Ollfardh wrote:
I don't know if big changes can be brought to the table or not, but since we're talking about it.. MG statgain system always seemed to be missing something for me. Personally, I found the ICL statgain system far superior. Since that game is dead now, perhaps (with Bikex's permission) it's worth taking a look at?
Don't think we currently have the bandwidth to rework the whole system with the help available. If someone can come up with the new system, it can be considered.
I had a quick go at doing this previously, so will see what else I can come up with - will aim to have something pulled together by the weekend.
- We want to have races with a TT that aren't TT races but TTs create so much bigger time gaps than other stages any non-GT race with a TT is liable to become a TT race (see this year's PN). This is a constant challenge for us in race design. Having spent a bunch of time on this I am not sure there are a lot more calendar fixes we can do without eliminating TTs from all races that aren't supposed to be TT races or making them all really short.
I would say PN became a ‘TT race’ due to other aspects - the hilly stages had zero selection namely. That’s a game version problem - if a similar route is used for PN or TA next season, making the hilly stages harder is an easy fix. Even now it’s very apparent hilly stages aren’t producing gaps really at all in this version, and addressing that will go a long way to solving other problems.
"Making the hilly stages harder" is not an easy fix. For a couple of reasons:
1. In PCM 22 if you made the hilly stages harder they became climbing stages - the hilly guys didn't win. The original design had a harder stage that was taken out for this reason. This may not be true in PCM24 but we didn't test it as we wanted to see how things went with the parcours we had. We will look at this but I don't think you can assume it is easy.
2. We only have one active stage maker - so if we can't find a stage of just the right "hardness" and it has to be edited . . . .
3. I just don't think hilly stages are that selective in real life - so you are asking the game to do something it wasn't designed to do. 40ish guys finished within a minute of the winner on both stage 2 and 4 of last years TDF (which I think were both classic hilly stages) And that is guys like Pogi and VDP going hard and in a GT where many riders have no incentive to stay at the front. On stage 5, which was a 33k TT the 40th placed guy lost 3 minutes.
While I haven't looked that much into this at the moment I have always wanted a training path that does some combination of Hill and TT. While you can do it somewhat by combining the different training paths it is something that would've been very interesting to play around with
Will need to look into it more in the near future, but a few initial impressions.
- Was inspired seeing Stage Race get a slight nerf to hill, but then very disappointed to see TT and Climber v1 get nerfed even more, such that Stage Race is still very overpowered. Not sure why stage race has gotten this kind of treatment when the only actual area of growing inflation in the DB over the past half decade has been of 76-78 stage racers.
Agree with others that TT was already underpowered compared to stage race and now is even worse. It seems obvious to me that the proliferation of TT scorers in past years (which I also agree has been mostly handled via calendar and OVL updates anyway) most favored guys who were passable climbers and therefore already was more due to stage race being overpowered than TT being overpowered. Even the top TT guys only have a reason to choose TT in their Lvl. 3 year. Most people are not taking some flat over significantly more climbing ability for those kinds of stage races.
Meanwhile, I have no idea what was done with Climberv1. It's basically a worse version of the old Climberv2 now? I have absolutely no idea what this could possibly be useful for now since it doesn't even give Medium Mountain. No TT like the SR option, no MM and energy stats like Climber V2, and just overall worse than climber MM, where you get basically as much mtn. Just absolutely a gutted path when previously it's combination of Mtn/Hill was the only thing making you even think twice about going auto-stage race. I just have no idea who Climberv1 is for anymore.
- Relatedly, I think too much was done here trying to add the two different MM options. One would be fine to split the baby and maybe replace the old Climberv1 path, but I think they're unnecessary and especially the climbing version is overpowered. Their end up replacing their older counterparts rather than supplementing them, imo.
- Don't really like what happened with cobbles and classics. People have complained about classics being underpowered for years, so I guess the solution was to just nerf cobbles a lot in comparison? The classics and Fabian sprint gains leave few reasons to go cobble. The meta seems very flipped now to go classics (or Fabian) for most levels and potentials and get better main stat ability for very modest resistance loss. I'd rather keep cobbles as is and just give classics the acceleration bump we've been asking for for over a decade.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Sorry about the relative quietness here the past few days, work has been crazy!
All suggestions made so far have been considered and we're working towards an updated version of the file, and it will hopefully come some time over the next week or so. While it is not possible to include every possible suggestion made, we are trying our best to balance and normalize the gains, especially among seemingly related paths.
All the comments and suggestions made so far were considered (but all could not be incorporated of course), while trying to balance related paths as much as possible.
Changes in this version
1. Updates for Stage Race, Climber v2, TT, Cobbles, Classics and Fabian paths.
2. Climbing MM replaces the old Climberv1 with some more modifications.
3. Punchy MM is the new Hills v2.
I think these look good. Would still reduce the RS of the TT path, maybe set it equal to Fabian, which is a little weaker. Since TTs are so decisive you should pay a price in other stats for maxing that.
Stage Race was already nerfed enough to balance I think.
I think the changes are good, thank you very much to everybody involved in the reworking process!
A couple of little things:
- Climber V2: I like the addition of cob, but wonder if maybe a little Acc could be added at low potentials for level 1 and/or also for level 2-3, 4-max? The addition of flat is also well overdue.
- Track TT: Seems to only really have had a Res nerf, I wonder if some Acc could be added for level 1-2 for pot 5-7 possibly?
- TT: I think TT looks good and am not sure Res needs a nerf - you’re only getting TT/Prl and Res as main stats here anyway. Flat is negligible especially when it’s been increased for a lot of other pathways (which is a great change).
- Fabian/classics: I’ve never really dabbled in cobbled races or really developed a cobbled rider so am not sure I’m qualified to comment, but the changes for these two paths look very good.
- I know it’s too late, but want to parrot the hilly TT dev path
Thanks again to everybody who has done all the hard work also
Only now had the time to look into the numbers. A bit sad to see the Stage Racer route being so much worse. I do agree that it was always a bit over the top, but I think a total of -18 across all data is a bit harsh. In particular the REC and HI of level 3>4 seems a bit unnecessary.
Also I'm not in favor of removing the MO stats for pot 4-5 in the TT route. For riders with reasonably high MO and TT it's always a hard decision to pick between TT or Stage Racer. With the new changes it's more or less given which path you have to chose. Also the regular TT riders could really use that MO stat to go just a tad higher that the low 60's. I would rather add MO to pot 5-6 in the middle section, than to remove the MO in pot 4-5.
Other than that I see a lot of great things. Not necessarily great for the paths I would have chosen for my own riders - but in the longer and more objective terms I see a bunch of good stuff here. In particular I like the classics update. I see a bunch of cool mixing up between Classics, Fighter, Cobbles, Hills and Sprinter for different type of riders to create cool hybrids that otherwise would have been rather uninteresting liuetenaint types.
Climber v2 I think have become too strong in all honesty. It was already interesting for creating attackers, but you would often have to combine it with v1 or Stage racer. Seems more like a path that can definately stand on it's own now - and in some cases can create massive attacking beasts. But I like the idea of creating real climbers that will just go on the offense all the time. I haven't really seen the new game engine use those stat combinations like I would have liked to see though.
Any reason why Climber v1 doesn't have the comparatives? It looks as if it has undergone some severe changes.
Much appreciated the effort of this! It will be fun to play around with when new talents come along
Some reasonings for the above comments (once again, thanks for taking the time to go through these):
Stage Race: The downgrades are by choice, as other paths have been introduced/redesigned to take up the losses from this path, so that all paths can stand on its own now (climber v2 included).
Climber v1: Completely redesigned to include MM, and still to not become OP. The comparison is not provided because it was almost made from scratch as opposed to the other paths which used the existing gains as the base.
Climber v2: Redesigned to be able to stand on its own, as was correctly pointed out already. The Fighter and Downhill might look over the top in the gains, but they don't make as much impact in PCM 24 as earlier. Flat does make a difference and this path is an opportunity to make climbers who can make hang with the best in the flats, even with poor support.
Happy to hear that the changes to Fabian and Classics are being welcomed. It was a long overdue change.
It is unlikely that TT will get any further boost from what the stats are currently, because the differential for TT riders as opposed to all others is just too big now. ACC could be looked at, but that barely makes a difference in that discipline anyway.
Once again, thank you to Nemo for getting us started with this, and a big thank you to jt and Ulrich for all of the PCM testing which I have not had the time to do at all.
In case there are no more big observations, we will be closing this thread in a couple of weeks and finalize the statgains for 2026 and beyond.
Needless to say, thoughts and observations are still welcome.
Ollfardh wrote:
I don't know if big changes can be brought to the table or not, but since we're talking about it.. MG statgain system always seemed to be missing something for me. Personally, I found the ICL statgain system far superior. Since that game is dead now, perhaps (with Bikex's permission) it's worth taking a look at?
Don't think we currently have the bandwidth to rework the whole system with the help available. If someone can come up with the new system, it can be considered.
I had a quick go at doing this previously, so will see what else I can come up with - will aim to have something pulled together by the weekend.
Only took me 2 months
I had a play around with the v1 stat gains posted here to create a rough model that could work, though it was very subjective on my part. Basically it works by splitting stats into four 'buckets':
Bucket 1: MO, HI, TT, CO, SP (key main stats) Bucket 2: FL, MM, PR (semi-main stats, influenced by those in bucket 1) Bucket 3: ST, RS, RC, AC (key support stats) Bucket 4: FT, DH (other support stats)
For a worked example I used Pot 7, and averaged out each stat across each level (1>2, 2>3/4>Max, 3>4). From there I worked out possible combinations within each bucket that would be relatively true to current stat gains, with the aim of allowing flexibility while also not enabling any massively overpowered paths.
The results for pot 7 at each level, for each bucket, are in the spoiler below:
Spoiler
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1>2
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2>3, 4>Max
2
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
3>4
4
2
1
1
0
3
3
1
1
0
3
2
2
1
0
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
1
2A
2B
2C
1>2
2
1
0
1
1
1
2>3, 4>Max
2
1
1
3>4
3
2
1
2
2
2
3A
3B
3C
3D
1>2
2
2
1
1
2>3, 4>Max
2
2
2
1
3>4
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
4A
4B
1>2
1
0
2>3, 4>Max
2
1
3>4
2
1
I have ideas about how this could be made to work in an Excel sheet for working out the paths, but will take a small amount of work, and can produce the same for other potentials relatively easily. May be more complex than we want so totally understand if it is unwanted, but it offers the flexibility a few people have requested while hopefully avoiding the potential for major problems!
Ollfardh wrote:
I don't know if big changes can be brought to the table or not, but since we're talking about it.. MG statgain system always seemed to be missing something for me. Personally, I found the ICL statgain system far superior. Since that game is dead now, perhaps (with Bikex's permission) it's worth taking a look at?
Don't think we currently have the bandwidth to rework the whole system with the help available. If someone can come up with the new system, it can be considered.
I had a quick go at doing this previously, so will see what else I can come up with - will aim to have something pulled together by the weekend.
Only took me 2 months
I had a play around with the v1 stat gains posted here to create a rough model that could work, though it was very subjective on my part. Basically it works by splitting stats into four 'buckets':
Bucket 1: MO, HI, TT, CO, SP (key main stats) Bucket 2: FL, MM, PR (semi-main stats, influenced by those in bucket 1) Bucket 3: ST, RS, RC, AC (key support stats) Bucket 4: FT, DH (other support stats)
For a worked example I used Pot 7, and averaged out each stat across each level (1>2, 2>3/4>Max, 3>4). From there I worked out possible combinations within each bucket that would be relatively true to current stat gains, with the aim of allowing flexibility while also not enabling any massively overpowered paths.
The results for pot 7 at each level, for each bucket, are in the spoiler below:
Spoiler
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1>2
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2>3, 4>Max
2
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
3>4
4
2
1
1
0
3
3
1
1
0
3
2
2
1
0
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
1
2A
2B
2C
1>2
2
1
0
1
1
1
2>3, 4>Max
2
1
1
3>4
3
2
1
2
2
2
3A
3B
3C
3D
1>2
2
2
1
1
2>3, 4>Max
2
2
2
1
3>4
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
4A
4B
1>2
1
0
2>3, 4>Max
2
1
3>4
2
1
I have ideas about how this could be made to work in an Excel sheet for working out the paths, but will take a small amount of work, and can produce the same for other potentials relatively easily. May be more complex than we want so totally understand if it is unwanted, but it offers the flexibility a few people have requested while hopefully avoiding the potential for major problems!
Sorry about the very late reply. Work and life have been quite stressful for some time now.
@jph: With regards to the quoted post, if there can be a model made and finalized in the next couple of months (15th March), then we can put it to a vote and decide which model to go with for next season. Otherwise, it will need to wait until next season for consideration. Please start a new thread on this or post further in the suggestions thread, whichever is more convenient.
With regards to the updates to the existing statgains model, we are closing the discussion for the season. We will take a look at a couple of the paths wrt the comments provided, but please do not expect any major changes from the latest file posted.
I want to make a case for that talents under contract should still follow the old stat gains file in their development regardless of the switch to the new stat gains.
Firstly, let me say that I agree that the changes made were necessary and I think the people involved did a great job.
Only now in my preparation for transfers, I have realized what kind of impact the change will have on the game.
In the latest database these are the top unmaxed contracted climbers with OVL maxing development paths chosen (thanks Heine for the forum presentation tool):
Nat.
Name
FL
MO
MM
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
OVR
Del Toro
71
83
81
74
74
79
77
81
63
62
77
68
72
71
79.55
Martinez
68
82
78
75
71
78
79
79
57
57
76
72
72
69
78.98
Ayuso
70
82
79
74
76
79
76
78
62
63
73
69
70
73
78.84
Blackmore
72
80
77
74
71
78
74
77
63
58
67
68
69
73
76.96
Comparing this to how these riders were expected to end up when they were on the free agency the last 1-2 years:
Nat.
Name
FL
MO
MM
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
OVR
Del Toro
71
81
79
76
76
78
77
81
63
60
75
68
70
75
79.00
Martinez
68
81
78
75
72
77
79
80
57
56
75
71
71
71
78.56
Ayuso
70
81
78
75
77
79
76
78
62
62
72
69
70
75
78.58
Blackmore
72
79
77
74
72
77
74
78
63
57
66
67
68
75
76.55
In my opinion it is quite clear that the new versions of these climbers/stage racers are much stronger than what they were expected to be when they were added to the DB. For many years we had not had talents that ended up on stat lines like this (since MAL I believe) and the process for a rider to reach the very top took years including training. Now we have a crop of riders that were lucky to be added in the 1-2 years before the stat gains change that will reach top stat levels much younger than the talents added the years before they'll be competing with and in the upcoming years I believe there'll never be talents added that will be able to compete with them at any point in their career. Especially del Toro will be able to compete for a GT win in his first maxed year probably.
This issue mainly affects potential 6 + 7 riders in the stat gains from XP 2->3 and 4-> MAX . It most predominantly affects stage racers/climbers following the efforts to nerf the stage racing path. It is not exclusive to these riders though.
Another case I noticed is one that personally affects my planning quite short-term. When I bought Ganna last year, I assumed he would be the joint top prologue rider in the 2027 season, but now Fisher-Black will end up on 83 instead of 82:
Nat.
Name
FL
MO
MM
HI
TT
ST
RS
RC
CB
SP
AC
FG
DH
PR
OVR
Fisher-Black
69
67
68
68
73
72
78
69
60
60
72
74
68
83
72.67
For sure there are more examples, also some lower profile ones where the effect is not as immediately visible.
I realize this discussion should've probably been had a few weeks/months ago. I unfortunately only realized these implications now when preparing for transfers and hope we can have a conversation about this topic before transfers start. I know that the MG admins are generally not very happy about doing short-term adjustments to rules and announcements after they were made, but I believe going through with the change will create problems in the game for years to come and goes against all the great efforts made to balance the db throughout the last few years. I also assume that this might have been an oversight when introducing the changes.
My suggestion would be to keep the old stat gains for talents under contract for at least the next 2 years.
I flagged this previously and share the concerns, but I would argue it is too late now to change how the paths apply to contracted riders. I made last year's stat gain choices based on the new paths being used from this year, and then renewals decisions based on the maxed stats those riders would end up with.
If those riders were to be put back on the old stat gains I would want to change the stat gains I chose last year, but that wouldn't be possible as it would have a knock on effect on renewals that wouldn't have been accounted for at the time. Suspect I'm not the only one in that situation - it isn't ideal but it feels like a few riders being slightly stronger than intended is the lesser evil than having to rip up development plans.
The only reason Del Toro will be going to 83 is because of a missed level up from 2 to 3 this time. We can't base our overhauls on managers making such mistakes. It is fluky luck that gets him to 83 MO, bit it will also be a year later. As for the rest, there are very few such cases as against the whole picture, so it is fine I think.
Also, the new gains have been out for a couple of months now with only very minor changes added recently. It is too late to change everything at this point.
I flagged this previously and share the concerns, but I would argue it is too late now to change how the paths apply to contracted riders. I made last year's stat gain choices based on the new paths being used from this year, and then renewals decisions based on the maxed stats those riders would end up with.
If those riders were to be put back on the old stat gains I would want to change the stat gains I chose last year, but that wouldn't be possible as it would have a knock on effect on renewals that wouldn't have been accounted for at the time. Suspect I'm not the only one in that situation - it isn't ideal but it feels like a few riders being slightly stronger than intended is the lesser evil than having to rip up development plans.
I would argue that having the changes in makes years of planning mute for some managers. If it was known that del Toro would end up on a stat line like this he would've been more contested in FA and teams that made longterm plans with stage racing talents from the years before and in the upcoming years are hit by this decision.
Also, I personally wouldn't see too big of an issue with changing stat gain choices during the offseason. The amount asked for in renewals probably wouldn't have changed much anyways.
The only reason Del Toro will be going to 83 is because of a missed level up from 2 to 3 this time. We can't base our overhauls on managers making such mistakes. It is fluky luck that gets him to 83 MO, bit it will also be a year later. As for the rest, there are very few such cases as against the whole picture, so it is fine I think.
So we're rewarding managers for missing deadlines now?
Also, the new gains have been out for a couple of months now with only very minor changes added recently. It is too late to change everything at this point.
Like I said I wouldn't want to change everything. I like the new stat gains and think everyone did a good job. I also thought so at the time they were announced.
I just feel like there was an oversight with current talents and I don't think it is necessarily too late to correct that. I believe this oversight will have quite a big longterm impact on the game and strongly goes against the philosophy of how talents were added the last years and the work to balance the database.
Also they are not as balanced as they were with the old stats, where there was a higher HI and TT/PRL. Not sure they are much better with the new stats.
I have a couple of talents where I really would have preferred the old statgains.
After the feedback here I wanna share my own opinion too. I wasnt a fan from this since the beginning. Yes you tried your best and came up with something and maybe it's a tiny bit better than before but it clearly has its flaws. Besides the ones being pointed out one major flaw is that it is still unbalanced and it lacks variety in what riders can be created.
What you did, in my opinion, is that you tried "to put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound". This will never give great results and to really fix it you would need to make MAJOR changes, a new system. I know this takes some work and thinking but there are enough people here willing to help with it and there were plenty of suggestions before. But it's up to others to decide.
Just my 2 cents, in the meantime I try to get the best out of my riders with the system available
