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.
As someone who just promoted from CT I think the wage cap is harsh but it is possible to work with. Could maybe be raised a little but it is there as it is supposed to make the division weaked and not have a chance at the top riders. Going talents is a choice with consequences (relgation, bad short term results etc) and I know of like the jump from CT-PCT-PT that we have at the moment (though I wouldn't be very against a slight increase for CT)
I do disagree with Ezee here however, keep a hard cap. The soft cap would just move the cap /increase the cap and make the richer teams even better. I like the hard cap and it makes us have to consider every bid and purchase we do
Some things I would look at changes for:
1) Training
Training, as discussed on discord and on the forum. I would love for it to be split into different skills (so Mon, hill, cobbles sprint, tt more expensive than Flat, Sprint, Stamina that is more expensive than Fighter, downhill etc). Also building a ladder who makes it cheaper to train a 72 rider/stat but much more expensive to train 77, and even more expensive to train 83. Making it easier for CT teams to build riders via training and harder to make too strong riders via training
2) Talents
Then I'd like for us to find a way to make talents even harder for PT teams to get. In other words, easier for CT and PCT to get talents. In my mind PT should be the pinnacle division where the best riders should be, and not a development division. This would also make it harder for a PT team to always pick up the next leader and develop them, and hopefully make it harder to stay on top.
Here I am just throwing out ideas:
Increase the 1->3 price (minimum price) - Make it even harder to loan them out and get someone to develop them. Maybe only allow a team to loan out 1 lvl 1 rider. So it is still possible, just harder and more expensive
Make some kind of discount on wage for CT teams (and maybe PCT teams) (count 90% against wage cap but still 100% against budget or something) as an incentive to get talents.
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.
Yes, please. The CT budget is too low. Let's try out 1,3 mil next season.
Obviously I've been out of the game a long time so don't really have the recent experience for my opinion to mean a lot, but I do think it's good that CT has a lower wage cap, otherwise it'd be very difficult for new teams to compete with relegating teams who would be punished less for retaining their PCT leaders.
I've argued for raising the CT cap before, and I still feel 1.5mil would be a good number (3.5, 2.5, 1.5 - the logic is solid especially with increased cross over in races between PCT and CT and now additional CT wildcards), but I'd pair it with increasing the minimum amount of riders required (17-20), or scrapping the Free Draft.
