|
2020-2021 Changes Discussion Thread
|
| knockout |
Posted on 11-07-2021 22:03
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7753
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
I think it is fine if you want to pay the 50k minimum to play the sprint lottery but you shouldn't be able to do it for free. At 76 speed you can still pick up a passable lead out rider.
In that case, many teams will just swap around their last 50k signing and the first draft pick. The draft picks are basically nothing other than 50k riders so limiting which riders they can sign with it, doesnt make much sense. |
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 12-07-2021 00:28
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3301
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
knockout wrote:
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
I think it is fine if you want to pay the 50k minimum to play the sprint lottery but you shouldn't be able to do it for free. At 76 speed you can still pick up a passable lead out rider.
In that case, many teams will just swap around their last 50k signing and the first draft pick. The draft picks are basically nothing other than 50k riders so limiting which riders they can sign with it, doesn't make much sense.
To end up with a scoring sprinter in the draft seems like you would have one of two thought processes (a) I know there are a ton of sprinters so I can just draft one or (b) hey look there are still marginal sprinters left in the draft why don't I take one. I don't think we want to encourage either strategy when the sprints are so dicey to begin with. That said I agree the upside isn't huge but I see zero downside until supply and demand even out more.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 12-07-2021 00:37
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3301
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
whitejersey wrote:
I honestly don't see the issue. The draft gives room for managers to make the decisions that they want to make, some use it to sign a talent for free some use it to round out support at some use it to grab a sprinter, that might score well and might not score well, I dont see a reason to change it.
The issue is you can't pick up a rider who will score well in any specialty except sprinting. And sprinting is probably most sensitive to riders who may or may not score since the differences between sprinters are marginal.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| AbhishekLFC |
Posted on 12-07-2021 05:59
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11709
Joined: 27-07-2015
PCM$: 1861.50
|
Somehow don't really agree with Ulrich, and not just because of Boev. Think the drafts have worked out quite well. Also I got Boev as the last draft pick in the first round, so all the managers had a chance to pick him. Saw his performance for the Amateurs last season and that made up my mind.
What I think does need a relook is the 77 TT and cobble stat limits for PCT in C2 races. It is quite easy for PCT teams to get these points imo and that shouldn't be the case for races that are supposed to favour the CT. Can be reduced to 76 I think.
|
| |
|
|
| redordead |
Posted on 12-07-2021 08:10
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4910
Joined: 18-10-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
I agree with Abhi on both points.
"I am a cyclist, I may not be the best, but that is what I strive to be. I may never get there, but I will never quit trying." - Tadej Pogačar
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 12-07-2021 08:47
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2522
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
If you want to put any limitations (I don't think you should) on the draft, then only allow unmaxed riders to be drafted. Anything else would be dumb as hell
|
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 12-07-2021 09:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2938
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Want easy solution - just abolish the draft.
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 13-07-2021 03:30
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3301
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Wow, and I thought my idea was a simple way to slightly mitigate some fairly commonly held concerns about the CT sprint set up that had the benefit of harming nobody. Thought people would either like it or not care. Guess I will go back to the drawing board.
While I don't think all other alternatives are dumb I like quadsas' idea of limiting it to unmaxed riders - so it becomes a development engine.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 13-07-2021 05:19
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2938
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
Wow, and I thought my idea was a simple way to slightly mitigate some fairly commonly held concerns about the CT sprint set up that had the benefit of harming nobody. Thought people would either like it or not care. Guess I will go back to the drawing board.
While I don't think all other alternatives are dumb I like quadsas' idea of limiting it to unmaxed riders - so it becomes a development engine.
Actually, this idea is the dumbest of them all - you are basically limit teams to a pool of useless riders when most top prospects are either already signed as full-time riders or stagiaires. It is difficult to develop a lv3 rider to lv4 in the CT, and impossible to max out an unmaxed lv4 rider.
If we can't find a compromise, then we should just remove the draft if this season was so controversial.
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 14-07-2021 20:20
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2522
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
Since it's probably gonna be looked at soon, I once again ask for rework of Fighter statgains. It is so, so bad
|
| |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 14-07-2021 20:32
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4700
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
ivaneurope wrote:
If we can't find a compromise, then we should just remove the draft if this season was so controversial.
If the RDs per team stay the same, then we could just drop the draft, but increase the CT teams' budget by 100k and the rider limit by 2. I guess the outcome would pretty much be the same, except that it allows for slightly more strategical options (e.g. taking 4 stags à 10k instead of 2 "full" 50k riders). But I guess the riders getting a contract would be roughly the same that those who were drafted now.
Personally, I don't really care if there's a draft or not. But as I said, if the team RDs stay the same, we shouldn't drop the draft without any kind of replacement for these 2 riders.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-12-2024 07:23
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 14-07-2021 21:08
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7753
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
This is sth i would like to do for PT teams too. I noticed last season that if would have gone with only 20 riders i would have lacked a lot of RDs when a couple of years back it was fairly easy to fill race days with just 18 riders. I suspect that due to race days reduction for individual riders and the inflation of stats, the available RDs of riders went down quicker than the number of race days per team (?).
Spoiler could also just be that i dont have any low ovr talents but either way i liked the idea  |
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 14-07-2021 21:24
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2938
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Fabianski wrote:
ivaneurope wrote:
If we can't find a compromise, then we should just remove the draft if this season was so controversial.
If the RDs per team stay the same, then we could just drop the draft, but increase the CT teams' budget by 100k and the rider limit by 2. I guess the outcome would pretty much be the same, except that it allows for slightly more strategical options (e.g. taking 4 stags à 10k instead of 2 "full" 50k riders). But I guess the riders getting a contract would be roughly the same that those who were drafted now.
Personally, I don't really care if there's a draft or not. But as I said, if the team RDs stay the same, we shouldn't drop the draft without any kind of replacement for these 2 riders.
To be honest, personally I'd increase the salary cap for CT teams to 1,500,000 (to be in line with the other divisions which end on 500,000).
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 14-07-2021 21:34
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2522
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
I think draft is 100% fine. If a team doesn't want to grab a mediocre sprinter in FA, I think it's totally fine to draft one. And if the problem you see is that everyone with just pick sprinters, then what is the problem if everyone does? It might actually reduce sprinter inflation if people will not even be looking to pick up sprinter talents or anything.
|
| |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 14-07-2021 22:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2919
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Pushing wage cap to 1.5 mil is not the way to go. Even with with 17 rider floor that allows CT teams to almost drop 90k per rider in wage. Which seems pretty insane for CT level, considering that for PCT it's 125k. People have complained about CT being too weak financially, not being able to train etc. but I don't think going to 1.5mil is right, maybe 1.35 is better, someone better at math than me could make a more comprehensive argument. I still think that if you want to give CT more financial bricks to move with nudging transfer budget and not touching wage cap is the currect way to go about it since that allows for better signings and training within CT.
I still don't see the issue with the current draft as it is.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 14-07-2021 22:54
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16451
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10538.70
|
quadsas wrote:
Since it's probably gonna be looked at soon, I once again ask for rework of Fighter statgains. It is so, so bad
Thank you. This really needs to be done and year after year the answer is "maybe next year." jph already had a draft done, and there's a microscopic chance of it becoming OP. We can't keep pushing this off. It will be good for the game, and the sooner the better.
On CT wage cap, I agree with WJ that 1.5 million is too much in CT. Honestly, I think raising it at all is not really beneficial for anything in the grand scheme of the game. Do we really need to make CT stronger compared to PT and PCT? I certainly don't think so. Honestly, inflation to me is as bad as ever, and it's hitting CT the hardest. Giving more budget would only make it worse.
If anything, I'd be in favor of giving PT a bit more wage cap so not as many leaders slide to PCT and then to CT, which has been increasingly happening for years now. PT has more clashes and RD restrictions that allow it to accommodate inflation at least a bit in season planning. PT managers can get 2 GC guys and send them to completely different race programs. Not the case in PCT or CT as much. So I think it's best to keep as many top guys in the top division as possible, especially as the top of the DB deflates a bit.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 14-07-2021 23:03
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 14-07-2021 23:12
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2919
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
quadsas wrote:
Since it's probably gonna be looked at soon, I once again ask for rework of Fighter statgains. It is so, so bad
I still agree with this sentiment, I have been trying to create riders that fit into what what a traditional fighter would be and it's super hard due to how bad the fighter training is at lower levels and in general.
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 14-07-2021 23:19
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2522
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
If anything, I'd be in favor of giving PT a bit more wage cap so not as many leaders slide to PCT and then to CT, which has been increasingly happening for years now. PT has more clashes and RD restrictions that allow it to accommodate inflation at least a bit in season planning. PT managers can get 2 GC guys and send them to completely different race programs. Not the case in PCT or CT as much. So I think it's best to keep as many top guys in the top division as possible, especially as the top of the DB deflates a bit.
Agreed. If any sort of wage cap adjustments would be done, they really should start at the top and then trickle down
|
| |
|
|
| AbhishekLFC |
Posted on 15-07-2021 06:34
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11709
Joined: 27-07-2015
PCM$: 1861.50
|
Have to agree with the CT wage cap discussion above. CT as it is, is too strong in my opinion at the moment. If anything, I'd be in favour of actually reducing the wage cap and increase the budget by say 10%, if that can be done without too much hassle. And I'd also agree that PT perhaps can see an increaased wage cap, by the same amount as is reduced from the CT. Inflation is definitely more of a problem in the lower divisions and limiting teams from getting multiple sub-top leaders is the short term way of tackling it.
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 15-07-2021 08:20
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
Just to add to the draft discussion, I'd find it a shame to abolish it. I probably couldn't justify signing someone like Adrien Niyonshuti, who didn't contribute much at all but was a really nice addition from a role-playing standpoint, if it meant cutting into my actual wage cap. Even Didier Munyaneza, who as pointed out was one of the positive surprises of the draft, maybe wouldn't have made the cut. I actually kinda liked the original idea of limiting sprinters as a means to combat the too large sprinter fields, but I'd rather leave the draft untouched than get rid of it entirely.
|
| |
|
