|
Suggestions for 2024
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 21-11-2024 19:31
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 08-09-2023 12:20
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
Again, I really don't understand why you think think that this is a better option (prioritizing a rider over another) than just allowing the other manager to decide if they still want to go ahead with the deal after a rider is withdrew from it do to be a better offer.
If one team withdraws a rider from a deal (due to a better offer for that rider) then it's up to the other team to decide if they still want to go ahead with the deal with the rest of the terms, void the deal or renegotiate. Void/Renegotiating would happen anyway under current rules, renegotiating not meaning that a new deal must always be found. But this won't allow a team to use a better offer for a rider to back out of a deal they confirmed and then want to get out of, unless the other manager is also unhappy with the new terms.
Because it encourages me to work more heavily in rider swaps.
Lets say I want to sell O'Connor next season and buy in a new leader. It would be to my benefit to negotiate an O'Connor + Cash deal, and then continue to shop him around.
I have got a cheaper cash only deal vs not adding in O'Connor. And i've still taken the same cash from selling O'Connor as I would anyway. It's a win-win for me, and a lose-lose for other manager who gets less money & doesn't get a rider they want.
I concede it's potentially less of a lose-lose to the other manager to be able to force through the other parts of a deal, but it is still a lose-lose. Plus it also flies against the view that once "Deal confirmed by" is posted, that's it you're locked in as you would be for a Free Agent, Loan, Stagierre, Sacking or Cash Only deal.
I just want to bring Rider Swaps into line with the other five types of transfer activity. If the majority would prefer they remain a grey area, that's fine and we keep the current rules and managers take the risks associated with Rider Swaps.
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 08-09-2023 12:31
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
But the other manager is not forced to accept a deal with the same money and without O'Connor. It's up to them if they are still happy with the deal without O'Connor or not.
As the rules are now, withdrawing a rider from a deal due to a better offer immediately invalidates the deal. What I'm proposing is the deal is invalidated only if the other manager is unhappy with the new terms.
Your proposition introduces a new flaw, bigger imo that what it's trying to fix.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 08-09-2023 12:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
But the other manager is not forced to accept a deal with the same money and without O'Connor. It's up to them if they are still happy with the deal without O'Connor or not.
As the rules are now, withdrawing a rider from a deal due to a better offer immediately invalidates the deal. What I'm proposing is the deal is invalidated only if the other manager is unhappy with the new terms.
Your proposition introduces a new flaw, bigger imo that what it's trying to fix.
But if they don't accept, then the rule change hasn't done anything to protect them and the lose-lose is the same as under the current rules. An option to lose 500k or 2mil isn't exactly a good choice, whilst the current rules still still give you that same choice and ability to re-negotiate.
Lightbulb moment - I think we're talking across each other and trying to fix two different things. I'm trying to prevent the original pull out by Team B, you're trying to ensure compensation for Team A.
I'm sure other managers would view one side over the other just like us, it's only just clicked why we seemed to agree there was an issue but have two almost opposite views on it. It's why you see big flaws in my idea, and i see big flaws in yours.
I'll let the ultimate MGUCI decision makers clarify which side they want to fix up, if they see something that needs fixing (current rules have enough flexibility they can step in on a case-by-case basis as needed).
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 08-09-2023 13:05
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
Yes, we are trying to fix different things.
I'm trying to fix the case where a rider is used as an obviously escape goat to get out of the deal. Which in my opinion is the problem we saw this year.
You don't want overbid to be accepted for a rider once he is involved in a multi rider deal, unless that rider is the main one. While it fixes what I'm trying to fix it also opens up to other problems where we have more similar riders involved in the swap.
In my opinion accepting overbids for a rider involved in deal isn't a problem as long as it's not used as an excuse to get out of that initial deal.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 08-09-2023 13:39
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Yeah, which all roles back to the contradiction between Rules 6, 7 & 8. I'd rather see that fixed to align Rider Swaps with all other types of Transfer activity, than introduce a way to compensate a team because we have contradicting rules.
Because, yes, i don't think you should be able to overbid on 'any' rider in a swap deal, you should only be able to overbid on the deal as a whole by paying more for the primary rider (and defining primary rider is easy using pre-existing in-game mechanics).
I tell you this, it's a good thing I don't need to buy up Caribbean's from other teams or i'd be making a large mess of transfers next year.
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 10-09-2023 22:14
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7255
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
I really don't understand why some if implemented quite confusing and complicated options are suggested when just allowing the option to make deals final would just close any loopholes of abusing the system. De facto a lot of deals, especially those involving multiple riders, are already fix once they are posted, with teams more or less subtle agreeing on not accepting any other bid and it not being possible to rate what in fact can be considered as a better bid.
Anyways, I also agree with SotD that the Ahlstrand situation could've been conceived as foul play already with the current rules and imo the admins stepping in wouldn't have been wrong. However, in the end it was also not really ivan gaining anything from it but a third manager.
Ollfardh wrote:
Suggestion: allow multi team trades. In the past transfer period, we had a situation where 3 teams wanted to make a deal, but it was too complicated to get it done with transfer tax and everything.
In my opinion this is the wrong conclusion to take from these triangle deals that became quite common. Allowing multiple team deals would fix a symptom of another issue. The real problem in my opinion is that the transfer tax is taken from the total incoming transfer fees and not the transfer gains. Instead of a team buying a rider and selling another, the transfer tax can be reduced by those two riders being swapped first and then the other two involved teams making another deal for the outgoing rider. It is within the rules, but in general I don't really think it is fair that the transfer tax can be avoided by these kind of transfers. In my opinion applying the tax on the net transfer gains would be the right way to go. |
| |
|
|
| fjhoekie |
Posted on 11-09-2023 07:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4476
Joined: 25-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Allowing deals to be sealed immediatly defo isn't the way to go imo, it would only make things less transparant and benefit friendly bonds and early spammers more...
I like the general thinking of deciding a 'lead' rider based on OVL/wage in the case of swap deals, and only that manager can accept higher offers on that specific rider (or a deal containing a that riders and perhaps others in the deal) - manager B would be stuck with his bid, just like a manager only bidding cash would be. imo this simply makes the most sense.
For deciding when a bid a high enough to be considered high enough for the need to apply the rule of higher bids need to be accepted to be triggered... There simply is no solution - there can be motives other than money - selling to another division is very normal imo. Admins will need to ask for these motives though whenever someone feels like their better offer isn't considered well enough, a situation we have not really seen so far iirc.
And also, managers don't 'fix' deals when posted, at least the ones I've been talking with don't. They all made clear when a new bid would be accepted, what increase would be needed and I think that's a fair way to go.. In swap deals this may be different, and then maybe a unpopular opinion would be to eliminate them as a whole - if you want a swap make 2 threads, 1 for riders going 1 way, 1 for riders going the other way - and also make tax count over net gain.
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game |
| |
|
|
| Eden95 |
Posted on 11-09-2023 09:17
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4505
Joined: 05-10-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
fjhoekie wrote:
Allowing deals to be sealed immediatly defo isn't the way to go imo, it would only make things less transparant and benefit friendly bonds and early spammers more...
Agree 100%, this would most definitely not be the way to go. As much as I don’t like the 24hr deal deadline, I think the transparency it affords to managers is necessary for the game.
Indosat - ANZ HQ
"This Schleck sandwich is going to cause serious indigestion for Evans" - Phil Liggett |
| |
|
|
| seancoll |
Posted on 11-09-2023 23:22
|
Domestique
Posts: 480
Joined: 20-12-2022
PCM$: 500.00
|
Why not implement a rule that says an outbid must be for the entire deal grouping?
For example:
Team A deals rider A1 and A2 to Team B for rider B1 and cash.
Team A can accept outbids for A1 and A2 together, but not A1 alone or A2 alone.
Team B can accept outbids for rider B1, but not outbids for combo of rider B1 and B2(not in original deal).
Cash amounts can be added to any side of the deal
I've seen folks promote a similar rule, but not this exactly.
--
Regardless, even as a new manager, I see value in the 24hr rule for overbids as well - no matter what changes if any are made to the other rules.
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 21-10-2023 05:49
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Moving this out of the Portugal thread:
roturn wrote:
Fabianski wrote:
Just like ember, I'm however disappointed by the AI on the hilly stages; the puncheurs just aren't able to get some serious gaps anymore in the last couple of versions...
While it is not too different in RL where good time trialists are more and more dominant in formerly puncheur events as well, I think for the MG we must consider "changing" the stage race hill stages to force gaps. e.g. not really using the profiles are right now like real life hill stages, but more like the big hill classic stages, e.g. LBL as stage race options as well.
Otherwise I think the puncheurs won`t stand a chance whenever a TT, mountain stage etc. is as they are the only terrain not being able to gain time.
In RL though the same riders are winning every race nowadays and those are mainly climbers that also win GTs. The pure hill specialist as e.g. Gilbert is no longer out there.
Going to disagree with Roturn on two points here:
I am not sure I would consider Gilbert a pure hill specialist, he won Lombardia multiple times, would think he is a 74-75 MT so moving into hybrid territory.
And LBL is a GC event - the RL winners since 2000 are nearly all guys who could finish in the top 10 of a GC. So creating LBL like courses means moving the race into the GC/hybrid category, it is not going to help pure hill guys.
When I think of pure hill guys I think of Gerrans and Gasporotto and more recently WVA, they all win in the hills by being fast at the end not by putting minutes into the compeition.
I think we have to accept that TT/Hill races that don't favor GC riders or pure TT riders are dead. And I don't think that is a flaw in the AI - I am not sure they ever existed in RL even in the 2000s but have always been a mangame thing.
If you count Madouas then Portugal still had two stages won by puncheurs. We could make them a little harder an maybe get small time gaps but that is as good as it gets in terms of favoring puncheurs. I think rather than fighting the AI we need to go more down the TDU path, have all hill races with the added time bonues. And maybe a PRL or TTT like South Africa.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 21-10-2023 10:33
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
I still feel like there are ways to give puncheurs and punchier climbers (which I think in terms of races like Portugal is actually the more relevant category) opportunities to distance pure climbers and I think that's worth exploring. The key I think is to make sure there's not a 70-ish or more rider peloton heading into the final climb. Have two or three short but ideally fairly steep climbs in the final 10-15 kilometers that can split the pack and then a 2km or so final hill to make sure time gaps stick.
Obviously, that's hypothetical for PCM22 right now and fitting stages would need to be found/created and tested, but I do think races should exist that favor a rider with a stat line like 80 mo, 78 hi, 71 tt (I might be a bit biased here  ) over both riders with sth like 80 mo, 71 hi, 77 tt and 79 mo, 80 hi, 65 tt. Which I think hypothetically is what something like Portugal is supposed to do: Time trialing isn't irrelevant but hills are still required. And of course you can argue (rightfully) that in this specific case, his 78 hi did help Meintjes in his 3rd and 1st place stage finishes, but give riders like Novak or Amezawa the opportunity to make more of an impact, for instance.
Similarly, I still think there should be races that favor puncheur-TT hybrids over climbing stage racers. I don't think it matters if those races exist in real life or not, either. If those types of riders can and do exist in the MG, we should give them opportunities. See Hong Kong, too, which on paper has two hilly stages but McNulty's win was a foregone conclusion.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 21-10-2023 17:33
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
The problem is that the engine doesn't really understand Hilly guys as GC riders. It's about the way the engine selects leaders, not necessarily about the stage design.
If you want puncheurs to win hilly races, then make the races hill only stages or mix in 1-2 flat stages or maybe a prologue, but any longer TT or MO eliminates leadership for hilly riders. The engine just identifies them as helpers/stage hunters.
The combination of hill + TT only works by accident in PCM, not by design from the game.
Edit: TT + hill works if the emphasis is more on the TT than the hi
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 21-10-2023 18:57
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
Croatia14 wrote:
The problem is that the engine doesn't really understand Hilly guys as GC riders. It's about the way the engine selects leaders, not necessarily about the stage design.
If you want puncheurs to win hilly races, then make the races hill only stages or mix in 1-2 flat stages or maybe a prologue, but any longer TT or MO eliminates leadership for hilly riders. The engine just identifies them as helpers/stage hunters.
The combination of hill + TT only works by accident in PCM, not by design from the game.
Edit: TT + hill works if the emphasis is more on the TT than the hi
I agree with this and this is where it matters that a type of race doesn't exist in RL. The AI is trying to simulate RL so when we introduce race types that don't exist in RL we are asking a squre AI to fit in a round hole.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| whitejersey |
Posted on 21-01-2024 16:47
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2904
Joined: 07-08-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Remove decline on Fighter Attribute
In real life you often see older top riders such as GVA to name one, become a lot more active in breaks after they lose the ability keep up with the favourites in their regular terrains, maybe removing figther declines is a way to keep some older riders relevant instead of the neutered contracts that some people discussed earlier.
|
| |
|
|
| Ezeefreak |
Posted on 03-04-2024 10:36
|
Domestique
Posts: 555
Joined: 06-07-2009
PCM$: 300.00
|
So, I come with a new suggestion after investigating the database. I am pretty sure there will be some who completely dislike it ????
Yearly Auto-Decline for Stats over 83
85 is the absolute maximum of a stat a rider can have and I dont think this should be a permament thing. To keep up a skill this high intense training is required. So i feel like stats which are trained above 83 (aka 84 and 85) should automatically decline yearly 1 point till they are at 83 again.
But if you reached this kind of skill/stat once i think there should be a benefit for these riders. So we could give them a Discount to train these stats again to what they reached before by 50% or so. (Only till they decline because of age of course)
I think this would keep the database a bit more balanced and overall it feels realistic. Like i said before its impossible to keep that kind of skills without having to "sacrifice or pay" for it.
In the end this would only apply to a handful of riders and wouldnt they make useless, since they are still the strongest.
Edited by Ezeefreak on 03-04-2024 10:42
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 03-04-2024 12:12
|
World Champion
Posts: 12187
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Move back to older version to assure sprinting works better is still my dream.
I think the current game version is simply not suited for the Man-Game.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 04-04-2024 17:51
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
SotD wrote:
Move back to older version to assure sprinting works better is still my dream.
I think the current game version is simply not suited for the Man-Game.
Discussion points:
1) When was the last time sprinting actually worked properly in the MG? PCM15?! I don't think we can roll back that far and continue the current MG timeline (but you know me, i'm still down for a big ol' MG reset)
2) Based on what i've seen in sprinting in the CT this season, and the few PT races i've checked in on, is the issue really with the game version or is it a result of the MG's botched stat matrix?
CT sprinting has felt mostly ok to me, but i do see issues in the higher division where the stat matrix is possibly furthest from a "normal" one.
3) As a result of the above two, maybe someone that plays PCM normally can weigh in on whether it really is about a poorly built engine, or the MG's specific oddities?
|
| |
|
|
| OlegTinkov |
Posted on 04-04-2024 21:49
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2666
Joined: 31-12-2007
PCM$: 450.00
|
In my humble opinion everything works as good as you can expect as long as you provide the proper team/stagegy. Meaning if you sign a top sprinter you at least need to build a team around it with leadouts and second sprint option. Same goes for almost every terrain, you just can't have 1 top rider - fill in every terrain - and expect it to work.
Of course there are a lot of flaws in every edition, and Lord knows I have been trying to crack the code concerning cobbles for example, but that is part the the "fun" I guess, nonetheless it can be frustrating, not only for me but for every manager I assume.
Bottom line I still enjoy every single race even if the result is not logical (I miss crashes ;-))
|
| |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 04-04-2024 22:03
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4667
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
3) As a result of the above two, maybe someone that plays PCM normally can weigh in on whether it really is about a poorly built engine, or the MG's specific oddities?
It would take far more testing to confirm this, but in the few tests I did with the default DB, sprint results were pretty unpredictable as well. I observed the same behaviour with trains launching their main sprinter too early, and weaker sprinters taking the glory just because of better timing.
The stages that yielded the most consistent results were flat- or even hilly-rated stages with a couple of hills, so not the pan-flat, easy ones. I guess we can see that in MG as well, where the top sprinters very often compete for the win on such stages whereas they suffer from awful sprint preparation in flat stages. On the other hand, puncheurs with low sprint have become rather useless on such stages (whereas e.g. Moscon won several stages ending in a reduced bunch sprint for me in the past, no way he'd do that this year for Zalgiris despite the +1 Hi training).
Just my observations - but it'd need some time-consuming systematic testing to validate those sprinting theories.
|
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 04-04-2024 22:09
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
Fabianski wrote:
On the other hand, puncheurs with low sprint have become rather useless on such stages (whereas e.g. Moscon won several stages ending in a reduced bunch sprint for me in the past, no way he'd do that this year for Zalgiris despite the +1 Hi training).
Not wading in on everything else, but are they getting dropped or just not winning the sprint? Because they shouldn't really be winning the sprint so I would see that as a positive for the new AI
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT]  Xero Racing
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
