To be honest, it does sound like crying, considering sprints are NOT random and 'best' sprinters are getting more points than others. But OVR formula is silly for sprinters and mo/hil hybrids. those two need to be adjusted
quadsas wrote:
To be honest, it does sound like crying, considering sprints are NOT random and 'best' sprinters are getting more points than others. But OVR formula is silly for sprinters and mo/hil hybrids. those two need to be adjusted
Are you serious? Look at the PCT rankings, are Maninnen and Guarnieri better sprinters than Swift, Gaviria and Ewan?
With all due respect, but people who can't recognise there is a major problem with the sprints shouldn't get involved in this discussion.
quadsas wrote:
To be honest, it does sound like crying, considering sprints are NOT random and 'best' sprinters are getting more points than others. But OVR formula is silly for sprinters and mo/hil hybrids. those two need to be adjusted
Are you serious? Look at the PCT rankings, are Maninnen and Guarnieri better sprinters than Swift, Gaviria and Ewan?
With all due respect, but people who can't recognise there is a major problem with the sprints shouldn't get involved in this discussion.
Yes I am serious. When I look at last year standings (which were, btw, PCM18 too), I don't see a big issue in scoring. Sounds like bad teambuilding to me.
redordead wrote:
True and agreed, but OVL still needs to be fixed as it affects training and RDs available.
I'm sure OVL will be adjusted as it every year, but i think it actually works perfectly fine now. It's the surrounding issues we need to address first.
Training - For sprinters their SP stat will most likely be above their OVL, so training cost there is dictated on stat. For other Stats OVL is still at a high enough level to be costly, and builds into the training issue that's it not worth the cost.
There's a reason i put millions into Altur and not Ewan, and previously trained up other stats in the likes of Matthews.
Granted for a rider like Ricki Nelson in the past it might have made sense to do so, if not for the cost being dictated by OVL and making it not worthwhile.
And right now if you're managing a sub-top OVL sprinter you do not want to train them and lose that train-following advantage!
RDs - For sprinters there will always be more options than RDs. Maybe a flattening of the top RDs could help but two or three races here and there won't make a big difference with sprinting the way it currently is.
If we were to change things at the 10's level maybe, but how you put that into OVL without creating some weird outcome is complex.
We would be better served looking at a Results-based-Wage system and tackling the Inflation issue (tick it off your bingo cards people, TMM mentioned inflation again). And as i've said before, if we can actually tackle inflation properly so many of these other problems will also be improved!
I wasn't talking OVL for just sprinters there are also other rider types that are wrongly interpreted by OVL and most of them don't have as many options for RDs as sprinters do.
I agree inflation is big factor in how the sprints are turning out this year. PCT has it worst because the depth of sprinting talent compared to last year in much, much deeper. There are 16 sprinters with 80+ SPR and 80+ ACC and there simply isn't enough points to go around. All of them are good enough to win any race, so results are more random than usually.
quadsas wrote:
To be honest, it does sound like crying, considering sprints are NOT random and 'best' sprinters are getting more points than others. But OVR formula is silly for sprinters and mo/hil hybrids. those two need to be adjusted
Are you serious? Look at the PCT rankings, are Maninnen and Guarnieri better sprinters than Swift, Gaviria and Ewan?
With all due respect, but people who can't recognise there is a major problem with the sprints shouldn't get involved in this discussion.
Yes I am serious. When I look at last year standings (which were, btw, PCM18 too), I don't see a big issue in scoring. Sounds like bad teambuilding to me.
Yes, Ewan has no flat support or leadouts whatsoever
I wasn't talking OVL for just sprinters there are also other rider types that are wrongly interpreted by OVL and most of them don't have as many options for RDs as sprinters do.
I agree inflation is big factor in how the sprints are turning out this year. PCT has it worst because the depth of sprinting talent compared to last year in much, much deeper. There are 16 sprinters with 80+ SPR and 80+ ACC and there simply isn't enough points to go around. All of them are good enough to win any race, so results are more random than usually.
Ah, was confusing as we were talking specifically about sprinters
OVL is always adjusted, and i'm sure it will be again.
Out of interest, and for clarity, what other rider types do we need to look at? I had purer CB based riders on my list after dropping cobbles from 5*, probably not noticed anything on roads that go uphill
Just for the fun of it, I have tried putting together a ranking for PT sprinters (Last season and this). It isn't perfect by any means though! F.e. I picked PTHC band for Coquard to shine last season, and Lecuisinier to shine this season - Some have to do with planning and some to chance - but over the course of a season it's as close as we'll get. I have tried to leave behind sprinter like Demare and van Stayen as a number of their points also comes from hillier stuff/GC where other sprinters can't participate. Sam Bewley too is taken out due to this.
The first number is my interpretation of how good the sprinter is, the latter is the actual position in the ranking. And for the record, I made my own predicted strength of both seasons before looking at actual numbers
2019 predicted:
1 Ben Swift
2 Bryan Coquard
3 Eduard Grosu
4 Caleb Ewan
5 Peter Kennaugh
6 Dylan Groenewegen
7 Leigh Howard
8 Oscar Guerao
9 Daniel Vesely
10 Adrien Petit
Overall the AI makes riders like Grosu and Ewan stronger than Coquard and Swift - which is OK as they are more versatile. Groenewegen had a huge season, but other than that it was pretty spot on. Riders like Guerao, Vesely and Petit are all riders that are pretty unclear in terms of where they should be, so to switch those out with lower end point scoring riders like Guardini, Samolenkov and Kemboi is within the acceptable range I would say!
2020 predicted:
1 John Degenkolb
2 Bryan Coquard
3 Jonas Ahlstrand
4 Eduard Grosu
5 Peter Kennaugh
6 Dylan Groenewegen
7 Leigh Howard
8 Artem Samolenkov
9 Sondre Holst Enger
10 Danny van Poppel
On first glance it looks even better than last season to be honest. Dan Holloway jumps across as the big overachiever, but I guess we all knew that - and it looks like it will continue. The only real underachiever is Jonas Ahlstrand - but then again, it's by such small margins that a couple of good results he could propel up to his "normal" level. Then we have Harrison and Hsu mingling instead of Enger and van Poppel due to the (agreed) broken Giro d'Italia.
Overall I think we are (in terms of top level sprinters), not very far off how I would interpret the level of the sprinters. I do agree that the way it all looks in certain races it does look messed up - but the final results do not look all that bad to be honest! If you have a top level (top 5-6) PT sprinter you can expect around 1000 points. On a very good season they could come close to 1500 points, while on bad seasons they could end up with around 900 points or slightly less.
I haven't done the math for PTC or CT, maybe others could do so to see where the biggest flaws lies.
Edited by SotD on 24-03-2021 12:30
yup. and it's actually not that different in PCT, it's just that people who have 'better' sprinters think they're entitled to winning every race, even though they're still comfortably in top 10 sprinter ranking.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ah, was confusing as we were talking specifically about sprinters
OVL is always adjusted, and i'm sure it will be again.
Out of interest, and for clarity, what other rider types do we need to look at? I had purer CB based riders on my list after dropping cobbles from 5*, probably not noticed anything on roads that go uphill
No problem, I figured as much
I think different type of sprinters could be looked at. Hilly sprinters were worked on last year, but perhaps could be further reduced as they simply don't have the races to take advantage of their hill stat. Even more obvious is a sprinter with an above average cobble stat. While you can have a flat race where the sprinters need a secondary hill stat, you can't have a flat race with cobbles for sprinters where cobbles are a secondary stat. It just becomes a cobbled race where a sprinter first doesn't figure in.
The other one in my opinion is puncheurs with a high mountain stat. They got a big bump in OVL last season, while everyone else had a reduction. Additionally the profiles got adjusted to lessen the mountains impact. So now these riders are penalised for a high stat that they can barely use.
The problem was solved using OVL and race profiles instead of the Results-based-Wage system you mentioned. Now at the same time I think OVL should still give a good indication of a rider's quality. Otherwise we might get way too big swings in wages between seasons and that might make any type of longterm team building very tricky. Results-based-Wage should cover the under and overperformances, but the OVL should still be from where the wage is intially based.
yup. and it's actually not that different in PCT, it's just that people who have 'better' sprinters think they're entitled to winning every race, even though they're still comfortably in top 10 sprinter ranking.
I can understand the frustration. I don't think anyone expect to win "everything", but it's very frustating to have the big favorite for the win finish 13th in a bunch sprint more often than not.
In previous seasons they might not win as often as they do now, but were more regularly performing top 5's - so it was more easy to accept, when the underperformance wasn't that massive.
Seing Eislers performing in the Vuelta hurt every bit as much as seing Coquard doing the same in Qatar earlier. But we should obviously look at how the game performs overall, and not just in single stage-mode, which I must admit I am also doing a lot!
I added OVL and wage calculations to my above post (to everyone).
yup. and it's actually not that different in PCT, it's just that people who have 'better' sprinters think they're entitled to winning every race, even though they're still comfortably in top 10 sprinter ranking.
I can understand the frustration. I don't think anyone expect to win "everything", but it's very frustating to have the big favorite for the win finish 13th in a bunch sprint more often than not.
In previous seasons they might not win as often as they do now, but were more regularly performing top 5's - so it was more easy to accept, when the underperformance wasn't that massive.
Seing Eislers performing in the Vuelta hurt every bit as much as seing Coquard doing the same in Qatar earlier. But we should obviously look at how the game performs overall, and not just in single stage-mode, which I must admit I am also doing a lot!
I added OVL and wage calculations to my above post (to everyone).
Being frustrated is understandable, but trying to change things just because it 'feels' wrong is not. In grand scheme of things, sprints are TOTALLY FINE, as far as I am concerned, and your basic analysis supports my point. and totally fine in a way that we really don't need to do anything regarding flat finishes, unlike hill changes that happened this offseason.
@SotD - That's an interesting table, and i'd expect no less detail from yourself on anything MG!
Definitely i don't recall there being significant issues in the PT overall last season. It wasn't perfect, but kind of made sense.
Would be useful to see this for PCT and CT (i'll have a look after work if i can put that together) as going from PT to PCT this season does not follow the same kind of logic. I know that my team is kind of cursed this season anyway (comes to MSR, finishes 2nd for 0 points, goes to Barbados and can only just get a Top10).
I spot that last year 7 sprinters topped 900 points, but it looks like only 4 are on track to do so this time around. Equally last year Kemboi's entire scoring would still only leave him 10th this season half-way through.
To me this says something is different, as scoring seems to be a lot wider and less deep across the sprinters. Will come back to this at the end of the year and see how things look in regards to inflations impact on scoring.
Guarnieri, Boeckmans and Ciolek were FA signings iirc. Ciolek and Manninen are the two outliers here, but neither scoring game breaking amounts imo. The big guns all scoring well according to the OVL, expect Saber suffering from his COB stat there.
As we can see 2020 is a lot more lopsided. Manninen and Guarnieri are way too high, with Vesely and Itami also overperforming by a lot. Boeckmans jumping up also, but not by that much in a group of similar sprinters. Ewan and Gaviria losing out as the top 2 sprinters, when last year top 2 were in fact the top 2. Lo Cicero underperforming 2 years in a row might be a trend. Kump suffering OVL wise due to his HILL and COB stat. COB stat also hurting Saber, Kristoff and Rowe. Silvestre might be affected by sharing the team with Swift, which can also be partly attributed to Saber with Boeckmans.
Compared to 2019 where there is clear distinct top 5. 2020 is much more bunched together after the two big overperformers.
5/10 predicted in top 10.
So in my opinion sprinting is not "totally fine", but my guess is it's worse than usual in PCT due to a huge number of strong sprinters. I would say 2019 was fine, but 2020 is not good.
Hopefully I haven't made mistakes when copying the numbers Edited by redordead on 25-03-2021 06:42
Lo Cicero is a bit difficult to judge imo, as he might have the sprint stat, but not a lot else going for him. 72FL, horrible RES and 78ACC. I might expect him to finish inside the top 10 but definately not as a given - Imo he's in the same boat as Guerao, Avelino and Rowe. I can see why they wouldn't perform that well, while I would ague that Manninen should definately be among the top 10 sprinters given his versatility and well-rounded stats. Together with Guarnieri I think I would have both around 5-7th. I see you have neither in you 2020 prediction.
Also it can be difficult (like in my own prediction), to feature riders like Kump, Rowe, Kristoff or even Kemboi (due to his abnormal PRL stat). Those riders are probably not necessarily planned around pure sprints.
Hopefully I haven't made mistakes when copying the numbers
Some of those OVL's are wrong, but we all understand the overall point.
This is why i keep saying my season is cursed! The PCT year-to-year is nuts, the Caleb Ewan year-to-year is even more ridiculous. But as i say, even if there are no changes i'm committed to the sprint team concept.
But please don't get distracted from the base cause, which is not just about AI behaviour or luck, but Inflation plays a huge part of this as well (because i will never stop talking about it )
redordead wrote:
True and agreed, but OVL still needs to be fixed as it affects training and RDs available.
RDs - For sprinters there will always be more options than RDs. Maybe a flattening of the top RDs could help but two or three races here and there won't make a big difference with sprinting the way it currently is.
If we were to change things at the 10's level maybe, but how you put that into OVL without creating some weird outcome is complex.
I think redordead is right that RD numbers are pretty significant for sprinter, precisely because there are more opportunities than RD for everyone. That means every extra race day is a chance to score. The fact Ewan has 9 fewer race days than Guarnieri and Manninen, or that AKA has 8-10 fewer race days than most of his competitors, is a significant loss when the level of performance difference does not match. That's potentially a few lucky days of scoring which others get, but those guys do not.
And while I think we all agree that inflation is making things a lot worse, I don't think that's the whole story with this game's treatment of sprints. Denmark and Bongo are two sprinters races clashing that have divided the CT field, so inflation is less of a problem than usual. I guess you could argue that results are better, but they still don't reflect OVL that well. Helping inflation won't help that much if the game doesn't decide to use leaders and teams in an intelligent way. Without changing the game, we can only remedy it by changing our OVL's to reflect performance.
To be clear, I recognize that AKA is not a perfect sprinter. His acceleration holds him back significantly, and I don't expect him to do anything near dominate. But currently, his OVL is over a full point higher than every other sprinter in the CT division. If he is actually not that great of an option, his OVL shouldn't be that high. If he actually is that good, I do think should be able to expect consistently decent results.
After a poor year last year, he had his OVL raised (before training) because he is strong in flat and resistance. But I think the importance of those stats was overemphasized in the new formula based on the good performance a few select riders last year. Testing could confirm this, but flat and resistance are not by themselves carrying guys to success. In fact, if Ulrich's theory is correct, it could be taking him and others, like Eislers, entirely out of sprints. If ACC is actually more important for sprinters in PCM 18, and determines whether someone sprints at all, it has to have a more significant role in OVL calculations than it currently does.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
SotD wrote:
Lo Cicero is a bit difficult to judge imo, as he might have the sprint stat, but not a lot else going for him. 72FL, horrible RES and 78ACC. I might expect him to finish inside the top 10 but definately not as a given - Imo he's in the same boat as Guerao, Avelino and Rowe. I can see why they wouldn't perform that well, while I would ague that Manninen should definately be among the top 10 sprinters given his versatility and well-rounded stats. Together with Guarnieri I think I would have both around 5-7th. I see you have neither in you 2020 prediction.
Also it can be difficult (like in my own prediction), to feature riders like Kump, Rowe, Kristoff or even Kemboi (due to his abnormal PRL stat). Those riders are probably not necessarily planned around pure sprints.
I purposely used just an OVL ranking for both 2019 and 2020.
I wanted to illustrate how the OVL misinterprets riders like Kump, Kristoff, Saber etc. You can say they are not pure sprinters, but there are no races where their stat combos come into play. In the end their scoring is decided by how well they do in sprints, just like everyone else. With a higher OVL and less RDs, they are pretty much setup to fail. But the OVL ranks them as some of the top riders in the game. The same with Lo Cicero, if we already know for years now that he is not that good, then why give him a high OVL?
baseballlover312 wrote:
To be clear, I recognize that AKA is not a perfect sprinter. His acceleration holds him back significantly, and I don't expect him to do anything near dominate. But currently, his OVL is over a full point higher than every other sprinter in the CT division. If he is actually not that great of an option, his OVL shouldn't be that high. If he actually is that good, I do think should be able to expect consistently decent results.
Exactly. The same problem is not limited to just sprinters though.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
