What about making training secondary stats easier. Right now it's absolutely a no-go to train any stat apart from the main stat for most of the riders due to costs massively outweighing the benefits. If we calculate the price of such training not by ovl but by usual cost*2 if the avg is higher than the stat and allow as much training as possible for a rider as long as it doesn't change a stat that is higher than the Ovl I guess many would try to transform their horrible one-trick ponys into decent riders on this game at a more reasonable cost. I think we should enable this transformation.
SotD wrote:
Otherwise I suspect we will end up with a few VERY good riders that you have to have 1-2 of to succeed. I think everyone would do the same. Make sure the highest scorers/highest potential/youngest stars would stay the same, and allow riders with High stats, but isn’t necessarily performing like they should go Down.
[...]
And if we keep 4-5 riders from each team safe, do we even tackle the problem?
That is sort of what I'm getting at by we need to discuss how the DB is supposed to look like. How many actual elite riders do we want for each terrain? Enough that each PT team can have at least one (not one on each terrain, one total)? Right now we have 11 riders who could reasonably hope to win any GT or stage race they enter (everyone with 84 or 85 climbing minus Alarcon plus Spilak, and maybe you can argue for Kritskiy as well). Should that number go down? If so, how far?
More specifically, do we want a szenario where there are maybe 4-6 clearly superior stage racers, which makes some races more predictable (both in a good and a bad way), but might also lead to more options for savvy season planning, where managers with second-tier stage racer try to predict where the better ones are headed and look for openings elsewhere (on the negative side, this could also make for a szenario where the top riders just happen to be distributed equally over all GTs and the race winners are at best decided between just 2 riders. But again, that's the question, how much predictability vs randomness are we trying to establish?).
Also, because of their (expected) higher consistency, these riders should be notably more expensive, which may actually lead to more differences between teams if depth-based approaches (like what ISA has been doing over the past two years) actually become more viable because the top stars' wages are so punishing.
And then think about sprinters similarly. Maybe the top needs to be even more stratified because of the randomness of sprints. So instead of 4 84 riders, 5 83 riders and 9 82 riders (leaving out Acc for simplicity), we want 2 85 riders, 2 84 riders, 3 83 riders, 4 82 riders and then everything else bunched below, to give the actual top stars more of an edge?
This is obviously hypothetical, but as I said I think it's important to talk about how the stats should be distributed (especially long term, I think there will be a few transition season before we arrive at the perceived "ideal" state), because that directly informs what mechanisms we use/need to get there.
-------
I also agree with Croatia14 and the others who mentioned it that it is desirable to have fewer "one trick ponys". But I'm not sure if that's not more of an optics thing. Like, in terms of stat inflation and randomness, does it make a difference if we have 20 80 Sprint, 65 Resistance sprinters or 20 78 Sprint, 71 Resistance sprinters? (not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely not sure ^^.) But I still think it's useful to incentivize training for backup stats, though maybe not by making that cheaper but instead making main stats more expensive (if we generally want to decrease high stats).
I am not sure I'm in favor of lowering stats based on potential, because as someone has mentioned before it's not an indication of a riders quality. It simply there to provide a different pathway for a riders development and early/late career success.
At the same time I'm not in favor of lowering stats based on OVL, because I don't feel the OVL is accurate enough at this time. We could end up making a bunch of underrated even better and a bunch of overrated riders even worse.
I also agree with SotD. If the MG is so history driven to not even allow removal of special characters from riders because of riders in the past that haven't been in the DB for years, then I fail to see how making some current leaders into bottle carriers "over night" is a good thing. I gather that the DB hasn't gotten to this stage over night so I'm not sure trying to engineer a quick fix is a good idea. I agree there needs to be more care given to new riders entering the DB and that's probably the best way to combat DB issues longterm. I could be totally wrong on this, but maybe the problem will somewhat solve itself in the next couple of years, because the top riders are mostly aged 30+ and the process of adding new riders has already started and will continue.
On the topic of one-dimensional riders I think it's very hard for managers to succeed otherwise, because of the races we use and those work best with one-dimensional riders. Certain stat combos (hybrids) work and some almost never work, but a large amount of the stat combos don't work because the stages are made so that the allround rider's stats will not come into play. The AI will in most cases prioritise one main stat. We cannot fix the game's AI. But we can add different races/stages, make calendar changes and most importantly OVL changes to provide better balance and variation for the MG. Us as managers also have to take on board what is happening and adjust our planning and teambuilding accordingly and not just complain about "lousy" AI.
Regarding the game change I am not one for a move back to PCM15, I don't see how a step back is good longterm. I think there were improvements made with PCM18 from last year and we can continue to make improvements. I'm not familiar with the newer versions. I suspect the stats will be largely the same, but if some testing shows better AI then I wouldn't have a problem with a change.
If there are any stat lowerings (which as TMM said, is not even necessarily helping at all), it can`t be with any kind of potential impact. Same with max stat reached etc.
Different to PCM DBs the potential is not always an indicator of how good a rider is but more a way for us to add new talents. Some combinations need a low potential to reach stats as we plan to give the talents. So those combinations would be punished if we base anything on potential.
If there are any stat lowerings (which as TMM said, is not even necessarily helping at all), it can`t be with any kind of potential impact. Same with max stat reached etc.
Different to PCM DBs the potential is not always an indicator of how good a rider is but more a way for us to add new talents. Some combinations need a low potential to reach stats as we plan to give the talents. So those combinations would be punished if we base anything on potential.
So you are fine with even more inflation happening in the following years and most riders being less compatble with PCM engines? Seems highly counter productive and damaging to the future of the game. There will be a point at which some sort of reduction simply will have to happen eventually.
I understand you have only potential in mind here, but to keep game from inflating again lets say after hypothetical mass drop, either a complete redesign to training iwill have to be done, or some sort of potential restriction.
If there are any stat lowerings (which as TMM said, is not even necessarily helping at all), it can`t be with any kind of potential impact. Same with max stat reached etc.
Different to PCM DBs the potential is not always an indicator of how good a rider is but more a way for us to add new talents. Some combinations need a low potential to reach stats as we plan to give the talents. So those combinations would be punished if we base anything on potential.
So you are fine with even more inflation happening in the following years and most riders being less compatble with PCM engines? Seems highly counter productive and damaging to the future of the game. There will be a point at which some sort of reduction simply will have to happen eventually.
I understand you have only potential in mind here, but to keep game from inflating again lets say after hypothetical mass drop, either a complete redesign to training iwill have to be done, or some sort of potential restriction.
redordead wrote:
I also agree with SotD. If the MG is so history driven to not even allow removal of special characters from riders because of riders in the past that haven't been in the DB for years, then I fail to see how making some current leaders into bottle carriers "over night" is a good thing. I gather that the DB hasn't gotten to this stage over night so I'm not sure trying to engineer a quick fix is a good idea. I agree there needs to be more care given to new riders entering the DB and that's probably the best way to combat DB issues longterm. I could be totally wrong on this, but maybe the problem will somewhat solve itself in the next couple of years, because the top riders are mostly aged 30+ and the process of adding new riders has already started and will continue.
This is a sentiment I think I disagree with. Yes, the inflation at the very top (82-85) is set to come down over the next few years, so that will marginally help the status of things in PT. But that's it.
Every year tons of 75-79 talents are still being added, and that is where the inflation problem really is, not the very top. Every domestique becomes the same, every CT leader and PCT secondary leader becomes the same. And they're all close enough to absolute leaders to mess with AI and challenge them a lot because of the crazy daily form. Solving the inflation at the top won't solve this. In fact, eliminating most of the natural 80+ guys might actually make this worse since the decreases are not trickling down in turn, but only funneling more riders into the upper 70's skill group.
When it comes to inflation, that stat range is the biggest problem, and even if we started adding a better variety and amount of talents this year, it would take a decade for the matrix to get where we want.
To clarify my decrease idea before more clearly:
Say a team has 25 riders. They get 20 "protection levels" to apply.
5 completely safe
5 @ -1
5 @ -3
5 @ -5
The rest unprotected would decrease a random amount beyond that.
Note that we could do less extreme or more extreme gaps in the skill drops too, this is just a template. The numbers are not specific.
How you could apply these protections would also be stratified by division and either main stat, OVL, or a combination. Maybe age as well, though that could be debated.
So for a PT team, maybe for 78+ OVL riders, you'd get:
1 Protection
1 @ -1
1 @ -5
And then for 76-78 OVL, you might also get one protection and several -1's, -3's, etc. And so on. That way the decreases happen to riders of all levels, which will naturally expand the matrix of the DB and allow a wider level of talents to be added and worthwhile going forward. It will deal inflation a blow at every level as different teams will protect their leaders in different terrains on different levels.
All these numbers themselves are random and speculative by the way - I'm not suggesting these actual amounts are used, just the concept.
Regarding the challenge that a team would just pick their best hometown riders and prospects to protect in each category - I have absolutely no problem with that, that's what I would do too. That would allow us to preserve the most important parts of MG history to us during a radical shift. Nobody would lose their most prized possessions. And if necessary, prospects could be treated a different way altogether to prevent exploitation.
I value MG history above all, so I know how crazy this would be. I don't wan't it either. But I think it could be a fair way to solve problems that are not going away and are eating away at the heart of this game. When we combine this method with adding a wider variety of talents that are fewer in number (and a better fighter dev), we get a much more sustainable DB long term imo.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
roturn wrote:
Different to PCM DBs the potential is not always an indicator of how good a rider is but more a way for us to add new talents. Some combinations need a low potential to reach stats as we plan to give the talents. So those combinations would be punished if we base anything on potential.
Can you give an example? Looking at the top riders with 3 potential, for instance, I see a lot of puncheurs with 77 or 78 hill and really solid backup stats like Gidich, Meurisse or Pernsteiner, but also a ton of 79-81 sprinters with very low res, like Maksimov, Carsi, Selig or even Guillen. If we said that we don't want potential 3 riders to reach stats higher than 77, something like that, then the second-tier hybrids and good allrounders would be untouched (or maximum lose one in a stat here and there), but we would significantly reduce the dozens of second- to third-tier sprinters, which is one of the more pressing issues, from what I gather. If we went to potential 4 and maybe a cap of 78 or even 79, that would be even more the case. But as I've said before, I understand the issues with such a hard cap regarding rider development of "passion projects".
If we said: riders with 7 potential lose one in each stat, riders with 3 potential lose 3 in each stat, then yes, I would agree with you. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean correctly.
Potentials just don't give any indications about how a rider should develop. The idea ist that riders with low Pot receive less growth and thus can start with higher starting stats. You (almost) always develop riders in a manner that they become the highest in their main stat, thus those with high Pot have (more likely) a bigger gap between main stat and other stats. Low Pot talents is just a tool to become more well rounded riders like Gidich, who wouldn't have been possible to create with those final stats if he had higher potential at the start.
roturn wrote:
Different to PCM DBs the potential is not always an indicator of how good a rider is but more a way for us to add new talents. Some combinations need a low potential to reach stats as we plan to give the talents. So those combinations would be punished if we base anything on potential.
Can you give an example? Looking at the top riders with 3 potential, for instance, I see a lot of puncheurs with 77 or 78 hill and really solid backup stats like Gidich, Meurisse or Pernsteiner, but also a ton of 79-81 sprinters with very low res, like Maksimov, Carsi, Selig or even Guillen. If we said that we don't want potential 3 riders to reach stats higher than 77, something like that, then the second-tier hybrids and good allrounders would be untouched (or maximum lose one in a stat here and there), but we would significantly reduce the dozens of second- to third-tier sprinters, which is one of the more pressing issues, from what I gather. If we went to potential 4 and maybe a cap of 78 or even 79, that would be even more the case. But as I've said before, I understand the issues with such a hard cap regarding rider development of "passion projects".
If we said: riders with 7 potential lose one in each stat, riders with 3 potential lose 3 in each stat, then yes, I would agree with you. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean correctly.
It`s more riders with training options that weren`t possible earlier e.g. a Cancellara kind of rider with high hill, cobble and tt.
When going for a high potential, he would simply become something like 80+ in one stat and low 70s in the others as training him one dimensional would be smartest.
With a smaller potential this wouldn`t be worth it and so something like a 76 in all 3 stats due to higher starting stats became more interesting.
e.g. is van der Poel, who was supposed to be very good all around but not 80+ in any stat. This is why his potential was reduced a lot.
Something that could be possible is the way decreases work right now.
From 32 to 33 it`s just -1, for higher pot riders it`s also basically -1 only from 33-34. So riders like Taaramae, Schleck, Spilak, Gesink are still very, very good until 35.
Clearly we could discuss if this is highered. e.g. From 32-33 it`s already -2 and then climbing quicker the older they get. So the prime clearly is until 32 only and just the very best have a very good season left with 33 but then at 34 no longer PT quality and also due to backup decrease struggle as big leaders in smaller divisions while still doing decent there I guess.
That said, this is nothing we probably can introduce next season as otherwise managers that did spend big money on older riders would be punished a lot. e.g. ember with Taaramae, who might have planned to have him strong for another 1-2 years.
But it might be speed up a bit clearly, so that the 80+ riders get lower this way as those mentioned as also Bewley etc. would go down a lot more already with new stars going up.
Similar could be discussed if there is already a small decrease step from 31 to 32 or even starting at 30?
Thanks for the additional explanation, and that makes a lot of sense for adding new riders. But regarding existing, maxed out riders, if we went with the stat cap (I understand that's not the only idea floating around) or any approach that primarily limits or lowers the highest stats, those kinds of allrounders would be the ones least affected, and instead the very one-dimensional guys with 78-80 in a single stat would suffer - so those who went against the intended route or were simply added before they were available. In that case, lowering stats based on potential would be possible, no?
Again, if we would reduce stats across the board and then have potential as a variable, I definetely agree with you, but I'm not sure decreasing every rider's stat by the same amount is the way to go anyway.
cunego59 wrote:
Again, if we would reduce stats across the board and then have potential as a variable, I definetely agree with you, but I'm not sure decreasing every rider's stat by the same amount is the way to go anyway.
I think reducing every rider's stat by the same amount is the only fair way to go anyway, as it otherwise changes the balances which can't be done from a fairness perspective, especially towards people that planned ahead long-term with certain combinations.
That said I don't think the problem is too bad anyway. A lot of good riders are now really old an on decline or starting it. Imo it's even the other way round: Guys like Herklotz, Lopez and Lecuisinier may become too dominant with the current system.
baseballlover312 wrote:
This is a sentiment I think I disagree with. Yes, the inflation at the very top (82-85) is set to come down over the next few years, so that will marginally help the status of things in PT. But that's it.
All the top riders in all 3 divisions are mostly aged 30+, none of them can get better and most will get worse.
Croatia14 wrote:
I think reducing every rider's stat by the same amount is the only fair way to go anyway, as it otherwise changes the balances which can't be done from a fairness perspective, especially towards people that planned ahead long-term with certain combinations.
That said I don't think the problem is too bad anyway. A lot of good riders are now really old an on decline or starting it. Imo it's even the other way round: Guys like Herklotz, Lopez and Lecuisinier may become too dominant with the current system.
I agree it's only fair to reduce everyone the same amount. Everyone has a team in a different situation and stage of development, there shouldn't be any advantages or disadvantages.
We just have to make sure we don't add too many riders that can easily become overpowered.
redordead wrote:
I also agree with SotD. If the MG is so history driven to not even allow removal of special characters from riders because of riders in the past that haven't been in the DB for years, then I fail to see how making some current leaders into bottle carriers "over night" is a good thing. I gather that the DB hasn't gotten to this stage over night so I'm not sure trying to engineer a quick fix is a good idea. I agree there needs to be more care given to new riders entering the DB and that's probably the best way to combat DB issues longterm. I could be totally wrong on this, but maybe the problem will somewhat solve itself in the next couple of years, because the top riders are mostly aged 30+ and the process of adding new riders has already started and will continue.
This is a sentiment I think I disagree with. Yes, the inflation at the very top (82-85) is set to come down over the next few years, so that will marginally help the status of things in PT. But that's it.
Every year tons of 75-79 talents are still being added, and that is where the inflation problem really is, not the very top. Every domestique becomes the same, every CT leader and PCT secondary leader becomes the same. And they're all close enough to absolute leaders to mess with AI and challenge them a lot because of the crazy daily form. Solving the inflation at the top won't solve this. In fact, eliminating most of the natural 80+ guys might actually make this worse since the decreases are not trickling down in turn, but only funneling more riders into the upper 70's skill group.
When it comes to inflation, that stat range is the biggest problem, and even if we started adding a better variety and amount of talents this year, it would take a decade for the matrix to get where we want.
To clarify my decrease idea before more clearly:
Say a team has 25 riders. They get 20 "protection levels" to apply.
5 completely safe
5 @ -1
5 @ -3
5 @ -5
The rest unprotected would decrease a random amount beyond that.
Note that we could do less extreme or more extreme gaps in the skill drops too, this is just a template. The numbers are not specific.
How you could apply these protections would also be stratified by division and either main stat, OVL, or a combination. Maybe age as well, though that could be debated.
So for a PT team, maybe for 78+ OVL riders, you'd get:
1 Protection
1 @ -1
1 @ -5
And then for 76-78 OVL, you might also get one protection and several -1's, -3's, etc. And so on. That way the decreases happen to riders of all levels, which will naturally expand the matrix of the DB and allow a wider level of talents to be added and worthwhile going forward. It will deal inflation a blow at every level as different teams will protect their leaders in different terrains on different levels.
All these numbers themselves are random and speculative by the way - I'm not suggesting these actual amounts are used, just the concept.
Regarding the challenge that a team would just pick their best hometown riders and prospects to protect in each category - I have absolutely no problem with that, that's what I would do too. That would allow us to preserve the most important parts of MG history to us during a radical shift. Nobody would lose their most prized possessions. And if necessary, prospects could be treated a different way altogether to prevent exploitation.
I value MG history above all, so I know how crazy this would be. I don't wan't it either. But I think it could be a fair way to solve problems that are not going away and are eating away at the heart of this game. When we combine this method with adding a wider variety of talents that are fewer in number (and a better fighter dev), we get a much more sustainable DB long term imo.
This is quite a lot like what I was suggesting, but better illustrated. Each team can keep their core more or less unchanged, so nobody should really be too unhappy. The issue with the db, is as BBL suggests. We are getting more and more riders into the 79+ range, and while the 82+ range might be dying down, the sub-leader is just getting more and more diluted. This problem with the current game engine of PCM 18 is actually going to make results even more random if things aren't changed. I think the implementation of lower limits for talents will slowly help to fix things at the PT level, but at PCT and CT, things may end up even more random, if teams are full of rider in the 75-79 range at low wages. I am almost certain that AI sends riders on good daily form into the breakaway, meaning a 75 rider could actually be just as strong as the leaders in PCT on a given day. This can be realistic on a mountain stage of a GT to happen a few times a race, but every single day, it makes sense why the break is almost never getting caught.
With the way transfers works, if there are 60+ riders with 79/80+ in a stat, the "figthing" over one specific rider is not as intense, so every team can fill their team with several of these riders. If there were only 20 79/80+ riders in a given stat, the fight would be tougher, and the depth of all teams would probably be affected, leading to teams being weaker in general. With race days and such being limited, races wouldn't see as many strong riders in them, and the racing would improve as a result.
To give an example, using Organizational structure:
PCM works best when there is a tall structure, with One top leader, maybe one or two co-leader/ free element riders, and the rest more or less in the low 70's for stats on a team (in a given race). This ensures the most realistic results. If we use the flat structure, with teams full of one leader, two or three riders who could probably lead as well but are just slightly worse, and then the "teammates" all still being around 75, the game gets messed up.
------
Also, on the topic of PCM 20, despite Stamina not working, I believe one of the changes was that it was harder to get a +5/+4 or -4/-5 day in RDC. This could be nice improvement for us.
----
Discussing how we want the DB to look. I think we want it to look like how a real db looks like when the game comes out. Pretty sure Cyanide make it so there maybe 10-12 riders above 80 in each stat category. Im not really sure thats possible with the MG db, but if we could get it even half as close to that, there would probably be improvements. I know the AI handles riders with above 78 as leaders when scheduling the season in career mode, so there may be some kind of positioning modifier in-race similar to that. We might see less instances of a solid leader falling behind the pack for no explainable reason.
----
In the end though, I think our biggest issue is still just how OP the race day form is. A rider with 99/100% form and a +5 can get a double digit increase in their energy stats.
That said I don't think the problem is too bad anyway. A lot of good riders are now really old an on decline or starting it. Imo it's even the other way round: Guys like Herklotz, Lopez and Lecuisinier may become too dominant with the current system.
The issue of overly strong/high scoring riders should be easily fixible through Wage. Yes you can have a Herklotz/Lopez/Lecuisinier but it's going to cost you, and i mean really significatly cost you.
And with these radical changes, at least the PCT and CT would then also work well, not just the PT #wearethe66%
cunego59 wrote:
Again, if we would reduce stats across the board and then have potential as a variable, I definetely agree with you, but I'm not sure decreasing every rider's stat by the same amount is the way to go anyway.
I think reducing every rider's stat by the same amount is the only fair way to go anyway, as it otherwise changes the balances which can't be done from a fairness perspective, especially towards people that planned ahead long-term with certain combinations.
That said I don't think the problem is too bad anyway. A lot of good riders are now really old an on decline or starting it. Imo it's even the other way round: Guys like Herklotz, Lopez and Lecuisinier may become too dominant with the current system.
I agree with this.
Also I'd suggest that people are a bit more specific in their suggestions when writing about which problems they are trying to solve with their suggestions. e.g. Inflation can mean that the stats are too high to handle for PCM (85MO instead of 81MO for the bests) or a too flat organizational structure (too many 78MO guys / see Valverdes post). Both of these require very different actions to counteract them and there a couple posts in this thread that are not obvious which one they want to solve.
So I'm coming at the stat discussion from two perspectives, both of which probably put me in a slightly different position to a lot of the people here
Firstly, there's the self-interested perspective. I've spent the past few seasons building a team with an eye to what it'll be 3 seasons down the line, rather than taking a "win now" approach. On the evidence of this season it has started to pay off, but it would waste all the planning I put into it if we introduced differential stat decreases (I agree with Knockout and Croatia there), and I worry about the effect of -5 blanket decreases on AI - particularly as a manager relying on the likes of Yates, Turgis and Kemboi who would likely be treated very differently as 74/75 main stat riders in a field with the max at 80 to how they are currently.
I'm also probably not the only one in that position, looking at some of the other teams - Xero spring to mind as another team who would disproportionately suffer. There would also be a big question about what happens to the talents added in recent seasons, who were designed around an idea that with a lot of top riders declining 81/82 in a main stat would become a top 5 rider again. Which leads onto my second point...
Having handled additions and stat editing this past off-season, I probably have a better handle on the DB than most and understand the issues of balance better. In short, the direction of travel is roughly right at the moment in my view - we're adding fewer, and weaker, talents than we are losing riders to declines. However, I think there is more we can and should do in terms of declining riders when they become free agents.
It's an unpopular view, with the argument against always being not wanting to change Man-Game history. But then is it really unrealistic for riders to suddenly retire, or disappear into obscurity after changing teams? As a starting point I think we should be actively removing or editing riders who are free agents after transfers - roughly 80% of those riders who have started to decline have already retired IRL, so I see no reason why they couldn't be removed, and it would also strip out some of the 76/77 main stat talents added a few seasons ago.
Then, if we really wanted to try and level things off further we should look at what we do to riders who become free agents due to disbandments or not being renewed. In all honesty, I personally would give the same treatment (e.g. Phinney is removed as a retired rider if he hits FA) but I know that's unlikely to be a popular view. However, I still think we could hit riders with declines to bring them closer to IRL circumstances - perhaps the equivalent of losing a Level 3 to 4 training in those cases? That way we combat inflation and create a slightly stronger degree of realism, but don't lose some of those unique stories such as Alarcon.
Obviously I expect plenty of disagreement with my ideas here, but just putting them out there
Not liking all your points there tbh, mainly the cutting a FA fully from the DB, e.g. Phinney as we don`t follow the real life cycling too much as otherwise riders like Olivier, Dumoulin, Herklotz wouldn`t be as they are in the MG.
But as I said earlier, I also think riders that go into FA and are above a specific age, could get additional declines which comes on top of the regular 32 years of age decline.
This would obviously be a slower way than reducing all riders but it`s a way that doesn`t hurt some teams more than others as you say.
Plus the last 2-3-4 years the added talents were smaller and weaker than 5-6-7 years ago. So as you say, the working against has already started and will soon start to show as most top riders already started to decline and continue to do so.
If additionally some more riders get declined with a similar decrease model as we have for FAs and then starting at e.g. 28 years of age, this would help I guess.
Riders that would have gotten a small decline in the past years:
For some it would have been an accelerated decline as already over the age limit, some others e.g. Kwiatkowski, Quintana, Alarcon would have gotten an early decline.
And also I think it wouldn`t destroy any kind of MG history as the riders are still there and still valuable. Just with a -1 or -2 in each stat.
Reducing FA's could be the way to go, not a fan of reducing stats of riders on a team. It's not going to fix the DB overnight, but combining this with adding less talents it will work in a few years. In the mean time giving lower wages to underperforming riders could be a fix in between.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
