|
PCM 18 AI and Man Game DB
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 20:33
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 14-04-2020 16:59
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
More and more the idea of more PCM 18 seasons is making me contemplate quitting the MG. I know I'm being a sore loser, and I apologize for that, but even the terrifically written reports are having a hard time keeping me involved at this point.
We're over halfway through the year, and I am convinced this game does not work with the MG DB. It's basically eliminated a ton of competitors from the pool completely and artificially boosted those who by chance had a select kind of versatility. Some continue to argue that PCM 18 has better overall AI, and that may very well be true. But it is not true with our DB. And the DB is everything to this game.
PCM 15 did not have good AI all the time. I understand that. But PCM 18 has destroyed how the DB and therefore the game functions, beyond repair or adjustment. It hasn't knocked a few riders down a notch, it's taken half the leaders in the DB out of the equation completely. Enough is enough.
We're halfway through the year, and I think it's important that this discussion resurfaces now so decisions can be made ahead of time, and we know what XP to give, who to build around, and whether or not we will disband.
Going back to 2015 I guess my team would still be in man-game, but I would not report a single race, reporting in PCM15 without crashes is very boring.
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 14-04-2020 17:01
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
I tried to do something quickly. Looked at the top 30 of the Grand Tours and top 30 of last year's PT classics that were also raced this year.
For Grand Tours, I took the best result from last year and compared it against the best result from this year.
Spoiler | 2018 Best | 2019 Best | Difference | | Fredrik Strand Galta | 6 | 25 | -19 | | Tanel Kangert | 13 | 29 | -16 | | Thomas Dekker | 10 | 20 | -10 | | Nikias Arndt | 21 | 26 | -5 | | Warren Barguil | 7 | 10 | -3 | | Mattia Cattaneo | 10 | 13 | -3 | | Andy Schleck | 1 | 4 | -3 | | Denys Karnulin | 20 | 22 | -2 | | Sergio Luis Henao Montoya | 11 | 13 | -2 | | Sergei Kolesnikov | 19 | 21 | -2 | | Silvio Herklotz | 1 | 2 | -1 | | Jose Alarcon | 6 | 7 | -1 | | Rein Taaramäe | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Nico Keinath | 11 | 11 | 0 | | Nairo Quintana | 14 | 14 | 0 | | Robert Gesink | 3 | 3 | 0 | | Mikel Iturria | 24 | 23 | +1 | | Simon Spilak | 2 | 1 | +1 | | Fabio Aru | 28 | 27 | +1 | | Justo Tenorio | 6 | 4 | +2 | | Jan Hirt | 7 | 5 | +2 | | Timofey Kritskiy | 5 | 2 | +3 | | Francesco Bongiorno | 17 | 12 | +5 | | Marc Goos | 22 | 16 | +6 | | Daan Olivier | 15 | 8 | +7 | | Jack Haig | 18 | 9 | +9 | | Sigurd Nesset | 26 | 17 | +9 | | Davide Formolo | 20 | 11 | +9 | | Gianluca Brambilla | 16 | 6 | +10 | | Yuriy Vasyliv | 29 | 19 | +10 | | Steven Kruijswijk | 23 | 10 | +13 |
For the classics I looked at the top 30 of 2018 and compared it with what the riders did in 2019 (if they rode the race).
Badaling
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Jonathan Salinas | 14 | 114 | -100 | | Caio Godoy | 1 | 81 | -80 | | Andris Vosekalns | 30 | 104 | -74 | | Andris Smirnovs | 27 | 85 | -58 | | Robin van der Hugenhaben | 28 | 74 | -46 | | Cristian Raileanu | 29 | 75 | -46 | | Francesco Ginanni | 18 | 26 | -8 | | Toms Skujins | 5 | 9 | -4 | | Jan Bakelants | 3 | 5 | -2 | | Nikias Arndt | 8 | 10 | -2 | | Simone Ponzi | 2 | 3 | -1 | | Peter Sagan | 4 | 2 | 2 | | Tejay Van Garderen | 9 | 7 | 2 | | Ben Gastauer | 17 | 15 | 2 | | Sean De Bie | 7 | 4 | 3 | | Edvald Boasson Hagen | 6 | 1 | 5 | | Matej Mohoric | 13 | 8 | 5 | | Clement Koretzky | 25 | 13 | 12 |
Grand-Duche
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Jaroslaw Marycz | 30 | 96 | -66 | | Marko Kump | 8 | 66 | -58 | | Enrico Barbin | 7 | 32 | -25 | | Christian Mager | 9 | 21 | -12 | | Arnaud Demare | 1 | 7 | -6 | | Nikias Arndt | 11 | 15 | -4 | | Toms Skujins | 2 | 5 | -3 | | Sergey Chernetskiy | 14 | 14 | 0 | | Ben Gastauer | 17 | 10 | +7 | | Petr Vakoc | 18 | 6 | +12 | | Blaz Furdi | 26 | 9 | +17 |
MSR
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Luca Wackermann | 13 | 156 | -143 | | Sascha Weber | 15 | 94 | -79 | | Gerald Ciolek | 16 | 43 | -27 | | Clement Koretzky | 20 | 44 | -24 | | Martin Reimer | 12 | 31 | -19 | | Maurits Lammertink | 23 | 36 | -13 | | Daniel Oss | 24 | 35 | -11 | | Sam Bewley | 2 | 12 | -10 | | Nick Van der Lijke | 1 | 9 | -8 | | Alexander Kristoff | 25 | 28 | -3 | | Eduard Grosu | 3 | 4 | -1 | | Michael Van Stayen | 8 | 8 | 0 | | Simone Ponzi | 10 | 10 | 0 | | Arnaud Demare | 4 | 3 | +1 | | Marko Kump | 6 | 5 | +1 | | Edvald Boasson Hagen | 11 | 1 | +10 | | Lukasz Wisniowski | 29 | 13 | 16 |
Strada Appia Antica
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Jakub Skala | 26 | 80 | -54 | | Arman Kamyshev | 15 | 49 | -34 | | Marc Potts | 14 | 43 | -29 | | Tim Declerq | 13 | 33 | -20 | | Florian Senechal | 3 | 18 | -15 | | Maxime Daniel | 11 | 20 | -9 | | Alexander Sulimov | 7 | 14 | -7 | | Matteo Trentin | 6 | 10 | -4 | | Sam Bewley | 1 | 2 | -1 | | Floris Gerts | 8 | 9 | -1 | | Jan Polanc | 4 | 4 | 0 | | Marcos Altur | 9 | 7 | 2 | | Steven Kruijswijk | 24 | 19 | +5 | | Mike Teunissen | 10 | 3 | +7 | | Lukasz Wisniowski | 20 | 1 | +19 | | Tiesj Benoot | 27 | 6 | +21 |
Ronde
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Jan Polanc | 21 | 52 | -31 | | Sven Nooytens | 19 | 46 | -27 | | Salvatore Puccio | 24 | 42 | -18 | | Greg Van Avermaet | 1 | 11 | -10 | | Karel Hnik | 30 | 37 | -7 | | Maxime Daniel | 8 | 14 | -6 | | Marcos Altur | 10 | 13 | -3 | | Floris Gerts | 15 | 15 | 0 | | Arman Kamyshev | 9 | 8 | +1 | | Sam Bewley | 3 | 1 | +2 | | Mike Teunissen | 5 | 3 | +2 | | Matteo Trentin | 12 | 10 | +2 | | Kenneth Vanbilsen | 18 | 12 | 6 | | Lukasz Wisniowski | 14 | 5 | 9 | | Alexander Kristoff | 20 | 9 | +11 | | Jo Kogstad Ringheim | 28 | 17 | +11 | | Florian Senechal | 16 | 2 | 14 |
Roubaix
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Tim Declerq | 18 | 59 | -41 | | Matvey Zubov | 29 | 46 | -17 | | Maxime Daniel | 6 | 16 | -10 | | Alexander Kristoff | 3 | 11 | -8 | | Jo Kogstad Ringheim | 20 | 27 | -7 | | Marcos Altur | 8 | 13 | -5 | | Sam Bewley | 1 | 4 | -3 | | Arman Kamyshev | 13 | 15 | -2 | | Greg van Avermaet | 4 | 5 | -1 | | Florian Senechal | 9 | 9 | 0 | | Floris Gerts | 11 | 10 | +1 | | Jan Polanc | 21 | 20 | +1 | | Yves Lampaert | 28 | 26 | 2 | | Matteo Trentin | 17 | 14 | +3 | | Lukasz Wisniowski | 5 | 1 | +4 | | Alexander Sulimov | 27 | 22 | +5 | | Mike Teunissen | 10 | 3 | +7 | | Danny Summerhill | 14 | 2 | +12 |
Liechtenstein
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Jonathan Salinas | 17 | 31 | -14 | | Nico Keinath | 18 | 21 | -3 | | Peter Velits | 16 | 17 | -1 | | Angel Madrazo | 5 | 5 | 0 | | Timofey Kritskiy | 6 | 6 | 0 | | Warren Barguil | 11 | 11 | 0 | | Anatoliy Sosnitskiy | 19 | 19 | 0 | | Aleksandr Pluchkin | 3 | 2 | 1 | | Romain Sicard | 8 | 7 | 1 | | Rein Taaramäe | 4 | 1 | 3 |
Amstel
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Robin van der Hugenhaben | 25 | 85 | -60 | | Maurits Lammertink | 27 | 81 | -54 | | Sergey Chernetskiy | 28 | 54 | -26 | | Calvin Watson | 30 | 56 | -26 | | Petr Vakoc | 23 | 44 | -21 | | Francesco Ginanni | 6 | 16 | -10 | | Tejay Van Garderen | 3 | 9 | -6 | | Jan Bakelants | 4 | 6 | -2 | | Simone Ponzi | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Edvald Boasson Hagen | 2 | 2 | 0 | | Sean De Bie | 9 | 8 | +1 | | Ben Gastauer | 12 | 11 | 1 | | Ian Boswell | 13 | 12 | +1 | | Toms Skujins | 7 | 4 | 3 | | Matej Mohoric | 11 | 7 | 4 | | Peter Sagan | 10 | 3 | 7 | | Alexey Lutsenko | 15 | 5 | +10 | | Clement Koretzky | 20 | 10 | 10 |
Rund um Koln
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Isaac Speirs | 20 | 130 | -110 | | Matthew Goss | 9 | 105 | -96 | | Edward Theuns | 8 | 52 | -44 | | Lasse Norman Hansen | 24 | 44 | -20 | | Nick Van der Lijke | 2 | 9 | -7 | | Arnaud Demare | 3 | 8 | -5 | | Ben Swift | 10 | 11 | -1 | | Marko Kump | 11 | 12 | -1 | | Morgan Kneisky | 23 | 19 | +4 | | Bryan Coquard | 12 | 5 | +7 | | Cheng Ji | 30 | 22 | 8 | | Alexander Kristoff | 13 | 1 | 12 |
Fleche Wallone
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Hermann Pernsteiner | 20 | 102 | -82 | | Toms Skujins | 6 | 23 | -17 | | Nikias Arndt | 23 | 35 | -12 | | Sean De Bie | 5 | 16 | -11 | | Andris Smirnovs | 22 | 33 | -11 | | Edvald Boasson Hagen | 2 | 5 | -3 | | Simone Ponzi | 1 | 2 | -1 | | Peter Sagan | 3 | 4 | -1 | | Tejay Van Garderen | 7 | 6 | +1 | | Ben Gastauer | 8 | 7 | 1 | | Clement Koretzky | 11 | 9 | +2 | | Daan Olivier | 30 | 28 | +2 | | Jan Bakelants | 4 | 1 | +3 | | Ian Boswell | 15 | 12 | 3 | | Francesco Ginanni | 19 | 15 | 4 | | Matej Mohoric | 13 | 3 | +10 | | Sergey Chernetskiy | 24 | 11 | 13 |
LBL
Spoiler | 2018 | 2019 | Difference | | Fabio Felline | 11 | 164 | -153 | | Nicolas Edet | 25 | 120 | -95 | | Coen Vermeltfoort | 20 | 86 | -66 | | Maurits Lammertink | 22 | 71 | -49 | | Edoardo Zardini | 17 | 46 | -29 | | Ian Boswell | 14 | 38 | -24 | | Simon Spilak | 7 | 24 | -17 | | Peter Sagan | 1 | 10 | -9 | | Toms Skujins | 2 | 6 | -4 | | Edvald Boasson Hagen | 3 | 7 | -4 | | Sean de Bie | 10 | 14 | -4 | | Francesco Ginanni | 12 | 16 | -4 | | Simone Ponzi | 5 | 8 | -3 | | Eduard Alexander Beltran | 13 | 12 | +1 | | Petr Vakoc | 16 | 15 | 1 | | Daan Olivier | 19 | 17 | 2 | | Jan Bakelants | 4 | 1 | +3 | | Tejay van Garderen | 6 | 3 | +3 | | Clement Koretzky | 8 | 4 | +4 | | Matej Mohoric | 15 | 11 | 4 | | Jay McCarthy | 18 | 13 | 5 | | Ben Gastauer | 29 | 2 | 27 |
Sorry for some bad excel formatting, some differences are missing the + sign
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 14-04-2020 17:39
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Thanks for this and need a closer look later even though on a quick look, it doesn`t even look too bad in most cases even.
Maybe stage races need more look into it for a proper view.
And also it would be great if those kind of comparisons can be improved by comparing similar riders OVL wise or stat combo wise such as high mo low hi and high mo high hi and so on.
e.g. Keizer, Henao or divisions lower with Marquez, Garby etc. as similar as possible for most terrains. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 14-04-2020 17:48
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
I'm not sure what we can learn from this. Even if you take out decline, progress and training and find a way to bring changed team support into the equation, you're still short on daily form (for the classics mostly) and route changes for the stage races.
I'm still sticking with what I said earlier. There are two main problems. Sprinters aren't delivering and pure hills riders aren't what they used to be. The solution is simple, adjust the AVG formulas and think about what you're offering these riders in the offseason.
If it would make a difference for some people to leave or not, I would even offer relegation immunity for this season.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Kentaurus |
Posted on 14-04-2020 17:51
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3999
Joined: 26-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think the best plan to deal with this, and the extremes that the MG DB gives will happen naturally. Teams now know that a rider with 60MO and 80HL is not good in this system, and no longer will those riders be rewarded with big contracts.
Secondly the admin team around the game now has a much better understanding as well and some of the races that are meant to focus on hills but were vastly too difficult this season will get changed to easier profiles with hill finishes to help the overall group of puncheurs.
I also think we need to go back to the older style of just keeping up with the PCM releases and not sticking to one game. Prior to PCM15 it isn't like the MG was on PCM11 for 5 years. This caused teams to specifically build riders around the PCM15 engine and warp the DB even worse than it normally should have been.
Optionally we could apply the same patch to the MB DB that we did to the PCM.Daily DB, which adjusted RES based on a riders MO/HL ratio (raising RES for guys with low MO / high HL, and vice versa).
AZTECA - NBCSN  |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 14-04-2020 18:45
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Which considerations have been done behind the scenes? One of the things that irritated me the most, was the short amount of time to react - I would be even more irritated if that happened again this season. So I kinda expect (sorry for sounding nonchellant) that some thoughts have been discussed behind the scenes.
Is everything open? Moving back to PCM 15? Imo is that not the way to go about it, even though I like that game much better. But we shouldn't move backwards once we have made a step forwards.
Will we stay at PCM 18? Will we move to PCM 19? And what is the thoughts behind it? I don't need a full on answer, but merely some input as to what is being discussed. IMO we are already on the backheel if we know nothing about what we want to do next season being 2/3 into the season with 2 GT's done and most classics.
So is we on ground zero, or are we discussing changes to the racecalender, stats/OVL changes or where are we?
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 14-04-2020 19:33
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2518
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
More and more the idea of more PCM 18 seasons is making me contemplate quitting the MG. I know I'm being a sore loser, and I apologize for that, but even the terrifically written reports are having a hard time keeping me involved at this point.
We're over halfway through the year, and I am convinced this game does not work with the MG DB. It's basically eliminated a ton of competitors from the pool completely and artificially boosted those who by chance had a select kind of versatility. Some continue to argue that PCM 18 has better overall AI, and that may very well be true. But it is not true with our DB. And the DB is everything to this game.
PCM 15 did not have good AI all the time. I understand that. But PCM 18 has destroyed how the DB and therefore the game functions, beyond repair or adjustment. It hasn't knocked a few riders down a notch, it's taken half the leaders in the DB out of the equation completely. Enough is enough.
We're halfway through the year, and I think it's important that this discussion resurfaces now so decisions can be made ahead of time, and we know what XP to give, who to build around, and whether or not we will disband.
There shouldnt be any discussion whatsoever to go back PCM15. To even entertain that idea is completely ridiculous.
I echo what people were saying in regards to OVR and the value of riders has become apparent.
In terms of moving to newer releases, well, I am sure we have at least a person who has access to beta testing of the newer releases and would be able to give a headsup if there are noticeable improvements to AI
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 14-04-2020 19:34
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
SotD wrote:
Which considerations have been done behind the scenes? One of the things that irritated me the most, was the short amount of time to react - I would be even more irritated if that happened again this season. So I kinda expect (sorry for sounding nonchellant) that some thoughts have been discussed behind the scenes.
Is everything open? Moving back to PCM 15? Imo is that not the way to go about it, even though I like that game much better. But we shouldn't move backwards once we have made a step forwards.
Will we stay at PCM 18? Will we move to PCM 19? And what is the thoughts behind it? I don't need a full on answer, but merely some input as to what is being discussed. IMO we are already on the backheel if we know nothing about what we want to do next season being 2/3 into the season with 2 GT's done and most classics.
So is we on ground zero, or are we discussing changes to the racecalender, stats/OVL changes or where are we?
The thing that is surely be changed IF we stay with PCM18 is that the hill stages would need and many already are for the future to be made hill prone!
Some classics here this season were clear hill rider races where also Di Maggio or Claeys had chances. Others clearly weren`t as climbers easily dominated against pure puncheurs. So the pure puncheur issue will be solved no matter what and is possible with changing stage profiles pretty little actually.
The sprinter issue is something that must be checked. Testing here will be needed but it could be possible to fix this as well by stage design. e.g. no corners in final 10 km and level 3-4 roads on every sprint stage.
So 2 main things for sure. Fixing the stages as they were planned to work with the H/M ratio as PCM18 changed this in some stages and trying to fix the sprinter stuff.
PCM19 always difficult as it`s just out then and probably not even all patches and impossible to say what it impacts at all then. Plus reporters would need to have it anyway of course.
Going back can be a possibility but not saying this is better as it had other AI issues as well that are actually fixed or improved with PCM18. |
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 15-04-2020 07:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
I still believe that we got some DB issues, If at some point we can agree what the true problems is.
Based on the assumption that most if not anyone with pre-season access to PCM18 did honestly think that it would be good for MG, we must assume that with a "normal" DB we would have a wonderful editions in our hands.
There might be some idea to look at punchers like Valgren, Sagan, Gilbert ect. in the "daily" DB, and how they compare to "our" top punchers.
Why do we get too many breakaway wins?, how do our "Vuelta" domestics (3 weaker riders/team), compare to a random "Daily DB vuelta" domestics.
What can we do in our developing system to make our DB develop in a direction that reflect "Pro Cycling Riders" and move away from a "PCM15 system" where you have top riders with very uneven skill-sets and domestic riders with amateur skill-set even at PT level.
Is our training system part of the problem, if yes can we make it better (se above)
As I see it, and this may not be correct as I haven't had time to dig deeper (did report a lot up to this point)
If we wan't to move forward (PCM2018+) we need to have an open mind, accepting that we need to make changes that will be IMPORTANT and will result it a completely new system with many changes. FLAT, MO, is now basic values and riders without those skills will be useless, other support skill is also more important that before to get a winner type rider but not too important to have a useful DB where a pack can compete with a 12-14 riders breakaway with some lower level GC riders.
The only way to do this is some sort of update to DB, changes in riders development, changes in traning, combined of course with better profiles, shorter flatter TT ?, better sprint stages", and maybe also some "new riders" thinking not sure as it could be in development changes.
It is easy to focus on top riders, who will relegate, how many points did puncher X lose compared to last year, how many points did X top sprinter lose ect, that is also important, but if we do not look at the core difference of the old game and the new game, I am afraid we will never find a fair DB that could make a better game out of MG also compared to previous years (PCM15 was far from perfect - just easy to forget with this many new issues)
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 15-04-2020 14:29
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
I fed both the ManGame DB and the current pcmdaily-DB into R (a data analysis program) and tried to plot a few things. Obviously, the 2020 DB is for PCM19, but it's the DB I had the easiest access to and this is just a quick experiment.
The Daily DB also has a stat matrix where no rider has any stat below 60, so keep that in mind as well. To offset the massive amount of lower-tier riders in the Daily DB, I excluded all riders who did not have a single stat of 72 or more.
If you look at for instance resistance over that entire sample, the two DBs don't seem all that different (1 is the ManGame DB, 2 the DailyDB):
But if you look at all riders who have at least one stat of at least 78 (those you would expect to fight for good results), the curves differ a lot:
Similar results when looking at the mountain stats, for instance. Over the entire sample, the distributions are pretty similar. But looking at riders who have at least 77 Hill and a higher hill than mountain stat (so, puncheurs), we have a pretty stark difference again:
Flat stats for riders with at least 78 Sprint is similar:
I guess this isn't new, maybe more of a solidification of what's been known already. But if you want any more specific info on riders with certain types of stat combinations or have ideas for stuff apart from density plots, I have the data readily available. I can also give anyone the R script that I used to process the data if they would like to try something for themselves.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 15-04-2020 14:40
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Very interesting stuff cunego. indeed, that seems to illustrate a lot of the problems we've seen.
One thing though. Do we think the problem with sprinters is low flat stat? Obviously I have no macro evidence, only anecdotal, but AKA with 77 flat should be somebody that benefited from such a scenario, yet he's been cracking in pure flat sprints just like everyone else, including guys with much lower flat.
I also appreciate alexkr00's analysis, which does show a wide variation, but nothing crazy. I'd like to see that kind of analysis for PCT and CT instead though, as that's where riders are generally less well rounded, and thus the terrain adjustments will probably be more pronounced. Again though, I'm just speculating.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 15-04-2020 14:53
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
The flat stat was maybe just one more illustration of how the ManGame DB has generally lower "secondary" stats than the Daily DB. But thinking about it, if you look at the shape of the curve, that graph probably underscores that Flat may not have that big of an impact simply because there's less variance within the ManGame DB as well (-> the curve is as high and as narrow as the Daily one, just a bit to the left). Resistance among sprinters on the other hand ...:
Keep in mind though that this is all just descriptive at this point, and those comparisons to the Daily DB may matter or they may not. It is possible that a DB has completely different properties but is internally still consistent and works (I guess, at least). But again, if some of you want any data points to add to the discussion, just let me know.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 15-04-2020 16:10
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Interesting, but its hard to get a full understanding if we compare the entire Daily DB V entire MG DB:
That was why i would like to see someone compare setup on race level MG V DailyDB (GT/LBL/SPRINTER RACE) rather that those huge samples focusing on the entire DB.
And of-course same could be done with HC/1.1 races (PCT) or even 2.2/2.1 races if we want to analyse on a CT level races.
I may attempt to do it myself, but as I am no mat. expert will prob. take me a while.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 19-04-2020 14:27
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Did a test with the MG startlist versus a random Daily startlist (Vuelta al PaÃs Vasco) could have been any stage race, but as we see the race as a puncher race took that one. (even in PCM Daily it turns out to be a mountain race with Froome and other climbers coming out as winners - simulated)
Anyway the startlist shows something about the riders in MG versus in PCM daily:
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 19-04-2020 15:47
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Simulate is always a bit or much different to 3D gaming.
So not really comparable to MG.
But I agree, for the H/M ratio in those kind of stages, it needs a stage fix, so that the automatic H/M ratio goes towards puncheurs, which was the case in couple of races but clearly not in all. |
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 19-04-2020 15:59
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
roturn wrote:
Simulate is always a bit or much different to 3D gaming.
Yes simulated just to get "rid" of the save, was looking for the riders distribution not the result.
Not as worried about the top riders actual, as they will change as managers learn to read the profiles, what worries me more is the "60 worst riders" as i guess that is the reason we see so many breakaways coming home.
Looks like the "standart " PCMdaily peloton has an avg climber skill 65-70, where as the MG peloton is about 60.
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 19-04-2020 20:27
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3264
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
A couple of thoughts:
Pais Vasco is not a race for puncherurs everyone of the last 10 winners was a GC type rider who would have a MT stat of at least 75. This is not a race that PhilGil or Gerrans is a favorite for. So it is very much a man game thing that riders with no MT ability should compete in this race. On true puncheur terrain like LBL they do fine as shown by Alex. I think adapting managment styles and softening the parcours should fix this as suggesed. Although not sure you can ever make a race in the Basque country look like an Ardennes classic so the MT stat will remain important
I think the break and sprint issues are more game issues. And I think they are related to the same game AI problem which is the break is too strong versus the peloton. The break riders always work together and draw away from the peloton when one attacks, while the peloton tends to stop and start which is the opposite of reality on a routine stage. Although breaks winning stages in GT is becoming more the norm, I did a quick count and I think the breaks won at least 1/3rd of the stagses in last year's grand tours.
I think you layer on some man game specifics as Tamijo raises - one dimensional riders and weak secondary stats and the problem gets worse. But not sure there is an easy fix to all that. Softening the parcours on sprint stages might help. But I do wonder if PCM19 or PCM20 will be more balanced - it seems like a fixable problem in the AI.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 19-04-2020 20:55
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
A couple of thoughts:
Pais Vasco is not a race for puncherurs everyone of the last 10 winners was a GC type rider who would have a MT stat of at least 75. This is not a race that PhilGil or Gerrans is a favorite for. So it is very much a man game thing that riders with no MT ability should compete in this race. On true puncheur terrain like LBL they do fine as shown by Alex. I think adapting managment styles and softening the parcours should fix this as suggesed. Although not sure you can ever make a race in the Basque country look like an Ardennes classic so the MT stat will remain important
I think the break and sprint issues are more game issues. And I think they are related to the same game AI problem which is the break is too strong versus the peloton. The break riders always work together and draw away from the peloton when one attacks, while the peloton tends to stop and start which is the opposite of reality on a routine stage. Although breaks winning stages in GT is becoming more the norm, I did a quick count and I think the breaks won at least 1/3rd of the stagses in last year's grand tours.
I think you layer on some man game specifics as Tamijo raises - one dimensional riders and weak secondary stats and the problem gets worse. But not sure there is an easy fix to all that. Softening the parcours on sprint stages might help. But I do wonder if PCM19 or PCM20 will be more balanced - it seems like a fixable problem in the AI.
While you are right that this is unique MG problem, I think comparing to real life is a false equivalence. The majority of the last decade, Pais Vasco included genuine mountain stages irl. Of course this means GC riders win.
I do agree that sprints seem to be the main problem and harder to fix through the markets and stage design. I wouldn't be opposed to see if 19 is better, but I am not optimistic.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 19-04-2020 22:16
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3264
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
While you are right that this is unique MG problem, I think comparing to real life is a false equivalence. The majority of the last decade, Pais Vasco included genuine mountain stages irl. Of course this means GC riders win.
According to the variant pack for the game there hasn't been a single MT rated stage in Pais Vasco from 2012 to 2018 - and glancing through the profiles I would agree with that. Instead they are the kind of "hilly" stages that have always favored MT type riders - mid-mountain stages 5-10 KM in length rather than 1-4 KM climbs you get in a race like LBL. So I think I would stand by my argument that if Pais Vasco was considered a race for puncheurs that was somewhat inaccurate given the nature of the typical parcours.
I would agree that treating Pais Vasco as a race for puncheurs makes sense for the man game in balance terms. In reality outside the Ardennes there really aren't top level races for these kind of riders - TDU but that has a weird slot and ENECO which nobody cares much about.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 22-04-2020 10:11
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Was thinking about writing a much longer rant but will make it kinda short:
1. At the start of the season, i felt like pcm18 would be game breaking for the MG due to being unable to handle puncheurs without great mountain stats. That was wrong as some of the following hilly classics have shown although they are weaker than in past seasons. However, we seem to see quite a lot of races where strong hilly riders are awfully far behind their stats which imo didnt happen quite as often in pcm15. In pcm15 the reports might not have been as entertaining with less attacks and such but the results were mostly good on hilly races which imo is much more important.
(2. Based on my own team only: Placing of depth riders seems to be hugely randomized. I've seen many times that the supposed 2nd best rider finished behind the 6th or 7th best rider)
3. We can see some of the advertised improvements over pcm15: More interesting/realistic start of stages + breakaway compositions. Riders like Stoltz attack on flat stages instead of mountain stages and we see more late attacks. More different combos of attackers instead of the same few couple of riders. Cobbled races are very entertaining. Generally, races seem to be more active which probably makes the races more interesting for reporters (?)
4. Sprint finishes are a desaster. We barely see any working leadout trains and the sprint results seem to be very random.
The results on hills and sprints look terrible to me. The more I see of the "mo/hi is linked to the effort", the more unlogical is it to me and while it might not be game breaking for most, it still takes a lot of fun out of the game for me and i see myself take longer breaks between commenting on races and skipping to the end of reports for the results than I ever have in past seasons.
so basically, from my POV,
... i dont care at all about TTs (i think they have too high of an impact in pcm18 but thats just my opinion and nothing based on facts. whether its realistic to lose as much time in a tt as seen e.g. in TdSwiss S2? no idea, i havent checked any RL results for TTs in a looong time)
... no clue about mountain AI. Seems to be alright imo but havent followed enough
... sprints are a desaster.
... hilly races work completely different than i think it should and the results look bad to me
... cobbles are good
Based on that i dont think i will ever get back to the activity/motivation levels of previous years as long as we stick to pcm18. No idea whether 19/20 will be any improvement but i would prefer going back to 15 since those things that i care about, work better there. The one thing that would stop me from disbanding if we stick to pcm18 for a longer time is that i want to see Lopez maxed on my team.
I can see myself as a bit of a special case because of my lack of interest in entire disciplins like TTs and as someone who never followed RL cycling closely but i dont think there is any kind of DB adjustments that solve the issues I have with this PCM version (while keeping the DB as interesting as it is).
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
