PCM.daily banner
04-08-2020 17:22
PCM.daily
Users Online
· Guests Online: 27

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 143,079
· Newest Member: edalle
Donate
View Thread
PCM.daily » PCM.daily's Management Game » [Man-Game] The Rules and Announcements
 Print Thread
Suggestions for the 2020 season
SotD
jandal7 wrote:
Will copy another one from last year:

Training Age
As a still relative newbie can I ask: The point of needing a maxed year before training is to stop people training too young and becoming too good too fast right? Or is there another reason?

If there isn't, well then why is it still around for 27-28 year olds being maxed? Why isn't it an age thing? I propose we make it either they must be a certain age, or more likely that they must have a maxed year OR be, say, 27-28. To take my team as an example: Jordan Schleck, if I didn't screw up development, could have maxed at 23. He could have been trained starting at 24. He could have had SIX years of training. Not saying it's too many (it probably is). But him playing by the rules of a late bloomer in Mekseb Debesay, who gets only two years, seems weird. And yes I know it's not Debesay being added late that caused his short time training eligible in this case. However it also wasn't my fault he got screwed developing Pfft

Basically the new rule would read Riders must be 4.100 and x (27/28, whatever the final ruling is) years old OR have a year at 4.100 to be training eligible." - This works assuming we will keep up the pattern of designing riders to have their first possible maxed season at 25 and becoming training eligible at 26 minimum.

And you may say "jandal just wants to make Debesay 83COB the cheeky bastard" and yes, I do Pfft But my argument still applies - hell, make it just for newly added riders, or everyone except Xero for a year, so that Debesay can't do it if you feel I have an ulterior motive here Smile


IMO the "add riders in different ages and potentials and them needing 1 year of maxed out before training eligeble" is really nice I think, as it adds a tactical choice to be made. Is it better to go for the slightly worse but 2 years younger GT rider or should you go for the better "here and now" solution?

If they all would begin their training eligeble age at the same time, it would be too easy to spot the better riders, instead of now where some real gems are to be picked if played right. I for one, have picked up some very young riders like Aidan van Niekerk because I opt to train him for many many years rather than getting a rider that maxes at +1/2 HI but is 2 years older. For pure tactical reasons really.
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
valverde321
I agree with changing the idea of PTHC bands. I was quite upset to get my 1st and 3rd choice, as I didn't want to ride my 3rd or 4th choice at all. I think its definitely hurt my season, so I think perhaps there should be more bands with less races like (PCT bands) so that not every team tries for the same band, resulting in lots of teams missing out on their preference. The points are worth more in PTHC so not getting your preference really hurts, and while I know it can never be completely fair in the selection process I think we should try to make it as fair as possible, as some teams even got their 1st and 4th selection.


I'd also like to suggest getting rid of all cobble races having 5* sectors. I think it ruins the hilly cobble races as flat cobble riders end up dominating. If it was reduced to just 3* sectors, I think we'd still see gaps, but the hilly cobblers would actually have a good chance of winning over the many flat cobble riders the db is full of.

Move to PCM 19
The idea about turns in prologues also definitely affects sprints. It ruins leadouts, and results in many sprints being completely random.

Another thing I've read is that in PCM18, the peloton always catches the breakaway too late in the stage (5km to go) so no teams form leadouts. In PCM19, the peloton makes the catch sooner (near 20km to go), so more teams form trains, ending up with better sprint finishes. In the mountains, PCM19 also apparently handles dual-leaders much better, so Froome doesn't work for Bernal f.e., and they can both finish 1st and 2nd potentially. These two changes would definitely help the MG imo, and everything is compatible from 18 to 19. I have actually found that a PCM 19 db works perfectly on PCM 18 so it could be as easy as copy/pasting the PCM18 cdb into a PCM19 folder
 
jph27
quadsas

What I'd say in response to that is that if Lithuanians are suggested to be added of a decent quality, they'll be looked at to see if any can be made into domestiques Wink

TMM

I don't disagree with the point about not being assured that sprinters will finish GTs, although on the evidence of this season it looks as if those that have at least 60 MO should do so - excluding only Coquard, Guerao and Kennaugh of the 82+ PT sprinters. So I'm not sure if cutting the RD cost would make that much difference, and also of the knock on effects (for example, giving Demare, Bewley and Van Stayen an extra 7 RDs elsewhere if they ride a GT which they will almost certainly finish).

On rebalancing, that's a question for roturn to decide. I'd be tempted to wait and see how many disbandments and applications we have and then make a decision then, but like I say it's not in my hands. Similarly with the stat decreases - I don't object to it, but it would be a marked change from the past approach.

Ulrich

Will admit I'm not too keen on offering a home team bonus in free agency - generally it has worked out that the big talents have ended up on teams from their home nations anyway (Hirschi and Pogacar from last season as an example). However, would interested to hear your idea on how it would work in more detail, as that is one of the main challenges identified in the past Smile

jandal

It's a measure aimed at both preventing riders being too good too young, and also to prevent a flood of OP riders down the line. We could change it to make a minimum age for training though (thinking 26 or 27), but we'd have to look at the effects this would have - SotD's point is similar to my thinking about it.

Bikex

If it was up to me we'd go back to the good old fashioned priority system for races instead of bands (for PTHC, HC and C2HC). While I'd be happy to administer it, I don't know how well it'd go down with the reporters (Pfft) but it can be looked into.

ivaneurope

The problem with C2HC seems to be the compulsory calendar, rather than the category itself right? We can look at how feasible it is to make it like HC, but it depends how many RDs would need to be added. The Amateur division seems to work pretty well as it is - if we made it more development focused it'd result in much weaker teams, and a resulting effect on gameplay in races with small fields.

Ollfardh

I ran the numbers on this and I don't think it's a terrible suggestion, but it will advantage some riders slightly too much (EBH and Ponzi for example). Would like to explore it further, but as a minimum we'll be trying to avoid adding puncheur talents who will end up below 65 HIL when maxed. redordead sums up my thoughts pretty well regarding upgrading stats, but retraining could be an option (decrease HIL to increase MO).

cio

The prologues are a problem from what I've seen, so that is something to be adjusted - too many corners cause a lot of randomness, as seemingly does descending.

valv

I'm not sure regarding the cobbles - Stage 4 of the Benelux Challenge used 3 star cobbles and as a result some puncheurs with sub-55 COB ended up finishing in the main pack - resulting in only one cobbler in the top 10 of the GC. Others will know more about the AI relationship with different sectors though.

The only issue with moving to PCM19 would be reporters having access to the game - I know I don't, and I'm not sure about the others. However, it's another one where roturn will make the call, though all the planning has been for 18 so far.
 
Ollfardh
jph27 wrote:
Ollfardh

I ran the numbers on this and I don't think it's a terrible suggestion, but it will advantage some riders slightly too much (EBH and Ponzi for example). Would like to explore it further, but as a minimum we'll be trying to avoid adding puncheur talents who will end up below 65 HIL when maxed. redordead sums up my thoughts pretty well regarding upgrading stats, but retraining could be an option (decrease HIL to increase MO).



Fair point, I guess we could exclude the 82+ hill riders or something similar.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
 
Tamijo
jph27 wrote:
I'm not sure regarding the cobbles - Stage 4 of the Benelux Challenge used 3 star cobbles and as a result some puncheurs with sub-55 COB ended up finishing in the main pack - resulting in only one cobbler in the top 10 of the GC. Others will know more about the AI relationship with different sectors though.


My test with mainly lvl3 cobs, seem fine in general.
Just that a race like Stage 4 of the Benelux Challenge, have few sectors and a long way from the last to the finish line, including a hill climb, making it a puncher stage rather than a cobbled race. Adding cobs on that last hill and it would be a very different result.

So I belive that lvl 3 would be fine in most races, but would be fine it others tested some stages. Havent got the time to make 5-6 tests on every race.
 
Croatia14
I'd agree with valverdes point about moving to PCM19 (or even 20 if it turns out to be good). Should always use the most recent game I guess.
ICL // Euskaltel Story // Can't Slow Down // 21 and Done // Dreams of a Viper

since 2018: Radsim'05: Astana
Most Improved Team 2018 & 2019 // Manager of the Year 2018 & 2019

PCM.daily Awards:
Most Improved Member '16 // MG New Manager '16 // Thread of the Year (PCT Roundtable Analysis) '17 '18 '19 // Most Helpful Member '18 '19 // MG Team of the Year (Isostar - Adriatic) '18 // MG Manager of the Year '18 '19 // Member of the Year '19
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2019/moty.png
i.imgur.com/LIXbw59.png
pcmdaily.com/files/exppack/Banner/db_blue.jpg

RSM-news/PCM.daily 2019 DB Updates: 1 // 2 // 3 // 4
PCM.daily DB 2020 Updates: 1 // 2 // 3
PCM.daily Expansion Pack for PCM20
 
DubbelDekker
I do agree that we should always continue upgrading to newer versions of PCM unless absolutely impossible.

But I would prefer it to happen on a two year basis. So after we switch to a new PCM we stay on it for a total of two seasons. Then the year after we upgrade again to the best candidate at that moment, which depends on a mix of AI and how many reporters own it.

It would guarantee that at least once every two years managers can have a transfer period and season where they know up front how to value certain types of riders. Switching every year would make the MG feel too random to me, because whether the team you assembled will work is a bit of a lottery. But staying on the same PCM forever would make the MG meta stale at some point, with always the same riders doing well.

So switching at a regular interval of (at least) two seasons seems like the perfect balance to me.
i.imgur.com/5iNQj.png
 
TheManxMissile
Croatia14 wrote:
I'd agree with valverdes point about moving to PCM19 (or even 20 if it turns out to be good). Should always use the most recent game I guess.


I'd be in favor of going back to changing every year, now that we have properly planned and are making changes to fit to the games newer systems.

The only sticking point with a change: reporter numbers. Will we have more reporters on 18, 19 or 20? Which ever one has the most reporters, we should use that one.
i.imgur.com/UmX5YX1.jpgi.imgur.com/iRneKpI.jpgi.imgur.com/fljmGSP.jpgi.imgur.com/qV5ItIc.jpgimgur.com/dr2BAI6.jpgimgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpgi.imgur.com/C1rG9BW.jpgi.imgur.com/sEDS7gr.jpg
 
valverde321
jph27 wrote:

valv

I'm not sure regarding the cobbles - Stage 4 of the Benelux Challenge used 3 star cobbles and as a result some puncheurs with sub-55 COB ended up finishing in the main pack - resulting in only one cobbler in the top 10 of the GC. Others will know more about the AI relationship with different sectors though.

The only issue with moving to PCM19 would be reporters having access to the game - I know I don't, and I'm not sure about the others. However, it's another one where roturn will make the call, though all the planning has been for 18 so far.


I know, that I've played a version of Strade Bianche with 1 star cobbles instead of gravel which is purely cosmetic and it left a group of about 5 pure classics riders to fight it out. I guess maybe it needs more testing, as I hadn't seen the Benelux challenge. I think the distance of each cobble sector is important too. A 300m 5* sector probably only gets a rider in the red heart rate for about 5 seconds. A 5km 1* sector might actually do more "damage" from my experience, but also depends on the pelotons speed. If the peloton is coasting in the first half of the race, even 5* cobbles might only drop Sub 60 COB riders.

As for PCM19, I think if there are enough reporters its worth it. Of course if there aren't enough reporters it doesn't make sense, but it would likely improve sprint stages for sure, which has been one of the biggest complaints from managers this season.
 
Ollfardh
How about a quick poll to see which reporters owns / wants to buy which PCM version? It would make the discussion a lot more relevant if we have a general idea of the numbers?
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
 
Ad Bot
Posted on 04-08-2020 17:22
Bot Agent

Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09

IP: None  
quadsas
I wouldnt vouch for a switch to 19, but 20 does seem to have implemented enough changes to consider a switch, but game is too nnew at this point to make the decision
Manager of the greatest team in the world
DK ┼Żalgiris
 
Bikex
jph27 wrote:
Bikex

If it was up to me we'd go back to the good old fashioned priority system for races instead of bands (for PTHC, HC and C2HC). While I'd be happy to administer it, I don't know how well it'd go down with the reporters (Pfft) but it can be looked into.


Just saw your reply. I would also prefer the priority system.
Why would it be a problem for the reporters? I think the biggest (and only) additional task would be the administration of it.
 
jandal7
Use the correct skin tones again if PCM18 has them. I'm sick of weird white Debesay and Areruya Pfft Info should be around for most riders given it was there in the cdb for PCM15 (same goes for height/weight I guess, though that might be still present given it's in the DB sheet).
30/12/14 - matt17br said "Sutty's birthday is more important than [Jesus' Birthday]"
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | The Life And Times | [PCT] i.imgur.com/c85NSl6.png Xero Racing
[CX] Listerijns & Kiwis

i.imgur.com/PdCbs9I.png
i.imgur.com/RPIlJYr.png
3x i.imgur.com/wM6Wok5.png x3
i.imgur.com/olRsxdu.png
 
ivaneurope
I don't know if these proposals are feasble, but worth the try:
Loaned riders to cost only half a spot for both teams - 0.5 spot from the loaning team and 0.5 spot from the original team.

Conversely I propose the stagiares (who originally had occupied half a spot) to occupy a 0.25 spot meaning that with one spot you can sign 4 stagiares instead of two. A mechanism for maximum number of stagiares needs to be implemented since with two rider spots a team may have up to 8 stagiares under the proposed arrangement. Additionally, a quota system for the spots stagiares can take can be placed based on the team's position from previous season.

I don't know if this will work under the current wage cap arrangement, but I have a proposal for teams to sign riders over the cap. The condition is that a team can only sign riders on the minimal salary which is 50k MG$ (a.k.a. the ManGame Dollar, because why not Pfft )

Have draft lottery with odds based on the rankings.
i.imgur.com/rrQH4R2.png
i.imgur.com/KoxIGiG.png
 
Ulrich Ulriksen
ivaneurope wrote:


I don't know if this will work under the current wage cap arrangement, but I have a proposal for teams to sign riders over the cap. The condition is that a team can only sign riders on the minimal salary which is 50k MG$ (a.k.a. the ManGame Dollar, because why not Pfft )


Because I like to suggest ways to give teams with a tight geographic focus an edge - maybe you get the free slot dependent on the amount of salary or riders from your home country. Say you get 7.5k credit for every home country rider. So if you have to have 7 to get a minimum budget slot If you are very focused could get a 100kish slot.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling
 
ivaneurope
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
ivaneurope wrote:


I don't know if this will work under the current wage cap arrangement, but I have a proposal for teams to sign riders over the cap. The condition is that a team can only sign riders on the minimal salary which is 50k MG$ (a.k.a. the ManGame Dollar, because why not Pfft )


Because I like to suggest ways to give teams with a tight geographic focus an edge - maybe you get the free slot dependent on the amount of salary or riders from your home country. Say you get 7.5k credit for every home country rider. So if you have to have 7 to get a minimum budget slot If you are very focused could get a 100kish slot.


Not sure how will this work for teams with dual nationality - for example Team A has Fiji as primary nationality and Australia as secondary. The riders from Australia outnumber those from Fiji 35:4 or 8.75 Australian riders per 1 rider from Fiji. Since some nations have larger number of riders in the DB compared to others, I'd propose a bit different approach - rather than focusing on a nation, why not base the idea on regions (e.g. British Isles, Scandinavia, Oceania, etc.)?
i.imgur.com/rrQH4R2.png
i.imgur.com/KoxIGiG.png
 
TheManxMissile
ivaneurope wrote:
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
ivaneurope wrote:


I don't know if this will work under the current wage cap arrangement, but I have a proposal for teams to sign riders over the cap. The condition is that a team can only sign riders on the minimal salary which is 50k MG$ (a.k.a. the ManGame Dollar, because why not Pfft )


Because I like to suggest ways to give teams with a tight geographic focus an edge - maybe you get the free slot dependent on the amount of salary or riders from your home country. Say you get 7.5k credit for every home country rider. So if you have to have 7 to get a minimum budget slot If you are very focused could get a 100kish slot.


Not sure how will this work for teams with dual nationality - for example Team A has Fiji as primary nationality and Australia as secondary. The riders from Australia outnumber those from Fiji 35:4 or 8.75 Australian riders per 1 rider from Fiji. Since some nations have larger number of riders in the DB compared to others, I'd propose a bit different approach - rather than focusing on a nation, why not base the idea on regions (e.g. British Isles, Scandinavia, Oceania, etc.)?


The resident "Entire World Is Our Focus" team here. Just because my play isn't nationality/region focused, i shouldn't be penalised. But my team is still a heavy role-play based team, just that is around terrain's rather than nations.

And that's what it is, nationality/region focus is a role-play decision. It is not something integral to the game and should continue to be entirely possible alongside focusing on terrains or just on winning. All are valid, all should be treated equally fairly in the rules.
i.imgur.com/UmX5YX1.jpgi.imgur.com/iRneKpI.jpgi.imgur.com/fljmGSP.jpgi.imgur.com/qV5ItIc.jpgimgur.com/dr2BAI6.jpgimgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpgi.imgur.com/C1rG9BW.jpgi.imgur.com/sEDS7gr.jpg
 
Ulrich Ulriksen
Agree the idea has some issues just throwing it out there.

@ Ivenneurope - agree regions might make sense. My other idea for rewarding regional focus I suggested you would get one large nation or two smaller. Which evens it out some but certainly doesn't help really small countries like Fiji

@Manxmissile - There are 5 or 6 terrains but 100 countries so it seems like a country focus is more limiting. Agree it is a role play decision but it is routed in the sport that teams of certain area have more rides from an area and an advantage recruiting in their area. I like my other suggestion better which was to allow home nations to win ties for $50k riders so they have an advantage in getting cheap riders of their own country. I don't think that really penalizes broad focus teams because they have so many more choices anyway. And as soon as a rider becomes "valuable" e.g. worth more than 50k the advantage disappears.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling
 
Jump to Forum:
Similar Threads
Thread Forum Replies Last Post
2020 PCM Daily Velogames Championship Cycling 56 04-08-2020 09:45
Transfer Rumours & Done Deals 2020 Cycling 15 03-08-2020 12:03
Road Race Betting 2020 PCM.daily Initiatives 21 03-08-2020 10:25
Il Lince Stages- Circuito de Getxo 2020 PCM 17: Stages 302 02-08-2020 12:46
Other Races 2020 Cycling 93 01-08-2020 22:13
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Latest content
Screenshots
19,3%
19,3%
PCM13: General Screenshots
Fantasy Betting
Current bets:
bullet Milano - Torino: Winner
bullet Tour de Pologne: GC Winner

Best gamblers:
bullet dominox 3,016 PCM$
bullet baseba... 3,008 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 2,900 PCM$
bullet df_Trek 2,726 PCM$
bullet Yellow... 2,680 PCM$

bullet Main Fantasy Betting page
bullet Rankings: Top 100
ManGame Betting
Current bets:
No bets available.
Best gamblers:
bullet baseball... 15,756 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 15,255 PCM$
bullet Marcovdw 13,893 PCM$
bullet dominox 12,245 PCM$
bullet trekbmc 11,294 PCM$

bullet Main MG Betting page
bullet Get weekly MG PCM$
bullet Rankings: Top 100
Render time: 1.17 seconds