Kentaurus wrote:
So I do think with the issues for sprinters, in the best simply not being consistent, that goes for most disciplines actually, that is the fault of a stupidly overpower daily form mechanic... with how closely bunched top riders tend to be (15+ riders) within 2-3 of the primary stat, this will be expected.
Lets say you have a rider with 79 as their primary stat on a +3 day. He will have better ratings than a rider with an 82 primary stat on a 0 form day or worse. This IMO is the biggest thing I hated about the recent games, and the inability of the modders to do anything about it. I don't mind some fluctuation in daily form, but the ratings changes given are just horribly out of proportion.
Even worse, we have no ability to turn this mechanic off either.
Id say thats the main issue, more so than the db. And they way daily form works is that worst stats have the biggest hit and that makes a lot of riders quite useless with our stat matrix
alexkr00 wrote:
Maybe a testing scenario could also be to take a regular team instead of the control team, leave it on the preconfigured scenario and see exactly what the type of riders are losing energy there. Or even in the sprints, for example control Festina and see exactly what is happening with Coquard's energy. On this one, I agree with SotD, whatever happens with Coquard is very strange, sprint trains, hills, corners and whatnot included.
That doesn't work properly as AI behaves different even if you just make use your team as a "control team" as far as I know. I think there had been tests about this and you could see that in the same set-up a different rider was protect when the AI controlled your team vs. when the AI controls that team and it isn't yours.
SotD wrote:
In terms of the argument that hilly results is equally bad I disagree. The best puncheurs perform the best. maybe not the same riders as ‘15 necessarily but the ones having the best stats for this game. When Bobridge fail to perform it’s easy to track back, that it is because og low MO. Those trackbacks I simply can’t find in sprints.
That's true as well. I was just referring to the fact, that puncheurs, who was supposed to do well (before I knew the MO stat is so important now), do a s**t in stage races. Obviously, I know by know, that Bobridge became a useless 700k rider because of his 69 MO, yes. As for sprints, it's different indeed. Guess after the TT randomness, Cyanide invented the sprint randomness and next year, it's the climbers, too
Hehe probably so...
If only he was trainable then you would know what to do with him. I guess you'll just have to use him more as a TT'er in the future than a puncheur though.
PCM18 sprinting is all about the timing. Every sprint is different, what is different about 18 is that it's easier to burn out earlier, sprint strategy is above sprint power, and when it's equal energy at start of the sprint sprint power is obviously going to win.
Momentum and splitstream make a difference sprinting in 18 whilst in 15 it wasn't even a factor, that's why you get more "random" results. This should've been mentioned in the begining of the discussion, would've made it more clearer, it's not the daily form that makes these unexpected results.
So I appreciate the amount of time it took for Tamijo to do those tests. But I just don't think you can draw any conclusions about whether the best rider wins a "fair" amount of time. I pulled the stats for the 10 rider SotD analyzed and calculated two overall scores FL+RS+SP+AC and then weighted giving FL and RS 10%, SP 50% and AC 30%. The table looks like this with the % reflecting the advantage of the rider over the worst in the bunch (Cavendish in both cases).
Total
% Above Min
Weighted
% Above Min
Boeckmans
308
1.3%
319
0.8%
Swift
310
2.0%
324
2.3%
Kennaugh
311
2.3%
320
1.1%
Degenkolb
312
2.6%
324
2.3%
Cavendish
304
0.0%
317
0.0%
Ahlstrand
312
2.6%
323
2.0%
Grosu
306
0.7%
319
0.8%
Coquard
314
3.3%
326
3.0%
Ewan
310
2.0%
322
1.5%
Silvestre
310
2.0%
317
0.0%
Min
304
317
So the gap between the best rider and the worst is 3% and you have 8 other riders in between plus daily form. Then you have two other factors: lead outs and positioning. I think you would need a lot more than 20 tests (and they were different parcours - so n is really smaller) to draw a statistically significant conclusion. If the test was just Coquard vs Cavendish it would be more meaningful - and I bet Coquard would come out on top.
I don't buy the parallel to GC rider, sprints will always be more variable. MT climbs are determined over KMs and measured in minutes it is a much more statistically robust test than a sprint. If someone said I will give you a chance to win $100 if a rider can win 10 straight stages built to his liking, you choose the rider and the stage I think everyone of us would pick Froome on Mon Ventoux over Kittel on the Champs (doping jokes aside).
On the question of why Ewan disappeared - my bet is positioning, every stage with more than 4 or 5 sprinters some of them flop because they are never in it. The game gives preference to the favorites. I believe the favorites are not always exactly the same, which is good because it means a sprinter with a marginal advantage doesn't always get preferential treatment. So my guess is Ewan got unlucky on the favorites list in test 3.
Also whether that late hill effects the race has to do with positioning - riders with unfavorable positions will be further back more likely to be gapped and have to use more energy recovering. I good rider behind the split will suffer versus a bad rider ahead of the split. I don't like late hills in pure sprint stages because it cuts out lead out riders who tend to have bad positioning.
My argument would be that if better sprinters won more in PCM15 that was because the game gave unfairly large advantages to marginally better sprinters. A flaw which played well in the Man Game db with its many similar sprinters.
I am more interested in how often Tamijo got good lead outs, if he got them in most stages then I think we can use this as a model for stage design. The stat I would want to know is the win rate among riders with the lead out vs those without.
While I appreciate Croatia's focus on lead out design I also think we lack evidence to support that. It is even more of a statistical challenge than the earlier one. Also I am pretty sure it doesn't matter in at least 50% of current sprint stages because there are no lead outs.
Yeah the margin is slim - but so is it for every other type of rider too and there you don't see the randomness.
If you setup the top 8 TT'ers, puncheurs, climbers (probably not cobblers) you would see a similar difference. So why is there a huge difference between Taaramae and Morton when the difference isn't similar between Coquard and one of the above (with worse stats)?
I get your point of distance, but it just doesn't explain why it wasn't the same in the past then.
This is kind of off topic, but it's a general response to an attitude on here that a bunch of people have, and I just don't understand. It's the end of the day, so I'm gonna rant a bit.
Let's assume PCM 18 is the clearly superior game, everything is more realistic, and PCM 15 was utterly broken in terms of being a realistic simulation of professional cycling.
Why does that matter at all for MG? Whether a game or part of the game is realistic to real life or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it is good for the MG. They may be correlated at times, but they are entirely independent factors.
Surely there are many aspects of the new game that are objectively more realistic. Sprints may be more based on positioning and momentum in real life than they were in game. Climbing versatility may be based on effort and not some arbitrary coefficient like it was. And surely in many cases AI problems are the fault of our extremely inflated, unbalanced, and unrealistic database. But so what? Why should be blame our system and let it be worse for us instead of catering the game to it, even if it means ignoring realism?
The MG never has and never will be about realism. As managers, we cannot control in race strategy at all, which limits how we can effectively deal with the intricacies of actual cycling. All we can control is who we sign and who we race.
Therefore, it's imperative that we put as much control into the hands of the managers as possible. People need to be assured that having a better rider or a better team of support is at least increasing their chances of success enough to make it worth financial investment. When having a worse rider or team (sprint train for instance) is equal to or better than having the superior one, the entire system breaks down. Even if with our matrix that result make sense in terms of realism. It doesn't matter if the AI that causes that is actually more realistic, because it undermines how the market works and thus how our entire game works.
I know PCM 15 wasn't perfect, and I'm not denying that there are certain aspects of PCM 18 that are definitely better for the MG. But dismissing how the MG has been negatively affected by AI changes because they're actually realistic, just doesn't make any sense to me in the frame of what we're here to do.
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not interested in realistic cycling. I don't care about it at all. I'm interested in making the management game, from transfers to standings, work well.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
The attitude of defending PCM18 might have something to do with the if we don't go back to PCM15 I'm quitting the game attitude. Or at least in my case it does.
I'm fine with either option, but I'd prefer if we stick with PCM18 instead of going back. And here's why.
No, MG is not about realistic racing, but it is about entertaining racing. Otherwise why do we even bother playing the stages, people wasting time to crop images, write detailed reports if in the end all we care about is the rider with the the highest stat crossing the line first. Why not just go x8 through the race, export the result, post it and be done with it.
So why not try to play it on a superior game and adapt to the changes now that we will actually have a full season of ManGame on this version and we know what to expect better. The game is not broken as you try to make it seem. There are some riders that underperform or overperform compared to PCM15, but the core riders are still doing pretty much what it's expected from them. Even in the randomness of sprints, there are riders who have been consistent throughout the season.
If we go back to PCM15 we might have to stick to it forever since I think newer versions of the game will be more similar to the '18 version than the '15. And sticking with a game for too long might even become an issue in terms of race variants since there can't be that many Grand Tour variants for example with stage creators changing their focus to newer games.
The Management game has been about adaptability. Rules have changed, game versions have changed, managers have adapted and this is how I think it should be now too.
Let's assume PCM 18 is the clearly superior game, everything is more realistic, and PCM 15 was utterly broken in terms of being a realistic simulation of professional cycling.
Why does that matter at all for MG? Whether a game or part of the game is realistic to real life or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it is good for the MG. They may be correlated at times, but they are entirely independent factors.
I absolutely understand and agree with this. But it where it gets messy is the need to be differentiate things that are broken with the AI and things that don't work for the MG. Otherwise I think it is very hard to make good choices about what to try and fix in the MG structure and what to blame on the game.
So I have stayed quiet all this time about this discussion but certain things that have been said have been bothering me a bit.
Like Alex said in his last comment, the attitude of those who defend PCM18 is probably the way it is, is because of the attitude we've seen almost since the start of the season for those who believe it is an MG-breaking game.
I was a huge proponent of moving to PCM 18, simply because it is a better game. It has more realistic AI, and truth be told, most people here have agreed that the racing has been far more entertaining, leaving aside the discussion on sprints.
Is one discipline enough of a factor to negate the good that the game provides on all other disciplines? I don't think so.
It has been agreed here that sprint stages will be looked at for the coming seasons. It has also been said that certain cobbled stages also need to be looked at because hard cobbles have broken the GC fight for non cobbles riders in what have historically been more 'open' races. The admins have already said they'll look into this and I think the stage makers are already looking at fixing the stage design issues encountered this year.
I don't buy the argument of not sticking to PCM 18 simply because it does not suit a some managers' team building mantra. I have been one of the worst hit in terms of the new game, despite being a big fan of it myself. Neither Kelderman nor Saber have lived up to their exploits in PCM 15, and that will probably result in relegation. If a decision to move back to PCM 15 is taken now, doesn't that hurt me unequally? Why should I accept a decision to lose 2 seasons of team-building, possibly more, because of two game changes? I'm sure that with the team I currently have, based on historical results, I wouldn't get relegated if this season was played in PCM 15.
Over this season, we have learnt that the Hill stat does not work in the same way anymore, but this is affecting the stage races only as far as I've followed the season. In the classics, it is still the best punchers who win a race like Strade Bianche. So can't we just lower their average, thereby reducing their wage demands and sale price and lower their 'worth' in the game in this way?
I am the only person in the whole forum who started a Story Game based on PCM 18, even before the MG moved, and that is still the only Story Game based on PCM 18 other than MG. That game uses a standard DB, and the results are for all to see. The MG DB poses a problem to all games, and it sure as hell did so to PCM 15!
Why not just learn from this season, and adapt ourselves for next one, and trust the admins to look into all the background stuff? Having the best always win, or even always finish on the podium would be boring for the rest of us right?
If I am considered one of those bringing toxic to the topic I truly apologize, that is by all means not my means of approach. I merely try to figure out how the game works, and how we can tweak certain aspects of the game were big groups of riders are hurt in what I would call uninteresting ways - for the game that is. Obviously my main focus is on the riders I have as those are the ones I know the most about - both in terms of the current season and the past. Therefor I also know quite a bit about their usual rivalries which imo is a very good thing!
I have already contributed to the idea of definately NOT moving back to the previous game as that is the wrong way of going about it. If the game was completely broken and majority of the riders were performing unlike usual, then yes we should definately consider it, but that is not the case. I heavily dislike the sprinting setup, but this will have to be manipulated the way possible, not by scrapping the game. The points about "trust the admins to fix things" I don't quite understand. They are asking for our input every season. The more input the have the better sample size they have to interpret what is healthy for the game and what isn't.
So when I write inhere it's definately not to kick out at anyone - and I'm truly sorry if that is how it's interpreted. Obviously not knowing who means what and who to refer to I'll have to assume I'm one of those not bringing enough positivism to the plate. This was actually the main reason for me to have a sudden hault in following the game, as I felt like I only contributed in a negative manor. If that is still the perception of the fellow Man-Game managers I really need you to let me know, because I will absolutely move on to other things if that is the case. Certain managers have caught my eye whilst being away as very negative for the game, abruptly stopping all positive commenting on race scenarios and other perspectives. I truly don't want to be in that boat again myself as I definately have been for the past couple of years despite having not exactly have the game work against me. This season is somewhat different as my key rider isn't functioning the way they used to, and the overall behavior of the riders is skewed - from my point of view. But regardless of that I'm way more interested in figuring out how we can balance things a bit more in the upcoming season than I am in throwing tantrums about the game as an entirety.
So a heartfelt "I'm sorry" if I am indeed one of those, that keep you guys away from making suggestions!
Just a Croatia points out, this do not or at least no longer contribute to anything usefull - so I will also stop posting here, as seen from my above post almost have a feeling that I'm for some reason the "focus" of everything bad some can find in PCM18.
Just a last statement directly to SotD, I'm quite sure you are no one of those toxic managers Croatia was aiming at, you comments are well argumentet and always seem to look for improvement rather than random negativity.
It's quite obvious that I'm one of the toxic managers due to my difference of opinions and attitude. I'm not really sure what I've done to deserve this. My initial post here might have been hyperbolic, but my goal was to generate a meaningful response so we could have this discussion more fully and openly. I'm not meaning to be "toxic" and be uncivil. I was just trying to vent and say my piece, as I stated at the beginning of my last post.
It's no secret that the majority of my activity has been negative this year, besides thanking our amazing reporters and congratulating victors. What else am I supposed to do? I follow this game as closely as anyone. I see my team doing horribly, partly because of my own terrible decisions and partly because of things out of my control. Am I supposed to respond with endless positivity? I respect those like Abhishek who can take those kinds of things in stride, but for me, if I'm not earnest in my reactions and thoughts, what's the point of being active in the race discussions at all?
If admins have a problem with my forum behavior, please just tell me directly instead of being passive-aggressive. I'm a grown man now and I can handle it. I love this forum and my goal is to contribute, not cause problems.
Edit: Since the discussion seems to be ending, I will just at that Ulrich makes a very good point, and that indeed is why we need more scientific testing.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Ok, to set a few things straight. First of all, I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone personally but I think my post was more a outburst of all the negative things that I've read about the people who tested the game in the off season and have since been called a lot of names, including liars. I know the 7-8 people who did so and they're as much in love with the game as all the other managers.
Next, my post was also not meant to stop the discussion in this thread. Without this discussion, we wouldn't be coming up with the solutions that we have and I'm sure some of them will be useful for the admins as well. Rest assured, there's also a thread in the reporters forum where the active reporters share any possible problems or inconsistencies with stage design and AI and there are stage designers who are already taking steps to correct them.
My only request is to please not become determined to go back to PCM 15 at any cost, without first trying to solve the problems of PCM 18. Because like Alex said, going back to 15 would probably mean never moving to any new game in the future as the game makers seem determined to continue with PCM 18 kind of gameplay for future editions.
Moving back to PCM15 would spell the death of MG as far I am concerned, that would be a ridiculously stupid decision. I am sure once we reach the offseason things will settle down cause my assumption is that market abd training is gonna shift a lot now that most people can see how pcm18 behaves
Edit: what I meant is that the offseason should be very exciting with everyone scrambling to actually figure out what they need
baseballlover312 wrote:
Edit: Since the discussion seems to be ending, I will just at that Ulrich makes a very good point, and that indeed is why we need more scientific testing.
I'm currently testing a few scenarios with Tamijo's test stage. Gonna take a few more hours, but hopefully something useful will come out of it.
If this was toxic i hate to think what y'all think of the rest of the internet...
My annoyance comes from not being properly informed on the differences between PCM15 and PCM18. When these questions were asked during last season, and during the off-season, the response was always (in relation to flat and sprints): MO is a more important stat, but things work the same and the AI is better.
Things do not work the same. The AI is, at best, on-par with 15. And my shift to focus hard on sprinting was, as a result, not a great idea.
Not being willing to accept some mistakes were made will only cause more problems for the game going forwards.
OVL and Wage demands need a recalculation. Points Jerseys in GT's need a rework. And above all, we have to do something serious and meaningful about stat inflation.
If we can tackle inflation, more than half of the AI problems would dissapear because the game could work things out properly. And i've been saying this for years! Such protection of the games history is killing it's future, and we have to be more aggressive about it.
The silver lining for me, is that A) i knew my team was screwed anyway, B) back in the PCT i get more race selection freedom next season, and C) i planned for relegation into transfers to leave so much cap space clear.
I just don't want to end up having the same discussions about inflation for another 3 years on PCM20.
Now i'll happily make my suggestions for stat inflation again, are]n't that hard to find in the previous few Suggestions threads
Oh, and bring back crashes!
baseballlover312 wrote:
It's quite obvious that I'm one of the toxic managers due to my difference of opinions and attitude. I'm not really sure what I've done to deserve this.
It's not the difference of opinions. It's about the attitude and you are the one who opened the discussion about it.
I actually like you as a manager and a member of the forum quite a lot. I like the way you build your team with a nationality focus and I'd be sad to see you withdrawing from the game because of the changes in game play instead of trying to adapt to them.
I understand that following the season when your team is highly affected is not fun at all but implying that you are going to leave the game if we don't go back to PCM15 feels like blackmail to me and I do not like it (this is not addressed specifically to you. There are some other managers who have implied this as well).
I dislike your attitude about this because you seem to be stuck with the idea that going back to PCM15 is the only solution and it's the only thing you are willing to accept. You are quick to jump to possible explanations of what might be breaking the game in one way or another, while seeming to ignore the possible solutions.
You've claimed "It hasn't knocked a few riders down a notch, it's taken half the leaders in the DB out of the equation completely". This is simply not true and you are trying to make things deliberately worse than they are because you do not like the way the new game plays out.
You said you are interested in making the game work well from transfers to standing. Standings working well is quite subjective here. Because you take the rankings of PCM15 as those of working well. PCM18 produces different results than PCM15 in certain scenarios, just like PCM15 produced different results compared to its predecessors. Why should we take the results of PCM15 as the correct ones?
As far as I'm concerned this season would be the worse in this aspect since no one really knew what to expect. And going back to PCM15 would not only stuck us in a repetitive loop, but it would also deem this season as basically worthless with nothing productive coming out of it. Now we know more about what we can expect from the game and everyone has the chance to adjust in the off-season accordingly.
Let's calm down a bit, obviously the Corona lockdown is getting on everyone's nerves (noticed it myself yesterday) and we're all reacting a bit harsher than we usualy do.
We all want the same thing in the end, a fun and working game. Of course it's frustrating Cyanide hasn't been able to do that since probably 2011 or maybe 2014. Still we should try to get it as good as possible and some tough choices will have to be made. Some people will be unhappy, but it's either that or ending the MG all together.
If people feel so unhappy that they feel like quitting, you know how important it is to them. Still, I hope everyone is willing to support whatever is decided and there's no need for negativity while it's still undecided.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
