|
Suggestions for the 2018 season
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 22-02-2018 12:41
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
OK thanks.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-02-2018 10:06
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Just something that I have been thinking off:
If wildcard was based on last year’s ranking – as in the higher team rank picks (one race) first – same in 2nd round ect ect. – based on a fixed number of “lower level teams” in each race.
If this was the case first of all it would be possible that PCT teams could use race days and get points in PT races, that would not only be logical but also “using” top PCT race days so that we could “free up” race days for lower ranked PCT riders and also extend the race days in CT without having more reports – off course this is simplified might have to adjust the race days in the divisions ect,!
I’m quite sure something like this have been proposed before, but still would like to hear why not ? Somehow weird in my head that riders can attend races without using race days.
NB: The proposal is based on that the expected disband of Project Africa will not be replased - 21 teams in PT = 3 wildcards/race ( 9 teams get one GT wildcard)
Edited by Tamijo on 27-02-2018 11:49
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius97 |
Posted on 27-02-2018 12:42
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4191
Joined: 13-09-2015
PCM$: 300.00
|
But Project: Africa is first relegating and then disbanding. In that scenario you would need to make only 4 teams promoting for PCT or making an extra PT to relegate, which can't be done
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-02-2018 13:05
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Aquarius97 wrote:
But Project: Africa is first relegating and then disbanding. In that scenario you would need to make only 4 teams promoting for PCT or making an extra PT to relegate, which can't be done
Everything can be done, the question is if we want the change or not.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 02:33
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 27-02-2018 13:05
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Project Africa won't make any difference to division sizes. They'll be replaced in PT just like any relegating team would be, by a promoting PCT team. No changes to anything by them disbanding, as an extra CT team will go up to PCT.
As for PT Wildcards. The current system works really well. It gives more teams a chance to ride GT's and PT races and experience them. Certainly a rankings based system would have delayed my first appearance in a GT, which was massively enjoyable and decently successful. It didn't cost RD but it does cost money from my budget. The XP gains are a good return on that, it's like some other suggest ideas where i'm litterally paying for XP gains.
I know it's been talked about before how PCT wildcard teams can be stealing PT points for no RD cost, but we're not bringing any points back to PCT either.
It's just a nice way to gain XP without relaying on more PT loans. It's a nice way to be involved in the PT and enable more involvement and cross-division talk.
I don't see how a ranking based Wildcard system benefits those aspects. It just makes it harder to lower PCT teams to get those spots, when the higher PCT teams are already looking at promotion or have previously been in the PT themselves.
There could be a separate discussion on PT wildcards costing RD's and giving Points, but with PTHC being cross-division races i don't think we need more of that.
Think of PCT>PT wildcards like Avenir. It's extra interaction between divisions and extra XP gains for developing riders, whilst also carrying some nice prestige for managers.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-02-2018 14:14
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
@TheManxMissile : The Project Africa was just a way to shrink PT to 21 teams, could be done by 4 teams direct promotion instead. But as PA havent been part of the season at all, would not be unfair to say they was never part of it.
I can see your points and understand it, seeing it from a XP perspective, and the fun of riding a GT without using race days in it.
Im not 100% into the XP system – but I guess PCT teams can also get (top-level) XP points in other PT races (again in my system there will be 3 open slots in all PT races)
A ranking based Wildcard system will probably slower movement a little, both from new CT teams to PCT and from PCT to PT, but I’m not sure that is bad. Giving that we have seen teams moving very fast in the past years.
What I’m mostly after in this – is that a ranking based pick (similar to the one we have in PCM.Daily Fantasy Cycling) would make for a lot of interesting choices both in what race-order to list and what riders to send. (using race days)
At the same time and just as important, as mentioned would use a lot of PCT race days there are 146 race days in PT races, assuming 3 teams in every race would be 8x3x146 = 3504 riders race days used. Making room for other racing elsewhere without any extra reporting. Seen with CT eyes could certainly need an expansion in the CT calendar.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 27-02-2018 14:35
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
We can't just decide in August that one team less will promote at the end of October.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 27-02-2018 14:39
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
But why shrink PT to 21?
Sorry if i missed something but i don't see how that relates to wildcards, beyond trying to fit more teams into PT races which would be easier done by reducing squad numbers in each race. We don't want to shrink the top divisions, we want to give more managers the chances to race higher up, and 22+3 is better than 21+3.
And as was said before in dicusssion around division wage caps and competitiveness, we want to promote good levels of movement between divisions as it's more engagning and rewarding for managers to know they can move up divisions decently fast (and those two or three back-to-back-to-back teams are the minority). I'll be against things that slow down/reduce those opportunities to race against other divisions and in the big PT races, mostly because it's just more fun.
Having Wildcards based off that aspect, "have you been in a GT before? No, well then you get priority" is far superior an idea to "You've not raced in a GT before, but that spot is going to this relegated PT team who raced 7 of them whilst you've been in the game racing 0".
PTHC provides that higher scoring opportunity for PCT teams against PT ones. It takes RD's, gives some lvl4 XP and provides more points than HC/C1/C2 races. It makes PT wildcards a more pure fun element of the game, but still has a cost (money).
Make PT wildcards cost money and what's the plan to reduce other PCT race days? Do we take out PTHC altogether? There's no shortage of available races for CT teams who can do C2HC, C2 and C1 plus the odd HC race when space is available, just that C2HC this season was a set calendar that could have used a touch more variety in race design.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 27-02-2018 14:51
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
But why shrink PT to 21? I think there is a limit to 25 teams (incl. control)
Otherwise a guess my point is clear - so agree to disagree.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 27-02-2018 15:08
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
So to allow more teams to take part in PT races, you want to make it harder to and more restrictive to apply for those wildcards?
Reducing the PT size overall would allow more teams into those wildcard spots, i mean why not cut the PT to 20 or 18 and open up 4, 5 or 6 wildcard spaces? At least then low ranked PCT teams would still have a good shot at getting into the kind of race they want. Although we also risk not filling out PT fields and that would be a real issue.
And as with a ranking based process, how would you balance points from relegating PT teams against promoting CT teams. PT teams will score more points just by being in PT over PCT teams, who in turn score more than CT teams just because they are in the PCT. We'd need some sort of weighting system, or accept that CT teams are going to be bottom of the list for PT wildcards which seems like unfair punishment for something out of their control.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 27-02-2018 15:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
There's different ideas here being mixed:
-Changing the PT Wildcard application system
I'm against, i don't think the current system is at all flawed or wrong. A ranking based system has more restrictions and flaws than positive impacts.
-Making PT Wildcards cost race days and give points
Actually i think this could be discussed. It would make more sense and come into line with CT>HC wildcards which do cost RD's and give Points. But it would need a change in application process because PT gives good points if you an do decently, and keeping a "priority for first timers" does unfairly benefit those teams over longer existing teams who have been before.
-Shrinking the PT to make more wildcard spaces
Again it could be discussed, although i don't think this would be a popular idea. We do want to have cross-division interaction and this would promote that. It would also get more managers participating in PT events which i think is a good idea. But seems slightly counter-intuitive a way of doing that, reducing PT manager numbers to increase managers in PT races. Another way to do that would be more relegation/promotion spaces to give more manager rotation between divisions.
|
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 01-03-2018 11:10
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
btw, it'd be really cool to have an equivalent TONE/Benelux in PCT. 
Also, can we have one of Paris - Tours in all divisions? The CT just stole the coolest race. 
I'd love a flat stage with some hills and a very small number of cobbles too, to encourage attacks against the sprinters.
"What done is, is one." - Benji Naesen
|
| |
|
|
| tastasol |
Posted on 01-03-2018 11:20
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2889
Joined: 11-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
trekbmc wrote:
btw, it'd be really cool to have an equivalent TONE/Benelux in PCT.
Also, can we have one of Paris - Tours in all divisions? The CT just stole the coolest race.
I'd love a flat stage with some hills and a very small number of cobbles too, to encourage attacks against the sprinters.
We do have Dunkerque and De Panne (and Baltic), that's at least combined something similar, but certainly, yes! ToNE is easily the race I miss the most from last season.
Something like Nokere Koerse, Handzame Classic, Le Samyn (perhaps too hard) would indeed be cool and offer some more variation for the cobblers (and possibly a clash or two)?
|
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 01-03-2018 18:47
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
trekbmc wrote:
I'd love a flat stage with some hills and a very small number of cobbles too, to encourage attacks against the sprinters.
Sounds like a good WC route... I think I know a guy who's made one like that
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT]  Xero Racing
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 01-03-2018 23:23
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
The best way to change wildcard system is IMHO... to just remove it. I think the best idea for us is a 24-24-24 division system. To use 2 spots on PT startlist just for 'XPs and glory' is a nonsense and waste of calendar capacity, plus there is an argument that PCT teams just 'steal' points from PT teams. Similarly I can't understand why we are not sending 24 teams to all races. Why? Just because lower divisions 'want' to cherry-pick their races. PT teams can't do that, why should lower divisions teams have that absolute privilege? We need some change for this...
We have 431 reports to create per season. That's 493 RDs. That means we could expand from 176/140/120 RDs per division to 193/160/140. The only thing needed to be done for it is just a better organization of calendar and pre-season process.
I think we can expand PTHC idea to Giro and Vuelta. I don't need to race 3 GTs per year, while majority of teams in this game don't race any real GT in a season. Both PT and PCT teams could ride just one of them. 12 and 12 PT/PCT teams in both of them. Both divisions should be able to score points there. ToA could then maybe become CT's own GT - maybe use it as a double header against other CT races so there are more choices for teams there to where send their riders?
I am also a fan of the new PTHC category - it helps to get different startlists during the year, while I love cross-division races. But - one thing - PT now misses some types of choices to make: it became too straightforward as the calendar became smaller. SotD made a great post about this, as well as me previously in this thread. In addition to this, I think we don't need C2/C2HC category split, C2 now exists mainly just because we don't allow CT teams to be more competitive in C1 races. I think if PTHC can work as great as it works, PCT/CT could work is a similar way. Higher wage cap for CT and a bigger calendar without increasing RDs for riders are ideal solutions to allow this.
Calendar could look like this. Same number of reports needed as now.
PT teams 193 RDs = 2 GTs + 5 M (52 RDs) + 96 PT RDs (23 more than now) + 45 PTHC RDs (1 extra band per team)
PCT teams 160 RDs = 1 GT (21 RDs) + 45 PTHC RDs (1 extra band per team) + 54 HC RDs (no bands, 6 less RDs than now) + 40 C1 RDs (10 less than now, seleciton via using my new idea *)
CT teams 140 RDs = 1 CGT (21 RDs) + 60 C1 RDs (again using my new system) + 59 C2 RDs (no bands, no PCT teams)
* Use a 'race selection' system for C1. It would work similarly as bands via a priority system. Majority of races in that category are nowdays 6 RDs stage races or 2 RDs classics. So... have a pool of ten 6-days stage races plus twenty classics. PCT teams get 4 stage races + 8 classics in a similar manner how they get banded races in PTHC. CT teams would get 6 stage races + 12 classics. This would allow us to have full startlists, but to keep a lot of freedom for teams down there. If we want, we can also involve 4 RDs or 8 RDs stage races category, same rules apply. Just kick out ToA.
And as a follow to this, I propose using this XP table:
| XP | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | | GT + M | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.5 | | CGT | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | PT | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | PTHC | 1 | 2 | 1.5 | 0.5 | | HC | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0 | | C1 | 2.5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | C2 | 3 | 1.5 | 1 | 0 |
GT + M boost is a partial compensation for PT teams losing 8 spots in GTs. PCT don't need a lvl 4 boost in PTHC if they all take part in a GT, but they need a lvl 1 boost to have a chance to take lvl 1 to 3. CT gets a chance to boost their lvl 3/4 riders more freely. They should be able to max out riders there, but way slower.
In this way all divisions would get cross-division racing without restrictions, a way to get lvl 4 XPs, but it would take three seasons for a CT team to max out a lvl 4 rider and two seasons for a PCT team, although it would not be totally impossible for a PCT team to max-out a rider during one year. If we don't increase RDs for riders at all, then more chances should open for secondary leaders, which would IMO be a great thing. Increase team sizes and wage caps to allow this instead. And this proposed system could also allow us to increase the number of promoting/relegating teams to 6. More shuffle between the divisions, the better. And more importantly, more fun for everyone without an additional extra work.
------------------
To replace wildcards prices as a way how to get money out of the game, teams could auction for their places in Giro or Vuelta as well as PTHC bands. You would have to make a silent auction bids to get 3 of 6 PTHC bands and 1 of 2 GTs. Top 24 bidders get that band/GT. Minimum offer for a band or GT would be 1k, maximum 172k. There would be a rule that you can't make a same bid for more than one band/GT, minimum raise 1k - this would keep priority system in it in a way. Minimum amount you would pay would be 28k. Total maximum should be 200k, this would be a cap.
------------------
Any chance we could change time bonuses? F1 style works just fine, but IMO we could expand bonuses in other races as well. 20-12-8 system could be expanded to 20-12-8-6-4-2 or 20-12-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Either big-small podium or a top 10 result is surely a good result and should be somehow rewarded everywhere. Usual reward are points, but why not time bonus as well in stage races? Could make stage races even more interesting especially in earlier parts of a race.
Also any chance time bonuses work for KoM sprints?
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 01-03-2018 23:53
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
Similarly I can't understand why we are not sending 24 teams to all races. Why?Just because lower divisions 'want' to cherry-pick their races. PT teams can't do that, why should lower divisions teams have that absolute privilege? We need some change for this...
Because it's much more fun to pick them. And because you can create more unique teams with special focusses there.
Any chance we could change time bonuses? F1 style works just fine, but IMO we could expand bonuses in other races as well. 20-12-8 system could be expanded to 20-12-8-6-4-2 or 20-12-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.
I like the idea in theory, but does it work in praxis? We often have climbers going for Top 10 positions in later GC stages. And often the #10-15 in sprints (minor leadouts) don't even sprint, but instead the points go to the always same leadouts of the lucky 3 best that got a train.
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 02-03-2018 01:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Croatia14 wrote:
Similarly I can't understand why we are not sending 24 teams to all races. Why?Just because lower divisions 'want' to cherry-pick their races. PT teams can't do that, why should lower divisions teams have that absolute privilege? We need some change for this...
Because it's much more fun to pick them. And because you can create more unique teams with special focusses there.
Ok, then I want cherry-picking of races in PT as well. Why can't I? Would be much more fun... Would not.
I only suggest PCT/CT teams could still select races almost as their want. Just a somehow stricter system so we don't waste free capacity in races, in reality teams would still get almost all races they got now. If PCT/CT teams can't race all C1 races they want, that would be a good thing. I also can't race all PTHC races I want. And that's a good thing. It forces my team and my managing in the off-season out of my comfort zone.
And all managers can create whatever team they want. But all teams should be forced to race a big part of their calendar as a given or partially given. If PT teams have a big majority of calendar like that, why should lower divisions get that privilege to do cherry-picking? Does not make any sense.
Croatia14 wrote:Any chance we could change time bonuses? F1 style works just fine, but IMO we could expand bonuses in other races as well. 20-12-8 system could be expanded to 20-12-8-6-4-2 or 20-12-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.
I like the idea in theory, but does it work in praxis? We often have climbers going for Top 10 positions in later GC stages. And often the #10-15 in sprints (minor leadouts) don't even sprint, but instead the points go to the always same leadouts of the lucky 3 best that got a train.
Top 10 results for lead-out riders surely happen, but well, if they get it, then I take it as a reward for a great lead-out. Happens just rarely. And from my experience of playing PCM series, I believe riders always take a part in the final sprint if they have power to do so. So if some riders don't sprint, they don't have power. And well - if a GC rider can get top 6/10 in a sprint, why not reward him with a few seconds? A
10th place is surely better than a 70th. Time-wise no difference in a peloton sprint finish in GC though. Weird.
|
| |
|
|
| jt1109 |
Posted on 02-03-2018 05:14
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3214
Joined: 23-07-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
Just my two cents here slightly adapted between a couple of people ideas my idea would be to lower the amount of reports required by giving both CT and PCT race days they must ride each year. To try and increase prestige in races and incorporate a CGT for each division.
I people like the ability to plan there races during a season and I am exactly the same I feel it's great to be able to select some races were the opposition is weaker or the route suits your strongest rider best.
Thus I would increase the massively successful band system we have at the moment.
In CT and PCT each team would:
Select 6 out of 12 bands of 10 race days (Can also be 3 out of 6) with half the teams from each division in the band. This would become CTHC.
In PT teams would:
PT Choose 3 out of 6 PTHC bands of 20 race days each
PCT teams choosing 2 out of 6 bands of 20 race days each
In addition to this:
CT would get 70 dedicated RDS to them including a CGT giving lvl 4 xp. plus 60 CTHC race days = 130 Race Days
PCT would get 50 dedicated RDS to them including a CGT giving lvl 4 xp plus 60 CTHC race days and 40 PTHC race days = 150 Race Days
PT would get 116 RDS to them including 3 GTS and 5 monuments plus (43 extra race days) = 176 Race Days
To make this work smoothly I would suggests changing division sizes to the below
22 Pro Tour
24 Pro Continental
18 Continental
Though Continental could take on more times based on how many apply or active managers we have.
The Main Benefits of this system would be:
- Everyone would either gain 10 race days as CT and PCT while PT stays with the exact same amount 176 PT , 150 PCT, 130 CT but we would reduce our Racedays needed from 493 to 476 which could be as many as 10-20 reports (or nearly a month real world time for the same amount of race days per team)
- Every team would have a larger portion of the calendar in there own hands
- Every division/team would now include a GT to ride in increasing the Prestige of these races and giving lvl 4 XP (I would use Roman system for the CGT)
- Teams from each division would race against each other are often increasing interaction between divisions.
- It would give a chance for more races to grow in history if theres a cobbled Triple in CT\PCT and a hilly Triple CT\PCT it would give those division there own mini Cobbled and Ardennes season. Knowing that they are competing on a even footing with all teams and not having larger teams winning these races.
FYI here is how the racedays work
CT 70 - of 18 teams
CTHC 120 - of 19 teams
PCT 50 - of 24 teams
PTHC 120 - of 19 teams
PT 116 - of 22 teams Plus wildcards
Grand Total: 476 Race Days
Thanks to whoever managed to read to the end of my ideas here. Please understand this is just an idea I had I thought I would share to try and help keep strategy for the game whilst also easing the strain on reporters. My main hope is to try and increase prestige in some races on the calendar and give each division another "target" for the year such as the monuments in PT.
Any questions/thoughts or comments feel free to reply. |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
