|
Ideas for 2011
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 00:22
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 30-10-2009 21:00
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'd say Lance is a very special case.
There are riders who look as if they could win forever and then don't.
How about 50% chance of losing -1 from one stat?
Not worried about Cunego are you? 
EDIT - I think what I would like is more randomness in rider progression/regression/stats in general.
Edited by fenian_1234 on 30-10-2009 21:01
|
| |
|
|
| ursul |
Posted on 30-10-2009 21:03
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1320
Joined: 15-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's can be good, but only for good rider, a rider whit not so incredible stat, that win a race in breakaway will have a high of motivation.
When Nothing goes rigth, go left...
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 30-10-2009 21:06
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
There wont be any stat decreases to riders who win big races.
And fenian, it's not really possible to have random stat increases that are also fair stat increases
|
| |
|
|
| ursul |
Posted on 30-10-2009 21:08
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1320
Joined: 15-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
so, if we can't have fair and random, we need to choose, and random is the best, I think, beacause, how determinate what is fair, and what is not?
When Nothing goes rigth, go left...
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 30-10-2009 21:13
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
ursul wrote:
so, if we can't have fair and random, we need to choose, and random is the best, I think, beacause, how determinate what is fair, and what is not?
Please stop spamming this thread. This is for a productive discussion for improving the management game, and you dont seem to have a clue what you are on about.
|
| |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 30-10-2009 22:12
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
SportingNonsense wrote:And fenian, it's not really possible to have random stat increases that are also fair stat increases
For me, I don't think fair is that important.
As long as it's random and the system behind it is clear. I'm not quite sure how to do it, but I think there should be an element of chance in rider progressions. I haven't researched it, but I'm pretty sure there are programs out there that could be adapted for such purposes.
Take Cunego, in real life, his progression can't be replicated in the ManGame. Neither can someone like Brad Wiggins. |
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 30-10-2009 22:36
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
As long as it's random, and the system behind it is clear.
That, my son, is impossible.
In a side note, random is also impossible.
[url=cleavercycling.co.uk]  [/url] |
| |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 30-10-2009 22:58
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
https://www.randomizer.org/
First thing that comes up on Google.
For me, we fed the numbers into this and here's what came out is nice and clear.  |
| |
|
|
| mattiasgt |
Posted on 30-10-2009 23:11
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2471
Joined: 15-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nahh, I don't like the sound of a random stat increase. Could be really unfair. A stat increase based on results in some way could maybe work.
(Previously) Manager of Koenigsegg
Koenigsegg: ( Media)
Livin' Loud |
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 31-10-2009 00:11
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
How? A great rider trained to be the best (ie, Cunego, Schleck) performs well, so gets even more stat increases. How, in your definition, could that possibly be fair? Or maybe we should introduce things like:
If a rider is in the top 10 of mountain stats, if they don't win the GC of a grand tour, they lose some stats.
If a rider is in the top 10 of hilly stats, if they don't win 3 stages of a grand tour, or a hilly classic, they lose some stats.
Would those be fair?
[url=cleavercycling.co.uk] [/url] |
| |
|
|
| rodda |
Posted on 31-10-2009 01:39
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2276
Joined: 17-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
^ those seem a bit extreme
|
| |
|
|
| dave92 |
Posted on 31-10-2009 02:40
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2946
Joined: 21-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
yeah, must agree with rjc here, "random" stat decreases are a bad idea.
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 31-10-2009 03:17
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
You know what, I've been looking for a good programming project, and this might be a good idea. I'm considering writing a program to experiment with different rider progressions based on age, success, and some form of potential stat (if the man-game takes that into account). I'm not sure if I'm going to do it, but if I do, I'll be sure to share the results. |
| |
|
|
| mrlol |
Posted on 31-10-2009 07:44
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5005
Joined: 24-06-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's not fair to say to person A, there you go, your top rider which you just bougth for half your team budget now loses his main stat and will therefor be shit, while you say to person B who did shit in the transfer season; oh you've been lucky; the semi-team leader you managed to buy in the final 2h of the transfers has just become world class!
It's a Management game. I think there's enough randomness already in Cyanides racing system. (See mr. Schleck winning a sprint) |
| |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 31-10-2009 11:12
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
The obvious time for any stat increases or decreases to happen would be at the end of the season and before the transfer season starts.
That would increase the Management aspect, imo, and constantly keep you on your toes.
Also, the kind of changes I'd envision would be of the +1/-1 variety to maybe one/two or three stats - so probably wouldn't have a dramatic impact on any one rider.
Edited by fenian_1234 on 31-10-2009 11:13
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 31-10-2009 11:18
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
It would need a very convincing argument if you want there to be random stat decreases, and so far Im yet to be convinced.
The stat decreases that will definately be in place is for the older riders.
Stat Decreases
1973 - Retired
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Potential 1-6
1974-1975 - 35-37 year olds - 5/6 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 4 points off others.
1976 - 34-35 year old - 4/5 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 3 points off others.
1977 - 33-34 year olds - 3/4 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 2 points off others.
1978 - 32-33 year olds - 2 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 1 point off others.
Potential 7
1974-1975 - 35-37 year olds - 4 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 3 points off others.
1976 - 34-35 year old - 3 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 2 points off others.
1977 - 33-34 year olds - 2 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 1 point off others.
1978 - 32-33 year olds - 1 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. 1 point off others.
That is the system used for the past few years, but its open to improvement
|
| |
|
|
| mattiasgt |
Posted on 31-10-2009 11:26
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2471
Joined: 15-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
If stat increase would be partly based on results, of course there should be a limit of which riders who's affected. Maybe an age limit plus a stat limit.
Example: Riders under 28 and with a maximum of 75 in the most imortant stats.
Something like that..
(Previously) Manager of Koenigsegg
Koenigsegg: ( Media)
Livin' Loud |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 31-10-2009 12:11
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
By 5/6 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. do you mean between those stats or 5-6 off each?
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 31-10-2009 12:18
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
By 5/6 points off Sta/Rec/Res/Acc. do you mean between those stats or 5-6 off each?
Off each
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 31-10-2009 12:33
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
ouch. Can i sack leipheimer now?
|
| |
|
