If a renewal fee is introduced it will affect relegating teams yeah. But that will also help reduce their advantage over other teams. Just look at the PCT now. The game turns static if it's just the same teams relegating and promoting. Earlier this wasn't a problem as the relegating teams often abandoned...
Also when it comes to it as a punishment for retaining riders. Teams doing a lot of transfers would have the same problems if a transfer fee is introduced aswell
Edit: The punishment would most likely be most severe for teams like mine. I plan to retain all my riders AND I love to trade
In fact all changes like this will negatively affect me, but I want them introduced anyway
Edited by Heine on 18-12-2014 16:27
But relegation isn't just PT to PCT, it's going to be PCT to CT for the first time (most likely). The gap between the top of the CT and bottom of the PCT is a hell of a lot closer than PT to PCT and i think that extra restirctions on what riders a relegating PCT team can hold would put those teams at too big a disadvantage compared to other CT teams and the New Teams who would have no renewal fees to pay.
Yes you would get to keep some riders but cutting over 50% off your wage cap, and paying renewal fees, and staying competitve is going to be bloody difficult without a big star or two to sell off. And if you are relegating to the CT you probably don't have those big stars to sell to make back budget loss in the same way a relegating PT team has in the past.
Of course i am slightly biased being a PCT team that is probably going to relegate. But at the same time i have to make clear that unless rules are separated by division/situation changes must be balanced across the divisions. And i think a renewal cap is not fairly balanced at the bottom end of the game (which is just as important as the PT).
However i see a transfer fee as a lot fairer. The PT teams are more likely to be spending money/selling riders than the CT teams so it would have more impact on them and that seems to be where the issue lies.
I like the sound of renewal fees more than transfer fees. If it's a renewals fee then the money's out of the game at the start of transfers which imo would work better and be easier to implement then a transfer % going to the MGUCI.
If we went with a % of the transfer fee going t the MGUCI then you could end up with teams wrongly calculating how much they need to sell a rider for if they need X left after the % has been taken off instead of being able to straight up ask for X.
If the renewal fee scaled compared to the wage of the rider then I can't se it impacting relegating teams that badly as they've normally got better riders to sell off post renewals then those that stayed in the same division.
Also it seems like a renewal fee would be harder to get around then a transfer fee as if you wanted to avoid a transfer fee then you could make sure any deals are exchange or at least part exchange deals which would mean less would come out of the game as a transfer fee then if they were 2 straight sales.
sammyt93 wrote:
I like the sound of renewal fees more than transfer fees. If it's a renewals fee then the money's out of the game at the start of transfers which imo would work better and be easier to implement then a transfer % going to the MGUCI.
If we went with a % of the transfer fee going t the MGUCI then you could end up with teams wrongly calculating how much they need to sell a rider for if they need X left after the % has been taken off instead of being able to straight up ask for X.
If the renewal fee scaled compared to the wage of the rider then I can't se it impacting relegating teams that badly as they've normally got better riders to sell off post renewals then those that stayed in the same division.
Also it seems like a renewal fee would be harder to get around then a transfer fee as if you wanted to avoid a transfer fee then you could make sure any deals are exchange or at least part exchange deals which would mean less would come out of the game as a transfer fee then if they were 2 straight sales.
As poeple might have understood, I like both If transfer fees lead to poeple making exchanges instead, just as well. Then noone builds up a fortune for training
When it comes to complexity it is just to make a formula in the transfer sheet. As long as noone are dumb enough to edit it that should solve the problem ;-)
I don't quite get the thing about riders being worse each season, and we have to train them to stay good. Which riders should be affected? And how many stats?
If eg. it would be riders above 75 AVR, and they lost 1 stat (the highest), for me it would mean the following:
Spilak 85 > 84 MO
Guerao 83 > 82 SPR
Ricco 82 > 81 MO
Ratiy 80 > 79 MO
If I was to train them back to this seasons level it would cost 6mio. Most teams doesn't have that kind of money. And the fact that 2-3 PT teams manage to assemble that kind of money doesn't make it a good way to go. Also it would need to rethink which riders was able to train, as Ricco isn't trainable, so he would just start to decline earlier than normally, thus becoming irrelevant fairly soon.
Some teams would be extremely harshly punished btw. Pokerstars have 8 riders with 75+AVR, Rothaus have 7, Becherovka have 6, so does Good Energy, Pendleton's, Project It41, B&O, Vueling, Vesuvio and Wikipedia.
It would need to be extremely balanced for the rule not to be extremely good/bad for some teams, and I don't think that is what we want.
Quite awesome to see my team that high in your list of 75+ AVG.
But not for this reason, I also don`t like this early decline. Destroys some managers long term plans or is a big disadvantage for managers, who don`t use to train at all.
Would prefer the other options like renewing/transfer fee. Just finding a balance for PT, PCT, CT is needed.
The idea about declining stats of riders - I thought every maxed-out rider in the DB could get that decline in every attribute (FL, MO, HIL, COB, TT, PRL, SP, ACC), maybe with the exception of another type of attributes (STA, RES, REC) that could get even a boost that is coming together with experience. But it may only be the best attributes of that rider, so Bewley would likely get a decline in COB, SP and FL.
The effect would be, it would be easier to get down the riders who just dominate the game every year, the guy who would want keep his domination would need to invest into that rider and so he would have less money to improve his team somewhere else. I would defo not benefit from that with Bewley at least. But it was just only a brainstrorming idea, so I have no idea if it would work in MG reality.
But the more interesting idea here IMO is, how you can now improve riders who already have a 85 attribute? Should not really be there an auto -1/-2 decline in that attribute for the next season? On the other hand it would give managers a chance how to keep one of his riders dominating his favourite race. Now there is almost no meaningfull chance how to improve 85 GC rider or puncheur.
But in general I belive, less restrictions = the game can be better understand from the point of managing rules of the game. I don't think we things like transfer taxes will make the game better, it will only make the life of a manager harder and there will be bigger amount of mistakes, because it will be hard to always remember for everybody what exactly is that tax, I will need to pay. The managers shouldn't be punished they want to make their next year's team more through the renewals or transfers. But I agree there should more ways how to spend the money.
The easiest and the most funny way is probably making the training more complex. Give managers chance to improve more riders from year-to-year. Make the training of domestiques/super-domestiques way cheaper, give a chance how to make that training part some fun for everybody. For example, there could be a chance how to buy a "bigger potential" for your rising star, there could be a chance how to buy another level of XP level for your rider or buy a chance how to train a rider over 30 or stop declining the stats when a riders is 33, a way cheaper way to improve bad attributes of leaders could be a way as well. I like that aidan's idea when you improve one of your skills too high, another will go down. I would even go as far as to buying extra race days for your riders. There could even be the option for money to redistribute some part of attributes of a rider.
And I know there is a problem with no money for training in PCT, CT. It could have quite easy solutions. My idea is, give them automatic money for training they will get only after their transfers are completed. Plus they could get even more money, if they will stay under their wage cap. If you exceed your salary cap after renewals, you have to pay a tax of paying the same money you are over your salary cap. Ok, why not make something similar vice versa in PCT/CT as well. Teams could get more money if they don't spend their transfer budgets as well.
Plus there may could be a race category between PT and PCT as well. We have race categories between PCT and CT and it is quite a fun to watch it, the season gets more unpredictible. I know PT is about every team racing every race, but a small variability to the PT race programs maybe could work and the season would be even more interesting both for PT and PCT teams.
If I will get any other crazy idea, I will surely post it here.
What if the training itself would stay the same, but there would be a negative effect next season as the rider overtrained himself?
If for example I would train Topchanyuk from 77 to 79 MO he would get a negative effect of -3 MO (+1 = -2, +2 = -3 etc.) next season, which makes it harder to have a beastly rider every season, unless you invest in potential stars.
Now there should be an exception for stats under 72, so someone with a sprinter with 52 HI could train that up to 60 without negative effects.
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game
Roman wrote:
Plus there may could be a race category between PT and PCT as well. We have race categories between PCT and CT and it is quite a fun to watch it, the season gets more unpredictible. I know PT is about every team racing every race, but a small variability to the PT race programs maybe could work and the season would be even more interesting both for PT and PCT teams.
Just quickly on that point for now, it is quite possible that PT teams will race in 1 HC race band next year - probably with some sort of restriction on how good a rider they can send, much like PCT teams in C2 races.
There is enough space in the HC Bands for all 22 PT teams to take 1, after the 30 PCT teams have made their pick.
I must say, I really don't like the idea of riders just spontainiously decreasing in stats, as that would just make the new fully developped riders the best riders to get. Especially as they are already dominating, and scoring quite a few points in the U25 category. Now they would also be dominating the entire race, which would mean that the older riders would become increasinly uninteresting as they would just drop in level each season. So a rider such as Phinney would just slowly becoming pretty bad, in terms of up and coming talents such as Herklotz, who would totally dominate everything in his first fully developped season.
We don't see top riders just starting to decline after they have reached their peak. They can easily be on that level for many many years, some even keep developping.
I can see a point in either making a rider slightly worse in another stat if you want to train him in eg. flat, he might become worse in hills, if you want to make him better in MO he might lose a TT or Prologue stat or something like that. And I even would feel it was OK if a rider lost 1 of his training stats after the season, but some of the ideas are really crazy imo, and would make people very hesitent to even use the money, as their team would suck the season after.
A rider who totally dominates the PT rankings one year, would have to go down to the PCT and be one of the 10-15 best riders in his terrain there. If we take fjhoekies idea for example. Spilak will be one of the best riders in the PT this season, and might even win the TdF. Next season he will be 81MO, and will struggle to make it into the top 10. I don't really see how that should benefit the game.
I believe we are all interested in making the game as enjoyable as possible, and fix the small errors, but we should be really careful not to create a whole level of new problems and frustrations just to close one mistake. Some people have spent A LOT of money on training, which could have been used to buying other riders for the team. We don't want these teams to get an advantage, but we don't want to disadvantage them either.
When I setup my team for the future, I do it accordingly to the current rules. If the rules change drastically each year, I will go back to my previous way of dealing, which is to swap almost my entire team each year, for older riders no one wants to touch, because they will decline after one season.
I'm sure SN isn't even considering making drastical changes to the rules, but I think we ought to put more thoughtthrough ideas on the table. Some of the ideas might be good, but they are presented game-changing for the worse, imo.
We have salary caps, loan caps and what not - Why not a simply training cap aswell? That would probably mean that the cash would be more evenly distributed, as no teams would have anything going for them to collect more money than they could use.
If eg. the Training Cap was 4mio each season, that would have given me 1,4mio that I couldn't use for anything. Why not spend those 1,4 mio on riders that could possibly help my team here and now? Possibly swap a rider for one that was slightly better, but within the same range of wages. It could be something like:
Pokerstars doesn't have any money for training their riders. I have too much, and we are both kinda stuck in terms on how we want our team. I could then offer beagle Oscar Guerao+1,4mio for John Degenkolb. He might find that interesting as with those 1,4mio he could make Roche 81HI, and his sprinting setup wouldn't change that much. I would get a rider that had a slightly lower wage which allowed me to take in another Free Agent.
I think that is a very simple model, and it will put a stop to uncontrollably train a rider into a beast - Atleast it would take a longer period. If the Cap should be 3-3,5-4mio or something else, I don't know. That is probably something that SN knows according to what kinda money is flowing around. But it would definately not be a big change of rules, it wouldn't change anything to those building teams for the future, and it wouldn't mean much for those who bought a rider they want to train, other than the fact that it might take another season to get him there.
Also it would probably make for more complex training methods instead of just boosting the riders top stat, like I did with Spilak... If the cap was 4,2mio, I could make him 84MO. That would make him a top rider, sure, but it wouldn't make him a possible Tour de France winner. So it might have been better to make him 83HI as that would make him a contender for the ardennes, instead. And like said before, if the training cap was 3mio I would probably not have spent anything on training him, and instead I would have trained someone like Tim Dees into a subtop rider instead. IMO having a broad field of subtop riders is healthy. Having a hoarde of super riders isn't. And by super riders I mean riders having 82+ stats. Obviously there should be some, but a rider having 82 and having NO chance of winning a race isn't healthy. And there are currently A LOT of those, mainly MO riders, but I guess its only a matter of time before the same applies to sprinters, hilly riders, TT'ers and cobblers:
Stefan Denifl
Riccardo Ricco
Romain Sicard
Vincenzo Nibali
Thomas Dekker
Timofey Kritskiy
Emanuele Sella
Rigoberto Uran
Jose Rujano
Benat Inxausti
Sergio Henao Montoya
Neither of these will EVER win a race with their main skill, unless the startlist really favors them, they get lucky or the opponents crash out. And that is really a shame I think. Especially as the loft is 85. If the loft was 90 then it wasn't a problem - for now.
The development is very interesting in fact. If we look at riders with 85 in their main stat this is what we get:
MO: 4
HI: 1
TT: 0
COB: 0
SPR: 0 (Sorry Bos)
If we look at riders with 83+:
MO: 12
HI: 5
TT: 3
COB: 3
SPR: 8
So by the looks of it, sprinters are next in line to go crazy... And it would probably be a good idea for those having a 82-83TTer or cobbler, to train those to 85, as the competition is slim, and a lot is gained - for now... Looking at 80+:
MO: 41
HI: 24
TT: 17
COB: 13
SPR: 46
Sprinters are definately next... Cobbler and TT'ers - Go nuts! For now...
Having a whole bunch of riders with 78-79-80 in a certain stat. That is no problem. Having a whole bunch of super athletes, that is actually quite a bit of a problem. Because that means that those riders with 78-79-80 is pretty much useless, and the best riders are struggleing to get satisfying results, and then it's all down to stats we can't see or control, like luck and daily form. And imo those aren't things that should be dominating the game in the future. They are there, and we can't rule them out, as they should exist, but the game should also be down to who actually does the best job in managing their team.
So imo it is a problem that we have 4 85MO riders - also while one of them is mine. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Amador with 85MO next season, and who can blame it? He is clearly almost there in terms of winning the big races. Taaramae, Phinney, Kritskiy, Sicard can't live with being 4-5th in the big races, so they will surely need to be better aswell, and before we know it we have 8-10 85main stat riders in MO, a little less in SPR and HI, and then probably we will see cobblers and TT'ers take their time before getting on with it, as they have a little less opportunity to really score big points. I do know, though, that if I owned Vanspeybrouck, Summerhill or Zepunkte, well.... He would be 85COB as SOON as possible. Burghardt is on his way back, Cancellara is on his way back, Boonen is on his way back and most of the other riders simply doesn't have the combination of stats to dominate. There is a TON of points waiting there if you have the one and only 85 Cobbler, and those 3 before-mentioned riders are declining. You would basically have an 1/2 odds of winning. Either you or Bewley wins. And if you can put that into your account in 6 secure oneday races in a season you would have between 1054 and 1460 points, for one rider - Almost guaranteed. And there are also a few other races in which that rider could be used, which would give him points. One rider... If you then had Fiedler, Coppel, Cornu and trained him to 85 then he would probably also win every single TT he rode, perhaps he could lose to Phinney if you put him into a GC race with a late TT after a hard week or two. But other than that you could just sit and look into the race planner, and fit as many individual TT's above 8km that you want into the rider amount of racedays. I guess they would have 50 or so racedays, and one of the races is a oneday race. So just pick as many TT's as you can possibly get, some of the easier GC races might even give the rider a decent position in the overall, and some races your rider could easily have the leaders jersey for 3-4-5 days, aswell as having the points jersey for the first day. I guess having a rider like that would also accumulate a MINIMUM of 1000 points if you used him well, possibly as much as 1500 points.
Oh well, now you know which riders I'm targeting next season if the rules of training isn't changed
So for riders with AVG of 75+ only 1 stat increase per season
70+ 2 stat increases per season
65+ 3 stat increases per season
60+ 4 stat increases per season
and when training someone in a specific stat of 80+, you can`t train him anywhere else this season and only by 1 stat. (Example would be one dimensional riders with low AVG)
This makes training less interesting and avoids having too many dominant riders.
Adding to this a rule that every team can maximum train 2-3 riders a season and only one rider with 75+ AVG and we don`t have too many dominant riders and no longer a jump from 82->85 or 79 -> 82 etc.
Edited by roturn on 19-12-2014 16:01
Yup, something like that makes sense to me... That way it is still possible to make a 82MO rider into 85MO, but it would take 3 seasons. If we do something like that we have a much easier time to regulate things in terms of talent inserts, contra riders declining, instead of now where we risk a boosted amount of riders within a distinct quality area.
And it would also make the training apply to a much broader aspect of riders... If your rules applied I think my trainings would have been something like this (I don't save money )
Simon Spilak 82>83MO 1,6mio
Óscar Guerao 83>84SPR 1,8mio
Tim Dees 74>76MO 1,1mio
Mathieu Bernaudeau 78>80TT 1,9mio
If possible to freely train your riders. If only possible to train 3 riders I guess it would just be too bad for Guerao
It would still make the riders good, but not uncontrollably. I guess Becherovka would have made some interesting trainings aswell, such as making Sagan, Bewley and Kreuziger a bit better also.
Well the question here is: Do we really need to regulate how much some people train their riders? For example, I have no problem with Festina training up Spilak to MO 85 in one season. If these training restrictions were present already in the last off-season, I never could get closer to my dream of a team with mainly Czech and Slovak leaders. I needed to create a really competitive leader for my team, and so that's why I sold Uran and Henao in the first place. With this old rules this would not have been possible. And personally I don't like that. For example Porto, did quite similar thing with Costa as well.
If there are training restrictions like roturn suggests, the dominating riders like Bewley will dominate for ages, but a guy like Sagan can't become really relevant for at least 5 years. I would love to make Sagan into a rider he is in reality. With the new rules that is absolutely impossible. I would even love to make rider like König or other Czechs or Slovaks more relevant. With training restrictions like that the game really wouldn't become more fun for me, I can already say that now.
The only problem here maybe is, that maybe only PT teams have money for training. But as I am thinking about that, it is only logical. PCT/CT teams are trying to make their team the best possible with their budgets and almost every time there is a rider they can buy to improve their team. PT teams way more times don't have that option, so they can make their team bette almost only with training. In my opinion training money will always stay mainly in the PT. The only possibility would be that training budgets. But is that really what PCT/CT wants?
And the thing needed in my opinon: if there is 85 rider in one category, it is needed to make a room to improve that rider in the next year as well. If there would be auto -1/-2 decline for ALL RIDERS in that stat for the next season, it would auto-correct the market as well. Cheaper wages for all good riders in that stat category and cheaper training to make a rider relevant in that stat. It will give somebody a chance to dominate in one type of races. But for a price, that every other manager will have to pay less for their good riders in that stat.
And the thing needed in my opinon: if there is 85 rider in one category, it is needed to make a room to improve that rider in the next year as well. If there would be auto -1/-2 decline for ALL RIDERS in that stat for the next season, it would auto-correct the market as well. Cheaper wages for all good riders in that stat category and cheaper training to make a rider relevant in that stat. It will give somebody a chance to dominate in one type of races. But for a price, that every other manager will have to pay less for their good riders in that stat.
I kinda like this thought, about just making everyone -2 in MO, to give the managers some more "roam" to play with in terms of training, as we are kinda on a halt with riders being on 85... The only thing is, that we would need to calibrate the racedays aswell, as the riders might get more racedays that way, and as things should be levelled out, that isn't exactly the point.
But instead of making a specific stat minus 2, we could (in theory) make ALL riders -2 in ALL stats. That way no riders are affected relatively, and there will yet again be something to train.
Obviously riders with a stat of 50 (is that the minimum?) would benefit from riders having 52, but would that be a problem?
I would like to hear, what others think of this, especially SN of course. I can't help but think there is something I miss when reading Romans suggestion here, but if it really is that simple, I would think this is the best possible idea.
1 If riders keep getting trained to 85 each season, and we need to do a -2 reset each season, how will that effect talents being added, they would be getting progressively better as the ones already in the DB would be getting progressively worse then they were intended to be when added. A 77 potential Mountain rider could end up only 73 by the time he's maxed because of how often we have to -2 everyone.
2. would that make it harder for new managers to tell what stat they will need to be a leading team? If Arroyo is the leading climber this year on 79, and we -2 everyone will that mean new teams will think with him being 77 next year then they'll need a guy who drops to 79 which would be an 81 now, e.g. Gesink or Brajkovic.
True. It would probably be something we can only do in combination of bringing in less money aswell, so we doesn't have to change it every season, but if I recall correct the top riders had 83 or so by themselves in our original DB, so if it takes 5 seasons or so to get to this level, it wouldn't be too much of a problem to regulate it, as talents usually gets from level 1.000 to 4.100 in 3 seasons, and can be trained after the 4th.
True but in 3 seasons they'd potentially go down by 6 points compared to what they're original potential would have been. that's not so much a problem with the top talents as they can be trained to the top level by PT teams but CT level talents will only get to about 74/75 as it is, if that has to be reduced by 2 each year they are developing because a new rider gets to 85 then does that mean they'll only be 69 when maxed? obviously they are on the same position relative to the division but it would mean they've got a lot further to go to get to the top which would make it harder to bring your riders through the divisions with you if you wanted to keep them as PT domestiques should you be able to keep them that far.
Also if riders keep getting bumped back up to 85 just imagine how much of a gap they could have over the subtop riders then. Phinney is 82 now, if everyone gets -2 and the 85's get trained again then he's only going to gain back 1 point on them if he goes up +3 which sounds like it's the max riders tend to go up by at the top end so it would slow his growth and help prevent the top order changing.
And if riders can only go up so many in they're main stat or you can only train riders by so much each season on top of the general -2 then he might not catch the top mountain riders like Madrazo or Pluchkin which could lead to stagnation and the same riders dominating every year.
Well it seems like you think my idea is to deduct 2 points from all riders EVERY season, which is not the idea. The idea is to do it once, to get the base back to a realistic and playable level, with the current rules...
Of course I can see an issue for talents, as the gap to the big stars will be enourmous if I keep on training my star...
Lecuisinier (my best talent) will be 81MO when he is maxed, and my best rider, Spilak, is 85MO, so there is 4 points between them, and if we take -2 of them both, the distance between them will be the same, but if I train Spilak another +2 then the difference between them will be 6 which is obviously not ideal, at all...
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
If transfer fees lead to poeple making exchanges instead, just as well. Then noone builds up a fortune for training 
