|
Suggestions for 2024
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 04-06-2024 14:16
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2933
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
KaiserAdler wrote:
Ezeefreak wrote:
This isnt really a suggestion.
Is there a thread or something else for suggestion new races for a season? So we can shake up the calendar a bit?
Wouldn't be a bad idea. Likewise with suggesting a change in classification of a certain race. For example Sammy and I had this discussion a few days ago where we agreed Coppa Placci should get upgraded to C1 at minimum. With both Sammarinese teams (for the time being) unable to send their best riders in an attempt to win their only home race. But I guess for new races a good first step would be suggesting an actual stage(s).
I'd also propose a rotational events scheme - events that are too similar one another to rotate between C1 and C2 every season. Here's en example with Event A and Event B - two similar hilly profile races
In 2023 Event A is C1 while Event B is C2
For 2024 Event A will be C2, while Event B will become C1
Similar thing could be made for HC-PTHC
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 05-06-2024 03:30
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
ivaneurope wrote:
KaiserAdler wrote:
Ezeefreak wrote:
This isnt really a suggestion.
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).
I'd also propose a rotational events scheme - events that are too similar one another to rotate between C1 and C2 every season. Here's en example with Event A and Event B - two similar hilly profile races
In 2023 Event A is C1 while Event B is C2
For 2024 Event A will be C2, while Event B will become C1
Similar thing could be made for HC-PTHC
Will definitely take a look at the San Marino point, we do try and match race nationality by division with team and usually after promotions the calendar is reviewed for that.
On the other points - there is a lot of work and a huge number of considerations that go into the calendar in terms of balancing types of races, nationality, race days etc. Abhi and I typically start work on the calendar for the next season as soon as the current season starts. All the pro tour stage races and a handful of others have to have new parcours every year. Then we end up having to change 5-10 races a season just because of changing AI and game demands. After we do those must do's, we do try and refresh races and change things up but it isn't always the highest priority. Also, I think some managers like having consistent races and courses for ease of planning and a lot of races have history in the game and can't be dropped lightly. Finally bringing in new races often requires stage editing and that takes time.
All that said please feel free to pm me or Abhi if you have an idea for a race you think we should switch up or bring in, we will definitely listen. There are a bunch of changes we made based on player feedback. But also remember we only have so much time and there are a lot of things in play.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 13-06-2024 17:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2904
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
kandesbunzler26 wrote:
Provisional development choice post-transfers
I think it would be a good idea to add the possibility (or even obligation) to choose the development path for non-maxed riders post-transfers or early in the season. This could still be provisional with the final decision being made later in the season like it's handled now, but it seems odd to me that a rider who has done his races in a season and earns the XP doesn't develop just because his team disbands because of manager inaction. I understand some late season choices shall improve activity, but I don't see why a rider should lose one (or even two) stat upgrades as it doesn't really hurt a disbanding team but only the rider.
I really like this, as someone that has had to shift regional focus when Azteca crashed and burned I'd really like to have people do tentative stat gains at the start of the year.
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 14-06-2024 00:53
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
I think we should expand the F1 style expanded bonus seconds beyond the flat and flat/hilly GCs to other races. I could see three options
1. Just add in the easier punchy races - Euskal, Lithuania, South Africa come to mind, maybe San Luis, Norway and Scandania - these aren't that different than TDU and Veenedal. And more bonus seconds would tip things a little to the finishers versus the TTers who hang on, in South Africa, Lithuania and Norway. Also would reduce the number of s.t's. in races with TTTs.
2. Using it on races like East Java, Vineyards, Middle East and Eritrea with few decisive stages would also make sense so that results on the sprint stage don't dictate finishing order when the favorites tie in the decisive stages. And it a little bit counteracts the huge depth advantage to having a strong TTT squad.
3. If you are doing 1 and 2 why not just use it on every race except GTs. That is simpler and I am not sure it does any harm. Maybe in a race with a lot of sprints it helps the sprinters but most of the time they are losing by much bigger margins in the other stages. Also we have extended the length of the TTs in the TT/Sprint races so it is harder to get sprinters into the GC. It would make it harder for breakaways to score GC points based on intermediates but not sure that is a big deal, nobody counts on that.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 14-06-2024 01:51
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
I think we should expand the F1 style expanded bonus seconds beyond the flat and flat/hilly GCs to other races. I could see three options
2. Using it on races like East Java, Vineyards, Middle East and Eritrea with few decisive stages would also make sense so that results on the sprint stage don't dictate finishing order when the favorites tie in the decisive stages. And it a little bit counteracts the huge depth advantage to having a strong TTT squad.
Not opposed to #1 or #3, will think on it a little more, but I instantly really like this one - even if it doesn't make "role-play" sense I think it's the best way around a design flaw in these races as you. If a race is designed to have one decisive stage, that should be the decisive stage! Especially when PCM loves to not give gaps in that 5-15th range on MTF - you can lose your GC position to someone who was a minute behind you on the mountain.
Spoiler I think I like #1 as well - it would just need to be taken account for all the races it's a part of - e.g. who is Lithuania there "for" (obviously we're always open to surprise results) - this would tip it slightly more towards sprinters than puncheurs, which could be fine, but unlike Euskal or TDU or South Africa, or even Norway to an extent, it only has one hilly stage to cause separation beyond these bonuses.
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT]  Xero Racing
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
|
| redordead |
Posted on 14-06-2024 08:07
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4881
Joined: 18-10-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think it's a pretty good idea for the races mentioned in #2. If we could get rid of top 10 GC placements getting shuffled on countback then that's a good thing for sure and some of those races do have that issue.
Norway and South Africa might also be solid candidates to prevent over the top depth scoring.
For some of the other races I'm not so sure. Euskal I would lean no, because it's already very sprinter friendly. San Luis doesn't seem to have issues and we've only had it for one season now. Lithuania is a tricky one, especially now that this version handles TTTs differently.
"I am a cyclist, I may not be the best, but that is what I strive to be. I may never get there, but I will never quit trying." - Tadej Pogačar
|
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 14-06-2024 08:35
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
I don't know how feasible this would be from a stage building/editing standpoint, but if possible, I think it would be great if races that consist of relatively short laps, mostly cobble races but also some hilly ones, could have the last maybe 5 kilometers or so outside of that circuit. It happens very regularly that lapped riders make the screenshots pretty confusing when you have 8-10 riders riding towards the finish line but only 3-4 of them are actually fighting for the win.
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 15-06-2024 03:09
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
cunego59 wrote:
I don't know how feasible this would be from a stage building/editing standpoint, but if possible, I think it would be great if races that consist of relatively short laps, mostly cobble races but also some hilly ones, could have the last maybe 5 kilometers or so outside of that circuit. It happens very regularly that lapped riders make the screenshots pretty confusing when you have 8-10 riders riding towards the finish line but only 3-4 of them are actually fighting for the win.
When we add new races or change races I try and avoid scenarios where you get lapped riders interfering. But we have not purposely targeted this. If there a specific races you have in mind let me know. Mostly wrapped with race editing so have a little time to look at a few others.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 21-11-2024 19:39
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 15-06-2024 03:16
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
redordead wrote:
I think it's a pretty good idea for the races mentioned in #2. If we could get rid of top 10 GC placements getting shuffled on countback then that's a good thing for sure and some of those races do have that issue.
Norway and South Africa might also be solid candidates to prevent over the top depth scoring.
For some of the other races I'm not so sure. Euskal I would lean no, because it's already very sprinter friendly. San Luis doesn't seem to have issues and we've only had it for one season now. Lithuania is a tricky one, especially now that this version handles TTTs differently.
I get a little worried about it becoming very subjective which races get it and which don't, which is why I though about option 3. A compromise would be to make the standard bonus 20/12/8/5/2/1 or something like that, so it is less boost than the sprint setting but adds some extra differentiation.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 01-07-2024 02:29
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
I am going to summarize this thread to save Roturn some time. If you have any more suggestions get them in now, I will look to wrap this up next weekend.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| Eden95 |
Posted on 01-07-2024 04:11
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4505
Joined: 05-10-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
Did we ever come to a decision regarding what game version we’re using next season? I feel like we have but can’t remember.
Indosat - ANZ HQ
"This Schleck sandwich is going to cause serious indigestion for Evans" - Phil Liggett |
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 01-07-2024 09:59
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
Eden95 wrote:
Did we ever come to a decision regarding what game version we’re using next season? I feel like we have but can’t remember.
My understanding was that we stick with PCM22, and if and when we move forward, we only do so after extensive testing, which could be done throughout next season if enough people have enough time, to make sure everyone can have a good understanding of new mechanics and AI behavior.
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 21-07-2024 05:05
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
I am going to do two posts recapping the ideas for next year. This one focuses on stat gains. Various folks put forward some good ideas for a more comprehensive change to the stat matrices but I think those should be held and done when we move to a version with Medium MT since that will require a bigger rethink. So I am focusing on smaller changes.
Lief proposed a set of changes in post 97 (here) and various other folks threw ideas out in different places.
The stat changes I show below are the average change in each stat blended across all potentials based on the weights of each potential in the DB. This reduces the comparison to one set of data points. So for example potential 4 gets a 45% weight because it is about 45% of the riders in the DB.
Hills
As the traditional puncheur doesn't really exist in the AI any more the HI path has become obsolete as CV1, with its MT, is generally better. Lief suggests making Hills a punchy sprinter path, dropping HI and adding SP, while JPH developed a proposal that beefs up SP and MT at the expense of AC. I compare these below using Wandahl for the base stats, the potential is a blended average as described above.
I think both approaches make HI more useful as a dev path. I think I like Lief's idea as I think it could be combined with CV1 to get to JPH's approach.
Stage Racers
Lief proposes turning CV2 into a traditional stage race path and making the current stage race path more a HI/TT path. I am not sure you need the first step, maybe just change CV2 into a HI/TT path. I am also concerned these are both pretty powerful and benefit the kind of riders who do very well already. So I am a no on this one.
CV2 to a SR illustrated with Carlos Rodriguez
SR to HI/IT illustrated with Elia Blum
Classics and Cobbles
Lief proposed beefing up the climbing elements of the Classics path while WJ argued the cobbles path is too weak versus sprint and fighter. Below I compare the current classics with Lief's suggestion, the current cobbles and my suggestion based on WJ's thoughts.
I think there is some merit to these but I don't think cobbled ridrers are impacted the way hills riders are right now, so would be inclined to hold off on these changes pending a more comprehensive rebuild.
TT for Non-TT riders
Currently CL, CO and HI riders are really bad in TT because they get almost no points in that discipline. And if you give them a high base TT to start they risk turning into TTers or Stage Racers. I think we should add 3 points of development in TT to each of these paths. So you can generate 67-71 type TT skills for these kinds of riders without setting them up with TT as an alternative path. I have included this change in both the paths below.
Lief's full matrices can be found in his post.
JPH's Hill Matrix
Spoiler | 3 > 4 | Fl | Mt | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | Dh | Pr | | P = 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | P = 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 > 3, 4 > Max | Fl | Mt | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | Dh | Pr | | P = 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | P = 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | P = 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | P = 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | P = 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | P = 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 > 2 | Fl | Mt | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | Dh | Pr | | P = 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | P = 6 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | P = 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Ulrich's Cobbles Matrix
Spoiler | 3 > 4 | Fl | Mt | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | Dh | Pr | | P = 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | P = 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | P = 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | P = 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | P = 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 > 3, 4 > Max | Fl | Mt | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | Dh | Pr | | P = 7 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | P = 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 > 2 | Fl | Mt | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | Dh | Pr | | P = 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | P = 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 21-07-2024 14:15
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Thanks for the recap Ulrich!
I thin giving hills more sprint makes sense to make the path more viable. As you can, it can be combined with CV1 for more well rounded riders, but right now there's very little reason to choose it at all. Adding more sprint creates an Albasini type that can at least reliably contest the hilly finishes where sprinters hang on, which are more common in PCM these days.
Don't agree with combining CV2 with SR though. The result is even stronger than normal stage race, which is by far the most OP path right now as it has the most main stats, and that's why the DB is flooded with stage racers in the 75-78 range from the last ~6 years of talents added. CV2 was always very weak because it targets a type of rider that doesn't really exist in real life and especially not in PCM anymore—a diesel climber who focuses on classics, not stage races. I'd be fine adding a little TT to CV2 or finding another way to make it viable for stage races—more flat and recovery. But layering it with the existing SR path is too far imo.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 21-07-2024 16:26
|
World Champion
Posts: 12187
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I agree. The SR path is already very strong. I don’t see any need for a new path that basically makes it better. COB/ACC is needed IMO and the HI/TT path also seems somewhat needed.
Maybe also a different Fighter option, to specialize it a bit.
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 21-07-2024 17:56
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2518
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
Fighter does need yet another buff. Mostly at level 1, if the rider doesn't have like pot 6 picking fighter lvl 1 is useless for the most part
|
| |
|
|
| liefwarrior |
Posted on 22-07-2024 01:38
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 864
Joined: 04-07-2019
PCM$: 300.00
|
Stage Racers
Looking at what several people have said about the power of the current Stage Race training, I agree with Ulrich's suggestion that changing CV2 directly into a Hill/TT training is the superior option. Although it would be pretty powerful, I don't think the benefit would be distributed to the type of riders who are already doing quite well. Instead it would provide an opportunity for managers to develop their puncheurs into riders capable of *some* TTing - making hilly stage races into a competition between TTers who can survive bumps against puncheurs who can survive TTs, rather than leaving them to the former.
 Elia Blum - Pot. 4 | FL | MO | HI | TT | ST | RS | RC | CB | SP | AC | FG | DH | PR | | Time Trial | 76 | 61 | 70 | 79 | 73 | 77 | 74 | 63 | 63 | 66 | 68 | 71 | 78 | | Stage Race | 70 | 67 | 72 | 79 | 73 | 75 | 76 | 63 | 63 | 67 | 64 | 71 | 78 | | New CV2 | 72 | 63 | 74 | 79 | 73 | 75 | 76 | 63 | 63 | 71 | 64 | 72 | 78 |
For Elia Blum, one of the hottest stage race prospects from last year, I think the new training wouldn't have sufficient MT to survive hills, meaning you either go for a pure rouleur or the already-existing stage race training.
 Lennard Kämna - Pot. 5 | FL | MO | HI | TT | ST | RS | RC | CB | SP | AC | FG | DH | PR | | Stage Race | 71 | 77 | 71 | 78 | 76 | 73 | 75 | 62 | 63 | 67 | 71 | 70 | 78 | | New CV2 | 71 | 71 | 74 | 78 | 76 | 73 | 75 | 62 | 63 | 73 | 71 | 70 | 78 | | Max TT | 73 | 73 | 69 | 80 | 76 | 73 | 75 | 62 | 63 | 66 | 73 | 70 | 80 | | New Max TT | 73 | 71 | 71 | 80 | 76 | 73 | 75 | 62 | 63 | 70 | 73 | 70 | 80 |
Lennard Kämna had an incredible season in 2022. Here the new CV2 training is viable but I would probably prefer the original stage race training as the ability to survive bigger climbs will probably create more opportunities than being marginally better over minor bumps.
If there are any other riders that people are concerned might overly benefit fro this change then drop their name and I can whip up the potential development pathways.
|
| |
|
|
| redordead |
Posted on 22-07-2024 09:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4881
Joined: 18-10-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hills
I think Lief's version gives a bit too much sprint. Just 2 less points than the average sprinter gains seems too much. Maybe revise that and redistribute a few SP points into other stats.
Is there a reason why jph's version only gives TT, but not PR? I think those two should always have equal gains apart from the Track-Sprint path.
Apart from that I think they're good suggestions. I could see adding both and calling them Hillsv1 and Hillsv2.
Stage races
I would not change anything for CV1, CV2 and SR. I don't think there is a need for a HI/TT path, but I could see doing a different SR when the mid mountain stat is implemented.
Classics and Cobbles
The Classics path is probably the one that needs a buff the most. Adding more MO and HI is fine, but again the HI gains are too much, almost the same as the current Hills. I would probably replace some of those with ACC.
"I am a cyclist, I may not be the best, but that is what I strive to be. I may never get there, but I will never quit trying." - Tadej Pogačar
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 23-07-2024 02:41
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Part 2 of my recap focuses on proposed changes to the rules. This does not include things about stat gains in the prior post or processes like the calendar that aren't governed by transfer rules. Those ideas will be taken in by the folks doing those processes.
There were long discussions regarding the game version and Ahlstrandgate, but it did not seem like any ideas really gained support there. I also do not list things that have already been acknowledged by Roturn like getting an XP check during planning and changes to the renewal algorithms.
Here goes:
New rules - No discussion of open deal threads and no adverts of riders you don’t own. These two ideas seemed to emerge from the Ahlstrand discussion as minor updates. Both might already be covered in existing rules but could be made more specific.
Make the transfer tax on net instead of gross income. This was only mentioned once but I have seen it mentioned multiple times in other places. It seems like if the goal of the tax is to stop huge training funds then net would do that. As it is, it penalizes someone who is trying to remake their team and discourages dealmaking.
Make stat values of 84 and 85 decline 1 every year and require retraining at half the cost. An interesting one from Ezee that would loosen up the top GC levels. But this seems like a pretty big shift from the current approach.
Remove all age declines on the FTR stat. Forgot this in the stat gain post, WJ points out this would keep older riders more interesting and maybe let them get one or two more years. Seems like a reasonable idea to me.
Choose preliminary dev paths early in the season. This would be to prevent riders with inactive managers from losing development. I am not sure about this one, it creates more administrative work and I think this is a good way to combat stat inflation. It also creates some dynamism in terms of the future peloton.
Add sprint race style bonuses, which go to 10th place, to more races. Goal would be to give riders who contest the finish an advantage over those who just hang on to the front group. Which is important for punchy stage races which have minimal selection (e.g. Euskal, Lithuania) and for races like East Java where there is only one decisive stage (which results in the GC top 10 being be determined by ranking in sprint finishes). The danger is giving sprinters to much of an advantage in mixed races. One compromise would be to change the standard schedule to 20/12/8/4/2/1 which would create some of this dynamic without going all the way to the top 10 getting bonuses. I like a broad change like this better than having to make a lot of judgements about which races get the extended bonuses.
I think that is everything, I apologize if I missed anyone's favorite idea in this recap.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| MacC |
Posted on 23-07-2024 12:46
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1594
Joined: 15-07-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
2 things I still think worth exploring:
Remove Training age cap while keeping declines. Basically make it a choice whether to pay big time to keep your legend in the mix for another year creating interesting dynamics,- an aging cobbler has lost his punch and spring but has held onto this main attribute.....also lessens the sudden uselessness of riders all at the same age
When teams disband I think the system of just promoting 6th, 7th, 8th in a lower division and so on is not justified. I 'd argue for a "one up, one stay up" system where the first disband sees the 6th place team promote but the next disband sees the best relegated team stay up instead. And back and forth like this..this would be fairer in my view allowing better teams who are close to good enough to stay up while others who are not ready (maybe finished 8th or 9th) in a lower division suddenly move up..
Suggested these before and I guess they weren't popular but there you go anyway 
|
| |
|
