baseballlover312 wrote:
At this point I think reducing free agents with little MG history is pretty much fine, though I question the impact it would actually have on inflation. Those guys are the one's who by definition haven't been signed, which means there's more than enough inflated riders already signed to teams. Unless we're expanding the team pool, which seems unlikely at this point, I'm not sure that's gonna make a real difference. Again, I'm still for it though.

I think adding new riders should be done a lot more in accordance with what we discussed a few months ago to limit the inflation in the 76-79 range. There can't be more solid 76-77 main stat guys than can even be signed as stagiares. It leads to a DB that when combined with reducing inflation at the top is actually worse than a few years ago, because everyone maxes within 5 stats of each other. That mid-upper 70's area needs to be drastically reduced so guys added with 70-75 main stats can fill those spots and increase the stats spread again over time. It also would give leeway for adding more interesting stuff in terms of versatility and backups.

And side note, but very important one imo: I'm again reaffirming my belief in needing that updated, more balanced Fighter XP pathway. It's a shame that we've kept putting it off for two years now and just let another season go by without it. It should be implemented yesterday imo. It has no risk of unbalancing anything drastically and would just give another option for domestiques to be useful without needing to be 76+ in a main stat.

jph27 wrote:


I think to achieve what you're suggesting then it's a necessary step, as otherwise those riders will be preferred to developing or signing any sub 75 main stat riders. Just for context, at each level we have the following numbers of riders who will reach 75+ in their main stat (first number is those that are FA this season, second is the number FA for this season and last):

4.100 - 147, 78
4.xx - 70, 48
3.xx - 128, 82
2.xx - 136, 94
1.xx - 302, 280

A lot of them would be suitable for editing to turn them into solid 70-75 main stat riders, but as long as they're in the DB in their current form you wouldn't choose to develop a weaker rider in their place - some of them will reach 78/79 (and not just sprinters), so even with poor backups they're a better gamble if you've a spare 50k.

Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
This sounds consistent with what I have seen. A top rouleur will not work for a top sprinter. In a classics this means the rouleur will attack even as the sprinter on his team sets himself up for a sprint. This is probably logical for a race like MSR where you play multiple cards but not so much in a less selective classic.

In a stage race the rouler becomes useless because the won't attack. This happens to AKA a lot.

Then I agree that whether a rouleur is treated as a sprinter or rouleur will depend on his stats and the startlist. But would add that if you have another sprinter he is likely to get the rouleur role. I believe it can also change stage-to-stage maybe because of recovery or other dynamics (see Holloway in the TDF). I think AKA suffers because his weak ACC undermines him being treated as a sprinter.

Finally stamina matters in selecting a rouleur no matter how long the race. This is why Vanbilsen gets the role ahead of Bonifazio.

I started to test whether any of that changes in 20 but hadn't done enough to be conclusive - but I am not optimistic.

valverde321 wrote:


I feel like this would be affected by race day condition. So AKA almost might want a negative day to be competitive. I also wonder if when he gets a good RDC, his stats are affected as a rouleur and not a sprinter, so he gets a larger bonus to FL, Fighter etc, and not ACC and SPR.



I came across a conversation with DavyDepuydt, who has been working with PCM developers behind the scenes, on PCMWorld that pretty much confirms our testing about ridertypes, and the displayed "ridertype" has no actual bearing in-game.

So some riders are just always going to be drawing the short straw in races for whatever reason.

Nemolito wrote:
PT has got 8 ranking updates so far, as much as PCT and CT combined. I think it should be equal, or at least not that big of a difference. I have the feeling other (P)CT manager think alike.

I don't wan't to be negative or blame anyone (in this case roturn, as he's the one doing these updates), but wanted to write a quick post here to find a solution for next season to make it more equal, while at the same time lowering the effort roturn has to put into everything.

I think the code itself is quite 'easy' to learn, and some people will be eager to learn it as well. The process itself isn't that hard, but of course time consuming. So my solution is to have some people learn it and let them be responsible for a monthly update (for example). If you have another 4/5/... that know the code and who just agree between themselves who takes what month of whatever division, it's definitely possible to have the same amount of updates for every division, while also freeing roturn of a bit of extra work

SotD wrote:
Maybe we should look at the NC route decider. I would like to suggest that a route can’t be used 3/5 seasons.

So if we have a nation that always goes between Hill and mountain, the 5th year had to shuffle:

1. Hill
2. Mountain
3. Hill
4. Mountain
5. Flat

TheManxMissile wrote:


As a manager with interest in several small nations and limited rider pools, this is something i would not like!
Having the ability to keep NC's relevant to the available riders is a good thing, even if that means only using two on repeat.

There is the self-interest element, but that's hand-in-hand with having a democratic vote. And if 51% of managers from a bigger nation agree over 5 years to repeat the NC's then i'm happy with that.

If we were to fiddle with the democratic voting system, i'd rather see a simple 5-year rotation brought in instead. Top of the alphabet gets flat, next hill etc all the way down. Next season we just rotate. This would have a more effective way to open up NC's to most possible winners over a riders time under contract. (not saying we do this, i much prefer the current system, but if we want to force variety we might as well go all in)

SotD wrote:


Your points are basically why I want to implement the rule. To avoid a manager having monopoly on which rider is going to be NC.