|
Ideas/Suggestions for 2014
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 24-01-2014 16:08
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Bid limit sounds like a good idea although I imagine that'd be quite a chore for SN to keep an eye on [although I, among others I assume, would be very happy to help out if circumstances allow].
Wouldn't the idea of rider goals be open to abuse by setting an unrealistic goal in order to reduce wages? |
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 24-01-2014 16:18
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I wouldnt imagine that counting bids would be too hard. The profile pages make it easy to look through posts - and its not like we would need to keep track of everyone at all times. Just do a check when it looks like somebody had gone over the limit. And yes, it is something that anybody could do - and then let somebody know if they spot that somebody has gone over.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 01:05
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Gustavovskiy |
Posted on 24-01-2014 18:52
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6036
Joined: 20-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Here's my part on this:
1. I agree with the package system. The priority should be on making the game faster and that's definitely a good idea imo.
2. I'm indifferent to the bid per day limit. There's a 48h period between the bid and consummation of the deal, and like SotD I've learned to enjoy the chaos of transfer season. On the other hand that wouldn't hurt the process and would make people think twice before firing on all directions as is often seen.
3. My two cents: maybe opening the chance for the managers to actively participate in the middle of the season. Something like spliting the riders race-day allocation process in half, the first part being sent at the beginning of the season and the 2nd at the middle. I don't if that's viable but that would help divide the long race-reporting period that sometimes feels like a never-ending situation for the non-reporting managers.
That or something else that could attract participation and promote managerial continuity other than just commentating on races/updating HQs.
|
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 24-01-2014 19:05
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gustavovskiy wrote:
3. My two cents: maybe opening the chance for the managers to actively participate in the middle of the season. Something like spliting the riders race-day allocation process in half, the first part being sent at the beginning of the season and the 2nd at the middle. I don't if that's viable but that would help divide the long race-reporting period that sometimes feels like a never-ending situation for the non-reporting managers.
That or something else that could attract participation and promote managerial continuity other than just commentating on races/updating HQs.
I like this idea, though inactive managers could make this a problem. Otherwise it could work well, further adding to the tactical level of the game. |
| |
|
|
| Dippofix |
Posted on 24-01-2014 19:17
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3906
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
I like the idea too, but maybe it should stay the way it is at the start, and then at a certain point there could be the possibility to change things around. Otherwise i could imagine inactive managers making this a real problem.
Also, i was never saying you aren't doing your job well, even just the fact the game still exists proves that not true, i was only trying to be helpful.
Nothing wrong with posting here when you're not part of the game, and trying to contribute. But theres no need to post 4 times in half an hour to say you have already decided, with not much to go on, that you don't like the packages suggestion
I hope you don't mean me. 
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 24-01-2014 19:19
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dippofix wrote:
I like the idea too, but maybe it should stay the way it is at the start, and then at a certain point there could be the possibility to change things around. Otherwise i could imagine inactive managers making this a real problem.
Indeed - for a couple of admin reasons too, it could only work if you still planned your whole season first, but just then had the chance to make changes mid-season.
I didnt mean you 
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 24-01-2014 19:23
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
FroomeDog99 wrote:
Gustavovskiy wrote:
3. My two cents: maybe opening the chance for the managers to actively participate in the middle of the season. Something like spliting the riders race-day allocation process in half, the first part being sent at the beginning of the season and the 2nd at the middle. I don't if that's viable but that would help divide the long race-reporting period that sometimes feels like a never-ending situation for the non-reporting managers.
That or something else that could attract participation and promote managerial continuity other than just commentating on races/updating HQs.
I like this idea, though inactive managers could make this a problem. Otherwise it could work well, further adding to the tactical level of the game.
Or alternatively having all managers plan the entire season at the outset and then allow changes to be made at a certain point in the season. Possibly including possible training or even mid season riders levels increasing?
Though ideally a shorter season overall would solve the too long without any real management issue to be resolved partly.
Something else I was going to ask to those of us who play a lot of pcm13? Is there any issues that we should be aware of - I heard the RES stat is completely unused? Is this the case? I am not talking anything about which riders are tactically better, just things that could be quite bad for the man game?
The issue last year was the addition of the prologue stat that needed to be added to all of the riders in the database.
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 24-01-2014 19:31
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11819
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Smowz wrote:
Something else I was going to ask to those of us who play a lot of pcm13? Is there any issues that we should be aware of - I heard the RES stat is completely unused? Is this the case? I am not talking anything about which riders are tactically better, just things that could be quite bad for the man game?
The issue last year was the addition of the prologue stat that needed to be added to all of the riders in the database.
I've been playing PCM13 the "ManGame-style" (control team) for a while now and I don't see any major issues to switch to this newest engine.. the RES stat.. yes. Never really tested it, but I don't think it's a major issue. Not quite sure where the RES stat was relevant though.. but so far I'm quite satisfied with the results I got with PCM13. Of course it's a whole different DB I'm playing and some annyoing PCM-issues still exist (autobus-peloton after 15 riders attacked late in the stage to name the most annoying one), but I'm fine with it in general.
Also sprints are fine, imo. Even though it's still some stage-racers with rather high sprint stats, who may take out a flat stage in stage-races here and then..
|
| |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 24-01-2014 20:20
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8059
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
What about splitting up the rider selections for each team's race into like 3 sections during the year instead of splitting up the race selections?
Give the managers like two weeks to do it with a notice of when it's coming. If a manager doesn't send in their riders their team doesn't race. If they happen to come back online at any time they can still submit their lineups for the race they haven't missed yet.
This also makes the game a lot more tactically in deciding where to send riders when you know what place in the standings you are at certain points in the season when these selections have to be done.
Could be a bit more work but we would weed out the inactive teams which is great. I hate seeing inactive managers win races or do well for that matter.
|
| |
|
|
| Gustavovskiy |
Posted on 24-01-2014 20:28
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6036
Joined: 20-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mresuperstar wrote:
What about splitting up the rider selections for each team's race into like 3 sections during the year instead of splitting up the race selections?
Give the managers like two weeks to do it with a notice of when it's coming. If a manager doesn't send in their riders their team doesn't race. If they happen to come back online at any time they can still submit their lineups for the race they haven't missed yet.
This also makes the game a lot more tactically in deciding where to send riders when you know what place in the standings you are at certain points in the season when these selections have to be done.
Could be a bit more work but we would weed out the inactive teams which is great. I hate seeing inactive managers win races or do well for that matter.
Yeah something like that. If there was availability to carry on that sort of work, and the sheets sent with enough anticipation, it could be done without any sort of delay to the game.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 24-01-2014 20:36
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Could be a bit more work but we would weed out the inactive teams which is great. I hate seeing inactive managers win races or do well for that matter.
Truer words could not be spoken!
I do think there should be some form of punishment for being inactive, or at least a measure to prevent them getting in the way of other active teams.
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 24-01-2014 20:41
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
It's a nice idea, but it just adds extra work and could cause a slowing in the game as start lists would have to be made at shorter notice. Also, it doesn't really bring a huge benefit for the work, inactivity would still persist regardless. That's just the cynic in me though. 
I do however think inactive teams should be disbanded at the end of game months, like in CDiv2. Nothing I hate more than losing to a team who's manager has disappeared. Perhaps some sort of "Absentees" system to make SN aware of absences?
Finally, is the interest there for a return of the Man-Game fantasy betting? And could it be linked into budgets somehow if there is, e.g. financial prizes for succesful gamblers?  |
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 24-01-2014 21:17
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Problems with not doing all race selections at the season start:
- Not possible to check that clauses are fulfilled, until it may be too late for a team to actually give enough races.
- Teams could easily end up with not having enough riders to send to races late on if badly organised early
- Organising the ranking points files would be harder and longer if schedules keep changing based on how I create the file.
- The inevitable delay when things dont go as smoothly as hoped
Startlists are less of a problem. Crommy created a program for that ahead of the 2012 season, which creates all startlists in about 20 seconds.
With inactive teams, my view has always been this:
You plan your season based on the assumption that all teams stay active. It is the fairest representation for the season if all teams remain in, regardless of activity. A team whose big races are earlier in the season will have faced these inactive teams, if they are removed, it favours teams who have big races later in the season.
But I agree, its very annoying having them win races when the manager is gone. So am definitely open to suggestions for how to deal with it better.
@Jph I did ask aab-ern one point if there could be a separate Fantasy Betting system on the site for the Man-Game. Could investigate that some more if there would be enough interest.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 24-01-2014 23:18
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
if you decide to go with a system where we can realoocate race days at a certain point in the season, would it include the option of reassigning days that riders missed out on due to not completing a race? e.g. if a rider crashed out of the tour on the 7th stage would they get to reallocate the 14 days of the race they didn't actually compete in?
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 24-01-2014 23:41
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
if you decide to go with a system where we can realoocate race days at a certain point in the season, would it include the option of reassigning days that riders missed out on due to not completing a race? e.g. if a rider crashed out of the tour on the 7th stage would they get to reallocate the 14 days of the race they didn't actually compete in?
Given that they already get all 21 race days worth of experience, I can almost guarantee to you that this wouldn't happen.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 24-01-2014 23:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
if you decide to go with a system where we can realoocate race days at a certain point in the season, would it include the option of reassigning days that riders missed out on due to not completing a race? e.g. if a rider crashed out of the tour on the 7th stage would they get to reallocate the 14 days of the race they didn't actually compete in?
Riders get xp as if they finished the race nevertheless, and that would honestly be the only reason to include this imo.
Crashing out of a race sucks, but that should still be part of the luck factor a sports game inevitably contains, not possibly even be an advantage for the team.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 24-01-2014 23:59
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I was assuming the xp gained would be reallocated with it, probably should have been more clear on that. I was thinking along the lines of mirroring scenarios like Van Den Broeck (irl) in 2011 where he crashed out of the tour and finished 8th in the Vuelta.
|
| |
|
|
| ggDonovan |
Posted on 25-01-2014 01:23
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 897
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
As I said yesterday why not have different checkpoints both for riders and races? At least 3 per season.
About teams w/o riders for the later races I think it's more a problem of those teams than anything else. It's another variable in the game, something you have to take into account. The game will become richer in many ways.
The inactive teams won't be much of a problem since, if there is less offer of races, the races will be more packed and we won't be in the situation of less than 10 teams in them. If an inactive team doesn't send the startlist is a problem for that team not a problem of the other participating teams.
Also, about the clauses not meet, a compensation system can be put in place. If you agree some kind of condition when loaning a rider, the team that didn't fulfill the agreement will have to pay some of the next season budget to the loaner team. Also the fines can be public so the team who don't meet those clauses will get bad reputation and is less likely to get a loan.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 25-01-2014 08:43
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Not the biggest fan of this splitting to be honest.
Problem is that it would slow the game down again and this was the main point of the other ideas.
We would need something like 2 weeks during the season to get all updated race planners. And there will always be the time when one or a few managers will have no time at all over a period of 2 weeks. Holidays, exams, broken computer etc.
Of course you could ask some other manager to do this for you, but you would never get the same as you wanted.
Plus it might in the end lead to problems as SN pointed out. Like not enough riders to fill all races when badly calculated.
To do this we would need some extras:
At the start of the season you would need to fill a 100% race schedule, so that those problems are gone.
Then if there are 1 or 2 phases during the season where you are allowed to change it, it might work.
But still the inactive teams would need to ride their full schedule imo to avoid what SN said above. If the team has 30% raced before being inactive, those managers, who might have missed a goal or better result in those 30% because of that team would have an disadvantage over those teams, that fulfill a goal in the other 70% if the team was cut then as a top10 for example would be easier to reach with 1-2 teams less in later racer.
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 25-01-2014 11:45
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Regarding inactivity - it is actually not that easy to measure. As there are only certain times in the season where a managers input is necessary.
It is always nice if a manager can make at least one comment in the race discussion thread when their team is racing certainly when I was looking at activity last season that was part of my measure. I tend to try and go further with trying to put at least one comment in every race discussion thread regardless of whether my team is racing (I certainly read every report).
Anyway that is beside the point. A scheduled mid season break could be a good thing though. It could allow a few players to join already signed up teams with inactive managers for example. Cutting teams out of races is a big no-no in my opinion. Though I understand roturns concerns and of course this would appear to add time to the game.
The other issue with a mid season break and adding the tactical changing of planners is exactly when is mid season and is it balanced given the spread of races.
Rider goals
I just put it out there in my last post - had a few more thoughts on it this morning on how it would work.
To clarify I am suggesting the five team goals should remain. In addition to this I was think that following transfers and during the race planning section teams make three to five further rider individual goals for that teams top five averaged riders.
This could run using a similar points system to the team goals.
In terms of rewards for achieving them I had a few ideas:
a) a extra % points bonus for that race (similar to a joker round) / % points reduction
b) Reduced wage demands at the end of the season/ Increased wage demands
c) Extra money (similar to team goals) / less money
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
