I agree with keeping the draft as it is, without any changes made to it.
For my case, picking up the second highest scoring draftee this season. It was pure luck, and i second what cunego is saying here. As i would NEVER pick up Kip in the FA, and just took a longshot on him in the Draft. And he was my main sprinter in several races, and also the AI treated him like that and he got the team to work for him etc.
ivaneurope wrote:
Personally, I don't see any benefits from increasing the budget while decreasing the salary cap as the cap is attached to the budget itself.
If I understand it correctly, that would increase the amount of money we could spend on transfer fees, no? Which I would personally appreciate, as we might not necessarily see stronger teams, but we could customize our teams maybe a bit more to our liking in terms of nationalities or rider types. On the other hand, I suppose this would flood more money into the system, which might lead to even more training and even more stat inflation, although probably limited to the upper ranks of riders? Just a spontaneous thought, not sure.
ivaneurope wrote:
Personally, I don't see any benefits from increasing the budget while decreasing the salary cap as the cap is attached to the budget itself.
If I understand it correctly, that would increase the amount of money we could spend on transfer fees, no? Which I would personally appreciate, as we might not necessarily see stronger teams, but we could customize our teams maybe a bit more to our liking in terms of nationalities or rider types. On the other hand, I suppose this would flood more money into the system, which might lead to even more training and even more stat inflation, although probably limited to the upper ranks of riders? Just a spontaneous thought, not sure.
Yeah what cunego said is what I meant.
Budget is of two components: wages and fees available. Budget is fixed while the fees available to spend depend on goals achieved, set, etc. So it's not the same when you add them up in the current scenario and my proposed scenario.
Do agree with cunego's last point that this might increase training. Maybe just decrease the wage budget then. I have proposed a change to 3.6, 2.4, 1.2 million budgets for the respective divisions for a couple of seasons now. Will be ok with reducing the CT wages to 1.1 or even 1 million. PCT is too close to PT in terms wages as well and the increased gap could well reduce some of the leader leaks from the top division.
At the end of the day, everyone is on the same playing field and comparing with other seasons also does not make sense. You might argue that teams relegating might be at a disadvantage, but only thing this does is make probably lose one extra rider than you otherwise would. With the reduction, the existing CT teams will also have to trim their squad wages.
Looking in from the outside, the CT Draft seems to work fine! If a rider can score that well, y'all can now sign him up yourselves. And kudos to the manager who saw the potential, then made the planning to fit and score. Meanwhile it's a great way to boost smaller nation and rider development.
Our major issue, as always, is inflation giving us too many useable riders in the DB, and the game can't handle them. This is amplified in sprints, hence why spending 0 wage on a passable one is a very smart move.
You don't fix this with adjusting the Wage Cap or Draft. You fix this through the various methods that have been said for the past few years.
Just going through the DB for WC Selections, and it's insane! Every time i look at the DB it gets worse i think
blah blah, TMM campaigns for a wider and more radical re-set, we've all been here befpre.
Oh, and please don't include Training in Inflation discussions. Yes training makes stats go up, but it's a vital part of the economics and long term development of the game. It is also controlled entirely by ourselves.
It does not cause the mass inflation that is crippling the DB, and should always be discussed away from Inflation as a separate system.
I agree with training not being an issue in terms of mass inflation and is only really massively impactful for the top PT leaders etc. most of the time. I also agree with the WC nominations thing for a lot of nations its insane how many riders of the same main stat one can actually select etc. Issue is that with the amount of teams in the game and they all need competitive leaders unlike a traditional db where multiple teams at each level doesnt have quality leaders.
I wouldnt have anything against a mass reset but I understand that it would come at a massive cost for many managers.
I doubt a mass reset will happen any time soon, and something must be done to fight inflation in the lower divisions in the mean time, rather than just talking about it. Limiting budget by which teams in the lower divisions can buy stronger and stronger riders is the way to go about it I think,
Hate to hop in on this discussion about the draft so late, but I am a huge fan of the draft and I really would hate changing it in any way. Sure yes, Boev and Kip were the biggest scorer by far at this time, but even recently I've seen some big results from draft-based riders.
I think the bigger thing is that although yes, there are sprinters on this list, there's a few 20+ point scoring riders on that list who aren't sprinters and may have contributed to further scoring by being strong teammates (I've had this person experience with Erick Rowsell who's been extremely valuable with his climbing and race days).
That said, although you could get 100 points from a free sprinter, there are some great sprinters in the CT who scored 150+ points despite going for close to the minimum in free agency. Again, I have personal experience with this as I picked up Lavoine for 60k who scored 200+ points, instead of trying to go for a sprinter in the CT draft. Realistically, had I picked Boev or Kip and tried to find a cheap scorer in another terrain for 60k, I likely would have scored less than the combination of Lavoine, Young, and Rowsell.
I'd also like to apologize for using my own team as the example as that may make my argument a bit personal to me and difficult to relate to, but the draft really adds a lot of creativity at the CT level without simply giving more wage and roster spots which teams would likely simply leverage through loan-ins in my opinion.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Looking in from the outside, the CT Draft seems to work fine! If a rider can score that well, y'all can now sign him up yourselves. And kudos to the manager who saw the potential, then made the planning to fit and score. Meanwhile it's a great way to boost smaller nation and rider development.
Our major issue, as always, is inflation giving us too many useable riders in the DB, and the game can't handle them. This is amplified in sprints, hence why spending 0 wage on a passable one is a very smart move.
You don't fix this with adjusting the Wage Cap or Draft. You fix this through the various methods that have been said for the past few years.
Just going through the DB for WC Selections, and it's insane! Every time i look at the DB it gets worse i think
I had given up on this but I can't resist - this is one of a number of posts here that make great arguments for my idea but somehow comes down against it. Apologies to Abhi and Hillis but I am not sure that drafting a 2nd tier sprinter in the CT draft was that innovative, There are dozens of them, I can't imagine every CT manager didn't notice that, I think the fact they didn't is more about role playing decisions than poor strategy. I agree with all the issues TMM raises but a radical solution isn't happening. Making adding more sprinters through the draft slightly harder would be a small way to mitigate the sprinter issue in CT while the db gradually corrects. Hillis logic was absolutely right, but him taking that opportunity clutters up the sprints and penalizes folks who invested resources in sprinting.
Removing drafting of sprinters would actually increase the use of the draft for riders from small nations and development. Similarly I think careful team building as described by Maxime would benefit from this rule not suffer.
I too love the draft and am definitely not in favor of abolishing it, I just think it should be used to supplement your squad and add marginal young riders not to add point scoring riders, which you can only do because of the sprinter over-supply.
My concern with lowering the CT budget is it would make it even harder for CT teams to compete for young riders. I am not sure it fixes the problem of too many sub-top leaders in lower divisions as won't their salaries just adjust down over time as long as there are too many of them?
AbhishekLFC wrote:
I doubt a mass reset will happen any time soon, and something must be done to fight inflation in the lower divisions in the mean time, rather than just talking about it. Limiting budget by which teams in the lower divisions can buy stronger and stronger riders is the way to go about it I think,
I agree with the principle behind this, and then if we do this (in my view) we unfortunately will also need to make it harder for guys like Kelderman (not targeting you because you made the post, just the best example ) or even the slightly worse leaders to be brought down to CT by relegating teams if the teams who are returning/entering in CT are even less able to buy competitive leaders compared to relegating PCT guys.
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
AbhishekLFC wrote:
I doubt a mass reset will happen any time soon, and something must be done to fight inflation in the lower divisions in the mean time, rather than just talking about it. Limiting budget by which teams in the lower divisions can buy stronger and stronger riders is the way to go about it I think,
I agree with the principle behind this, and then if we do this (in my view) we unfortunately will also need to make it harder for guys like Kelderman (not targeting you because you made the post, just the best example ) or even the slightly worse leaders to be brought down to CT by relegating teams if the teams who are returning/entering in CT are even less able to buy competitive leaders compared to relegating PCT guys.
kelderman's wage was 425k, leaving (1.2mil - 425k =) 775k, which is 55.5k approximately per rider. This allowed me to confidently keep Kelderman.
If wage is reduced to 1 million (or 1.1), it will mean bringing Kelderman down is absolutely impossible without loan jugglery and probably having no more than one other good CT leader. If a manager can do this, good on them, but Kelderman alone would not have got me promotion. The idea to reduce wage cap is exactly to not allow Kelderman in the CT. This situation leaves approximately 41k per rider to fill the team. And while this is not impossible, it is not easy either.
AbhishekLFC wrote:
I doubt a mass reset will happen any time soon, and something must be done to fight inflation in the lower divisions in the mean time, rather than just talking about it. Limiting budget by which teams in the lower divisions can buy stronger and stronger riders is the way to go about it I think,
I agree with the principle behind this, and then if we do this (in my view) we unfortunately will also need to make it harder for guys like Kelderman (not targeting you because you made the post, just the best example ) or even the slightly worse leaders to be brought down to CT by relegating teams if the teams who are returning/entering in CT are even less able to buy competitive leaders compared to relegating PCT guys.
kelderman's wage was 425k, leaving (1.2mil - 425k =) 775k, which is 55.5k approximately per rider. This allowed me to confidently keep Kelderman.
If wage is reduced to 1 million (or 1.1), it will mean bringing Kelderman down is absolutely impossible without loan jugglery and probably having no more than one other good CT leader. If a manager can do this, good on them, but Kelderman alone would not have got me promotion. The idea to reduce wage cap is exactly to not allow Kelderman in the CT. This situation leaves approximately 41k per rider to fill the team. And while this is not impossible, it is not easy either.
One more minor proposal. The 10 stat below OVL rule strikes me as pretty unfair to lower OVL riders. It would cost a 75 OVL rider 500k to shift a stat from 65 to 66 as he would pay based on OVL but a 76 or above OVL rider only $100k for the same change because the -10 rule would kick in.
Where I think this matters is for CT teams. Maybe it is my bad management but I have found myself having money left that I can't do anything with. Real training is too expensive and the only low stat training I can access is on really low stats. So I may as well overpay to buy riders because what else am I going to do with the money?
If you made training 65 to 67 stats a little more affordable that would be give me a way to buff up my riders with smaller amounts of money. The two stat limit and the doubling would apply so this isn't going to go crazy.
I have struggled with how you implement this simply but I think it actually easy and would end up being simpler. You delete the 65 to 67 from the main training table and leave the existing -10 rule alone but have it apply to all training for stats 67 and below rather than -10 from OVL. Maybe I have missed a complication to that but I think it works.
This would make secondary stat training for lower OVL riders radically cheaper but not sure it is a big problem if someone wants to spend money on their 72 domestique. Maybe you bump up the prices a little 125/150/175. If the stat matrix comes back down you might need to change this in the future if 67 stats become more relevant.
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
One more minor proposal. The 10 stat below OVL rule strikes me as pretty unfair to lower OVL riders. It would cost a 75 OVL rider 500k to shift a stat from 65 to 66 as he would pay based on OVL but a 76 or above OVL rider only $100k for the same change because the -10 rule would kick in.
Where I think this matters is for CT teams. Maybe it is my bad management but I have found myself having money left that I can't do anything with. Real training is too expensive and the only low stat training I can access is on really low stats. So I may as well overpay to buy riders because what else am I going to do with the money?
If you made training 65 to 67 stats a little more affordable that would be give me a way to buff up my riders with smaller amounts of money. The two stat limit and the doubling would apply so this isn't going to go crazy.
I have struggled with how you implement this simply but I think it actually easy and would end up being simpler. You delete the 65 to 67 from the main training table and leave the existing -10 rule alone but have it apply to all training for stats 67 and below rather than -10 from OVL. Maybe I have missed a complication to that but I think it works.
This would make secondary stat training for lower OVL riders radically cheaper but not sure it is a big problem if someone wants to spend money on their 72 domestique. Maybe you bump up the prices a little 125/150/175. If the stat matrix comes back down you might need to change this in the future if 67 stats become more relevant.
I agree with this proposal as well.
Also: I think I'm going to start posting about an updated fighter training every day until we get an answer about it. So just get used to that.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
AbhishekLFC wrote:
I doubt a mass reset will happen any time soon, and something must be done to fight inflation in the lower divisions in the mean time, rather than just talking about it. Limiting budget by which teams in the lower divisions can buy stronger and stronger riders is the way to go about it I think,
I agree with the principle behind this, and then if we do this (in my view) we unfortunately will also need to make it harder for guys like Kelderman (not targeting you because you made the post, just the best example ) or even the slightly worse leaders to be brought down to CT by relegating teams if the teams who are returning/entering in CT are even less able to buy competitive leaders compared to relegating PCT guys.
kelderman's wage was 425k, leaving (1.2mil - 425k =) 775k, which is 55.5k approximately per rider. This allowed me to confidently keep Kelderman.
If wage is reduced to 1 million (or 1.1), it will mean bringing Kelderman down is absolutely impossible without loan jugglery and probably having no more than one other good CT leader. If a manager can do this, good on them, but Kelderman alone would not have got me promotion. The idea to reduce wage cap is exactly to not allow Kelderman in the CT. This situation leaves approximately 41k per rider to fill the team. And while this is not impossible, it is not easy either.
I think something that also needs to be said is that if you're fully gimped as a CT team where you cant go in for either a decent talent and a few leaders that makes it exciting to follow the races you might end up losing interest very quickly. If I hadnt had GVK in my first season etc. it would prolly have ended up being boring to follow.
Obviously Kelderman is a bit of a freak case etc., but I think its totally fair that someone like Ulrich was able to go deep for McNulty without having to fully worry about not being able to field a team.
There needs to be a food chain that goes Pt>PCT>CT but it can also be incredibly demotivating, especially as a new manager, to end up with a feeling of not being able to sign any cool riders because you just get outbit left, right and center from bigger teams because you can barely afford to pay doms 55k if you go slightly deep for a leader.
I agree with WJ here. I also don't think that having someone like Kelderman in the division is a problem. He gets paid a lot and (mostly) delivers consistently, that's how it should be and that's where you get different teambuilding approaches, like Philips or P:A promoting mostly on the strength of one or two riders while Carrefour and Tryg are successful mostly through their depth. I think that's fine.
The problem of inflation, at least from my point of view, is not at the top, but in the 76-78 (for sprinters up to 80) range. That's where it's so crowded that the AI struggles or riders regularly fail to do anything. But you get a lot of those guys for 50-60k, so I don't think the salary cap is the solution and it might be counterproductive to reduce it, like WJ said.
I don't think either that having a "big" leader in CT is an issue. It's also quite a big risk, actually - e.g. Kelderman only had 35RDs, so had he messed up even more of those, that could really have been a disaster. Fortunately for Philips, Keinath clearly overperformed, delivering probably as many Pp$ as Reinhardt. The third non-50k-rider, Van Lerberghe, also had a decent season, but Paprstka was an amazing 50k rider for them and Boev the perfect draft pick. So, a leader alone doesn't necessarily grant promotion. But I think it's good that different strategies are possible - Philips succeeded with a big (and a great secondary) leader, Tryg promoted thanks to great depth. Overall, I don't think we need to change the budget; maybe increase the PT one slightly, but personally I think it's great that even CT teams can get huge talents with a lot of risk.
baseballlover312 wrote:
Also: I think I'm going to start posting about an updated fighter training every day until we get an answer about it. So just get used to that.
I agree, I think fighter training should be changed
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
) or even the slightly worse leaders to be brought down to CT by relegating teams if the teams who are returning/entering in CT are even less able to buy competitive leaders compared to relegating PCT guys.
