducing increased and earlier declines is very harsh on teams with many old riders. Suddenly introducing slow stat growth is very harsh on teams with many talents. Only lowering FA's and released riders is not enough and also quite harsh on teams who have to sign many new riders in that particular season.
All the methods you propose here are actually more drastic and potentially unfair than an universal stat drop. The latter is the cleanest and most efficient way to decrease inflation without a total reset.
And while I agree that a reset would result in the best possible outcome in terms of database quality, we have to be realistic about its dangers. As many have pointed out, losing the history of the MG would be a huge blow to the game and result in the loss of many managers.
And no; a universal stat drop is definitely not perfect either.
- But non-linear stats is only a minor problem because within a division most teams have a somewhat similar distribution of rider quality. Only 85 and 84 riders are quite rare and their teams (like mine) might be disadvantaged a bit more, but this will be offset by the fact that these riders will now be able to use the effects of positive daily form again.
- Maxed riders who can't be trained can also be overtaken by their trainable counterparts if we don't lower all stats. It's just a bit more expensive.
- 50/51 stats will just stay/become 50. That's a non-issue really...
- And the ideal stat matrix is going to change again in the future, so let's not reset because of that.
We're probably not going to find a solution that has zero drawbacks. With that in mind I still think a universal stat drop is our best option, despite its minor flaws.
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.
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)
Suddenly introducing increased and earlier declines is very harsh on teams with many old riders. Suddenly introducing slow stat growth is very harsh on teams with many talents. Only lowering FA's and released riders is not enough and also quite harsh on teams who have to sign many new riders in that particular season.
All the methods you propose here are actually more drastic and potentially unfair than an universal stat drop. The latter is the cleanest and most efficient way to decrease inflation without a total reset.
And while I agree that a reset would result in the best possible outcome in terms of database quality, we have to be realistic about its dangers. As many have pointed out, losing the history of the MG would be a huge blow to the game and result in the loss of many managers.
And no; a universal stat drop is definitely not perfect either.
- But non-linear stats is only a minor problem because within a division most teams have a somewhat similar distribution of rider quality. Only 85 and 84 riders are quite rare and their teams (like mine) might be disadvantaged a bit more, but this will be offset by the fact that these riders will now be able to use the effects of positive daily form again.
- Maxed riders who can't be trained can also be overtaken by their trainable counterparts if we don't lower all stats. It's just a bit more expensive.
- 50/51 stats will just stay/become 50. That's a non-issue really...
- And the ideal stat matrix is going to change again in the future, so let's not reset because of that.
We're probably not going to find a solution that has zero drawbacks. With that in mind I still think a universal stat drop is our best option, despite its minor flaws.
To me that's as bad as a reset, as Gaviria and other youngsters I trained would become less effective in the future. We started fighting stat inflation a few years ago with less top talents, so if you have a few of those, that hurts as well.
Besides, have we actually tested that the sprint issue is so much 80+ sprinters or just so much top sprinters with close stats? If it's the latter, the problem won't go away.
For me there are 3 issues at the moment
1) MO/HI, I suggested a (moderate) change on page 1, but just learning from this season and adapting my team in the offeason would work for me as well. Definitely not a fan of the more radical changes.
2) Sprints, not ideal with the stat inflation but this problem will solve itself in due time. I will have a look at the DB tomorrow, but I do feel like many sprinters are due to decline and that will fix it. Also I don't think there's like one top sprinter like Bewley is a top cobbler, so it's a "fair" lottery at the moment.
3) 5 star cobbles, easily fixable in the offseason.
To me that's as bad as a reset, as Gaviria and other youngsters I trained would become less effective in the future. We started fighting stat inflation a few years ago with less top talents, so if you have a few of those, that hurts as well.
I really don't understand why you think that, surely it would be the complete opposite due to him being younger he would then have extra room to grow on those around him that are not training eligible.
If those like Hirschi that max at 80 will now max at 78 then that would be the new standard that we would add new riders to max at too. If not we make those added in the last few years a lot weaker and we would be undoing the work the drop would do towards helping the DB whilst also screwing the riders added in the last few seasons.
To me that's as bad as a reset, as Gaviria and other youngsters I trained would become less effective in the future. We started fighting stat inflation a few years ago with less top talents, so if you have a few of those, that hurts as well.
I really don't understand why you think that, surely it would be the complete opposite due to him being younger he would then have extra room to grow on those around him that are not training eligible.
If those like Hirschi that max at 80 will now max at 78 then that would be the new standard that we would add new riders to max at too. If not we make those added in the last few years a lot weaker and we would be undoing the work the drop would do towards helping the DB whilst also screwing the riders added in the last few seasons.
As long as that will be the case, there's less of an issue. But then it needs to be confirmed the newly added riders would also suffer this penalty. Question remains though if someone did the testing if too many +80 sprinters is the problem or just too many similar sprinters.
To me that's as bad as a reset, as Gaviria and other youngsters I trained would become less effective in the future. We started fighting stat inflation a few years ago with less top talents, so if you have a few of those, that hurts as well.
I really don't understand why you think that, surely it would be the complete opposite due to him being younger he would then have extra room to grow on those around him that are not training eligible.
If those like Hirschi that max at 80 will now max at 78 then that would be the new standard that we would add new riders to max at too. If not we make those added in the last few years a lot weaker and we would be undoing the work the drop would do towards helping the DB whilst also screwing the riders added in the last few seasons.
As long as that will be the case, there's less of an issue. But then it needs to be confirmed the newly added riders would also suffer this penalty. Question remains though if someone did the testing if too many +80 sprinters is the problem or just too many similar sprinters.
From my impression as a reporter, and the races I've seen and reported on, I actually think the sprinters, including the depth of sprinters isn't the issue PCM18 has when it comes to sprints.
What I've seen more reflects on the timing that the BoTD tends to be caught, within the last 3km frequently. In previous editions at 16km the sprint teams were forming their trains and typically already caught the BoTD. This late catch is causing teams to have to expend extra energy they aren't prepared to do, so the leadout riders tend to fall off by the 1 or 2 km marks leaving sprinters to somehow deal with a very long run in on their own.
My last sprint report, from the 1st stage of Vuelta a Colombia does exactly this... the BoTD isn't caught until ~1.5km to go, and at that point there is only 1 support rider left for the trains. By 1 km to go, that rider is gone and the top sprinters are having to go. In this case Avelino who is clearly the best rider there, tries to make a sprint of over 1km which obviously goes wrong. Haller who is actually poorly positioned about 15 riders deep ends up being rewarded for being a lesser sprinter further down the pecking order.
At first I liked how this ended up going because two of the BoTD riders were flat specialists (Naud and Gallego Martin, both with I think 77 FL). But I think this is the norm rather than an exception, which is the problem.
I don't understand why so much debate just because some people are doing badly this season.
This year we have the problem of MO / HI, but in previous editions we had the problem of lack of AC and I didn't see half of the concern shown this year. Last season I was also harmed because Gesink had little AC and didn't see me complain about it.
But it's just my opinion, I like being part of ManGame and I will be part as long as I can regardless of any changes made
Gesink was just one example, it was already well known that AC was important and so everyone adapted. In the case of this year before the beginning was also known that would be important to have a good MO / HI, the best thing to do is to adapt yourself and prevent this in the coming seasons. Maybe instead of just focusing on training a stat, you'll see that it's worth having a leveled rider.
For example, instead of training someone to go from 82MO / 74HI to 83MO / 74HI, it is better to train to stay 82MO / 76HI.
The game doesn't have to adapt to us, we have to adapt to the game
You mean the Vuelta-winning Gesink that was severely hit by lack of acceleration?
Nah, I understand what you mean - and I don't have a big issue with staying as we are as we will learn from things, but I don't think the past should be a decider in this. I have had crap riders with good stats in the past too, I think most people have, and that isn't the actual issue.
For me the issue is whether or not the game can function properly without being too random, and without top top riders (like Bobridge) now being completely useless. Former top riders with a low ACC haven't been completely useless in PCM '15, they just couldn't keep up with riders -1 key stat with much better ACC.
Riders like Tenorio and Kritskiy had the level of an 82MO Lecuisinier f.e. They didn't end up 60th in a GT all of a sudden, which we see some top puncheurs do now because they need 74+ MO, and only have 68.
fintas wrote:
For example, instead of training someone to go from 82MO / 74HI to 83MO / 74HI, it is better to train to stay 82MO / 76HI.
The game doesn't have to adapt to us, we have to adapt to the game
Isn't that exactly what we will do if, we say all riders get -2 on all stats, in order to get better gameplay?
fintas wrote:
I don't understand why so much debate just because some people are doing badly this season.
This year we have the problem of MO / HI, but in previous editions we had the problem of lack of AC and I didn't see half of the concern shown this year. Last season I was also harmed because Gesink had little AC and didn't see me complain about it.
But it's just my opinion, I like being part of ManGame and I will be part as long as I can regardless of any changes made
Well i'm not saying the MO/HL thing is a problem that needs fixing. It was available information, and like ACC it's something we learn from and adapt to as managers.
But the issue of inflation and lots of evenly statted riders is causing a visible issue on PCM18 and is something we should look at. Arguable how much it's changed in impact since PCM15 or whether it's due to PCM18 not fitting the stat matrix anymore.
It's one thing to make poor decisions as a manager and struggle, something i'm very used to, and quite another to lose out because the game is no longer working as it should.
fintas wrote:
I don't understand why so much debate just because some people are doing badly this season.
This year we have the problem of MO / HI, but in previous editions we had the problem of lack of AC and I didn't see half of the concern shown this year. Last season I was also harmed because Gesink had little AC and didn't see me complain about it.
But it's just my opinion, I like being part of ManGame and I will be part as long as I can regardless of any changes made
Well i'm not saying the MO/HL thing is a problem that needs fixing. It was available information, and like ACC it's something we learn from and adapt to as managers.
But the issue of inflation and lots of evenly statted riders is causing a visible issue on PCM18 and is something we should look at. Arguable how much it's changed in impact since PCM15 or whether it's due to PCM18 not fitting the stat matrix anymore.
It's one thing to make poor decisions as a manager and struggle, something i'm very used to, and quite another to lose out because the game is no longer working as it should.
Is it really that bad though? I mean we have complaints every year and maybe it's worse this year than the years before, but I do believe the game is still working as it should, with some flaws.
I would also like to point out (again) that this entire discussion is pointless without someone properly testing the suggested changes. Changing out ideas is a good thing, but so far no one (including myself) has confirmed if their proposed changes actually work.
fintas wrote:
I don't understand why so much debate just because some people are doing badly this season.
This year we have the problem of MO / HI, but in previous editions we had the problem of lack of AC and I didn't see half of the concern shown this year. Last season I was also harmed because Gesink had little AC and didn't see me complain about it.
But it's just my opinion, I like being part of ManGame and I will be part as long as I can regardless of any changes made
Well i'm not saying the MO/HL thing is a problem that needs fixing. It was available information, and like ACC it's something we learn from and adapt to as managers.
But the issue of inflation and lots of evenly statted riders is causing a visible issue on PCM18 and is something we should look at. Arguable how much it's changed in impact since PCM15 or whether it's due to PCM18 not fitting the stat matrix anymore.
It's one thing to make poor decisions as a manager and struggle, something i'm very used to, and quite another to lose out because the game is no longer working as it should.
Was it available information? Really? I was told that results would ultimately be very similar to normal, with hill riders doing slightly better in mountain stages, and mountain riders doing slightly better in hill races. We were told expressly that it WOULDN'T change the favorites for races, which it has very much done.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
@SotD In my opinion these are very different things, because reducing all stats by 2 points will not diminish the deficit that some riders have in the MO / HI ratio and that is what has made them have far worse results than expected.
@TheManxMissile I do not say that you cannot or should not do something to improve ManGame, but the truth is that this whole debate started because some managers have complained about the poorer results from their riders. Every year there are poorly performing riders and that's the way it should be. What would be the fun if it were always the same riders to win?
@TheManxMissile I don't remember exactly where or what topic but I remember people talking about the importance of the MO/HI combination and of the much less importance of the AC. This before the season starts
fintas wrote:
I don't understand why so much debate just because some people are doing badly this season.
This year we have the problem of MO / HI, but in previous editions we had the problem of lack of AC and I didn't see half of the concern shown this year. Last season I was also harmed because Gesink had little AC and didn't see me complain about it.
But it's just my opinion, I like being part of ManGame and I will be part as long as I can regardless of any changes made
Well i'm not saying the MO/HL thing is a problem that needs fixing. It was available information, and like ACC it's something we learn from and adapt to as managers.
But the issue of inflation and lots of evenly statted riders is causing a visible issue on PCM18 and is something we should look at. Arguable how much it's changed in impact since PCM15 or whether it's due to PCM18 not fitting the stat matrix anymore.
It's one thing to make poor decisions as a manager and struggle, something i'm very used to, and quite another to lose out because the game is no longer working as it should.
Was it available information? Really? I was told that results would ultimately be very similar to normal, with hill riders doing slightly better in mountain stages, and mountain riders doing slightly better in hill races. We were told expressly that it WOULDN'T change the favorites for races, which it has very much done.
Not really, at least not in that way, that I would know, Bobridge is completely useless even in only hilly races. Didn't even know, that ACC is less important. Quite a heartbreaking situation, in which my most important rider loses his key skill (ACC) and gets hurt by his weak(er) MO stat.. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anybody for this change, but I certainly did not expect a 83 HI rider to become useless because of a 69 MO stat. Maybe in semi hill/semi mountain stages, but not in a hilly stage race (Pais Vasco) that he won last season (yet being a win target again). Of course I would adapt to this next season, but for this season it's a huge disaster, as it will not only hurt my points production, but also my sponsor goals/budget significantly.
Not really, at least not in that way, that I would know, Bobridge is completely useless even in only hilly races. Didn't even know, that ACC is less important. Quite a heartbreaking situation, in which my most important rider loses his key skill (ACC) and gets hurt by his weak(er) MO stat.. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anybody for this change, but I certainly did not expect a 83 HI rider to become useless because of a 69 MO stat. Maybe in semi hill/semi mountain stages, but not in a hilly stage race (Pais Vasco) that he won last season (yet being a win target again). Of course I would adapt to this next season, but for this season it's a huge disaster, as it will not only hurt my points production, but also my sponsor goals/budget significantly.
Ya, this was the thinking behind my suggestion to give riders at least some "MO" lifting - at least on "this season only" basis, maybe too much in my post (but I tested and think it would be ok) but honestly still believe riders like Bobridge (and many others) have been fucked up too hard, and one season is a lot with the risk of relegation and possible goals missed.
People mention sprinters/cobblers but who cares - Bewley overpowers - compared to what, winning everything already.
If we do something this season may tour out to be OK, if we do nothing it will only be remembered as the worst season ever.
Edited by Tamijo on 14-01-2020 16:43
Regarding something quite different, I am doing the preview of Ronde van Vlaanderen, in the process checking a lot of results (cobbled) and have to come to the conclusion that PCM15 was just as random as PCM18 - Bewley the overpower rider to make things look good, but he will do that again, beneath him very random results.
Take Adam Blythe top PCT cobbler in 2018, can't find any top results in 2018
Florian Senechal at least a top 5 riders, 9th in Paris – Roubaix and 16th in Ronde van Vlaanderen,
Arman Kamyshev top cobbler with a perfect stamina but no top result in Roubaix, and though he has a bad punch he is better in Ronde van Vlaanderen
Matteo Trentin great results in previous seasons but in 2018 17th in Paris – Roubaix and 12th in Vlaanderen.
The hilly shit is a problem but honestly the "random" is more about forgetting all the odd results in PCM15. Yes the sprint is different and first under the red kite is not the best anymore, but is the results more random, I would wait for more evidence that top riders (forget hilly) actually get less points than before.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
