1) it is already super expensive for PT teams to develop lvl1 talents
2) the step from pct to ct seems super punishing to me. The step from pt to pct however does not seem anywhere close to that when so many managers intentionally plan their transfers around going down. I think no sports league / game should encourage losing so if relegating isnt punishing enough, is there sth we can do to make it less attractive to relegate back to pct?
Two easy things we can do for number 2 I think. First, put the salary cap differences so CT to PCT matches PCT to PT. And second, increase renewals fines. I don't think we need to cap renewal wage caps like Bikex is suggesting, but just increasing the fines would make it harder for relegated teams to count on selling their extra assets for huge profits and bouncing back up, and would also lead to more FAs naturally.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Teams earned their right to compete in PT and what they do in there is completely up to them. To say light tanking doesn't happen in real sports is absolutely absurd and quite laughable. In fact most promoted teams know that hyperfixation on survival can lead to decades long financial turmoil and they try to use the benefits that come with promotion and balance long term stability with attempt to survive, knowing full well that relegation is in fact, not a reward and comes with massive downsides. If a team wants to be a yo-yo club, which hilariously, there are many in pretty much every league in the world, then so be it. You're wasting years of your life to do that. If you think having to wait literally years to go back up is not a punishment enough, then I am not sure what to even discuss here
Also, speaking of CT. I am vehemently, vehemently against any ideas of giving them more slots, more free riders, cheaper riders, cheaper training, whatever. If you're in CT you're either a new player and you're learning the game, cool, or you failed as a manager and this is your punishment. Mire calendar choices and things like that, it's cool. CT teams 'should' be one trick ponies generally speaking. If there is one suggestion I would make to make CT more 'fun' and that is to nerf PCT. Simply do not allow any division other than CT to get a rider from 1-3. More money trickling down, more money for CT teams to spend (which is what they're asking for), more punishment for stagnant PCT teams
jt1109 wrote:
Think this is really good, I am half coming down on the side of Bikex and Fab that we are just going to have to take the hit and have ST, RES and REC all charged the same regardless of the known impact of ST as the next game cycle may not reflect the same as now
Probably don't need FL in tier 1 either
It probably needs stress testing as I'm 99% sure I can make a completely ridiculous Ben Turner under these current rules but it feels like a good way to take away money from the market and onto RP riders
The joy of a system like this is, we could change the Tier's & OVLs & Discounts on a yearly basis. So the next game decreases the value of ST, we can drop it to Tier 2.
FL i took a lot of through around. It's not obviously an important stat, but when I started working through some examples it became really powerful at a discount. With our slightly weird MG DB, FL differences really can matter, and it was kind of too easy to build really strong GT support riders with FL as a Tier 2.
Definitely would need more stress testing. Honestly the easiest fix would be divisional discounts, or different divisional limits (because PT is the problem, it has the money to break sh*t). But whilst i've talked about that before, in reality i'm against it (hard to police, hard to balance, just encourages dodgy multi-year/rider deals i already hate).
Ultimately i think it would need a drop in stat cap to 74. Maybe a divisional cap, 74-75-76. And a lower OVL.
It's super hard to make a system that allows CT RP teams to actually train, but doesn't let PT teams f*ck it up for everyone (and rich PCT teams). This isn't anti-PT btw, I want PT teams to find it worthwhile putting a few hundred-k on their RP faves and helping spread training around even more, just the difference in budgets... it's tricky.
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.
For years there has been a narative from CT managers that they have no viable way of maxing level 4 riders. Solution gets presented and then people still find stuff to complain about, it's the exact same thing in PCT for PT wild cards(I didn't buy a GT wild card for 4 years in PT until I needed it to max out my riders and massively push my level 3's XP on top of that. Level 3 riders which have been a bit of a pain in CT in the past is also massively helped by PTHC, if I have read the XP matrix correctly, no points scored also means no impact on renewals requests, while you get to potentially test out a long term leader in a race if you're in the promotion race for future seasons. Also just gives you something to look forward to at a potential dead week or two in your season.
Where is 1 or 2 PTHC races via wildcard a way to develop a level 4 rider as a CT team? 1.1 XP per raceday.
The only way to get that 4.100 push is via loaning them out to a PT team.
I got Kench to 4.85 last year as a PCT team, let's say that I got him to 4.75 instead, with the free XP, all it takes is 5 race days on top of the free 20 XP. There exists XP amounts between 0 and 100, and if you as a manager in PCT actually maximise the amount of XP you get it becomes quite straightforward to max riders from 1-3 without the need for PT loan outs, Jandal being a prime example of someone who did this excessively in the past, to the point where PT managers got a ton of value in loaning out guys to him because he always ensured they get more than 3.0, I have done the same with my loan ins in the past.
From all of the suggestions I find Danes min fee offers the best.
Would allow CT teams especially, to build their cheap core even cheaper, and thus creating room for more firepower at the top. If there’s only one wage offer in the FA from a CT team of let’s say 30K, then that should be enough.
I could even go as low as 10K. A rider receiving zero interest IRL would probably be flattered to sign a contract at CT level.
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.
For years there has been a narative from CT managers that they have no viable way of maxing level 4 riders. Solution gets presented and then people still find stuff to complain about, it's the exact same thing in PCT for PT wild cards(I didn't buy a GT wild card for 4 years in PT until I needed it to max out my riders and massively push my level 3's XP on top of that. Level 3 riders which have been a bit of a pain in CT in the past is also massively helped by PTHC, if I have read the XP matrix correctly, no points scored also means no impact on renewals requests, while you get to potentially test out a long term leader in a race if you're in the promotion race for future seasons. Also just gives you something to look forward to at a potential dead week or two in your season.
Where is 1 or 2 PTHC races via wildcard a way to develop a level 4 rider as a CT team? 1.1 XP per raceday.
The only way to get that 4.100 push is via loaning them out to a PT team.
I got Kench to 4.85 last year as a PCT team, let's say that I got him to 4.75 instead, with the free XP, all it takes is 5 race days on top of the free 20 XP. There exists XP amounts between 0 and 100, and if you as a manager in PCT actually maximise the amount of XP you get it becomes quite straightforward to max riders from 1-3 without the need for PT loan outs, Jandal being a prime example of someone who did this excessively in the past, to the point where PT managers got a ton of value in loaning out guys to him because he always ensured they get more than 3.0, I have done the same with my loan ins in the past.
Yeah but we are talking about Wildcards for CT teams.
From all of the suggestions I find Danes min fee offers the best.
Would allow CT teams especially, to build their cheap core even cheaper, and thus creating room for more firepower at the top. If there’s only one wage offer in the FA from a CT team of let’s say 30K, then that should be enough.
I could even go as low as 10K. A rider receiving zero interest IRL would probably be flattered to sign a contract at CT level.
They would have to renew at 50K minimum though.
Great idea! Why min contracts for PT and CT are the same despite PT having close to 300% of the CT wage cap, is beyond me.
1) it is already super expensive for PT teams to develop lvl1 talents
2) the step from pct to ct seems super punishing to me. The step from pt to pct however does not seem anywhere close to that when so many managers intentionally plan their transfers around going down. I think no sports league / game should encourage losing so if relegating isnt punishing enough, is there sth we can do to make it less attractive to relegate back to pct?
Two easy things we can do for number 2 I think. First, put the salary cap differences so CT to PCT matches PCT to PT. And second, increase renewals fines. I don't think we need to cap renewal wage caps like Bikex is suggesting, but just increasing the fines would make it harder for relegated teams to count on selling their extra assets for huge profits and bouncing back up, and would also lead to more FAs naturally.
Increasing fines could be a solution but I'm not sure if it's really enough to produce enough supply on the free agency. With less churn than in past seasons and less strong FAs being added, in my opinion we should look for a different solution to get more fluctuation through the free agency. Renewal caps could be a solution.
And looking at it from a realism pov after a contract is up, riders would usually have the chance to listen to other teams' offers. Of course we shouldn't abolish the chance to keep your own riders completely, but at least limit a little bit teams hoarding strong riders or just keeping some to sell them to cement their financial superiority.
The lower minimum wage for ct teams is an interesting idea but i would want to limit it to offers made in the second week of transfers. This could replace the junior riders entirely as they werent really used this year. Potentially keeping the four "cheap contracts" cap that exists for junior riders iirc.
Why? Its sometimes too easy for genuinely good riders to slip through in the early days.
To compare with RL sports: cyclists would not rush to accept below market rate from ct teams and rather hold out for a better contract offer from better teams.
The lower minimum wage for ct teams is an interesting idea but i would want to limit it to offers made in the second week of transfers. This could replace the junior riders entirely as they werent really used this year. Potentially keeping the four "cheap contracts" cap that exists for junior riders iirc.
Why? Its sometimes too easy for genuinely good riders to slip through in the early days.
To compare with RL sports: cyclists would not rush to accept below market rate from ct teams and rather hold out for a better contract offer from better teams.
Agree. Make it 20k like for junior riders, but let them count towards your minimum of 15 riders. If it happens to start only after like 5-7 days, then it can be a great way for CT teams to get usefull, but not great riders on a reduced salary, while also giving them a bit more flexibility in their pursuit of 1 or 2 core riders. 120k wage more to spend on good riders instead of worrying to get to 15 riders minimum
I think it would be fun to allow it from the gunshot tbh. It's not like you get to pick up a very good FA for 20K. It might be talents slightly better than what can be achieved from the Draft, but not a 79-80 key stat rider. And it was indeed possible to pick up 77-78 key stat talents from the Draft.
The best 10 50K riders meassured from the OVL was:
Jingbao Zhao
Josip Rumac
Sergey Luchschenko
Jernej Svab
Roman Seigle
Clement Russo
Trond Hakon Trondsen
Josef Cerny
Corbin Strong
Jarrad Drizners
If half of those were picked for 20-30K I don't think that would be groundbreaking in any way. Most likely it would only call for added attention among the CT managers if riders like that was going to sign for 20K. Maybe even for PT managers to jump in an make that 50K offer.
PT and PCT managers would have to step it up if they wanted to join the signing of cheap talents/domestiques, and it would create a playground for CT managers to fight it out in the lower wage spectrum before PT and PCT managers were usually going to join.
In theory what I think would happen is, that most CT teams would sign 5 or so regional riders for 20K instead of 50K, and then have 150K spare wage they could use on something else - but I could also see CT managers joining the fun for a higher waged rider they really want, and just fill the entire (almost) team up with 20K riders to do so.
This is something that actually creates flexibility without channeling more wage into the game.
And while I - as a PT manager - likes to have the most quality possible left in the FA for the longest period of time in order to pick up regional riders, I do kinda think it would be healthy for the game if there was a bit more stress in terms of actually moving in on them. Some riders you just know you can pick up for 50K without contest, but maybe if the contest was him signing quickly for 20K you would have to up your game and pick him up. As said, not a good thing for me particularly, but for the game it would be better I think.
Got to say, i'm against a lot of the CT targeted changes.
If you want to be competing for great talents, you should be sacrificing your current season to do so. That's true for the CT, PCT and PT. I still think we should bump the cap to 1.5mil (3.5 - 2.5 - 1.5 just makes sense) and increasing the minimum riders to 17 (and scraping the Free Draft). That would give CT teams a little bit extra cap space to utilize which can be put towards whatever they want.
Equally I don't think CT teams have too little budget, as i've been saying for years, they've had too little to use that budget on. Training has been too expensive and that was all you could spend budget on apart from Transfers. The new Wildcards help a little, but WC's are still really cheap to be pretty much ignored cost wise and don't make for a material choice as a manager.
What would make CT more fun, imo as someone who's spent a lot of time in CT, is increasing personal investment in each race. Every CT team basically sacrifices at least one terrain entirely (if not two) for budget reasons, and that's imo a good thing. But the problem is there are relatively few races where your CT team can be genuinely competitive, with a sizable portion of your calendar going to C1 up against PCT teams. Yeah, a broader more flexible C2 calendar would be ideal. And i've said this before as well, you can do it without increasing overall RD if you are willing to get radical and make some cuts to the PT and PCT calendars as well (a smaller, but more flexible game would i think be really cool for everyone).
Don't really have much of an opinion on Loans and fee limits. I think the system works as it is intended to, and is fixing the exploit it was designed to.
Lowering minimum wages, yeah i sorta see it, but i think you just will end up shifting the current "problem" (not actually a problem for me) from 50k to 20k, if not making it worse with more riders going under-market-value because more managers try to sneak through steals and we run out of ability to counter them effectively.
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.
For years there has been a narative from CT managers that they have no viable way of maxing level 4 riders. Solution gets presented and then people still find stuff to complain about, it's the exact same thing in PCT for PT wild cards(I didn't buy a GT wild card for 4 years in PT until I needed it to max out my riders and massively push my level 3's XP on top of that. Level 3 riders which have been a bit of a pain in CT in the past is also massively helped by PTHC, if I have read the XP matrix correctly, no points scored also means no impact on renewals requests, while you get to potentially test out a long term leader in a race if you're in the promotion race for future seasons. Also just gives you something to look forward to at a potential dead week or two in your season.
Where is 1 or 2 PTHC races via wildcard a way to develop a level 4 rider as a CT team? 1.1 XP per raceday.
The only way to get that 4.100 push is via loaning them out to a PT team.
I got Kench to 4.85 last year as a PCT team, let's say that I got him to 4.75 instead, with the free XP, all it takes is 5 race days on top of the free 20 XP. There exists XP amounts between 0 and 100, and if you as a manager in PCT actually maximise the amount of XP you get it becomes quite straightforward to max riders from 1-3 without the need for PT loan outs, Jandal being a prime example of someone who did this excessively in the past, to the point where PT managers got a ton of value in loaning out guys to him because he always ensured they get more than 3.0, I have done the same with my loan ins in the past.
Yeah but we are talking about Wildcards for CT teams.
My examples is literally talking about being a relegated CT team.
Edited by whitejersey on 08-08-2026 14:38
As I want discussions to continue in this thread I'd like to keep it a bit alive
CT wage cap, draft and minimum wage
I really, really like the suggestion about lower min wage in ct, and I would like it to just start from start of transfers. Could do with a testrun next transfers and take it from there.
My suggestion:
Min wage CT 40.000 (not a lot, but a small change). Starts from the start of transfers
Renewals next year will still be minimum 50.000 (in other words, no rider can be traded with lower than 50k wage)
Riders under 50k wage can in no way be loaned out (a restriction to keep them in CT)
Keep CT wage cap as it is (this should give CT managers more money anyway)
If the test period is good, consider lowering it to 30 or 25k
Remove junior riders
Keep CT draft, but I like either restricting the draft to not fully developed riders, or at least 1 of 2 have to be not fully developed
Dev team
Just a small change, but instead of choosing races, just place them random based with 30 RD or something (can get an AI to do it in a few minutes). It's not like the dev teams will get a lot of points anyway
Training
I would want the ladder to be steeper, and think that would also help lower divisions with training. In other words, make lower training in general cheaper, while making higher stat training more expensive. If I want to train someone to 83 or 84 I would have to really suffer to afford it. I would also hard cap new talents max stat to 80 (so impossible to get over 80 without training)
When I say hard cap I don't mean a rule, but via checking all possilities, I wont no Gregorie, Martinez or Del Toro who starts out fully maxed on PT stardom stats, I want them to have to be trained for that.
Just a small change, but instead of choosing races, just place them random based with 30 RD or something (can get an AI to do it in a few minutes). It's not like the dev teams will get a lot of points anyway
Can you explain why you think thats an improvement? Seems like a downgrade to me.
Just a small change, but instead of choosing races, just place them random based with 30 RD or something (can get an AI to do it in a few minutes). It's not like the dev teams will get a lot of points anyway
Can you explain why you think thats an improvement? Seems like a downgrade to me.
Just less work. Now we had a thread, someone had to post it, we had to make lists, priorities. Then they get assambled, sent in to admins etc
Didn't cost me (and kb) a lot, but in general it would just be easier to post to an AI "We got these races open, these teams. Get each team 30 RDs" - Done
I see the point with less work, but also less enjoyable then. I wouldn't exactly like our non-climber squad to do only Tachira, Trentino etc. What would even be the point of signing road captains if you can't pick races for them?
Sure, dev teams are just for fun (well, mostly). But not in favor of randomly assigning RDs. And in this case, ember - a manager who isn't really involved in admin tasks otherwise - is doing the work, so it's not that much more work for Admins. I'd also happily do it if that's the way around randomness. And yeah, I hate AI.
I really, really like the suggestion about lower min wage in ct, and I would like it to just start from start of transfers. Could do with a testrun next transfers and take it from there.
My suggestion:
Min wage CT 40.000 (not a lot, but a small change). Starts from the start of transfers
Renewals next year will still be minimum 50.000 (in other words, no rider can be traded with lower than 50k wage)
Riders under 50k wage can in no way be loaned out (a restriction to keep them in CT)
Keep CT wage cap as it is (this should give CT managers more money anyway)
If the test period is good, consider lowering it to 30 or 25k
Remove junior riders
Keep CT draft, but I like either restricting the draft to not fully developed riders, or at least 1 of 2 have to be not fully developed
If we were to change min wage for CT teams then let's do it properly.
-Min wage starting at 10.000 - or max 25k - and adjusting the following season. 10k Won't do anything meaningful. Remember that all teams can still bid 50k on a rider.
-Renewals should be min 50k as it is today.
-Makes sense that riders under 50k wage can't be loaned out.
-If this change is implemented, then I guess CT wage cap should continue as is or only have a marginal increase.
-No reason to have both junior riders and min wage decreased for CT teams.
