Nice looking stages, and very wildlife terrain, but truly nice. I like all your races from down under (and South Africa).
I have some questions on the KoM categories. First I must ask if you have inside info on what categories they are ment to be come action time.
I haven´t found any info on this and based on the races from earlier years I do think you got the specific categories a bit wrong.
Not the placement of them, but their values.
In last years race only two types was in the race. Category 1 (including Arthurs Seat and Mt Alexander), had points of 24-16-8 to the three first placed cyclist. Also Glenmore was categoriced as a 1, but all others had a point setup of 6-4-2 (similar to the intermediate sprints of the race).
You have marked the primary climbs (Arthurs and Mt Alexander) as KoM 2, which I think should be upgraded to cat 1 climbs.
NO category 2 climbs if that is not new for this year, which might be the inside info you got.
In 2011 a different point setup had a category climb valued 18-12-6, and another for 12-8-4.
Without roadbooks one can also assume that the race indeed only have 2 categories types, in 2013 and 2014 valued 24-16-8/6-4-2 and in earlier years 18-12-6/12-8-4.
The conclusion I took was that a overall setup should have been better as this (works with your 3!! categories in race)
cat 1 : 24-16-8 (Arthur Seat and Mt Alexander)
cat 2 : 18-12-6 (any this year ??, I assume not)
cat 3 : 12-8-4 (same question ??)
cat 4 : 6-4-2 (most of the lower climbs like Mt Edgerton, Wombat and The Highlands, also One Tree Hill in 2013)
I got a xml-classification file built on these facts and small assumptions.
My question to you if your categories could be altered with real-life correct values ?? Since you have THREE categories I can´t present a more correct setup.
I will of course present my file in this thread, and it will pop up later on in my package of correct xml-classification files.
The earlier version you made have the same categories, and in those cases I know they are wrong. Is it too much to change, if not I gladly adjust my XML files for publication with regard to wrongly categoriced climbs. Either way, but I think the real-life situation would be best.
Anyhow I thank you for otherwise great work on the stage creation. I have had some nice battles with mostly aussie riders taking the glory.
Guess this one is Herald Sun-related, so here i am
First of all, thanks for the kind words and this input is always welcome, too! I must admit, that i don't have any further informations on the KoM-categories for the 2015 edition. Just those stage descriptions from their website. So i guess the placings should be fine, but i choosed the categories for different reasons: actual difficulty of a climb and overall balance of points and stuff like that. Didn't really wanted to give Arthurs Seat a cat1-ranking, as this would make the KoM-battle all to focussed on that final stage, imo. But i may update the correct values once we have further infos from the official routes/website
Heck, man.
How did this crap end up here. I thought I was in the thread with your fantastic aussie stages.....
I looked today in that thread and didn´t find my answer. Puzzled indeed.
Well I know you based your categories on Cyanides hopeless wrongly setup of xml-classification. Those files are the one I have been working on very hard for months.
Soon enough I got 90% of the most known races with 90-95% correct points. I agree that Arthur Seats points will be high, BUT it´s the race organizer one should bark at. They are the rulers and I am only trying to get this game more realistic. Perhaps even Heralds point system is even crazier than Cyanide, but in fact correct.
The stages around these website with so many very skilled creators pumping out nice looking stages should try to use whatever knowledge they have to get as much as possible correct.
The next bloke who makes the same race might think he has better values and then evrything starts getting really messy.
If the point systems seams crazy, it´s up to the real-life race organizers to handle it. We only play a game, and trying to get it close to real life. Hard facts like this can´t be debated, only perhaps attributes on the riders, which never gets perfect anyway.
Once more, I really liked racing that Herald tour and hope you cranked out more of the suggested races in this thread.
No problem, luckily for you, i noticed this "no subject" thread anyway ;)
I like to keep it realistic, too. So i'm looking forward to your xml's and will update my stages as soon as we will know the actual climb-classifications. Mt Macedon, for example, i do expect a higher category for this climb. Well, time will tell!
And thanks for playing the race. Always nice to get feedback from users, who played those stages so soon after been released :)
Lets hope for a nice roadbook then, and if not the point system on any website after each race will give proper notice.
That´s what I found out before.
It´s most certain they will keep the crazy points of 24-16-8 to the highest category and I don´t think they will change the categories of Arthur Seat, It will stay a category 1 climb, so I think you could easy change the climbs already now.
My XML is on the verge of being released as it is. With ONLY two categories on your stages it will be a perfect match.
high category 24-16-8
low category 6-4-2
and it looks kind of silly, but that´s the reality for you.
That´s why I hoped for cat 1 and cat 4 in your setup, that opens up for everyone to add category climbs of fantasy in between.
What I am not certain of, but do think, is that the intermediate sprints have NO bonus, but finish have -10,-6,-4 (that´s 100% sure)
Sprints have been 6-4-2 points for years.
