cio93 wrote:
Well, 2 points less of a lead for B&O, the mistake was in the rankings file I used itself, not in the scores.
To confirm, there was a very small input error which saw B&O gain 2 points.
Cio thought there was a bigger gap because the Points Scales file falsely suggests that only the Top 100 riders in GC take GC points, whereas it has always been the case that all race finishers get at least 5 points.
Which is, by the way, now that you mention it something I would reconsider next season.
I'm not sure 51st in GC should give the same points as 170th. In Tasmania, there might be an argument for that because it's 3 stages and could be pretty random, but I would disagree in Colombia for example.
Not saying that finishing shouldn't give points at all, but making a step from 5 down to 3 or 2, alternatively upping 51-100 to 7 or 8.
(yeah, that might make mountain domestiques slightly more valuable than sprinters, but I think appreciating the constant effort over a stage race should be rewarded a bit)
EDIT:
Also thanks for the kind words everyone Edited by cio93 on 06-02-2014 22:14
dave92 wrote:
What a season for me. I didn't really see this team as being elite, but things really broke well for me. Obviously Phinney was huge, particularly with the Giro, but Van Garderen and Summerhill really achieved all that could be expected of them.
This relegation fight really has been incredible to watch, and SotD is right, the quality of the managers has made it all the more exciting.
Yeah, and congrats btw. It must surely mean that you know realized that you don't need Pinot, and thus you'll sell him to me
cio93 wrote:
Which is, by the way, now that you mention it something I would reconsider next season.
I'm not sure 51st in GC should give the same points as 170th. In Tasmania, there might be an argument for that because it's 3 stages and could be pretty random, but I would disagree in Colombia for example.
Not saying that finishing shouldn't give points at all, but making a step from 5 down to 3 or 2, alternatively upping 51-100 to 7 or 8.
(yeah, that might make mountain domestiques slightly more valuable than sprinters, but I think appreciating the constant effort over a stage race should be rewarded a bit)
EDIT:
Also thanks for the kind words everyone
To be honest I feel that is a waste of time. A rider finishing lower than 50tj has not put a decent effort to get points, and thus getting a few from actually finishing the race is enough. There are no reason to make it even more valuable to have a bunch of shitty climbers over mediocre cobblers, sprinters, TTers and such.
As it is now it can actually pay off to have 4-5 fairly competent climbers, but no leader if they pick up from 25th to 40th or so. It's normally a good way to follow the progress of a young rider, as he climbs the ranks with slightly better points every season. But I don't feel there should be a need to implement further altering of these minimal points, as they are by far too random for anyone to benefit from it.
cio93 wrote:
Which is, by the way, now that you mention it something I would reconsider next season.
I'm not sure 51st in GC should give the same points as 170th. In Tasmania, there might be an argument for that because it's 3 stages and could be pretty random, but I would disagree in Colombia for example.
Not saying that finishing shouldn't give points at all, but making a step from 5 down to 3 or 2, alternatively upping 51-100 to 7 or 8.
(yeah, that might make mountain domestiques slightly more valuable than sprinters, but I think appreciating the constant effort over a stage race should be rewarded a bit)
EDIT:
Also thanks for the kind words everyone
To be honest I feel that is a waste of time. A rider finishing lower than 50tj has not put a decent effort to get points, and thus getting a few from actually finishing the race is enough. There are no reason to make it even more valuable to have a bunch of shitty climbers over mediocre cobblers, sprinters, TTers and such.
As it is now it can actually pay off to have 4-5 fairly competent climbers, but no leader if they pick up from 25th to 40th or so. It's normally a good way to follow the progress of a young rider, as he climbs the ranks with slightly better points every season. But I don't feel there should be a need to implement further altering of these minimal points, as they are by far too random for anyone to benefit from it.
This. Plus since Cyanide decided to add this "feature" of the whole peloton sitting up once a selection has been made (usually about 10-15 riders) the places 25-50 is indeed already quite random.
