Just continuing with what Cunego posted with the 2015 vscurrent numbers, I think one thing to keep in mind is that based on the game mechanics we will probably be seeing a lot more riders trained as hybrids that end up in the 77-79 range rather than as pure climbers/puncheurs etc. as it makes more sense to have a 77/77 rider than it does a 70/80 for example, or at least a lot more than before where the “high stat” was seen as more valuable.
For this reason training may need to be looked at, as well as new riders added to the game because I can see that area continuing to worsen for climbers/punchuers. Maybe make climberv1 more selective with which potentials can improve drastically so that some pot 6 riders can still become solid hybrids but the pot 3s and 4s aren’t all ending up in the 76/76 to 78/78 range as well. .
Spoiler
Not at my computer so I might be mixing up climberv1 and climberv2.
I think SotD's points about a small group needing to own this are right on. I hope TMM and JPH are willing to take back the ideas and come up with a set of specific options/changes as in JPH's original post. In return for their work we limit the discussion to those options and focus comments to small amendments and yes/no votes on major parts of the proposal. Rather than suggesting completely different approaches/issues. Then hopefully a relatively clear, implementable consensus emerges.
I think there's at least a consensus for a massive rework of the FA pool, so let's start with a vote on that? I volunteer to help out with this if the timing's right.
Ollfardh wrote:
I think there's at least a consensus for a massive rework of the FA pool, so let's start with a vote on that? I volunteer to help out with this if the timing's right.
Only just catching up now, but that appear to be the case. I’d be for it too.
I mostly avoid these discussion/suggestion threads now because most of the time there are so many varied opinions on what should (or needs) to be done that nothing every truly gets accomplished.
I get its necessary so everyone can voice their opinion, and be heard, and that's great. But for change to actual happen, an official poll (or voting system) has to be made with all the viable options laid out in great detail to avoid any loopholes. All MG managers who are planning on coming back next season then get to vote and we move forward from there. Preferably, the confirmation of the change is also given well in advance of the offseason so managers can adjust their game plans as well.
As for me, I'll be fine with whatever direction we choose as a collective community. I just enjoy being apart of the MG and the engagement it still brings to PCMDaily. I feel a lot of the managers still apart of this game feel the same way. At least I hope.
For sure I agree that a reduction of the size / re-work (1-in, 1-out medium/long-term) of the FA pool makes a tremendous amount of sense.
Not so sure I (yet) feel/see the need to reduce stats of riders who are contracted to teams, but I will try to better understand the various points presented. I am impressed/encouraged with/by much of the discussion points put forward and the shared desire to benefit the whole MG community over individual interests.
For now, I am particularly swayed by the high quality data analysis by UU that if I follow properly suggests (to very badly paraphrase), that yes the AI can sometimes appear to have shit-the-bed, but in the majority of cases the overall outcome (of stage races/season rankings) correlates well with stats when considered in detail, even though there might be occasional bumps in the road/outliers up and down.
I think most of us in our MG career can acknowledge that on the back of 1 or 2 races, or even a full season we have put too much faith in a rider who in retrospect is/was just having an outlier run of results (either posiive or negative). When a rider over-performs, this very often leads to over-paying inflated wage demands leading to disappointment the following season(s).
Thanks everyone for all of your contributions, some really helpful input here! Apologies on my part for not getting to this sooner, moving house caused my last few weeks to be quite chaotic.
Firstly, re: the suggestion of declines for contracted riders. As expected there was some strong opposition to this, and for completely fair reasons. At the same time I welcome the suggestions from Ulrich and SotD about how it could be improved, and will try to model that and bring it back here. One idea I have outside of changing stat limits or declines per rider is a sort of reverse training, which I'll draft a model for.
Ultimately nothing will happen regarding this until 2023, if at all. My preference would be for not at all if possible, but we need to see what the action we take this season achieves first. Cunego set out why I like this system better than I could - it's meant to add a new tactical dimension and a degree of control over declines, while maintaining relative strength - but I understand the reluctance. We don't want to force reductions on project riders
(Abhi's Minali example is exactly why) and any system would have to ensure that we didn't.
That said, I think Roman's 3 for 1 idea is worth further exploration, so will try to model that as well. I also think that the draft class idea could work well for allocating talents to non-traditional cycling regions, perhaps based on activity or perhaps with a bidding element. SotD's idea of fixed path talents also merits further thought, though we'd need to incentivise their signing - make them sub 50k in wages until maxed perhaps?
A question asked by SotD and spotted by Bikex probably needs an answer - the 2025 numbers include the development of currently contracted riders, but not of the additions from this season on. Hence we want ideally to create some room for future additions, though they will be weaker overall than in the past.
I agree with the comments from knockout and Croatia about the issues being particular noticeable for certain rider types now (showing that previous efforts have had some effect), and also the latter's comments on comparing stat matrixes. It's something I've been aware of while doing additions, and is helpful to know where to target interventions in the FA pool. Targeted interventions are better than random ones in my view.
There were some other ideas suggested that may be worth discussing in a general suggestions thread - changing the salary caps for each division, removing the CT draft, and reconsidering the stat gain options. With the latter I think the concerns about Mo/Hil hybrids is perhaps saved a little by the poor backups they'll inevitably have and the fact that pot 4 and 7 riders tend to be developed differently, but overall always keen to consider changes and/or new categories.
