baseballlover312 wrote:
Have to say on first impression, I'm a bit disappointed that again the FA reduction does not seemed to have happened in earnest. We obviously got a bunch of new managers this time around, but if the goal is to reduce inflation and increase the talent spread among teams long term, delaying that fix another year just digs the hole deeper for mid-tier inflation. I know it's impossible to please everyone (see those above and elsewhere wanting more talents), but it seemed that most managers were on board with the FA reduction aspect when we discussed it earlier in the year.
In any case, huge thanks to all who worked on the DB this offseason! Very excited for another transfer season!
First was thinking people were exaggerating when complaining about the additions, but I definitely have to join them. Out of all Swiss additions (can't really call them "talents" seriously), the best one maxes at 76, and maybe 3 or 4 of them would be of any value at all in CT. If that's all a nation with 3 teams gets, well, I can imagine what the smaller ones have to look like (didn't take an overall look yet tbh).
I know stat inflation is a real thing, but getting no really useful riders at all (for PCT/PT level) definitely blows away the motivation pre-transfers. Talent development no longer seems the way to go, at least for Switzerland.
Sorry for the rant, the DB team surely did a good job from a neutral perspective, but as a manager of a Swiss team, this year's addition just suck big time.
(and yeah, I know I didn't post in the additions thread, but Bushwackers did and I talked to jph directly, so that can't be the reason)
Fabianski wrote:
First was thinking people were exaggerating when complaining about the additions, but I definitely have to join them. Out of all Swiss additions (can't really call them "talents" seriously), the best one maxes at 76, and maybe 3 or 4 of them would be of any value at all in CT. If that's all a nation with 3 teams gets, well, I can imagine what the smaller ones have to look like (didn't take an overall look yet tbh).
I know stat inflation is a real thing, but getting no really useful riders at all (for PCT/PT level) definitely blows away the motivation pre-transfers. Talent development no longer seems the way to go, at least for Switzerland.
Sorry for the rant, the DB team surely did a good job from a neutral perspective, but as a manager of a Swiss team, this year's addition just suck big time.
(and yeah, I know I didn't post in the additions thread, but Bushwackers did and I talked to jph directly, so that can't be the reason)
I think it's fine to not get a crazy Schmid level talent every year. I do understand the frustration especially with two teams present, maybe instead of just Balmer there could be another average rider added
Absolutely, Schmid even was added too high imho - compensating for guys like Mäder or Bissegger who are rather low compared to RL. But that's MG, and that's fine.
It's more like we have 3 teams in Switzerland (counting Sauber in as well), and the best of the new riders will be a CT-level dom (maybe a secondary leader when stat deflation really kicks in), and I don't like that. If it's just this year, guess we can live with it, but Bushwackers pointed out in his suggestions post that some of the top-level ones should be replaced. This clearly didn't happen this year.
I completely understand the frustration of not having enough new riders overall, particularly for nations with a large presence in the game universe. More would be better to fill out the domestique ranks and is realistic given the investment of teams in universe. i.e. I agree that 7 total Swiss talents is quite low, especially given their lack of strength.
However, personally, I think it's a good thing that not every talent has been at 76+ in their main stat. We can't just keep adding those guys at such strength just so they can compete with the influx of those guys already in the DB. At some point the amount of those 76-78 guys needs to decrease for the health of the DB. They need to be more scarce. The whole idea is that after several years, 73-75 guys will be useful. It's frustrating right now because those guys look useless in today's DB, but the hope is that 5 years from now, when they're maxed, they might be useful.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
It's definitely needed to add top level riders to make sure not all leaders are around the same stat.
That being said, if there's no real talent, there's no real talent and 76 riders is what you should get. That goes for both the obscure nations as the countries with a cycling history that just don't have anything at the moment.
Fabianski wrote:
Absolutely, Schmid even was added too high imho - compensating for guys like Mäder or Bissegger who are rather low compared to RL. But that's MG, and that's fine.
It's more like we have 3 teams in Switzerland (counting Sauber in as well), and the best of the new riders will be a CT-level dom (maybe a secondary leader when stat deflation really kicks in), and I don't like that. If it's just this year, guess we can live with it, but Bushwackers pointed out in his suggestions post that some of the top-level ones should be replaced. This clearly didn't happen this year.
Balmer is totally fine for all the levels, will not be a leader but a rider who will score points everywhere. I for one am happy to get riders like Januškevičius from last year. Sure, not a world beater, but someone who will do the job. Switzerland simply needs another one of Balmer level rider and I įhink that is perfectly fair to have a 'dead' year after last one. I made a headcanon that we brought in some Norwegian trainers and scouts hence an influx of NOR riders last year due to lack of local talent
I haven’t looked intensively yet, but it does strike me to be too extreme in terms of forcing the DB into place.
A good example is Boileau, who was picked as a stagiaire last season. He’s now the 5th best climbing talent at level 1. And it isn’t because his stats have improved.
I like that we force such talents into being picked, but I think the balance is off, and that it will hurt some teams quite a lot.
At this point it doesn’t seem like a viable option to focus on talents. If you can re-sign riders like de la Cruz for 120K it’s absolutely pointless to sign a similar talent from the DB. And I suspect that a rider maxing with stats like de la Cruz (77MO, 74HI, 73TT or so) would be a top 5-6 talent in this version. Imo that is too extreme.
Not adding 80+ riders is fine by me, but we need to make it an interesting path to pick the talent route, otherwise we force managers into the hardcore competition for the best riders available. I’m not sure that’s a good way to go.
If only 1-2 talents is added to max at 79MO each season, the gap to Herklotz etc will become HUGE, and those managers that picked the youngest climbing talents 2 seasons ago will have the potential to keep that difference for many seasons. Bernal, Pogacar etc.
As Said I haven’t looked into things in detail, but if we take away the motivation from people it’s definately too extreme.
SotD wrote:
I haven’t looked intensively yet, but it does strike me to be too extreme in terms of forcing the DB into place.
A good example is Boileau, who was picked as a stagiaire last season. He’s now the 5th best climbing talent at level 1. And it isn’t because his stats have improved.
I like that we force such talents into being picked, but I think the balance is off, and that it will hurt some teams quite a lot.
At this point it doesn’t seem like a viable option to focus on talents. If you can re-sign riders like de la Cruz for 120K it’s absolutely pointless to sign a similar talent from the DB. And I suspect that a rider maxing with stats like de la Cruz (77MO, 74HI, 73TT or so) would be a top 5-6 talent in this version. Imo that is too extreme.
Not adding 80+ riders is fine by me, but we need to make it an interesting path to pick the talent route, otherwise we force managers into the hardcore competition for the best riders available. I’m not sure that’s a good way to go.
If only 1-2 talents is added to max at 79MO each season, the gap to Herklotz etc will become HUGE, and those managers that picked the youngest climbing talents 2 seasons ago will have the potential to keep that difference for many seasons. Bernal, Pogacar etc.
As Said I haven’t looked into things in detail, but if we take away the motivation from people it’s definately too extreme.
Since I haven't been around back then, where did the likes of Lecuisinier and Herklotz max out? If I'm not mistaken, they've gotten significant training to get to where they are, right? We have two new additions who can max out at 79 mountain with really solid TT and backup stats, they might be able to compete after a few rounds of training as well. And then as you said the likes of Bernal, Pogacar and McNulty will join the mix. Still, I do agree that we need to make sure that top level talent gets added. That was never what the true inflation problem was about.
That said, I don't think I agree with the de la Cruz / it's pointless to sign talents in that range argument. Of all the 76-78 mountain riders, just under half are 30 or older. If you want decent mountain domestiques in three or four years and don't have any or just older ones at the moment, then the guys who max at 75-76 (and there are a good amount of 77s too) are exactly the ones you need right now, because they will take their place. Like bbl said, that's the whole point: making weaker riders relevant. Isn't the fact that Boileau, who maxes out at 78 hill, only got a stagiaire contract, the best proof that we need some drastic changes for that to happen?
And I understand individual frustrations, but again, this is something that's happening across the board. Even Germany has, at first glance, a single rider that maxes with a main stat of 77, and his backup stats aren't that great.
I have no idea how to fix this what I will say is that some managers have gotten to used to boosting up riders that have no business even being CT leaders to having 78-79 main stats for no reason.
Ollfardh wrote:
It's definitely needed to add top level riders to make sure not all leaders are around the same stat.
That being said, if there's no real talent, there's no real talent and 76 riders is what you should get. That goes for both the obscure nations as the countries with a cycling history that just don't have anything at the moment.
I will say is that some managers have gotten too used to boosting up riders that have no business even being CT leaders to having 78-79 main stats for no reason. I think that the Balmer suggestion from Bush, since we're on the topic of Swiss riders is one of them because Schilling is approaching his decline. I can understand the request and the wish to have a pipeline etc. But when we start suggesting disregarding palmarés completely because you really want your team's national focus to go stronger than ever without having to invest training money into producing leaders. I do understand the frustrations but I heavily agree with the sentiment from Olfardh here that if there is no real talent coming up then it's tough luck and you get 76 level riders. However something that making everything else 76 is that when that special talent is produced you're able to treat it fairly and give them 79-80 main level stats without it turbo impacting the db because you won't have guys like Balmer running around on an unwarranted 80 main stat that is way too high. I think people know how sad I was that we never got Adrien Costa into the DB because of retirements and his horrible injury but
Again Balmer is just an example because it was the first one that came to mind I am not trying to single anyone out.
whitejersey wrote:
I have no idea how to fix this what I will say is that some managers have gotten to used to boosting up riders that have no business even being CT leaders to having 78-79 main stats for no reason.
Ollfardh wrote:
It's definitely needed to add top level riders to make sure not all leaders are around the same stat.
That being said, if there's no real talent, there's no real talent and 76 riders is what you should get. That goes for both the obscure nations as the countries with a cycling history that just don't have anything at the moment.
I will say is that some managers have gotten too used to boosting up riders that have no business even being CT leaders to having 78-79 main stats for no reason. I think that the Balmer suggestion from Bush, since we're on the topic of Swiss riders is one of them because Schilling is approaching his decline. I can understand the request and the wish to have a pipeline etc. But when we start suggesting disregarding palmarés completely because you really want your team's national focus to go stronger than ever without having to invest training money into producing leaders. I do understand the frustrations but I heavily agree with the sentiment from Olfardh here that if there is no real talent coming up then it's tough luck and you get 76 level riders. However something that making everything else 76 is that when that special talent is produced you're able to treat it fairly and give them 79-80 main level stats without it turbo impacting the db because you won't have guys like Balmer running around on an unwarranted 80 main stat that is way too high. I think people know how sad I was that we never got Adrien Costa into the DB because of retirements and his horrible injury but
Again Balmer is just an example because it was the first one that came to mind I am not trying to single anyone out.
I agree that I over-rated Balmer and I can see why that is annoying to some people. I'd just like to add that I never had the expectation that he would be added at the level I suggested (same with the other riders I suggested). In my experience added riders have been at significantly lower levels than I've suggested in the past, so my assumption is that I will have to suggest higher stats in order for the stats they receive to be worthwhile.
I'd also echo what Fabianski says here - there's 3 Swiss teams, all of which are typically in the PCT or above, and the first iteration of the DB had our new talents maxing in the high 60's/low 70's in their main stats. Being a PT team myself (albeit elevator status), I'm going to advocate for Swiss talents that can be competitive at this level and I don't see why that's unreasonable - Schelling is declining next year and he is the only PT caliber GC rider.
But yes, inflation is an issue and I'm happy we're taking these incremental steps towards reducing it.
I agree with the people who point out that our goal is to make riders in the 73-76 range valuable again. So please don't dismiss additions that max out in that range.
If we keep the mindset that every team should on average be able to pick up at least two or three 75-78 additions EVERY SEASON, we will never reach our goal.
Not coming here to start any arguments, but simply to add a perspective from someone who has been quite heavily involved in the stat-making process. Have had a lot of questions today about things, so figured it'd be worth setting out the 'how' and 'why' of the approach taken, as well as some broader thoughts around it.
The starting point for this season's additions, and the work TMM and I did on them, was that the FA pool would be reset - or at the very least heavily reduced. Therefore a bigger suggestion file was prepared, with around 620 riders in it. But crucially, the spread within this file was much broader in terms of stats than usual, with the majority of riders maxing between 70-74 in their main stat.
Of course, there had to be an attempt to include talents to fit regional focuses in here while also maintaining balance. Given the aim towards deflation, we tried to give the focus nations that needed them a 77/78 main stat talent and then a few in the 72-75 range, rather than in the past when we'd have gone for a bunch in the 76-78 range. There were some that were easier to do this for (Switzerland had riders that fit this without the suggestions), others that were more difficult (Greece and Latvia for example) and then some which were deprioritised due to previous strong additions (Slovenia being a good example). But overall, regional focuses were accounted for where suggestions were made, while trying to maintain DB balance (meaning not always at their suggested stats!).
I then checked the balance of the whole file, made some minor tweaks, and sent over to roturn. This is where my involvement basically ends, as I think I've explained many times today. Not unreasonably, some talents are lowered and some raised at that point, while others are discarded entirely. I may not always agree with them - after all, I have 3 months of investment into the suggestions at that point which skews my judgement - but they're generally adjusted with good reason, and in the interests of DB balance.
However, and this is probably the crucial point, accepting some (or all) of the suggestions requires a degree of trade off with the current FA pool. So we could lose some of the existing FA talents and maxed riders and gain more talents to fit regional focuses, but this would a) make new teams less competitive and b) still mean the new talents being weaker in terms of pure stats, though over time they'd become more valuable.
I think roturn and I have different views on how far we should go with this, but it is still an ongoing discussion to an extent - personally I think we should go further on cutting FAs this season, but I can completely see why a more balanced approach would be beneficial. That is however in part due to my own bias due to time spent working on this, so actually it may be good someone else is applying the brakes and making sure we get it right.
That's basically all I have to say on this. Not sure I agree with some of the stats now as the lower potentials act as a 'double decrease' for some of the better talents (and I'd already made them weaker than in previous years for the suggestions file), but I also have spent enough time debating this to no longer want to. As this is likely to be my last season I won't be doing this next year, so whoever does it next can continue to try and work out the best way forward
jph27 wrote:
Some which were deprioritised due to previous strong additions (Slovenia being a good example)
This is a bit strange I think. Govekar (for example) seems to be a real top talent irl having won some races (even just now a great win in Burgos) and shown some great performances not necessarily resulting in a win too. With the same logic we could make Evenepoel max at 75 TT because Belgium has had some superb riders as well? If we were talking about a random Greek not maxing at 78 in sth because Greece already has several 80+ riders I'd understand it more, but that be my point of view.
Thanks again for the hours put into this to everyone working on it, even though we might disagree on some points
jph27 wrote:
Some which were deprioritised due to previous strong additions (Slovenia being a good example)
Which means nothing to the two other Slovenian who weren't even around when those additions were made.
jph27 wrote:
but I also have spent enough time debating this to no longer want to. As this is likely to be my last season I won't be doing this next year, so whoever does it next can continue to try and work out the best way forward
Good thing I didn't a start a debate then
Thanks for the hard work
But sounds a bit like you just threw the toys out the pram because some people disagreed with your work. Hopefully I don't quit on too many things in life for those type of reasons.
jph27 wrote:
Some which were deprioritised due to previous strong additions (Slovenia being a good example)
Which means nothing to the two other Slovenian who weren't even around when those additions were made.
jph27 wrote:
but I also have spent enough time debating this to no longer want to. As this is likely to be my last season I won't be doing this next year, so whoever does it next can continue to try and work out the best way forward
Good thing I didn't a start a debate then
Thanks for the hard work
But sounds a bit like you just threw the toys out the pram because some people disagreed with your work. Hopefully I don't quit on too many things in life for those type of reasons.
Look forward to you doing it next season then I'm out, quite happy to deal with disagreement - especially as I tend to be quite disagreeable - but all I've had today is people complaining left, right and centre because they didn't get what they wanted.
EDIT: Just to say, this isn't a dig at you red. I totally get where you're coming from, but there's no way of pleasing everyone. Balance is there to be struck between keeping it fun and keeping the DB functioning - fully accept I may have it wrong, but hope you understand it's well intentioned
Honestly what I think would help is auto removing riders that were not signed last season (or for two straight years.) If these riders were not good enough, they do not have any meaning in the database, they are just taking place in the database and making things more complicated. It is not like they are going to be magically interesting after a year.
I think we should start removing from the DB any riders in age of 33 or older who did not find a team last year. It is even realistic - riders without a team usually retire in real life, especially those who are old. Just this small rule would remove 356 riders from the database.
In addition to that I think we can remove unmaxed riders in age of 30/31 who did not find a team. Pretty realistic and it is not like these are going to be signed by a team. Another 93 riders removed.
Age 29/28 who did not find a team who are still lvl 1 or 2 - another 237 riders removed.
Age 27/26 who did not find a team who are still lvl 1 - another 253 riders removed.
Just with these sensible changes we would immediately get the database down from current 3314 to like 2375 riders. Last year there were 1309 riders being signed by teams. I think pool of 1000 free agents is still quite huge for that one last spot in your team in the end of transfers. Honestly, if we need more riders from small countries in events like World Championships to have decent AI, we can always do the trick that I believe works really well in the National Championships with fake riders.
As a start I think this would at least help to bring down the DB somehow closer to a sensible overall amount of riders. I think we should find this type of a permanent mechanism and keep doing it every year. It would automatically create space for new riders being added every year. Longterm it will also help with the inflation of the DB - some of these infinite amounts of depth riders will go away way sooner.
If I count right we will have 2 PCT teams moving up to PT and 5 extra CT teams in comparison to the last season. That is like extra 100 riders that will get signed with a bigger demand for good quality riders. I think some of the problems will get massively better only because of this.
Then in addition to this I think we need to have some sort of a 'draft class system' every year - I think we should be adding almost same riders every year with just small changes. The system should work IMO in a way where we basically know the attributes - and then we just pick a name, DoB and nationality for that rider with already pre-selected attributes so all suits the other aspects of the game.
jph27 wrote:
Some which were deprioritised due to previous strong additions (Slovenia being a good example)
Which means nothing to the two other Slovenian who weren't even around when those additions were made.
This is a strange point to me. You don't get one single chance to sign riders when they are level 1. Every single year riders have to have their contracts renewed, and every year riders are sold. Just because a British team can't sign a bunch of new British talents each year doesn't mean they can't sign a bunch of British riders. They just have to buy them in transfers or FA that year. Maybe that's not as fun as watching your talents own develop, and I get that. But over the years it will even out, and teams will get to sign their own talents over time if they prioritize it.
I wasn't around yet when Guldhammer was added to the DB. I couldn't sign him at Level 1. Yet his addition obviously meant quite a lot to my team. Any surplus built up in talents from a certain nation one year is still there five years later - they're just 27 now.
So, in my view, it's not unfair to cut back on talents of a nation for a year or two where they had a surplus in the recent past. Not saying that is or isn't the case for Slovenia, or any other particular country in the DB - I haven't looked thoroughly. But I don't see anything wrong with the thought process in principle.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Then in addition to this I think we need to have some sort of a 'draft class system' every year - I think we should be adding almost same riders every year with just small changes. The system should work IMO in a way where we basically know the attributes - and then we just pick a name, DoB and nationality for that rider with already pre-selected attributes so all suits the other aspects of the game.
I fully agree with this idea, you could have X,000 templates and just chose the appropriate number each year at random and match them generally with the talents. Maybe specifically stat the top 10 or so more unique talents. I will even stick my head out and volunteer now to help develop it. A while back I created a bunch of random fictional db's and used an approach like this so have some tools built.
While I am agreeing, I particularly agree with BBl's last post and with Cunego above. And with those thanking JPH.
jph27 wrote:
Look forward to you doing it next season then
Lol, that could be 'fun'. I doubt I'd do any better than you. It's a thankless job for sure
jph27 wrote:
I'm out, quite happy to deal with disagreement - especially as I tend to be quite disagreeable - but all I've had today is people complaining left, right and centre because they didn't get what they wanted.
That's a shame. Well people will always complain, not saying I'm any better.
jph27 wrote:
EDIT: Just to say, this isn't a dig at you red. I totally get where you're coming from, but there's no way of pleasing everyone. Balance is there to be struck between keeping it fun and keeping the DB functioning - fully accept I may have it wrong, but hope you understand it's well intentioned
It wasn't taken as a dig and I wasn't trying to take a dig at you
I think I get where you're coming from. After working on some MG stuff now for a couple years the result never is what I intended it to be. For various reasons things get changed. I can either agree with those, agree with some or agree with none. That's how it is. At the end of the day I hope I've done enough to improve from last year and then go again.
baseballlover312 wrote:
This is a strange point to me. You don't get one single chance to sign riders when they are level 1. Every single year riders have to have their contracts renewed, and every year riders are sold. Just because a British team can't sign a bunch of new British talents each year doesn't mean they can't sign a bunch of British riders. They just have to buy them in transfers or FA that year. Maybe that's not as fun as watching your talents own develop, and I get that. But over the years it will even out, and teams will get to sign their own talents over time if they prioritize it.
I wasn't around yet when Guldhammer was added to the DB. I couldn't sign him at Level 1. Yet his addition obviously meant quite a lot to my team. Any surplus built up in talents from a certain nation one year is still there five years later - they're just 27 now.
So, in my view, it's not unfair to cut back on talents of a nation for a year or two where they had a surplus in the recent past. Not saying that is or isn't the case for Slovenia, or any other particular country in the DB - I haven't looked thoroughly. But I don't see anything wrong with the thought process in principle.
To be honest this is not about me complaining because I want to sign a bunch of riders for myself. Obviously if a rider is added then I'll try to sign him if I can.
It was more about, I didn't know why my suggestions were being ignored seemingly every year. I only suggested domestiques before, often with the intention of not signing them. I don't think inflation was talked about as much back then or I simply didn't notice it.
So after two years of doing that and the talk that 'active' managers could have a better chance of getting a suggested rider in their region. I thought if I suggest ONLY ONE RIDER, who is a bit better and has some irl credentials, then maybe my suggestion will be taken into account.
Obviously it wasn't, so I complained a bit. But I think even my complaint now holds some merit, because if I didn't complain then I never would have known the reason why my suggestions were ignored. I still don't agree with the reason, but at least now I know and that's better than not knowing imo.
At the end of the day I don't think my complaint or that of some the others are big deals. People always disagree on things, that's how it is.
And it wasn't my intention to offend anyone or belittle jph's work or anything like that.
- but they're generally adjusted with good reason, and in the interests of DB balance.
I'm out, quite happy to deal with disagreement - especially as I tend to be quite disagreeable 
