|
[CT] Questions
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 19-12-2014 21:13
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I was only assuming teams had the money to retrain riders back to 85, forcing us to do it again next season for the first part. That won't necessarily happen every year but it is a possibility if an unlikely one.
After the first paragraph I'm assuming it will only happen once a rider rehits 85, whenever that would be, and looking at the side effects of introducing that alongside other measures discussed like training caps or limits on how you can train your riders.
|
| |
|
|
| Heine |
Posted on 19-12-2014 21:29
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4116
Joined: 08-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
That is the problem with decreasing stats, either you decrease for everyone, which gives the talent problem. Or you only decrease 4.100 riders, which makes some talents too strong in comparison.
I personally would prefer only 4.100 riders getting a decrease for realism reasons (in truth I'm not the biggest fan of a decrease, but I see why poeple want it). But I wont go into any discussion as I am one of those that have reasons to be subjective here...
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 19-12-2014 21:39
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
If a rider reaches 85 great! Next season -1 in all key stats for that rider. He'll still be good but to keep at that super-top level it will require commitment from the manager year after year. Want a few super-top guys? Well it's going to cost you even more. This gives a bit more to training, keeps the super-top level balanced and saves worrying about other riders?
I think every time a rider hits 85 all riders go -1/2/whatever is a bad idea because of the imbalance it creates. It doesn't solve the problem it's trying to fix fundamentaly.
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 19-12-2014 21:43
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
Unless I am mistaken the problem here is not really the stats, but more there is too much money in a few of the PT teams. What is the budget difference from the CT to the PCT and the PCT to the PT?
|
| |
|
|
| Alakagom |
Posted on 19-12-2014 21:44
|
World Champion
Posts: 10891
Joined: 19-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
If a rider reaches 85 great! Next season -1 in all key stats for that rider. He'll still be good but to keep at that super-top level it will require commitment from the manager year after year. Want a few super-top guys? Well it's going to cost you even more. This gives a bit more to training, keeps the super-top level balanced and saves worrying about other riders?
I think every time a rider hits 85 all riders go -1/2/whatever is a bad idea because of the imbalance it creates. It doesn't solve the problem it's trying to fix fundamentaly.
This.
What does making all riders go down in stats fix in terms of issue at hand which is spending too much money on training, with it being only the one solution to get money out of the system.
None.
( unless this is just a suggestion for the 85 limit of stats, and we steered off the first issue brought up here  )
Edited by Alakagom on 19-12-2014 21:47
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 01:53
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 19-12-2014 22:06
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
If a rider reaches 85 great! Next season -1 in all key stats for that rider. He'll still be good but to keep at that super-top level it will require commitment from the manager year after year. Want a few super-top guys? Well it's going to cost you even more. This gives a bit more to training, keeps the super-top level balanced and saves worrying about other riders?
I think every time a rider hits 85 all riders go -1/2/whatever is a bad idea because of the imbalance it creates. It doesn't solve the problem it's trying to fix fundamentaly.
That wouldn't work because all it would mean is that no one would train to 85, people would just treat 84 as the realistic max for any stat. Because if you go beyond that you essentially ruin your strongest rider in the long run. Everyone who is in the PT now thinks long term because we have all been around for several seasons. The consequence of 84 being the practical max is that training money would just get spent on making the sub top leaders into 84-level riders. We would end up onto too many of them and it wouldn't solve the problem we are looking at here.
|
| |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 19-12-2014 22:45
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4200
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Just a thought: I guess it would add a hell of extra work, but would it be possible to start racing without setting of default 89 or so fitness? I have no idea how exactly implement this "fitness" feature into game, but as a result it could make difference between similar riders and even sub-top rider could shine from time to time.
Let´s say rider would have basic average fitness 80 per racing day. If he wants to target to specific race, then his fitness can raise up to 100. As a negative effect, in second race (with same lenght to make explanation easier) he´ll have just 60 and become shitty rider.
Let´s take Madrazo as an easy example. He has 42 race days (in real 43) to make explanation easier. He wants to ride only Vuelta and Tour (both 21 race days). He has 42 race days * 80 default fitness = 3360 fitness points (FP).
Example #1: Madrazo wants to win Tour and be a solid domestique for Tenorio on Vuelta. His fitness for Tour will be 100, spending 21*100=2100 FP. Remaining 3360-2100=1260 FP will be used for calculating of Fitness for Vuelta. 1260/21=60. Can he be even useful with such crappy fitness on his second GT? Or should he divide his FP differently?
Example #2: Madrazo wants to be on podium in Paris, setting his fitness to 88 for Tour. It means his fitness for Vuelta will be 72, making him key domestique or stage/KOM jersey jersey hunter.
In PT, the weakest riders with 120 race days would have 120*80=9600 FP, which can be spent very variably, here 95 or 90, there 70 or 75. There is a lot of possible options.
I can imagine it could create some new tactical opportunities, maybe filling team goals a little easier. The main question is, if this feature can be even somehow implemented into SN´s database  I believe there would be people willing to help with editing before each race.
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 19-12-2014 23:33
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
It would be too much effort to have to create a different CDB for every race.
But that doesn't matter, because it isn't possible to do that in PCM. I've looked into it before and on Single Player mode the game only seems to allow either full fitness or random fitness.
|
| |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 19-12-2014 23:58
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4200
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
To be honest,my knowledge of CYA DB is big zero, but I´d expect there should be relevant column, when you choose random fitness. Apparently I´m wrong.
I believe we would find enough of people willing to help reporters, if any future edition of PCM will allow this.
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 20-12-2014 07:00
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
As said before with training - I still maintain my feelings that it would be better having a training period before transfers and a one stat impovement blow your load following transfers.
Another idea for training that for high end training that not only is there a money increase but also a wage increase as well. Meaning teams wanting to create a super rider will need to save a bit of wage cap for that rider as well.
Money out of system ideas:
1) Renewel fees continue to grow on me - that said I am a manager well known for enjoying fliud rotation of riders. But I think there is an over hyping of how bad it would be for managers who largely want to keep all their riders. I don't see SN making it so it would be impossible to do this - just diffiicult to do this and do much high end training or make a high end purchase.
Also on this subject part of my strategy with renewels has always been renew all riders I want to keep and that I also think I can sell in transfers. There was little or no doubt in my mind that I would attract a decent fee for Van Heerden and his wage is very low compared to comparable sprinters. Introducing renewel fees adds that extra element of risk to this.
2) PT Teams in HC races - like this and I think this would be popular with most PT managers. Some may not have an eligible team much like we get in in PCT teams to C2 races. I think in the main it will be used as a XP horde - and I think PT teams should have to pay for this! A small nominal fee but one I think several would pay.
3) An idea whirring around in my head and this may not be viable just an idea. Fines for teams not sending full rosters .... I do sometimes wonder if this can effect the balance of the game when teams send teams of fewer than full compliments to races. Probably not and it seems to happen fairly rarely these days - usually it is a result of a poorly planned transfer season. But it never looks good! These fines would obviously have to be retrospective (i.e. the season afterwards). Of course the challenge for PT teams is to navigate the 3 stage races clash doom - I wonder there is stagieres could be allowed to ride somehow in that situation?
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 20-12-2014 11:43
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
2) PT Teams in HC races - like this and I think this would be popular with most PT managers. Some may not have an eligible team much like we get in in PCT teams to C2 races. I think in the main it will be used as a XP horde - and I think PT teams should have to pay for this! A small nominal fee but one I think several would pay.
3) An idea whirring around in my head and this may not be viable just an idea. Fines for teams not sending full rosters .... I do sometimes wonder if this can effect the balance of the game when teams send teams of fewer than full compliments to races. Probably not and it seems to happen fairly rarely these days - usually it is a result of a poorly planned transfer season. But it never looks good! These fines would obviously have to be retrospective (i.e. the season afterwards). Of course the challenge for PT teams is to navigate the 3 stage races clash doom - I wonder there is stagieres could be allowed to ride somehow in that situation?
2. It would be announced pre-transfers so no excuse not to have an eligible team. The main PT calendar is going to be reduced, just as the calendar for other divisions, so this is also a chance to give PT teams an extra 20 race days at no added effort to the game - as well as finally finding a way for them to mix with the lower division. All teams need to take part in that really, so not sure forcing a payment works.
3. The problem with fines is that the planning stage takes place after all of the money spending stage - unless you apply the fine to the following season. Alternatively, could just refuse entry to the race if a team can't field at least 5 riders.
|
| |
|
|
| jt1109 |
Posted on 20-12-2014 15:14
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3214
Joined: 23-07-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
Hey Guys here's a couple i came up with that could work:
1: Buying Potential Upgrades
2: Buying More Race Days for individual riders |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 22-12-2014 07:11
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
I just had some time to browse through the ideas and suggestions and some i like more and some less.
Renewal fees are pretty much absolute no go for me. I think that continuity should be awarded in this game and not punished! thiés could ruin the game for some people incvluding me and i would most likely just change my focus to wheeling-dealing and replacing 90% of my team every year, with unwanted veterans...please NO.
Stat drops are interesting area, that need deep thought to be implemented though...i can imagine rider dropping some stat(s) when he reaches 85 in some category. You want your climber to rule the mountains? Well, he will probably suck in TT then, because we Froome like riders should not exist in drug free game.
I dont like all riders dropping stats because someone reached the max though, as it will help absolutely nothing.
Training restrictions in form of rider being only able to be trained +1 or +2 (most likely in form of scale according to height of the stat) are in my opinion very good tool to control the madness, where we would have ten 85 climbers in the game in few years.
Final note goes to fact that we should be much more reserved in what we want to change. As i think that man-game is almost perfect in state where it is and main problems in the game came from absolute shitiness of last PCM installments rather than rule problems! I see 0 reasons for channing any rules for CT or even PCT, when there is only clear problem with too much money in the top end of the game.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 22-12-2014 07:12
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Sorry for grammar mistakes, i really miss the edit and quote functions here. 
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 22-12-2014 07:17
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
One problem with having training limits is that PT teams will have even more money to spend during transfers increasing the distance between PT and PCT further. You would have to make training more expensive for that to work.
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 22-12-2014 07:58
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Renewal fees are pretty much absolute no go for me. I think that continuity should be awarded in this game and not punished! thiés could ruin the game for some people incvluding me and i would most likely just change my focus to wheeling-dealing and replacing 90% of my team every year, with unwanted veterans...please NO.
I can use quote 
Anyway this seems to be the main gripe against renewel fees - the 'punishment' for experienced players. It is a fair point because we have to renew contracts every year - so having renewel fees hurts managers who wish to renew entire squads. I do think there is some silly fear though here - as said previously I believe the renewel fees are likely to only take out a fraction of the disposable income even for those that fail every goal.
Personally I look forward to renewel fees adding an extra challenge to renewels - which frankly has become a easy task that veteran managers seem to come out of it very comfortably. I see most teams only usually releasing over expensive 33 year olds and rubbish riders to the free agency.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 22-12-2014 09:00
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
If the amount taken out by a renewal fee is small as to not be a concern than to me it seems like a pointless idea. If the point of a renewal fee is to remove money from the system and hence reduce the amount available for training then it should get rid of something like 1mio from the PT budgets to renew 75% of your team, a nice hefty sum.
Should a renewal fee impact the PCT and CT teams? Imo no. An entire CT teams budget is less than the total some teams spend on trainings altogether. It's also a division with the highest turnover of teams through promotions to fill inacitve gaps and through new teams entering the game. Putting teams who have to pay renewal fees together with brand new teams insn't a good thing.
PCT is trickier because of the big differences between the PT power level top teams like Quicktep/Venchi/Heineken and the CT power bottom teams like Boeing/Compal/Mobil. Scale back a renewal fee to match the reduced budget compared to PT teams and go for it. I think the PCT does a lot more changing of riders than the PT so perhaps the effect of a renewal fee would be reduced for the lower division, a good thing.
Finally i would like to see relegating or promoting teams excempted from a renewal fee. Especially relegating teams are already facing a sizable budget cut and add an extra renewal cost ontop of that could do serious damage to team already making cuts. Then for promoting teams taking away a renewal fee might give them an extra boost to be competitive in the division and be able to stay away from the relegation zone if they have a good off-season.
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 22-12-2014 09:06
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
Is it not possible to decrease the size of the PT teams budgets?
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 22-12-2014 09:25
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
I agree with Manx, that renewal fees across all divisions would be either pointless if too small, or frustrating if too high. To be honest, i would absolutely skip this idea as the whole, as i cant see it as viable way to go. Why try to solve problems where they are not present? I mean, there is no issue with mad training (or excessive amount of money) in CT and PCT. So maybe reducing the PT budget a bit could work.
Funny how you listed Boeing/Compal/Mobil as bottom "CT power" teams in PCT and actually forget the loosers from Metinvest.
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 22-12-2014 09:26
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
@TMM: the biggest challenge for relegating teams is the reduction of wage cap imo. This is not something that renewel fees effect from I can see. In fact relegating teams can often renew guys and sell them to create funds for transfers
The reason promoting teams struggle is many simply are not ready to promote but due to replacing inactive managers. I think it is inevitable if 7 or 8 teams promote then the majority of relegation positions will be taken up by the promoting teams.
I don't understand why renewel fees decrease their chances - those sorts of teams make the most changes anyhow. If anything the stalwart teams may suffer due to renewals. Also plenty of promoting teams do well, it really does depend on transfer season strategy.
One million to renew 75 to 80 per cent of a strong pro tour team sounds about the fraction I was thinking of ... As you say less than that does nothing. So say 500,000 perhaps to renew a strong PCT team and maybe 200,000 ish for a low level PCT team?
@lls: I disagree that the money was all generated by PT teams - they may have been spending it but a lot of money came spiralling up from the continental teams.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
