|
Ideas for 2012
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 02-03-2011 13:50
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
How would you define such a 'special occasion' though?
|
| |
|
|
| Heine |
Posted on 02-03-2011 13:57
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4116
Joined: 08-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I have followed Tour of America and I really like the idea of having "grand tours" in the CT, but I think we need to make them more attractive. So my suggestions are:
Get 2 of them (I know it might be hard, haven't been following the stage creating, but a Tour of Asia/Africa would've been nice).
Then you can either have so that they cost half of the race days (rounded up to 11) to make them more attractive, or (if you got 2) you make them free of race days (like Wildcards) and then randomly place the teams so that each team is in one of them.
Both suggestions would (imo) make the races alot of fun with most of the best riders in the CT fighting against eachother.
|
| |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 02-03-2011 14:07
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4200
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, at first I don´t know, how decreasing stats formula works...i.e. let´s say -2 to all skills when rider reach 33, -3 when he reach 34 etc
Now, if you would want to keep fit your favourite rider, you have to spend huge amount of money...and tbh, I´m almost sure noone does it. That means while we are only 1 season ahead of RL, many RL stars are already useless in Man-Game. I definitely don´t want to keep monsters until their 40, no. But I think it could be fine to find some compromise in this matter. Manager, who decide to use this feature, would must pay some unspecified amount. Less amount that is prize for training, but definitely high enough to avoid massive using of it. As I mentioned, it´d be useful only for people, who doesn´t care about economical side of game.
Btw can you add your comment to my 1st today proposition (only first, after renewal, part) as well, please?
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 02-03-2011 14:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
You are aware of course that training can only be applied to riders who are maxed, and under the age of 30? So therefore the entire topic of prolonging a riders stats is, at the moment, impossible. |
| |
|
|
| beagle |
Posted on 02-03-2011 15:20
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4200
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
It´s new for me that training isn´t possible for riders older than 30, sorry for lack of knowledge...
So there is absolutely no chance to keep my favourites in strenght. It´s a pity. I think it could be changed as few managers could be pleased and rest wouldn´t feel any negative effects.
Manager of Polar in Man-Game
|
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 02-03-2011 15:35
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
But the other managers would see an effect.
You could argue that it is up to the manager in question to replace ageing riders with new younger riders, not to keep those old riders strong. If you do, in effect you "steal" points off managers who have done well in the transfer season.
I agree that it is unfortunate to see some riders age and become less useful, especially if they may be your favourite rider, but it just reflects life, eventually riders will move on, some never to return to cycling. My advice? Find some new favourite riders. |
| |
|
|
| Kami |
Posted on 02-03-2011 16:31
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3485
Joined: 19-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I certainly don't want faster decreasing, as i don't feel it's necessary, just check SN's list. Every rider should have his time at the top.
But about the increasing. I would keep the system like it is now, but why not have an age linked to a lvl increase, so youngsters aren't at their best untill the age of 24-25 or something?
1 -> 2: 19
2 -> 3: 20
3 -> 4: 22
4 -> 4/100: 24
Just an idea, but it might help the fast development case.
|
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 02-03-2011 16:42
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
That's certainly an idea worth considering. It wouldn't slow down the progression too much of riders already present in the DB, but for the season's additions of neo-pros etc, it may well affect those, spreading out the introduction of new talents. |
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 02-03-2011 16:45
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
So youre saying riders only gain stats by getting older, thus wiping out any skill in rider development, or in fact, any need for the xp system at all, beyond simply the level?
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 09:13
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 02-03-2011 16:47
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I read it as a "cap" on the experience that can be attributed to the rider in question.
Rider A is 18, in his first year he gains enough experience to take him to level 2.85 under current rules. Due to the "cap" he's only allowed to go to level 2.00.
The next season, he doesn't race much, just a few days here and there, but gets enough for 16 experience. He adds that onto the "saved" .85 and moves up to 3.01 at the age of (going on) 20.
etc. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 02-03-2011 16:48
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
That's how I understood it too. |
| |
|
|
| Kami |
Posted on 02-03-2011 16:49
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3485
Joined: 19-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
The system would just stay the way it is. But so a rider doesn't reach max lvl at the age of 21, just link an age needed to let the rider go up. If the rider gets the xp from going to 2->3, but he isn't 20/21 yet, just let him stay at 2/100, untill he get's 20/21. Then he can actually get the xp itself, and the manager can train him.
|
| |
|
|
| Kami |
Posted on 02-03-2011 16:50
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3485
Joined: 19-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
What rjc said  . Just explained properly.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 02-03-2011 17:03
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Id rather limit it to one level change per season, than have any sort of limits on age. The ages of the guys im adding varies from 19 to 22, so thats 23/26 at the earliest for them.
Edited by SportingNonsense on 02-03-2011 17:04
|
| |
|
|
| Kami |
Posted on 02-03-2011 17:13
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3485
Joined: 19-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
If you look at it, it comes down to practically the same (except for some of the new "older" riders). The age just gives it a more realistic touch.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 02-03-2011 17:14
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
The age just gives it a more realistic touch.
I disagree. Different riders develop at different ages.
|
| |
|
|
| Kami |
Posted on 02-03-2011 17:24
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3485
Joined: 19-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I was also thinking about that. When you add riders to the DB, you decide the potential, right?
If so, then it should be possible to also add a development age. Could be hidden, or could be added to the excel DB. For example, Guardini (new young Italian sprinter), he's had good results already, you can make his 'development' age lower then another young talent. Type of rider might also influence this: sprinters generally develop faster then stage racers.
In the end, your idea would work out as well.
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 02-03-2011 20:26
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Lots of ideas today add to add my two cents!
Riders levelling up:
I think one level per year is nice, it would have encouraged me to level up a few more youngsters (34 race days for a CT team to level up a lvl 1 exp 0 rider). Rather than focus on manically racing two riders for 85 to 90 race days, I would have raced five or six for 35 to 40 race days.
Stats demoting
Not really a fan of your idea beagle - it seems like a ploy to keep a rider you cannot afford. I suppose it goes hand in hand with my dislike of players hogging riders - I prefer dynamism (within reason of course - if you have trained up a rider I can understand why you would want to keep him). Buying the stat increases for me is fine that seems like a real thing to do investing in a rider - paying someone to get worse seems bizarre!
Heine's make races more attractive
The Tour of America was such a huge amount of work for OlegTinkov and SN, it was a huge shame it turned out like it did. It may have been 'fun' for Wiggo - but it was a very frustrating mess for me. Twenty one stage races for Ctour riders are pretty out there I guess. For me a couple more exotic tours would not go amiss - (though DEM file restrictions would limit if we convert to pcm 2010)
Raising my c1 race groupings idea again
Still wanting to raise this, actually I am interested to know where SN was going with his goal setting ideas - I would love to see some of the goals less down to individual races and more down to decent overall performances within certain nations or areas.
I still feel that races like Montreal/Quebec should be raced as a joint venture - not just one picked and the other ignored because it doesn't suit a team. I find it a little frustrating to see that group of experts (mountains/hills/Cobbles/Sprinters) pillage every single specialist race in every area of the world and then not support the other races.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 02-03-2011 20:38
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Heine wrote:
I have followed Tour of America and I really like the idea of having "grand tours" in the CT, but I think we need to make them more attractive. So my suggestions are:
Get 2 of them (I know it might be hard, haven't been following the stage creating, but a Tour of Asia/Africa would've been nice).
Then you can either have so that they cost half of the race days (rounded up to 11) to make them more attractive, or (if you got 2) you make them free of race days (like Wildcards) and then randomly place the teams so that each team is in one of them.
Both suggestions would (imo) make the races alot of fun with most of the best riders in the CT fighting against eachother.
Reducing the cost of long races might work - it would mean less xp for young riders there, but more likelihood of good points per race days. Im not entirely sure though. Also, I wont be looking into making a whole 21-stage race. If theres some already made that arent the big 3, then I can look into them, otherwise Ill be focused on trying to get smaller races made for PCM10 to ensure the Man-Game still has a good global selection of races.
Raising my c1 race groupings idea again
Still wanting to raise this, actually I am interested to know where SN was going with his goal setting ideas - I would love to see some of the goals less down to individual races and more down to decent overall performances within certain nations or areas.
I still feel that races like Montreal/Quebec should be raced as a joint venture - not just one picked and the other ignored because it doesn't suit a team. I find it a little frustrating to see that group of experts (mountains/hills/Cobbles/Sprinters) pillage every single specialist race in every area of the world and then not support the other races.
The regional area rankings could be brought back and goals for standings in them could be possible if thats what you mean? I wouldnt know how to weight them though.
Also, perhaps a race day bonus for riding all races in an area. E.g. If it costs 20 race days to ride all African races, if your team is down for them all, maybe it only costs you 16? Something like that.
Montreal/Quebec as a grouping works. Not sure about any other races
Edited by SportingNonsense on 02-03-2011 20:38
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 02-03-2011 20:40
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
The race day bonus would be good, but isn't grouping too restrictive? |
| |
|
