|
ICL - General Discussion | Velo d'Or
|
| Dippofix |
Posted on 08-10-2014 12:35
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3904
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
What are you accusing me of, The Rider?! I only gave Lavery 4 points! 
(Following The Riders patented technique of making random part of my post italic. )
Also, always nice to see Valverde doing well. 
|
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 08-10-2014 12:40
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Well deserved for Gilbert, maybe we get a nomination next year 
 I can do that too!
Edited by Ollfardh on 08-10-2014 12:41
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| The Rider |
Posted on 08-10-2014 20:31
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4543
Joined: 29-02-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dippofix wrote:
What are you accusing me of, The Rider?! I only gave Lavery 4 points!
I knew it!
But seriously if you were going to boycott the Velo d'Or like that you could have nominated Mohammed Mohammed!
- Bikex - A few thoughts if we are lacking teams ....
- You might want to reduce the WT by a few teams
- You could also insist all teams to have a few more riders on their rosters, increase the number of riders each team can send to a race by 1.
- You could also add some teams with riders not controlled by anyone, they would be useful for races if there are less than a dozen or so teams (similar to what you did for the NCs).
Once again great to see Gilbert get the Velo d'Or and the support. I had the Liberty Seguros duo as 1-2 there. |
| |
|
|
| Dippofix |
Posted on 08-10-2014 20:56
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3904
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
I did not boycott the Velo d'Or, he got my vote for the incredible heroics he must have pulled off at some point to make that list.
And Garneau would get my vote ahead of young Mo anyday, the old man rocks. 
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 11-10-2014 12:16
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
So, now I only need 4 more members willing to join, so I'm happy.  |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 11-10-2014 12:51
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Well you're getting another Weekly News mention (because f*ck all of note is happening at the moment ) for free! Might just get you those final spaces
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 11-10-2014 13:09
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Another question considering the riders development, I have two options and I want to know which one of these you'd prefer:
#1 Each rider of the same potential has the same chance to develop. So potential 7 riders will get their main stats into the 80s while in their career, potential 6 riders will get into 78+ and so on. There is no direct limitation of riders stats, usually riders won't develop until 85 as they won't get any more development points as soon as they cross a certain average.
The disadvantage of this system is that each potential 7 rider is considered as a future topclass rider, which will bring a huge inflation of high stats. By my tests, we would have the double of riders with a red average (79+) by 2020. And that's only through natural development I didn't count in research results or young riders getting into the db.
I already prepared files for this kind of development.
#2 Like in PCM riders will get a maximum they can reach in every stat. You will get to know by how much stars that stat has, how far away the maximum still is. This will have as a consequence that not every pot 7 rider will develop in a contender for the biggest races. This means that you might will have randomly bad luck, as your riders won't progress as far as you hoped they would. But the plus side is that in future dbs the stats will be distirbuted similar over the riders as they are now. If you think this is the better variant, I still have to find a way to do this the best. But by thinking of it, I think this could be the better way, but I'm not sure and want your oppinions.
Edit: Nice to get another time on the Weekly News that might will get me the last signups needed.
Edited by Bikex on 11-10-2014 13:13
|
| |
|
|
| The Rider |
Posted on 11-10-2014 13:22
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4543
Joined: 29-02-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Option 2 for sure.
If we didn't have the research packs I would consider option 1.
Bikex wrote:
This means that you might have randomly bad luck, as your riders won't progress as far as you hoped they would.
I like this point. No one should know, at the moment, what the max stats of their riders are/will be. |
| |
|
|
| Cyclotron |
Posted on 11-10-2014 15:42
|
Under 23
Posts: 97
Joined: 11-04-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
I also prefer option 2. Is it even necessary to publish how far away the maximum is? It could get more interesting and realistic if nobody knows how the riders develop.
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 11-10-2014 19:29
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
I prefer the first option.
I always disliked in PCM that you cannot change the specialisation of a rider. If he starts as a time triallist then he will always be best in TTs. With option 2 that would not change.
There are talents around that can become great in a couple of terrains and imo you should have the freedom to decide in which direction they develop.
E.g. you have a pot.7 talent with 72MO,72HI, 69TT.
With option 1 you can make him a Froome-like stage races, a Purito-like Climber or a Gerrans-like puncheur.
With option 2 you don't have the choice but can only train him into one kind of rider that is fixed with the maximum stats.
That's why option 1 is a must for me!
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 01:19
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| jaxika |
Posted on 11-10-2014 20:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3148
Joined: 16-07-2008
PCM$: 9200.00
|
Option1, with miles |
| |
|
|
| Silvio Herklotz |
Posted on 11-10-2014 21:44
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26-02-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
@knockout: I thought we had no chance at all to specialize our riders other than through research. You can't choose which stats will increase in either way? Is that right bikex?
If I got this right, then I'm supporting option 2 for obvious reasons.
|
| |
|
|
| SSJ2Luigi |
Posted on 11-10-2014 21:48
|
World Champion
Posts: 11971
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
both options seem difficult, I'll stay neutral
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 11-10-2014 22:01
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Silvio Herklotz wrote:
@knockout: I thought we had no chance at all to specialize our riders other than through research. You can't choose which stats will increase in either way? Is that right bikex?
If I got this right, then I'm supporting option 2 for obvious reasons.
https://pcmdaily.c...ost_893688 :
Bikex wrote:
Riders Development
At the end of the season each rider will be have a certain number of points assigned. How much depends on their age, their current average, their number of race days and their PR ranking points. The manager of the rider can then assign a training plan out of a list deciding in which ratio the points will be added to the different stats.
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 11-10-2014 22:36
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I guess that's in much the same way the MG works. You can assign any plan but you can be "wrong".
Take Ewan for example. Use a sprint plan and he will be a world beater. But you are free to train him as a climber, but he will at best be an average helper.
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 12-10-2014 12:40
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Okay I see that option 2 is preferred over option 1, but knockout does have some valid points.
What about a way that combines those two options, so there is a maximum you can get in all stats combined. That would prevent stats from going through the roof and managers would still be able to specialize riders the way they want. |
| |
|
|
| Silvio Herklotz |
Posted on 14-10-2014 18:51
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26-02-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Bikex wrote:
Okay I see that option 2 is preferred over option 1, but knockout does have some valid points.
What about a way that combines those two options, so there is a maximum you can get in all stats combined. That would prevent stats from going through the roof and managers would still be able to specialize riders the way they want.
Sounds pretty good to me
|
| |
|
|
| Paul23 |
Posted on 14-10-2014 19:36
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4411
Joined: 10-08-2011
PCM$: 400.00
|
Bikex wrote:
Okay I see that option 2 is preferred over option 1, but knockout does have some valid points.
What about a way that combines those two options, so there is a maximum you can get in all stats combined. That would prevent stats from going through the roof and managers would still be able to specialize riders the way they want.
I see 2 for Option 1, 2 for Option 2 and Luigi for none/both of them...
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 14-10-2014 21:32
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Paul23 wrote:
Bikex wrote:
Okay I see that option 2 is preferred over option 1, but knockout does have some valid points.
What about a way that combines those two options, so there is a maximum you can get in all stats combined. That would prevent stats from going through the roof and managers would still be able to specialize riders the way they want.
I see 2 for Option 1, 2 for Option 2 and Luigi for none/both of them...
Yeah that's right, I counted TMM as being for option 2.
But anyways I think the system I'm developing now is good. I don't have that much time at the moment so I think it will be done at the weekend, I hope that we'll have two more teams in by then and after the riders development we can finally start into the transfer season. |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
