For reference the last version I played was PCM 15 when I think each stage had a Mountains:Hills ratio set in the database to determine what mix of the two attributes was used for all the climbs in that stage (1 being pure Mountains, 0 being pure Hills and 0.5 being a 50:50 split).
Having just picked up PCM 22 I've seen mention that this was changed in recent versions, but a lot of it has been passing comments of people guessing/assuming things and it's been tricky to find concrete details.
Is it correct that it's now purely based on the rider's effort and nothing to do with either the overall stage profile or the gradient/length of the specific climb? From what I've seen mentioned this looks to be what people are suggesting:
1. If a rider has (eg.) 59 Mountains and 80 Hills and rides at 70 effort is he going to fall away on climbs even if it's a pure up and down hilly stage? It sounds like he'd need to be set to 96 effort to use his stronger stat, but surely that would just burn his yellow and red bars in seconds if using the 'dot'?
2. Conversely if a rider has 80 Mountains and 59 Hills is he going to be great on any mountain or hilly stage if he's maintaining a steady pace on 84 effort (or lower) but fall apart completely if you try to attack or increase effort into the 90s at the top of a climb?
3. How does it work when simulating a stage? Does the game then revert to using Hills for hilly profiles and Mountains for pure mountain stages or does the sim itself factor effort in somehow?
Thanks in advance, and hopefully that's not too much to ask. Just trying to wrap my head around what seems to be the biggest change between 15 and now
Please correct me if I'm wrong because I've only been playing since PCM 2020. I don't know if it's accurate but this is what I know.
<3% gradient uses Fla, if you attack then it uses Spr (max speed) + Acc (duration of the attack)
>3% but <5% gradient = Mix of Fla and Mnt (4% gradient means 50/50 Fla and Mnt) as long as your effort is 85 and below. More than that then you will use Hil rating instead of Mnt. If you attack then it also uses Acc.
5% and above gradient = pure Mnt as long as effort is 85 and below. More than that uses the Hil rating. 90 effort means 50/50 Mnt and Hil. 95 and above uses Hil purely. If you attack then it uses Hil rating instead of Spr together with Acc.
Same gradient percentage with descending which uses Dhi instead of Mnt. So a false flat descend uses a little bit of Dhi with Fla rating. -5% and below uses purely Dhi.
Your questions seems hypothetical since those kind of stats are unrealistic in the game but to answer your questions.
1. You're going to get dropped so better use your red bar in order to use your superior Hil stat. You're going to actually use more yellow in the long run if you keep riding at 70 effort since you'll need to get back in the front.
2. That kind of rider is only good at long climbs. You'll lose if the parcour needs an explosive finish. You can try to attack but it's kinda pointless since your Hil rating is so low. Maybe you can try to make the stage difficult then maybe you can destroy their red bar so nobody could attack.
3. I don't know the answer since I don't sim races. But I guess, you'll most likely win in the Hilly parcour if you got high Hil and physicals. Likewise, Mountain stages uses Mnt and Physicals.
Disclaimer: I didn't test it myself, I just read all of this on various platforms so don't take my word as 100% the truth. I just play the game with this knowledge and I'm enjoying it so yeah. I actually got a lot of questions regarding the mechanics of the game, maybe I'll do a test if I find the time.
Aye, anyone with good MNT typically has HIL at least not far off too so for most traditional climbers it's not as extreme as that example and with them it's more a case of what their mix is.
My main concern is with punchers, those with poor MNT but high HIL. When it comes to stages where historically they'd shine (lots of hills with a low mountain coefficient in the old databases) in the past I would just keep them near the front with a reasonable effort until ready to pounce and attack near the end. I used to use around 70-80 effort while maintaining position, which saw them stay at the front of the pack without losing energy. With the change to the stats I'm wondering if I need to set them to 96 or something, so they'll use their superior HIL stat when needed and not be stuck with their weaker MNT if maintaining position at 80 effort,
Thanks for the reply I'll have to try some things out. For someone with good MNT and weak HIL it makes perfect sense to use them at a steady pace, accepting that they'll be weak at short explosive climbs but excel on long, tough climbs.
It's those punchers I'm mostly unsure of how to best utilise them, given that their HIL only comes fully into play at 96 effort and for me that's always been something reserved for the final couple of km of a stage finish. I guess hilly stages are built in a way that even using their weaker MNT at lower effort through most of the stage they're generally not being put under enough pressure on short climbs to be dropped by the pack, and their high HIL lets them shine at the end.
I did a bit of testing with some riders who're more the hilly type (MNT in the 60s, HIL in the higher 70s) on stages with lots of short, steep hills. I'd take them to the front of the peleton, then have them maintain position with different effort values and each being protected for extra bar preservation.
The rider maintaining position at 70 effort didn't lose much energy but was noticeably slower any time we reached a hill and would drop back through the peleton, presumably because it was his 69 MNT being used and not his 79 HIL. He didn't run out of yellow/red bars but by slipping back he ended up being in an A group after a gap formed and from there it was impossible to catch up.
The rider on 80 effort lasted a bit longer as he used a bit more of his bars to keep up, but again with his low 60s MNT being fully used and none of his mid 70s HIL he ended up dropping behind due to speed and being caught by a split despite still having bars remaining.
The rider on 95 effort stayed much closer to the front every time we climbed a hill. His bars were dropping faster than the others but he kept the pace up and didn't lag behind, and was able to stay in the peleton. While he did use more of his bars on the climbs he was able to regain most/all on the downhill and flat sections in between. He's the only one who kept with the main group to contest the sprint at the end.
Obviously micro-managing a rider on personal dot is still best (and I'll still do that for my key riders) but it definitely feels different with the way these stats work now. It does feel like pure HIL punchers need their effort up in the 90s to avoid being too slow and falling back.
I wasn't sure how I'd feel about the change but it makes sense I guess. Pure punchers can sustain 90s effort for short climbs to keep up and recover after but as soon as climbs get a little too long you know they won't be able to sustain that and will run out of steam. Even on a Hill classed stage, if there's a climb in the final third of any sustained length you need at least reasonable MNT stat in order to keep speed up when running below 90 effort to avoid blowing out the bars. A pure puncher without any MNT is only going to excel on stages with lots of very short, sharp climbs, where they only need to use their bars in short bursts.
I guess instead of Mountains and Hills it's better to think of those two attributes as Sustained Climbing and Burst Climbing, or something along those lines.
I just need to get away from my old approach of 75-80 effort being enough to keep a pure HIL rider near the front before being ready to attack at the end on hilly stages
In general, mountains have steep slopes and a well-defined summit, whereas hills are usually round.
There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Due to their geological age, some mountain ranges, such as the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania, are smaller and rounded than more "classic" mountains, like those in the western United States.
A mountain and a hill are not exactly defined by even the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Mountain ranges, hills, lakes, rivers, and other land features are grouped into broad categories within the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS).
