|
[CT] Questions
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 06-12-2025 06:44
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 15-12-2014 06:55
|
World Champion
Posts: 12631
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Well if Spilak can go from 82 to 85 MO, then I guess others can do so aswell... I assume that Velits will be 85 next season, and I guess it's a matter of time before some of the 83-84 MO riders is also 85MO.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 15-12-2014 07:07
|
World Champion
Posts: 13662
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Maybe, i still dont know where team can assemble like 5-6 millions, but that is just point of view of PCT manager, that has problems to have like 100k free.
I see transfer budget cut or training cap as the viable options, but mabe only for PT, as budgets for PCT are already low (at least for my team that miss all the goals regulary). 
|
| |
|
|
| valverde321 |
Posted on 15-12-2014 07:27
|
World Champion
Posts: 12429
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 530.00
|
I dont like the idea of a MGUCI taking a cut of all transfers. That would just complicate things, and could increase the chances of teams making miscalculations.
Lowering the budgets of teams in general does essentially the same thing.
Also agree with Avin, only lower budgets for PT
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 15-12-2014 09:17
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22043
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
valverde321 wrote:
I dont like the idea of a MGUCI taking a cut of all transfers. That would just complicate things, and could increase the chances of teams making miscalculations.
Lowering the budgets of teams in general does essentially the same thing.
Also agree with Avin, only lower budgets for PT
If there is an automatic coloumn in the transfer sheet, then it`s nothing hard.
It would be the same as before, that you have to keep your file up to date all the time and with every bid you need to update it again.
This is one rule of the transfer season. |
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 15-12-2014 12:20
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4279
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Personally I don't think there should be any big restrictions on training at all, as it is the only path how you can improve your team outside of transfers and the only way how you can spend your money. In my opinon it would be better to expand the idea of training. The only big restriction I see is the 85 limit in stats. Maybe an automatic -1 in main attributes (FL, MO, HIL, SP, TT) between seasons for all riders/only maxed out riders should be applied, as it would bring in a possibility how to improve the best riders in the game every season. Or a rule - once a rider in Man-Game gets 85 in a main stat, every rider gets -2 in that category for the next season. It would be way harder to keep a dominating rider for a decade after then, as there would be a need to invest into him to keep him with the best, as it should be way cheaper how to catch up with that dominating rider after that.
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 17-12-2014 17:10
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6386
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I am also with Roman overall by the way on the issue of training that I don't think creating artificial 'UCI money' is the nicest solution.
I mentioned it in the reporters thread and I will mention again here.
My suggestion is that almost all training should be done before transfers, in fact I would go further and argue they should go before renewels at the end of goal setting. With a one stat spend your loot training stat increase at the end of transfers.
This way achieving your goals is rewarded with more chance to improve your team - rather than more cash for transfers. This gives money a chance to exit the system before the madness of transfers also.
The concern with training is that people are using transfer fees to perhaps somewhat greedily snatch enormous transfer fees (hey I did it too!) to give themselves huge training budgets and hence making very large jumps on selected riders, there is a feeling that this makes the game unbalanced in some way, I do think with some of the increased riders their wage is somewhat lower than it should be such as Velits for example.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 17-12-2014 17:31
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3802
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I don't think it's a problem outside of the PT, somehow they manage to accrue massive fees for training their riders, and if the problem is only with training the top riders maybe it's the training fees that need to be changed, at least at the top end.
Or maybe saying riders over a certain average or whose primary stat reaches a certain point can only be trained X amount each season, that way you can still train them up over a few seasons but it's more gradual and if they do get that much for training still then they have to spread it out over more riders in their team rather than making one super rider.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 17-12-2014 17:52
|
World Champion
Posts: 12631
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
But for the likes of Velits, his wage will probably increase a lot after this season, so eventhough it doesn't necessarily balance, it does keep flowing, as you can't just keep two superstars forever - Well you can, but you will be fucked in all the other races. A team like Santander is a good example of this. They are struggleing a lot to even survive, and while I know they could have stayed clear with better planning, they would never be in the top 5, despite probably having two of the best GC riders available, and significant help.
And if you train your riders before the season you might end up blocking your own chances, and you definately should se less trades between teams, making the off season more static, which I don't like...
I do like that we seem to think reactively on the matter as it could be better, but I don't think it needs a total remake. It could be something as simple as max 3mio worth of training pr. rider pr. season. That would probably have meant that Spilak would have been 82MO/82HI instead and that again would leave some money for training riders such as Guerao or Tim Dees.
By making the limit 3mio pr. rider it will take minimum 3 season to go from 81MO to 85. You could go from 81 to 83 for 3mio, but then the final notch would be expensive in terms of the time... It would mean that a lot of subtop riders got a bit closer to the top riders, instead of the top riders becoming superior I think, as most people would dislike spending 3-4 seasons making their very best rider competitive against the top GT riders...
If I put in some examples of riders that could be fairly quickly trained good now:
Rein Taaramae - Train him +3MO, and he would be the best GT rider
Taylor Phinney - Likewise.
Yuri Trofimov - Is already one of the finest hilly riders, with +2HI he would be unbeatable.
Robert Gesink - +3HI and he would be almost impossible to beat.
Simon Spilak - Likewise, although it probably takes +4.
Jerome Coppel - +2TT makes him invulnerable
Jacob Fiedler - Likewise
Danny Summerhill - +3COB and he would be the very best cobbler. And many of the best are old.
Jerome Baugnies - Could also be amongst the very best with +3COB
Ruben Zepunkte - In another seasons time he could be made the very best.
John Degenkolb - Could be the very best sprinter in the game by +3SPR
Jacopo Guarnieri - Likewise.
With the 3mio limit it would take 3 seasons for most of these riders to be that good, and not just one season. I know it's expensive, but I know it can happen. I have spent A LOT on riders such as Guerao and Spilak. And to be honest I think I would have spend 3mio on a rider such as Tim Dees if I wasn't alowed to spend freely on Spilak. That would not have made Tim Dees good, but it would have made him pretty decent, and perhaps something I could develop over time, as he is rather young.
He would have been 78MO for 2,6mio and then I could have made him 73HI for the last 350-400k. That would have been a half decent rider with 78MO and 76TT. But whilst the money is free to use, it makes much better sense to spend it all on your best rider to make him score a significant amount of points, rather than to make a mediocre rider into a very decent one.
|
| |
|
|
| Heine |
Posted on 18-12-2014 09:39
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4465
Joined: 08-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Would be great if poeple could come up with alternative solutions for getting money out of the game. One of the reasons for all the training is that it is the only way money leaves the game (hence the tax suggestion)
I think someone once suggested purchasing extra race days? Might be hard to balance
Could maybe also be possible to lower the number of free agents signings that existing managers could do but make it possible to purchase extra (say for 200k you are allowed to make 1 extra active bid, could see someone go for this if they see a strong talent go cheap and they are out of active bids).
I also personally like the idea of inceasing the price of the 83-84 and 84-85 trainings a lot. The downside is that the currently supertrained riders will be the best for quite some seasons, but eventually they will be weaker.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 18-12-2014 10:09
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 17833
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Money needs more uses and more ways to exit the game. Currently the systems are too circular and the money just moves around and around until huge sums exit in one move. Now money can leave via: Free Agency, Training, Wild Cards, Fines.
Fines are too rare to really be counted especially as they are just punishment. Wild Cards are pretty cheap but they should be to allow PCT teams to ride WT races without too much punishment. This leaves the Free Agency and Training. Just 2 exits for money.
CT teams will mostly be in Free Agency and PCT teams will also get rid of a lot of money through Free Agency. The PT teams are a lot less likely to spend money in FA, or at least a much smaller percentage. So the CT teams money has exited, a good proportion of the PCT teams money has exited, but the PT teams money hasn't.
Add to this who transfers seem to play out. In that money moves around PT teams as they sell and buy riders. Money moves upwards in the PCT to PT as they buy and sell riders. Money moves upwards in the CT to PT/PCT as they buy and sell riders. The increased budgets of PT teams enable them to do more transfers than CT teams for example. Basically what i'm saying is that money moves upwards and circulates until a few teams have huge reserves of cash. Those reserves then get dumped into a few riders via trainings.
Is that a bad thing? No, it's a great way to boost riders and your team if you have money left over. But the problem i see is that only those top-end teams will ever have the money to make those changes. Just because you're a lower PCT or CT team shouldn't exclude you from training your leaders, it's just very hard to get enough money together. That said this offseason will be different with a large proportion of CT teams continuing which will change quite a few dynanmics at the bottom end.
But back to the subject of money. The game needs more exits for money. Two is just not enough. I know an idea was to "tax" every free agency buy and transfer. I think a "tax" on transfers is an excellent idea. A percentage goes to the UCI. Not sure what amount but some. Add a new line to the transfer sheet that calculates this and it's easy to factor in. Now there's a thrid exit which has an added effect of placing a slight restriction on trainings just by nature of there now being less money.
There just needs to be a another one or two ways for money to leave the system that equally effects everyone and keeps the game balanced. Easy
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 18-12-2014 10:17
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5568
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
You say tax free agency buys. Does that not mean CT and PCT teams will have even less money? Of a Tax is introduced it should apply for all types of transfer, not just free agent. New CT teams struggle as it is to put a decently good team together so taxing them makes it even harder.
I do however understand that there are not many ways to take money out of the PT. Just an idea, not a great one but still, teams could pay a substantial amount to reduce decline of their older riders up to a certain age (35?).
But whatever the Man Game UCI decides all CT teams will go along with it.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 18-12-2014 10:31
|
World Champion
Posts: 13662
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
I would say that excessive amounts of training money are really issue only in PT, as i dont remember anything crazy in PCT in terms of training, bar Van Beasten training, but that is manager coming down from PT...
|
| |
|
|
| Heine |
Posted on 18-12-2014 10:57
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4465
Joined: 08-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
You say tax free agency buys. Does that not mean CT and PCT teams will have even less money? Of a Tax is introduced it should apply for all types of transfer, not just free agent. New CT teams struggle as it is to put a decently good team together so taxing them makes it even harder.
I do however understand that there are not many ways to take money out of the PT. Just an idea, not a great one but still, teams could pay a substantial amount to reduce decline of their older riders up to a certain age (35?).
But whatever the Man Game UCI decides all CT teams will go along with it.
I think the best idea for tax is on transfers. For transfers with money involved it should be a percentage, for transfers with only riders swapping a fixed fee (maybe based on the avg of the riders involved).
Another way I think have been suggested is a renewal-fee
|
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 18-12-2014 14:24
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2797
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think renewal fees would work quite well. Here's why:
The excess money we are talking about comes from the rather large difference between the sum of all team budgets and the sum of all wage caps. Nearly all of this pile of money eventually ends up in training, so we might as well call it the 'Yearly Training Budget' (YTB).
We want to greatly reduce the YTB, but if we do it by simply giving the teams less money on top of their wage cap, we might create a problem with the transfer market. Not because the market needs a yearly influx of money at all; as long as the teams have trade-able assets, there is a market. But to get the market properly rolling, at least some of the teams need to have a big enough part of their assets in liquid form. And in the current setup the YTB is our only liquid asset; the rest is all riders. We don't want a situation where we can only do moneyless rider swaps.
Having the teams pay a fee to renew their riders also effectively reduces the YTB. And it adds a nice strategic choice to the game. In the current situation you'd only release a rider if his wage demands got out of control. But now releasing a few of your big names would mean that you have way more money to spend on transfers than other managers, allowing you to have a good time rebuilding your squad. And here's the crux: managers going for this option also function as kick-starters for the transfer market.
Edited by roturn on 18-12-2014 14:28
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 18-12-2014 14:52
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8235
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 500.00
|
As said before, the problem are the PT budgets. The idea of renewal fees could work well. If you make them progressive in dependence to the wages of a rider then this would hit PT teams harder then the rest which should be the goal of any solution.
An example:
for all riders under 100,000 wage: 2% fee
for all riders under 250,000 wage: 5% fee
for all riders under 750,000 wage: 10% fee
for all riders over 750,000 wage: 15% fee
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Stevenag |
Posted on 18-12-2014 14:59
|
Domestique
Posts: 446
Joined: 26-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
How about a limit for how much money you can spend on training one cyclist? So you can train a weaker rider, or a weaker stat for a few levels, but not for the highest levels.
I would set the limit so low that the highest levels (above 80 perhaps?) is over the limit, but allow you to give any rider one training, even if it is over the limit.
And maybe at the same time a limit on the number of riders you can train, so you don’t end up training all of your riders when you suddenly have the money for it.
Then perhaps you could add a renewal fee for a few percent of the riders wage, that is not part of your wage budget, but forces you to pay a lot to keep your best riders. It would also balance the game a bit, as the biggest teams would have to spend just to keep their current level.
|
| |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 18-12-2014 15:35
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4235
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I definitely disagree with any renewal fees. Some teams (included mine) like to have quite stable roster and don´t want to change 80% of team every year, other just don´t have a lot of time through transfer period. We would be disadvantaged against teams with high fluctuation.
I like Roman´s idea with automatic decreasing of stats after each season. I believe it would mainly affect PT teams. Wanna maintain the same stats for your lovely beast? Pay for it!
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| aidanvn13 |
Posted on 18-12-2014 16:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2784
Joined: 06-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Having established that the problem area is with PT budgets, I don't think it's useful to have renewal fees for CT. Perhaps have a 'lighter' version for PCT. Knockout's progressive fees system seems easy enough to implement. Fees are still a very good idea for PT as a method to reduce budgets and adds a new dynamic like DD mentioned.
From a real-world POV, when a rider focuses on improving a certain skill there is usually a 'contra-skill' that is impacted negatively. For example, I remember watching a documentary on Mark Cavendish's 2008-2010 seasons. In 2009, he won Milan-San Remo after working on improving his climbing (i.e. Hill stat). In this documentary, he admits to losing a bit of top-end speed as a sacrifice for stronger climbing ability.
Similarly, I think implementing a system where training a rider more in a certain stat should penalise him in a different stat. It shouldn't be a large penalty and training should still be beneficial, but it will make a manger think twice before training a rider willy-nilly from 82-85 MO in one season.
Here's an example:
- Let's say a maxed-out Louis Meintjes had these stats:
| Fl | Mo | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | DH | Pr | | 71 | 80 | 77 | 71 | 77 | 76 | 78 | 57 | 61 | 64 | 71 | 74 | 71 |
I wish to train his Mountain stat to 83, but as a result he "sheds some weight" and loses some TT and PR skill to become the following. His sprint finish also took a knock along with cobble ability. (Underlined the affected stats).
| Fl | Mo | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | DH | Pr | | 71 | 83 | 77 | 70 | 77 | 76 | 78 | 56 | 60 | 64 | 71 | 74 | 70 |
After a VERY succesful season, Project: Africa gets a huge influx of cash from sponsors and wishes to turn Meintjes into a real mountain goat. 83-->85 MO. This is the result:
| Fl | Mo | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | DH | Pr | | 70 | 85 | 77 | 68 | 77 | 76 | 78 | 54 | 59 | 64 | 71 | 74 | 68 |
As you can see, Louis had to kick his chocolate-addiction to shave off the extra pounds. The last bit of extra training has really taken a toll all round. This has cost him on flat roads, TTs, cobbles and sprints. Nonetheless, I am still a very happy manager because he has a kick-ass mountain stat. However, while his cobble and sprint reduction isn't an issue, I have thought twice about training him as it's cost him as an all-rounder.
____________________________________________________
The higher the stat you train the rider, the bigger impact it should have overall. This will make managers think twice about training riders to that beast mode of 83-85 and should decrease the amount of riders with extra high stats.
____________________________________________________
Here's example number 2:
Ivano Lo Cicero.
| Fl | Mo | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | DH | Pr | | 72 | 56 | 67 | 56 | 71 | 63 | 79 | 69 | 84 | 78 | 54 | 60 | 75 |
Ivano's Hill stat needs to improved for him to keep up with the better climbers. Training him from 62-67 Hill does the job, but has a caused a small (seeing as it is a low stat that is being trained) reduction in sprint and cobbles (because he is now lighter).
| Fl | Mo | Hi | TT | St | Rs | Rc | Co | Sp | Ac | Fi | DH | Pr | | 72 | 56 | 67 | 56 | 71 | 63 | 79 | 68 | 83 | 78 | 54 | 60 | 75 |
____________________________________________________
This will also avoid drastic changes such as the Van Stayen case. While it should still be a good move to train him to 76 Hill, maybe his sprint should have suffered as a result, eg. going from 81 - 79 Sprint.
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 18-12-2014 16:08
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11786
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Kinda like the sound of aidan's idea!
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 18-12-2014 16:10
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 17833
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I am also strongly against renewal fees primarily because of the impacts that would have on relegated teams. A team relegating already has to slash their wage budget massively (over 50% based on last seasons numbers) and adding a fee ontop of that to renew riders would make relegating teams exctremely financially stretched to the point of being non-competitive in the markets.
I also think it would put promoting teams at a slight disadvantage versus the established division teams. Finally how would it affect newly created teams who arn't renewing riders? Surely the budget allocation system would be the sam for all teams and it would give these guys a nice healthy boost over pre-existing teams and a massive boost against the relegating teams.
The idea of automatic decreases would be interesting. Whilst it's not providing another exit for money it would force more teams to spend their money on themselves and reduce the overall amounts moving around. I do think it would have to be balanced to have reduced impacts on PCT and CT teams with good riders because they don't have the same budgets or capacity to make money.
The idea of training caps could work. Limiting teams to increaseing a riders stats per season would work i think. It would make it harder to end up with beasts, or at least take real time investment to get the reward. It might also promote training on domestiques and bring some more balance into the game.
|
| |
|
