TDF time is time to post this I think. Well, somebody told me that once and nobody told me off when I opened it in the TDF last year! I have a few suggestions, not loads and similar to some of mine last year. Looking forward to some discussion.
My Proposals
#1: Stat Gains
I'm not going to attempt to crusade against the development system as I may have liked during previous years, I have made a sort of peace with it I just have some suggestions on how to improve the current one with updated/new training types (as I did last year.
#1.1: Hill Stage Racer
The hilly stage racer training type could be one of two things. It could be based on classics (Cobbles to HI and HI to TT or something similar), as SN I think suggested last year if it happened, or a straight swap of MON-HIL from regular stage racer. This creates an interesting rider type to have around as well as an option in combo-training. However I can see an argument against this which I couldn't see last year, as these are niche races and this saturates it a bit.
#1.2: Classics Type Change
The option of a classics rider is very appealing to many but the training type isn't to me and others because of one thing in particular: the low ACC gains. The acceleration stat is key in both cobbled and hilly races and it just makes the classics type unfairly weak. I think with the absence here of MON/SPR as secondary stats for these riders it's only fair they have a good acceleration stat to make them competitive.
I really do believe, especially if we stay with PCM15 but even if we do upgrade, that this is vital for classics as ACC is such a crucial stat in both types of stages that these riders specialise in. I don't think it would overpower the category if we take down FTR generally and COB on top riders (more on that soon) - let's take a look at a level one Kasperkiewicz for example:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Kaspa
Prem
69
66
70
70
68
70
67
72
56
65
76
67
72
Pretty clearly a cobbler with skills in the hills, and I think that trek (or whoever got him) should get the choice of a slightly more hybrid rider vs a pure cobblist (still good uphill). He's obviously not the punchiest tool in the shed but I think the hybrid option deserves to be punchier than this:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Kaspa
Prem
76
66
75
70
75
75
70
80
56
66
84
70
72
For reference his cobbles training, which gives equal ACC:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Kaspa
Prem
76
66
73
70
76
77
70
81
63
66
77
68
72
I would want a slight decrease in COB gains for pot 6/7 (as he only has one difference) and fighter gains to return the increase in acceleration - that would make sense and make sure classics doesn't become the clear better option for any cobbler with good hill or acc at level 1 - if Kasperkiewicz had 70-73ACC with that first training, but only 79 vs 81HI, that gives food for thought. Since it is already weaker in backups in fact I think it may still be weaker than cobbles here, given the small difference in HIL. Plus the sprint upgrades So maybe the COB is fine. I don't know
To quote Football Manager: I really can't stress how important I believe this to be! 1 gain for pot 5-7 and none in general is ridiculous for a classics rider! Unless you expect every classic to be decided by a solo attack made from dotting (something I don't think the AI even does ) on a long climb or stretch of cobbles.
#1.3: Fighter Type Upgrade
I completely understand that the flat stat is the main stat for fighters. But the fact that they gain not much in SPR, COB and HIL is an injustice in my eyes. I know I talk about him a lot but a good example is my rider Novardianto when he was level 2:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Novardianto
Jamalidin
72
61
68
68
69
74
71
69
67
75
74
68
71
He currently has a great (expect FL is too high...) skillset for CT breaks with decent skills on different terrains and in a sprint. Currently the best way for him to be trained to become an alright P(C)T level barodeur is Track-SPR, to give him flat skills, a decent sprint, good flat and a nice acc. But the fact is he'll never be a good to great barodeur because the fighter type, which is absolutely what he needs, offers him no weapons in his arsenal. Every good fighter should either be multifaceted with low 70s stats in cob/hi/spr (as he is but at a CT level) or really good in one terrain - like a KoM hunter with mid 70s MON and high acc/ftr. Classics is not an option even with sacrificing sprint as it gives no acc (above). Currently track-spr (which he is being trained turns him into a good flat rider and domestique:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Novardianto
Jamalidin
76
61
68
68
70
78
74
69
73
79
74
68
75
Thanks to his current skillset but doesn't do him justice as an all-around baroudeur - he doesn't even get to have a high 70s fighter stat as he should for a good baroudeur. I get he isn't destined to be one of the best, given he is pot2, but surely (even sacrificing RES and SPR slightly) he deserves something like this:
Last
First
FLA
MON
HIL
TT
STA
RES
REC
COB
SPR
ACC
FTR
DH
PRL
Novardianto
Jamalidin
76
61
71
68
72
77
72
71
70
79
78
69
71
That is the fighter training for him, with two more points on hill, cobbles and sprint. I would give more but he's a pot 2 so any more could be making the category kinda OP and useful for leaders. With these stats he's not going to win anything in any level from the favourite's group but becomes a good barodeur without being one of the best - I doubt in anything but FLA, RES, and ACC he'd be the best in whichever breakaway he joined as this would (hopefully ) be in PCT or PT for his career, which hurts me but if I make him with the stats I want you'd laugh off every one of my suggestions
Obviously this change won't affect Jams at all as he only has one more gain after this would be implemented and it would be too late for his path if it does get implemented and so he'll be training track-SPR again.
So this is certainly not me being upset one of my riders isn't going to be as good as I want him to be.
I am not sure exactly what the upgrades here would look like - that'd be for the people making these to decide (but I think my wishes for classics were clear. But I think none of these are rocking the boat, and improve the system without being anywhere near overpowered.
#2: Training
Right now a lot of the stat inflation is caused by training. I'm not saying change training. I might be but I very much appreciate the effort guys put into planning years in advance and we shouldn't screw them over like this. However what I will say is that possibly too much training is going on - but less so in recent years, and even then it may be up to discussion.
The reason this can happen is because money flows upwards. This is not a new concept to MG or to real life. CT teams have one use for money: buying riders. Training is rare in CT because of the cost. So all the money from the CT (minus 1.2mio for salary) goes up to PCT or PT. Then it all pools to a few teams by the end of transfers, who make beasty riders even beastier and screw the DB up a bit more. Some create riders who are works of art, some create monsters. Some are both, some do both. It doesn't matter. These PCT or PT teams have ungodly amounts of money that they can spend on worthwhile training. They do that, riders get better, let's add youngsters who can beat them, youngsters becoming training eligible, rinse and repeat.
Like I said I appreciate why this has never changes: people have plans for years ahead which rely on the same systems and it's "unfair" to make training cost more, decrease overall money, or change up the system. But what we should be able to do is give options for CT teams (and PCT as well) to spend money elsewhere. I suggested last year and others have suggested training camps or other ways to buy XP, I'm not 100% sold but similar ways could be nice.
#2.1: Training Prices
This is the bigger one which would make training of minor stats, backups, CT riders or domestiques more accessible. I'd like to see higher top level prices (say 81+, not sure) and lower prices from the mid 70s (77 or 76) down. This makes it more interesting and accessible and allows for trainings of CT outsiders into leaders as PT managers can do, manager's favourites, local domestiques, backups, etc. Of course this would need to be discussed and the possibilities for loopholes/abuse explored. But I like it as a concept - the execution, possibly along the lines of Abhishek's proposal here, can be discussed and the theory tested.
#2.2: Training Age
Another training thing, as a still relative newbie can I ask: The point of needing a maxed year before training is to stop people training too young and becoming too good too fast right? Or is there another reason?
If there isn't, well then why is it still around for 27-28 year olds being maxed? Why isn't it an age thing. I propose we make it either they must be a certain age, or more likely that they must have a maxed year OR be, say, 27-28. To take my team as an example: Jordan Schleck, if I didn't screw up development, could have maxed at 23. He could have been trained starting at 24. He could have had SIX years of training. Not saying it's too many. But him playing by the rules of a late bloomer in Mekseb Debesay, who gets two years, seems weird. And yes I know it's not Debesay being added late that caused his short time training eligible in this case. On top of that, it wasn't my fault he got screwed developing
And you may say "jandal just wants to make Debesay 83COB the cheeky bastard" and yes, I do But my argument still applies - hell, make it just for newly added riders, or everyone except Xero for a year, so that Debesay can't do it if you feel I have an ulterior motive here
#3: Calendar
Not so annoyed this year as I was last year when I came out swinging about the CT calendar in this post. In fact, I love many of the introductions - IJsselmeer, Ronde van Nederland I would like to see some more variation - always nice, especially with cobbles and tough flat-hil classics (meaning HIL tough, not wind, though I do love the IJsselmeer introduction among others, we just already have wind). Especially if we go to PCM18.
We have classics for the cobblers, the cobblers but leaning towards the ones who don't mind (a.k.a. 66+) a hill, the TT cobblers and the sprinter-cobblers (to a degree, that one could be more used. I would like something fairly hilly with a yellow cobbles icon. Not the most pressing idea I know, but that kind of classic could be used. Maybe one with not as tough hills and one fairly tough - plenty of options for the former, and for the latter maybe one of SAA and Roma Maxima can be given a little upgrade to include the hills around the lakes to the South, or the Appeninnes to the east. I'd be a fan of modifying Leon40's Giro Stage 21 to be 2 laps of that stage for a classic - already made in absolutely gorgeous detail - Rome is stunning with the IBs <3
#4: PCM18
The great, probably controversial, unknown. Except it is known
I would like to see a test with Aquarius' DB in Avenir as he has suggested, and, if that goes well, maybe even the World Championships, as we could possibly look to making the switch for the huge AI gains among other things. It would be a big logistics thing but nothing this game hasn't done before.
Not stating we should do it, but I do want it to be discussed.
Honestly I couldn't care much about the direction of the MG since I think it's mostly fine. But I will obviously read all suggestions and comment if I see something interesting. Thanks for the thread Jandal
The only change I really want is a shorter calendar. Seasons feel terribly drawn out now and we get further and further behind real-life, which I find quite annoying.
Bring crashes back.
Have some sort of Domestic Bias bonus rather than just being an RP thing.
PCM18 >>> PCM15
Maybe instead of reducing calender, have some races be a quick-result one. Save big reports for big races, consider team goals qnd strength of field and all that. noone wants to write or wait for sprint stage in 8 stage tour or some shit race c2hc. just give me the result
I will take a deeper look into the suggestions, but I am in favor of bringing crashes back.
IMO this season is too static. I need some crashes to keep the GC fight unpredictable, open for some late KOM surges etc. I know how much it sucks to be on the losing end of things, but I really think we need to implement it once again, nontheless.
First of all, I'd like to mention a couple of changes which were made to the game this season, which were improvements in my mind. So just wanted to point those out here:
The introduction of the drafts for CT and Amateur teams was a very welcome addition (although I missed most of it being in a different time zone ). Please keep them next season too. The introduction of the Amateur teams in general was a good move (even if it was a necessary move with the number of teams decreasing)
The CT calendar is a little less predictable and repetitive compared to last season imo. Makes for interesting following.
Removing crashes has improved the enjoyment factor immensely. As it is, PCM is unpredictable, so it is a good improvement to remove one unpredictability factor.
Coming to my suggestions for next season...
Starting off with Vien's point about the length of the calendar, I'd have to agree that there are probably too many races at the moment. Reducing 2-3 races per race division (PT, PTHC, HC, etc etc) would be a good idea I think. Will also serve an added benefit of fuller startlists for most races.
I would support a move to PCM 18 too. From the limited testing that I've done on PCM 18 for my own Story game, I've not encountered any game breaking problems yet. The I in AI seems much more 'present', to put it bluntly. I will volunteer to test the MG DB in PCM 18, if more hands are required before a possible switch is discussed.
About the Calendar, I do believe the PCT and PT calendars need a re-look. While some of the newer additions are interesting in PCT, there are a lot of similar races in the division. Races like PostDanmark Rundt doesn't really offer attractive or aggressive racing, and could easily be removed without people missing it much. Most of my issues with PCT lies with the hilly profiles this time around, with them either being too docile or too dependent on TTs. The PT calendar could use some freshening up as well tbh. There is a serious need to bring in some variety. The cobbles don't always need to be 'red', while the mountains don't always need to be Everest. I see a lot of potential to introduce punchy sprints and punchy cobbled classics into both of those divisions. Also, please look at revamping or replacing De Panne as it's first stage is a major put-off, with breakaways nearly always getting the best of the peloton. A different cobbled stage race, ala Eneco or Le Triptique (or something else) could be looked at. A hilly-cobbled stage race like Eneco will be a good addition I believe. Also, I'd support a move to bring down the length of Tour of America to a 2 week stage race. I do believe more and stronger participation will come out of that. Spending 21 RDs your leader in a C1+ race is a little nerve-wracking.
I'm going to stick to what I said last year about the Team Budgets in each division. I believe the gap between wage budgets between divisions should be wider (currently it is 1.2, 2.5 and 3.6 mio for CT, PCT and PT iirc). The PCT is getting stronger every year and I don't think that's the right kind of progression for this game.
Jandal has already covered my thoughts from last year about Rider Training. I'll mostly stick with that. I'm not particularly fond of the Training Camps myself.
I'm strongly against any newer version of PCM because of the new MO/HI stats. Too many riders have extremely low MO stats which was ok before but now it would make them drop on the first slope. My team has 5 riders with a MO stat between 50 and 53, including team leaders Vanbilsen and Van Asbroeck.
I also favor bringing crashes back for the reasons SotD gives.
Calendar can become a bit smaller again yes, we seem to be low on reporters.
Ollfardh wrote:
I'm strongly against any newer version of PCM because of the new MO/HI stats. Too many riders have extremely low MO stats which was ok before but now it would make them drop on the first slope. My team has 5 riders with a MO stat between 50 and 53, including team leaders Vanbilsen and Van Asbroeck.
I also favor bringing crashes back for the reasons SotD gives.
Calendar can become a bit smaller again yes, we seem to be low on reporters.
and that's exactly why PCM18 should be the game to play. people complain about super teams, well new stat formulas will make it a lot harder to build superhuman riders.
Ollfardh wrote:
I'm strongly against any newer version of PCM because of the new MO/HI stats. Too many riders have extremely low MO stats which was ok before but now it would make them drop on the first slope. My team has 5 riders with a MO stat between 50 and 53, including team leaders Vanbilsen and Van Asbroeck.
I also favor bringing crashes back for the reasons SotD gives.
Calendar can become a bit smaller again yes, we seem to be low on reporters.
and that's exactly why PCM18 should be the game to play. people complain about super teams, well new stat formulas will make it a lot harder to build superhuman riders.
None of them are superhuman riders, they're all decent and I would even say balanced riders with one weakness that could be managed by race planning. By changing the system that weakness would become a fatal flaw.
I doubt the MG DB moving to PCM16+ will cause the MO/HI hysteria we’ve been promised for three years now. Like Abhi I’m happy to do testing to see if it is the case. If so a gentle increase in guys with 50MO wouldn’t hurt if they will become uncompetitive on stages with slight hills. Of course testing needs to be done as I would hope it was in the past with any major changes.
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant." [ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT] Xero Racing
I'd like to suggest training costs to be on different scales across the divisions. Cheepest training for CT, then PCT and keep the same scale for PT.
Having been thrown around between divisions in my time, I've noticed it's really hard to raise funds in the lower divisions for training. You are better off buying riders and that money filters up to the higher divisions.
If you make training costs more affordable that would do two things: 1. Stop money from coming to the top. 2. Improve the middle class of cyclists and create some more outside favourites instead of more super monsters in the top flight.
This also doesn't screw over anybody who has made long-term training plans.
I remember an idea I had in terms of CT training, cheaper costs for riders from same country as the team. Basically something to sweeten the deal if you wanna make a national team, cause otherwise training a Lithuanian for me would be a waste of money currently.
Im not saying Im absolutely against the MG moving to PCM 18, but the sometimes insane Daily Race Form (which would always be random for us iirc) might be too much imo. Sometimes a rider can get +12 in a single stat.
I also find AI to be worse in 18 for hilly stages. Its impossible for late attacks or anything to go clear. It almost always ends in a sprint at the end, which is very boring and predictable to me, and would also only favour certain riders, and not necessarily who is the strongest.
Also if crashes come back and we do move from 15 to 18, the crash ratio needs to be much lower. In PCM 15 I had my ratio at 1.2 and would see maybe one or two crashes a stage. At 1.1 on PCM 18, basically every rider falls twice a stage. That said, Im someone that hasn't missed crashes at all. I think its more fair, and in a "simulation" game, no one plans their season expecting their leader to crash out of their biggest objective of the year. In real life if they could remove all crashes, Im sure 99% of riders and managers would. Also if a rider crashes in real life out of the Tour for example, they can adjust their schedule and go to the Vuelta. In the MG if a rider crashes out on Stage 1, they lose 20 race days that they can never get back.
valverde321 wrote:
Im not saying Im absolutely against the MG moving to PCM 18, but the sometimes insane Daily Race Form (which would always be random for us iirc) might be too much imo. Sometimes a rider can get +12 in a single stat.
I also find AI to be worse in 18 for hilly stages. Its impossible for late attacks or anything to go clear. It almost always ends in a sprint at the end, which is very boring and predictable to me, and would also only favour certain riders, and not necessarily who is the strongest.
Also if crashes come back and we do move from 15 to 18, the crash ratio needs to be much lower. In PCM 15 I had my ratio at 1.2 and would see maybe one or two crashes a stage. At 1.1 on PCM 18, basically every rider falls twice a stage. That said, Im someone that hasn't missed crashes at all. I think its more fair, and in a "simulation" game, no one plans their season expecting their leader to crash out of their biggest objective of the year. In real life if they could remove all crashes, Im sure 99% of riders and managers would. Also if a rider crashes in real life out of the Tour for example, they can adjust their schedule and go to the Vuelta. In the MG if a rider crashes out on Stage 1, they lose 20 race days that they can never get back.
That's certainly not my experience with hilly stages. And in terms of race day condition, I think a little bit of variety in terms of winners should be welcome.
valverde321 wrote:
Im not saying Im absolutely against the MG moving to PCM 18, but the sometimes insane Daily Race Form (which would always be random for us iirc) might be too much imo. Sometimes a rider can get +12 in a single stat.
Which I still believe was the same before, just invisible. Now on newer PCM you can see it as feature.
Personally I would like the game to move to PCM18. I know that for some people this would not be ideal Main problem being Mo/hi situation however the better AI would be super nice. I am in favour of bringing crashes back with a monitored rate, can't say what a realistic one would be since I always play with 2.0 for the memes.
Personally I don't mind the daily race form thing.
Personally training differentiating would be super nice, a bunch of riders lose out on a lot of training because managers in PT pulls from the game or are forced to sell, would help the narratives way more too. I don't know how this should work, if balanced correctly the idea that Quasdas came up with might be cool to help some smaller nations out. (Potentially set up countries that can't get cheaper training) Could be decided on most scored points in each nation etc. amount of teams from each nation etc.
I would like to see hilly stage racer be a thing especially with the current calendar and the update to the classics rider would be nice too.
whitejersey wrote:
Personally I would like the game to move to PCM18. I know that for some people this would not be ideal Main problem being Mo/hi situation however the better AI would be super nice. I am in favour of bringing crashes back with a monitored rate, can't say what a realistic one would be since I always play with 2.0 for the memes.
Personally I don't mind the daily race form thing.
Personally training differentiating would be super nice, a bunch of riders lose out on a lot of training because managers in PT pulls from the game or are forced to sell, would help the narratives way more too. I don't know how this should work, if balanced correctly the idea that Quasdas came up with might be cool to help some smaller nations out. (Potentially set up countries that can't get cheaper training) Could be decided on most scored points in each nation etc. amount of teams from each nation etc.
I would like to see hilly stage racer be a thing especially with the current calendar and the update to the classics rider would be nice too.
if should be quite restrictive, maybe something along the lines of 50% of max roster has to be of your main nationality, that way even if someone is French or Italian or whatever, you would have to take on quite a few shit riders just to get a discount
valverde321 wrote:
Im not saying Im absolutely against the MG moving to PCM 18, but the sometimes insane Daily Race Form (which would always be random for us iirc) might be too much imo. Sometimes a rider can get +12 in a single stat.
I also find AI to be worse in 18 for hilly stages. Its impossible for late attacks or anything to go clear. It almost always ends in a sprint at the end, which is very boring and predictable to me, and would also only favour certain riders, and not necessarily who is the strongest.
Also if crashes come back and we do move from 15 to 18, the crash ratio needs to be much lower. In PCM 15 I had my ratio at 1.2 and would see maybe one or two crashes a stage. At 1.1 on PCM 18, basically every rider falls twice a stage. That said, Im someone that hasn't missed crashes at all. I think its more fair, and in a "simulation" game, no one plans their season expecting their leader to crash out of their biggest objective of the year. In real life if they could remove all crashes, Im sure 99% of riders and managers would. Also if a rider crashes in real life out of the Tour for example, they can adjust their schedule and go to the Vuelta. In the MG if a rider crashes out on Stage 1, they lose 20 race days that they can never get back.
That's certainly not my experience with hilly stages. And in terms of race day condition, I think a little bit of variety in terms of winners should be welcome.
Are you talking about Hilly stages in Grand Tours, or Hilly classics? Maybe thats why we disagree? Hilly classics almost never end in anything but a sprint. Hilly stages in Grand Tours are usually very good, and can have surprise/early breakaway winners or late attacks.
Strade Bianche, every hilly stage in PN, every stage in Itzulia Basque Country , all 3 Ardennes classics etc. finished in sprints for me, you can check it out in my story if you dont believe me, or check out either of Tamijo's stories as well.
valverde321 wrote:
Im not saying Im absolutely against the MG moving to PCM 18, but the sometimes insane Daily Race Form (which would always be random for us iirc) might be too much imo. Sometimes a rider can get +12 in a single stat.
I also find AI to be worse in 18 for hilly stages. Its impossible for late attacks or anything to go clear. It almost always ends in a sprint at the end, which is very boring and predictable to me, and would also only favour certain riders, and not necessarily who is the strongest.
Also if crashes come back and we do move from 15 to 18, the crash ratio needs to be much lower. In PCM 15 I had my ratio at 1.2 and would see maybe one or two crashes a stage. At 1.1 on PCM 18, basically every rider falls twice a stage. That said, Im someone that hasn't missed crashes at all. I think its more fair, and in a "simulation" game, no one plans their season expecting their leader to crash out of their biggest objective of the year. In real life if they could remove all crashes, Im sure 99% of riders and managers would. Also if a rider crashes in real life out of the Tour for example, they can adjust their schedule and go to the Vuelta. In the MG if a rider crashes out on Stage 1, they lose 20 race days that they can never get back.
That's certainly not my experience with hilly stages. And in terms of race day condition, I think a little bit of variety in terms of winners should be welcome.
Are you talking about Hilly stages in Grand Tours, or Hilly classics? Maybe thats why we disagree? Hilly classics almost never end in anything but a sprint. Hilly stages in Grand Tours are usually very good, and can have surprise/early breakaway winners or late attacks.
Strade Bianche, every hilly stage in PN, every stage in Itzulia Basque Country , all 3 Ardennes classics etc. finished in sprints for me, you can check it out in my story if you dont believe me, or check out either of Tamijo's stories as well.
Maybe that's why. Strade Bianche does end in bunch sprints, but I do wonder how much OP stats a lot of MG riders that would participate in it would affect the outcome. I play a lot more of CT racing than WT, and those classics tend to end up with a lot smaller groups, and a solo attack wins and such.
edit: to add to that, I did notice pro cyclist mode hilly classics tend to have 'better' results
Edited by quadsas on 27-03-2019 15:43
I just have some suggestions on how to improve the current one with updated/new training types (as I did last year.
