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.
I think the game is transitioning to one with more of a long term player base and we won't have the churn of some seasons, which is good, but we also don't have flood of managers trying to get in. So I think this means we will have long term managers operating in CT who we want to keep engaged and that we we can't afford to drive off first year managers casually since there aren't dozens of applicants.
Therefore, the critical issue is making sure CT is enjoyable to play. So I would lean to giving them more money, not because they need it to be successful, but because it gives them more options, more chance at bigger name riders and with a training redesign more chances to develop their focus riders.
I would also lean towards rebalancing the race days so all divisions ride the same number of race days. Being in PT earns you a chance to ride the biggest races and sign the biggest riders, not sure they also need to get more race days (this would fit with increasing CT team sizes but might also require some race day allocation adjustment).
It would help resolve the awkward situation that has existed for a few years where PT managers get to ride the most race days but report on the least. The success of KB, Abhi, Nemo and Red and Alex's reporting have helped with this but if all divisions raced the same number of days it would mitigate the risk.
I think the game is transitioning to one with more of a long term player base and we won't have the churn of some seasons, which is good, but we also don't have flood of managers trying to get in. So I think this means we will have long term managers operating in CT who we want to keep engaged and that we we can't afford to drive off first year managers casually since there aren't dozens of applicants.
Therefore, the critical issue is making sure CT is enjoyable to play. So I would lean to giving them more money, not because they need it to be successful, but because it gives them more options, more chance at bigger name riders and with a training redesign more chances to develop their focus riders.
I would also lean towards rebalancing the race days so all divisions ride the same number of race days. Being in PT earns you a chance to ride the biggest races and sign the biggest riders, not sure they also need to get more race days (this would fit with increasing CT team sizes but might also require some race day allocation adjustment).
It would help resolve the awkward situation that has existed for a few years where PT managers get to ride the most race days but report on the least. The success of KB, Abhi, Nemo and Red and Alex's reporting have helped with this but if all divisions raced the same number of days it would mitigate the risk.
Is it necessary though? Looking at the amount of solid riders that goes for 50k in free agency every year, I don't want to use the term skill issue, but it kind of is. Look at the assorted amount of riders that Knockout pulls through for 50k, Skujins for me, Bennett for Jandal. You can put together solid teams on shoestring budgets. But also CT is not supposed to be the division where you put together diverse teams that can do everything while also building for the future.
If every division has the same amount of RDs the entire balance of the game goes tits up, while that is unfortunate, it's the nature of it. I also don't think dynamic wage caps is a way to go, the cap system has largely done it's job for as long as I have been in the game and a long time before that. As long as we stick with the three division system I don't think you can work around that.
Giving CT players options is good (PTHC wildcards is sick), pumping more money into system I am unsure of. I think a lot of managers this season has had close to delusional ideas about what their riders are worth, noone in specific just at a base level, from years of the game having a ton of more managers in the game thus more money flowing through. Add that with everyone being afraid of the number 32 and everybody wanting riders under the age of 28 you get an incredibly toxic market situation.
I see people somewhere else talking about making level 1-3s more expensive for PT teams? We literally just changed the rules around 1-3s to make it cheaper for PT teams to 1-3, it is the most broken interaction in the game and I have no idea why PCT and CT managers would ever wish for that option of making becoming less viable. It's going to go from "Oh I cannot compete for the best level 1 talents" to "I cannot generate any money to buy/train leaders to support my 15 level 1 talents" you need money to move between divisions. For the record my budget this year as a PT team was not astronimcally higher than any of my PCT budgets, I think I might even had more money before the 2022 season.
If it isn't quite clear I am quite a performance oriented manager, partly because Canada hasn't been given a fantastic leadership quality option from level 1 in 9 years, mostly because I really enjoy having a shot at winning every race I enter because that makes the game more exciting for me to play. That also means I am very aware that I miss out on top tier talent every year because I am not willing to make the investment, whether budgetary or timewise to watch something like a McNulty grow(Still one of the most savvy FA signings of all time IMO, but I understand why UU pivoted off McNulty, even if it is something I'd never do).
The options of Stagiares being removed from PT already gives CT managers more flexibility in how they approach their wage cap than PT managers even if the new system is more expensive than the Stagiare system.
I would be very careful messing around with budget numbers a lot of the numbers are very finetuned and you would have to look into how you balance RDs, OVL, and start of season budgets. (This I am quite sure that the Admin team is very well aware of, with everyone there having been part of the game nearly a decade atp).
I will say that it does feel somewhat sad that the game doesn't fully open up until you hit PCT but the game has to stay balanced in a way.
I see people somewhere else talking about making level 1-3s more expensive for PT teams? We literally just changed the rules around 1-3s to make it cheaper for PT teams to 1-3, ...
A short correction: PT teams still have to pay the same as before, just the incoming money for the loaning in team has been cut to 600k, the rest of the fee is taken by the MGUCI.
Regarding the CT discussion: I know from (not too far back) experience how hard it is to operate on a CT budget while chasing talents and trying to build a competitive team at the same time. It actually is possible, although it also needs some luck in the FA market and everything just fitting together to make it work (I disband promoted with three loaned in riders and four stagiaires to make the numbers, but tbf also loaned out two riders). It won't ever be easy and you won't be able to sign the top talents there, but getting together an at least nice bunch of talents is possible. But combining those two goals probably won't be possible in a rookie season without any assets to trade or sell while on a small budget.
And as has been posted before going for the biggest talents is even a big risk for (most) PT teams as it's a huge commitment both in wages and the loan out fees (a 500k talent costs you 1.1m in total for this season, a 1m talent is 2.1m) which is why many of those teams relegated (and - spoiler! - will relegate in the future). The cushion of falling 'only' to PCT makes it less hard, but you still have to take the risk.
Why: It has the smallest budget, smallest cap, least RD and least ability to interact in the most fun parts of the game (to the same extent as PT and PCT teams)
How to make it more fun: You could add all sorts of CT specific gimmicks, or you could fix the existing systems. I prefer to fix, because it can improve the game for PCT and PT at the same time, everyone wins.
Fix 1: Training
I've got a whole thing coming on this. I want to unlink 2nd + 3rd tier stats from using OVL as the cost (beneficial for everyone). I want to incentivize CT teams to explore more training options (a super fun part of the game, and help balance the flows of cash in the game (hopefully leading to the removal of the transfer tax)). Try to build a system where CT teams can build regional focused teams to be CT competitive.
Fix 2: Increase emotional investment in every race a CT team is in
Because of the budgetary limits it's very hard to field a CT that can be competitive in every type of terrain (which is a good thing), but then we have a system where you have to go to those kinds of races. In the PT this isn't a problem because you can either afford to build a rounded team, or you have so many races that skipping over a couple is no biggie.
In the CT these wasted days are more impactful on enjoyment as they are a much bigger % of your season.
So lets reduce the number of times this will happen by continuing to open up the calendar. Less fixed events, more open calendar choices. This would have added benefits, making race selection and planning more engaging and impactful, and in the PCT it would help weak teams narrow in a bit and allow some more fun focused/regional teams ways to flourish (in enjoyment, not necessarily points) in the bottom half of the division.
Along with this and the training changes you start then to build a CT where you can operate a regional team functionally, and competitively. This helps to build emotional engagement in each race as whilst you might not do well, you're watching "your" guys grow and show off.
Fix 1 is less disruptive than reworking most of the PCT/CT calendar, which would be nice (again, i've mentioned a larger calendar re-structure for a while, to help ease pressure on reporters, speed up the game a bit, and add more fun manager decisions/choices) but is a ton of work.
Fix 1 could go a hell of a long way to making the CT fun, where you can more power play OR role play, as equal routes to success. Then as you climb the divisions you have to shift more towards power play to keep progression - which is reflective of real life. The PT should be nigh on entirely power play, that's the "cost" you pay to have the most money, most races, biggest races. CT with the least money, smallest races, gets "paid" by being more flexible and diverse.
Also i said it yesterday. Scrap the Free Draft, raise the Minimum rider count to 20, and increase the wage cap (raise cap, not budget) to 1.5mil. Make the drop from PCT to CT the same level of 'damage' as PT to PCT, don't add extra hurt to teams dropping to the bottom of the game.
If you raise the cap and rider count to equal those of the higher divisions, it's only a small increase as the majority of the extra gap has to go on filling the roster. But that little bit would go a long way to helping add one more terrain rider to your squad, making more races matter and tackling a part of that Fix 2 problem of emotional engagement.
One sizable change in a re-worked training, and a small change to Cap & Rider Minimum, you could make the CT a consistently fun and rewarding place to be even with not-very-good regional focused teams.
As usual i rambled a lot, you're all used to it. But so many systems are interconnected it's hard to keep a tight comment.
Oh, Loans are fine. Don't know if there's a bit of an overreaction to this year and it's notable change in DB additions, but i think it's all good and working as intended, and next year the loan market and talent market will level out and find it's new normal as we all learn.
The jump from CT to PCT is huge, as you get over 100% more budget! From PCT to PT, it's just 40%.
This says it all. 100% more wage cap but only 33% more riders needed. Combine that with less racedays than PT and PCT and you have a double punishment for CT teams in comparison.
Upping CT budget slightly would be of big help for the longterm, I am sure of that.
I think the training redesign is the place to start, we have been incrementally adding features to CT: ways to score XP for Level 4, PTHC wildcards, the change on stags that effectively gives CT first shot at all the remaining talents. To me training is the next place to go that also benefits other divisions.
Recognize doing things like adding money or changing race days risks the system balance so has to be done very carefully. And I think any change would be incremenal (e.g. raise by 100k a year) Not sure increasing CT wage cap and rider minimum without adding money works as it feels like they will just then have no money to spend on fun things like PTHC wildcards.
Agree on the characterization of PT as the "high" power play division. The one thing that I struggle with is the fact all the most famous races are in PT. I am probably a 50:50 power:role play manager, I would be perfectly happy in PCT or CT except that I would really like to ride a few more grand tours and monuments. So I would like to see more wildcards to these races and have them rotate through teams so it is just something you get with no cost (I know the cost is low but there are usually other purposes for that money so you are forced to make a choice between a fun element and a team building element). And even if you pay, with 6 slots a year you would be looking at 1 GT every 3 or 4 seasons. But recognize that would require require some restructure to the PT.
Stupid Ideas I always have enough, so here anither one
Regarding make CT more fun/appealing:
Scrap the CT Free Rider Draft at the end. Replace it with a Draft for 1 50k Rider at the START!
Not without restrictions, lets say something like this:
- Riders (Free Agents) 27 or younger
- exclude the Top 10 (or so) Talents from the current year but include all others
And then make a 1 Round draft before the Transfers start, with the worst team got the #1 pick and so on. So each Team can get a solid rider or if they wanna use it a good talent.
Another benefit i see is that people actually would care a bit more in renewals and not letting go riders with the intention: "I will get him anyway again for 50k -60k and save money"
I mean sure it can hurt for some teams who didnt renew a rider but then they just need to be more careful when doing renewals.
In the end this only "takes" away 15-20 riders before transfer starts and most high end riders are usually above 27 anyway but gives a good incentive to CT Teams and keeps them (especially new ones) more motivated since they have at least one good piece they dont need to worry about anymore.
Stupid Ideas I always have enough, so here anither one
Regarding make CT more fun/appealing:
Scrap the CT Free Rider Draft at the end. Replace it with a Draft for 1 50k Rider at the START!
Not without restrictions, lets say something like this:
- Riders (Free Agents) 27 or younger
- exclude the Top 10 (or so) Talents from the current year but include all others
And then make a 1 Round draft before the Transfers start, with the worst team got the #1 pick and so on. So each Team can get a solid rider or if they wanna use it a good talent.
Another benefit i see is that people actually would care a bit more in renewals and not letting go riders with the intention: "I will get him anyway again for 50k -60k and save money"
I mean sure it can hurt for some teams who didnt renew a rider but then they just need to be more careful when doing renewals.
In the end this only "takes" away 15-20 riders before transfer starts and most high end riders are usually above 27 anyway but gives a good incentive to CT Teams and keeps them (especially new ones) more motivated since they have at least one good piece they dont need to worry about anymore.
Really don't like this idea no offense I think you know it's a bit of a rogue one but lets say for sake Greece or Lithuania where there will not be many talents don't get a chance to bid on the best talent from their region I can't see how thats a good thing
I think CT wise it's actually not that bad I really enjoyed the challenge of building a team from scratch and I also think for PCT relegated it can be a chance to have a big reset even if you have an elite talent. Look at MRE with Zwift they put the Bini money to very good use and have a much better squad for it.
I look forward to TMM training changes but I really don't think it's that broken
Not sure increasing CT wage cap and rider minimum without adding money works as it feels like they will just then have no money to spend on fun things like PTHC wildcards.
PTHC wildcards are in no way helpful, if you don't have a level 4 rider that needs a couple XP. In the fight for promotion or in helping your team longterm, these wildcards do more harm than good. I don't see many teams using them, except if they have no real intention in promoting. They get you no points and they collide with potential other races where you can score points. Money can be spend in better ways than paying to compete in a race where the average opponent teams are FAR better than yours.
