@Ripley Thank you for the information on scouting!
I read about the steals in the game guidelines. From my point of view it would probably end up causing me frustration. In management games I like building a team from ground up. I like finding and nursing youngsters and giving my teams a personality of patience at reaping rewards. So, I would definitely hate to lose a young talented rider through steals. I would hate it even more if say I grow him for a few years and then losing him due to not being able to somehow match an offer from a more powerful team. I am perfectly aware that this happens in real sports and games alike, but it would still cause me frustration. Yet, that protection is interesting and I guess it works like NFL's franchise tag. It could come in handy.
Think the decision to forestall steals this transfer season was the right one. There was already such a high supply of riders from the closure of some long running teams that there was really no reason to have more capital pouring out for steals. If you add the higher wage demands on top (which is a better system to keep the market dynamic tbh) I think it would have caused quite some chaos and frustration. E.g. think about a raid on Grupo Argos Talent 7 cluster (-> in the past there were instances like with Herklotz team were a lot of steal attemps were launched on one team, unsurprisingly the manager quit not longer after...)
I hope with the new teams this season that they will be here for a long time and eventually there will an ambition from them to have WT competitive teams, too. They may achieve that through training, the open market, transfers or steals. I hope that the three former will be enough but I can see a reason why teams would want to have steals. Meanwhile smaller teams might also worry that their 1-2 top riders or talent might get stolen, which is a very valid point.
I enjoyed this transfer period much more than others, primarily due to the new bidding system. If steals are reintroduced I would like to see a compensation system in place for that. The hostility of steals comes basically from the fact that it is a corporate raid and the "attacked" team has NO compensation and NO incentive at all by letting its rider go.
The only real protection comes from blocking a rider but looking at the transfer season of ICL19 some people didnt see it as an option for their top talents and didnt use their block even for pot7 and were then offended when people tried steal attempts. So either way, steals brings a lot of issues with it and a hostile spirit to the competitive nature of ICL.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Even though I'm starting from scratch again and would benefit most from it, I actually really dislike steals exactly for the reasons and examples you described, and I'm happy to see them gone this season. Maybe they could work with some kind of compensation system as you said, but I don't think that changes the hostility and inherent derailment that steals cause. If I spent a bunch of time and money training up a rider, building up their palmares, maybe crafting a narrative with them, a cash rebate isn't going to make me suddenly fine with them getting stolen.
I'm not sure how much the loyalty mechanic does as it is right now, but maybe it could be the foundation of how 'steals' (if you'd even call it that) could work in future. Loyalty could be affected by things like race days used, results, and research/training stuff applied to a rider. Riders with high loyalty above some threshold are not available for steal attempts (you get rewarded with security for building up talents and treating your riders well). Then below that threshold, riders will become more likely to consider steal attempts the further down the loyalty is. Basically that would be reflected as, the lower the loyalty goes, the less a stealing team would have to pay to steal, and the more the defending team would have to pay to retain. That said, that presents a different problem where a) new leaders are very insecure in their positions, and prime targets for steals, and b) newer teams are especially vulnerable, which is definitely not a good way to endear new players to the game.
IMO I can't really think of a satisfying way to implement steals again. There are ways to improve it from what it was, but at its core it's something that just doesn't seem to have a place in this sort of game.
EDIT: I guess a solution to the loyalty problem could be that new riders on an existing team start at the threshold, and riders on a new team start a bit above the threshold (since they'll have to manage the loyalty of every rider), idk I don't have too many specific ideas about this, it's 3 am and this just popped into my head
Edited by Scatmaster111 on 26-03-2021 08:16
Personally, I tried to "steal responsibly" - that is, see it as an early opportunity to hire a rider the other team will let go with an offer which shouldn't raise the rider's wage demand for the current team. That is how I got Majka, Santos was relegated and faced a budget cut so I felt jandal might have to let him go and if he does, I'll pick him up nice and early. In fact, the same year I also made a Contador offer and Carbonsports did let him go - but I didn't calculate well enough, my offer was too low for him to accept.
Anyway, so here's a "steals light" idea: Every manager gets very limited opportunities (3 maybe) to declare an interest in a rider which won't interfere with renewals at all, but if the rider is let go the other manager can pick him up early, though he'll have to pay a wage a rider would have accepted during renewals.(So for Tao Hart it wouldn't have been favourable, he was cheaper as a FA than during renewals.) So no frustration for the old team.
Since several managers might be interested in the same rider, there needs to be at least a short "bidding war". Bikex would have to send out PMs to interested parties, saying the rider is now free and would sign for amount x, how much will you bid, highest bid wins.
Ripley wrote:
Personally, I tried to "steal responsibly" - that is, see it as an early opportunity to hire a rider the other team will let go with an offer which shouldn't raise the rider's wage demand for the current team. That is how I got Majka, Santos was relegated and faced a budget cut so I felt jandal might have to let him go and if he does, I'll pick him up nice and early. In fact, the same year I also made a Contador offer and Carbonsports did let him go - but I didn't calculate well enough, my offer was too low for him to accept.
Anyway, so here's a "steals light" idea: Every manager gets very limited opportunities (3 maybe) to declare an interest in a rider which won't interfere with renewals at all, but if the rider is let go the other manager can pick him up early, though he'll have to pay a wage a rider would have accepted during renewals.(So for Tao Hart it wouldn't have been favourable, he was cheaper as a FA than during renewals.) So no frustration for the old team.
Since several managers might be interested in the same rider, there needs to be at least a short "bidding war". Bikex would have to send out PMs to interested parties, saying the rider is now free and would sign for amount x, how much will you bid, highest bid wins.
Not smart or knowledgeable enough to figure out if that fits with the rest of the system, but as a steals-adjacent idea I actually don't dislike it at all which might be a first for me
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
Ripley wrote:
Personally, I tried to "steal responsibly" - that is, see it as an early opportunity to hire a rider the other team will let go with an offer which shouldn't raise the rider's wage demand for the current team. That is how I got Majka, Santos was relegated and faced a budget cut so I felt jandal might have to let him go and if he does, I'll pick him up nice and early. In fact, the same year I also made a Contador offer and Carbonsports did let him go - but I didn't calculate well enough, my offer was too low for him to accept.
Steal responsibly sounds nice but you could also argue that you put in the last nail in the coffin of a relegating team that already will have a hard time having to figure it all out.
Don't like the idea too much as it basically narrows the market down to a 1-2 max. 3 stealers and if a team is intent to letting a rider go then he should be present in the pool for everyone (30 managers incl the old one) to bid on and not only the ones who propose a steal attempt. Plus it is another step in the process.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Although I am always in favor of dynamism I think the upset caused by steals is not worth it.
I think that building a team and nurturing talent is something that appeals to most of us and I think the idea that a team should be able to build through talent development should be protected. My concern is the same things that protect a poor team also protect rich teams.
This is not a criticism of Croatia, he is doing what I would do in his position, but his ability to turn his current success into a cornucopia of pot 7 talents is worrying to me. Sure he will probably not be able to afford all of them in the future but he has total control over which ones he keeps and he makes money on the ones he sells. What he is able to do his turn his current success into almost certain future success. Repeat his strategy across all established teams and, barring disbands, you have the same 5 or so teams always near the top.
If there was a lot of risk in the dev system this would be less of a concern but my impression is there isn't. Most Pot 7's will be pretty darn good riders. If I am wrong about that then my points are wrong.
So steals is a way of mitigating that as it would reduce his control over those riders. But it reduces a small team's control over their one Pot 7 even more, so steals aren't a good solution. I think tough renewals is a better option.
But I have one idea that is really unrelated to steals but adds some dynamism. A one round draft in reverse order of finish before any talent signing. The salary would be at a pre-set level based on the pick. This way getting the best talents is not a function of ability to pay.
I don't want to dilute the awesome scouting system but I think this can merge with that. You have the draft after round 5 so the information is less and having more and better scouts still helps you since (a) you will know more prospects for the draft and more about each and (b) you will have a better shot to find undrafted gems. So wealthy teams retain the indirect benefit of having more to spend on scouting but not the direct benefit of being able to outbid poorer teams for top talents.
One variant would be for only 2nd tier teams to draft and the PT teams are left on their own to fight over the rest.
Ripley wrote:
Personally, I tried to "steal responsibly" - that is, see it as an early opportunity to hire a rider the other team will let go with an offer which shouldn't raise the rider's wage demand for the current team. That is how I got Majka, Santos was relegated and faced a budget cut so I felt jandal might have to let him go and if he does, I'll pick him up nice and early. In fact, the same year I also made a Contador offer and Carbonsports did let him go - but I didn't calculate well enough, my offer was too low for him to accept.
Steal responsibly sounds nice but you could also argue that you put in the last nail in the coffin of a relegating team that already will have a hard time having to figure it all out.
He must have done an awful job hammering in that nail since we promoted straight back up last year
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
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
To be honest, that's not how I remember it. Kwiatek went for 1500, SAP could surely have matched that bid (needed roughly 1350?). I think for him like jandal the far bigger problem was the ruthless bid on his talent Spagnoli, but he could have prevented that.
@UU: We used to have exactly that kind of draft Though it came at the end of the season, there were still very good talents available, Ceramica hit the jackpot with Torres. The upside of doing it at the end is that you had the U21 WC results to go on plus Bikex prepared a sheet with a rough idea of how good the talents are. But an early draft ahead of the first normal talent signing period is worth considering.
Croatia might not be the best example of continuous dominance, since he wasn't part of the ICL from the start, he actually beat the odds by being utterly ruthless. He is an argument against dynamism, if you like - it's easy to keep holding onto your riders for years, but you'd probably be more successful by taking risks on your own accord, at least that's how Croatia did it.
Though it reminds me of a smaller point I thought of: With the new FA bidding system we now have we should probably have delayed transfers. Bikex opened up transfers after a round of bidding where nobody could be signed anyway. Croatia had 0 budget left after renewals, but thanks to some quick transfers he was fully able to bid on FAs right away. If we delayed transfers he would either have had to let another good rider go for free to the FA market or he couldn't have bid on all those pot 7 talents he got. So there's my "anti-croatia-rule". (sorry, mate!)
I'll just put the following we were discussing in the previews thread in here as well. Two points came up:
- Crashes. Fabianski went as far as to say: "Honestly, if I had realized that crashes were not switched off in ICL, I guess I wouldn't even have joined." That's pretty serious so it's worth discussing.
- Pace of results: Again, here's Fabianski: "the high pace might be another reason, as I just can't keep up with everything, especially not with the HQ." I was going to say this independently, I recognise and like that the pace is high, but I also love it when people manage to make HQ posts, short breaks between race months could help with that.
Ripley wrote:
I'll just put the following we were discussing in the previews thread in here as well. Two points came up:
- Crashes. Fabianski went as far as to say: "Honestly, if I had realized that crashes were not switched off in ICL, I guess I wouldn't even have joined." That's pretty serious so it's worth discussing.
Sorry but that is overreacting over one rider crashing out of the race. Don't get me wrong, but potentially quitting game because one of the riders crashed out? That's overreacting for me. Also, crashes are part of cycling. Those happened, are happening and will happening. It's more realistic. I already myself put crash intensity below base value in options. Why? Because when I did test Giro run, on first 2 stages I had crash every few kms. Base value is 100%. I put it on 70% and crashes are happening, but are rarity.
As much I like people joining this game... Switching off crashes because Chamorro wasn't able to finish race on 8th position (don't get me wrong Fabianski, I have nothing against you ) is just big overreaction over... nothing really.
Ripley wrote:
- Pace of results: Again, here's Fabianski: "the high pace might be another reason, as I just can't keep up with everything, especially not with the HQ." I was going to say this independently, I recognise and like that the pace is high, but I also love it when people manage to make HQ posts, short breaks between race months could help with that.
We can definitely discuss doing like 2-3 days break between months so people can have time for HQ posts. Tempo this year is even surprisingly high for me (and believe me, it is high). But also... who said people have to do HQ post every 5 minutes? We know it's fun to read, but...
1) ICL started before MG got rid of crashes, so I'm used to it to sorta say. I had both Goos and Van Poppel crash out in Tour de France as my goal race, which kinda sucked. But in the end, it makes the game more realistic, so I'm in favour of keeping crashes on.
2) Season pace could slow down a bit once we catch up. But at the moment we just rode Gent-Wegelgem 2020, putting us exactly 1 year behind.
Sorry guys, didn't really want to start a discussion on this. I was just really frustrated to see Chamorro do a really good WT stage race (for a tiny little CT team, that is), and then lose it all when it was the least probable. But yeah, with a bit of distance I'd say it was an overreaction, that's true.
Personally, I'm not fundamentally against crashes, but if we reason like "crashes are real", well, in reality you can adapt the season planning after crashing out of a race, especially if it happens early in the season. Of course, there couldn't be any compensation for Chamorro, as he crashed on the final day and had got some nice stage results before, but if let's say you crash out of the Tour on day 1, it's just 21 RDs thrown away for your leader. IRL it does happen that the rider then re-focuses on other races, but this is not possible in this game. This is why I'm not in favor of enabling crashes (I'd also disable punctures if there was a way tbh).
In terms of results pace, I'm OK with how we currently do it. However, in the beginning I was committed to post a review per month, which right now just isn't possible and hence is a bit frustrating as well. I guess I'd choose another approach for next year, so that wouldn't be an issue, but right now it's not motivating to not respond to my own demands. Maybe I'm a bit too harsh with myself, I agree
It's definitely a good thing though if we can slowly catch up with real life cycling, so no worries if we go through 2020 at high-speed - I'll just not be as active as I thought I'd be. But I guess the ManGame-mindset just wasn't too suited for ICL, so I'll try to change that.
Just to add my thoughts if there was a way to prevent all crashes in real life I would want to introduce it. In a game we can introduce it so lets do it. I feel there is enough randomness from the AI, daily form and punctures. I do not want to win a grand tour because another managers race leader crashes out on the final stage!
The pace is very fast and a challenge to keep up with but as we are a year behind it is better to keep going I feel.
Its great to see more reporters this year and I think we need to take advantage of their enthusiasm while we can. These things can easily change.
Once caught up to real life time a couple of days pause every month would be welcome to reflect and allow managers who are keen to provide timely updates the space to do so.
But more than all of this, its great to have ICL back and healthier than ever
Thanks so much to Bikex and all who have put in the time to make it happen.
DaveTwoBob wrote:
Its great to see more reporters this year and I think we need to take advantage of their enthusiasm while we can. These things can easily change.
I kind of figured only people who are involved in administration of ICL do reporting, but if any are ever needed, I'd be more than happy to help. I still have PCM 15 installed and would be happy to make videos for races. I could even commentate over them (or not ).
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
DaveTwoBob wrote:
Its great to see more reporters this year and I think we need to take advantage of their enthusiasm while we can. These things can easily change.
I kind of figured only people who are involved in administration of ICL do reporting, but if any are ever needed, I'd be more than happy to help. I still have PCM 15 installed and would be happy to make videos for races. I could even commentate over them (or not ).
Yeah same here, I could see myself having time to report in the end of the season, although I can't provide videos I dont think, but could post extra screens instead.
Another vote for getting rid of crashes and I guess Marcovdw might support it, too. I do feel bad now that he has lost his captain in three classics. And there I was claiming it's so rare.
Here's a tiny thing from me: For the World Cup we should maybe replace Gent-Wevelgem with a different cobbled race (E3). Not because Coquard keeps winning (has high COB), but because the rest ofd the top 10 are usually sprinters who don't like cobbles.
Well I was screwed a lot by crashes in GT but I see as part of the game. If enough people are against crashes, I'd be okay with it though. In the end, crashes are much like steals. They add a dynamism to the game but people more aggravated by it and may lose interest in the game.
On a side note, I would find it very weird if there were no crashes in cobbled races.. this is their whole deal...
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
(sorry, mate!)
) is just big overreaction over... nothing really.
