What do people think on the stats of riders, are they realistic and represent each rider properly or could their stats be even more realistic and even have different categories?
I know the stats can be changed, but sometimes too much tinkering can upset the balance of a game.
Edited by Tafiolmo on 12-05-2013 17:23
Tafiolmo wrote:
What do people think on the stats of riders, are they realistic and represent each rider properly or could their stats be even more realistic and even have different categories?
I know the stats can be changed, but sometimes too much tinkering can upset the balance of a game.
Tafiolmo wrote:
What do people think on the stats of riders, are they realistic and represent each rider properly or could their stats be even more realistic and even have different categories?
I know the stats can be changed, but sometimes too much tinkering can upset the balance of a game.
Besides, I think this is more of a general discussion about the stats system - not the individual stats of riders. Thus it doesn't belong in the thread you referred to, but could turn into an interesting discussion on its own.
Well, in the discussion of overall stats, the system, I think it's pretty good, but far from perfect.
Imo, there are too many general stats without depth. "Cobblestones" is one like that. There is a world of difference between some cobblestone sections and others.
Same goes for hills: as it is now, hills in the Flemish Ardennes are equal to hills in the Ardennes, while in fact they are completely different in real life.
It'd be also nice to see "specialization" for riders. Some climb better on steep climbs, Evans, and some prefect the mountains to be consistent, like Wiggins.
Just a few remarks, but I realize this must be hard to implement in the game.
Well in that case i don't see why it couldn't have been in the PCM 2013 Thread, or any of the other threads about testing stats. But yes it is a potentially good debate, just one i remember having been had before
Ian Butler wrote:
Well, in the discussion of overall stats, the system, I think it's pretty good, but far from perfect.
Imo, there are too many general stats without depth. "Cobblestones" is one like that. There is a world of difference between some cobblestone sections and others.
Same goes for hills: as it is now, hills in the Flemish Ardennes are equal to hills in the Ardennes, while in fact they are completely different in real life.
It'd be also nice to see "specialization" for riders. Some climb better on steep climbs, Evans, and some prefect the mountains to be consistent, like Wiggins.
Just a few remarks, but I realize this must be hard to implement in the game.
I think the cobblestones are a good stat to have and was surprised to see them in the game. At the moment the only cobbled races that I've raced seriously are the Het Nieuwsblad, Dwars Door Vlaanderen and E3 Harelbeke and should be doing Ghent-Wevelgem and Tour of Flanders this week. What do you think are the best tactics for cobbled races?
Can't comment of the Ardennes classics as haven't raced them in the game yet.
I think one of the big things I miss on the stats, is possibly a consistency factor as some riders are more consistent than others and also a randomness factor that would allow somebody like Gerald Ciolek to win a monument in the game. But saying that, I just raced the E3 Harelbeke and I chose the Lotto team and with Roelandts I knew there was a good chance of me winning, but the race was won by Taylor Phinney with Maarten Wynants in second in a five man breakaway that didn't contain the main favourites, so it was good to see riders like this winning and not Boonen, Cancellara or Flecha.
Ian Butler wrote:
Well, in the discussion of overall stats, the system, I think it's pretty good, but far from perfect.
Imo, there are too many general stats without depth. "Cobblestones" is one like that. There is a world of difference between some cobblestone sections and others.
Same goes for hills: as it is now, hills in the Flemish Ardennes are equal to hills in the Ardennes, while in fact they are completely different in real life.
It'd be also nice to see "specialization" for riders. Some climb better on steep climbs, Evans, and some prefect the mountains to be consistent, like Wiggins.
Just a few remarks, but I realize this must be hard to implement in the game.
I think the cobblestones are a good stat to have and was surprised to see them in the game. At the moment the only cobbled races that I've raced seriously are the Het Nieuwsblad, Dwars Door Vlaanderen and E3 Harelbeke and should be doing Ghent-Wevelgem and Tour of Flanders this week. What do you think are the best tactics for cobbled races?
Can't comment of the Ardennes classics as haven't raced them in the game yet.
I think one of the big things I miss on the stats, is possibly a consistency factor as some riders are more consistent than others and also a randomness factor that would allow somebody like Gerald Ciolek to win a monument in the game. But saying that, I just raced the E3 Harelbeke and I chose the Lotto team and with Roelandts I knew there was a good chance of me winning, but the race was won by Taylor Phinney with Maarten Wynants in second in a five man breakaway that didn't contain the main favourites, so it was good to see riders like this winning and not Boonen, Cancellara or Flecha.
This could be done by personalizing the daily form so that some riders who are very consistent, will rarely have less than -1 daily shape while some who are more random will more often switch between -5 and +5.
Edited by Iguwell on 13-05-2013 23:47
What about hidden mentality stats like in FM? I'm sorry if that sort of talk is frowned upon here
I was thinking about it the other day and it would be a good step to take in order to give the riders a bit of personality, introduce variable interactions, squad togetherness, and making rider development more controllable and predictable (i.e. by personality descriptions like model pro, driven, etc). That is, if the developers has any interest in improving career mode.
This can be a really good discussion, so lets try and kickstart it FL (Flat) - Perfectly done, how hard can someone go on flat or low gradient roads. Covers a lot of what is needed to be a good cyclist and is very realistic MO (Mountain) - Oh god this one needs changing! It's too broad a stat. As we all know different riders climb differently. Wiggins, Basso, Evans grind away like a Diesel engine over long medium gradient climbs. Rolland, Pinot dance up steeper climbs. Valverde flies over shorter steeper stretches. Nibali, Contador, Sanchez attack on most climbs. While it does lead to fairly accurate results its not a realistic system, but that can only be changed with a way the game handles mountain gameplay HL (Hill) - Not bad, but like MO different riders are good at hills in different ways.
More if a general point, the HL/MO ratio thing needs either some greater clarification or an overhaul. It's good, but not realistic CB (Cobble) - Cobbles are a unique thing in cycling. There is no other way to deal with it other than having a cobble stat, and it works very well. TT (Time Trial) - The fact that it is not linked to FL is just odd to me. Never seen a great time trialist who cannot pull hard at the head of a race (not that tt=fl). Again though it does work very well and is realistic PRL (Prologue) - Again good, but what defines a prologue needs to be clearer. For example Cavendish is brilliant over 3k, but not great over 10k. Martin is not great over 3k, but a beast over 10k.
TT and PRL should be linked in a similar way to the MO/HL ratio to make things more realistic. Also there should be something specific to TTT, because guys like Cav's and Eisel are great to have, but can't get good TT stats. SP (Sprint) - Indicator of both top speed and acceleration (last on debatable). Its good, but needs to be coupled with a proper Acceleration stat ACC (Acceleration) - Just wrong! It has nothing to do with acceleration. It should do, simple as. STA (Stamina) - Great way to deal with how people handle race lengths. Perhaps it should be more severe than it currently is, but yeah its quite good FTR (Fighter) - Its effect is still debated... so.... yeah... Without an effect on the player its pointless... RES (Resistance) - Again not much to say, i think its pretty good DH (Downhill) - Pretty damn perfect. But should have more of an actual impact, i.e. 50's will be dropped on decents and/or crash more often
I know i might have missed one or two (which is embarrassing if i have), but overall the Stats are pretty realistic. I mean you can tell that by looking at the results over a season. Classics specialists win the classics, Punchers the Ardennes etc. etc.
It could be made a lot more detailed, and for the game to really advance it will have to become more detailed. The way some stats work (MO, HL, SP, ACC) does need overhauling and reworking to mimic real life a bit more, but in general it all does work out in the final results.
Ian Butler wrote:
Mental stats will be implemented in 2013 if I'm not mistaken.
I've heard from sources that this is incorrect - despite the fact that it was mentioned in either the product description or one of the interviews (don't remember exactly). So don't get your hopes up
Ian Butler wrote:
Mental stats will be implemented in 2013 if I'm not mistaken.
I've heard from sources that this is incorrect - despite the fact that it was mentioned in either the product description or one of the interviews (don't remember exactly). So don't get your hopes up
I should've known. Too bad, since it seemed nice. But lesson learned: don't expect nothing until you start that first race on PCM 2013
TheManxMissile wrote:
This can be a really good discussion, so lets try and kickstart it
Spoiler
FL (Flat) - Perfectly done, how hard can someone go on flat or low gradient roads. Covers a lot of what is needed to be a good cyclist and is very realistic MO (Mountain) - Oh god this one needs changing! It's too broad a stat. As we all know different riders climb differently. Wiggins, Basso, Evans grind away like a Diesel engine over long medium gradient climbs. Rolland, Pinot dance up steeper climbs. Valverde flies over shorter steeper stretches. Nibali, Contador, Sanchez attack on most climbs. While it does lead to fairly accurate results its not a realistic system, but that can only be changed with a way the game handles mountain gameplay HL (Hill) - Not bad, but like MO different riders are good at hills in different ways.
More if a general point, the HL/MO ratio thing needs either some greater clarification or an overhaul. It's good, but not realistic CB (Cobble) - Cobbles are a unique thing in cycling. There is no other way to deal with it other than having a cobble stat, and it works very well. TT (Time Trial) - The fact that it is not linked to FL is just odd to me. Never seen a great time trialist who cannot pull hard at the head of a race (not that tt=fl). Again though it does work very well and is realistic PRL (Prologue) - Again good, but what defines a prologue needs to be clearer. For example Cavendish is brilliant over 3k, but not great over 10k. Martin is not great over 3k, but a beast over 10k.
TT and PRL should be linked in a similar way to the MO/HL ratio to make things more realistic. Also there should be something specific to TTT, because guys like Cav's and Eisel are great to have, but can't get good TT stats. SP (Sprint) - Indicator of both top speed and acceleration (last on debatable). Its good, but needs to be coupled with a proper Acceleration stat ACC (Acceleration) - Just wrong! It has nothing to do with acceleration. It should do, simple as. STA (Stamina) - Great way to deal with how people handle race lengths. Perhaps it should be more severe than it currently is, but yeah its quite good FTR (Fighter) - Its effect is still debated... so.... yeah... Without an effect on the player its pointless... RES (Resistance) - Again not much to say, i think its pretty good DH (Downhill) - Pretty damn perfect. But should have more of an actual impact, i.e. 50's will be dropped on decents and/or crash more often
I know i might have missed one or two (which is embarrassing if i have), but overall the Stats are pretty realistic. I mean you can tell that by looking at the results over a season. Classics specialists win the classics, Punchers the Ardennes etc. etc.
It could be made a lot more detailed, and for the game to really advance it will have to become more detailed. The way some stats work (MO, HL, SP, ACC) does need overhauling and reworking to mimic real life a bit more, but in general it all does work out in the final results.
While being a nice summary, I think you get some things wrong, though.
Fighter stat isn't useless. It makes the game more realistic because some riders attack more frequently than others, very useful, thus! Flat and TT are good to be separate. Most (if not all) TTist can pull hard at the peloton, but TT is about aerodynamic, so most TTist will also have a high flat stat. But it's a one way street, since there are hard-riders without any TT skills. So for me that's pretty good.
Prologue and TT are intertwined in some sort of ratio. For example (no correct figures but to explain) 3km = 100% prologue and 0% TT, 10km = 50% prologue and 50%, and so on.
If ACC stat would really mean Acceleration,then,i would give Mark Cavendish (example) 79-80SP (max) and 85ACC. Some of guys can sprint better for longer distances,but he is just beast. I am just wondering if this can happen.
Ian is right,guys with higher FTR are attacking much more than others.
@Ian
Without an effect for the player FTR is massively reduced in its usefulness. I know its used so that high FTR attack more but 1) its not as significant as it should be, 2) it has no definition on when people attack (it might do, and if it does again its not that significant) and 3) still has no effect on the player (every stat should). Yes it has some meaning, but for example i have never seen Voigt in a breakaway.. ever! Its hardly a perfect system right now, and a lot can be done to improve it.
My issue with PLG/TT is that we don't know the ratio's. I believe someone once said that 20km is the first time its 100% TT, when it should be 10-15k.
@admir
Who can sprint better for longer than Mark? His best feature is his ability to go hard for long! Mark is still the fastest man out there (with Greipel) so in a proper system it would be 82/83SP 82/83ACC with another new stat acting like ACC does now, which would be 84 (no-one should ever start with 85)
Well,i'm sure if they sprint 1km Andre will beat him,Nacer maybe. But when it comes to last 200 meters,he is just unbeatable. That's what i think,you will may defend him according to your nick and nationality (Jesleyh2 ), but that's my opinion.
TheManxMissile wrote:
@admir
Who can sprint better for longer than Mark? His best feature is his ability to go hard for long! Mark is still the fastest man out there (with Greipel) so in a proper system it would be 82/83SP 82/83ACC with another new stat acting like ACC does now, which would be 84 (no-one should ever start with 85)
Kittel does insanely long sprints, though the weaker opposition in many of those might distort how good he holds the speed.
), but that's my opinion.
