|
Suggestions for 2024
|
| knockout |
Posted on 02-09-2023 01:09
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Between the Updated DB thread and the Skype chat, i think we should open this thread already.
I'm gonna start with a minor thing i havent seen mentioned anywhere:
Stage Pics with KoMs in Race Profile forum
I don't know if its (much) extra work in which case it might not be worth the effort but it would be cool to have KoMs visible in the profile pictures in the Race Profile forum.
Why? Not knowing which climbs are categorized (or which category they are) makes planning harder when you want to send a squad focussed on breakaways to a race. Guessing whether e.g. a puncheur or a climber will wear the KoM jersey is so much harder.
Example:
I would not expect that this profile has two categorized climbs on every stage which makes sending possible attackers much more interesting than if none of the stages would have KoM points on offer like in some other flat stage races.
|
| |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 02-09-2023 01:14
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2904
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
I assume that it adds a lot more work to since you'd have to go in and sim the stages to get the KoMs etc visible, probably doubles the time it would take, would be my guess at least.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 21-11-2024 15:27
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 02-09-2023 01:35
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2904
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Reconsideration of maxing sprinters' renewals demands
Throwing this one out here because it feels like most sprinters have obscene demands when they max out compared to other rider types. Unsure if there is a way to balance it but from what I have seen it feels like sprinters maxing out are a bit on the higher end.
Reconsideration of TT's impact on OVL when combined with MO/Hill
Obviously I do not have any top tier TTers in my team which some people might hold against this argument, but I currently believe that we have a few specific outlier riders in terms of OVL, and thus wage, that currently earn way too little compared to the wage that they cost their teams. This being stage racers with high TT and decent mountain and hills. Looking at the HC/C1 calendar these riders are super well utilized across a variety of races where they have the ability to score well in traditional stage races and stage races that are designed for TTers, think the likes of Arab Tour and Tour of Norway, on top of being key pieces in TTT trains. I do not think a rider like Meurisse should have a higher ovl than the likes of Kämna, Conci and Powless when they all outscored him last year while being on 70k less wages post renewals. Before people say I did a shit job at renewing Meurisse, turst me he didn't accept my r1 offer. I know that to a certain extent Meurisse is an outlier due to his combination of hill, mo and acc and I could probably find other examples. Again this is nothing personal against those riders or managers who have valuable assets I just think that with the way the calendar benefits this rider type compared to lets say cobblers(Who has a lot more classics, which adds a lot of value scoring wise as well), there is something to be looked at but it is a complex issue. Because how do we hit the Dunbars, Kämnas and Concis of the world without hitting the one dimensional TTers?
Reconsideration of the cobbles development path
A different way to tackle this problem could be to look at the development path for cobbles. Older PCMs were dominated by high ACC which still leaves a mark om specific development paths. The cobbles development path still leaves a lot to be desired. Currently due to the lack of ACC and FL we see a lot of riders that could be developed down the cobbles path turn to the sprinting path instead because it's just higher value no matter what. I am not saying we should take the FTR path and remove TT, MO etc. from that but I do think there is a happy medium that could allow us to create cobblers that have a good punch and could be used as options for flat classics and not make them feel useless outside of the 22 race days they have per season where they actually do something.
Edited by whitejersey on 02-09-2023 14:22
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 02-09-2023 02:34
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
whitejersey wrote:
I assume that it adds a lot more work to since you'd have to go in and sim the stages to get the KoMs etc visible, probably doubles the time it would take, would be my guess at least.
Correct. that is why we don't do it. It isn't that much more time for 1 race but across 100 races it is quite a lot of time.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 02-09-2023 02:45
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
whitejersey wrote:
Reconsideration of maxing sprinters' renewals demands
Obviously I do not have any top tier TTers in my team which some people might hold against this argument, but I currently believe that we have a few specific outlier riders in terms of OVL, and thus wage, that currently earn way too little compared to the wage that they cost their teams. This being stage racers with high TT and decent mountain and hills. Looking at the HC/C1 calendar these riders are super well utilized across a variety of races where they have the ability to score well in traditional stage races and stage races that are designed for TTers, think the likes of Arab Tour and Tour of Norway, on top of being key pieces in TTT trains. I do not think a rider like Meurisse should have a higher ovl than the likes of Kämna, Conci and Powless when they all outscored him last year while being on 70k less wages post renewals. Before people say I did a shit job at renewing Meurisse, turst me he didn't accept my r1 offer. I know that to a certain extent Meurisse is an outlier due to his combination of hill, mo and acc and I could probably find other examples. Again this is nothing personal against those riders or managers who have valuable assets I just think that with the way the calendar benefits this rider type compared to lets say cobblers(Who has a lot more classics, which adds a lot of value scoring wise as well), there is something to be looked at but it is a complex issue. Because how do we hit the Dunbars, Kämnas and Concis of the world without hitting the one dimensional TTers?
Definitely agree with this. And while it benefits me I think a good example is Stannard vs McNulty. Despite the fact that McNulty is an 80/74 MT/HI while Stannard is two points lower at 73/79 and McNulty has 4 more stat points across the 3 energy stats, Stannard is almost a full point higher in OVL. Which I assume is because of his 78/68 ACC advantage. Just not sure the game justifies that at the moment.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 02-09-2023 20:19
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4667
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
I agree that the impact of some secondary stats might be a tad high... Acc definitely is a candidate - Pidcock might be a good example for this: his highest main stat is 75 (Hi), but his OVL is 78!!! If his Acc was 73 (same as sprint), he'd have an OVL of 76 - for me, it feels weird that there's such a huge difference. As UU says, the more recent game versions probably don't justify this anymore. Good Acc definitely can be an advantage, but does it make 2 OVL points (which means roughly 200k of wage at this level, and more importantly, more than 10 RDs) of a difference?
It also looks that this Acc thing is quite skewed towards puncheurs - as just reversing e.g. Schmid's Mo/Hi (74/77 -> 77/74) sees him lose almost one full OVL point... Is Acc so much more important for puncheurs? (Serious question - I think it matters a little more, but I have no clue how much)
Another candidate is Res. It might have some impact, indeed, but I don't feel like it's really something important. Not as long as sub-70 Res sprinters win bunch sprints, or as long as dudes like Alarcon can keep up with similar climbers on a final climb... OK, in the OVL formula it seems to matter pretty much just for climbers anyway, as e.g. decreasing Bol's Res (77) to 70 changes OVL by something like 0.1, whereas if I set Stüssi's Res from 73 to 77, it's + 0.4 OVL. For TTers it has roughly the same effect I think. But once again, I found it to be most remarkable for Schmid, where going from 74->75 changes his OVL by 0.5 (whereas other increases don't have this effect).
Well, I'm sure that it's impossible to get a formula that fits every rider, so I guess the only thing I can do is adapting development paths to the OVL formula - which might turn out to be completely different in the future. So, focusing on the final stats I like still looks to be the best way, although it might cost a lot depending on the OVL formula, both in terms of wages and RDs... I mean, Pidcock now almost has the OVL of a PCT-level leader, but in reality he's just a rider you want to throw into every race because he's incredibly useful - but will his scoring justify that OVL?
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 06-09-2023 13:39
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I know we can get a transfer sheet check but really wish we could get an xp gain check on our season planning.
I've always had a lot more issues with that than I have with balancing my transfer sheet, and it's only got worse since we changed the xp values last season.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 06-09-2023 13:51
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
I know we can get a transfer sheet check but really wish we could get an xp gain check on our season planning.
I've always had a lot more issues with that than I have with balancing my transfer sheet, and it's only got worse since we changed the xp values last season.
Actually I give every manager a xp check for couple seasons already now. 
Just either have to ask or upload your planner at one point so that I can check it and give you feedback/time to fix things. |
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 06-09-2023 14:03
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
roturn wrote:
sammyt93 wrote:
I know we can get a transfer sheet check but really wish we could get an xp gain check on our season planning.
I've always had a lot more issues with that than I have with balancing my transfer sheet, and it's only got worse since we changed the xp values last season.
Actually I give every manager a xp check for couple seasons already now.
Just either have to ask or upload your planner at one point so that I can check it and give you feedback/time to fix things.
Oh, Wish I knew that last year lol, would it be possible to get a check on mine, I know Chen is missing max but not sure what xp I got the others needing level ups to.
Then if I need to fix anything I can do it after work.
|
| |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 06-09-2023 14:06
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4667
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
I can definitely see sammy's point here. We don't have instant feedback, so if we do a rider's planning, we have to do the calculations to see where we get. I do have a very simple sheet for this, but still need to add up the RDs per category myself.
I suppose that you do have the logic to calculate it, so it shouldn't be too hard to include those formulas in the planner to show the XP level a rider ends up with.
I have done XP checks for several managers now (without seeing any full planners, don't worry), and although I like helping out, it would still be easier for everyone if the expected XP level would be instantly visible.
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 06-09-2023 14:51
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
It’s not like you have half an hour to do planning as a manager Take the time, check the numbers, and run some calculations. It’s not that time consuming.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 06-09-2023 15:18
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
It’s not like you have half an hour to do planning as a manager Take the time, check the numbers, and run some calculations. It’s not that time consuming.
Same argument you could make for RD's and Clashes, and yet those are both provided to all managers. [Could make, not saying they are the same]
I definitely fell afoul of some bad maths regarding XP this year, and honestly I can't really see where my own adding up went quite so awry.
I would advocate to continue with some level of XP feedback, because if we went 10 months down the line and I got those stat gains back... i'd be disheartened/demotivated to a high level through something I thought i had done accurately.
[Not so much in favour of adding it as a calculation in the planner sheet, but more as a reward of "Hey, you got your planner done and in early, so as a courtesy here's a check for you because there's time to fix it ahead of the deadline"]
__________________
On some of the other points as i'm here
Cobbles Dev Path - Yes, it would be good to have a look at not just Cobbles but the all the dev paths. The game has changed a fair bit over the years in how stats work, interact and are important. So a basic refresh of the paths periodically would be nice (i'm sure those that have collected stat gains in the last 2-3 years could spot which paths are used a lot, which are ignored, as a starting point)
OVL Calculations & Wages [TT w. MO/HL & Sprinters & Pidcocks] - I'll keep advocating for Points to play a larger role in Renewals. OVL will always be really hard to get right, but it gives us a workable baseline. Specific cases, a la Pidcock/Kamna/Mcnulty/Stanndard/whoever, you can never fix with OVL changes, because we'll just shuffle the problem to a different rider/sbuset of riders. But if a +2 gain on a stat does matter and reflect into results, you can cover that in Renewals by making points matter more to demands!
Doesn't help with RD losses, but in a salary cap system we should always be looking first to balance things via Wages. At least if you have less RD and score less, the wage drops allowing you to recruit/train elsewhere, and if you have more RD and score more you are squeezed a bit to compensate.
[And of course the combo OVL & Points to Wage system prevents intentional tanking as the OVL will still keep the Wage to a certain level]
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 06-09-2023 18:22
|
World Champion
Posts: 12186
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Must admit that the XP gains is more annoying than an enjoyable contribution to the game for me. There’s plenty of MG related stuff I would rather do, so if it’s easy to implement into the planner I really don’t see the reason not to. It’s not like I find joy in other people missing a year of development.
|
| |
|
|
| MacC |
Posted on 06-09-2023 19:22
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1594
Joined: 15-07-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
Is it possible to show total elevation for each stage like you can see in the game ?
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 07-09-2023 08:03
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
@ xp gains: I actually do a lot of checks before adding the planners to the startlists. So xp misses are usually mentioned to all managers. In the end if it`s possible to add this to the planner file, it might be better as it costs me less work as well in the end and everyone would be responsible again to nominate for Avenir as also check and try etc.
So will try to check the possibilities there. Right now nobody really missing out on a year of development anyway due to my feedbacks and changes.
@ elevation: Surely would be possible I guess if the game shows it. But it`s a lot of extra work checking every single stage. So not sure it`s really a good thing to add for those that work on stuff in the offseason.
@ devpaths: Will need to read and check closer later on.
@ OVL: Same. Likely a bit of a change is needed. But need to find time for a closer read/check. |
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 07-09-2023 08:44
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
If we are changing dev paths, I think the new paths should only be applied to riders added the year we do the changes. It would really suck to sign a talent, plan a development path for him and then a couple of years later find out he's not going to have the stats you thought he would.
As for some transfer season rules idea:
- adverts of riders you don't officially own yet should not be allowed.
- to avoid adding trojan horses in some deals ("weaker" riders that are then withdrew from the deal due to a better offer when they were clearly not the main subject of the initial deal. See the La Luna case this year) I would propose that in multiple riders deals, if Team A removes a rider from the deal, the deal isn't automatically voided, but only if Team B doesn't agree with the new terms of the deal. More specifically, this year, Manada Coyote should have had the option to let the Ahlstrand deal go ahead with them just receiving the 2M instead of 2M + De Luna.
Edited by alexkr00 on 07-09-2023 09:00
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 07-09-2023 09:10
|
World Champion
Posts: 12186
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I definately agree with alex here.
|
| |
|
|
| MacC |
Posted on 07-09-2023 09:56
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1594
Joined: 15-07-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
@ elevation: Surely would be possible I guess if the game shows it. But it`s a lot of extra work checking every single stage. So not sure it`s really a good thing to add for those that work on stuff in the offseason.
@.
Yeah, don't want to suggest extra work, thought it might be an automatic thing after a stage is created
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 07-09-2023 10:05
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
If we are changing dev paths, I think the new paths should only be applied to riders added the year we do the changes. It would really suck to sign a talent, plan a development path for him and then a couple of years later find out he's not going to have the stats you thought he would.
I think would create a very awkward level of checking to split out two separate stat gains systems for at minimum three years, but more likely 4-5+.
Any changes to Development paths, should in theory, only benefit you as a manager. With the paths becoming more relevant and more suited to the current state of PCM & the MG (there was no split when previous changes were made).
It will suck a bit if one or two paths get toned down, but as there feels like some general understanding one or paths are OP in reality, then it's a necessary pain to improve the game as a whole.
As for some transfer season rules idea:
- adverts of riders you don't officially own yet should not be allowed.
- to avoid adding trojan horses in some deals ("weaker" riders that are then withdrew from the deal due to a better offer when they were clearly not the main subject of the initial deal. See the La Luna case this year) I would propose that in multiple riders deals, if Team A removes a rider from the deal, the deal isn't automatically voided, but only if Team B doesn't agree with the new terms of the deal. More specifically, this year, Manada Coyote should have had the option to let the Ahlstrand deal go ahead with them just receiving the 2M instead of 2M + De Luna.
Adverts of riders you don't own, could be covered under General Rule 9 currently [Rule about pointing out/encouraging managers to pursue riders you don't own]. "You cannot advertise/pm for transfer any rider you have not signed" would do as a new rule to cover it off, with emphasis on 'for transfer' to allow managers to set-up Loans for talents ahead of time.
For the withdrawal part I see an easy fix as: Trades Between Teams Rule 8 "If TEAM A decides to accept a higher offer, then a new confirmation post must be made - containing the details of the new deal. If other riders become involved in a new deal, then a new thread must be made. Make sure to post a link to the new thread in the old thread to ensure the initial one is not mistakenly confirmed.
Adding that Team A marker would prevent a repeat. Allows both managers to renegotiate in case of a rider being withdrawn from a swap and compensating with a higher cash value.
Rule 6 "It is not possible to withdraw from a deal, once it has been made." could reasonably be argued to prevent anything like this DW/Ivan case occurring, but it is somewhat contradicted by Rule 7. So i'd update Rule 7 as well "During the 24 hour countdown, any team can still make better offers for any of TEAM A's riders involved."
Again this protects Team A and restricts changes to deals purely to overbids.
Finally i'd then update Rule 2: "If this is a rider swap deal involving riders from both teams then the manager of the highest OVL/Wage rider must open the thread. For a rider sale deal, only the person who currently owns the rider may open the thread."
This then wouldn't allow, for example Ivan, to open that thread and then back off. Provides greater protection to the manager with the most to lose.
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 07-09-2023 10:36
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
I don't think it should matter who opens the thread in a multiple riders deal. I used Team A and B in my example just to make it easier to differentiate between the two teams and not who opens the thread and who confirms it. Both teams should oblige to this new rule equally.
My idea was that if a rider is withdraw from the deal "automatically" goes ahead with a new 24h deadline with the other parts of deal remaining as they are unless the team no longer receiving the rider doesn't want to. Of course, further negotiations between the teams should be allowed.
Bottom line is, someone removes a rider from a deal, it's up to the other manager to chose what happens next:
- the deal goes through with all the other terms except for the removed rider. New 24h deadline starts
- the deal is voided. Further negotiations can be made in this scenario, but this would result in a new deal independent from the initial one, which means the initial deal is still voided.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
