|
Suggestions for the 2017 season
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 20-02-2017 21:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
Well yes, keep one of them in bands, but if you make both bands it's going to be very hard to keep PCT teams competitive unless they get an allround roster, which isn't realistic in my opinion. Sport Vlaanderen doesn't have stage racers and Caja Rural don't have cobblers. It's not the PT.
Now try working with a half-set calendar on a CT budget. This is why i don't like it as an idea for the CT, because they are so limited on budget comparitively.
Still not great for PCT, but they have more than double a CT budget so the ability to cope is a lot higher.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-02-2017 21:15
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
Well yes, keep one of them in bands, but if you make both bands it's going to be very hard to keep PCT teams competitive unless they get an allround roster, which isn't realistic in my opinion. Sport Vlaanderen doesn't have stage racers and Caja Rural don't have cobblers. It's not the PT.
Now try working with a half-set calendar on a CT budget. This is why i don't like it as an idea for the CT, because they are so limited on budget comparitively.
Still not great for PCT, but they have more than double a CT budget so the ability to cope is a lot higher.
Then again same problem for anyone, so basically still same chances. 
Also no info yet about budget. All things that might be considered here and there. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 20-02-2017 21:24
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
roturn wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
roturn wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
But please don't turn both the PTHC and HC into bands, because more mandatory races we do not want is definitely not an improvement.
HC was always in a band system I think. Quite hard to make it without bands and still make sure it`s balanced with same race days in that category.
Well yes, keep one of them in bands, but if you make both bands it's going to be very hard to keep PCT teams competitive unless they get an allround roster, which isn't realistic in my opinion. Sport Vlaanderen doesn't have stage racers and Caja Rural don't have cobblers. It's not the PT.
If it`s 40rd in HC and 30 in PTHC for example.
You would still have like 30-40 or so via your own choice.
Of those ~70 in bands, you surely can select bands with ~40-50 suited rd.
Then 20-30rd would need a bit of balanced roster if you want to perform to the best. If you only have a weaker squad there, you should still do rather well in the whole picture if you do great in the races, you can pick on your own.
Last year it was 80/140 in bands. So pretty much remains similar as in 2016.
Alright, if the % in bands stays the same, I'm ok with it 
But yeah, in my opinion only PT teams should have a balanced roster to be competitive.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 20-02-2017 22:12
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Please can we dradtically lower race days across the board, or at least for the lower divisions. It feels like you know the favourites for every race before the preview thread is even up and that has all but eliminated my favourite aspect of the game, trying to plan where the big guns of your division will chose to miss.
I know the calender was too big when I first joined the CT neaning alot of races were undersubscribed but back then you could work out where your second or sometimes even third tier leader would be capable of avoiding the big guns and getting a result for you. For example the totme in my first season 4 years ago where i got a 74mo rider on the GC podium on merit wheras now you can barely get them in the top 10.
The only race I can think of where there was a weak field is usapcc's sprint field. The only others are hilly races Dowsett and Klemme skipped in favour testing themselves against the PCT in C1 races instead.
The only one of my riders that I had to think about the planning for apart from getting my talents from level 1 to 3 was Zoidl, everyone else could race every raceday my team wanted to enter on their preferred terrain which seems wrong, There needs to be a more tight race day limit to make sure that planning is both harder and potentially more rewarding as it feels like we have lost a big part of the depth there.
This season I only had Zoidl and Kung who both have dual strengths where I had to make a choice of which to focus on, after that it was easy to fill in who went where.
By a drastic change I mean 20%-30% less if we were to keep our current calender size, then apply that proportion to the new one.
I think that if we are going to change things then it would be the perfect chance to bring back the extra tactical layer we seem to have lost.
|
| |
|
|
| valverde321 |
Posted on 20-02-2017 23:12
|
World Champion
Posts: 12986
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 530.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
Please can we dradtically lower race days across the board, or at least for the lower divisions. It feels like you know the favourites for every race before the preview thread is even up and that has all but eliminated my favourite aspect of the game, trying to plan where the big guns of your division will chose to miss.
I know the calender was too big when I first joined the CT neaning alot of races were undersubscribed but back then you could work out where your second or sometimes even third tier leader would be capable of avoiding the big guns and getting a result for you. For example the totme in my first season 4 years ago where i got a 74mo rider on the GC podium on merit wheras now you can barely get them in the top 10.
The only race I can think of where there was a weak field is usapcc's sprint field. The only others are hilly races Dowsett and Klemme skipped in favour testing themselves against the PCT in C1 races instead.
The only one of my riders that I had to think about the planning for apart from getting my talents from level 1 to 3 was Zoidl, everyone else could race every raceday my team wanted to enter on their preferred terrain which seems wrong, There needs to be a more tight race day limit to make sure that planning is both harder and potentially more rewarding as it feels like we have lost a big part of the depth there.
This season I only had Zoidl and Kung who both have dual strengths where I had to make a choice of which to focus on, after that it was easy to fill in who went where.
By a drastic change I mean 20%-30% less if we were to keep our current calender size, then apply that proportion to the new one.
I think that if we are going to change things then it would be the perfect chance to bring back the extra tactical layer we seem to have lost.
I like this idea. It means teams with depth are rewarded much more than a team with one good rider. Use my team as an example, I could get Kinoshita to race in pretty much every hilly classic my team raced this year, as well as a couple stage races, so having two strong hilly riders was almost pointless for me.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 20:34
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| jt1109 |
Posted on 20-02-2017 23:40
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3214
Joined: 23-07-2008
PCM$: 400.00
|
Agree wholeheartedly with this conversation between valv and sammy the need for fewer race days for teams and individual riders in order to recreate the tactics that the game was built on |
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 21-02-2017 07:53
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
As said above the system is not 100% defined yet, but a very possible core to work around with.
Other things are, how PCT teams can still have GT/M experience for the level 3/4 rider xp. So a potential wildcard system remaining for those two categories.
Or the way the loan system could be worked on.
Also a form system etc. This would actually also help out against the problem above with PCT/CT leaders everywhere.
Having a top rider of course is supposed to give you an advantage. Hence only getting yourself 2nd tier riders is of course good for balance but is not really necessary to give you podium chances. With a form system you could at least plan a bit better and maybe get races, where other riders just have a minus form etc.
Also with a "stricter" schedule in C2HC for example similar to PT, race clashes are also an option for avoiding top riders in any race.
All those kind of things need more thinking but in the end I am sure, it can improve the existing system without too big changes while also reducing the reporter`s work.
Ideas are always welcome of course. And based on some, other things already are considered, which are not 100% equal to your ideas, but go into the same direction (Similar as reducing rider rd as above -> potential form system/race clashes instead).
Other ideas see a full change of the wildcard system and might even be solved a lot different with a 24/24 PT/PCT system. Then no more point "stealing" from PCT in GT/M/PT events. Therefore some kind of "transfer season" bidding on 1 forced PCT wilcard rider in every GT per team. Would make up for PCT->PT loans and some problems there as well.
Edited by roturn on 21-02-2017 09:16
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 21-02-2017 09:47
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
I like the idea of PT manager being able to be able to pick some of the races they are going to and be able to actually send good riders to those. Except for the experience points, the whole PT teams in HC races hasn't worked out too well since the PT riders will be fighting at the the lower half of the top 20. I know that PT teams aren't supposed to go there and win the races, but the joy of actually racing those is very slim at the moment.
I also like the idea of PCT riders riding for PT teams in GT rather than having wildcards.
roturn wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
But please don't turn both the PTHC and HC into bands, because more mandatory races we do not want is definitely not an improvement.
HC was always in a band system I think. Quite hard to make it without bands and still make sure it`s balanced with same race days in that category.
HC races were picked individually when I was in CT. I think the HC bands were introduced when a lot of the HC races turned out with a low participation.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 21-02-2017 10:05
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
I know that PT teams aren't supposed to go there and win the races, but the joy of actually racing those is very slim at the moment.
Not sure if I agree. F.e. Portugal was way too much in my eyes...
What I'd just propose is that PCT teams also can receive points in WT races, but it counts against the race days of the riders when they take part. Either this or a strict border between those 2 divisions. |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 21-02-2017 10:38
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Croatia14 wrote:
I know that PT teams aren't supposed to go there and win the races, but the joy of actually racing those is very slim at the moment.
Not sure if I agree. F.e. Portugal was way too much in my eyes...
What I'd just propose is that PCT teams also can receive points in WT races, but it counts against the race days of the riders when they take part. Either this or a strict border between those 2 divisions.
The problem there was too many PT teams in the HC band. The amount of points pr. PT team pr. raceday DRASTICALLY increases by the number of participants - Not surprisingly. So those three teams that are not in the big bands have gotten a significantly lower average of points than the others. And currently the biggest PT HC band has a lot more in average than any other band.
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 14-03-2017 20:46
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Maybe a bit late but havent found the time to do write my thoughts down.
I feel like some of the proposed changes are very good ideas. Especially the PTHC category sounds like a major upgrade to the current PT in HC idea. Also the change of division sizes to 24/24/x sounds very promising although it is a bummer for those CT teams who might have aimed at "disband promotion" all season long.
roturn wrote:
Other ideas see a full change of the wildcard system and might even be solved a lot different with a 24/24 PT/PCT system. Then no more point "stealing" from PCT in GT/M/PT events. Therefore some kind of "transfer season" bidding on 1 forced PCT wilcard rider in every GT per team. Would make up for PCT->PT loans and some problems there as well.
This is the one thing that i really dont want to see implemented of all the suggested ideas.
1) I don't think teams should be forced to take riders in their team that they do not want to have in the first place.
There are teams that have a very strict focus of what kind of riders they want to have in their team. Take last season's Ayubowan as example. They decided to go 100% French/Sri Lankan. I doubt they would want to have to take a rider from Kenya, Colombia or whatever nationalities might be available in their TDF lineup. At least I dont want to have random riders in my team and that would really take away much of the joy of following the team's GTs for me. I don't to see unconnected rider X in a break when it could also be homegrown talent Y.
2. I feel PT teams should be paid to give up rider slots to unowned riders instead of paying for them.
GT slots are very valuable for talent heavy PT teams as they need to develop their own talents as well. Taking away one of those would imo require a compensation rather than a fee. I know it's kinda ironic to write that while having no less than 7 riders loaned in this season but i believe everyone of them has a skill set that is worth more over the course of the whole season to me to give up a GT roster spot OR pays a bigger fee than i pay salary. 5 of them would be absolutely uninteressant for a "GT loan" while only Poljanski and to a lesser extend Chavanne (depending on the route) would be interesting while all of those would be likely riders to be amongst available GT wildcard riders due to XP reasons.
3. Point Stealing in PT Races
I don't have a strong feeling about PCT teams stealing points from PT teams in GT/M but if anything, I believe that i would hate if random one race loan riders scoring would be the difference in the relegation/title ranking fight. (minor point)
4. Please Treat all GT/M/PT equally.
I feel it would be unfair to treat GTs different to normal tours. Some teams focus more on stage races like ToNE and there is no reason why some teams would have to take on a loan rider in their focus races while others wouldnt.
Also it might be more interesting for classic focussed PCT teams to follow their cobble talent in a race like ToNE than in Vuelta. Just sayin'
Possible solutions:
A. Keep the old loan system
I think the old loan system works quite well and with more PT and less PCT teams it should get easier to find a loan partner for PCT talents.
B. Adjust XP Table
I think all that is needed is to adjust the XP table. If the new PTHC category is treated similarly in XP points for PCT teams then you can adjust the table so that it is easy / hard enough to max level 4 talents as PCT teams themselves.
C. Invent a Training Camp
I think another solution that could work as an alternative to GT loans are training camps. Each team could nominate up to three riders for a training camp set in two specific months (e.g. last two month of the season). They'd be awarded with n XP points but are blocked from racing for these two months. I think that the talents planning file lines could look similar to the stagiare ones so shouldnt be too much workload to implement.
D. Short term loans
If you want short term loans perhaps make them voluntarly but freely negotiatable like normal loans. iirc managers said it would be possible without much effort to make DBs for every month when discussing the implementation of a form system and then the GT loans might be possible as freely negotiable short term loan between two teams.
tl;dr: I'm strongly against forced GT loans and think that we should absolutely look for alternatives
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 15-03-2017 08:05
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I agree with knockout here. Especially on the loan part. IMO it is also a very good way to make connections in the game, where you help certain teams with certain riders and nationalities. I have had some very nice relations to other teams, both in terms of loaning in and loaning out, and I would hate to see that go. Usually it isn't helping certain teams much to loan in or out, but it gives a possibility to strenghten the depth of certain areas - for both PT, PCT and CT teams, which I think is a good think on top of the whole relations thing.
Short term loans is imo a very bad idea. The entire concept of talent development is that it hurts on short terms, but gains in the long run. Please don't ruin that... It really is an integral part of the game. I have been there, and I am going to go there again at some point, so it's not because I have already been through it, I find that part important.
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 16-03-2017 01:22
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I absolutely agree with knockout's and SotD's suggestions. 100%. "Training camp" idea is a much better way to introduce extra XPs into the game. Could work for both PCT and CT. Just give 20 XPs like for Avenir to these riders for free. Adjust XP system. Don't like short term loans either.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 16-03-2017 08:54
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Problem with training camp though.
It can`t be a race free part of the season only. Then you can still spend your 100 race days from January to August and have training camp in September-October.
It would surely need a different system. Such as race day cost for training camp instead to make it oouside the calendar.
Surely a further consideration here will take place though.
Keeping the old loan system has the problem that it is totally in favour of the PT teams and hence was considered to change a bit. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 16-03-2017 09:09
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Is removing the loan system an option? It just feels so unrealistic in a cycling game.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 16-03-2017 10:05
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
3. Point Stealing in PT Races
I don't get this point. To me, there's no difference between a rider stealing points on a season loan to a rider stealing points on a race loan. Neither rider is really part of the PT team and leaves anyway. Whilst the season loan has more chances to earn points for it's PT team, before leaving just like the race loan rider.
I'm more against the Wildcard system where a team rocks up and can steal all sorts of points with no gain but XP and prestige for themselvs. Mostly because it's counter to most other aspects of the MG. I'd rather have GT/M/PT Wildcards count race days and earn points, but with a higher finacial cost to enter as it would fit more with the wider game.
C. Invent a Training Camp
Instead of saying "Rider X can't race A and B months" i'd rather an idea work on "Rider X loses C race days, is compensated with D XP". This is a lot more scalable per division, and is harder to game than missing two months and cramming race days into the other 6 or so. Plus with months of unequal race days and race catagories and race types flat missing two months will always hurt some riders and teams more than others, whereas a race day reduction can me compensated for by good management and race planning.
Is removing the loan system an option? It just feels so unrealistic in a cycling game.
Unrealisitic yes, but it's a needed system for how the game works. MG =/= real life. Taking it out could be done with a significant re-doing of he XP table, a really significant re-working from scratch.
The Loans is a key aspect for PT teams to get Lvl1 talents growing and for CT teams to get Lvl4 talents growing, whilst balancing difficulty in the middle areas. I'm sure we could bring in Lvl1 XP to PT races and Lvl4 XP to CT races, but we'd lose a lot of difficulty and manager aspect from the game in the process.
__________________
Going to a 24/24/x division system WildCards arn't going to be a thing anymore, or at least they'll be reduced in availability by like 66% or so. Taking them out completely i think is the better option as result of that process already.
PTHC could offer the required XP. Can't be that hard to make lvl4 XP available at a similar level to a couple of WildCards. Not like we had to use WildCards/Loans to get lvl4 XP before, it is available in HC races as well (and Avenir sort of).
As a soon-to-be PCT team, i like the GT Loans idea. I can get a taste of GT action without compromising my own calendar heavily and get XP for my talents. Having a pool of riders PT can choose from is good.
If a PT manager is concerned the loan's might steal points, they can always bid higher for that rider. Although i'd like to see that fee going to the MGUCI rather than the PCT team, who's reward is the XP gain.
I'd also balance in an optional aspect, where PT teams don't have to take in the riders but in a similar way to Avenir the nominated riders are guaranteed the XP gain but can't race whilst the GT is going on. Go this way, can add a fee for PCT to nominate riders because of the guaranteed XP gain.
That'd provide another exit for money, always good. Cover some of the WildCard gap. Add an extra balancing act for PT managers and PCT managers in race management. Whilst still being optional on both sides.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 16-03-2017 10:15
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
I agree with knockout 100%
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 16-03-2017 13:33
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
roturn wrote:
Problem with training camp though.
It can`t be a race free part of the season only. Then you can still spend your 100 race days from January to August and have training camp in September-October.
It would surely need a different system. Such as race day cost for training camp instead to make it oouside the calendar.
Surely a further consideration here will take place though.
Keeping the old loan system has the problem that it is totally in favour of the PT teams and hence was considered to change a bit.
Maybe change the development to follow OVL and not EXP instead would make it more realistic. The better the riders are, the higher level of competition they need to develop. Instead of as it is now, where a level 4.00 rider need to ride PT despite of him being maxing out at something like 75-76 max stat. Why not let him develop in the PCT or CT? Also I think that would make for some interesting bargains in the DB.
Currently there are a lot of those 3-4 level unmaxed riders, that will actually be pretty useful as a CT rider, but because of development issues they'll just keep being uninteresting because the CT team can't loan out the rider as he is too crap to ride the PT.
So maybe something like (Haven't checked the DB, so these are fictional):
OVL < 71 Develops 2XP pr. raceday in CT, 1XP pr. raceday in PCT and 0,5XP pr. raceday in PT
OVL 71,01-73,0 Develops 1XP pr. raceday in CT, 1,5XP radeday in PCT and 1XP Raceday in PT
OVL 73,01-75,0 Develops 0,5XP pr. raceday in CT, 1XP pr. raceday in PCT and 1,5XP raceday in PT
OVL > 75,01 Develops 0XP pr. raceday in CT, 0,5XP pr. raceday in PCT and 2XP rpr. raceday in PT.
That way we make use of the OVL to not only decide the actual racedays possible, but also to test their talent.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 16-03-2017 15:23
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
3. Point Stealing in PT Races
As a soon-to-be PCT team, i like the GT Loans idea. I can get a taste of GT action without compromising my own calendar heavily and get XP for my talents.
But why should you, as soon-to-be PCT get easy access for some of your riders to a Grand Tour, while regular PT teams will have to compromise their own calender heavily? It makes no sense...
I disagree
Short term loans make absolutely zero sense. One year loan based options is atleast a locked up premise that everyone can grasp. You loan out your rider and he isn't at your disposal. The short term is just to cut the negatives. And there are negatives in developping riders - And there should be.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 16-03-2017 15:38
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
SotD wrote:
But why should you, as soon-to-be PCT get easy access for some of your riders to a Grand Tour, while regular PT teams will have to compromise their own calender heavily? It makes no sense...
I didn't say it was fair. It does look to benefit PCT teams more than it benefits PT teams, and as i will be a PCT team at that time of course i'll be in favor of the idea 
The balance from me is that i've tried to set my team up so that i don't need to loan out riders at all when i go to the PCT. And i think that's how the PCT should work, in that it can self contain the lvl1 to Max with good planning some sacrifice on the race planning. The CT need a loan system for the 4 to Max and the PT need a loan system for the 1 to 2/3 growth.
And i've spent a year in the CT holding onto 3 lvl4 riders and not loaning them out, so i am fully aware of the short-term loss idea as well and that it is a key part of the development aspect.
Heck, i'd like to see it be harder to grow a rider from 1 to Max with the average time going to closer to 5 seasons than 3.
We certainly don't need GT Loans for PT-PCT interaction. Normal loans and PTHC will cover that. I think an alternative Loan system could be interesting, if it wasn't a forced system as i offered at the end of my suggestion.
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
