alexkr00 wrote:
I disagree with TMM that it's a power play. Those guys are definitely not scorers in the PT, I don't think they are in PCT either maybe in CT. And if they are indeed good enough to score points I think their wage would cost you more, almost as much as a full rider, but with a very limited amount of race days.
Well yes they are not going to make a measurable difference to a teams scoring. But that applies to a range of riders of similar strength, or weaker, that do get signed up at 50k. To me if you want a rider, just pay them 50k. That's not going to break your budget as a team, and is a perfectly fair cost to pay for a little bit of role play fun.
Just as a manager that's payed out far more than 50k to have that RP fun, and who would potentially benefit nicely from the idea, it just doesn't seem like an idea with significant benefits vs the extra checks and balances to put it in place.
To make it a bit more straightforwards - why not just bundle it up as part of a joint Stagiere-Road Veteran category(i.e. eligible riders for Stagiere are either Under X age or over Y age). Shift away from the real world a bit and just give these riders a set # of RD, ~15/20, which isn't restricted to August onwards (or C2 races). Same as current Stagiere rules for counting towards the Rider Min/Max's, so you can either have the youngster or the veteran.
Would allow you to RP with a road captain if you wanted. Wouldn't be exploitable. And if you wanted to do it the "cost" is at the expense of a young Stagiere. Then you can also roll it out to all three divisions and give everyone the Role-Play benefits.
I would like to second the training ideas to (1) Remove the 10 value rule in Rider Average Exemption trainings to help with rounding out the one-dimensional riders that continue to lose their value each time we move to a newer PCM it seems.
And (2) find and implement more ways people can spend their money during the transfer window. One of the ongoing problems in preventing stat inflation is the money always filtering to the top of the PT for training for the top tier cyclists. So my suggestion is give teams more options for how they spend their money rather than buying decent riders at the PT level so the PT teams don't hog all the money to train their superstars. A few suggestions:
- Different training cost scales per division so the PCT and CT teams (who receive less money at the start of transfers) have more incentives to train their own riders rather than buying the PT rejects.
- Maybe an option to buy offseason training camp programs that give out certain levels of XP for young riders. Would help cyclist progress faster if teams are willing to invest in their development and help those riders that get stuck at a weird lvl in the wrong division. Like Lvl4.xx in CT.
- The option to offer your riders a sign-on bonus when renewing your riders. This one-time fee each season per rider would come out of your budget and allow you to sign that rider to a slight less wage than normal. What those numbers would be would vary from rider to rider, but the premise would be: proving a signing bonus would be an added sweetener for that rider to sign a more team friendly deal. Obviously the more elite riders need a hefty sign-on bonus to tip those scales a little bit.
On a side note: It would be cool if the riders had a personality/tag type in the DB to help you negotiation renewing their contracts. For example:
Prodigy: An unmaxed rider who enters the MG world and was signed for ~250k or more.
Youngester: An unmaxed rider who entered the MG world and was signed for ~250k or less.
Unknown: Unsigned riders who have never been signed.
Loyal: Maxed rider that has been on your team for 3+ years and makes under a certain amount.
Some other options: Leader, Legend, Team Captain, Veteran, Ex-Legend. Etc.
There are so many options and each one would influence how hard or easy it would be to re-sign that rider, and maybe keep that rider happy so they want to re-sign. Each role could have certain requirements that have to be met to fulfill that rider's happiness.
The depth this would add to the game would be eminence and make the riders feel more like people and not just numbers in a database.
And (2) find and implement more ways people can spend their money during the transfer window.
I Love this suggestion and especially this one:
- Different training cost scales per division so the PCT and CT teams (who receive less money at the start of transfers) have more incentives to train their own riders rather than buying the PT rejects.
And I wanna add something to it and did some specific work on that, so that might be a longer post xD Bear with it!
Training in CT & PCT but with Limits and conditions. I'll explain it:
1. CT Teams & PCT Teams can train NOT XP-MAXED ridders for a reduced price. Since I heard this was something what was possible before It clearly should be limited so the DB doesnt get inflated.
2. CT Limitations:
2.1 CT Teams can only train Riders from XP Lvl 2.00 - 3.99
2.2 The riders needs to be 25 or younger.
2.3 The Avergage needs to be below 72 and once this is reached, the training is over. The single Stat should be also Limited to some Value, I am not sure yet what value (maybe 75 or so )
3. PCT Limitations
3.1 PCT Teams can only train Riders from 3.00 - 4.99 (not MAX)
3.2 The riders needs to be 28 or younger.
3.3 Similar to CT the AVG should be below 75 and the single stat max value limited too (maybe 78)
> So You cant boost endlessly and just bring some talent on par or slightly below Top Talents. E.g. Evenepoel & Girmay wouldnt be able to be trained in CT then and Pidcock for example also not in PCT. So I think the DB wouldnt get bloated and massive talent still would be more valuable. It's more about developing hidden gems.
Like you can see i wouldnt allow random LVL 1 riders to be trained also the same goes with the Age restrictions is because i think it shouldnt be able to bring a 27 year old who never got hired suddenly into the field.
4. The rider who get trained needs to be OWNED (NOT LOANED IN) by the team!!! (thats really important to me) Otherwise all CT and PCT teams just turn into developing teams for PT.
On the other note if thats implemented like that I think I could agree to knockouts suggestion earlier to reduce the fee's. Because with this it would be more likely that some talents are not just taken by wealthy PT teams for maybe a future they have there (or not)and it would be smarter to leave some talents to lower divisions for them so they are better in the future. Some could say now that the PT teams wouldnt get this talent now anymore but if the riders get better while training they obviously score more and would demand higher salaries in the upcoming year and if you dont promote at some point you cant just afford them and then they are on the market like every other rider.
5. Maybe there should be a limit also how many trainings one rider can reach at each year division.
I also made some tables for the costs and so i will put them into the spoiler.
So for CT i go with 50% of the costs
Spoiler
Average/Stat
Cost
75
250000
74
225000
73
200000
72
175000
71
150000
70
125000
69
100000
68
87500
67
75000
66
62500
65
50000
64
50000
63
50000
62
50000
61
50000
60
50000
59
50000
58
50000
57
50000
56
50000
55
50000
54
50000
53
50000
52
50000
51
50000
50
50000
And for PCT I would say 75% of the usual costs
Spoiler
Average/Stat
Cost
78
637500
77
525000
76
450000
75
375000
74
337500
73
300000
72
262500
71
225000
70
187500
69
150000
68
131250
67
112500
66
93750
65
75000
64
75000
63
75000
62
75000
61
75000
60
75000
59
75000
58
75000
57
75000
56
75000
55
75000
54
75000
53
75000
52
75000
51
75000
50
75000
The tables are cut of at the point were they cant be trained anymore of course and for now i think with these costs its not too cheap so not just everyone can train like crazy.
The usual Training at Max XP Level i would just keep as it is. Mostly only PT Teams can afford that anyway, so you could see that as PT Training then.
Imho that makes the game more versatile a bit less predictable and gives the lower division teams some more options to use the money they may have or not. And you can decide your path, developing young talent yourself or going with look on the market for "done" riders. I think it would be fun
Also I dont think that adds to much complicated stuff, in the end its just two more tables for training and, obviously, a bit more work during that period of the season. But I am willing to help with that also if there are questions or other stuff about this system and how to fine tune it I would like to help too.
So I guess that was my longest post so far and I hope everyone understood what I am saying. If you have comments or questions go ahead
Unsure if this is currently a thing or not but I believe managers should be rewarded for consistent involvement through the season but it can be in the form of database changes, reporting, preview writing, commenting in race threads or team hq posts, etc.
I’m not expecting all of the above at all but 1 of these, especially a single comment in a race thread you’re in or have a leader in, should be doable and sufficient for this.
No I don’t believe this “punishes” managers that are less active and I fully understand people have things pop up in life that are of much higher priority but I do hope it would incentivise some added activity throughout the season.
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
Unsure if this is currently a thing or not but I believe managers should be rewarded for consistent involvement through the season but it can be in the form of database changes, reporting, preview writing, commenting in race threads or team hq posts, etc.
I’m not expecting all of the above at all but 1 of these, especially a single comment in a race thread you’re in or have a leader in, should be doable and sufficient for this.
No I don’t believe this “punishes” managers that are less active and I fully understand people have things pop up in life that are of much higher priority but I do hope it would incentivise some added activity throughout the season.
As much as this seems good it is a terrible idea. To give such advantages to people would literally kill the game as it would become a chore and nuisance to get your reward for activity (see almost literally any modern video game).
But since we do have new site owners, I think they should be paid real money
I like the idea of Road Captain, and it would likely prolong the life of a couple of greek riders that are basically useless. I don’t see how it is skewing anything tbh. Riders that are so poor that they are not picked up and have 1/5 of the RD’s that a 50K guy does is in no possible way a good move in terms of powerplay. It’s a way to throw the last bit of cash away rather than keeping it, or picking a stagiaire. Remember that riders at this level or better is picked for Free at CT level at the end of the transfers.
I don’t care exactly how it is built, but I could see some fun in picking up 2 Old greek riders rather than 1 mediocre foreign dude. This will definately not make my team stronger!
I do however dislike the decrease of fee for 1-3 loans. I think it’s a very solid strategical puzzle as it is. No need to make it even more viable for PT teams to stack level 1 riders.
I am also against the difference of training fees across divisions. It is possible to gain enough money to train riders at both PCT and CT level, just extremely difficult if you are starting from scratch - but isn’t that the point? To give some advantages to existing teams? I don’t see much point in tweaking that part tbh. The best riders want to ride at the top level…
I also won’t think handing out benefits to active managers is a good way to go. It would likely come in handy for a manager like myself, but I’m not active to gain benefits, and I would think some would spam the Forum with uninteresting activity if this was implemented.
I would much rather kickstart a donation pool, where those who have money to spare could donate, and then those who is actively doing a massive work load could get some present for their job. Much like I always offer to donate the PCM version we are using I’m also very much in favor of buying a good bottle of wine, a giftcard or something similar to those making it possible for me to enjoy the game.
1. I will disagree with my fellow CT managers on Knockout's idea. I don't think this hurts CT mangers. First, it doesn't impact the vast majority of 1->3 loans. Second, the really big ones tend to go to PCT not CT because CT teams can't afford to have 200k of loan cap available late in transfers when these signings resolve. And I do think it is unfair that a team that happens to have that loan cap available gets a sudden windfall. I am fine with Knockout's approach but I think a simpler approach would be just to limit the loan in fee to 500k, so the loan out fee would be higher than the loan in fee, This would limit the windfall without reducing the cost to the loan out team. I think this is the approach Roturn suggested when he first raised this.
2. Red surfaced the idea of allowing more 21 yo. I don't see how that solves the problem. The new rider team would like to add more 21 YOs but right now it is a huge gift to PT teams, because you can max them by the same age as 22 YO without paying for a 1-3 loan. It would make sense to add riders younger as they are having an impact IRL, but not if it is just making it easier for PT teams to monopolize young talent. I have been trying to think of a simple way to do this but haven't come up with an elegant solution - ideas?
3. I agree with the principle EZ suggests of giving more options for training at lower levels and the suggestions make sense. I am concerned that the opportunity for PCT is far more attractive then CT under his proposal, so not sure about that. I think my original changes, which seem to have received universal support, are a small incremental step in the right direction. But more radical changes makes sense although perhaps not this year.
4. Conceptually I like LLS's idea of rewarding activity but also think Quadsas is right that this inevitably creates issues that discourage participation which is bad.
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
Unsure if this is currently a thing or not but I believe managers should be rewarded for consistent involvement through the season but it can be in the form of database changes, reporting, preview writing, commenting in race threads or team hq posts, etc.
I’m not expecting all of the above at all but 1 of these, especially a single comment in a race thread you’re in or have a leader in, should be doable and sufficient for this.
No I don’t believe this “punishes” managers that are less active and I fully understand people have things pop up in life that are of much higher priority but I do hope it would incentivise some added activity throughout the season.
As much as this seems good it is a terrible idea. To give such advantages to people would literally kill the game as it would become a chore and nuisance to get your reward for activity (see almost literally any modern video game).
But since we do have new site owners, I think they should be paid real money
I get this but I’m not talking you need a post every day. I think one comment in most race threads your team is in is a perfectly reasonable expectation of any manager in the game.
Really, I’m just trying to find ways to get people more active in that way because there are clear examples of managers who are around for the start and end of the season but do seem to go missing for long periods and return rather randomly for WC nominations.
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
Unsure if this is currently a thing or not but I believe managers should be rewarded for consistent involvement through the season but it can be in the form of database changes, reporting, preview writing, commenting in race threads or team hq posts, etc.
I’m not expecting all of the above at all but 1 of these, especially a single comment in a race thread you’re in or have a leader in, should be doable and sufficient for this.
No I don’t believe this “punishes” managers that are less active and I fully understand people have things pop up in life that are of much higher priority but I do hope it would incentivise some added activity throughout the season.
As much as this seems good it is a terrible idea. To give such advantages to people would literally kill the game as it would become a chore and nuisance to get your reward for activity (see almost literally any modern video game).
But since we do have new site owners, I think they should be paid real money
I get this but I’m not talking you need a post every day. I think one comment in most race threads your team is in is a perfectly reasonable expectation of any manager in the game.
Really, I’m just trying to find ways to get people more active in that way because there are clear examples of managers who are around for the start and end of the season but do seem to go missing for long periods and return rather randomly for WC nominations.
My two cents - although it's really a noble cause to have more engagement from all managers, punishing those that aren't active (or rewarding active managers at their expense) would be very counterproductive, would IMO create two-tier system and could potentially scare away potential new managers.
But I agree that there should be some activity at least from newer managers. I think 3 of the 2023 class hadn't been active that often.
I don't think it should be easier for PT teams to raise 1->3 riders. The loaning in team doesn't just receive the money, but needs to make sure they have all their loan cap available. It might be just an inconvenient for some, but the loaning in them has to sacrifice this to take in the rider.
Still, if the PCT teams this is too much of an advantage for the teams that do take in one of the big talents, maybe we can cap the amount of money the PCT team can receive at something like 500, but the PT team still has to pay the current tax with the difference being kept by the MGUCI as "taxes".
I also don't see why training should cost different from one division to another. Training is not for everyone, it's for the teams that perform well/sell well to have something to put their money into because they can't put it into wages because of the wage cap. The wage cap is there to make things more fair to everyone, while training is there to benefit the teams that do well.
And a big no-no on training of unmaxed riders imo. There's a reason why this is not allowed anymore and that is because it's obviously way cheaper to train them while they are unmaxed. Riders should max out with the stats they were intended to when added to the DB and after that you have to do well with your finances if you want to train them.
As for awarding activity, like quadsas said this shouldn't be a chore. We already have managers quitting the game because they feel like they are not active enough and we are losing well established teams.
What I do feel like though is that you'd have to have some level of activity for nominating riders for WC, NC or Avenir. And like LSS said you can't go missing all season and then pop up to nominate your riders and disappear again. I think this would be a good level of "punishment" rather that doing anything budget wise.
Yeah, we're definitely not in a position where being inactive would see you lose your team as had happened many years ago. But there are still systems built into the game that reward activity.
1) Non-automatic promotions - These in the past would have an element of activity built in. So if the 6th/7th team had a manager that didn't post much, whilst the 8th was in every race thread, then 8th would get the nod to step up.
2) Rider additions - This requires a level of activity to even make the suggestion. But then active and engaged managers are more likely to get their desired additions. This also applies to Suggestions in this thread, an in-active manager won't get the same consideration.
Alex makes a good suggestion there above. I wouldn't prevent Avenir participation outright, but if a manager is not active enough (will always be subjective) they cannot access the 20XP gain. I also wouldn't bar participation for the WC because that could then see an active manager being penalised as the relevant nation gets dropped. Preventing participation in NC's seems ok, although doubt that'll make any manager suddenly pay attention.
Roll it back a few years, and if a manager is not participating enough, over two years, without due cause, that team could be demoted a division? Could halve their Goals score to reduce budget? Whatever it is should be about penalising inactive managers rather than rewarding active ones. Potentially this would force some managers out, but is it better to have inactive managers or a smaller game?
Am interested to see where the recent disbands leave the game and the size of the CT. Hopefully there are some new managers waiting to fill the gaps.
________
Different Training Costs per Division
I think in previous years i've suggested that myself as a possibility. But with the way the current Transfer Tax works, and with work on DB balance, I don't see this being a way to go. Give it another year, or two, and the CT will be less top heavy, allowing CT managers to divert more funds to mid-70s training which is affordable. Stay the course, the game is correcting this "issue" naturally at the moment.
_____
Non-Maxed Training
No. I get the argument made, but no. As the DB better balanced with more rounded riders, a better distribution of stats, low-mid Stat training is becoming more valuable. This would risk over-inflating that 70-75 level of the DB which has caused issues very recently and drive the difference making back towards top heavy training and stats.
Double Decay on declining riders from disbanded teams:
With a huge influx of FA's being put onto the market and a potential way speed up the deflation process of the DB could be to apply a double decline formula to the riders that are in age range, while this might hurt some teams in the hunt for a new leader come transfers, I think that it might be a solid way to help the process along.
The only really relevant riders in terms of leadership potential this hits this year would be the likes of Phinney, Sicard and some other hitters pending disbands.
whitejersey wrote: Double Decay on declining riders from disbanded teams:
With a huge influx of FA's being put onto the market and a potential way speed up the deflation process of the DB could be to apply a double decline formula to the riders that are in age range, while this might hurt some teams in the hunt for a new leader come transfers, I think that it might be a solid way to help the process along.
The only really relevant riders in terms of leadership potential this hits this year would be the likes of Phinney, Sicard and some other hitters pending disbands.
I am strongly against this as it will hurt mainly promoted teams who may look for GC leader in free agency over throwing huge sums in transfers
whitejersey wrote: Double Decay on declining riders from disbanded teams:
With a huge influx of FA's being put onto the market and a potential way speed up the deflation process of the DB could be to apply a double decline formula to the riders that are in age range, while this might hurt some teams in the hunt for a new leader come transfers, I think that it might be a solid way to help the process along.
The only really relevant riders in terms of leadership potential this hits this year would be the likes of Phinney, Sicard and some other hitters pending disbands.
Personally, id rather use this year to introduce a fairly thin group of talents. I think its benefitial to always have some high quality FAs (leaders or top tier talents) to help promoting and upcoming teams. With Phinney, Pedersen, Gaviria, etc there is plenty of upgrades for teams available in FA from PT to CT. So fewer good talents introduced (if you want to hear a number: ~ 30% less than last year across the stat scale depending on unconfirmed disbands) doesnt hurt the FA action short term and has more impact on deflation in the mid- and longterm. And it allows us to add some more good riders / talents in a future year without high profile disbands without it leading to more inflation again.
@Ivan, its a point that is fair to make absolutely and one I do agree with but as someone that has seen their former home region getting absolutely pummeled by how certain talents don't get their stat gains when they're on a disbanded team these types of rules are already in place and taking effect and hurting other managers.
@knockout:
I think it is a question about philosophy, you could also argue that this change would get more teams to invest in to more "middle class" talents and focus on developing them since the declining doms from higher tiers will be less useful.
On some of the topics discussed in this thread that I haven't had time to touch on:
Non Maxed training:
Just no, I get that loads of managers want to have more training agency but I don't think that there's any harm in training being a money dump for the best PT/PCT teams. I'd personally rather see riders with more well rounded energy stats etc. get pushed through the new additions. A lot of the concerns in regards to pushing top tier talents over the edge with this method presented by Alex and others I also echo.
Level 4s over two years in CT:
This one I am more of a fan of. I think that this as a suggestion for long term projects that might need some time in the CT to bloom and don't want to spend their money on paying a PT team to take on a loan in that might not be attractive is a good dynamic to implement. The fast-track option is still available etc.
Level 1-3 Fees:
Personally don't see an issue with the current system. For the teams that want to invest into generational talents this is part of the price that you pay for securing them. Smart (P)CT managers tend to benefit these and it is one of the best trickle down mechanics that we have in the game.
Road Captains:
Just pay the 50k if you want to have some RP fun. The 50k won't come at the expense of scorers for the most part in the teams that could afford to spend it.
My take on what could help make the game better/more interesting in the future:
Remove salary cap
An idea that I always thought about was to remove the salary cap or to go with some version of a soft salary cap and let teams keep the unused budget for the next season. I feel like it would open up team-building strategies much more. Right now you have like 3 ways to go with your budget within your salary cap:
1. spend it on the best riders you can find
2. find a way to pick up enough money to train a particular rider
3. spend cash on some nonsense like Farhad Moshiri
A change in this area could promote ideas like 'tanking' a year or two to then really go for it with a superteam. In a world where you can relegate, would be highly risky. Or you could potentially just spend your whole budget to really improve your best rider. Or you could sell riders to then sign FAs for that available budget while trying to contend. And so on...
Soft cap
The same type of idea - just a less radical one. Teams over the cap would have a chance to go over the cap and pay a tax which would be distributed to the budget of all the teams that stayed under that soft cap - would get extra money for the next season. Could potentially similarly work also with the transfer tax.
New ways how to spend money
I know the idea for a transfer tax is to take the money out of the game and tackle inflation, but I think the better idea than this was always to involve more ways to spend the budget. Some of the ideas could be:
1. buying extra RDs for your riders
2. having to pay an extra fee for 7th/8th spot on a startlist while extending participation points for all race categories
3. changing the U25 category into the 'Premium' category where a rider would qualify to participate only if you would pay an extra fee (then easily handled by the game itself after setting the right DoB numbers when creating the DB)
4. taxes for re-signing your current riders - to be redistributed to teams who risk letting their riders go to FA
5. one-year training - you pay to improve a rider but his attributes will go down again in a year (could be an idea for cheaper training?) - should be pretty easy to manage this during declines
Road captains
I like the idea of road captains for declining riders, the same rules as stagiaires sound good to me, see no harm. Could work in all divisions.
Selling riders via auction system
An extra idea here would be changing the selling process of riders - instead (or in addition?) of doing the business behind closed doors why we do not have just an open auction for riders as we do have for FAs? It is likely it would bring in more engagement, honesty and bidding wars. Could possibly also work similarly with loans? Just let the market work.
Remove barriers between divisions
Lately, I think the game would be better if we try to remove some of the barriers between the divisions - don't think a PT team has to ride in all 3 GTs (Giro/Vuelta bands for both PT/PCT) and in all of PT category races (wildcards -> bands), also think we can surely have some races where PT teams meet with CT teams (involve them in HC bands), while PCT teams could have their own division only mini-calendar (if both PT/PCT would have 24 teams - easily done).
Changes like these would bring in more variety in startlists, you would actually have a chance to meet teams and their managers from the other side of MG world in a race as it would open up different strategies for how to build your team in all divisions with different ways to score. It would also help with some of the proposed ideas like easier lvl 4 XPs for CT teams.
whitejersey wrote: Double Decay on declining riders from disbanded teams:
With a huge influx of FA's being put onto the market and a potential way speed up the deflation process of the DB could be to apply a double decline formula to the riders that are in age range, while this might hurt some teams in the hunt for a new leader come transfers, I think that it might be a solid way to help the process along.
The only really relevant riders in terms of leadership potential this hits this year would be the likes of Phinney, Sicard and some other hitters pending disbands.
I am strongly against this as it will hurt mainly promoted teams who may look for GC leader in free agency over throwing huge sums in transfers
I think this goes both ways, sure too few FAs hurts promoted teams. But too many FAs hurts teams who have built a roster at renewal prices. I think we saw that two seasons ago when new CT teams did really well because the FA market was so plentiful. I remember someone having Aru as an FA for half of what I was paying Kuss and that wasn't an isolated example. If we have a significant drop in total rider slots then I think early retiring or double declining a few FAs is a good idea. Adjusting the young rider market takes a long time to have an effect.
__________
New suggestion - change rules for 21 YO
The new rider team is not planning to add many 21 YO because this is a gift to PT teams, particularly for really good riders, because they can then max them at the same age without paying for a 1-3 loan. But with riders being stronger at young ages it would be nice to be able to add them sooner. Also would add more years of Avenir participation. We won't do many this year but would like to look at a rule change so we have more flexibility next year.
So the idea would be to make 21 YOs cost the same to max as a 22 YO.
Unfortunately I haven't thought of a simple way to do this. I didn't want to mess with the XP charts for fear of messing up something else so I had to make 2 rule changes because I think there are two ways for a PT manger to max these riders in 2 seasons (not having been a PT manager I hope this is right):
1. Loan in first year to get 1-2 and then 2-3 in second year on PT team
2. Don't loan in first year and go 1 - 1.5 in first year and then 1.5 to 3 on PT team in Y2 (I think this is possible).
So I would add two items - I have included the rule and highlighted the proposed changes in red. I think this combination forces a PT team to loan the rider out in their first year to max them on schedule. And that loan would now be subjected to the 1-3 fee.
Loan Fees
Level 1 and 2 riders:
The loaning in team will never pay a transfer fee.
The loaning out team will pay a transfer fee that is at minimum the amount of salary cap that the loaning in team is using up. They can of course pay more.
Level 1 riders, with a clause to reach Level 3 and any loan of a 21-YO:
There is an extra fee for this clause to happen, in addition to the normal fee for Level 1 riders. The extra parts are the full wage of the rider, and an extra 100k fee.
i.e. Minimum fee to agree a 'Level 1 to Level 3' clause is: "Amount of wage paid by loaning in team" + "Full wage of rider" + 100k.
Note that without this clause, it will not be possible for a rider to develop from Level 1 to Level 3 as part of a loan. Level 1 riders born in 2001 or Level 1 riders added as 21-YO in the last season are also not able to progress from Level 1 to Level 3, whether loaned out or not.
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
Note that without this clause, it will not be possible for a rider to develop from Level 1 to Level 3 as part of a loan. Level 1 riders born in 2001 or Level 1 riders added as 21-YO in the last season are also not able to progress from Level 1 to Level 3, whether loaned out or not.[/i]
I feel like this rule change would need to be announced one year in advance for sure.
Also: The far easier solution would be to change the HC (PTHC fpr PT) category to 0.7 or below. A PT team races up to 42 PTHC race days per season if it avoids all clashes and can get 20 XP via Avenir. By lowering the value to 0.7, the highest a PT team would get in two years is: 2x20 + 84* 0.7 = 98.8 -> from 1.00 to 1.98.
XP
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
GT
0,0
0,0
1,1
2,1
M
0,0
0,0
1,1
2,1
PT (PTHC fpr PCT)
0,0
1,1
2,1
1,1
PTHC fpr PT
0,7
2,7
1,6
0,5
HC
1,1
2,7
1,6
0,5
C1
2,1
2,1
1,1
0,0
C2
3,2
1,9
1,1
0,0
Only change is that i seperated PTHC for PT & HC into two seperate rows and changes the PTHC for PT value to 0,7. Now any new 1.00 talent will need three years of PT racing
Edit: another edge case that should be considered:
Someone added as 22yo is allowed to do 1to3. Someone added as 21y old who was then unsigned for a year would not be allowed to do 1to3
Edited by knockout on 20-06-2023 00:39
Going with a hard no to both of those. The Salary Cap is one of the major reasons I still find this game engaging after many years, having to work and re-work in a set limit. Knowing a good season feels all the better having done it inside the cap, and also knowing a bad season can be immediately recovered from.
It's a dramatic statement, but removing the cap and i'll remove myself from the game. Building a fun RP Caribbean project in an un-capped world will be a horrid slog, where as currently I know it can be done as other teams can't keep maintaining an insurmountable advantage by going after a power gaming objective.
New ways how to spend money
1. Not really in favour of buying more RD's. We have a pretty solid balance worked out between the calendar, riders skills, wages etc. Paying to get around that just pushes benefits to those teams with higher powered but fewer riders vs those going for a more rounded out squad build.
As an alternative, could we buy RD Power Ups? Like PCT can buy PT wildcards, you can pay for 1.5x/2x scoring in certain RD. So the balance as a manger is - do I train X rider or sign Y rider, or do I believe I can dominate Race A? (Only works if we feel the DB has balance and races could go to one of 7/8 teams)
2. I'd rather roll back participation points in the PT really than open it up, with an added cost, to lower races. Also from a manager with a heavy dev project, paying just to get XP i need feels really bad, questions whether it's worth signing weaker local talents who won't score above the minimum anyway.
3. Just a no to the "Premium" category. Don't feel it needs much explanation
4. A no to a tax on re-signing riders. Heavily penalises RP managers with no visible benefits. You already could release a rider and try to re-sign them back for less, why make this a compulsory element?
5. Slightly discounted one-year training, could be interesting. Would be adding a touch more work to manage who's a long term vs short term training. Would require changing the overall training eligibility rules to apply to declining riders.
Selling riders via auction system
With the current rules, we actually already have this system. You can jump into any Deal thread and put up more money. There is no set definition of the jump required for the new deal to accepted, but provision is in the rules to force the selling manager to explain if your new offer is not accepted.
As managers we just currently seem to mostly run on an honour system and not jump into deal threads.
Remove barriers between divisions
Eh, I don't mind not racing against PT teams. I know i still jumped into PT threads because of my loan-outs, and from time to time to see what the action was like. Nothing at all stopping you looking and interacting with the CT as it is.
The current mix with CT to PCT is cool. HC offers big points gains at the risk of racing big name riders. C2 allows CT teams events with an advantage. Bridging that next gap to PT would just be awkward to make unique and work. It's another thing that makes promoting from CT to PCT exciting, the chance to face the biggest teams.
For lvl4 CT xp i'd rather just shuffle around the numbers for C1/HC can earn an amount irrespective of anything else.
Unless you're offering up something like Il Giro to become a CT/PT Hybrid race run under C2 restrictions with a PTHC/HC points scale. That'd be fun!
I can also recall back to when I was a PT manager (have to remind people I was once successful in this game ), I don't feel I missed out not facing CT teams. I checked in on those teams I had loan dealings with, watched some of the races. And enjoyed the mix of PT/PCT races for the same reasons as CT/PCT. But again, that additional bridging step is asking abit much of the game to work as effectively.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
), I don't feel I missed out not facing CT teams. I checked in on those teams I had loan dealings with, watched some of the races. And enjoyed the mix of PT/PCT races for the same reasons as CT/PCT. But again, that additional bridging step is asking abit much of the game to work as effectively.
