I'm not sure for ever and ever is the right path though. Maybe let 82 (in my example) be the highest possible for 2 seasons to ensure that all riders currently untrainable won't get overtaken more than they otherwise could have been. Otherwise it makes no sense to lower the stats if we just keep a new static. Alternatively we could say that only +1 stat could be trained from 80+ in a period of 2 seasons, which would also cover the issue.
I do think the issue is of VERY minor issue, that could be handled fairly easily. As far as I can see all we need to do is find a way to make these riders not be negatively affected. All other scenarios would remain unhurt/unchanged:
Taylor Phinney (82MO, 31 yo)
Angel Madrazo (81MO, 33 yo)
Justo Tenorio (81MO, 32 yo)
John Degenkolb (81SPR, 32 yo)
So we need to make sure Lecuisinier, Herklotz Morton and Dombrowski won't get to 83 (86) MO immidiately, while in the sprints we need to make sure Coquard won't get to 83 (86) SPR immidiately. Every single other rider combination in the DB will be untouched by setting down all stats by -3 while also adjusting the training setup.
In 2-3 seasons all "issues" of that skewing is out of the picture, and we can start to see young (unmaxed for the most) starting to create what we would refer to as a new normal. In years we would probably see the first riders landing 83 as a main stat, but it would take quite some time for that to happen.
And if we (at the same time) change the training setup, so key stats cost X while secondary stats cost Y I think we would be in a very solid position.
IMO there is hardly any reason as to why FIG and DH should cost the same as MO, SPR etc.
If the AI handles higher FL stats better than what we will get to after -3 we could say that FL stat increased will be cheaper than MO, HI, SPR, TT etc.
I think a lot could be done to help the game get faster back on track, but to pick out certain riders for managers to decide "who lives, who dies" IMO is a very bad idea.
The idea of just reducing stats of certain riders on a team or every rider won't work in the man-game, cause it puts clear disadvantages to some people that built long term. We don't need to discuss that point anymore imo, it's just not a fair solution.
Reducing FAs or striking some out is a pretty radical idea, but it could make some sense. As said though, it's not a problem of Top FAs, it's a problem of too many 76-81 stat riders. If we cut more of those out it might make sense. However, this hurts teams building through the FA. We've seen more and more teams shoot up the divisions in the last years, and that would make it more difficult to do so. If we want that that's fine by me, but I don't see too many benefits.
But honestly: The game is on the right track in terms of stat distribution. As said, many top-riders will decline soon, more of a problem would be a monopoly of the 2-3 extraordinarily good outlier youngsters like Herklotz, Lopez and Lecuisinier.
The main problem we need to address are the one-dimensional rider types. In that sense, the MG completely missed the trend of how the PCM works (and should work) over the last couple of years. Most of our puncheurs look like Enrico Gasparotto, though this rider type is dying out in cycling for a good reason. The puncheurs of today are versatile, and while PCM "adapted" to that man-game didn't. It's the same for sprinters too: There is no such things as long trains anymore, that's a thing of the 00`s.
My long point short is that we have too many Gasparotto, Rujano and Cipollini based riders in the db and far too few allrounders and versatile guys. Imagine why Malecki did so well? Because he is one of the very few riders in the game that looks like a real rider from a Pro Team.
So if we really want to improve the game, then reducing stats is not the first thing we should think of as it doesn't tackle the main issues. Fixing stats (only for FAs) would be a start, but a change in how rider development and training works in the game would have far more benefits in terms of long-term game play.
Spoiler
I know that this won't easy, as it would especially have an impact on managers that built around talents that aren't fully maxed yet. But imo a move like this, possibly oriented on the much more balanced and dynamic ICL system, would be a much more viable long term solution. It does not only fix the outcome, it more importantly fixes the causes that lead to such outcome.
Wouldn't the one-dimensionality issue be fixed through level up stat matrix? At least gives us buffed fighter training that we wanted, cause that certainly is one that would help a percentage of riders be more versatile
Croatia14 wrote:
The main problem we need to address are the one-dimensional rider types. In that sense, the MG completely missed the trend of how the PCM works (and should work) over the last couple of years. Most of our puncheurs look like Enrico Gasparotto, though this rider type is dying out in cycling for a good reason. The puncheurs of today are versatile, and while PCM "adapted" to that man-game didn't. It's the same for sprinters too: There is no such things as long trains anymore, that's a thing of the 00`s.
My long point short is that we have too many Gasparotto, Rujano and Cipollini based riders in the db and far too few allrounders and versatile guys. Imagine why Malecki did so well? Because he is one of the very few riders in the game that looks like a real rider from a Pro Team.
I agree on the one-dimensional riders to some degree. I think Malecki benefited from being a good allround rider, but probably even more so due to AI/startlist that wasn't interested in chasing him to the point he had a big gap that he could defend well with the pink jersey bonus. It was still more of an one off thing, not great, but not terrible either.
But why do we have one-dimensional riders in the first place? I assume they worked very well in PCM15 and I think most of them still work very well now. As long as they don't have absolutely terrible backups. Based on the current OVL, calendar, races and AI it's still the most desirable to max out and train a main stat as much as possible. So until any of that changes I don't see any noticeable shifts away from developing one-dimensional riders.
But honestly: The game is on the right track in terms of stat distribution. As said, many top-riders will decline soon, more of a problem would be a monopoly of the 2-3 extraordinarily good outlier youngsters like Herklotz, Lopez and Lecuisinier.
This "issue" of extraordinary top riders should be easily fixed with Wages. All we do is shuffle the calculation to make this type of rider more costly to renew.
This is exactly how a wage-cap system should work, you can have the monster but no-one else.
Or we take away even more RD's. We have methods now to negate beasts being too beasty. The solution isn't "lets add more rivals to them", that's how we got here.
So if we really want to improve the game, then reducing stats is not the first thing we should think of as it doesn't tackle the main issues. Fixing stats (only for FAs) would be a start, but a change in how rider development and training works in the game would have far more benefits in terms of long-term game play.
This is very much where we are. Moving games has always been part of the MG and fun and unique, but it has also led us slightly astray as we stuck to "it's history, we can't change things". And it's why we always have to add the *, "but we don't know how it will work with the MG DB".
The MG DB is a bad DB. It's impressive, but it's bad. It's Trump! It's out-dated, flashy, inflated, and fundamentally broken.
There will not be a fair way to do this half-assed. Hitting FA's hurts people without talents. Hitting contracted riders hurts those with talents. Only working on Top-tier riders hurts the PCT and CT. Blanket -X's hurt some more than others.
The fair way is broader, deeper and more radical. It sucks for long term managers (and at this point that's the majority of us), but it's still fair. Then we can make these significant and important changes properly, to benefit all three (if we kept three) divisions.
Oh god, i've gone back into anarchist TMM ranting... apologies!
I agree that we should have been smarter than to keep adding 80+ talents to the DB, but I have said that for 5 seasons, and it seems to be a priority to keep doing so, which imo is a bit silly seeing that the DB would have been almost clean (at the top atleast) in 4-5 years then.
Instead, adding riders like MAL that maxes out at 79MO 82HI etc. keep the pressure up. No riders should EVER reach that kind of stats without training. I know many of you guys keep telling me that Lecuisinier, Coquard and Koretzky was also examples of that, and it is to an extent, but neither have ever had the maxing out potential of MAL f.e.
Lecuisinier maxed at 81MO, 75HI and 77TT. Arguably still too high, but he was added many seasons back and was part of the Lecuisinier, Wellens, Morton, Dombrowski, Herklotz era. Obviously all of them should have had -2 in all stats to prevent them from dominating the game for a 5-10 year long period of the game.
Either of these can become a GT winner after 2 training sessions, and I don't think that is what we need/want. We are looking to take it down a notch, and to do so we need to add talents that are even worse (in all aspects). It's easier to point out the top level talents, but I can pick out my own riders too, whom I grabbed for basically nothing and can train into "top riders":
van Niekerk - 14 stats - Can max at 85HI/79MO
Giannoutsos - 10 stats - Can max at 85MO/78HI or 83MO/80HI
Stavrakakis - 10 stats - Can max at 85COB
Kiriakidis - 10 stats - Can max at 85TT/75MO or 84MO/76TT
Miltiadis - 8 stats - Can max at 85 HI
Vila - 8 stats - Can max at 85HI
Farantakis - 6 stats - Can max at 85SPR
Lafay - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO or 83HI
Mavrikakis - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO
Osorio - 6 stats - Can max at 82MO
Agrotis - 6 stats - Can max at 81MO
Kortsidakis - 6 stats - Can max at 80COB
Carretero Millan 4 stats - Can max at 82MO
Morin - 4 stats - Can max at 82HI
Most of these riders are picked up for 50K, and are meant to be domestiques. Each and every one of them. Maybe van Niekerk, Giannoutsos, Stavrakakis and Farantakis was designed to be sup-leaders or lieutenaints. But they are all very much capable of becoming the best in the game. Obviously I won't have sufficient funds to do a lot, but just to show, that every single team out there can pick up a 50K domestique and make him a top sprinter, top puncheur, GT winner. I have a talent or more in every single category that could win whatever race I point at, If I can get the money. And seeing that I got Spilak to 85MO/82HI, Lecuisinier to 85MO and Coquard to 84SPR it can be done. Even without taring your team completely bonkers.
I suspect that each team have a handful of these kind of riders. Just for the fun of it, let's take a look at my stagiares, whom i signed for, well just because:
Simon Guglielmi, level 2.00, age 23. Key stats | 68MO, 65HI
Alexandre Delettre, level 1.00, age 23. Key stats | 68HI, 66MO
If those were signed and loaned out, they would potentially be fully maxed at age 26, and thus trainable from 27-30, giving them 8 stats to allocate.
Guglielmi can max at 75MO, 72HI meaning that at his peak he could be a very solid GC leader with 83MO/72HI or 75MO/80HI.
Delettre can max at 72MO, 76HI, meaning that at his peak he could be a top puncheur with 84HI, 72MO, or be a solid subleader at 80MO/76HI.
These guys are stagiares, and only have a contract because I shouldn't use 20K and they are french. Yet both could be leaders at PT level. Barcelo who wasn't picked up can become 83MO/75HI or 77MO/81HI and so on.
So yes, there is easily too much flexibility in the database, and we need to figures out how we can change that.
And that was basically my point in letting every rider get -3, so it would be very difficult for domestiques and sub leaders to ever threaten the top top riders.
Edited by SotD on 09-02-2021 12:58
SotD wrote:
I agree that we should have been smarter than to keep adding 80+ talents to the DB, but I have said that for 5 seasons, and it seems to be a priority to keep doing so, which imo is a bit silly seeing that the DB would have been almost clean (at the top atleast) in 4-5 years then.
Instead, adding riders like MAL that maxes out at 79MO 82HI etc. keep the pressure up. No riders should EVER reach that kind of stats without training. I know many of you guys keep telling me that Lecuisinier, Coquard and Koretzky was also examples of that, and it is to an extent, but neither have ever had the maxing out potential of MAL f.e.
Lecuisinier maxed at 81MO, 75HI and 77TT. Arguably still too high, but he was added many seasons back and was part of the Lecuisinier, Wellens, Morton, Dombrowski, Herklotz era. Obviously all of them should have had -2 in all stats to prevent them from dominating the game for a 5-10 year long period of the game.
Either of these can become a GT winner after 2 training sessions, and I don't think that is what we need/want. We are looking to take it down a notch, and to do so we need to add talents that are even worse (in all aspects). It's easier to point out the top level talents, but I can pick out my own riders too, whom I grabbed for basically nothing and can train into "top riders":
van Niekerk - 14 stats - Can max at 85HI/79MO
Giannoutsos - 10 stats - Can max at 85MO/78HI or 83MO/80HI
Stavrakakis - 10 stats - Can max at 85COB
Kiriakidis - 10 stats - Can max at 85TT/75MO or 84MO/76TT
Miltiadis - 8 stats - Can max at 85 HI
Vila - 8 stats - Can max at 85HI
Farantakis - 6 stats - Can max at 85SPR
Lafay - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO or 83HI
Mavrikakis - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO
Osorio - 6 stats - Can max at 82MO
Agrotis - 6 stats - Can max at 81MO
Kortsidakis - 6 stats - Can max at 80COB
Carretero Millan 4 stats - Can max at 82MO
Morin - 4 stats - Can max at 82HI
Most of these riders are picked up for 50K, and are meant to be domestiques. Each and every one of them. Maybe van Niekerk, Giannoutsos, Stavrakakis and Farantakis was designed to be sup-leaders or lieutenaints. But they are all very much capable of becoming the best in the game. Obviously I won't have sufficient funds to do a lot, but just to show, that every single team out there can pick up a 50K domestique and make him a top sprinter, top puncheur, GT winner. I have a talent or more in every single category that could win whatever race I point at, If I can get the money. And seeing that I got Spilak to 85MO/82HI, Lecuisinier to 85MO and Coquard to 84SPR it can be done. Even without taring your team completely bonkers.
I suspect that each team have a handful of these kind of riders. Just for the fun of it, let's take a look at my stagiares, whom i signed for, well just because:
Simon Guglielmi, level 2.00, age 23. Key stats | 68MO, 65HI
Alexandre Delettre, level 1.00, age 23. Key stats | 68HI, 66MO
If those were signed and loaned out, they would potentially be fully maxed at age 26, and thus trainable from 27-30, giving them 8 stats to allocate.
Guglielmi can max at 75MO, 72HI meaning that at his peak he could be a very solid GC leader with 83MO/72HI or 75MO/80HI.
Delettre can max at 72MO, 76HI, meaning that at his peak he could be a top puncheur with 84HI, 72MO, or be a solid subleader at 80MO/76HI.
These guys are stagiares, and only have a contract because I shouldn't use 20K and they are french. Yet both could be leaders at PT level. Barcelo who wasn't picked up can become 83MO/75HI or 77MO/81HI and so on.
So yes, there is easily too much flexibility in the database, and we need to figures out how we can change that.
And that was basically my point in letting every rider get -3, so it would be very difficult for domestiques and sub leaders to ever threaten the top top riders.
There is so much wrong about this: First you can't compare a rider like Lecuisinier to a rider like Aular, cause the back-ups are that significantly different. None of those riders are likely to win a GT against a guy like Lecuisinier even if trained +4Mo.
Then you are talking about possible trainings of weaker guys which is a useless argument as nobody would ever be able to commit to afford a +14 stat development. Even if you always say you'll train Aidan a lot, I doubt you'll ever make him an 83 Hill rider or something. I'd love if you'd prove me wrong, I just doubt it at this point.
I see your argument (and especially agree that MAL was added too strong, but the MGUCI back then admitted it was an oversight anyway), but must of your argument is just hypothetical and way too far off the reality to be considered imo.
And even then, I'd like to argue that MAL wont be able to reach Herklotz level even with tons of training because Herklotz' backup stats are too superior.
SotD wrote:
I agree that we should have been smarter than to keep adding 80+ talents to the DB, but I have said that for 5 seasons, and it seems to be a priority to keep doing so, which imo is a bit silly seeing that the DB would have been almost clean (at the top atleast) in 4-5 years then.
Instead, adding riders like MAL that maxes out at 79MO 82HI etc. keep the pressure up. No riders should EVER reach that kind of stats without training. I know many of you guys keep telling me that Lecuisinier, Coquard and Koretzky was also examples of that, and it is to an extent, but neither have ever had the maxing out potential of MAL f.e.
Lecuisinier maxed at 81MO, 75HI and 77TT. Arguably still too high, but he was added many seasons back and was part of the Lecuisinier, Wellens, Morton, Dombrowski, Herklotz era. Obviously all of them should have had -2 in all stats to prevent them from dominating the game for a 5-10 year long period of the game.
Either of these can become a GT winner after 2 training sessions, and I don't think that is what we need/want. We are looking to take it down a notch, and to do so we need to add talents that are even worse (in all aspects). It's easier to point out the top level talents, but I can pick out my own riders too, whom I grabbed for basically nothing and can train into "top riders":
van Niekerk - 14 stats - Can max at 85HI/79MO
Giannoutsos - 10 stats - Can max at 85MO/78HI or 83MO/80HI
Stavrakakis - 10 stats - Can max at 85COB
Kiriakidis - 10 stats - Can max at 85TT/75MO or 84MO/76TT
Miltiadis - 8 stats - Can max at 85 HI
Vila - 8 stats - Can max at 85HI
Farantakis - 6 stats - Can max at 85SPR
Lafay - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO or 83HI
Mavrikakis - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO
Osorio - 6 stats - Can max at 82MO
Agrotis - 6 stats - Can max at 81MO
Kortsidakis - 6 stats - Can max at 80COB
Carretero Millan 4 stats - Can max at 82MO
Morin - 4 stats - Can max at 82HI
Most of these riders are picked up for 50K, and are meant to be domestiques. Each and every one of them. Maybe van Niekerk, Giannoutsos, Stavrakakis and Farantakis was designed to be sup-leaders or lieutenaints. But they are all very much capable of becoming the best in the game. Obviously I won't have sufficient funds to do a lot, but just to show, that every single team out there can pick up a 50K domestique and make him a top sprinter, top puncheur, GT winner. I have a talent or more in every single category that could win whatever race I point at, If I can get the money. And seeing that I got Spilak to 85MO/82HI, Lecuisinier to 85MO and Coquard to 84SPR it can be done. Even without taring your team completely bonkers.
I suspect that each team have a handful of these kind of riders. Just for the fun of it, let's take a look at my stagiares, whom i signed for, well just because:
Simon Guglielmi, level 2.00, age 23. Key stats | 68MO, 65HI
Alexandre Delettre, level 1.00, age 23. Key stats | 68HI, 66MO
If those were signed and loaned out, they would potentially be fully maxed at age 26, and thus trainable from 27-30, giving them 8 stats to allocate.
Guglielmi can max at 75MO, 72HI meaning that at his peak he could be a very solid GC leader with 83MO/72HI or 75MO/80HI.
Delettre can max at 72MO, 76HI, meaning that at his peak he could be a top puncheur with 84HI, 72MO, or be a solid subleader at 80MO/76HI.
These guys are stagiares, and only have a contract because I shouldn't use 20K and they are french. Yet both could be leaders at PT level. Barcelo who wasn't picked up can become 83MO/75HI or 77MO/81HI and so on.
So yes, there is easily too much flexibility in the database, and we need to figures out how we can change that.
And that was basically my point in letting every rider get -3, so it would be very difficult for domestiques and sub leaders to ever threaten the top top riders.
There is so much wrong about this: First you can't compare a rider like Lecuisinier to a rider like Aular, cause the back-ups are that significantly different. None of those riders are likely to win a GT against a guy like Lecuisinier even if trained +4Mo.
Then you are talking about possible trainings of weaker guys which is a useless argument as nobody would ever be able to commit to afford a +14 stat development. Even if you always say you'll train Aidan a lot, I doubt you'll ever make him an 83 Hill rider or something. I'd love if you'd prove me wrong, I just doubt it at this point.
I see your argument (and especially agree that MAL was added too strong, but the MGUCI back then admitted it was an oversight anyway), but must of your argument is just hypothetical and way too far off the reality to be considered imo.
SotD has sort of accidently hit the exact point.
Not on training, that's very much the wrong way to look at things. And anyways, training should always be considered separate from inflation discussions, as the overall impact on the DB is minimal and has more benefits than losses.
We should still consider if it can be improved by making top end more expensive, lowering cost of mid-range upgrades or non-main stats in lower OVL riders.
But what SotD quite neatly points out, is how many riders get added and exist that max at 75 or higher, and at an age where they will hold those stats for 5+ years. To the extent that most teams consist entirely of those riders, with almost all the exceptions being RP or personal choices. And that there are always more left over in the DB which never get pickedup.
As well as pointing out we still have lots of riders appearing even at a new lower stat cap level!
We need a bigger re-set of the DB to give it a proper restructure that will promote proper AI racing, that allows us to put in place strong plans to maintain that stability, will make it easier to adjust to new games, and i think will even generate more excited and motivated managers at all levels.
SotD wrote:
I agree that we should have been smarter than to keep adding 80+ talents to the DB, but I have said that for 5 seasons, and it seems to be a priority to keep doing so, which imo is a bit silly seeing that the DB would have been almost clean (at the top atleast) in 4-5 years then.
Instead, adding riders like MAL that maxes out at 79MO 82HI etc. keep the pressure up. No riders should EVER reach that kind of stats without training. I know many of you guys keep telling me that Lecuisinier, Coquard and Koretzky was also examples of that, and it is to an extent, but neither have ever had the maxing out potential of MAL f.e.
Lecuisinier maxed at 81MO, 75HI and 77TT. Arguably still too high, but he was added many seasons back and was part of the Lecuisinier, Wellens, Morton, Dombrowski, Herklotz era. Obviously all of them should have had -2 in all stats to prevent them from dominating the game for a 5-10 year long period of the game.
Either of these can become a GT winner after 2 training sessions, and I don't think that is what we need/want. We are looking to take it down a notch, and to do so we need to add talents that are even worse (in all aspects). It's easier to point out the top level talents, but I can pick out my own riders too, whom I grabbed for basically nothing and can train into "top riders":
van Niekerk - 14 stats - Can max at 85HI/79MO
Giannoutsos - 10 stats - Can max at 85MO/78HI or 83MO/80HI
Stavrakakis - 10 stats - Can max at 85COB
Kiriakidis - 10 stats - Can max at 85TT/75MO or 84MO/76TT
Miltiadis - 8 stats - Can max at 85 HI
Vila - 8 stats - Can max at 85HI
Farantakis - 6 stats - Can max at 85SPR
Lafay - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO or 83HI
Mavrikakis - 6 stats - Can max at 83MO
Osorio - 6 stats - Can max at 82MO
Agrotis - 6 stats - Can max at 81MO
Kortsidakis - 6 stats - Can max at 80COB
Carretero Millan 4 stats - Can max at 82MO
Morin - 4 stats - Can max at 82HI
Most of these riders are picked up for 50K, and are meant to be domestiques. Each and every one of them. Maybe van Niekerk, Giannoutsos, Stavrakakis and Farantakis was designed to be sup-leaders or lieutenaints. But they are all very much capable of becoming the best in the game. Obviously I won't have sufficient funds to do a lot, but just to show, that every single team out there can pick up a 50K domestique and make him a top sprinter, top puncheur, GT winner. I have a talent or more in every single category that could win whatever race I point at, If I can get the money. And seeing that I got Spilak to 85MO/82HI, Lecuisinier to 85MO and Coquard to 84SPR it can be done. Even without taring your team completely bonkers.
I suspect that each team have a handful of these kind of riders. Just for the fun of it, let's take a look at my stagiares, whom i signed for, well just because:
Simon Guglielmi, level 2.00, age 23. Key stats | 68MO, 65HI
Alexandre Delettre, level 1.00, age 23. Key stats | 68HI, 66MO
If those were signed and loaned out, they would potentially be fully maxed at age 26, and thus trainable from 27-30, giving them 8 stats to allocate.
Guglielmi can max at 75MO, 72HI meaning that at his peak he could be a very solid GC leader with 83MO/72HI or 75MO/80HI.
Delettre can max at 72MO, 76HI, meaning that at his peak he could be a top puncheur with 84HI, 72MO, or be a solid subleader at 80MO/76HI.
These guys are stagiares, and only have a contract because I shouldn't use 20K and they are french. Yet both could be leaders at PT level. Barcelo who wasn't picked up can become 83MO/75HI or 77MO/81HI and so on.
So yes, there is easily too much flexibility in the database, and we need to figures out how we can change that.
And that was basically my point in letting every rider get -3, so it would be very difficult for domestiques and sub leaders to ever threaten the top top riders.
There is so much wrong about this: First you can't compare a rider like Lecuisinier to a rider like Aular, cause the back-ups are that significantly different. None of those riders are likely to win a GT against a guy like Lecuisinier even if trained +4Mo.
Then you are talking about possible trainings of weaker guys which is a useless argument as nobody would ever be able to commit to afford a +14 stat development. Even if you always say you'll train Aidan a lot, I doubt you'll ever make him an 83 Hill rider or something. I'd love if you'd prove me wrong, I just doubt it at this point.
I see your argument (and especially agree that MAL was added too strong, but the MGUCI back then admitted it was an oversight anyway), but must of your argument is just hypothetical and way too far off the reality to be considered imo.
Why do you reckon Lecuisinier is riding all Grand Tours?
In 2 years time when these riders can achieve their max stats, do you agree that they could win a GT? Aular maybe the exeption, but the others can for sure.
I can make sure you will be proven wrong regarding Aidan - unless something significan happens obviously.
Next season he will be 79HI which will cost 1,85mio. Then he might be trained just +1 the next seasons, depending on what money I can gather. I can tell you that these are the figures I have spent on training the past 5 years:
These are my training plans for van Niekerk (can change obviously):
2021 - 79 HI - 1.850.000€
2022 - 81 HI - 2.600.000€
2023 - 74MO / 82 HI - 2.400.000€
2024 - 75MO / 83HI - 2.850.000€
At this point van Niekerk will be 28 years old.
Of course people can afford to train riders into beasts if they really want. In the early stages it is quite easy to do so, and once you have a couple of 78-80 key stat riders, it seems legit to keep on training them. Obviously they won't all become beasts, but some are talking about the DB as if it is really difficult to find suitable leaders if we take riders out of the DB.
My argument wasn't meant as a "Look what will happen" - it was merely a point as to how strong our domestiques actually are, and what we could do to them, if we struggle to see a way out of a leaders chase.
I still believe the DB would be better if all riders went to -3 skill and then we made some adjustments to keep the current pecking order in check, so riders like Phinney etc. isn't run over end by similar riders suddenly beating his MO stat. But at one point Lecuisinier, Herklotz, Dombrowski, Morton, Madrazo, Tenorio etc. will be going away and then we will have a much better DB, with the possibility to create very different riders. Also I believe this would indeed salvage the one-dimensional types that we have in abundance.
If Aular (just to pick an example) was 85MO and his competitors were 83MO, then he would have a clear shot at winning a GT, despite having bad secondary stats - much like we have seen from Alarcon in the past. To have all riders drop by 3 we get a bigger margin to play with, which imo will resolve in a more creative managerpart, and a better in depth DB. I don't know if it solves any issues regarding too many similar CT riders, but I don't know that problem too well.
knockout wrote:
And even then, I'd like to argue that MAL wont be able to reach Herklotz level even with tons of training because Herklotz' backup stats are too superior.
Yup, Herklotz is mentioned aswell But I believe he was added earlier than MAL, hence the focus on more recent added talents. I could have picked up some of those still no maxed, but MAL is just nice and easy for everyone to understand, as he jumps straight into the top 5 battle without training, and is only just maxed
But what SotD quite neatly points out, is how many riders get added and exist that max at 75 or higher, and at an age where they will hold those stats for 5+ years. To the extent that most teams consist entirely of those riders, with almost all the exceptions being RP or personal choices. And that there are always more left over in the DB which never get pickedup.
As well as pointing out we still have lots of riders appearing even at a new lower stat cap level!
This was actually exactly WHAT I wanted to showcase with my post, not so much the training part. The training part was to enhance the issue, and show how strong domestiques actually are - and what they can actually become as it is easy to understand that an 83-85 rider is a beast. And most our domestiques can become that. Many of them doesn't make sense to train obviously, but that wasn't my point.
And that is why I want to take every rider down by -3, push down and add new training fees for exceding the "new max" and to remove a significant amount of FA's from the DB.
Also I think that everyone of us would need to recalibrate our brains, when spotting a 73MO, 74TT rider and understand that he is actually pretty good as a domestique, but also that despite it making the same output to eventually train him +3MO, it would just have a huge disadvantage to be 76MO/74TT when being up against the top level riders with 80MO, where it seems not quite as big a difference today when 79MO/77TT riders are up against an 83MO rider.
So in general the change is also to put in a psycological effect on managers to look at the DB differently than before.
Edited by SotD on 09-02-2021 13:49
SotD wrote:
The issue is that it has become too easy to get to the highest level, and thus making rider variation very difficult. This leads to randomness, and especially on the top level this is a problem because we can’t change it as manager. At CT level you Can train your leader to jump out of the “normal leader”-level. This Can still be done to an extend at PCT level, but not at PT level.
And as we see inflation in all divisions it is a matter of time before we see top top level riders at all divisions, which is not ideal.
Ideally PCT teams Can target subleaders from PT as their leaders, and CT teams Can pick upper domestiques as leaders.
I don't think that's really the problem. With the decline of the former OP riders that had multiple main stats 82+, there is already some room to improve for PT top riders. You yourself did so with Lecuisinier who is a level above most of the other top climbers now. In other stats besides mountains there is even more room at the top. I think the problem is rather as bbl has put it that there are so many riders with a similar strength condensed at lower levels that it is not really clear to the game who should be better.
I think the way I have proposed it would be the only viable way to address this problem by stat changes. If there are too many 77-79 sprinters these sprinters should be spread out over a larger statinterval for example 71-76 or so. Lowering all riders stats won't fix that problem neither short term nor long term as the distribution remains the same just lower.
Also it's easy for you to suggest changes to FA as you already got your Lecuisinier, Coquard and Koretzky and only use the FA market for secondary riders, but some teams need to sign their leaders from there and still should be able to in future transfer seasons (and not forced to buy some overpriced subtop riders from someone like you)
Which riders I have is irrelevant to my suggestions. I have picked up all the riders you mention from the FA pool and all have gotten significant stat increases:
Lecuisinier +4 MO
Coquard +3 SPR +1MO +2HI
Koretzky +2 HI +3TT
I have had all kind of riders, Young, Old, FA, trained, sold, bought.
So when I’m suggesting things it is due to what I think will help the game, and not what will help me. So let’s please put arguments like that to the grave. That really isn’t a feasable path to undermind my suggestions.
I do believe that lowering the main CT sprinters from 79 to 76 would help significantly, for several reasons. 1) The better sprinters would stand out and 2) The psycolpgical aspect would shift peoples focus to more well rounded riders rather that 67 FL 76SPR riders. I feel pretty confident that negating all rider stats by 3 would make people act differently.
IMO the CT wasn’t crowded with 76SPR back when the DB wasn’t overrun by those being subtop sprinters. As far as I remember (I May be wrong) most CT teams were well rounded with small twists, and different leader types, and then the odd teams with a specific HI/COB focus (like Gazelle).
I guess it’s really difficult to come closer to the result without severe testing, but is anyone really hooked to do massive testing with changed stats?
I just don’t (which was the original point) think picking out certain riders to “stay”, while others “lose”/“die” is a Man-Game friendly solution.
Which riders I have is irrelevant to my suggestions. I have picked up all the riders you mention from the FA pool and all have gotten significant stat increases:
Lecuisinier +4 MO
Coquard +3 SPR +1MO +2HI
Koretzky +2 HI +3TT
I have had all kind of riders, Young, Old, FA, trained, sold, bought.
So when I’m suggesting things it is due to what I think will help the game, and not what will help me. So let’s please put arguments like that to the grave. That really isn’t a feasable path to undermind my suggestions.
I do believe that lowering the main CT sprinters from 79 to 76 would help significantly, for several reasons. 1) The better sprinters would stand out and 2) The psycolpgical aspect would shift peoples focus to more well rounded riders rather that 67 FL 76SPR riders. I feel pretty confident that negating all rider stats by 3 would make people act differently.
IMO the CT wasn’t crowded with 76SPR back when the DB wasn’t overrun by those being subtop sprinters. As far as I remember (I May be wrong) most CT teams were well rounded with small twists, and different leader types, and then the odd teams with a specific HI/COB focus (like Gazelle).
I guess it’s really difficult to come closer to the result without severe testing, but is anyone really hooked to do massive testing with changed stats?
I just don’t (which was the original point) think picking out certain riders to “stay”, while others “lose”/“die” is a Man-Game friendly solution.
Selectively changing stats of contracted riders is a no-go for me. Either we decrease the (main) stats of ALL riders or we limit the stat changing to FA's only.
I know Madrazo would be disadvantaged by a mass reduction a bit because he can't be trained back up. But I don't care; he's going to decline anyway and if it's good for the game let's just do it.
We should not underestimate how bad the inflation has gotten over the years. Let me add another example to the pile of evidence.
In its first season (2013) Gazelle destroyed the CT by scoring 3005 points, while number two scored 2435 and number three 1913.
Take a look at the team that achieved this:
Of that team only Weening, Westra, Furdi and maybe Sentjens would've even gotten a contract in 2020. There are 76 and 75 HI puncheurs with ok backup stats sitting in free agency right now. Their stats are close to 2013 Furdi, who finished seventh in the individual rankings.
The problem I have with ideas about tackling the inflation is that it will likely mean a huge domination of a few riders that are currently on the top with no realistic way to catch them. That is in my opinion just not fair and not really exciting. With not adding any top talents and with training limits and prices higher than before, it is really hard to have any chance battling with likes of Herklotz or new Bewleys.
I believe that we should make it way easier and cheaper to train riders and especially it should be way cheaper to train secondary stats of all riders. Right now the only sensible option in training is to train your top leaders in their main stats. For example it just never makes sense to train Barguil in anything else than MO as TT and HIL are too expensive for a marginal upgrade. But why? It just does not make sense to me in the current stat matrix, where PCM works the best with all-around riders.
1. I believe the limit of maximum 2 stat upgrades per year for a rider in a year should be changed into a maximum amount of 2 stat upgrades per stat. Current system is too limiting withing the current matrix in the latest PCM versions. This is the big part of the problem that we have so many riders with their main attribute being 80+ with no special backup stats.
2. Change the rule 'Average Exemption' - stats under 10 worse than the rider's OVL should be trained without any yearly limit per stat and the double cost only applies for third/fourth/x-th upgrade. With this change we can then afford to add in more unicorns like Seboka, Bakari, Bos or how to at least partially repair time trialists as they are quite useless unless they can get over a small bump.
3. I suggest we should change the rule: "If the rider's average is higher than the stat you want to train, then the cost relates to the current average." I believe current version of rules only promotes to create one dimensional types of leaders. It just does not make sense to train support stats, you almost always gain more by training the main stat. I think that the price of the training should be the amount of the cost for that particular stat, unless you train an attribute that is higher than the OVL of that particular rider. After this change it would be much more reasonable to train other stats than the main stat.
With this changes - a few examples:
a) It now makes sense to think about training Barguil's TT stat - for 650k I can get him to TT 72 + to train him for 1.3M into HIL 77. The other option is to train him for 1.7M to MO 82. 1.95M vs. 1.7M between these two options, it just creates new possibilites without really losing anything.
b) Niccolo Bonifazio - if you have 1.4M to train him - your only option now is to train him from 80 to 81 SP. Now the alternative would be to move him from 50 to 58 MO. That could help him to survive in GTs and so to possibly get more points.
c) You can train FL, RES or HIL of sprinters much more easily to make these riders more complete. Just why not? Right now your only sensible option is to invest in SP of that rider.
d) You can still also train top riders like PH Lecuisinier or Herklotz. But would it be really worth it in the new system? Maybe still yes. But wages of those riders would sky rocket even more with less RDs and also it would mean that other riders of that team would not possibly get a training. I believe there is not a reason to not allow it. If you want to invest into a superb rider to make him even better, just why not. But it is likely not going to help you in getting more points for your team overall.
And yes, this would result in more attributes getting trained per year. You can tackle that with my idea of allowing to exchange a part of your budget for extra salary cap space up with the maximum being extra 200k for total price of 1M.
For 100k you can get 50k extra wage cap space.
For 200k you can get 50k extra wage cap space.
For 300k you can get 50k extra wage cap space.
For 400k you can get 50k extra wage cap space.
And yes, it would also result in somehow bigger inflation of attributes. But you can tackle that with the idea where in case if any rider gets trained to the maximum attribute, all riders get -1 for that attribute for the next season. This would bring an unpredictable element of an autoregulation in the DB with the extra option being to train further the current best rider, but for the price of all other climbers getting their wages cutted. It would be all the same for all the managers, so it would be fair.
And, an extra idea: Change declining of riders in a way, so they decline faster in their main attributes, but on the other way they don't lose anything from their backup attributes like FL, STA, RES, REC, DH - or they start declining in these only in latter years. This would help with the inflation of the attributes, but it would also bring us unique helpers into the DB in the latter part of their careers. It also seems to be quite realistic - let's keep these ex-stars as race captains until they really have to retired, because they are too old.
The OVL rule is the only thing keeping me from training Lecuisinier in other stats than MO tbh. It cost 1,4mio to change his HI from 75 to 76.
For me to get him to 80HI fe, which was my initial plan it would cost 7,4mio, and would take atleast 3 seasons, probably keeping out training options for any other riders in the proces.
As far as I understand your logic (Correct me if I'm wrong), this can now be achieved in the same time but for 4,5mio.
I can see some issue with that tbh... Part of picking talents is coping with their limitations. With your suggestions I guess it will level out talents even more, which isn't ideal in terms of trying to somewhat control what riders look like, how many of a certain level there is etc.
My suggestion was to freeze the 82 (new 85) mark for 2-3 seasons after this addition, to ensure the gap between current riders. This would see it impossible for Lecuisinier, Morton, Dombrowski etc. to ever go past 82MO.
Herklotz could on paper reach 84MO in his last year of training however, but as he would drop to 81MO it would require a +1MO training during those 2-3 years and then a +2MO training (Which would cost close to 6mio) in his final season. Merhawi Kudus can potentially reach 84MO too, on the same restrictions as Herklotz, but would require a +4MO training in the 2-3 seasons before the final leap aswell.
So IMO we won't create bigger gaps here and now, but in the long run it will be possible for a few select riders to break this new normal 82 key stat. This could be riders such as Mark Padun, Yevgeniy Gidich, Joseph Areruya and whatever talents we decide to add, that should be able to do so. But mind you, that it would require a massive effort (Eastman-like + ) to get there. So only a very few riders would actually get past the "breaking point", and this would (like you mention) possibly encourage people to try another path instead if we take a look at the training system in general. This way we get more well rounded riders, but still have the option to go full on with a select talentpool, to break the new normal and create a new Contador, Schleck or so, that isn't that well rounded, but really excel in a certain area.
Very good point by Roman as well, the current training system is pushing towards training main stat only as it's the same cost. I never really understood that.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
- unless something significan happens obviously.
