I always feel RL should always be given priority. A big talent should be a big talent. If we get another big French talent next to Seixas when the time comes to add them, I expect two top French riders with pot 7 in the DB.
When that is done and we see a certain country has a lack of real talents but is represented by several teams in the MG, we can start bumping the existing talents a bit. But let's not make a nobody into a top 10 talent for the sake of nationalities.
When it comes to Switzerland, I feel that country is losing its status as a cycling country. Kung is on his way out, Hirschi never lived up to the (high) expectations and then it's only Jan Christen who's not given too many leadership opportunities with UAE. So for me only adding Christen as a big talent sounds about right.
If I ever want to continue my North Korean team from one of the other games pcmdaily once had, I wouldn't expect a 78MO North Korean rider either
1. I am new to the game.
2. I recognize that adding a new system to the MG is a huge undertaking, from both an implementation and maintenance perspective.
But with those aside, it seems to me like the natural way to solve the problem is by making it an in-game mechanic? The basic idea I'm imagining is a "cycling heritage" tier setup.
So starting with real life, something like:
S-tier (cycling heartlands): Belgium, Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy A-tier (major countries): Germany, Colombia, USA, GB, Australia, Denmark, Portugal, etc. B-tier (notable countries): Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Ireland, etc. C-tier (minor countries): Israel, Eritrea, Sweden, South Africa, Canada, Mexico, etc. D-tier (regional participants): China, Rwanda, Finland, Greece, Brazil, etc. F-tier (non-entities): Paraguay, Curacao, Ghana, Iceland, Kosovo, etc.
This initial list could be constructed in a robust way using PCS data. Biasing towards recency, but with some historical punch to not overly reward or penalize countries for recent strong (Slovenia) or weak (Germany) participation in the sport.
Then, a one-time MG history modifier could be applied. This would, e.g., kick Greece up a few tiers to capture the success of the country within the game.
At that point, the tier list governs new rider entries, and other than the S-tier, which always stays fixed, countries can slowly rise and fall within the tier list based on national performance in the MG. This creates a new meta-goal: a manager can make taking a country up the tier rankings into their narrative reason for playing, and they get rewarded for doing so (with a better pool of riders). Meanwhile, the S-tier staying fixed guarantees that new players can always base themselves in one of those five and be guaranteed a strong pool.
The way the tiers would affect the introduction of new riders would be two-fold: a given tier specifies various bands, which dictate (a) how many new riders that country will produce a year, and (b) how good those riders will be. Higher up the tier, expect more and stronger talents. Lower down, expect fewer and worse, on average.
To implement (a), this may require occasionally inventing new riders entirely for countries that are much higher in the MG tier list then they are in RL. Otherwise, we try to continue to avoid doing this.
For (b), this would require adjusting RL riders up and down from their true (estimated) potential. A special carveout could be introduced that any rider with Pot. 7 or up, or if no such rider exists, the best potential-ed rider introduced for each country in a given year, will never be adjusted down. That way the Del Toros of the world will always be fairly represented.
Obviously, such a system would need to be designed, backtested and validated, and then approved. But it would tighten up some of the debates I'm seeing, and make drift from RL be justified on the history of the game, rather than something that follows the whims of specific managers (who would need to put in real effort to make "non-realistic" heritage patterns emerge).
As a new player, I don't think I could lead an effort like this. But if someone experienced is interested in experimenting with such a system, I'd be very happy to contribute.
This sounds interesting indeed. Not sure I'd fix the S-tier "forever" (e.g. Spain really had very little PCT/PT interest for the last 5-6 years, with the exception of ZARA and Desigual for 2 or 3 seasons, whereas I could easily see e.g. Denmark joining the tier). As you say, making it a real "system", based on numbers over several years, would provide a good understanding of which countries get actual interest and which don't. For example, I could see Portugal pretty far down the list (even though they rightfully got Morgado this year) based on recent MG history.
In terms of managers who "put in a real effort" to boost a country, SotD is the obvious example. red with Slovenia/the Balkans another one. And I think Bush and myself have been doing it in Switzerland for some years now, although on a lower scale (almost forgot sammy with Hirschi, though). I would like to have an MG world where this kind of commitment gets rewarded, but as the comments show, not everyone would be on the same page. Which is totally fine - as mentioned before, I'd just like to know what might be possible and what won't, in terms of rebranding/retargeting the team for the future.
But yeah, one big question to which I don't have an answer is how do you draw the line between managers committed to their primary/secondary nation, and managers just having a team nation because you need one? I mean, a power-play oriented team will almost never care about rider nationality, whatever their team nation is, whereas more RP-focused teams most likely do. I still admire TMM's efforts to add Caribbean riders, and I'd have loved to see her get a top-talent that might have been motivating to stick with the project for another couple of years. In that sense, I value role-play higher than RL for MG, definitely.
Great talents in real life should be added as great talents in the game. No matter nationality. So when he is ready a rider like Seixas should be the top talent of his crop unless something crazy happens in the next 2 years (Ofc I would love this... So there is some selfinterest here)
Then there is the question of other talents and here I agree we should look at teams and nationalities of the db. Adding riders that maxes at 77-78 with good backups so that managers can decide to train them and make the top riders. I agree with Fab that a few more of those for Switzerland, Greece etc would be good.
Then we have to think about the stat inflation of the db and work with that.
I would also really like if we get good talent years and bad talent years. Just because xxx is the best in the age group dosen't mean he then should be added as a rider that maxes 80+, some years we could maybe have no talents getting a max stat over 77 or 78, while other years we get several higher
I'm on the same page. Considering RL talents to a certain degree is probably even necessary for MG to live on - a game of purely fantasy riders doesn't sound very attracting. And let top talents be top talents; Del Toro should have been added as a great rider even if we didn't have a Mexican team.
Agree that having one or two riders maxing around 77-78 (with good backups, as you mention, as those are sometimes quite an issue), and a better one every couploe of years, would be good, and I think in that range we're pretty fine in Switzerland. It's more the 73-75 region that worries me, in particular with more than one team around.
Good and bad talent years are fine, but the long-term balance still needs to be kept in mind obviously. Balancing out over 3 years should work, but if there were 5+ years of "bad talents", there would be issues I guess. A rider could then be top of the world for 10 years, and yeah, I'm really tired of the Herklotz era by now.
I always feel RL should always be given priority. A big talent should be a big talent. If we get another big French talent next to Seixas when the time comes to add them, I expect two top French riders with pot 7 in the DB.
When that is done and we see a certain country has a lack of real talents but is represented by several teams in the MG, we can start bumping the existing talents a bit. But let's not make a nobody into a top 10 talent for the sake of nationalities.
When it comes to Switzerland, I feel that country is losing its status as a cycling country. Kung is on his way out, Hirschi never lived up to the (high) expectations and then it's only Jan Christen who's not given too many leadership opportunities with UAE. So for me only adding Christen as a big talent sounds about right.
If I ever want to continue my North Korean team from one of the other games pcmdaily once had, I wouldn't expect a 78MO North Korean rider either
Good to have other opinions as well, so we can find out what the community wants (and I'll adapt accordingly)
I still think that MG can handle "nobodies" being Top 10 talents, just as it can handle MG "nobodies" winning RL GTs MG misses out on late bloomers (which admittedly are getting rare), and it hypes talents that will be mediocre IRL - all part of the game. If RL is top priority, we'll likely have no more Kudus, Shikai, Kinoshita etc. which for me is a main part of the fun in MG. But that's just my opinion, and that's neither the only nor the correct one
In terms of Switzerland, yeah, it's a rather dry period right now. But you're still forgetting about Schmid (or actively ignoring? ), who had a decent TdF (and some good classics). Fabio Christen had a great 2025, but was very unlucky with illness/injuries this year. IRL there's an obvious lack of depth, so if one rider doesn't perform it makes a big impact, that's for sure. But it was/is my hope that MG allows for enough "RL distance" to still make it possible having good success here - if it isn't to be, I'll find another approach. I'd have loved to continue my ICL "Tierra del Fuego" project, with the scouting system being something I really liked about that game.
And yes, I would have fully expected to get a 78Mo North Korean rider if I committed to this focus nation for 5+ years
I would just like to say that I think the talent addition team has been doing a great job now for a while and I think they should continue in this manner. I think the balance between IRL and MG RP needs is pretty spot on.
I think the same "complaints" are true e.g. for Scandinavia who have lots of teams but few top-level talents, Slovenia, Great Britain, the U.S., and many more where there are just not enough decent-ish talents to go "full focus" - and maybe it's just that France got extremely lucky in the last two years and will now have a long drought (until Seixas is eligible of course), I don't know. I just wanted to explain why I was pretty frustrated this year.
I would prefer for Slovenia to be excluded here as I don't want to be implicated with these "complaints". I also consider my team to be "full focus" as it is. I will continue to suggest riders when I can as a means to help the talent addition team, not because I'm lacking riders or can't enjoy the game as is.
Not sure I'd fix the S-tier "forever" (e.g. Spain really had very little PCT/PT interest for the last 5-6 years, with the exception of ZARA and Desigual for 2 or 3 seasons, whereas I could easily see e.g. Denmark joining the tier).
I think you'd want to leave the S-tier fixed, in order to (a) give a solid base that new players can depend on, and (b) guarantee that the RL depth of new talents always arriving from those countries are accurately represented in the MG. We wouldn't want a situation where WT-level talents from Spain are being excluded from the MG just because no manager has prioritized the country in a few years and so they slip down the rankings.
But yeah, one big question to which I don't have an answer is how do you draw the line between managers committed to their primary/secondary nation, and managers just having a team nation because you need one?
Yeah so this would need to be done using a proper model, so that it's not something that's up for debate (similar to say, the XP and development systems).
The easiest thing to do would be to make manager intention completely irrelevant, and make the tier list changes downstream of pure performance (how many points a country scores in a given year, with maybe small weights put on how many riders are signed at each level of the sport, whether the country appeared at the TdF, etc.)
A richer model, but one that would certainly be more contentious, would be to add some extra kicker for team nationalities. So say, a country get a bonus for each team that has it as a primary, and a smaller bonus for each that has it as a secondary. This would need to be worked out as part of the validation and backtesting of the model.
Luckily there is a decent way to backtest (assuming availability of data somewhere): come up with a one-time historical adjustment, and a year-by-year model, and see if applying the year-by-year retroactively ends up in the same region as the one-time historical adjustment. That would imply that the year-by-year model going forward should match the expert view of what cycling heritage looks like the MG right now.
The challenge with tilting towards active mangame countries is that it quickly gets subjective with which countries you favor and how much. You end up with many iterations of the Swiss vs Greece argument.
I had an idea a few years back I wasn't able to sell to the talent team but which I think would be a natural solution. It maybe a less radical depature than Jack's approach.
The talent team would stat the top 3-10 riders each year as normal. These are the really top guys we would all want in the DB in some form similar to their RL abilities. They would then publish a list of 50ish stat lines in rough quality order. with no riders assigned. This would represent the batch of talents behind the top guys but maybe with 10 or so held out. The average quality could vary by year.
Managers could then "claim" a few statlines for RL riders and maybe suggest minor changes. So Fab would post "Nominate Ulrich Swissdude for line #27 but +1 HI, - 1 MT". No statline could be claimed more than twice. So there would be a first come, first serve element. Nominating would have no impact on your ability to sign the rider in FA.
The talent team would then look at lines with multiple claims and decide, giving priority to the first claimant but also considering things like the fit of the stats with the RL nominated rider and whether that nation got one of the top talents the prior year. Maybe you use a tiering system like Jack's to decide how frequently a nation is allowed one of the top talents. The talent team would also decide whether to make the stat changes proposed.
The talent team would assign any unassigned rows and the 10 they held out to other notable RL talents who weren't nominated. Then add lower level talents based on manager suggestions and data as is done now.
What I like about this is it would naturally move the DB towards the focuses of active mangers. Switzerland would be guaranteed at least 2 solid riders every year. Less active managers or managers who don't care would have less influence. And that would occur with much less subjectivity on the part of the talent team, although I acknowledge they would still need to play referee some of the time. It would also give managers more say in specifically what stats get assigned to what riders and would promote actiity. (We might want to do it for the next season in the lull between transfers and the season start)
To me it's about a fundamental question about what the MG should be. Should it be a game where you can RP a team to the top of the PT, or if you want to summit the mountain you should have to compromise and PP (power play).
Despite my seemingly insane commitment to the former, I firmly sit in the latter category. My first iteration was RP heavy and it was fun, but I decided to pivot to the more PP side, and climbed to the PT. Got bored of that, swung the other way to RP and built the most ridiculous team in MG history and earned my way back to the PCT. Now i'm back on the PP side and gunning to climb the mountain again.
So yeah, I can safely talk about both sides of the debate.
For me, this is how it should work. If you want access to the most resources, to the most races, to the biggest races, you should HAVE to compromise your RP focus.
The alternative is basically what we saw a decade ago, where you could declare a Sri Lankan or Finnish team, get a bucket of talents and succeed. That's cool, but you have to do that for every team. And that just causes rampant DB inflation, the kind of which we are still dealing with a decade later (managers who spoke to me in transfer know my strong opinions on the Sir Lankans especially - please don't take this out of context).
I prefer a simpler system of the kind we've had in recent years, and sort of flirted with in the past.
The top end talents should follow the real world. The MG has always been somewhat of a snapshot of how we viewed the youngsters in each year, and that's part of the charm. But this applies to the 2-3 top talents, those that are destined to become PT stars.
Below that it can, and should be a bit more open. This is where we should be able to slot in the likes or a Van Niekerk or a Kinoshita. Guys that either do show something in results, or are a bit more fun, unique nationality wise. Again a big part of the charm of the MG is these slightly random guys that have no understandable reason to be good beyond "it'll be fun".
There is no "fair" way to do this. It'll always benefit some country or other to an extent, unless you accept the inflation issue. How do you do it? Kind of random chance. This ties into something we used to do more of, and that's reward managers who make suggestions. You want more X-nationality talents, suggest them, and the DB team can give extra priority to them whilst keep control on overall DB balance. This has to be entirely disconnected from any team history, or team division. It should just be the DB team looking at the suggestions, going "well we got these 10 suggestions that look fun, I rolled a dice and we'll add #1, 7 and 9 to the game". (Not specifically this system, but the vibe is what I feel we should have)
Below that at CT leader level, that can be far more RP allowed. I made this point in other places, but in the division with the least money, least things to do, least races, you should instead be rewarded with the most emotional engagement, and therefore this is where an RP team should be most viable and allowed by the DB. You can do this without breaking the game, without causing crazy inflation, and still have usable riders at PCT and PT level to allow you to be a primarily RP team at higher levels, but with a few compromises.
Of course this doesn't work in a vacuum. Make a change to Training that helps RP up to CT leader level and you give a leg up to making your RP PT viable as well, self-grow your RP with investment. Keep ontop of some inflation by being willing to cut riders from the DB or downgrade them if teams pivot nationality. And managers adjust their own expectations that RP should only get you so far, and the "rewards" of past seasons were not great for the game overall and things are just a bit different now.
(...) it seems to me like the natural way to solve the problem is by making it an in-game mechanic? The basic idea I'm imagining is a "cycling heritage" tier setup.
So starting with real life, something like:
S-tier (cycling heartlands): Belgium, Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy A-tier (major countries): Germany, Colombia, USA, GB, Australia, Denmark, Portugal, etc. B-tier (notable countries): Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Ireland, etc. C-tier (minor countries): Israel, Eritrea, Sweden, South Africa, Canada, Mexico, etc. D-tier (regional participants): China, Rwanda, Finland, Greece, Brazil, etc. F-tier (non-entities): Paraguay, Curacao, Ghana, Iceland, Kosovo, etc.
This initial list could be constructed in a robust way using PCS data. Biasing towards recency, but with some historical punch to not overly reward or penalize countries for recent strong (Slovenia) or weak (Germany) participation in the sport.
Then, a one-time MG history modifier could be applied. This would, e.g., kick Greece up a few tiers to capture the success of the country within the game.
At that point, the tier list governs new rider entries, and other than the S-tier, which always stays fixed (...)
I wouldn't want the S-tier to be fixed, but other than that I'd be very keen to see MG history and roleplay have a bigger influence on the quality of new talents.
Of course, we should always include the 3-10 best IRL prospects regardless of how well their nation is represented in the MG. Beyond that, I'd suggest a formula-based system for determining the tiers.
Start with a country's combined IRL and MG points. Then apply a multiplier based on MG representation:
×1.2 for each team with the country as its primary focus
×1.1 for each team with the country as its secondary focus
To reward long-term investment rather than short-term spikes, points from the last ten years could be accumulated, with each previous year receiving a 10% reduction in weight.
For Belgium, assuming 2 teams with Belgium as their primary focus and 3 as their secondary focus, the yearly score would be:
This way, strong real-life cycling nations would still have an advantage, but countries that have consistently been supported by MG managers over many years would gradually improve their standing as well.
Start with a country's combined IRL and MG points. Then apply a multiplier based on MG representation:
×1.2 for each team with the country as its primary focus
×1.1 for each team with the country as its secondary focus
How would you account for regional or three+ country focuses?
E.g The Caribbean is not one or two countries. Scandinavia is not one or two countries. BeNeLux is not one or two countries.
To reward long-term investment rather than short-term spikes, points from the last ten years could be accumulated, with each previous year receiving a 10% reduction in weight.
For Belgium, assuming 2 teams with Belgium as their primary focus and 3 as their secondary focus, the yearly score would be:
This way, strong real-life cycling nations would still have an advantage, but countries that have consistently been supported by MG managers over many years would gradually improve their standing as well.
How do you account of points differences between divisions?
For example, Atilla Valter scored 1187 points last season. Great news for Hungarian focused teams! The entire Podium Ambition team scored 1287 points. In 2024 Valter had 1272, Podium Ambition had 1247 (despite being PCT that year).
This feels like a system where one not-really very focused PT team with two or three national riders can have an outsized influence on additions 'by accident', whilst a struggling P/CT team would always struggle.
Your idea would work quite well, if we were starting to create a DB from scratch. What it does now is lock-in the existing strengths (good riders score points, get more good riders, score more points etc.). It would be nigh on impossible for a weak nation to climb up this system without ignoring it to add better riders anyway.
jackgibbs "vibes" based tiers are better, in we can more easily adjust. But we still have to dictate one nation gets a higher tier over another. For example, i'd argue hard about what a "cycling heartland" is. I'd say the UK should be a "cycling heartland" nation and argue for weeks about this fact, same for the USA. And so on down the tiers, it's a one-way ticket to a very very messy discussion which half of the managers would feel is unfair.
There's also defining MG contribution. If i was still running a Caribbean team, well I did that to a 100% commitment, even relegating down divisions to commit to it. Is that worth more than someone who had a fully BeNeLux team because it was "easier"? Is Greece worth more or less, because they didn't go 100%, but did put most of their training into the regional riders? An African team that spreads itself around the whole continent gets to bump up all of those nations?
Additions I think has worked just fine for the last few years. The DB is getting a much better overall shape and balance, that we needed after the years where we did 'pander' to specific managers wishes. It's done this and still provided focused teams with options, if you were willing to compromise and meet the game halfway.
I don't understand why you're wasting your time on something that doesn't need fixing. Like what's wrong with current talent additions lmao. Elite irl riders are elite and there's some fantasy guys because damn, I may blow your fucking mind here, this game is not reality and we can have some deviations from real life
To me it's about a fundamental question about what the MG should be. Should it be a game where you can RP a team to the top of the PT, or if you want to summit the mountain you should have to compromise and PP (power play).
Despite my seemingly insane commitment to the former, I firmly sit in the latter category.
I do fully agree! I might sometimes sound otherwise, but that's definitely my take as well. That's why I said I'm not really complaining about the best Swiss talents added in recent years (even though I'm hoping for a well-balanced 80+ dude, as probably everyone with a strong RP focus), I think we got a good share. It's mainly the 75-77 guys, and there simply weren't enough for 2 Swiss teams in the last seasons.
As far as I see, most people agree that in this range, it should be possible to prioritize RP factors (i.e. team nationalities) higher than RL - in particular given that in this range it's almost impossible to take a guess when a rider is just 22y.o.
I am fully aware that this will never bring me to the top of PT, and it currently isn't my goal, either. But looking at my team, you can also see that there's some PP factors in there as well, otherwise why should there be a Godoy for example? But if I can get to PT with a mostly Swiss core, and have a real shot at staying there (or maybe even a lower Top 10), that would most likely be the best I could do with my mostly RP-based approach. Unless we suddenly get a duo like Kübler/Koblet, or at least a Cancellara that just wins monuments without much training ^^
I agree that talent addition in general doesn't need fixing, I would just have liked some different names and flags next to certain statlines But in terms of balance - I said it before - the team is doing a great job imho, thanks a lot for this!
), who had a decent TdF (and some good classics). Fabio Christen had a great 2025, but was very unlucky with illness/injuries this year. IRL there's an obvious lack of depth, so if one rider doesn't perform it makes a big impact, that's for sure. But it was/is my hope that MG allows for enough "RL distance" to still make it possible having good success here - if it isn't to be, I'll find another approach. I'd have loved to continue my ICL "Tierra del Fuego" project, with the scouting system being something I really liked about that game.
