The main way for me to move talents down from pt to lower dimensions is either make it harder and/or more expensive for pt teams or make it cheaper for lower division teams. Increasing loan cap etc wont do anything about that
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.
As someone, who rarely signs talents and instead loans them to get cash (in theory), I don't think this will fundamentally change it for the better. In fact there will be either a bunch of unsigned talent or reaching max level by the age of 26-27. Maybe a change of the XP scale needs to be considered to make it easier for teams in any division to develop riders without any worries about loans. Then again, it will kill the entire purpose of the loan system.
That would make it even easier for PT teams to get talents early and and keep them. Currently the "big and rich", meaning PT teams, can sign talent and develop them while also having enough cap space and money to build competitive teams. In CT you have close to no chance in going for talents while also fielding a competitive roster. Good talents go for around 300-400k wage, that is around 30% of the wage budget of a CT team. And then they still have 14 other riders to sign with about 850k budget left, that is an average of 60k salary per rider.
This let's the big teams fish for talents and stay on top while new or low division teams have a really hard time to get better.
So either we raise the CT wage budget or we make it harder for big teams to sign good talents.
Another way would be the american way: draft system for new talents ahead of free agency. Worst team gets 1st pick on any lvl 1 rider and so on, do it for 1 round so each CT team gets 1 talent. Talents not drafted go into the FA pool.
No matter how we do it, it would make the MG experience more "rounded". Currently many PT teams have an easy time staying on top. Even if they relegate, they can get back to top much easier than ct promoters can stay in PCT.
Not saying we shouldn't look for ways to improve the MG experience, but I personally really like the fact that MG rewards competitiveness via promotion/relegation and the perks and challenges that come with it. Everyone can manage their team the way they want, but I think having incentives like that helps the game as a whole.
The best managers stay on top, because that's what they are, the best. Myself and the others can struggle to be competitive whether we sign expensive talents or not
My 2 cents on this...
I think it's a fundmental question about how the ManGame should work. In my opinion, it should kind of reflect reality. In reality, which teams do the biggest talents usually sign their first pro contract with? Conti teams?
I get that it is frustrating as a CT team not to be able to compete for big talents. It's not impossible - you can always take example on Ulrich who signed McNulty in his first season. He knew he'd struggle to score for a couple of years with that strategy (even though he had a fantastic Holloway in his first year as well) - it demands patience. A lot of it.
It might also be true that talents got more expensive on average in recent years, just because there's less of them (to fight inflation). But with let's say 400k, you could still sign some really nice talents this year. The consequence is that you won't have tons of money left to be competitive, and you'll need a long-term approach. I think that is fine.
And I think many also overestimate the PT teams' capacity of endlessly signing talents. There are two teams this year who go big on quite some talents - I'd be surprised if they didn't relegate. Grieg digged big for Del Grosso and relegated. Rabobank almost relegated twice in a row iirc. Yes, PT teams do have a cap advantage - but if the other teams mostly use their cap to be as competitive as possible, it's very likely the team that digs deep for a talent that will relegate. "Talent hoarding" will rarely to never work out imho, PT is just too competitive for that. And don't underestimate that it's really expensive for PT to develop big talents - money that will be missing elsewhere. PT budgets aren't bigger by default - if you fail your goals, you have little money. That's as true for PT as it's for CT.
Relegating is never fun btw, neither from PT to PCT, and even less from PCT to CT. Tough decisions have to be taken. Grieg have lost Del Grosso, which must hurt big time. Banco Vaticano will (most likely) lose Del Toro. Going for talents is a risky strategy, that can work out - but it's far from being guaranteed.
Now, I would absolutely not be opposed to a slight bump of the CT wage budget. The jump from CT to PCT is huge, as you get over 100% more budget! From PCT to PT, it's just 40%. However, you have to consider that PCT and PT teams need 5 additional riders compared to CT. I'd agree on 1.3M for CT with the same constraints on rider numbers, or 1.5-1.6M if CT teams also have to sign 20 riders.
In short, I don't think the current system is fundamentally broken. If you're successful, you get the chance to sign big talents (starting from PCT). Big talents usually (IRL) pick rather successful or promising teams. Nothing wrong about that imho. CT cap situation could be slightly improved, but that's all I'd change.
It might also be true that talents got more expensive on average in recent years, just because there's less of them (to fight inflation). But with let's say 400k, you could still sign some really nice talents this year. The consequence is that you won't have tons of money left to be competitive, and you'll need a long-term approach. I think that is fine.
By paying 400k wage on 1 single rider, you have 57.000 left on average for the rest 14 riders for your team in CT. If you then sign 1 single rider for 150.000, all other 13 riders must be minimum contract riders for 50.000, you can't sign 1 single rider for 55.000 or you're above the wage budget.
So signing a rider for 400k is Utopia for a CT team.
On a different suggestion, I'm hoping that there can be an evaluation of C2/C1/HC race days selected across PCT and CT. During my own planning, it felt like there would be multiple chances with the new division size where a CT was more likely to get into a HC race than they would a C1 race.
Individual instances of this will of course happen, but am hoping that we can take a look at what the averages are across the two. Should the differences be major, I'd like to consider PCT teams being able to sign up for RDs in the band they do not select, as a way to open up a few RDs in C1 races for CT teams.
Not sure if this will make an impact, but just want to really check the impact of the new division size on HC and C1 races in particular.
It might also be true that talents got more expensive on average in recent years, just because there's less of them (to fight inflation). But with let's say 400k, you could still sign some really nice talents this year. The consequence is that you won't have tons of money left to be competitive, and you'll need a long-term approach. I think that is fine.
By paying 400k wage on 1 single rider, you have 57.000 left on average for the rest 14 riders for your team in CT. If you then sign 1 single rider for 150.000, all other 13 riders must be minimum contract riders for 50.000, you can't sign 1 single rider for 55.000 or you're above the wage budget.
So signing a rider for 400k is Utopia for a CT team.
So what you just explained to us is that is perfectly fine and not that difficult to sign a 400k rider and have a full team
I don't really see big issues tbh. Yes it is difficult to create a good CT team while also signing talents. I'm pretty sure that is also what happens IRL. The best talents can get more money in the higher divisions and seek that.
We have seen multiple back-to-back promotions, so it's not impossible to build a strong CT team and then put another layer on top and be a PT team relatively fast.
I don't agree that the biggest talents on the planet should have a preference for signing for CT teams. That doesn't make any sense. And you can sign very talented riders for way below 3-400K. F.e. I signed both Hajek and Schrettl last season for 85K. Both immidiately accepted 50K wages in their 2nd year. This season I signed Dockx for 200K.
I also spot numerous solid talents for 100K or less this time. Riders like Brenner, Savino, Putz, Tuckwell, Chesini, Leonard, Gojkovic, Novak, Poulard, Lecerf, Nortoft, Pickering etc.
If you build a CT team around 4-5 riders like that, 1-2 leaders and the best possible 50-60K FA's, loans and signings you can both promote and develop talents that are capable of scoring points across all divisions.
If you want a top 10 season batch talent as a CT team, ofcourse you have to do compromises. And I really do think it should be like that aswell.
There are also talents at level 2-3 that will max at 77-78 main stat riders that are being sold/swapped for min. fee or close to every single season.
It might also be true that talents got more expensive on average in recent years, just because there's less of them (to fight inflation). But with let's say 400k, you could still sign some really nice talents this year. The consequence is that you won't have tons of money left to be competitive, and you'll need a long-term approach. I think that is fine.
By paying 400k wage on 1 single rider, you have 57.000 left on average for the rest 14 riders for your team in CT. If you then sign 1 single rider for 150.000, all other 13 riders must be minimum contract riders for 50.000, you can't sign 1 single rider for 55.000 or you're above the wage budget.
So signing a rider for 400k is Utopia for a CT team.
If CT teams didn't per default take a couple of level 1-3 loans from PT team to harvest money, they would have 4 free 50K riders to start with. So in reality as a CT team you have 1,2 mio to sign 11 riders if you maximize on everything (which is something PT teams tend to do more that others). That is 109K pr. rider. You can sign a hell of a team with that average.
As far as I can tell, a CT team can do this:
4 loans (free) = 0
10 50K signings = 500,000€
1 Big signing = 700,000€
So it's definately possible to go for 1 big star or 1 big talent. Maybe not the top 3 biggest talents, but everything else should be possible. But it comes at a cost. Similar as to how it usually leads to relegation if PT teams use 700K-1mio on a talent.
I tried to get free loans last season as ct. Couldnt really do it, looks like it could be easier this year, but I would advise against planning a strategy based on it
It might also be true that talents got more expensive on average in recent years, just because there's less of them (to fight inflation). But with let's say 400k, you could still sign some really nice talents this year. The consequence is that you won't have tons of money left to be competitive, and you'll need a long-term approach. I think that is fine.
By paying 400k wage on 1 single rider, you have 57.000 left on average for the rest 14 riders for your team in CT. If you then sign 1 single rider for 150.000, all other 13 riders must be minimum contract riders for 50.000, you can't sign 1 single rider for 55.000 or you're above the wage budget.
So signing a rider for 400k is Utopia for a CT team.
Spoiler
Last name
First name
Flat
Mountain
Hill
TT
Stamina
Resistance
Recovery
Cobbles
Sprint
Acceleration
Fighter
Downhill
Prologue
Country
XP Level
XP Points
Age
OVL
Wage
Kump
Marko
73
65
76
62
75
72
78
72
80
79
69
72
69
SLO
4
100
33
76,87340003
305000
De Vos
Adam
68
75
75
66
73
73
74
59
62
69
72
73
68
CAN
4
100
28
73,83839958
50000
Gaspar
Joao
71
75
75
66
73
72
74
55
61
67
72
70
66
BRA
4
100
29
73,58032801
50000
Riesebeek
Oscar
74
70
73
67
73
75
69
73
69
72
76
71
71
NED
4
100
29
74,15262878
90000
Elissonde
Kenny
66
78
73
63
76
77
79
66
55
66
61
72
63
FRA
4
100
30
75,81334872
100000
Redecker
Heiko
73
57
72
62
74
67
79
52
77
78
60
60
63
NAM
4
100
31
74,2894893
0
Potocki
Pavel
68
77
72
70
74
71
75
54
62
64
66
69
70
CRO
4
100
28
74,49079356
70000
Battaglin
Enrico
67
77
72
58
69
72
67
50
62
70
66
72
58
ITA
4
100
32
73,80867466
0
Van Keirsbulck
Guillaume
72
65
71
51
75
73
63
78
70
68
71
58
51
BEL
4
100
30
75,30951106
100000
Heymes
Gilles
67
75
71
73
74
71
71
53
54
58
63
61
73
LUX
4
100
28
73,08907123
50000
Diaz
Daniel Ricardo
68
78
70
72
69
73
71
56
61
68
64
74
72
ARG
4
100
32
74,67169429
75000
Tikhonin
Evgenii
69
65
69
64
68
69
67
63
68
70
68
67
64
RUS
1
24
23
69,8101944
50000
Kumara
Amith Udaya
74
62
67
54
74
70
65
75
71
67
73
68
54
SRI
4
100
26
73,41605694
50000
Novikov
Savva
65
69
67
64
67
68
65
60
61
68
69
64
63
RUS
1
0
22
68,11499919
50000
Puccio
Salvatore
72
56
66
61
76
71
64
78
60
55
60
76
61
ITA
4
100
32
72,57296416
50000
Thwaites
Scott
73
59
65
61
74
70
76
76
78
76
60
70
61
GBR
4
100
31
74,27288203
80000
Stash
Mamyr
73
56
64
67
68
73
73
67
77
77
72
66
78
RUS
4
100
28
73,63238239
50000
Vingerling
Michael
71
55
62
65
72
66
76
68
79
79
57
68
76
NED
4
100
31
75,12028653
55000
Walls
Matthew
68
61
60
60
68
67
63
60
73
72
60
63
69
GBR
2
38
23
69,38389975
50000
I put my 2021 team, that won and by some considered one of the best CT teams of all time, with around that on average spent per rider. Yes Kump was a freak and that there were a lot of external circumstances that made it possible but, you can very easily put together teams that are quite decent on CT budgets, especially if you do have some ressources from a relegation. If you're smart about how you use your loan cap you get 4 free riders who really don't have to be all that good in CT to perform. Keep in mind this was built for pure performance I even sacked a solid talent on the way to secure Vingerling, I could very easily have made sacrifices and put together a very competitive team even with the 305k wage of Kump's spent on a talent.
