I have decided to open this thread, and I hope it's OK. I will bring on my first point my self. It is a bit long, but I do think it's important and explenatory once you get to read it. If you don't have the time you can cut part 2 and their underpoints for now. It's about the PT riders in HC bands. I call it:
The problem of PT riders in HC bands
1. The hypothesis:
The main problem of the PT riders in the HC bands are the balance. And because of this very unbalanced system certain teams are getting a major influx of points due to the HC band they have been given/they chose. And not necessarily because they have the best riders. I find that a bit problematic, although I do love the entire aspect of us riding HC races.
This is what we have now, and the hypothesis is that especially two options and ridertypes are dominant.
2. What we have now:
2.1 Mountains:
The highest stat level is 78, but here you also have to be at most 74HI. Also OVL need to be less than 76.
This meaning that there are currently 43 riders stronger than the strongest possible PT rider sent here. The strongest available PT riders being Denys Karnulin, Ki Ho Choi or Alex Kirsch.
38 riders in the PCT are better than this, with riders like Atapuma, Fothen, Panayotov, Rodrigues, Bibby, Yates, Beltran, Teklehaimanot, Roglic, van der Hugenhaben, Hiratsuka, Cort Nielsen, Augustyn, Schelling, Saggoriato, Scarponi and Nepomnyachsniy NOT counted.
5 riders in the CT are better than this, with riders like Pomoshnikov, Antón and Tvetcov NOT counted.
If counting these riders as ATLEAST similar to the best possible PT rider available, then there are 63 riders competing at the same or at a higher level than the best possible rider to send away.
2.2 Hills:
The highest stat level is 78, but here you also have to be at most 74 in secondary stats like MO, HI, TT or COB, aswell as having and OVL of less than 76.
This meaning that there are currently 24 riders stronger than the strongest possible PT rider sent here. The strongest available PT riders being Kristian Dyrnes, Maxime Monfort, Ian Boswell, Matej Mohoric or Joshua Edmondson.
22 riders in the PCT are better than this, with riders like Reichenbach, Vanendaert, Waeytens, Borges, Bellis and Gilbert NOT counted.
2 riders in the CT are better than this, with only Enrico Barbin NOT counted.
If counting these riders as ATLEAST similar to the best possible PT rider available, then there are 31 riders competing at the same or at a higher level than the best possible rider to send away.
2.3 Timetrials:
The highest stat level is 77, but you also have to be at most 74MO, SPR, COB or HI. Also OVL need to be less than 76.
This meaning that there are currently 37 riders stronger than the strongest possible PT rider sent here. The strongest available PT riders being Dmitriy Grabovski, Alexandor Cataford, Roman Kreuziger or Lasse Norman Hansen.
32 riders in the PCT are better than this, with riders like Rolland, Boaro, Ghyselinck, Aramendía, Bodnar, Dal Col, Archbold, Fominykh, Barth, Predatesch, Johansen aswell as a bunch of GC riders with 76 TT, NOT counted.
5 riders in the CT are better than this, with riders like Mark Christian, André Steensen, Aggrey Sebright, Haijun Ma, Rick Flens and possibly Ramunas Navardauskas NOT counted.
If counting these riders as ATLEAST similar to the best possible PT rider available, then there are 54 riders competing at the same or at a higher level than the best possible rider to send away.
2.4 Cobbles:
The highest stat level is 76, but you also have to be at most 74 in SPR, MO, HI or TT. Also OVL need to be less than 76.
This meaning that there are currently 25 riders stronger than the strongest possible PT rider sent here. The strongest available PT riders being Jan Polanc, Vincent Jérôme or Sven Nooytens.
19 riders in the PCT are better than this, with riders like Azzeddine Lagab, Stijn Joseph, Christoph Taubel and Sebastian Langeveld NOT counted.
6 riders in the CT are better than this, with riders like Bert-Jan Lindeman, Wim de Vocht and Sébastien Turgot NOT counted.
If counting these riders as ATLEAST similar to the best possible PT rider available, then there are 32 riders competing at the same or at a higher level than the best possible rider to send away.
2.5 Sprint:
The highest stat level is 79, but you also have to be at most 74 in secondary stats, mainly HI and COB. Also OVL need to be less than 76.
This meaning that there are currently 38 riders stronger than the strongest possible PT rider sent here. The strongest available PT riders being Alexander Porsev or Guillaume Boivin.
23 riders in the PCT are better than this, NOT counting those 12 other riders with 79SPR or riders like Nolan Hoffman, Sam Harrison, Sacha Modolo, Nepomnyachsniy, Teuns and Reimer.
9 riders in the CT are better than this, NOT counting those 15 with 79SPR or riders like Tom Boonen and Caleb Ewan.
If counting these riders as ATLEAST similar to the best possible PT rider available, then there are 73 riders competing at the same or at a higher level than the best possible rider to send away.
3. Status:
So by these logics it is definitely best to have cobblers or hilly riders and to be lucky to be placed in such a band. But what does the real figures say about this?
Pro Tour teams scored a total of these points, during the races having been ridden so far:
Hilly races: 875 (7 stages/races)
Cobbled races: 650 (3 stages/races)
Sprint races: 216 (12 stages/races)
Mountain races: 3 (7 stage/race)
TT races: 0 (3 stages/races)
So the hypothesis is clearly underlined by these figures. It is more or less pointless to send timetriallists or climbers to HC races unless you want to chase a lucky stage win or a KOM jersey, which is also down to luck.
4. Suggestions:
I am not sure I feel the PT teams are taking away too many points from the hilly races, but in the case here it’s a bit of a double fault, which causes two bands to be heavily overcrowded by PT teams hence making it MUCH easier to score points if you have the right type of riders. I am in one of these bands myself, so I’m not complaining about that – Although it would obviously be much much better to spread it out. I am aware that the bands are primarily made for the PCT teams, but maybe it would be wise to create some kind of metric so we don’t see 10 PT teams in a HC band. A maximum of 6 I would find way more suiting, and it would also give the PT teams a more fair competition internally, as those teams fighting 18 PCT teams everytime should, on paper atleast, have a much more difficult time as those teams have better riders available as clearly indicated in the first part of this post.
Also, we need to learn from these figures, because eventhough things were altered in this off season in terms of last season, it seems more to me like onqualified guesses than statistical and qualified limits. The pool of riders and qualities were almost similar to last season, so despite making some restrictions and “losing up a bit” here and there we are clearly not balanced well – or at all…
4.1 Timetriallists:
Time triallists are what is needed the most look at, and here I would suggest setting the number up to 79 as a pure TT stat, and then at most 71MO/HI. If 78TT then it should be OK to have 73MO/HI and if 77TT then 75MO/HI should be allowed. This would mean that riders such as Michael Hepburn, Anton Vorobev and Adrian Malori could compete, but not riders like Omar Fraile and Brent Bookwalter. So we don’t interfere all that much in a GC race with a singly hilly or mountainous stage.
Instead riders such as Rasmus Sterobo or Bob Jungels could attempt to do that, while they would never be a TT stage favorite. They would even struggle to score a stage result in a HC TT. Riders like Tim Dees could then go as a GC rider. By looking at his PT results he shouldn’t be all that much of a threat to the GC riders of the HC bands.
Remember: There are still 14 PCT and CT timetriallists that are better than the best possible PT timetriallists, and another 6 similar riders and a BUNCH of GC riders that are having a way better perspective normally.
4.2 Climbers:
We know for well that there are a ton of climbers – also strong climbers in the secondary divisions. It wouldn’t hurt for one bit to accept a stat increase to 80MO for PT riders as that wouldn’t even allow any PT climbers to join with 80MO as they are all above 76OVL. The best climber available with the current sub categories are Frederik Strand Galta, Merhawi Kudus, Jarlinson Pantano Gomez – And frankly they wouldn’t be scoring a lot of points in the HC bands, but would atleast make for some interest in the mountainous GC races for PT teams. It would allow for riders like Samwel and Solis aswell. If we increase the HI to 75 to be acceptable this would also allow for riders like Lawrence Warbasse to join, while the OVL limit still stops riders like König, Olivier and Bongiorno – Although I would personally accept the likes of those aswell as they would be around no. 30 .
So my suggestion is that the OVL limit is set to 76,75, the MO high stat is set to 80, the HI high stat to 75 and the TT high stat to 73. This would allow for these riders to join:
Dominique Nerz, Jaime Suaza, Frederik Strand Galta, Merhawi Kudus, Daan Olivier, Francesco Bongiorno, Jarlinson Pantano, Lawrence Warbasse but would NOT include riders like Jurgen van den Broeck, Leopold König, Gianluca Brambilla, Nikias Arndt or Nairo Quintana.
It could probably be done in another way also, but these are the current PT riders. If we just put the MO stat to 80 instead the OVL is killing the point. And as the OVL was set high for mountain riders to limit their racedays it doesn’t necesarrily mean we have to use it for this. A bunch of the riders mentioned here would probably not ride a lot of HC racedays anyway as they are PT leaders/sub leaders and need to ride PT races…
4.3 Sprinters:
The final thing we need to look at is sprinters. The sprinters competition is so fierce by now that putting the stat to 80 would definitely make sense. The PT teams would not be able to form a train by raising the stat to 80, but it would make for some more riders to join. Riders like Danny van Poppel, Dylan van Groenewegen, Andrea Guardini, Jens Keukeleire, Daniel Vesely would be eligeble, but riders like Holloway, van der Lijke and Demare wouldn’t because of their OVL limit.
To raise it to 81 would be the ideal solution imo, as most top 81 sprinters in the PT would also struggle with the OVL, but it would make room for riders like Maksimov also. No room for my own Coquard, Enger, Roelandts, Grosu and Boeckmans as they are already competitive at PT level, while the others are at best lucky to get into the top 5, although I know a few of them have done so before.
But it is pointless to bring sprinters to the HC band if they aren’t even strong enough to sprint. In my own example I brought in Marco Haller and Grzegorz Stepniak just to feel like we were contributing to the HC band we had to ride. And they don’t sprint. 77 and 78SPR aren’t enough because the PCT sprinters field (and the CT for that matter) is so packed with strong sprinters.
5. Rounding off
I hope the things mentioned above will bring in some thoughts, suggestions and such. And I really hope people are able to see things without primarily looking at their own team and riders. I have tried to do that, and thus kept away from allowing my better subtop riders to be allowed in HC races. But I see no point in us just being fillers there, and it would make for some more tactical choices if the HC races actually could give points and not just the teams being lucky to have a band with cobbles and hills. Also, when reading this you need to remember that not only the PT riders are getting stronger every season. The PCT aswell as the CT are too. So what you once thought was a top rider, isn't necessarily one anymore. The days where 82MO riders dominated the world, and a 81SPR rider would be a 3 star favorite is long gone, and we need to keep up with this in one way or another.
1. The problem
This is a point we have discussed before, but a point I feel is the very essense of the games survivial on the long scale.
Talents and riders brought up in the Off season and through the FA are too strong. By bringing riders like Ahlstrand, Enger, Coquard, Grosu, Demare, Zabel, Groenewegen, Dombrowski, Cattaneo, Lecuisinier, Morton, Wellens, Herklotz, Zmorka, Vlatos, Paillot, Würtz, Senechal, Kamyshev, Teunissen, Zepunkte,
we keep the game and the participants prisoners to and old system where we needed to train our biggest stars in their main stat to keep up. This still lives very much, and we need it to stop, because otherwise we will se all categories have 85 riders in all major stats. We already have it in the mountains and hill sector, and there are plenty of riders to go around with high stats. We have 84 Sprint riders, we have 83 TT riders, 83 COB. Once we hit that 85 mark in all aspects we will just keep on going forever, until it all becomes random and up to the daily form. We allready see PCM trying to make daily form decide, but in the future I think we are likely to see it being the major decider in the game and once that happens we need a complete reboot.
2. Suggestion
We need to act now. Not by making trainings more expensive or finding all sorts of crazy new ways of getting money kicked out of the system - Why not? Well because several managers have already planned ahead and spent several seasons trying to build a team around the rules of the time. We don't want to fuck that up and force them to either change or leave the game.
So my suggestion is that we need to start thinking more smart in terms of the long run. This game has been run for what? 10 seasons? We want it to run for atleast 10 more - or atleast I do. And how do we do that? Simple. We need to think up some sort of limitations to riders being added to the game. We don't want all riders looking the same, so we still need to be inventive and possibly giving talents a wider aspect of starting stats, so the managers can decide for themselves where they should go. We already had riders like this. Phinney could have become a great sprinter and on a more low key level a riders like Kozhatayev could have become a similarly strong cobbler as he will now be a climber.
BUT. What is the most important is to make up some levels. Much like you do with selecting HC bands.
My suggestions are as follows. And these riders are used as example of the very very best of talents in the future!
Jo Kogstad Ringheim, Tom David and Jan Polanc could be used as template for the future cobbled stars. (look at their maxed skills)
Let's say that they are joining the game at 19 years of age being level 1.00. It would take 3 years to develop them, and another to make them training eligeble. Then it would take 4 years to train them to 85 COB and this would cost 12,3 mio. So they would "rule the world" at the age of 27. Then they would have 4 years there before stopping. But to be honest. Who ever made a 78 rider to 85? It's simply too much of an effort. And if the other contenders are top riders at 81 you wouldn't need to do it. Instead you could train in different ways to make them more versatile.
The same example goes for others, but GC riders could be Jack Haig, Vegard Stake Laengen or so while pure climbers could be Warren Barguil or Winner Anacona, while a mixture could be a rider like Sergein Kolesnikov.
For sprinters the template could be Eric Young, Sam Harrison, Nolan Hoffman or Marcel Aregger.
For timetriallists it could be Kristjan Koren, Bob Jungels, Wen Hao Li, Philipp Walsleben.
Of course there should be all sort of riders, but the most important is that their main stat is at no time higher than 79 and if they are, they should be relatively limited to that stat. Climbers with a decent HI stat and acceleration but poor TT or sprinters with no particular capabilities in hills, prologues or such. The versatile riders should be 77 or 78 at most in their key stat, and then it would be up to the managers to decide if they should become better.
These sort of riders are not that valuable right now, but would become it once the older riders start to fade, although for a while some very strong riders would dominate. This would then be spread out by the wages they wanted.
I wouldn't mind allowing talents to join earlier. In fact I would enjoy working with even younger riders to be allowed to form a Tour d l'Avenir squad instead of most of the riders being crap while riding the race and then turning decent once they are 25. Why not allow them to have some decent U23 years, maybe even maxing out at 23...
I would then think it would be reasonable to use the loan out feature more also in combination of training. It could be something similar to:
Riders maxed out and having ridden a full season with their main stats are allowed to be trained (as it is now) - However. Riders a the age of less than 25 are now allowed to be trained while they are in the Pro Tour. This means that if you have a talent who is maxed out at 22, and then riding his entire season in the PT, he is now 23 and training eligeble. But as he is too young to develop as a PT rider he needs to be loaned to the PCT or CT to ride there for a season if you want to train him - Otherwise you need to wait until he is 25. This is something that one can play with, and not necessary for the idea, so don't keep this too much in mind!
I won't reply on the PT riders in HC races situation, I see the problems and I know something has to change, however I'm not sure exactly what could help and which consequences there'd be.
I will reply to the entire stat inflation talent thing though. As it stands we simply have too many riders with high stats, which not only influences PCM in a rather bad way, but also kills the market with what should be PT riders moving to the PCT and CT even. Some added talents are ridiculously overpowered, and that cannot be reversed anymore I'm afraid... We can hoever make an effort in stopping the move by adding new talents with both lower stats to start with, a wider range of potentials (more pot. 2 and 3 riders to fill the CT later on), and only adding an amount which is just more than sufficient to fill all teams in the seasons to come. In addition to that we should stop adjusting stats of riders who are free agents in the DB. I get it's good for some people who like to see a guy like Roglic do well if he does in real life, but fact is that this is a game. Constantly adjusting stats like has been done countless times now is unbalancing the game, and the 'decent talents' just don't get scooped up as a result of these changes (and also adding decent level 4.100 riders).
I would probably also like seeing more expensive training, but we also know some managers will end up with a shitload of money nonetheless, meaning they can train riders like no other. I'd not be against applying max stats for riders, only allowing an increase of say 3 or 4 per stat after they've maxed. This makes it easier to control the balance, and still allow training and tactical shit.
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game
SotD wrote:
Riders maxed out and having ridden a full season with their main stats are allowed to be trained (as it is now) - However. Riders a the age of less than 25 are now allowed to be trained while they are in the Pro Tour. This means that if you have a talent who is maxed out at 22, and then riding his entire season in the PT, he is now 23 and training eligeble. But as he is too young to develop as a PT rider he needs to be loaned to the PCT or CT to ride there for a season if you want to train him - Otherwise you need to wait until he is 25. This is something that one can play with, and not necessary for the idea, so don't keep this too much in mind!
fjhoekie wrote:
I won't reply on the PT riders in HC races situation, I see the problems and I know something has to change, however I'm not sure exactly what could help and which consequences there'd be.
I will reply to the entire stat inflation talent thing though. As it stands we simply have too many riders with high stats, which not only influences PCM in a rather bad way, but also kills the market with what should be PT riders moving to the PCT and CT even. Some added talents are ridiculously overpowered, and that cannot be reversed anymore I'm afraid... We can hoever make an effort in stopping the move by adding new talents with both lower stats to start with, a wider range of potentials (more pot. 2 and 3 riders to fill the CT later on), and only adding an amount which is just more than sufficient to fill all teams in the seasons to come. In addition to that we should stop adjusting stats of riders who are free agents in the DB. I get it's good for some people who like to see a guy like Roglic do well if he does in real life, but fact is that this is a game. Constantly adjusting stats like has been done countless times now is unbalancing the game, and the 'decent talents' just don't get scooped up as a result of these changes (and also adding decent level 4.100 riders).
I would probably also like seeing more expensive training, but we also know some managers will end up with a shitload of money nonetheless, meaning they can train riders like no other. I'd not be against applying max stats for riders, only allowing an increase of say 3 or 4 per stat after they've maxed. This makes it easier to control the balance, and still allow training and tactical shit.
I agree with you here. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't understand why people are so intent on seeing a guy who starts doing well in real life getting random stats boosts that the game's database was never intended to handle. Part of the charm of Man Game is the altered reality we have created over the years. Talents are judged on their expectations, not what they end up doing. That leaves us with a really cool half real/half fantasy DB that makes the game unique. Changing stats to match reality only serves to ruin that aspect and unbalance the database further.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
We are seeing the inevitable Stat Inflation problem coming to the fore. There are a number of factors in this:
- Adding too many riders
- Adjusting too many FA's
- Too much training
- Mixing older systems with new ones
Luckily some of these are easily fixed:
- Add less riders
- Add less good riders
- Stop adjusting FA's completely
Some are harder to fix:
- Training is always a tricky one to balance because it's linked to the wider Monetary problem the game has. There's too few ways to get money out the system and it inveitably goes almost exclusively upwards.
I've never really been in a position to do any Training. This season was the first one i had any real money left over, and for me as a CT team it was too expensive to be worth training anyone with it. So Training isn't something i can really comment on because i've never experienced.
What i have experienced is that for a CT team Training costs are expensive to the level of being almost prohibitive, which is good at controlling Stat Inflation but also means the money is best spent on buying riders which sends it up the Ladder.
The money goes up into the hands of PCT and PT teams who then have enough cash where Training is doable and seemingly without much difficulty.
Make Training more expensive would help. None of this limiting what you can spend (+2 limits etc) and just make it flat out more expensive.
More ways to get money out the system for lower level teams would go a long way as well. I'd like to see WildCard costs for PCT teams increased a fair bit, and i'd like to see it cost money for a CT team to go to a HC race. This would take money out the system rather than going upwards.
Another idea is simply to lower the amount of money entering the system in the first place. Wage Caps are good, but couldn't we just lower the extra Budget that gets handed out ontop of that?
This would give us less money in the system from the start which itself would help go someway to solving the monetary issues.
- Mixing Old Systems with New. This basically relates to the old MG system where anyone could be trained at any point and led to helping produce some of the top monsters we have in the game that are young-ish.
It also seemed to be a bit cyclical. Riders get really good, add more youngsters who can match them. Youngster develop, add more to match them. And so the cycle goes leading to a hefty level of Stat Inflation.
There's not much we can do to combat this at all, beyond adding less new young riders. Take a few seasons adding in a real few riders to allow some of the existing guys to start declining so we can get ourselves leveled out. Although this could take actual real life years.
I wouldn't mind the idea of CT paying for HC wildcards if it didn't cost CT team race days anymore. Nevertheless, HC races have become pretty much useless for a CT team to enter with always a packed house and extra competition from PT teams, so I don't think it would have much of an impact.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
A maximum of 6 I would find way more suiting, and it would also give the PT teams a more fair competition internally, as those teams fighting 18 PCT teams everytime should, on paper atleast, have a much more difficult time as those teams have better riders available as clearly indicated in the first part of this post.
I disagree with that. I think the most important thing about HC bands should be to try to guarentee every PCT team to ride their preferred bands. While i would not like to ride a band that doesnt suit my team idea (in my case: mountains + pan flat races) it would be much worse if a PCT team would have to step down to a band that does not satisfy their ideas.
And if you limit the max number of PT teams then you'll automatically reduce the number of PCT spots in a HC race. Not a good idea imo.
But, I completely agree with you on the thoughts about PT rider limits in HC races. Stat limits that are somewhat calculated statistically might be better / fairer. Below is a list of the key stats of the n-th best rider in a stat that rode in PCT or CT for the last two seasons. That might be a good help in identifying possible stat limits.
10th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
80
79
79
78
81
2016
81
80
79
79
81
15th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
80
78
78
77
80
2016
80
80
79
78
80
20th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
79
78
78
77
80
2016
80
79
78
77
80
25th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
78
77
77
76
80
2016
80
78
78
76
80
30th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
78
77
77
76
80
2016
79
78
78
76
80
Personally, I like the 2016 20th best value as a suitable limit: 80MO, 79HI, 78TT, 77CB, 80SP. But depending on how one sets the other restrictions (OVR / other stats) and on how competitiv PT teams shall be, one could go higher or lower as well. I'd just recommend to stay on a similar "(n-th best) level": If we raise the maximum SP to 81 as SotD favoured then we cannot keep CB at 76.
The Adjusting FA Rider Stats
I really like the idea of adjusting stats of FA riders. But not because of realism but because of the chance to add new types of riders. I like that the MG DB includes many unique type of riders. However, some of these types are not really possible with the statgains file. e.g. It's difficult to get a Bobridge type of rider (i think, didnt check the file) and it's nearly impossible to develop a cobbler with great acceleration. Adjusting rider stats allows the chance to add these type of riders and should therefore still be done. I also think it is a legit option to give countries with a sudden influx of interest (think Poland in the last two MG seasons) more decent riders.
I think the quantity of adjusted riders is too high though and also in the case of GVA the quality (propably others as well but i cant find another example right now). GVA should have been added with 80CB or at most 81CB as adding someone as immediate #2 rider on his terrain is ridiculous towards those who own a top 5 guy. I will not complain ofc as that was exactly the guy I wanted but i think it's not for the best of the game to add riders as strong as him.
Training
People often cry for higher training costs to reduce top rider training. Imo they are already crazy at the top. Do you want to make it 7m for 84->85? I think another idea might help as well: If we'd reduce lower stat training prices this could make it more interesting for CT teams to train their own riders instead of moving all the money to the PT teams. This way the PT teams would have less money to spend on their training.
Also why was this rule implemented? (honest question) : "Furthermore, each team is limited to a total of 5 stats of training each season - across all riders."
I do like the idea of limiting the training of each riders to two stats but i think that the team limit might stop managers to spread their training budget around on minor riders and inflate the top rider stats even more instead.
However. Riders a the age of less than 25 are now allowed to be trained while they are in the Pro Tour. This means that if you have a talent who is maxed out at 22, and then riding his entire season in the PT, he is now 23 and training eligeble. But as he is too young to develop as a PT rider he needs to be loaned to the PCT or CT to ride there for a season if you want to train him - Otherwise you need to wait until he is 25.
While that would be an interesting idea to play with it does not fit into the idea of the XP system.
"Hey, you are Lvl 4. You need to race the biggest races possible to develop further. You don't learn anything in low level races so you should definitely get a loan to PT. "
"Oh you're Lvl 4.100. You cant develop further in big races but you have to go to every local shit race as this is your only way to grow stronger. "
Can't see any logic in that.
MG Betting
Can we reduce the weekly MG PCM$ again next season? Seeing the high weekly incomes it is more of a game of "Who is the most active ?" / "Who grabs the most free income?" and not "Who is the best in Betting". Sth like 20/week is imo fully enough. It's your own fault if you dont have more money left if you go double or nothing in the first bid.
I just had a really quick think about the fact the current development things only allow for quite a small number of different riders, whilst sometimes a more interestingly statted rider can do better than what he would should the normal files be used. Currently to counteract this FAs get adjusted in the off-season, however I feel this isn't good for the game's balance as it effetively kills the use of mediocre talents in the DB.
Now the solution I've come up with may also be far from ideal, however I think it could work out just fine. Looking at the existing files, a rider with 7 potential going from level 3 to 4 trained in cobbles will get 2FL, 1HI, 3STA, 2RES, 1REC, 4CB, 3SP, 1ACC, 1FTR and 1DH, making a total of 19 gains effectively. Now if these could be distributed more freely we could end up with more interesting riders. My thought is, to not unbalance things too much, to allow managers a choice to change these changes by a maximum of 1, but keeping the total of 19, meaning increases like 2FL, 0HI, 3STA, 1RES, 1REC, 5CB, 2SP, 2ACC, 1FTR and 2DH possible.
I'm not sure if this'd work, but I'd take any input and thoughts on this.
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game
1) I don't like the loan system because it feels unfitting in cycling, but it's "mandatory" in the game. There's not really a real way to say "I choose not to do this", because it's close to impossible to level a rider from 1.00 to 4.100 without loaning. I would not be against keeping a loan system, but I would like to see an option where you can still max out riders without the need to loan them out.
2) I understand the need for the stat cap on races in lower divisions. People want to win in their own category and it shouldn't be fighting for the best spots behind the higher division riders. You don't want to see Bewley appear in your PCT target race. At the moment however you're just sending riders because you have to, without a chance to win something. Therefore I think we should change the way racedays work, so you can still send a decent rider to a lower division race, but not every race.
3) I'm one of the people that likes more realism in game, so I would be in favour of tweeking free agents.
just a thing that might sound dumb, but with the stats inflation why not downgrade every riders stats by one in one offseason (or constantly after a period of 5 years each time from now on f.e.) to work against that "stat inflation"
I disagree with that. I think the most important thing about HC bands should be to try to guarentee every PCT team to ride their preferred bands. While i would not like to ride a band that doesnt suit my team idea (in my case: mountains + pan flat races) it would be much worse if a PCT team would have to step down to a band that does not satisfy their ideas.
And if you limit the max number of PT teams then you'll automatically reduce the number of PCT spots in a HC race. Not a good idea imo.
But, I completely agree with you on the thoughts about PT rider limits in HC races. Stat limits that are somewhat calculated statistically might be better / fairer. Below is a list of the key stats of the n-th best rider in a stat that rode in PCT or CT for the last two seasons. That might be a good help in identifying possible stat limits.
10th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
80
79
79
78
81
2016
81
80
79
79
81
15th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
80
78
78
77
80
2016
80
80
79
78
80
20th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
79
78
78
77
80
2016
80
79
78
77
80
25th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
78
77
77
76
80
2016
80
78
78
76
80
30th best value in PCT+CT
MO
HI
TT
CB
SP
2015
78
77
77
76
80
2016
79
78
78
76
80
Personally, I like the 2016 20th best value as a suitable limit: 80MO, 79HI, 78TT, 77CB, 80SP. But depending on how one sets the other restrictions (OVR / other stats) and on how competitiv PT teams shall be, one could go higher or lower as well. I'd just recommend to stay on a similar "(n-th best) level": If we raise the maximum SP to 81 as SotD favoured then we cannot keep CB at 76.
I agree that the HC band is mainly for the PCT teams, but to avoid PT teams having 11 teams in the HC band maybe it was an idea to create an extra band to ensure that all bands are reasonably filled out with PCT teams. I don't mind getting a crap HC band as a PT team. But I think it is unfair that there is 11 PT teams in one HC band as those teams have a significantly higher chance to score points than those in the PCT heavy HC bands
Well the cobblers just performs much better. But I agree we need to find some level that is easy to understand. But IMO it needs to be decided based on this season + some expected increase that we see each year. And unfortunately we need to find a way around the OVL system as that wasn't created for the bands but for raceday calculation. A 76+ OVL rider isn't necessarily a good rider for a specific race. I'd like it much better if we created all the top limits ourselves, as the OVL just seems to be there for no good reason really.
I really like the idea of adjusting stats of FA riders. But not because of realism but because of the chance to add new types of riders. I like that the MG DB includes many unique type of riders. However, some of these types are not really possible with the statgains file. e.g. It's difficult to get a Bobridge type of rider (i think, didnt check the file) and it's nearly impossible to develop a cobbler with great acceleration. Adjusting rider stats allows the chance to add these type of riders and should therefore still be done. I also think it is a legit option to give countries with a sudden influx of interest (think Poland in the last two MG seasons) more decent riders.
I think the quantity of adjusted riders is too high though and also in the case of GVA the quality (propably others as well but i cant find another example right now). GVA should have been added with 80CB or at most 81CB as adding someone as immediate #2 rider on his terrain is ridiculous towards those who own a top 5 guy. I will not complain ofc as that was exactly the guy I wanted but i think it's not for the best of the game to add riders as strong as him.
Agree we definately should create new top level riders. I don't mind if we switch the stats of two riders from the same nation though. Let's say that Sicard and Bardet both become free agent. Then I wouldn't mind those two switching stats. Of course it needs to be riders close in terms of age, so we don't give the stats of Cyril Gautier to Julian Alaphilippe, but this should sometimes be possible to do without screwing too much with the game. Although this messes a bit with the history of the game.
I don't like just adding a pointscoring rider out of nowhere. People need to develop them themselves or pick those within the history of the game. There are usually a LOT of strong riders in the FA list. Atleast theres enough of a chance for all teams to create a noteworthy team. Those teams that may struggle are those who end up promoting without really being ready, but those are able to say no thanks to the promotion spot I think.
The point about difference in rider types can also be created from talents. Let's say we add a talent with 70 in all stats. Level 1, Pot 5. He could become a good GT rider with 79MO, 75HI and 77TT. But he could also become a good sprinter with 79SPR, 77FL, 75COB and 71HI. Or a good Classic rider. Either 79HI with good backup stats or 75HI and 77COB. Of course we don't need 70 in all stats, but just as an example. Some could have a high acceleration a better PRL stat, high endurance, downhill, resistance or what do I know. But to create them a bit like Kasperkiewiecz is definately possible. And if I had him, I would be in doubt about what to do with him, depending on which types of riders I had or could get cheap. He can become 81 COB which is obviously the preferred option of many, but he could also become 79HI, or 79TT and 81PRL while also having 71MO and 74HI and 72COB.
People often cry for higher training costs to reduce top rider training. Imo they are already crazy at the top. Do you want to make it 7m for 84->85? I think another idea might help as well: If we'd reduce lower stat training prices this could make it more interesting for CT teams to train their own riders instead of moving all the money to the PT teams. This way the PT teams would have less money to spend on their training.
Also why was this rule implemented? (honest question) : "Furthermore, each team is limited to a total of 5 stats of training each season - across all riders."
I do like the idea of limiting the training of each riders to two stats but i think that the team limit might stop managers to spread their training budget around on minor riders and inflate the top rider stats even more instead.
I agree with this. Cut the limit of mass training as it does exactly what you said. Limit the amount of riders we wish to train. I have 8, perhaps 9 riders that I would really like to train, but I can only train 5 if all are trained +1 in one stat. In my case it's probably going to be a case of me training my top talents to even better riders instead of spreading out the training to the likes of Tom David, Yuriy Vasyliv, Jakub Novak and Clement Koretzky. Hell even Le Gac could be interesting to train.
However. Riders a the age of less than 25 are now allowed to be trained while they are in the Pro Tour. This means that if you have a talent who is maxed out at 22, and then riding his entire season in the PT, he is now 23 and training eligeble. But as he is too young to develop as a PT rider he needs to be loaned to the PCT or CT to ride there for a season if you want to train him - Otherwise you need to wait until he is 25.
While that would be an interesting idea to play with it does not fit into the idea of the XP system.
"Hey, you are Lvl 4. You need to race the biggest races possible to develop further. You don't learn anything in low level races so you should definitely get a loan to PT. "
"Oh you're Lvl 4.100. You cant develop further in big races but you have to go to every local shit race as this is your only way to grow stronger. "
Croatia14 wrote:
just a thing that might sound dumb, but with the stats inflation why not downgrade every riders stats by one in one offseason (or constantly after a period of 5 years each time from now on f.e.) to work against that "stat inflation"
I suggested it a couple of seasons in a row also. I think it would be a very wise thing to do. There was a time where 80 was a high stat. I think we need to get back to that. It may not be possible, and it might not be necessary, but we definately needs to take a step back for a while, although taking -1 on all stats would hurt the likes of Spilak, Schleck, van Avermaet and others who aren't eligeble for training. As it is now Dombrowski can "only" level out the MO stat, but if we decrease everyone a stat, then he could be the only 85MO rider next season - if Pendleton's could get a hold of that much money.
But if we say that 84 is the new maximum for a season (or maybe two) then it wouldn't hurt nearly as much.
I don't like the idea of dropping all riders stats by 1 (The -1 idea). It doesn't exactly work for riders over training age, who are closer to decline age than not at this point and decline will drop them quicker anyway.
It also can mss up non-maxed riders, as it will shift around what level they develop up to. This has an impact that's harder to calculate and many will view as unfair if they've been growing a rider for years only to have him no longer be the same strenght rider as promised even this season. (For example on my team it would seriously hurt Simon Yates who's already lost years of training time due to moving around teams, as well as lowering the value of other riders in my team).
Depending when the -1 took place it would boost the value of newly added riders and adjusted FA's. The "fairest" way to -1 in my mind is to do so with the final pre-transfer Db after renewals.
Then as 50 is the minimum, riders at 50 don't get a -1 which means that some riders don't lose out at all. And given this it could knock onto the training rule exception when a stat is 10 under OVL, dropping various stats to 9 difference.
But regardless it's not an idea i am in favor of, given i think there's other ways to handle Stat Inflation which are less "damaging" to the entire game.
Other ideas could include adjusting Decline rates and starting ages, to clear out older riders quicker. As well as the already mentioned increased training cost, no FA editing and less good additions. All three of those ideas are just adjusting the games systems, rather than a broad stroke mass change.
[Obviously a lot of this is conceptual guess work. It would be interesting if someone could simulate various years forwards with the DB to see how various changes would affect the game.]
Well the cobblers just performs much better. But I agree we need to find some level that is easy to understand. But IMO it needs to be decided based on this season + some expected increase that we see each year. And unfortunately we need to find a way around the OVL system as that wasn't created for the bands but for raceday calculation. A 76+ OVL rider isn't necessarily a good rider for a specific race. I'd like it much better if we created all the top limits ourselves, as the OVL just seems to be there for no good reason really.
Iirc the OVR is calculated with terrain specifique formulas and the Overall is a combination of those. Perhaps it might be a good idea to use those terrain specifique formulas instead of OVR (might even be working as the only condition as it would allow one stat wonders like Di Maggio, Theo Bos or Maximov who could otherwise be banned due to high max stat ...)
Agree we definately should create new top level riders. I don't mind if we switch the stats of two riders from the same nation though. Let's say that Sicard and Bardet both become free agent. Then I wouldn't mind those two switching stats. Of course it needs to be riders close in terms of age, so we don't give the stats of Cyril Gautier to Julian Alaphilippe, but this should sometimes be possible to do without screwing too much with the game. Although this messes a bit with the history of the game.
I don't like just adding a pointscoring rider out of nowhere. People need to develop them themselves or pick those within the history of the game. There are usually a LOT of strong riders in the FA list. Atleast theres enough of a chance for all teams to create a noteworthy team. Those teams that may struggle are those who end up promoting without really being ready, but those are able to say no thanks to the promotion spot I think.
The point about difference in rider types can also be created from talents. Let's say we add a talent with 70 in all stats. Level 1, Pot 5. He could become a good GT rider with 79MO, 75HI and 77TT. But he could also become a good sprinter with 79SPR, 77FL, 75COB and 71HI. Or a good Classic rider. Either 79HI with good backup stats or 75HI and 77COB. Of course we don't need 70 in all stats, but just as an example. Some could have a high acceleration a better PRL stat, high endurance, downhill, resistance or what do I know. But to create them a bit like Kasperkiewiecz is definately possible. And if I had him, I would be in doubt about what to do with him, depending on which types of riders I had or could get cheap. He can become 81 COB which is obviously the preferred option of many, but he could also become 79HI, or 79TT and 81PRL while also having 71MO and 74HI and 72COB.
I realize that adding versatile talents can let them have very different development paths but that's not my point. I want a few riders in the db who max as e.g. 79 TT, 79 CB and not riders who could max at either 79 TT OR 79CB. The way the statgains work in the MG this is not possible unless someone invests millions into training or we upgrade riders. And i like it if riders get upgraded to be more unique e.g. a rider 79 CB, 73TT could get a boost to 79CB,79 TT or a free agent cobbler could get an upgrade to 82 ACC to spice things up.
(Might have been missunderstood in my last post) I don't like riders getting a change because they are more talented in RL when they are already useful before and I don't like changing the specialisation of riders to match their RL type of rider as was e.g. suggested for Arndt two seasons ago
-1 idea
TheManxMissile: I don't like the idea of dropping all riders stats by 1 (The -1 idea). It doesn't exactly work for riders over training age, who are closer to decline age than not at this point and decline will drop them quicker anyway.
It also can mss up non-maxed riders, as it will shift around what level they develop up to. This has an impact that's harder to calculate and many will view as unfair if they've been growing a rider for years only to have him no longer be the same strenght rider as promised even this season. (For example on my team it would seriously hurt Simon Yates who's already lost years of training time due to moving around teams, as well as lowering the value of other riders in my team).
Can you explain this please as I don't see how it affects them. A rider who previously would have maxed out as 30th best rider will still be 30th best rider with the same difference to the top as previously. So imo he would be the same strength rider as previously and his value wouldnt be lowered?
(Also when the idea gets introduced I would a season or two before allowing riders to get to 85 again to not harm any non-training eligible guys)
Length of transfer season
Another thing I would suggest is to change back the length of the transfer window to two weeks again. A couple of big free agent talents lasted until the final two days of the transfer period and were one bid away from going into silent bidding which would leave teams with hundred thousands of euros left in cap space and budget. At the least I'd allow every team to add riders in a 24 h period after silent bidding ended to fill their teams / use the cap if we keep the window as short as now.
knockout wrote:
Can you explain this please as I don't see how it affects them. A rider who previously would have maxed out as 30th best rider will still be 30th best rider with the same difference to the top as previously. So imo he would be the same strength rider as previously and his value wouldnt be lowered?
Not really able to add much to the conversation as a first year manager, but iirc the difference between 82 and 83 is less than 83 and 84, whilst 70 and 71 is a lot closer together than either of them. So however marginally, it'd be closer gaps between all riders (but yeah, can't answer your question about why it'd be a huge deal).
PCM also calculates some things based on stats, not that I'm too knowledgeable like that, f.e. perhaps (to use and example fo my own team) if Scully was 78 SP 79 ACC and 76 PRL, instead of his current stats one above, he might be recognised as a sprinter and not a GC rider/TTist (depending on the race). Obviously this could be helpful or hurtful to the rider. Also I think we might see more diverse breakaways if some riders now have a stat (usually flat) coming in under the "limit" to get in, even if their fighter is still big and their specialty is on a different terrain. Like I said, this is just guesswork as I'm no statmaker Edited by jandal7 on 14-01-2017 21:02
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
TheManxMissile: I don't like the idea of dropping all riders stats by 1 (The -1 idea). It doesn't exactly work for riders over training age, who are closer to decline age than not at this point and decline will drop them quicker anyway.
It also can mss up non-maxed riders, as it will shift around what level they develop up to. This has an impact that's harder to calculate and many will view as unfair if they've been growing a rider for years only to have him no longer be the same strenght rider as promised even this season. (For example on my team it would seriously hurt Simon Yates who's already lost years of training time due to moving around teams, as well as lowering the value of other riders in my team).
Can you explain this please as I don't see how it affects them. A rider who previously would have maxed out as 30th best rider will still be 30th best rider with the same difference to the top as previously. So imo he would be the same strength rider as previously and his value wouldnt be lowered?
(Also when the idea gets introduced I would a season or two before allowing riders to get to 85 again to not harm any non-training eligible guys)
As Jandal says, in PCM stat's are not 100% linear. So lowering all stats changes a lot of rider value for a lot of riders. Especially in one-stat wonders and in lower level riders.
Now it would help deal with inflation in that riders would get to non-training age at a lower level of stat. That is a reduction in inflation, multiple years down the line. Because in the short term, inflation is not stopped at all. Talents still progress, but towards a lower cap. Currently 85 is the cap so having more riders nearer cap is inflation. -1 All riders and the Cap becomes 84, so if more riders progress towards 84, like talents will, then inflation is not stopped at all.
The best way to stop inflation is to stop the number of riders reaching the higher stat levels.
The more effective way of doing this would be a combination of earlier and harsher declines, by increasing the cost of training, by not increaseing FA's and by adding less good new riders.
A combination of that would mean less riders progressing to the stat cap, and less riders hanging around the stat cap for years. We'd be closer to a state of 1 rider declining being replaced by 1 rider growing. Whereas the current situation is 1 rider declining being replaced by lots of riders growing.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
