|
ICL20 - General | Scouting | Development
|
| AbhishekLFC |
Posted on 19-11-2020 04:32
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11675
Joined: 27-07-2015
PCM$: 1861.50
|
Ripley wrote:
What I was thinking of is a spin-off of the restricted FA idea proposed earlier (knockout I think) wherein managers make riders available that they are sure they do not want to keep for the coming season and have other managers bid a premium on them.
I'm not quite sure how this works. I get a bonus for a rider I wanted to sack?
Not sack but otherwise might not release to FA but extend and then sell, thus limiting the actual FA market. This way, the rider is made available to all teams to bid on just like if he was an FA, and the selling team gets a compensation for not renewing and selling.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 19-11-2020 06:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Don't really see the benefit in combining those two system as proposed. Imho you renew or you don't. Having managers place a second bid on certain riders seems to be a side track and represents a more restricted version of transfers (taking the liberty of negotiation away).
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Ripley |
Posted on 19-11-2020 07:47
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3341
Joined: 25-11-2014
PCM$: 300.00
|
So the overall benefit of Abhishek's idea would be more transfers (under a different name). But I have an example where this idea is probably too generous: Fuglsang. He's dropped to AVG 74.4, but he'd still make a nice super domestique for another year for his new min wage. But since he comes off a high wage, he'll ask too much from me and I have to sack him. With this proposal I might get a bit of money out of him and if nobody is interested I should get to keep him for his min wage - he didn't score enough to demand more, but the problem of the old wage vanished. Maybe a rare example, I don't know.
As for steal compensation, it would at least require a new column in the db... seems easier just to get rid of them, especially since a few managers are strongly against them. Having said that, I'm still ambivalent. It is an extra step, an extra bit of depth to the game. For a "stealer" it does limit the problem jandal talked about, it's sort of an extra FA round. Had I not been able to steal Majka the first FA round would have been a nightmare. Ok, now I have an "established" WT team and don't need to do anything drastic and so I can join the other side of the argument and say get rid of steals. But maybe that's being a bit unfair. In any case, it's that "extra round" which makes steals interesting to me and if we can find a different solution to the "jandal problem" then we can really bury them.
I'll also comment on knockout's idea 2b, though first: Come on, knockout, please return to the fold! You have a great team and in the past have written great comments in the teams thread, etc. As for the idea, it is really radical. Everybody starts from scratch every season. No more super domestiques on the min wage, anybody who's at least good enough for a CT leadership will earn a captain's wage. Even with a loyalty discount for the former team's "buy-back option" it can get very expensive. Plus it will be next to impossible to plan financially, you just never know how high the bids will go. Definitely very exciting, probably heart breaking. But I can also see it just keeping the established order at the point it's introduced, the teams with the biggest budgets will always have the best squads. In the current system there is a complacency factor (and when a croatia14 comes around he can upend it all).
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 19-11-2020 11:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
On another side, what speaks clearly against steals: The FA market will be huge this season with several teams surely disbanding and cash is already taken out of his existing teams by (probably?) tougher negotiations. So maybe there is really no need for steals to begin with when guys like Herklotz, Kittel and Sagan are available on the market.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 03:56
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 19-11-2020 11:28
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
jandal7 wrote:
I really hate how the FA system can work sometimes when you get screwed by going overbudget when the odds of you actually winning all those riders was quite small so your strategy wasn't really wrong.
Well I like you but seeing how two guys pulled off the same strategy that season and both failed so hard they needed to be bailed out by bikex, it's hard to argue that the strategy wasn't anything but wrong 
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 19-11-2020 11:38
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Sagan is on the market???
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| AbhishekLFC |
Posted on 19-11-2020 12:04
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11675
Joined: 27-07-2015
PCM$: 1861.50
|
Shonak wrote:
Don't really see the benefit in combining those two system as proposed. Imho you renew or you don't. Having managers place a second bid on certain riders seems to be a side track and represents a more restricted version of transfers (taking the liberty of negotiation away).
With many managers already putting up riders for sale, everyone knows the early options available on the market, and might be more inclined to let one of their stars or super-doms go to try to get one of the available riders in the restricted FA. This round should basically replace steals, so it's the first thing that happens, even before renewals.
I had already said before that the transfers as they are now should also stay, to allow negotiations.
Ripley wrote:
So the overall benefit of Abhishek's idea would be more transfers (under a different name). But I have an example where this idea is probably too generous: Fuglsang. He's dropped to AVG 74.4, but he'd still make a nice super domestique for another year for his new min wage. But since he comes off a high wage, he'll ask too much from me and I have to sack him. With this proposal I might get a bit of money out of him and if nobody is interested I should get to keep him for his min wage - he didn't score enough to demand more, but the problem of the old wage vanished. Maybe a rare example, I don't know.
Well, not exactly what I had in mind.
The idea is that the rider, once transferred to a new team, will still have a contract negotiation, but if there is no bid, there will be a contract negotiation with the old team as well, so you don't exactly get to keep the rider for min wage. The situation without a bid would be the same as if you never put up the rider for sale at all in restricted FA.
|
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 19-11-2020 19:56
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
Shonak wrote:
jandal7 wrote:
I really hate how the FA system can work sometimes when you get screwed by going overbudget when the odds of you actually winning all those riders was quite small so your strategy wasn't really wrong.
Well I like you but seeing how two guys pulled off the same strategy that season and both failed so hard they needed to be bailed out by bikex, it's hard to argue that the strategy wasn't anything but wrong
You're right I guess in regards to my situation with the two leaders in 2018, fair hit  However I still think it's right when you talk about other situations even if that particular one was my fault, but now others have argued for that system I appreciate there are still strategies with more nuance that work fine, and it's whoever's fault for not adapting to the system more than the system's fault 
Spoiler I should probably just stay out of any discussion that could end up back at my WT season, I guess I am still unable to say that there was no element of bad luck and it was all my fault 
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT]  Xero Racing
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
|
| Ripley |
Posted on 19-11-2020 21:43
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3341
Joined: 25-11-2014
PCM$: 300.00
|
Shonak wrote:
On another side, what speaks clearly against steals: The FA market will be huge this season with several teams surely disbanding and cash is already taken out of his existing teams by (probably?) tougher negotiations. So maybe there is really no need for steals to begin with when guys like Herklotz, Kittel and Sagan are available on the market.
True.
|
| |
|
|
| df_Trek |
Posted on 19-11-2020 21:59
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2324
Joined: 07-07-2016
PCM$: 17374.00
|
it's so funny to have Herklotz compared to Kittel and Sagan as top class riders
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 20-11-2020 01:12
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3262
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
One more thought on dynamism (think that is the word we want) - I understand people want to be able to protect riders they develop. But if you make that too strong there is no risk in that strategy - long term success becomes about signing as many good young riders as you can and waiting (Except for disbanding, but not sure relying on that for dynamism is great).
So maybe there needs to be risk in development - you could have a "professionalism" rating and if the rider fails a test you get less/no development that year.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 20-11-2020 01:17
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
So maybe there needs to be risk in development - you could have a "professionalism" rating and if the rider fails a test you get less/no development that year.
Could work with my rider personalities idea which introduces dynamism both within teams and between teams with riders acting differently, so long as it is at least somewhat a known quantity for each rider. Again it's probably a lot of work to implement and get right but could help give that "dynamism" we so long for.
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT] Xero Racing
5x x5
2x x2
2x x2 |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 20-11-2020 12:08
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Isn't it enough already that we don't know the full potential of riders? It is much less predictable already than the Man Game in this regard where one formula fits all, I don't understand why we should put additional hurdles into rider development.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 20-11-2020 13:09
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
All in all, I think ICL is a great game as it is and major changes would have too much risk to make things worse. So I would keep it to minor changes.
Minor changes is what we had all the years before but it didn't really fix the real flaws of the system but only countered some of the effects. So, I think a new system is needed at some point that is thought through and has no features that (rightfully) anger a handful of managers, because they deem them unfair.
However, I think it's probably too late to implement something completely new this season, so the best way to have it this year is probably to keep the old system but remove steals. The demanded wages will be calculated by a new formula that rates captains and good talents higher. The min wage for domestiques will be reduced. Also the way free agent negotiations go will be changed a little bit, so that it becomes less likely that someone miss out completely on his targets or signs riders for 20k combined.
We'll see how it works and for long term there have been some great ideas proposed which will be considered. Something like rider personalities could definitely be included. Maybe also something some more things that can be negotiated during transfers like role in team, some specific agreements about race planning, ...
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
Love this, huge potential and what you already have done is great. Interested in what application you are using to generate/support this?
The web app is made with react and hosted in google firebase. For getting some old results I have a web crawler written in python and some scripts to process the data. |
| |
|
|
| OZrocker |
Posted on 21-11-2020 06:46
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1280
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Hey guys, long time no see
I have only skim-read through most of the suggestions so far, but I'll leave a couple of opinions here.
I think steals should stay, but each team should be limited to a maximum amount of steal attempts per season (I'm thinking 2 as a maximum). Riders who are retained as part of this system cannot be transferred. Compensation for stolen riders is a good idea though, maybe the ICL awards the team who loses a rider some extra money, part of which is paid by the successful stealing team. (e.g. old team receives 500 extra budget, the new team loses 250 from their budget).
Loyalty bonuses are a good thing and I don't think teams should be punished for having a rider for more than 3 seasons (I might be a bit biased here, for obvious reasons). The leadership/role idea is interesting though, so perhaps if a rider is under-performing or only the third strongest sprinter/GC rider in their team they may want to move elsewhere for more opportunity.
One possible idea: let's have transfers finish before renewals are complete. This means that teams can still make deals to secure a rider from another team, but managers won't "hoard" riders and renew them just to get a transfer fee. Final renewals and FA signings will take place after the end of transfer season, and any rider who is not renewed will be available in the FA rounds.
FA - the old system worked well and this season's one was ok too. The big problem as some people mentioned is that teams would get into debt by getting more riders than they intended to. I think that if a team goes over budget (either into debt or with less than enough money to complete their squad) they should be able to retract their offer to one of the riders they signed in the FA round. This is could be a bit complex to understand, so I'll give an example in the spoiler.
Spoiler Let's say I have 1350 budget left and needed 6 riders to complete my squad. I place bids on 5 riders, and 4 are successful.
My remaining budget is now 60, and I still need two riders. With the minimum wage of 100, I can't afford to complete my team. To get back within budget, I must lose at least one of the riders I just successfully bid on.
| Rider A 720 | | Rider B 290 | | Rider C 150 | | Rider D 130 |
By releasing either Rider A or B, I can get back within budget. Rider B is released and goes to the team with the next highest offer. My team can now be completed as I have 350 budget to sign 3 riders, and the team with the second best offer gets rewarded.
Either way, glad to see ICL is going as strong as ever and I'll gladly be back for the 2020 season!
Edited by OZrocker on 21-11-2020 06:57
|
| |
|
|
| Ripley |
Posted on 21-11-2020 09:01
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3341
Joined: 25-11-2014
PCM$: 300.00
|
Don't forgot to sign up for the new season, OZ!
Your idea about transfers sound similar to what Abhishek proposed. But if you do transfers before renewals, nobody would have to sack a good rider to stay inside their budget (or have budget room for new FAs). Also, what will the wage demand be? Don't you have to have renewals before transfers?
|
| |
|
|
| OZrocker |
Posted on 21-11-2020 12:12
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1280
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Yeah, looking back my idea is fairly similar to Abhishek's.
The way how it would work is you have an initial round of steals, which works similar to the current first round of renewals. Only those riders who have a steal offer are included, you don't have to renew any other riders yet which means teams still have budget space. If a team pays too much to keep their leaders or to steal another team's leader, they will not have much money left afterwards and they will likely have to lose some of their other valuable riders.
The other option which I am leaning towards is that you can also renew riders in this first round as well, but any riders renewed are not allowed to be sold/swapped later.
Next, there are transfers, which work as they have in the past. Riders who move teams will have their new wages based on what they requested at renewals, but may be slightly higher (if they previously had a loyalty discount) or lower (if they wanted to leave their original team). At the end of transfers, these riders go through renewals along with the other contracted riders who haven't been signed yet. If a new contract cannot be agreed, they go to FA.
I don't think I explained that well, but hopefully it made some sense
(Slightly off-topic - I'm trying to relate ICL transfers to some of the fairer-seeming rules which I've seen in professional sport. The best systems would allow player movement but not result in the same few teams always being at the top.)
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 06-12-2020 18:04
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Before starting the renewals I still want to get some opinions on the new min wages. I came up with a formula that would result in these new min wages:
| AVG | Old | New | | 70 | 100 | 100 | | 70,5 | 100 | 100 | | 71 | 100 | 100 | | 71,5 | 100 | 100 | | 72 | 110 | 100 | | 72,5 | 140 | 110 | | 73 | 160 | 120 | | 73,5 | 190 | 140 | | 74 | 220 | 160 | | 74,5 | 250 | 190 | | 75 | 280 | 220 | | 75,5 | 310 | 260 | | 76 | 350 | 300 | | 76,5 | 380 | 350 | | 77 | 420 | 390 | | 77,5 | 460 | 440 | | 78 | 500 | 500 | | 78,5 | 540 | 560 | | 79 | 580 | 620 | | 79,5 | 620 | 680 | | 80 | 670 | 750 | | 80,5 | 710 | 820 | | 81 | 750 | 900 | | 81,5 | 800 | 970 | | 82 | 840 | 1050 |
Do you think it is good or have any other suggestions? |
| |
|
|
| df_Trek |
Posted on 06-12-2020 18:16
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2324
Joined: 07-07-2016
PCM$: 17374.00
|
seems this isn't a regular hyperbolic curve, why sometimes the increasing of wage at high AVGs is lesser than lower AVGs?
anyway new formula looks better
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 06-12-2020 18:29
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
That's probably due to rounding the result of the formula to the next increment of 10 |
| |
|
