This thread was put up on 4th November. jph is the only one who solidly proposed to put up a different system in the first week of January. We gave 2 months time then for another system to be put up (so 4 months in total!), but no one suggested anything.
I'm sorry but it is very easy to keep putting fancy phrases like 'band-aid on bullet wound' but it would be better to have some help and contribution in these things. I don't think there was any discouragement from any of the admins to anyone to start work on or suggest a substitute system. If anything, we have been asking for more collaboration since the start of the season across the season, and over the past seasons, but it is usually the same people who volunteer over and over again regularly, while a few more help out occasionally.
A big thank you to everyone who contributed to the new statgains and who also contribute across other areas of the game.
+1 to Abhi and the admins here. We have all had the chance to look at it and propose changes and other systems. Different development systems will always have strenghts and weaknesses and I think the system we have is pretty good as it makes it possible to both plan ahead and see paths already when talents are introduced
And by playing around with talents added this year and older talents I have to say there are many cool ways to develop talents with the new stat gains
This thread was put up on 4th November. jph is the only one who solidly proposed to put up a different system in the first week of January. We gave 2 months time then for another system to be put up (so 4 months in total!), but no one suggested anything.
I'm sorry but it is very easy to keep putting fancy phrases like 'band-aid on bullet wound' but it would be better to have some help and contribution in these things. I don't think there was any discouragement from any of the admins to anyone to start work on or suggest a substitute system. If anything, we have been asking for more collaboration since the start of the season across the season, and over the past seasons, but it is usually the same people who volunteer over and over again regularly, while a few more help out occasionally.
A big thank you to everyone who contributed to the new statgains and who also contribute across other areas of the game.
I can only speak for myself here but I personally dont like to repeat myself over and over again. In May 2025 I already made analysis of the current system and made some drafts for a new system and suggested it. I also happily offered support and more work on it, nobody ever contacted me for this. And I believe this was not even my first time. I am not pushing my help on others.
So yes, I feel the right to use "fancy phrases like 'band-aid on bullet wound'" , when I already suggested a surgery for this matter But I cant do more and I am not begging to help.
And let's be real, I doubt anyone in charge would have listened to a REAL change that would have flipped way more, then adjusting the numbers and add 1-2 more paths.
But again, they were changes and every bit of work is appreciated but this doesnt mean there is still room for improvement.
I definitely understand both sides. It's true that Ezee didn't propose any changes in this thread, but he did so in the past, and it led nowhere.
I also mentioned (probably in the same thread where Ezee talked about his ideas) that I liked the ICL statgain system quite a lot, as you have separate statgains for main and support stats, so you have more options to create well-balanced riders.
It's obviously too late for any changes for the upcoming season, but maybe we could consider more radical changes for 2027 or 2028 - if there's any need in doing so. As Heine mentioned, the predictability of MG's statgains system is a nice point (even though there can still be rather plan-breaking changes like the current one), so you always have pros and cons.
I can live with whatever direction we take, but given that ICL is sadly gone, I'd still love to see some of its statgain elements in MG...
And yeah, big thanks to those who worked on the statgains update and did all the simulations and testing
So here is my suggestion how to do in the future:
- NO specific Training Paths anymore
- "free spending"from Attributes Points to the Attributes
- Number of Points depending on Rider Potential and Level
Total Attribute Points
Pot
1>2
2>3
3>4
4>MAX
Total
AVG
MEDIAN
1
8
8
7
6
29
24
25
2
10
9
8
7
34
29
30
3
11
10
10
9
40
30
30
4
12
12
12
11
47
41
41
5
14
14
14
13
55
47
48
6
16
16
15
15
62
53
54
7
18
18
17
17
70
60
61
- AVG and MEDIAN are what we got with the current system. Tweaked the numbers a bit and added a few for Medium Mountain which can be trained individually then also
- Limits for Distribution each Attribute and Level
Individual Stats Maximum (e.g Mountain or TT)
Pot
1>2
2>3
3>4
4>MAX
Total
1
2
2
2
2
8
2
3
2
2
2
9
3
3
2
2
2
9
4
3
3
2
2
10
5
3
3
2
2
10
6
3
3
3
2
11
7
3
3
3
3
12
- means a Pot 7 Rider, max 3 Pts on Attribute each level > So max Total gain is 12 Pts for one Attribute > less Potential Less Training on one Attribute possible
- max Limit on Total Value for primary Attribute (Flat, Mountain, Medium Mountain, Hill, TT, Cobbles, Sprint, Prologue) > 81, riders cant be levelled on a primary Attribute higher than 81, rest needs to be with Training.
- Keep decreases, just minor tweaks (less decline at Fighter, Stamina and resistance)
Advantages?
- More control over Rider development
- FAIR system for each rider type
- bigger variety of rider types
- less predictable and more fun
How to implement?
- Web Apllication can be created by me where every manager can and need to do it for their rider till end of the season (automatically applies all rules and stuff)
> Less work for Staff also
--------------
So thats what I came up with. All the numbers here are obviously changeable but i think thats a good base. What do you think?
I know its early but we also know it takes a while to make a decision here and if we want to do this I would also need time to do all the coding stuff.
Again, whoever is interested to overhaul the statgains is welcome to propose at least a moderate level of detail regarding the new system, so that we can have a discussion around it. It is not always possible for me or any other admin to be involved in the process right from the beginning but we will try to stay with the discussions as much as possible. A few managers working together after transfers are over is also an option. Please ensure there's one system we're working towards and not several disjointed ones.
Please feel free to start a new thread on this or start the 2027 Suggestions thread, as desired.
I understand your frustration Abhishek and I realize that there was a lot of time. I still decided to bring up my concerns now, because only now, when preparing for transfers, I realized the implications of development paths changing for talents under contract.
Usually the whole deal of the MG is that a lot is predictable and plans can be made years in advance. This change invalidates them for a lot of managers, like for me with Ganna in prologues or others with their talents now turning out weaker than expected when signed.
Especially regarding the climbers I see a problem that will affect the game in years to come. Del Toro basically skips two years and millions in training funds. That is not just a little bit lucky for his team. Ayuso & Martinez also get a boost, albeit not as much. I suspect you're not planning to add talents that would reach similar levels in the upcoming seasons. I feel like the balance we're about to reach now in the db after years of work with Herklotz & Lecuisinier about to decline is in danger due to a crop of (climbing) talents that end up much stronger than the years before and after.
From the responses, it seems like this was also not an intended effect of the statgain changes and has also been missed by the people in charge of that. Due to that I also don't think it's too late discussing to fix that, now that it has come to attention. So far nothing is done that can't be rather easily undone. My suggestion would be keeping the old statgains for talents under contract and letting people change their statgain choices if desired (doubt it would be many). I very much doubt this will get much approval but wanted to put this out there.
@ Ezee - I too am open to further tweaks to stat gains and I think more radical suggestions are worth considering as inspiration. Would be happy if some mangers wanted to work on a proposal. But you need to understand implementing radical change just isn't going to happen - it is too much work for admins and too risky for the game. (given the discord discussion of my age this point seems unfortunately stereotypical, the old fogey naysaying the young revolutionary)
Bikex' post is a perfect illustration of why not - he raises concerns about the impact of the relatively small changes we made on long terms plans and about the unintended consequences of those changes. And you might respond well if you had done X instead that wouldn't have happened. And I would respond that changes will always have trade offs and unintended consequences and the larger the change the bigger the risk. I also don't believe the broader community is in favor of big changes. I think DD posted in one of my first seasons that the mangame is inherently conservative (and I don't mean in a political sense) and I think he was right.
I personally think training is a more promising area than stat gains. We could tweak stat gains again but not sure the system is broken. I think TMM makes some good arguments about ways training is broken.
@Bikex - while I agree some of those distortions are unfortunate we can't change the rules after people have done renewals based on them. While I recognize the impact on long term planning, the game version changes alone mean that long term planning always comes with risk. And I am not sure strong riders unbalance the game - that is where OVL and salary comes in (GT winners keep getting relegated). I know historically certain riders became unbeatable, not sure we are there yet and I think from an AI perspective using the full stat range is desirable.
I Can see small mishaps from the changes, perhaps also because I am conservative. The lost TT from Stage Racer path and the lost MO from the TT path makes for more one dimensional climbers/timetriallists than before, where you often had to split the development to get the best possible hybrid. It came at the cost of some FL and RES but was often worth it to get a TT’er with 70-71MO.
And then Obviously the implications related to those already mentioned riders. Also I miss having my two austrian talents equally good in MO and HI due to the changes and inplementation of MM as a stat worth developping on it’s own. But that’s maybe because I still don’t quite understand the stat.
Overall I think the changes are good, and I would be much more inclined to correct with minor changes than to introduce a totally new system where everything is free. As a manager who often having gotten decent fighter-like riders it would open for more versatility, but I like the Long term predictability (obviously some would say), and I Think it’s an incremental part of the game that I really would dislike to see changed radically.
The ability to already know where your team is going to be related to the competitors in 3-4-5 years ahead is a very distinct and important aspect of this game. The changes have somewhat skewed that, but was necessary. To completely turn the tables seem unnecesary to me.
I hate to see the TT loss in stage racing as well - but given that TTs are becoming less and less important lately, I think it doesn't really matter. It has become much more difficult now to create a well-rounded rider who can do well on mountains and hills AND who can TT - but I'm not sure such a rider will actually be needed/useful in the future. Honestly, not that sure how much importance Hi actually has nowadays... I'm struggling to see correlations between skills and types of stages as well, but I think those who really get it can make good use of the new dev paths
Btw, I wouldn't be in favour of a completely different system either (in ICL, development depended on a rider's performance) - I love the predictability as well. But I wouldn't vote against having different sets of dev paths for main and support stats - you could pick one of each, that's it. Still predictable, but with far more options to balance your riders.
But I cant do more and I am not begging to help.
