Will try to further elaborate these points, but some improvements I'd like to see implemented:
- Introduce "skill categories" (main stat, support stat, irrelevant stat) and base training prices on these -> some ideas are already in the 2026 Training thread.
- Find a way to resolve the "triple punishment" of exaggerated OVL values. OVL is linked to RDs AND wage (renewals), and due to the low amount of RDs you get low scoring. I get it that the formula is needed, and it cannot (and should not) be changed every year, so basically the RD punishment will be hard to come around. But in renewals, it should be possible to go BELOW what usually is the minimum wage for a given OVL value. I guess many of us noticed that high scoring riders want a bonus, but it would also be good if you could go, let's say, up to 20% below the reference value if a rider had a really bad season. It has to be limited, otherwise tanking on purpose (when you know you'll relegate anyway) would be too attractive in some situations.
I'm sure there are other ways that could soften the pain of unfitting OVL calculation (I fully understand that it's really hard to get a good formula in particular after a game version change). And yes, I'm obviously on the losing end currently with Schmid. Maybe if I had Evenepoel who is so far underrated (I mean, he outscored Schmid by x2 and yet has more RDs available!) I'd just be happy, but I feel the current system cannot really balance out such cases. You could also just say be smart and get those underrated high-performers, but it might still not be that fair ^^
If things are done to renewals, i'd like to see acknowledged that 100-120 points for a PT rider is not overperformance for min wage guys and should not stop a rider from accepting 50k. That's just too easy to get simply by racing a ton...
It's not just PT imho. I had none of my talents who just did a 1->3 signing for 50k. I get it for one of them who took a white jersey and quite some points, but for the others I don't get it...
Also what I would propose for the future is a slightly higher CT wage budget or loan cap. 1.2 mil is extremely low if you need ot sign a minimum of 15 riders. I think raising it just by 0.1 mil to 1.3 mil would make CT teams much more versatile for the long run.
With this budget you have a hard time signing good talents if you want to do a slow and steady way.
If you want to go for scorers to fight for promotion, you don't get very far with 1.2 mil. I think 1.3 mil would be the slight bit of cap more that is needed to keep teams from going up and bouncing back again because you can combine score now riders with a bit of future riders.
I just thought of something and before i forget it i write it here
Implementation of a Soft Salary Cap and a hard Salary Cap
Sometimes you miss just like 5 or 10k to make a deal work but you just cant (just had this ) Thats a bit frustrating, so why not make the current Salary Cap the Soft Cap and implement a Hard Cap above. Like 10% above. For example for CT:
1.200.000 Soft Salary Cap > 1.320.000 Hard Salary Cap.
So you can go over the Soft but not the hard... BUT!!!!
Every Dollar or Whatever we call the currency is Paid with a Tax of 10 times the amount > So you go over 10k? You need to spend 100k of your budget, you use all 120k? 1.2 million from your budget. And so on. The punishment if you cant pay this and go over the hard cap would be the same as before > Taking away one of the best riders or more till you are below the Soft Cap. And even for the hard cap, take as much away till they are under the soft cap.
I think you could adjust it and make it higher if needed.
So there would be:
- a bit more flexibility when it comes to transfers
- another use of Salary
- so also another way of getting out money of the system
I think thats nice. Instead of percentage it could also be a fixed amount like 100k for every division.
