|
ICL19 - General | Rider Development
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 21-11-2024 22:04
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 12-09-2018 20:54
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
@knockout: A transfer cap wouldn't mean that no riders are sold anymore, it would just limit the total gains for each teams.
Last year Argos gained more than 2000 by doing transfers, you ~1400. This is imo is far too much and not really fair.
Example: Rider wants 500, someone steals for 600, i value him at 800. Of course ill keep him for now but why should i not be allowed to sell him for 200 if i get that and if i dont get that i can still keep him. Its very rarely a case where you keep a rider you wouldnt want at all. Its in 99% of cases that you are okay with keeping him but wouldnt mind letting him go if a decent offer comes in.
That's a reason why i thought about compensations. That way you wouldn't miss out on too much. Still imo that is a risk that has to be accepted when not blocking a rider from steals. If you don't offer a rider more so he won't look at offers from other teams, he will and will gladly take a (big) raise to his current wage. And in that case the rider should be the one taking more money not the current manager.
And another point remains: Both teams are often better off when you pay a team 300 as a fee than offering 300 more wage as a steal which is why steals arent used very often and seen critical by many managers. If you want to change this a possibility would be to make steals the only chance to get riders riding for another team (no more transfers. basically as it is in RL) but i dont think thats a change we should decide while some important offseason tasks (signing u23 riders, development) are done already.
It wouldn't really be like it's in RL. With steals the current team of a rider has a much bigger chance at keeping him. In RL contracts expire and every team has basically the same chance to negotiate with a rider. In ICL a rider will never leave your team if you pay sufficiently.
I think transfers should remain a part of ICL, they just shouldn't be so exploitable. |
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 12-09-2018 21:06
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
@Scatmaster:
The transfer cap would just be an upper limit of what you can gain through transfers, you can still spend (loose) as much as you want.
Wait hold on though, ok to be honest I don't know if I'm following correctly, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong here. For steals, the defending team sets a value, and if a bidding team gets over that value, then the steal is successful, unless the defending team then blocks the steal attempt outright. Do I have that right?
No the stealing team will offer an amount of money to their target rider. Depending on that the rider will demand a wage from his current team during renewals (lower than the outside offer). If the team declines the wage demand, he'll leave for the stealing team. |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 12-09-2018 21:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
About the block percentage, 25% seems reasonable, however I am wondering still if this new wages (Current + 25%) are automatically raising the wage in the long-term or if it's an annual optional increase on top of regular wage requests?
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 12-09-2018 21:32
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Shonak wrote:
About the block percentage, 25% seems reasonable, however I am wondering still if this new wages (Current + 25%) are automatically raising the wage in the long-term or if it's an annual optional increase on top of regular wage requests?
It's on top of the regular wage request. As the current wage has an influence on the riders wage demand, it would also raise the wage long-term. Haven't really thought about this yet. Maybe it would be best to not count this in in those cases.
However as the current wage doesn't have an extremely big influence on the demand, the wage would most likely balance itself out at some point. |
| |
|
|
| Scatmaster111 |
Posted on 12-09-2018 21:43
|
Domestique
Posts: 409
Joined: 07-11-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Bikex wrote:
No the stealing team will offer an amount of money to their target rider. Depending on that the rider will demand a wage from his current team during renewals (lower than the outside offer). If the team declines the wage demand, he'll leave for the stealing team.
Ohhh okay, I did get confused there, thank you. So what exactly is this talk about blocking steals (as in, what's the difference between countering and blocking a steal offer)?
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 12-09-2018 21:53
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Mhm, I understand., I guess. This seems then that there is the normal wage development plus a yearly optional block tax. I suggest that this block fee has no effect at all on the wage development. In such a case, 25% seems reasonable for something that is valuable enough to maintain one's competitive advantage and long-term investments and every year it can be valuated anew if it's worth the hassle. In many ways, the block tax is an actual insurance for risk averse people who don't like to see losing their rider, and an insurance does not enhance the value of the rider itself, imo.
Furthermore, by first refraining from influencing the wage development, the system stays open for change and we can see how it develops in the next year. If you introduce wage effect of the block fee now but decrease or remove it later on, it will have more negative effect imo than the other way around bc people would be partly punished by trying out a new game mechanic in its initial phase.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 12-09-2018 22:05
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Bikex wrote:
@knockout: A transfer cap wouldn't mean that no riders are sold anymore, it would just limit the total gains for each teams.
Last year Argos gained more than 2000 by doing transfers, you ~1400. This is imo is far too much and not really fair.
Dunno, last season was horrible with no money floating around and illiquid new entrants and promoters. I would much rather see some mechanisms that provide money to the market than to limit the expenses. However, perhaps the issue is partly high capital-draining big teams who need to make big transfer moves to keep their balance in check. In that case, a limitation of transfers may help to flatten the market. but also will make it much harder for anyone to build a decent squad if they mess up the transfers. If anything, I would set the transfer cap quite high for now and lower it after a pilot phase.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 12-09-2018 22:10
|
World Champion
Posts: 14562
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
I agree with Shonak, we should encourage transfers instead of the dull stuff we had last year.
Regarding steals, I think it's fine except for the name. Can we call it a "massive offer" instead? Steals sound negative and that's why so many are against it, plus it's not really a steal to begin with.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 12-09-2018 22:18
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Scatmaster111 wrote:
Bikex wrote:
No the stealing team will offer an amount of money to their target rider. Depending on that the rider will demand a wage from his current team during renewals (lower than the outside offer). If the team declines the wage demand, he'll leave for the stealing team.
Ohhh okay, I did get confused there, thank you. So what exactly is this talk about blocking steals (as in, what's the difference between countering and blocking a steal offer)?
If you block steals the rider will not listen to any steal offers at all and will just make his demands during renewals. If you counter a steal you actually pay the demand a rider makes following a steal attempt |
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 12-09-2018 22:28
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Shonak wrote:
Mhm, I understand., I guess. This seems then that there is the normal wage development plus a yearly optional block tax. I suggest that this block fee has no effect at all on the wage development. In such a case, 25% seems reasonable for something that is valuable enough to maintain one's competitive advantage and long-term investments and every year it can be valuated anew if it's worth the hassle. In many ways, the block tax is an actual insurance for risk averse people who don't like to see losing their rider, and an insurance does not enhance the value of the rider itself, imo.
Furthermore, by first refraining from influencing the wage development, the system stays open for change and we can see how it develops in the next year. If you introduce wage effect of the block fee now but decrease or remove it later on, it will have more negative effect imo than the other way around bc people would be partly punished by trying out a new game mechanic in its initial phase.
It's not really an insurance imo as you pay the extra wage to the rider. So it kind of makes sense that he thinks he is worth more and will ask for more next time. Either way results of a rider and his AVG still have a bigger influence.
Last year the entire transfers were completely screwed after so much money left the market due to two teams getting over their budget. Still some big money transfers were made and some teams effectively expanded their budget by thousands.
@Ollfardh: Sure we can rename it. But changing the name now would just add to the confusion.  |
| |
|
|
| Vali |
Posted on 13-09-2018 11:39
|
Domestique
Posts: 735
Joined: 05-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think there's some confusion going on about the ages of the newly added talents. I already recognized in the "TalentsDB18" excel file, that the birth date didn't fit with the age for a lot of riders but I thought that was just a temporary thing. But in the new "ICL19DB" they still seem to be "wrong" or at least different to the age in the TalentsDB18 file and the scouting report.
For example both Mikkel Rasmussen and Yves Charton are 18 years old in the TalentsDB18 file but are 22 now in the ICL19DB. Concerning the scouting reports I can only speak about Charton, as I didn't scout Rasmussen, but he was 18 years old there as well. Thanks for all your work Bikex but I just wanted to get some clarification on that. 
Credits to the_hoyle for my avatar. |
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 13-09-2018 11:42
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Good spot, will have to fix that. Don't know how that happened. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 13-09-2018 12:05
|
World Champion
Posts: 14562
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
By the way, in my earlier post I meant that "steals" were fine as they were last year, I'm not in favour of the proposed change.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 13-09-2018 12:12
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
By the way, in my earlier post I meant that "steals" were fine as they were last year, I'm not in favour of the proposed change.
Okay please elaborate why? Do you think it shouldn't be allowed to block riders completely from steals? Or do you disagree on the part where riders can't be sold if the team accepted his raised demand after a steal attempt?
I think if the changes would've been in place last season, transfers would've went much better last time. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 13-09-2018 13:29
|
World Champion
Posts: 14562
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Bikex wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
By the way, in my earlier post I meant that "steals" were fine as they were last year, I'm not in favour of the proposed change.
Okay please elaborate why? Do you think it shouldn't be allowed to block riders completely from steals? Or do you disagree on the part where riders can't be sold if the team accepted his raised demand after a steal attempt?
I think if the changes would've been in place last season, transfers would've went much better last time.
I think the system was working in a very realistic way as it was. A team could make a massive offer on a rider and you had to counter it to keep your rider. Blocking just reverses things so I'm not sure if it would chance much?
Not selling them seems to fit more into the "how to make more transfers happen" discussion, so I don't really have an opinion on that until we get the full picture.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 13-09-2018 13:57
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Only 4(?) riders can be blocked from steals, it's basically a safety mechanism for managers to keep a) those riders they have spent years developing and investing in them, b) the important high scorers or favourites within the team. It's a massive change I welcome very much and is needed since the beginning, imo. Any other rider is still up for grabs.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 13-09-2018 14:31
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
Bikex wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
By the way, in my earlier post I meant that "steals" were fine as they were last year, I'm not in favour of the proposed change.
Okay please elaborate why? Do you think it shouldn't be allowed to block riders completely from steals? Or do you disagree on the part where riders can't be sold if the team accepted his raised demand after a steal attempt?
I think if the changes would've been in place last season, transfers would've went much better last time.
I think the system was working in a very realistic way as it was. A team could make a massive offer on a rider and you had to counter it to keep your rider. Blocking just reverses things so I'm not sure if it would chance much?
Not selling them seems to fit more into the "how to make more transfers happen" discussion, so I don't really have an opinion on that until we get the full picture.
Okay I understand.
I don't think a mechanism making it possible to keep riders over an offseason is unrealistic. Irl riders have contracts for more than a year. Initially I was also against blocking, but imo it is a good compromise for teams that complained so far. They get to select some riders they don't want to have to pay much more surprisingly, but will have to pay for that luxury. Also it is not unrealistic to have riders commit to a team for longer than a year imo. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 13-09-2018 14:36
|
World Champion
Posts: 14562
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
I would be a huge fan of multi-year contracts, but I guess that is not on the table?
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Scatmaster111 |
Posted on 13-09-2018 15:00
|
Domestique
Posts: 409
Joined: 07-11-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Understanding the specifics now, I don't think I like the idea of blocking steals very much either. As steals already were, it made any rider available to a stealing team, and the power was completely within the defending team's hands whether or not the steal would be successful. If you think it's worth keeping him for more, then keep him for more, and if you don't, then bye bye. Now, not every rider is available anymore, and big established teams have more power. I dunno, it feels like a solution to a problem that isn't really there tbh, it feels a bit contrived to me. Steals as they were I believe were simple and made sense, and were balanced enough already, if weighted a bit towards the defending team. I don't think the scales needed to be tipped further.
Question, when a rider is blocked from steal attempts, will this be known to everyone else, or can steals be burned uselessly on that rider anyway? Because that would be a real problem.
|
| |
|
|
| Scatmaster111 |
Posted on 13-09-2018 15:21
|
Domestique
Posts: 409
Joined: 07-11-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Vali wrote:
I think there's some confusion going on about the ages of the newly added talents. I already recognized in the "TalentsDB18" excel file, that the birth date didn't fit with the age for a lot of riders but I thought that was just a temporary thing. But in the new "ICL19DB" they still seem to be "wrong" or at least different to the age in the TalentsDB18 file and the scouting report.
For example both Mikkel Rasmussen and Yves Charton are 18 years old in the TalentsDB18 file but are 22 now in the ICL19DB. Concerning the scouting reports I can only speak about Charton, as I didn't scout Rasmussen, but he was 18 years old there as well. Thanks for all your work Bikex but I just wanted to get some clarification on that.
Yeah same here, Susumu Yamazaki was 20 in my scouting report, but 19 in the DB. Might be an issue with all the talents.
|
| |
|
