|
Stricter Activity Disbands
|
| knockout |
Posted on 09-04-2025 19:53
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7873
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 500.00
|
SotD wrote:
I don’t like the “save me from relegation” solution as it offers a “second outing” for teams having overspent wages on top tier talents. We need to keep the risk of losing talents if you sign too many to stay up IMO.
We have seen such situations before, and it adds an element of strategy to the game, that I would hate to see removed by “chance”
I agree with this. Id almost always prefer to add another promotion team before cancelling a relegation spot (assuming the respective teams want to take the spot)
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Nemolito |
Posted on 09-04-2025 20:34
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3557
Joined: 20-04-2020
PCM$: 425.00
|
I think maccs idea, stated here by caspi and Blasing, is a superb idea.
And it could save active managers who might have just been on the unlucky side and had nothing to do with going big on talents to stay in a division, while at least six new ones are already going up.
5 relegations is not low, but of course it's good for the game to give at least the same amount of managers per division lower a chance to go up like it is now, but no need for like 8 guys to go up without saving one guy who can be points away from staying in.
|
| |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 09-04-2025 22:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2982
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
knockout wrote:
SotD wrote:
I don’t like the “save me from relegation” solution as it offers a “second outing” for teams having overspent wages on top tier talents. We need to keep the risk of losing talents if you sign too many to stay up IMO.
We have seen such situations before, and it adds an element of strategy to the game, that I would hate to see removed by “chance”
I agree with this. Id almost always prefer to add another promotion team before cancelling a relegation spot (assuming the respective teams want to take the spot)
I am slightly indifferent to whatever approach, but I do dislike that teams can get a second lease on life, since you can gamble that a team is going to disband, thus gaming the system, I don't really see the issue with the way it's currently being handled if I have to be honest.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 18-04-2025 18:08
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 09-04-2025 22:32
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4904
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
I share the view of those speaking against a "second chance". If there aren't enough teams deemed "worthy" of promotion in a given season, well, let's run a division with less teams the year after.
If the admins want to adopt the concept of "one up, one staying", it should definitely be communicated before the season that this could be possible. For this season, I don't think it should be applied to be honest.
Back to topic: Sad to see in particular P4E gone, but it's true that fjhoekie's activity dropped significantly in the last two years or so (he wasn't even sure he'd do the 2024 season iirc). I've never really been in touch with Scorchio, so I'm pretty neutral on that one - but it obviously has a huge impact if the PCT leader is set to disappear... But you can't argue if they got warnings and ignored them I guess.
Give the "on the edge" list, I'm rather surprised not to see some PT managers up there, but given that we can't see a user's posts in the profiles anymore, that's just based on gut feeling that can definitely be wrong.
Anyway, big thanks to all the managers who are active and make this game a unique experience!
|
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 10-04-2025 06:37
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2984
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Honestly, to combat this debate, IMO we should decrease the number of promoted/relagated teams from 5 to 3 and maybe cap the total number of teams that can be promoted from a single division (be it through ranking or disbands above) to 6.
|
| |
|
|
| Blasing |
Posted on 10-04-2025 07:02
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 303
Joined: 27-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well if you look at pretty much every sports league in the world where there is relegations/promotions between tiers, if a team gets disbanded or forcefully relegated, it's always the case that 1 team less gets relegated and the number of promoted teams stays the same.
This is basically to protect a team, that is far from being promotion worthy, to be immediately relegated the year after.
By the logic of some opinions here, we should have 8 promotions and still relegate the same amount of teams as normal. How is this good for the integrity of the league?
Do you really want to promote a team that is like 8th or 9th in CT to PCT? Or that is 7th in PCT to PT?
In reality it's just less relegations for other teams. So in real life 2 disbanded teams in PT would lead to 2 less relegations in PT. We are already talking about a solution that is half/half (one up, one stays), which is already a cut to real world.
But now going with the opinion that despite 2 teams being dispanded (or relegated) by "law", we are still relegating the same amount of teams?
How is this logical?
Manager of JEWA TIROL Cycling Team
|
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 10-04-2025 08:23
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2984
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Blasing wrote:
Well if you look at pretty much every sports league in the world where there is relegations/promotions between tiers, if a team gets disbanded or forcefully relegated, it's always the case that 1 team less gets relegated and the number of promoted teams stays the same.
This is basically to protect a team, that is far from being promotion worthy, to be immediately relegated the year after.
By the logic of some opinions here, we should have 8 promotions and still relegate the same amount of teams as normal. How is this good for the integrity of the league?
Do you really want to promote a team that is like 8th or 9th in CT to PCT? Or that is 7th in PCT to PT?
In reality it's just less relegations for other teams. So in real life 2 disbanded teams in PT would lead to 2 less relegations in PT. We are already talking about a solution that is half/half (one up, one stays), which is already a cut to real world.
But now going with the opinion that despite 2 teams being dispanded (or relegated) by "law", we are still relegating the same amount of teams?
How is this logical?
To be honest, I don't think there will be a consensus reached in regards to disband promotions and/or potentially giving a lifeline to relagated teams in case of disband. I have a proposal (though it will be shot down) - how about the top team in the relagation zone to receive a "safety token" that can only be used in case a team that finished above them in their division disbands. However there will be some restrictions
1. The manager awarded that token has the choice to use it. Shoud the token be used, the same manager cannot be awarded another on the following season (I was thinking this to be for 2 seasons, but it may be harsh), meaning that if the team finishes 16th in PT or 20th in PCT the following season no "safety token" will be awarded
2. In case the manager decides to not use it, the token will not be passed down to the next team. It will be simply left unused
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 10-04-2025 08:42
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7873
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 500.00
|
Blasing wrote:
This is basically to protect a team, that is far from being promotion worthy, to be immediately relegated the year after?
I know there are multiple perfectly valid ways to look at the question but i just want to point out that teams finishing outside of the promotion spots always had the option to decline the disband promotion and teams have used it when they felt they were not ready to do so so they can "protect themselves" if they feel the need to do so. I dont think anybody wants to force them to promote if they dont want.
Finishing outside the promotion spots doesnt mean that you will be relegated without a shot at survival after another off-season. It just means you have a lot of improving to do. It's a chance that might carry a few risks. Plenty of examples who pulled it off and had nothing to do with relegation the next season and were far better off than they would otherwise have been.
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 10-04-2025 08:43
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2982
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
ivaneurope wrote:
Honestly, to combat this debate, IMO we should decrease the number of promoted/relagated teams from 5 to 3 and maybe cap the total number of teams that can be promoted from a single division (be it through ranking or disbands above) to 6.
Reducing promotion spots absolutely not the way the way to go, at that point we're just not creating a dynamic game at all. Part of the allure of Man Game is the verticality. And this is coming from someone that has promoted to the PCT in every way possible, from winning the division to promoting off the back of like three disbands.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 10-04-2025 19:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18209
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I might be the only manager in the game to have promoted via disbands, promoted regularly, relegated regularly, and was spared relegation as a result of disbands.
So can i offer anything to this discussion?
Umm...
Beyond anything else, the strength of the MG has always been manager interaction and participation. I can speak to this from all sides based on experience. I've spent many years seeing managers do less than the bare minimum, and clog up spots in more "prestigious" divisions.
I would value participation above 'sporting' results every time. Every single time.
Normally we're in a pretty simple position where the teams in position to Promote via disbands are active and engaged managers. In these instances there is no point in saving a team from relegation.
The question becomes if any of the "on the edge" managers end up in a promote-via-disband spot. In those instances I would go to the next active CT team and give them the choice to promote. Only if that team declines do you move to saving a PCT team.
Following that simple process you'll end up with maybe one saved PCT team, as any active CT manager is highly likely to take up promotion, and if not I don't see more than one turning it down (.... ish.... with the state of the CT for the last few seasons there is something to be said for hanging around down there and getting a great shot at a good season vs a season of struggles at PCT).
The more worrying point, as per usual, is that if you lost 8-13 teams from the CT, at what number does a functional & ENGAGEING CT cease to exist. Right now i'm really having a long hard debate with myself about my own future in the MG. I can put out a half-decent team in the CT and get some good results, which is a big plus. But in a division with like 8 active managers and teams i'd really question what the point of that is.
Anyway, some rambling thoughts.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 10-04-2025 20:46
|
World Champion
Posts: 12330
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Re inventing the active managers second CT team could be a possibility to increase activity of Numbers are too low :-)
|
| |
|
|
| Nemolito |
Posted on 11-04-2025 10:25
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3557
Joined: 20-04-2020
PCM$: 425.00
|
As Abhishek (or was it MG-Admin?  ) said earlier it won't change for this off-season anyway, so it'll be put to vote later then for the future.
Apart from the 'teams going all-in on talents must not be saved' being a non-argument, as it doesn't necessarily have to be a team that's been going all-in on talents (just looking at PT possible relegators now being teams like me, Cedevita, Grieg, Vesuvio, Moser, etc. and none of them have gone super big on talents I think. in PCT maybe it's a bit different this season, haven't looked that closely, but then I look at Adler who might have went biggest of all on talents and has a decent shot at promoting to PT even. Also I don't feel like we should 'punish' people for taking the effort to maxing out riders over the course of 3 (or 4 years) even more than the time they already have to wait for their riders to be (hopefully) useful. Not everyone has the luxury to be in the game for a long time and spend loads of cash on riders every season  And if somebody spends, idk, 1m+ on talents and they are far from competitive, they won't be close to the fifth last place anyway. Unless your name is Adler of course!
It's also about keeping motivated managers in the game I think. Having a very unlucky season and seeing your planning of the team going down the drain and having to re-plan entirely again because you miss out on staying in by a couple of points might be the final straw to make someone disband. Has surely happened before, so if this could also make a difference there, that would be nice. This isn't reducing promotion spots either imo, as by the time you would save the first team from relegating there is already an extra team promoting over the five 'normal' ones, with the seventh team following immediately after.
Always prefer having a large enough and active CT competition. Have tried to attract some managers in the last couple of off-seasons and have had some help with that from some guys (ironically also hoekie who attracted several managers that are now active in the game ), but it's something literally anyone could do. Ask some people irl and/or online to join, it helps more than spending time here to say CT isn't lively enough at this moment. And this isn't a dig to anyone who has said CT isn't lively enough in the comments above me, to be clear 
|
| |
|
|
| 2kignacio2020 |
Posted on 11-04-2025 10:38
|
Free Agent
Posts: 110
Joined: 08-07-2022
PCM$: 200.00
|
I agree with most of the things Nemo said, and also yea, we need to try to help mánagers to keep then motivated so we can be a more active community |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 11-04-2025 10:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 14023
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
I'm not a fan of saving teams that have been relegated according to the rankings. But going to far down in the next divisions for slots isn't ideal either.
Instead of one up, one stay up system maybe we could have something like two/three up, one stay up. That way we still favor teams promoting to a higher division, but not go too far the pecking order.
Another aspect that could be looked into is how far points wise the relegated team was to the last safe spot compared to how far to the last promotion spot the team from the lower division was.
The argument with teams who overspent on talents and then are saved could also be used for teams who overspent on talents in lower division are in the middle of the pack and suddenly are awarded promotion due to disbands.
In the end, I think it would be best to keep the current system as opinions on a new one seem to be pretty divided.
|
| |
|
|
| MacC |
Posted on 12-04-2025 10:54
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1631
Joined: 15-07-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
I suppose i should chip in to back my own idea !
Fundamentally, if you finish in a promotion spot you will get promoted, nothing changes there.
After that, I don't see why a team that didn't finish in the top 5 should be considered more worthy of being moved up a division than a team that maybe just missed out on staying up being kept up.
Arguments for both which is why I proposed a one up, one stay up model. The advantage still lies with the lower division.
I wonder if there were some further tweaking would it satisfy people ? Like we could say at least 3 always go down...or the sequence would only start after 7th place meaning it would go : one up, one up, one stay up, one up , one stay up...and so on
I know in some football leagues there might be a play off system....could be fun ..based on overall points with appropriate multipliers. That's probably complicating matters ....one up, one stay up remains for me the fairest and most straight forward
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 12-04-2025 13:13
|
World Champion
Posts: 12330
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
*Based on your last suggestion*
Another way about it could be to find a formula where the points scored is converted by a ratio set before the season. For promotion you match your points x 1,6 up against the division above. This could make for some interesting scenarios where we also look a bit into actual performances. 1,6 is just something random I took as an example - could probably be calculated in a smarter way around the amount of points available in the division and made that similar divided by the amount of teams in the division.
Depending on the amount of disbands, we would see a different pattern, but almost everytime we would see a clear relegator stay down, while those who relegated in a super tight division would actually have a reasonable shot at staying up.
PT 2024:
| 6 | Indosat Ooredoo | 5160 (PCT) | | 7 | Bralirwa - Stevens Bikes | 5072 (PCT) | | 8 | Sony - Force India | 5014 (PCT) | | 9 | Lierse SK - Pizza Ullo PCTeam | 4907 (PCT) | | 18 | ELCO - ABEA | 4865 (PT) | | 19 | Amaysim Australia.com | 4827 (PT) | | 20 | ISA - Hexacta | 4618 (PT) | | 10 | Team UBS - Tissot | 4592 (PCT) | | 21 | Minions | 4407 (PT) | | 22 | Binance | 3911 (PT) |
So it would require 5 disbands for ELCO - ABEA to stay up, as the PCT teams from 6-9 all scored "better" given this method. It would take 8 disbands for Team UBS - Tissot to promote, and 10 disbands for Binance to stay up.
PT 2023:
| 18 | Duolingo | 5062 (PT) | | 19 | Aegon - Peroni | 4989 (PT) | | 6 | Binance | 4886 (PCT) | | 7 | Kraftwerk Man Machine | 4760 (PCT) | | 20 | Team UBS | 4759 (PT) | | 21 | Los Pollos Hermanos | 4537 (PT) | | 8 | Philips - Force India | 4426 (PCT) | | 9 | HelloFresh - Lampre | 4418 (PCT) | | 10 | Lierse SK - Pizza Ullo PCTeam | 4346 (PCT) | | 22 | Zwift Pro Cycling | 3183 (PT) |
It would take 3 disbands for Binance to promote, and another one for Kraftwerk Man Machine to follow them, while the first two disbands would see Duolingo and Aegon - Peroni survive. It would require 10 disbands to see Zwift Pro Cycling staying up.
PCT 2024:
| 20 | Zwift Pro Cycling | 1992 (PCT) | | 6 | Ekoi - Le Creuset | 1856 (CT) | | 7 | Strava | 1832 (CT) | | 21 | Glanbia | 1804 (PCT) | | 8 | Manada Coyote | 1803 (CT) | | 9 | Gjensidige Pro Cycling Team | 1784 (CT) | | 10 | SEE Turtles | 1606 (CT) | | 22 | Trans Looney Tunes | 1601 (PCT) | | 23 | Genii Hyundai N Cycling | 1308 (PCT) | | 24 | Spark-BNZ Racing | 1088 (PCT) |
The split seems very tight here, with only Zwift Pro Cycling being really easy to pick as the first one safe. Between 4-5 disbands would be just 1 points between Glanbia (who stays up) and Manada Coyote who barely misses a promotion. It would take 8-10 disbands to keep the remaining PCT teams up.
PCT 2023:
| 20 | Gjensidige Pro Cycling Team | 2091 (PCT) | | 21 | Strava | 2031 (PCT) | | 22 | Volcanica - Fox | 1973 (PCT) | | 6 | BWT Hyundai N Cycling | 1843 (CT) | | 23 | Crabbe-CC Chevigny | 1812 (PCT) | | 7 | BNZ-Superhero Racing | 1730 (CT) | | 8 | Caja Rural Cycling Team | 1725 (CT) | | 9 | Tafjord Kraft | 1678 (CT) | | 10 | Oktal Pharma - TotalTV | 1670 (CT) | | 24 | Project: Africa | 1641 (PCT) |
It would take 4 disbands to see BWT Hyundai N Cycling to promote, while Project: Africa did so poorly that they would require 10 disbands to stay up.
|
| |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 12-04-2025 13:40
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8094
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
As somebody who always seems to be hovering by the cut line or near promotion, I'm up for any system as long as I know what is at stake going into the final races. That is what builds suspense. So, I don't really like the surprise promotions because of disbands, unless we know ahead of time like the promotion line has moved to 7th or 8th place bc of disbands. But I get that isn't possible most times.
---
But here is a fun, crazy idea: Two promotion playoff race at the end of the season. Bottom three and top three in each division still auto-promote and relegate. The PT Promotion Race features the next two active teams at the bottom of the PT and teams 4-7 in the PCT.
The PCT Promotion Race features the next two actives at the bottom of the PCT and teams 4-7 in the PCT.
- Numbers could obviously be adjusted to find a fair balance.
- Each team could send two 7-man teams to fill out the startlist.
- Randomly decided course that is revealed at the season start like all the other profiles.
- Any disbands in the auto-promotion or auto-relegation spots just moves the needle on how many promo spots are available during the promotion race (and/or how many teams get invited to race).
The teams fighting off relegation should have an advantage to stay up bc of having better riders (usually), but knowing the route before transfers would provide an interesting dynamic to allow promotion contenders to prepare if they end up in the promotion race.
---
I just think this would be a fun way to wrap up the season and bring something new and exciting to the MG. There are obviously some things that would need to be worked out, but take this as a concept of what could be possible.
|
| |
|
|
| Dippofix |
Posted on 12-04-2025 14:51
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3959
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
I really don't like the idea of playoffs or the like in real life sports, and I like it even less here tbh. We already race a full season with hundreds of RDs over a wide variety of profiles that should give a very representative outcome in the final table. Ignoring that to decide promotion and relegation in one random race seems like a bad idea, especially taking into account how bad the AI in PCM can be - over the course of a season you'd expect the AI randomness to even out, but or course that's not possible in a one off race.
I personally think keeping the divisions dynamic adds to the fun of the game - I don't particularly think a team finishing outside of the promotion spots is more worthy of being promoted than a team finishing in the relegation zone is of being saved, but if in doubt, I'd choose the option that keeps things more dynamic. In real life sports, this unpredictability is bad for the financial health of the teams hence saving teams is preferred, but obviously that does not apply here. And frankly I would rather be fighting for promotion from the CT than against relegation from the PCT, so if a relegation is enough for a manager to consider disbanding, I'd kind of question what motivates them to be in the MG in the first place. Just my two cents.
|
| |
|
|
| seancoll |
Posted on 12-04-2025 18:19
|
Domestique
Posts: 570
Joined: 20-12-2022
PCM$: 500.00
|
To start, there will always be support for whatever decision is made out of fairness. No one gets paid the big bucks (if I'm wrong, tell me where to apply) and I appreciate everyone trying to make things better.
When we talk about disbands potentially causing CT to be too small, is there a reason we don't consider a 21 team PT and a 23 team PCT, if there is a disbanding team both not promoting or relegating.
It just feels like a conversation about what is best for each division should also include how many teams are in each.
|
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 13-04-2025 06:57
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2984
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Last season I was going to propose an activity tracking mechanism in which managers can earn activity points for posting in race discussion and ranking threads. But I've decided against it.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg){kind=small}
