|
Ideas/Suggestions for 2014
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 25-01-2014 12:04
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
In theory, a mid-season 'break' might not have to slow down the racing if timed right. E.g. say the midpoint is the start of July, any mid-season stuff would just have to start when the racing moves into June.
Inactivity wouldnt have to be measured then, it'd just be a case of people who hand it in mid-season are clearly active, and those who don't may miss the races.
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.
Not saying this would work or that I necesarilly favour it - but if it is known in advance that mid-season the active teams will finalise their races and team lineups in the second half of the year, and that inactive teams may not be included in that part of the season - then that could just be put down as a known risk when selecting goals, and initial lineups.
- You pick an early season goal knowing competition will be at its highest - or do you choose a later race in the hope of an easier field.
- Similarly, send your team leader to races that suit him in the first half of the season, or gamble that similar races later on may have a less competitive field, and save him.
Not sure about rider goals, but just looking at rewards:
a) Definitely no bonus points. If theyve achieved their goal, theyve already score points for it. If theyve missed their goal, theyve already missed points for it. %s dont work as GT riders stand to gain more if they score big. Plus I hate things like F1's double points in the last race anyway.
b) Im wary of adding more complexity to the renewals bit, unless it is easy to handle.
c) Could be the best option.
|
| |
|
|
| tyriion |
Posted on 25-01-2014 17:10
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1510
Joined: 29-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't really mind it if inactive teams win stuff. You could look at it in a way that the team has announced it is disbanding at the end of the season and the riders try to get into the spotlights to attract a new team next year.
It would be worse to have undersubscribed races, as they're weird tactically from time to time. If I lose to a rider whose team is inactive I don't mind as much as losing out because the AI messed up.
Check out my ManGame team here
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 25-01-2014 20:08
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I completly agree with tyriion there. And to be honest, I am not a fan of checkpoints during season. What's the point of sending same lineups once again during the season, if I already sent them during the off season?
|
| |
|
|
| Gustavovskiy |
Posted on 25-01-2014 20:38
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6036
Joined: 20-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well Roman I don't think you understood the suggestion.
The idea behind the mid-season startlist despatch was to create a point where the managers could interact with the development of the game before the end the season. Well I mean it's great to be part of the game as it is, but the best part is (for me at least) the transfer season. If you could integrate some of that in the stage-reporting period it would be great.
But tbh I think the idea is probably not viable. At least as it stands. After reading the pros and cons it seems to bring more harm than benefit to the game.
As to the rider goals idea, I think it's a good one. I don't know how much work it would cost, but if not much then I'm all for it.
|
| |
|
|
| Mhaley45 |
Posted on 26-01-2014 13:56
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1036
Joined: 17-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Adding individual rider goals is very interesting, but each year we have (A) new managers who would potentially really struggle with goals for every rider and (B) we have team changings divisions which could also make rider goal setting difficult.
Where I think this might work would be for your top riders. Maybe in the PT you would designate 6 top riders who would need goals, in the PCT 4 top riders need goals and in the CT just 2 riders need goals.
That would reduce the managers and the Admins work loads considerably to record and track rider goals yet it your place an added responsibility on the managers.
=========================================
Team Manager of AMEX - Navigon
Editor of the Cobbler
|
| |
|
|
| Mhaley45 |
Posted on 26-01-2014 14:05
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1036
Joined: 17-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
It appears that several managers/Admins have some concerns about mid-season adjustments. Another possible way to add mid-season involvement without the major workload efforts would be to;
Change the Goal system slightly.
In pre-season teams set (as today) their five team goals, but at mid-season teams would be allowed to alter one (or maybe 2) unraced goals. If you wanted to alter 1 3 point goal you would have to make a new 3 point goal, etc. If a goal race has already been raced and you failed your goal you cannot change that in the 2nd half of the season, only unraced goals could be altered.
=========================================
Team Manager of AMEX - Navigon
Editor of the Cobbler
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 26-01-2014 14:20
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I like the suggestion of being able to change a goal mid season, but I've got a few questions about it.
How would you propose that would work for standings and stage wins and jersey goals?
Also would you be able to make your goals harder? E.g turn a 5 stage wins goal into a 10 stage wins goal mid season?
And if you can alter 2 goals would you be able to change an unraced win goal from a c1 race to a GC race if you lowered another goal so the points stayed equal?
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 04:03
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Mhaley45 |
Posted on 26-01-2014 14:26
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1036
Joined: 17-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
A fixed schedule for each division (as the PT has) would work for the PCT and the CT. The key to success is to make sure all terrain types have a fair opportunity to score points. Do they need to be 100% equal? In my opinion no they do not. They just need to reflect what we see in the sport today.
The advantages of a fixed schedule are many;
1. Max teams per race
2. Reducing the number of total races
3. Reducing the reporters work load
4. Speeding up the season
5. Possible allows for PCT teams to be invited to 2 PT races each season and for CT teams to get 2 PCT races each season.
My team is highly focused and promotion may not be as important to our fans and sponsors is as doing well in our specialization. What a fixed schedule needs to allow for is the ability of a specialized team to race well in their specialty and avoid relegation. In order to promote you will have to be multi-dimensional. I think managers would understand this and accept that.
=========================================
Team Manager of AMEX - Navigon
Editor of the Cobbler
|
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 26-01-2014 14:28
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11819
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Not a fan of changing goals mid-season. Why would you do that? It's not the point of setting goals prior to the season by changing them afterwards and saying "wait, hey. I changed my mind". Of course sponsor goals can be a real pain the a** sometimes (speaking as someone, who tends to fail at least four out of five), but it just makes sense to stick to the goals you set in off-season. It's a challenge and the art of achieving those goals should be untouched, imo.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 26-01-2014 14:31
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
did we have to select goals before transfers? I night have been mistaken in thinking we did, but if so then it would help new managers who might end up building a different kind of team to the one they based their goals around, e.g. if they set cobbold goals but can't sign a good cobbler and end up focussing on hills/sprints instead.
|
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 26-01-2014 14:35
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
did we have to select goals before transfers? I night have been mistaken in thinking we did, but if so then it would help new managers who might end up building a different kind of team to the one they based their goals around, e.g. if they set cobbold goals but can't sign a good cobbler and end up focussing on hills/sprints instead.
The point of goals happening before transfers is that people have a focus going into the transfer season. If then you can't sign a rider capable of doing this, then that's your fault. I personally don't think new managers are naive enough to not understand that. I agree with tsmoha.
Edited by FroomeDog99 on 26-01-2014 14:36
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 26-01-2014 20:28
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
did we have to select goals before transfers? I night have been mistaken in thinking we did, but if so then it would help new managers who might end up building a different kind of team to the one they based their goals around, e.g. if they set cobbold goals but can't sign a good cobbler and end up focussing on hills/sprints instead.
Goal selection comes before transfers because it determines your budget.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 27-01-2014 06:56
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
About the MG fantasy betting: i would be glad to help jph27, like i did last year when we were organising that for a while. I was expecting you will try to revive it at some point, so contact me later if you are thinking about it.
About goals: As Count sais, goals are choosen prior to transfers because of budget. But i think that is the only reason for it,as it is not much logical apart from that. What cycling team is setting their goals before having actual riders able to compete? This is most unreal thing on MG and it only frustrates you in the transfers. You simply need some kind of a rider and majority of the season is fucked up when you failed to sign him 
What about setting the goals only by type of placement and category of the race, not an actual race name? Like setting a win goal in HC race, but not specifying e.g. Giro del Trentino or Philadelphia cycling classic. This way, your budget can be increased with amount for HC win, but you could specify the type and name of the race later after the transfers?
|
| |
|
|
| ggDonovan |
Posted on 27-01-2014 10:36
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 897
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
What about setting the goals only by type of placement and category of the race, not an actual race name? Like setting a win goal in HC race, but not specifying e.g. Giro del Trentino or Philadelphia cycling classic. This way, your budget can be increased with amount for HC win, but you could specify the type and name of the race later after the transfers?
I like it!
|
| |
|
|
| Rin |
Posted on 27-01-2014 11:08
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2748
Joined: 14-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Too easy and it wouldn't really give you a focus for the transfer season as there are sprints, stage races and ardennes type HC races.
Also you shouldn't give the goals a that high priority that if you don't succeed them that you are bunked.
I had in my first season just 1! goal completed and even panicked and swapped Roelandts for Gil (a trade I just did because of having any mountain/hill rider plus I had goals, if I was in my position now I wouldn't have done that deal).
In short that season was bad with being almost last in (P)CT.
The next season my team was the most improving one in (P)CT and it was building the core for the next seasons Bianchi team that won the PCT.
And I was in 2011 just completing 2 goals and 2012 with Bianchi 3 goals.
I am completely against mid-season changes/stuff.
 Team Bianchi - 2012 Man-Game ProContinental Tour Champions
 |
| |
|
|
| tyriion |
Posted on 27-01-2014 14:58
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1510
Joined: 29-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm pretty much ok with how a season runs right now, but I can understand people who want more to do during a season than commenting on races and updating HQs.
So thinking about things you could do during the season I came up with an idea. Maybe part of the reneweals could be done midway through the season. This way you could possibly renew a big name rider who had a bad first half of the season for a bargain. Or get that young talent to sign a contract before his stats are updated (if that even matters for wage demands)
Inactive teams could possibly feature here as well, with the ability to sign riders before they go to free agency. This might make it hard for new teams though, so unsure about that. It would be realistic however, as every rider would prefer signing a contract in august rather then november/december.
Rules would have to be made for this of course. Most importantly limiting the number of negotiations you can do during the season. Maybe early negotiations can give benefits salary wise, as the rider is grateful or whatever. Could be a really flavorful addition to the game if done right.
Just brainstorming here, haven't gone through real renewals yet, so maybe more veteran players can point out the flaws in this.
Check out my ManGame team here
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 27-01-2014 16:22
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I like the idea of being able to poach riders from inactive teams before they become a free agent. The wage you could get them on would probably have to be higher then what they are currently on so it's a bit of a gamble as to whether you think they will go for more or less then that if they became free agents and it would also help simulate the fact that riders would ask for less later in the season as they got more desperate to find a team.
that said I've not gone through renewalls yet so I can't tell if it's feasible or not.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 01-02-2014 11:14
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Here is a preview of what the Brackets could look like for PCT. Each consist of 20 race days. 30 PCT teams picking 4 Brackets leads to an average of 20 teams per race - so there will definitely be space for CT 'wildcards' in some of them.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | Stage Races: | H | C | M | H/T | M/T | H/M/T | | M/H | H/T | F | | M/H | H | | F/T | F | M/T | | | | | | | M | | | | | | | | | | | | Classics: | F | C | | C | M | H | | | F | | C/H | F/H | F/H | | | H | | F/H | F | | | | | | F | | | | | | | H | | | | | | | M | |
|
| |
|
|
| aidanvn13 |
Posted on 01-02-2014 15:33
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2797
Joined: 06-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Haven't really voiced my opinion on the new "packets" system.
I must say, that I'm in favour of speeding up the game. 15 Months for a whole season is just too long (not blaming anyone on that part as everyone did their part especially those at the top end of the organisation). Shortening it to ~9 Months sounds perfect IMO. Right now, if you have a young talent it will take more than 3 years to develop that talent and that doesn't seem feasible.
I'm definitely in favour of the packet system. Obviously it's not as nice as selecting every single race for your team, but it's a great way to take the load off the reporters, speed up the game and at the same time still include an aspect of race selection. Kudos to a great compromise. In terms of a fixed calendar, I don't like it. I feel it will destroy specialisation in teams, i.e. if I wanted to build a climbing team I'd have to scrap that idea and get a rider for cobbles, sprints and time trialists. The packet system works right around this idea.
I also feel that active managers should be awarded and inactive managers should effectively be punished somehow. I don't believe that 'removing' teams half way through the season is feasible, but something to that extent is necessary (but in the same light it shouldn't disadvantage other managers who had a focus in the first half of the season). Something like being able to renew an x amount of riders or signing like 2 free agents halfway through the season. Or perhaps being able to edit the rider selection for races - anything that offers some reward for being active, but doesn't require an input if a manager chooses not to add to it.
Finally, thanks to all the reporters and SN. I wish I could report, but I don't have PCM13 or a competent computer. SN, if there's anything I could help with, like db editing, please contact me.
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 02-03-2014 18:48
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
Figured I'd just raise a suggestion for discussion. What about scrapping the rule about a fee equivalent or greater than the wage being required for non-maxed out riders being scrapped for Level 3 and 4 riders? Or go even further and don't count them against the loan cap?
The example I'd use is Monsalve. If a PCT or CT team signed him and wanted to max him out, they would have to pay a PT team for a rider who will actually help the PT team. Keeping it as is for Level 1 and 2 would work and prevent exploitation by PT teams but what do people think about a change for Level 3 and 4 riders? |
| |
|
