Was thinking about development teams at work today (it was slow, I promise) and wanted to clarify who would actually select the development tracks for riders on those teams. I assumed that it would be:
- the manager who retained rights to the rider using comment 7a; for their individual rider
- the development team manager who retains the right to an individual rider within their own team - for that individual rider
- collective decision by the combined management for the remaining riders
Is this correct?
I think this is correct. Not sure on the OVL question, will certainly rely on the results adjustment to help adjust salary demands.
Totally understand that results adjustments will help a bit, but I don't think that's sufficient because (1) it doesn't affect RD allowances, and (2) more importantly, results modifiers historically really only target overperformance rather than underperformance. That makes sense for instances where the a rider just got unlucky one year, but not really where we know there has been a systemic stats change which will be the same in the next season with the same PCM. A team is basically forced to either release their rider to get some semblance of wage value short term, or carry an albatross contract hoping the OVL adjusts in some unknown future season. They can't negotiate around it.
I know we've been more resistant to making OVL changes year on year in the last half decade or so, but to me this is a small and straightforward adjustment that is really needed.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
On dev teams I think what we proposed is noy that different from what you are describing, except the exclusion of CT teams. The differences seem to be:
For the record the only time I was around for dev teams before (2019?), CT teams couldn't play (I know I was one) but I assume in earlier years they could. I would be open to changing that, I could get over the conflict thing.
(...)
I think it would be good to provide more options for CT managers, and not exclude them from dev teams. I get that there can be a conflict in theory, but in practice that should be small if even there at all.
Please note two updates to the rules (also updated in the first post, marked in italics)
Replacing Stagiaires with Junior Riders (only for CT)
Spoiler
...
4. Junior riders will have 40 RDs at any time of the season.
5. The minimum wage for Junior Riders will be 20k.
...
Development Team Rules
Spoiler
...
2. Managers from any division are allowed to have Development Teams.
3. Dev teams must be made by two managers teaming up, but they must be from different divisions. If more managers are interested in managing development teams than there are team slots, managers will be selected at random from interested managers. Mangers not participating in one season will be given a preference in the next.
...
Please note two updates to the rules (also updated in the first post, marked in italics)
Replacing Stagiaires with Junior Riders (only for CT)
Spoiler
...
4. Junior riders will have 40 RDs at any time of the season.
5. The minimum wage for Junior Riders will be 20k.
...
Development Team Rules
Spoiler
...
2. Managers from any division are allowed to have Development Teams.
3. Dev teams must be made by two managers teaming up, but they must be from different divisions. If more managers are interested in managing development teams than there are team slots, managers will be selected at random from interested managers. Mangers not participating in one season will be given a preference in the next.
...
The Junior Riders updates are IMO an improvement as now managers won't have the huge dilemma of spending 100k in wages on either 2 full-time riders or 4 Junior Riders. The 10 RD boost is also welcome.
Having Dev Teams being open to all managers is a neat idea, but I think there should've been a condition for CT managers that want to be involved - like for example surrendering their 2 free rider spots in order to pair up with another manager for a Dev Team. It's either one or the other - can't have both.
Please note two updates to the rules (also updated in the first post, marked in italics)
Replacing Stagiaires with Junior Riders (only for CT)
Spoiler
...
4. Junior riders will have 40 RDs at any time of the season.
5. The minimum wage for Junior Riders will be 20k.
...
Development Team Rules
Spoiler
...
2. Managers from any division are allowed to have Development Teams.
3. Dev teams must be made by two managers teaming up, but they must be from different divisions. If more managers are interested in managing development teams than there are team slots, managers will be selected at random from interested managers. Mangers not participating in one season will be given a preference in the next.
...
Having Dev Teams being open to all managers is a neat idea, but I think there should've been a condition for CT managers that want to be involved - like for example surrendering their 2 free rider spots in order to pair up with another manager for a Dev Team. It's either one or the other - can't have both.
Why though?
Shouldn't the "price" be equal across divisions - or perhaps more expensive for teams with bigger budgets?
Given we are expecting a drop in the number of teams going into 2026 and a reduction in the number of PCT teams is planned we are going to reduce the stats of some riders from disbanded teams. This will only impact riders on disbanded teams. The goal will be to keep the number of point scoring riders versus the number of teams roughly equivalent to the 2025 season.
There are two reasons we are pursuing this:
(1) stat inflation and too much clutter particularly in the 78-80 stat range create issues for the AI including non-selective races, exaggerated impact of RDC and marginal differences between riders resulting in huge differences in AI treatment.
(2) When the number of riders increases relative to the number of teams it makes free agents cheaper than renewals which punishes teams who have built rosters over time and invested in rider development.
The reductions will be focused on riders in 5th to 35th percentile when sorted by OVL. This group represents OVL from roughly 74.5 to 78 and accounts for about 45% of all scoring. Riders in the top 5% (OVL 78ish+, 33% of scoring) will not be impacted as they are likely to have significant palmares and because the idea is to create differentiation among riders and forcing these riders’ OVL down is counter to that. Riders below the 35th percentile in OVL will not be impacted because they are not considered point-scoring riders for this purpose, although unmaxed talents who will end up with an OVL above 74.5 could be impacted.
These downgrades will be implemented during renewals and shown in the post renewal database. Reductions will be focused on the rider’s main stat(s) and stamina and resistance, other stats will be left alone.
FAQS: Wont this disadvantage new teams and promoted teams: No, the reductions will be done at a level to keep the relationship between number of teams and number of point-scoring riders consistent, so the situation will be the same as if there were no change in the number of teams.
Can I wait to do my renewals until I see the impact? No, the timing will not permit that. All managers will face the same situation. This post is intended to make managers aware. Once the number of teams for next season becomes clearer we will update this post with an estimate of the magnitude of the change.
Doesn’t concentrating on disbanded teams risk creating an Azteca situation where one nation or region is badly impacted? There is some risk of this but impacting riders on continuing teams is not an option. In selecting riders to downgrade, attempts will be made to balance the impact from a nationality perspective.
Not against this in theory. I agree the 78-80 stat range has been the major issue with inflation and can be remedied this way. How effective it will be and whether it will create another Azteca situation will probably depend a lot on how many team end up disbanding.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
