AiZaK wrote:
I want to have the final PCM daily DB for PCM2012 with the current stats
Sorry for my english
There was an update for PCM2012 a couple of months ago: https://pcmdaily.c...ost_779955
You can easily make some latest changes if needed, but it shouldn't differ from PCM2013 update too much.
Sorry to say, but i really think your stats sucks. First of all, i really hate, that you only use up to 82 in special cases 83. Whats wrong with 84 and 85? And IMO your potentials are even worse. Only two riders actually raded as 8, and I've never herd of any of these!! Same time some of the greatest upcoming talents are rated 6 MAX! Quintana is 3!? He hasn't reahed his max yet, I'm 100% sure of that! And the stars have been set to 3 or 4 too. Are you just completely avoiding anyone to get over 82 statpoints?! Perhaps they're on their max right now, but then instead of just giving them low potential, you should ue the whole scale, IMO.
Well, if the riders are under 84/85, there'll still be space for supertalents to outgrow them.
Also, the young top riders(Quintana, Sagan) will probably develop anyway, or get the best when the current best decline, at least I think so.
Though the big talents which haven't broke through yet need the high potential to develop. Mohoric & Ewan are really big talents.
The range between good climbers like Majka, Pozzovivo, Nieve and Froome is too big (77-83). 78-82 works fine for me and the races are more open. Quintana and Purito at 81, Nibali, Porte, Valverde at 80. Continental rider's stats are too low and they can not impact any races that WT teams participate in. All that I corrected in my DB Update - https://pcmdaily.c...d_id=30591
Jesleyh wrote:
Well, if the riders are under 84/85, there'll still be space for supertalents to outgrow them.
Also, the young top riders(Quintana, Sagan) will probably develop anyway, or get the best when the current best decline, at least I think so.
Though the big talents which haven't broke through yet need the high potential to develop. Mohoric & Ewan are really big talents.
But they aren't at thier max yet. And who'll say that the talents will be as good as the current? Personally I'd say, that if you're the best, and probably won't get any better, then you are an 85'er. This will also prevent, that riders about the same, will be just the same.
Maddrengen wrote:
Sorry to say, but i really think your stats sucks. First of all, i really hate, that you only use up to 82 in special cases 83. Whats wrong with 84 and 85? And IMO your potentials are even worse. Only two riders actually raded as 8, and I've never herd of any of these!! Same time some of the greatest upcoming talents are rated 6 MAX! Quintana is 3!? He hasn't reahed his max yet, I'm 100% sure of that! And the stars have been set to 3 or 4 too. Are you just completely avoiding anyone to get over 82 statpoints?! Perhaps they're on their max right now, but then instead of just giving them low potential, you should ue the whole scale, IMO.
I'm happy that i can just edit it - but why?!
The matrix gives good gameplay, we don't want too many super talents as it unlikely to happen. Quintana with 3 stars will reach 83/84 in most games, and that is perfectly realistic. With 6 potential, he will turn 85 climber, 85 hillier, grow most likely to high 70's in TT's etc. and I think that's unrealistic. Hence limiting the potential.
About 8 potential level riders, more about you lack of knowledge of U23 riders than anything else. As those riders stats are low, they are given high potentials, riders with high stats get their potential lowered.
It makes sure in 2 years in the career or so there's not 40 riders with 80> in climbing or sprinting which was killing the later years of carrers.
Second of all, this year the racing was close. Both on cobbles, hills and mostly in moutains ( par Froome and Quintana who have higher stats than most in their cateogry ). That's why there's lack of high stats, to create more open play as it's in real life...
Edited by Alakagom on 19-10-2013 22:26
carmelobymelo wrote:
The range between good climbers like Majka, Pozzovivo, Nieve and Froome is too big (77-83). 78-82 works fine for me and the races are more open. Quintana and Purito at 81, Nibali, Porte, Valverde at 80. Continental rider's stats are too low and they can not impact any races that WT teams participate in. All that I corrected in my DB Update - https://pcmdaily.c...d_id=30591
Sorry but how does Froome and Quintana made climbing races close this year? They were both light years above anyone and did not provide any close racing whatsoever. In hills, yes, the races were extremely close. Cobbles too mostly, sprinters well, there were 3 of them mostly. But in climbs, Froome and Quintana stood out preety much.. a lot.
Edited by Alakagom on 19-10-2013 22:28
Maddrengen wrote:
Sorry to say, but i really think your stats sucks. First of all, i really hate, that you only use up to 82 in special cases 83. Whats wrong with 84 and 85? And IMO your potentials are even worse. Only two riders actually raded as 8, and I've never herd of any of these!! Same time some of the greatest upcoming talents are rated 6 MAX! Quintana is 3!? He hasn't reahed his max yet, I'm 100% sure of that! And the stars have been set to 3 or 4 too. Are you just completely avoiding anyone to get over 82 statpoints?! Perhaps they're on their max right now, but then instead of just giving them low potential, you should ue the whole scale, IMO.
Stats: I don't want to go too long on this one, but, basically, in my experience using the 84/85 doesn't give as good gameplay as 82/83; the races become even more foreseeable, with outsiders having considerably less chance (while they are much more open irl, Paris Roubaix and Ardennes are good examples), not to mention it'd require going over thousands of stats to adapt them to the new matrix (after all, if a rider is 75 because he's rated 7 points below the best rider, with 82; if you change the best one to 85, you can't just leave the other one in 75, nor just add 3 points and that's it) as well as more adapted .xmls.
Potentials: the one thing you can't do is analyse potentials only in the .cdb. Did you look at the limits in any career to see how it's working? Just created a career, in which Quintana and Froome can go up to 84, Nibali 83, Mollema 81. Kittel can go up to 85 SP, Cav 84, Greipel 83, Sagan 82. Hills: Nibali, Betancur, Henao, Martin, Kwiatkowski, to 81. And you talk about 'some of the greatest upcoming talents' but says you have never heard of Ewan and Mohoric? If you feel any rider should have bigger potential, you're free to post it in specifics here, that's what this thread is about anyway. Just make sure to check in game whether they won't already be developing as you imagine
Maddrengen wrote:
I'm happy that i can just edit it - but why?!
Because nearly all other comments regarding the matrix/stats/potential agree with the way these are set (in general lines) But of course you can believe they're all wrong, and luckily, anyone can edit the stats/matrix/potential to their liking. To me it's working great currently
Edit: If you've already read lluuiiggii's post, you can skip this
Maddrengen wrote:
Sorry to say, but i really think your stats sucks. First of all, i really hate, that you only use up to 82 in special cases 83. Whats wrong with 84 and 85? And IMO your potentials are even worse. Only two riders actually raded as 8, and I've never herd of any of these!! Same time some of the greatest upcoming talents are rated 6 MAX! Quintana is 3!? He hasn't reahed his max yet, I'm 100% sure of that! And the stars have been set to 3 or 4 too. Are you just completely avoiding anyone to get over 82 statpoints?! Perhaps they're on their max right now, but then instead of just giving them low potential, you should ue the whole scale, IMO.
I'm happy that i can just edit it - but why?!
A common mistake is to just look at a database file and then go straight to complaining. Did you even try a race before writing this? My point being: Even if the top stat was 75, what would it matter if the racing was awesome?
I'm not an expert on stats making, it's not really my area of expertise, but let me try to guess the thoughts behind these selections.
Stat ranges: Limiting the stats to lower numbers makes races less predictable. Needless to say, it's easier for an 77 HI rider compete with an 82 HI Gilbert (or whoever) compared to an 82 HI Froome. I also believe that there's a larger difference (in terms of racing) when comparing 80-85 to 77-82.
In these times where races do seem less predictable than they perhaps used to, and where you often see lesser riders win the biggest stages, it makes perfect sense to have smaller stat ranges. We believe the gameplay is better this way - try it out with an open mind. You may be surprised. If not, feel free to change it yourself or try carmelobymelo's perfectly good stat updates.
Potentials: You've never heard of the two? Well, I don't think we should discuss who's the world's biggest talents and who deserve 6, 7 or 8 in potential - because, no offence, you don't have a clue. Whether there's a balance in the amount of pot 8'ers and pot-anything below 8? Well, Cyanide's own DB don't even have pot-8 riders. The only young riders with potential 7 are Pinot, Sagan, Phiney, Demare and Durbridge... so we have increased the number of talents by a lot.
Quintana: Already has very high stats. If we kept his potential high, he'd be world-dominating in no time. Limiting his potential doesn't mean he can't improve - he can. For example, his MO (in my test career) can rise to 84... Enough? I think so.
Edited by CrueTrue on 19-10-2013 22:30
carmelobymelo wrote:
The range between good climbers like Majka, Pozzovivo, Nieve and Froome is too big (77-83). 78-82 works fine for me and the races are more open. Quintana and Purito at 81, Nibali, Porte, Valverde at 80. Continental rider's stats are too low and they can not impact any races that WT teams participate in. All that I corrected in my DB Update - https://pcmdaily.c...d_id=30591
Sorry but how does Froome and Quintana made climbing races close this year? They were both light years above anyone and did not provide any close racing whatsoever. In hills, yes, the races were extremely close. Cobbles too mostly, sprinters well, there were 3 of them mostly. But in climbs, Froome and Quintana stood out preety much.. a lot.
By close I mean smaller time differences and Froome, Quintana and Purito are still dominating races but the fight for other places and stages wins is more open.
What an absoloute Douche these stats are spot on, better than French DB(not that im slaggin their great work off), for instance Scarponi came 4th in Giro and was 75/76 in their DB now he is a more respectable 77/77. TJVG and Ryder Hesjedal were basically awful aswell just for a bad year, at least Daily have kept them reasonable still. I think they are pretty much spot on, for you to come in shouting your mouth when you probably have not used it is ridicolous. Edit them your self have fun seeing the 85'er your on about winning every single stage that his is speciality, which is not realistic atall. And were have you been the 8 potential guys are huge talents.
In PCM 12 the high resistance stats meant that riders were very difficult to drop so Mountain and Hill game play was awful. Mass sprints on summit finishes for example. So the stats were lowered.
wogsrus wrote:
Like that stats, but the potentials of alot of riders puzzling. Good work nonetheless.
Actually it's quite logical. Riders with high stats and high potential will max out their main stats and develop others next, making them unbeatable.
Take Cav for example. After a few years, he'll have 85 sprinting and 70+ climbing with potential 7. If you'd give Quintana 7 or 8 potential, he'll get 85 climbing, 85 punching and around 75 sprinting, I guess.
If you feel any rider should have bigger potential, you're free to post it in specifics here, that's what this thread is about anyway. Just make sure to check in game whether they won't already be developing as you imagine 
