|
Ideas for 2012
|
| SotD |
Posted on 21-07-2012 22:01
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Yeah, but not taking my riders with AVR of above 75 levels it out. In my case it actually makes my team almost 1mil lower than the CT teams 
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 22-07-2012 01:40
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
SotD wrote:
Yeah, but not taking my riders with AVR of above 75 levels it out. In my case it actually makes my team almost 1mil lower than the CT teams
He means that your budget is large enough that you should be beating CT teams anyway.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 22-07-2012 09:54
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
If we take the top 1mio of our budget and thus leaving our 2-3 best riders at home, we don't have any advantage what so ever... I don't think my 4th best rider is any better than what you could have in the CT.
Last season Ponzi came up and took quite a big chunk away from the PT teams. I don't mind that at all, I want the best riders to be in the PT. But why not give the secondary best riders a chance to shine in the HC races? And also make the talents of the PT teams develop while staying with their own team. ATM theres no point in having decent talents on the PT team if they are level 2 fx. There a some riders that could make up for some very decent helpers on level 2, but it's just not worth it when they gain twice the experience in the CT.
If those riders could get let's say 10-15 racedays in the CT, then it would probably be possible to make them go from 0-100 in one season being in the PT, and therefore you wouldn't have to loan them out.
It's just theory, and if it isn't implemented then fine by me, but it was a suggestion, that could probably develop riders a bit better in the PT 
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 22-07-2012 10:05
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Theres no chance of PT teams entering HC races, Ill say that much. They are the CT races that have the most teams anyway, as well as the biggest impact on promotion. The ManGame is not real life, and we shouldnt screw up the game dynamics just to be more like real life.
And besides, I dont particularly want to go back to a system where it is too easy to develop riders in PT, hence why the XP gaining system changed. It's possible for most riders to go from 0-100 in Level 2 anyway, you just have to race them a lot.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 22-07-2012 11:59
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Okay fair enough - I just thought it would give the CT a bit of dynamics to race some other teams from time to another, and also spice up the CT for the PT teams, so more managers would follow.
Don't know how many does. I tend to follow the oneday races, and a few GC races which I find interesting, but I miss some of the races aswell. And the CT is very interesting, so that's actually a shame. I could be the only one though
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 22-07-2012 12:02
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
There might be room for some PT in C1 races, but that might not be clear until after the CT teams have all picked their races. There's probably going to be some changes to the structure of the continetal division a little anyway, but thats still being considered!
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 22-07-2012 12:07
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Cool... Yeah it would be pretty good to have some domestique CT or ContiD2 team riding the races where theres only 7-10 teams involved I guess.
|
| |
|
|
| Heine |
Posted on 22-07-2012 13:00
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4116
Joined: 08-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I would like having some PT teams riding in the C1 races with less teams, takes tout some of the luck part when choosing races (like last season Tour of Luxembourg, where some teams got lots of points since nearly noone raced it... And noone can say that was good planning as everyone thought it would be many teams there (not like some African/Asian races)). Tour of Luxembourg is a good example really, a team like Accumalux should've been there with a squad imo (lead by some of your lesser luxemburgians)
|
| |
|
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 22-07-2012 13:10
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
What about a new system that takes the number of teams into consideration? Maybe one scale for races with 10 or less teams, another one for races with 15 or less and one with 15+ teams.
|
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 22-07-2012 18:09
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, what about make CT a little bit more similar to PT. My idea is give teams races where they will compete and that's all, like it is in PT.
In this season, there are 205 race days available to every team in PT.
In CT there are 371 race days in total for this season, with every single team having 175 race days. So how about split these race days for a new Continental Tour 1 and Continental Tour 2, where every team will know their program well before the season starts and each of this new divisons could have 20 teams which would in my opinion:
1. allow 10 other managers to be part of the Man-Game without increasing number of races (and that number is insanely high in my opinion now and I am not even counting in D2 at all, so big respect to every reporter of MG! ) to be raced
2. give a guarantee that each race will have full starlist of teams
3. increase competition in CT a little bit in my opinion, there could be than maybe some other things like Wild Cards for teams from CT2 to possibly give them a chance to race 'small GTs' from CT1 like Tour of Portugal, Tour of America or Tour of Germany or to race prestigious C1 clasics like Clasica San Sebastian, Paris - Tours, Strade Bianche or E3 Prijs which are quite prestigious in real life but are in my opinion a little bit underrated in Man-Game which should be funny for everyone involved in this game?
Wouldn't it be better to have CT1 a little bit more like PT and give more people in this game a chance to have a better fun? The only question in my opinion is, if it would bring more work to SN or other people which run this game. In my opinon, it wouldn't, it could even faster a little bit this game (maybe there could be less races after all - you all know we are now in season 2012, but if a season in any game on this planet runs for something like 1.5 year, that's a really big game to run..) and things in off-season shouldn't be that big problem as well, I think, because there wouldn't be any selection of races from mangers, only work for SN will be to decide which races will be part of PT, CT1, CT2 (and maybe something like D2, if there will be a one for the next season), then only problem would be IMO, there would be 10 more teams in this game..
Well, I would like to race Tour of Czech Republic with my team for sure, but why should my team race it when I have already a chance with my team to compete in Tour de France, Giro, Vuelta, Monuments or Paris-Nice? And I think Wild Cards in PT should be for teams from CT (or in what I suggest - from CT1 and then there could be available CT1 wild cards for CT2 teams and so on). I think this game should be mainly for fun everyone involved and I think it isn't a good idea to try to make this game as much close to reality, I think we should make this game a little bit more close to PCM standards..
What do you all think?
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 23-07-2012 00:38
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I would be 100% against reducing the number of races and the race selection procedure. It is a key part of ensuring promotion and allows for more region-focused teams to race all the races on a specific continent and thus target one of the continental tour rankings. If anything there should be more variety of races and if there aren't enough races with filled teams then have more teams to fill them.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 01:19
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:07
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Here's an idea for speeding up the ManGame and/or making it easier for reporters.
How about limiting report length according to race type? Say C1 races have max of 5 screens, 7 for HC, 10 for PT and 15 for GT stages/classics and 20 for monuments. Would also be a way of making the bigger races that bit bigger. |
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:13
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Not a fan of this actually.
Imo monument get automatically more screens due to their length and terrain.
And flat courses normally have less screens.
But to limit the number of maximum screens would bring other problems I think. Every reporter has a different style and this makes it a bit special I think. And I would find it quite difficult to select only 5 screens for a race in C1 then.
I would also don`t like to get my races with such a few screens if I only participate in small races due to the division.
And most important I doubt this would speed the ManGame as most reporters have shown that 1 report a day is possible or even 2-3 reports a day.
So imo it should be up to the reporter how to do the report and how many screens he wants to do.
Edited by roturn on 27-08-2012 14:14
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:15
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Would be good to have a faster pace, yes, but not sure about having a strict limit. Nobody is forcing reporters to put however many screens at present, it's all down to their choice. Perhaps a limit on the first 3/4 of a stage might help, but Id rather not see the finish of stages compromised by only being able to show the finish line photo - and none of the build up.
Your suggested system wouldnt work either, as it is hardly fair on CT managers
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:22
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Isn't it basically because the reporters want the race to stretch for a certain period? Otherwise, it would be fairly easy for a reporter to start the race while a race two "races down" is being reported. That way it is all finished, and the reports are ready to get posted from a word document, or how you guys do it.
So I think it's more down to how the reporters like to keep the races interesting, rather than how to produce them faster.
Imo 2 stages pr. day when it's a stagerace is the perfect amount. Then you keep tapping your F5 throughout the day to see if the next stage is there or not. Well atleast I do, but I reckon most of you know that i'm also a bit lunatic when it comes to this game
|
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:31
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Reports are often finished a while before it's posted. For example, I had my GP de Fourmies report stored for two months because I was waiting for FBD and Deutschland to finish.
|
| |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:40
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Fair enough - we've had some cracking race reports over the season that have been a joy to read.
My suggestion's not really about upping the pace - more about making life easier/making the big races bigger.
Think it's the post-Tour of America feeling that brings it on - seems the effort that goes into producing it is out of proportion to the status/importance of the race. It's not the only race - just the obvious example.
My original limits might have been a bit draconian - but if they were eased a bit?
It would also prevent new reporters doing this kind of thing - https://pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread....d_id=23607
I'm sure he went into shock when he realized how long it had taken.
Edited by fenian_1234 on 27-08-2012 14:44
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:47
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think that the big races are already bigger, you just need to have a look at the crazily awesome reports of the Tour SN did, for instance. I for one wouldn't like to have a limit of screenshots whatever the category of the race I'm reporting, I enjoy doing it, so the effort isn't really an issue.
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:52
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I get the feeling that my reports are largely the ones in question here - very long and detailed even for D2/C1 races. I feel no obligation to do this and don't ever want to shorten them unless there is nothing happening in the stage.
Here is my thought pattern: every single manager gets (theoretically) equal enjoyment out of seeing their team racing. As such even for the smallest teams who don't necessarily win a lot of races (Meiji, etc) it is worth watching them in breaks because that is what their team is about. Just as in real life wildcard teams will attack to get their name out there. So no only do longer reports allow everyone to feel like they are a part of the game but it also reflects a more real life reporting situation.
There is also the issue of dramatic tension. Everyone loves to watch the break throughout the day and cheer for them and then the action switches to the peloton. If this is supposed to be about a true hypothetical reality where these are real results in an alternative world (that is how I imagine the game) then the reports should also reflect some sort of realism in style. By making long reports for sprint stages, for example, we can get some sense of the epic nature of the stage.
As for speed, I usually feel happy with 5 stages in a week. As someone who is full time at Uni, works 2-3 other days per week and still has to find time to see his girlfriend and socialise I feel that is a valid commitment.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 27-08-2012 14:55
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
If you compare the PT classics this season:
Liechtenstein: ~70
Amstel: ~55
MSR: ~55
Roubaix: ~50
Grand Duche: ~50
Liege: ~50
Fleche: ~45
Ronde Van Vlaanderen: ~35
Gent-Wevelgem: ~30
Vattenfall: ~30
Omloop: ~30
Seine: ~30
Fourmies: ~25
Köln: ~20
You see that the bigger classics have the most screens automatically as there are far more spots where it`s worth to take a screenshot.
Liechtenstein is a small exception here but probably due to the interesting race profile and splits there was a lot to show.
And GT stages normally have far more screens than other races like Northern Europe, PN, Tirreno...
So I really like it how it is right now. |
| |
|
