I still think moving back to the previous version is the best possible solution we could ever pick of the Man-Game. We can tweak and twist all we want, we just won't get as good a result as by moving backwards.
I know it's not what people want, but sometimes there isn't a correlation between what people want, and what people need.
should be a perma ban for such ridiculous suggestions
I don't there's ever any merit in going back to older games. I think every manager has had their gripes with a specific game version, like I am still pretty sure that I relegated in 2018 because the edition we used back then couldn't handle a deep hills unit correctly which led to some ridiculous AI decisions.
Sprinting has been mostly fine across the two lower divisions this year in MG, sure there has been some issues at the top but again we can look towards the discussion about how the stats matrix is borked and sprinting by nature, both in game and in real life, is the most random element of pro cycling. Jordi Meeus won on Champs last year and before that he hadn't won a single bunch sprint at World Tour level and his last bunch sprint win was in 2021 at Tour of Hungary.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that sprinting has mostly been fine in PCT/CT. And it's too early to draw any final conclusions anyway with almost three months left.
I feel like the number of races where top sprinters don't perform is far higher than e.g. for top climbers. One reason surely is the DB, where there are still far too many 78+ sprinters. But the AI definitely is an issue as well, especially with sprint trains.
But I don't really know how to solve this. Going back to a previous version will likely lead to some managers quitting, staying with the current version could have the same outcome... One way to at least try to decrease the losses of an unreliable sprinter would be to generally decrease their OVL (given that stat difference apparently matters much less than e.g. for mountains or TT), hence decreasing their wage and increasing their RDs.
But at the same time, performance might need to have a much bigger impact on wage than it currently does, so holding onto a successful sprinter might be costly, but if he has a bad year his wage could go down significantly. For example, the wage of Ewan or Coquard could be 500k next year if they don't significantly improve now, which would correspond to riders scoring similar amounts of points, plus a bit more because they still have the potential to do far better than they did in 2023.
However, sprinting needs to be looked at from all different kinds of perspectives - wide/narrow roads, turns, sprint trains, uphill/downhill finishes... Sprinter OVL and wage is just one element. I definitely hope we can find a way to make sprint results slightly more consistent (of course, there are the Meeus examples, but you still wouldn't expect the likes of Merlier or Philipsen to finish outside the Top 10 in half of their bunch sprints), as currently it seems like you're actually penalized for having a good sprinter. At least that was also my feeling with Bol in the races where he was a Top 5 favourite, although he costs just about 1/7 of Coquard's wage ^^
I realize "going back" has been a no-go before, and perhaps rightfully so. What I will say about game versions, for those unaware: In PCM23, a new attribute has been introduced, the medium mountain stat. Should we continue to move forward through the versions, that is going to have some big implications, most important and most consequential of course the question of how to distribute this new stat to the existing riders, but also adjusted training paths, OVL formulas, calendar considerations etc etc. This would add a new dimension to the game, like potentially new rider types, which would be neat, but could also have pretty significant impact on the balancing of the game, not to mention a whole lot of work to accomodate it all.
If (big if) we then decide that this would throw too much out of whack and we stick with the current attributes, thus eliminating the possibility of moving forward every few years, I think it might be reasonable to discuss which of the game versions we've had is "the best". I'm not sure there is an actual best version, since I agree that indeed each one has its quirks, but given that in this scenario we would then likely settle on a version for the entire MG future, it's a discussion I wouldn't reject out of hand.
I realize "going back" has been a no-go before, and perhaps rightfully so. What I will say about game versions, for those unaware: In PCM23, a new attribute has been introduced, the medium mountain stat. Should we continue to move forward through the versions, that is going to have some big implications, most important and most consequential of course the question of how to distribute this new stat to the existing riders, but also adjusted training paths, OVL formulas, calendar considerations etc etc. This would add a new dimension to the game, like potentially new rider types, which would be neat, but could also have pretty significant impact on the balancing of the game, not to mention a whole lot of work to accomodate it all.
If (big if) we then decide that this would throw too much out of whack and we stick with the current attributes, thus eliminating the possibility of moving forward every few years, I think it might be reasonable to discuss which of the game versions we've had is "the best". I'm not sure there is an actual best version, since I agree that indeed each one has its quirks, but given that in this scenario we would then likely settle on a version for the entire MG future, it's a discussion I wouldn't reject out of hand.
Another update for folks in PCM23 is that they have TTT bugs galore. Their most recent bug updates (as of February) makes it such that TTTs are scored on the 4th rider instead of 5th. We've gotten no indication that Cyanide is planning to fix this before the release of PCM 24.
Another implication of PCM 23 is the grupetto AI. Instead of riders dying every mountain stage, the AI allows a grupetto to form to save energy for later sprints. As you might expect, sometimes the wrong riders drop back losing 30+ minutes in GC. It is not normally the best GC riders, but depth placings (30-60, especially in PT) would be highly impacted. Leading GC teams gain a significant benefit from not jumping into the grupetto - but do lose energy quickly as in previous versions.
this is all to say that moving to PCM 23 anytime soon will create many additional challenges
cunego59 wrote:
If (big if) we then decide that this would throw too much out of whack and we stick with the current attributes, thus eliminating the possibility of moving forward every few years, I think it might be reasonable to discuss which of the game versions we've had is "the best".
I agree that this is a fundamental decision that needs to be taken. Imho going to PCM23 for the next MG season is out of the question, as playing around with how to fill the new attribute, plus the usual testing with the MG DB, would likely take far more time than we have until the end of the 2023 season.
But yeah, I guess it should be decided now if we'll target a move to PCM23+ for MG 2025. I do think we'll eventually need to go forward, if MG should stay alive. If MG will be dead in a few years anyway (really have no clue how many managers will quit after the current season - if number of posts during the season is any kind of indicator, it'd be about half of them), no need to put in any effort...
@sean, has it been confirmed that the TTT Bug really is a bug? Imho UCI rules allow the time to be taken even on the first rider in TTTs, as it was done in Paris - Nice in the last two editions...
If PCM23 has more consistent sprints, and no major flaws in stages that now work pretty well in PCM22, I'd still be in favour of going ahead, despite the TTT thing and the depth potentially at risk...
@sean, has it been confirmed that the TTT Bug really is a bug? Imho UCI rules allow the time to be taken even on the first rider in TTTs, as it was done in Paris - Nice in the last two editions...
If I understand the situation correctly, there was an original bug that had intermediate checkpoint times taken on the 4th rider and/or the interim results sheet and that was requested to be fixed. They "fixed" it in a patch by taking final times with the 4th rider to make them consistent.
Either way, the consensus is that we're hopeful PCM24 fixes some of these things. Beta should be coming out soon (might be worth one or two members joining the Beta to better understand what is happening in the new game)
Havent got 2023, but just wondering if anyone tested sprinter races with a standart Daily database, with MG stages and with normal R.Life stages. To see if the problems lies in the MG stages, the MG database or it is an issue with PCM 23 sprints in general.
It is hard to fix if you don’t know where the issue is coming from. As far as I remember MG sprints have always been bad, but not as bad as I have seen in the (relative few) races I have followed this season.
We're actually using PCM22, so we don't know yet whether there are also sprinting issues with PCM23.
I did a few tests with the Daily DB in PCM22. Sprinter fields have slightly less depth, but the results are pretty random as well. You have the same pattern of top sprinters getting bad (i.e. too early) leadouts, and then failing. Top sprinters took some wins, but subtop sprinters got more. I also observed that the top sprinters generally performed better in harder stages, even in hilly rated ones.
So it looks like it's not just a MG issue; it's just worse because there are even more competitive sprinters than in the Daily DB. But I have indeed observed the same issues there as well.
- I am usually against going back but I could see doing it temporarily while we figure out the switch to PCM24 or later and the Med Mtn issue. But not as a permanent move as I think if we lock into a version it will be come increasingly obsolete and hard to install. I also think going back further than 20 would be problematic from a game play perspective, teams are not built for older versions. I like 20 better than 22, although it also had sprint issues they weren't as bad and I think the GC AI was more effective. TT unpredictability was manageable and I think we have learned makes things a little more interesting. It would be an easy switch. (Has anyone had any experience with 21, maybe they fixed the 4th favorite bug). Then we take our time to test out 24 and switch after one or two seasons.
- I don't think (MO + HI)/2 work for Med Mtn as it rewards the hybrids too much. I think maybe greater of MO or HI less 2. But not sure. I did have an idea to run a mini game over the offseason to test PCM24. Will see if time permits.
- On the TT discussion, the calendar team has plans to tweak the calendar to reduce TT weight particularly in PCT. But OVL changes may be appropriate as well.
- On participation, this remains an awesome community, I see no reason I won't be still trying to win the ToA in 2034.
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
I like 20 better than 22, although it also had sprint issues they weren't as bad and I think the GC AI was more effective. TT unpredictability was manageable and I think we have learned makes things a little more interesting. [...]
- On the TT discussion, the calendar team has plans to tweak the calendar to reduce TT weight particularly in PCT. But OVL changes may be appropriate as well.
I'm not against a bit more unpredictability, but Zmorka regularly finishing outside the Top 10 (and even outside the Top 20 on at least two occasions) is more than "a bit". Didn't check on other TTers to be honest, as he was the extreme example iirc. But if we increase unpredictability by that much, and at the same time reduce the TTers' calendar, OVL changes might not even be needed... On the other hand, it would also mean 78 TTers could win stage races again - for TTs (and TTTs), I clearly prefer the customizable daily form and far more predictability in PCM22, but I agree that especially for sprints PCM20 felt better.
If it's a temporary and easy switch, I wouldn't oppose to it, but if the game should go on for 10+ years, we need to move ahead eventually.
Another thing about PCM23 and possibly further versions. It seems stamina has become the dominant energy stat in an update. Noticed it in another simulated side project where top riders with low stamina suddenly dropped in performance with the same stats consistently.
At the end of the day, I think what it comes down to is that we need to do more testing and be able to present a much clearer picture whenever we make the next switch. As long as everyone knows relatively well what's coming, how the new game engine interacts with the stats, and can have one, maybe two transfer windows to adjust and prepare, I think we'll be fine whichever direction we go in.
If we do go back, I don’t think TT riders need a big nerf or OVL correction. Like Nemo said, a 77-78 TR rider could beat an 82 TT rider comfortably in the previous game version we used, I even remember a 74 TT rider winning a TT either last season or the one previous against some good opposition.
And speaking of races, Bayern Rundfahrt has already been cut from the calendar this season in PCT which I would consider a ‘TT’ race due to the long ITT being quite important. So if races are to be culled, I think Bayern should be a candidate to be put back into the PCT schedule as it offers something different to races like Denmark, Norway, Slovenie etc etc. and is a good mix of Strong climbers/typical GC riders and hybrid TT/MT riders which keeps it interesting.
At the end of the day, I think what it comes down to is that we need to do more testing and be able to present a much clearer picture whenever we make the next switch. As long as everyone knows relatively well what's coming, how the new game engine interacts with the stats, and can have one, maybe two transfer windows to adjust and prepare, I think we'll be fine whichever direction we go in.
We need more off season help than just 1-2 of us doing this consistently to get the kind of game analysis that people are expecting.
Given the different meaning of HL and MT in the modern version of the game compared to when the training matrix was designed I think it could do with something of a revamp. This also provides an opportunity to create greater diversity in the kinds of riders which are added and developed.
I wouldn't make any changes to Fighter, Sprinter, Time Trial, Cobbles, Climberv1, Track-Sprint, Track-TT, or Fabian.
Hills
Currently this is somewhat useless as MT is vital for puncheurs. Reduced HL to the current Climberv1 and increased SP to current Cobbles. This makes the Hills training one that provides puncheur-sprinters, slightly worse than true Sprinter training.
Spoiler
3 > 4
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
0
3
3
2
1
1
P = 6
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
0
2
3
2
1
1
P = 5
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
P = 4
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
P = 3
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
0
P = 2
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
2
2
1
0
0
P = 1
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
2 > 3
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
P = 6
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
0
P = 5
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
2
2
1
0
0
P = 4
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
P = 3
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
P = 2
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
P = 1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1 > 2
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
P = 6
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
P = 5
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
P = 4
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
P = 3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
P = 2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P = 1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Climberv2
Another training that has declined because of the importance of HL to climbers. Takes TT and RC from Stage Racer training to replace it as the premier choice for training the MT+TT combination.
Spoiler
3 > 4
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
4
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
1
2
3
2
P = 6
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
1
2
3
2
P = 5
1
3
2
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
2
3
2
P = 4
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
3
2
P = 3
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
3
2
P = 2
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
P = 1
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
2 > 3
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
3
2
P = 6
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
3
2
P = 5
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
P = 4
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
P = 3
0
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
P = 2
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
P = 1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1 > 2
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
P = 6
0
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
P = 5
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
P = 4
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
P = 3
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
P = 2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
P = 1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
Stage Racer
By giving TT training to Climberv2 we have freed up Stage Racer to chase after the general classification in hilly stage races. MT and AC are taken form Hills with HL coming from Climberv1.
Spoiler
3 > 4
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
0
0
3
1
1
2
P = 6
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
0
0
3
1
1
2
P = 5
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
1
1
2
P = 4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
1
1
2
P = 3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
1
2
P = 2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
P = 1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
2 > 3
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
1
1
2
P = 6
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
1
2
P = 5
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
P = 4
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
P = 3
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
P = 2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
P = 1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1 > 2
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
P = 6
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
P = 5
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
P = 4
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
P = 3
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
P = 2
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
P = 1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Classics
Classics doesn't necessarily need to be changed in line with the others but giving it the MT from Hills and HL from Climberv1 brings it in line with the other HL+ training pathways and makes the idea of another Benoot into a realistic possibility.
Spoiler
3 > 4
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
2
1
3
0
2
2
1
3
0
1
3
2
0
P = 6
2
1
3
0
2
2
1
3
0
1
3
1
0
P = 5
2
1
3
0
2
2
1
2
0
1
3
1
0
P = 4
2
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
3
1
0
P = 3
2
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
P = 2
2
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
P = 1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
2 > 3
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
2
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
3
1
0
P = 6
2
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
P = 5
2
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
P = 4
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
P = 3
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
P = 2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
P = 1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1 > 2
FL
MO
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
P = 7
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
P = 6
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
P = 5
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
P = 4
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
P = 3
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
P = 2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
P = 1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
What would the impact of this change be? Well it shouldn't send any talents over the top given it won't be opening any greater possibilities in terms of maximum stats, instead just introducing more hybrid approaches. The only harm will be decreasing the maximum HL stat because the Hills training is nerfed in that aspect. Here is what it would look like for some of the bigger talents of the 2001 class.
I think it would be a good idea to add the possibility (or even obligation) to choose the development path for non-maxed riders post-transfers or early in the season. This could still be provisional with the final decision being made later in the season like it's handled now, but it seems odd to me that a rider who has done his races in a season and earns the XP doesn't develop just because his team disbands because of manager inaction. I understand some late season choices shall improve activity, but I don't see why a rider should lose one (or even two) stat upgrades as it doesn't really hurt a disbanding team but only the rider.
Is there a thread or something else for suggestion new races for a season? So we can shake up the calendar a bit?
Wouldn't be a bad idea. Likewise with suggesting a change in classification of a certain race. For example Sammy and I had this discussion a few days ago where we agreed Coppa Placci should get upgraded to C1 at minimum. With both Sammarinese teams (for the time being) unable to send their best riders in an attempt to win their only home race. But I guess for new races a good first step would be suggesting an actual stage(s).
Quinn Simmons - Pot. 7
Axel Laurance - Pot. 5
Cedric Bakke Christophersen - Pot. 6
