roturn wrote:
Plus the last 2-3-4 years the added talents were smaller and weaker than 5-6-7 years ago. So as you say, the working against has already started and will soon start to show as most top riders already started to decline and continue to do so.
I agree. We didn't get to this point in a couple years and we won't move past it that quickly also, but things are going to get better in a "natural" way.
I don't have a problem if we retired or decreased some riders, but we can't simply do it on a whim. We could decrease every maxed rider, if he spent a year without a team and then retire some riders sooner depending on age. It could be a good way to clean up the DB a bit faster.
Reducing stats of an FA can cause a mass exodus from the ManGame - it will basically force teams to either A) Keep players that are in-between (i.e. to re-sign or release them) on overpayment which makes them hard to sell (I know this first hand as I've barely sold anyone for 4 transfer seasons) or B) Having them deplete their entire budget on buying somewhat overpriced riders. This will also make any new teams weaker and less competitive since their primary source will be in the free agent market. This also in turn doesn't help promoted teams from staying afloat.
And I think the reason why guys like Preidler perform so bad that riders with similar stats is due to how the supporting cast is constructed. If you check riders with similar stats, you'd notice that the wages are similar.
I'd like to propose a minimal accpeted by the rider wage during renewals.
ivaneurope wrote:
And what do you propose then? Forcing teams to be locked in cap hell with riders that they can't sell? Or paying ludacrous fees to get one rider?
Do you really not see how making all FAs worse will make selling easier?
ivaneurope wrote:
And what do you propose then? Forcing teams to be locked in cap hell with riders that they can't sell? Or paying ludacrous fees to get one rider?
Do you really not see how making all FAs worse will make selling easier?
Actually nothing will change IMO - some riders will still be overvalued in terms of transfer fee and there will be still decent free agents with similar stats out there which will be cheaper anyway despite slightly regressed stats since signing a free agent only uses the cap portion of the budget. And maybe I view this from the perspective of me being net buyer than net seller, becuase most of my riders don't have any re-sell value to begin with. I haven't sold a rider in my entire history in the ManGame that only involves a transfer fee (every outgoing rider transaction has another rider in exchange to lower the fee).
valverde321 wrote:
This is quite a lot like what I was suggesting, but better illustrated. Each team can keep their core more or less unchanged, so nobody should really be too unhappy. The issue with the db, is as BBL suggests. We are getting more and more riders into the 79+ range, and while the 82+ range might be dying down, the sub-leader is just getting more and more diluted. This problem with the current game engine of PCM 18 is actually going to make results even more random if things aren't changed. I think the implementation of lower limits for talents will slowly help to fix things at the PT level, but at PCT and CT, things may end up even more random, if teams are full of rider in the 75-79 range at low wages. I am almost certain that AI sends riders on good daily form into the breakaway, meaning a 75 rider could actually be just as strong as the leaders in PCT on a given day. This can be realistic on a mountain stage of a GT to happen a few times a race, but every single day, it makes sense why the break is almost never getting caught.
With the way transfers works, if there are 60+ riders with 79/80+ in a stat, the "figthing" over one specific rider is not as intense, so every team can fill their team with several of these riders. If there were only 20 79/80+ riders in a given stat, the fight would be tougher, and the depth of all teams would probably be affected, leading to teams being weaker in general. With race days and such being limited, races wouldn't see as many strong riders in them, and the racing would improve as a result.
To give an example, using Organizational structure:
PCM works best when there is a tall structure, with One top leader, maybe one or two co-leader/ free element riders, and the rest more or less in the low 70's for stats on a team (in a given race). This ensures the most realistic results. If we use the flat structure, with teams full of one leader, two or three riders who could probably lead as well but are just slightly worse, and then the "teammates" all still being around 75, the game gets messed up.
------
he end though, I think our biggest issue is still just how OP the race day form is. A rider with 99/100% form and a +5 can get a double digit increase in their energy stats.
Yup, thank you for illustrating that. This is exactly what I meant. We need that taller structure, but over the last few years we've been fighting inflation at the top by simply compressing the top layer of an already flat organization into the next one. We never dropped the talent level in the next tiers in turn. IMO, this is a huge threat to the stability of the game given what we know of PCM AI, and it's getting worse, not better. I still think most of the ideas being presented here are only going to really help the first kind of inflation for the foreseeable future.
So the question is, do we want a functional game the next few years, or are we okay to have everything fall into place by 2030 (which still requires a talent addition overhaul imo)? I'm in it for the long haul, so normally I'd be fine with the latter. But with how the AI has been this year, and how strong daily form is, having so many riders in the same range just seems like it will eat away at the game if we let it go on much longer.
So, I agree with you on daily form too. I really wish it could be reduced to reasonable levels, but afaik it can only be on or off, and removing it completely would be too much I think. Such is the life of PCM 18.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Yup, thank you for illustrating that. This is exactly what I meant. We need that taller structure, but over the last few years we've been fighting inflation at the top by simply compressing the top layer of an already flat organization into the next one. We never dropped the talent level in the next tiers in turn. IMO, this is a huge threat to the stability of the game given what we know of PCM AI, and it's getting worse, not better. I still think most of the ideas being presented here are only going to really help the first kind of inflation for the foreseeable future.
So the question is, do we want a functional game the next few years, or are we okay to have everything fall into place by 2030 (which still requires a talent addition overhaul imo)? I'm in it for the long haul, so normally I'd be fine with the latter. But with how the AI has been this year, and how strong daily form is, having so many riders in the same range just seems like it will eat away at the game if we let it go on much longer.
So, I agree with you on daily form too. I really wish it could be reduced to reasonable levels, but afaik it can only be on or off, and removing it completely would be too much I think. Such is the life of PCM 18.
Yes, compressing the "top layer" is a great way of putting it, and I think we are definitely on the same page here. I think what we are doing is a good natural fix to help lower the level cap of all riders at the top end. As you say, the issue is the 75-78/79 range, where nothing has really changed imo, if not been made arguably worse because of the lowering of the cap at the top end. I remember when I first joined, signing a 76 hill rider as my leader in CT, for like 100k wages, and a 75 climber. Now, those guys are 50k riders for the most part, because there is just such an abundance of riders in that range that no one needs to fight over them.
Our other issue which is related, that because of this, no one signs the talents that are going to end up 74 or less in a stat, and its because of this. This in turn make the issue worse because there are just way too many options available for all teams, that no one sees worth in leveling up a rider for 3 years, just to have them max out at 74, so any talents that are signed end up in the 75-78 range, furthering the inflation issue.
In short, the supply of 75-78 riders is way too high, given PCMs AI. If every team has multiple riders like this, it almost makes the stat gap start from 72/73-85, when actual PCM dbs its often more like 60-83, thus making the difference between riders smaller, thus enhancing the chance for random results.
(Kind of a side note to this, but if we atleast do a -2 to all riders, across the board, the top end riders with good daily form will atleast have a better chance. If a 80 vs 85 that both get a +5, they essentially both just end up as 85 stat riders, but if we lower the stats, minus 2 in this example it would atleast be 83 vs 85)
But if we slowly change things and change the talents coming into the game, people still aren't going to sign the talents that max out below the 75-78 range right away, because there are still so many available in that 75-78 either already maxed, or yet to be maxed in that range right now. That means that to get the desired effect where 74 or less stat riders are usuable, people actually sign them, and then they are developed, could take nearly a decade, because really theres no reason to sign a rider that is unmaxed and wont get higher than 74 (unless you are in CT maybe) for atleast the next few years. I was able to sign a rider that will max at 77 SP and 74 Cob, for 10,000 stagiare wages this season, and a 78 MO rider last season for 10,000. That means riders of that quality are making it almost all the way through the transfer window.
valverde321 wrote:
As you say, the issue is the 75-78/79 range, where nothing has really changed imo, if not been made arguably worse because of the lowering of the cap at the top end. I remember when I first joined, signing a 76 hill rider as my leader in CT, for like 100k wages, and a 75 climber. Now, those guys are 50k riders for the most part, because there is just such an abundance of riders in that range that no one needs to fight over them.
Our other issue which is related, that because of this, no one signs the talents that are going to end up 74 or less in a stat, and its because of this. This in turn make the issue worse because there are just way too many options available for all teams, that no one sees worth in leveling up a rider for 3 years, just to have them max out at 74, so any talents that are signed end up in the 75-78 range, furthering the inflation issue.
In short, the supply of 75-78 riders is way too high, given PCMs AI. If every team has multiple riders like this, it almost makes the stat gap start from 72/73-85, when actual PCM dbs its often more like 60-83, thus making the difference between riders smaller, thus enhancing the chance for random results.
Maybe a way to mitigate this could be with increased wage demands (specifically in this range, or even across the board to not disproportionately punsish managers who have built their teams on depth in that area, and with the exception of talents and lower skill domestiques so that teams don't get blown apart completely), and then combine that with post-renewal FAs regressing earlier as roturn suggested.
The idea would be to force more non-team leader riders into Free Agency to then reduce the overall skill level of FAs (and thus the pool of riders, so that they couldn't simply be signed again for 50k). Managers could still "protect" their most valued riders in that range by paying them a bit more and that way we wouldn't reduce stats of riders on teams, but it would create more room in teams for for riders 74 and lower as you described. Could that work?
valverde321 wrote:
(Kind of a side note to this, but if we atleast do a -2 to all riders, across the board, the top end riders with good daily form will atleast have a better chance. If a 80 vs 85 that both get a +5, they essentially both just end up as 85 stat riders, but if we lower the stats, minus 2 in this example it would atleast be 83 vs 85)
I had an idea regarding daily form that might be dumb and would require a good bit of editing work, but maybe we could make it so that all riders participating in a race are given the respective weather of the race as their least favorite weather. This would give everyone a negative factor in the calculation of daily form and potentially reduce the number of +4 and +5. The problem with that of course is that it also increases the chance of bad days, which might be even more frustrating. Other than that, I think you're right that PCM19 has fewer extreme cases of daily form, which alone might warrant a switch even if the AI doesn't change. This is more anecdotal from my personal experience, but could be tested pretty easily I guess.
- If PCM19 has less extreme daily form as PCM18, then it would already be worth a change indeed, even if the actual AI is identical.
Though by testing it`s likely just possible to test the human player daily form. Not sure how or if the "watch AI rider" works properly to see for some other AI controlled riders.
roturn wrote:
If anyone can test this a bit, it would be great.
- If PCM19 has less extreme daily form as PCM18, then it would already be worth a change indeed, even if the actual AI is identical.
Though by testing it`s likely just possible to test the human player daily form. Not sure how or if the "watch AI rider" works properly to see for some other AI controlled riders.
roturn wrote:
If anyone can test this a bit, it would be great.
- If PCM19 has less extreme daily form as PCM18, then it would already be worth a change indeed, even if the actual AI is identical.
Though by testing it`s likely just possible to test the human player daily form. Not sure how or if the "watch AI rider" works properly to see for some other AI controlled riders.
why test PCM19 if we could have PCM20?
Good point. Yes, testing ideally on both versions and PCM18 to get some kind of statistic on all 3 versions about daily form.
roturn wrote:
If anyone can test this a bit, it would be great.
- If PCM19 has less extreme daily form as PCM18, then it would already be worth a change indeed, even if the actual AI is identical.
Though by testing it`s likely just possible to test the human player daily form. Not sure how or if the "watch AI rider" works properly to see for some other AI controlled riders.
By testing what exactly are you looking for? Just daily form shenanigans? How easy is it to convert PCM18 db to PCM20?
roturn wrote:
If anyone can test this a bit, it would be great.
- If PCM19 has less extreme daily form as PCM18, then it would already be worth a change indeed, even if the actual AI is identical.
Though by testing it`s likely just possible to test the human player daily form. Not sure how or if the "watch AI rider" works properly to see for some other AI controlled riders.
why test PCM19 if we could have PCM20?
If I'm not mistaken, from 19 to 20 there have been some AI changes (mainly a more aggressive AI I think, as someone mentioned earlier). Obviously AI has to be tested anyway when considering the move to another game, but there are differences between the games that might be relevant for our purposes.
Regarding the DB, 20 would also be a bit trickier since there have been some structural changes, but it's definetely possible.
roturn wrote:
Can you elaborate on the structural changes?
In a few tables, the order of columns have changed, some columns have been added. I don't remember exactly which ones, and it definetely shouldn't be gamebreaking (or even functional changes I think, if I remember correctly most of that was for career mode, but I can go through the DB again to check), but it took us a while to figure some of the stuff out when we converted the PCM19 daily db to PCM20 because it's not simply copy and paste, at least not in all tables. Maybe tedious is the better word instead of trickier.
If just hte order changed a bit here and there, it doesn`t matter a lot.
As it`s single race mode DB only, most more complex tables doesn`t matter at all anyway.
Equipment is probably most comples for the MG, so this tables would be ideal to get checked.
Other than that team, sponsor, race, stage, cyclist basically. And those are simple formula copy over from excel, so order doesn`t matter a lot if there wasn`t bigger changes.
I am sorry, but I am against any stat decrease for FA - I am not willing to buy riders with overinflated price tag. And if keep a rider that you're not sure what to do with him, it makes him unsellable.
ivaneurope wrote:
I am sorry, but I am against any stat decrease for FA - I am not willing to buy riders with overinflated price tag. And if keep a rider that you're not sure what to do with him, it makes him unsellable.
I'm tempted to say the same thing. If we only affect the stats of FA or only of renewal wages, the market is gonna go completely bonkers one way or another.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
