|
Suggestions for 2023
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 12-05-2023 03:35
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
The game is committed to moving to PCM22 but this is your chance to suggest other changes to the rules you think make sense. I will admit I asked Roturn if it was ok to post this since I have things I wanted to suggest. He said it was OK, so here we are.
A couple of suggestions for suggestions:
1. We are probably not going to restat the entire DB or completely rebuild the development system. The focus here should be on incremental change.
2. There is no guarantee any idea will be implemented or even seriously (or lightly) considered. Even if they aren't considered this year it might lay the groundwork for a change in future seasons.
3. The more specific your suggestion the better. It is easier for others to react to and it is easier to implement. Also please include what problem you are trying to address with the rule change.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 12-05-2023 04:13
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
So as promised I started this as I wanted to post my own ideas. Both of these come from the thought that we are likely moving towards a longer-term more stable player base rather than a churn of new members filling every year.
Therefore, I think it is important we do things to keep the game interesting at all levels as we want make it as attractive as possible for players to stay involved even if they are a long way from PT. Neither of these suggestions is particularly impactful but I think they add options for lower-level managers and have pretty much no downside. I also think the first idea helps cushion relegation a little which always puts motivation at risk.
Idea 1: Allow 4.x riders to earn enough XP in C2 races (e.g. 0.6) so they can max over 2 seasons.
Spoiler
This would eliminate the need for CT managers to have to loan lower quality riders to max them. What I like about the two seasons approach is it keeps the PT loan in play, as the fastest path, but if you don’t or can’t arrange that your rider still moves forward. It gives the CT manager a choice to make with two decent options as opposed to right now where you just have to give up on some riders because you can’t spare the resources to max them (a PT loan takes either loan cap or salary cap and sometimes a fee, all of which are in short supply in CT. I would say I would have maxed at least 3 more weaker US rider by now if it wasn’t for PT loans).
It also opens up 4.x free agents to CT teams where they are likely to be an attractive option. And I think it means relegated teams aren't as screwed on their 4.x riders. Finally, it makes no sense that a rider who will never be good enough for PT has to ride a season in PT to reach his full max.
The only loser in this is PT managers who will make less money from PT loans. But I am not sure PT managers make that much from these loans and I would guess most would say it does not make much difference to them.
Idea 2: Eliminate the 10 value rule in Rider Average Exemption trainings
Spoiler
I have shown the full rule in italics below, I would simply delete the parts in red.
This rule is just punitive to lower skill riders (and therefore lower-level teams). CT managers can’t do much training anyway but this rule puts even buffing lower level stats out of their reach in many cases. I would love to bump Kuss’ TT from 64 to 65 but it would cost 500k. If he was a 76 OVL instead of a 75, it would only cost one-fifth that amount. That difference doesn’t make any sense.
Changing this rule would allow CT and PCT managers, for whom much training is out of reach, to do small tweaks on their favorite riders which enhances role play elements. But it still wouldn’t be over-powered, with the rule change that 500k (and two seasons) would get Kuss from a 64 to a 67 TT, which is nice but not a revolution and $500k is still a pretty significant investment.
Doing this would open up training minor stats across a lot of weaker riders. But I don’t see how it gets out of control as you can still only do 2 points per year per rider under this rule and the second increase costs double, and if you use this exemption you are limited to 5 total trainings (that is elsewhere in the rules). If someone wants to buff a bunch of weaker riders I don’t think that is a big issue. As a result I see no downside to this change.
On couple of related notes I believe the current restriction of two total trainings per rider per year includes these trainings and regular training, if it doesn't I think I would want to change it so it does. The wording in green is new language, but is just capturing stuff that was already true but wasn't clear in the rules previously (figured I would capture those while I was editing).
_____
Rider Average Exemption
If the stat you want to train is more than 10 values worse than the rider's average, then the cost is different
The maximum a stat can be raised to using this method is 67.
A stat can only be raised by 2 points per year under this "rider average exemption" where the new value of the stat is more than 10 values less than the rider's rounded overall average. Also, no more than 2 different stats can be raised using this exemption method per season.
The following table is important, it reflects the new value of the stat:
67 150,000
66 125,000
65 or less 100,000
1st Increase: The cost relates to the table above.
2nd Increase in same stat in the same year: The cost is double that of the table above.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 12-05-2023 07:30
|
World Champion
Posts: 12186
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Remove late intermediate sprints, to keep sprinter ready for the final dash.
Something like 50km from the line at latest could be a benchmark.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 12-05-2023 10:17
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
Idea 1: Allow 4.x riders to earn enough XP in C2 races (e.g. 0.6) so they can max over 2 seasons.
Yep, in favour! I feel this idea has been floated in previous seasons. Certainly PT Teams are not making significant money off these loans, and the 1-year rush option will still exist and still be preferable for anyone. So this becomes a fall back for CT teams that struggle to find a loan because their regional talent isn't that great.
Idea 2: Eliminate the 10 value rule in Rider Average Exemption trainings
I've said in previous years there should be some separated training costs for the different divisions. This would help work towards an overall curve flattening of training and further ease pressures on mid-to-top-end stat inflation (i.e. 74+ stats).
Slightly radical TMM might extend the concept. As it's no longer a Rider Average restricted training lets bundle all <70 stat rises into one cost. This starts at 100k for the first <70 stat you raise. Then 150k for the second. Then 200k for the third. 300k for any further <70 raises. You can only do three increases per rider, but these rising costs are cumulative across all your riders, with an uncapped number of riders allowed. To prevent too much exploitation, you then add back in a Rider Average clause OVL <73 base cost. OVL 74-77 cost x1.25, OVL 78+ cost x1.75
Doesn't this mean that a <70 training could cost more than a 69>70 or a 70>71 training? Yes, but that's part of managerial challenge and balancing act we all face.
But the major benefit comes through on low-end support riders, where the ability to get secondary stats into a usable range over 2-3 years could really alter dynamics of CT team management. And i see the benefits for PCT & PT managers, whilst still preventing exploitation. Is also a more complex system yes, but it's not overly intricate and with a more settled player-base we can look at slightly more in depth systems to give a better overall nuanced MG.
|
| |
|
|
| MacC |
Posted on 12-05-2023 12:06
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1594
Joined: 15-07-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
Super agree with Ulrich's no 1 and agree with his number 2
My one is more controversial perhaps. I think the age limit for training should be lifted. Inflationary, Yes, but the idea that Herklotz will end up riding for Glanbia or some other CT team is a bit reality defying.
Perhaps to balance it out a more standardised decline could be used (unrelated to potential). This could produce some very interesting choices and riders- imagine paying big bucks to keep your top TTer at 81 while all his other stats drop... There would be more depth to management- do I invest for one more year of glory or move on...? In a very roleplay way this would help build more "lore" as riders wouldn't be more or less limited to top performances for 5/6 years
Obviously the normally decline would be done and then training "added" back on top
Also ( although hopefully I will escape) I preferred the compulsory element of the CT calendar last year where all teams had to participate at least in every sort of race
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 12-05-2023 13:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Big fan of eliminating the 10 stat gap rule for the minimum trainings. All it does is prevent our DB from being more well rounded I think.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 21-11-2024 14:47
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 13-05-2023 21:46
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3259
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
SotD wrote:
Remove late intermediate sprints, to keep sprinter ready for the final dash.
Something like 50km from the line at latest could be a benchmark.
This would be a lot of work to edit stages. Agree for standard sprint stages it is undesirable and as we edit stages we would try to enforce something like this, but no way we could guarantee it.
Man Game: McCormick Pro Cycling |
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 13-05-2023 23:17
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2518
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
I suggest making Fighter better once again
|
| |
|
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 14-05-2023 06:06
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2933
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
MacC wrote:
Also ( although hopefully I will escape) I preferred the compulsory element of the CT calendar last year where all teams had to participate at least in every sort of race
Omae wa mou shinderu
|
| |
|
|
| DarkWolf |
Posted on 15-05-2023 07:23
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1025
Joined: 21-09-2020
PCM$: 700.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
Idea 1: Allow 4.x riders to earn enough XP in C2 races (e.g. 0.6) so they can max over 2 seasons.
I love this idea, even more if it's in 1 season, but that is clearly a subjective points of view. I believe that this idea will help boost the involvement of managers trying to build their team. I, personally, love playing career mode and always trying to build a team meeting a certain self-imposed criteria. And I always find it extremely satisfying when youth riders I develop over the years end up with a very long career within the team. And I certainly believe that a loan to a WT team doesn't look especially realistic, although we are not trying to replicate the real cycling world. Although certain regions definitely have the advantage of greater talents within our game as well. 
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 14-06-2023 22:21
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Two suggestions:
The first one i think is quite important to add.
The second one is a nice gimmick with limited benefit. I think someone else brought up the idea last transfers and i wrote down how it could be implemented when i was extremely bored on a flight earlier this year. Not sure its worth it but could lead to a few cool situations.
Lowering Extreme 1to3 Loan Fees
The minimum 1to3 loan fees for top talents are too expensive. Current formula is:
Total wage + wage the loaning in team pays + 100k
If the idea is to compensate the team for the RDs and the salary cap / loan cap used on a rider, it does not make any sense to me to make a difference between a 200k and a 900k talent when the salary cap usage and the loan cap usage of the ct team is the same (and the 900k talent has likely better stats).
My suggestion:
(Wage the loaning in team pays + used loan cap for the loaning in team*) + wage the loaning in team pays + 100k
*capped at 200k
Would be effectively the exact same for almost all talents except it would reduce the loan fees for the Pidcocks and Girmays of this game that need the loan cap exception.
Examples:
| Rider | Wage | Wage by loaning team | 1to3 Fee (old) | 1to3 Fee (new) | | Nils Brun | 50.000 | 30.000 | 180.000 | 180.000 | | Matevz Govekar | 100.000 | 100.000 | 300.000 | 300.000 | | Ethan Vernon | 225.000 | 0 | 325.000 | 300.000 | | Rokas Kmieliauskas | 300.000 | 0 | 400.000 | 300.000 | | Luke Plapp | 325.000 | 200.000 | 625.000 | 625.000 | | Remco Evenepoel | 700.000 | 50.000 | 850.000 | 400.000 | | Biniam Girmay | 940.000 | 85.000 | 1.125.000 | 470.000 |
Personally, i would reduce the min fee further for all talents e.g. Plapps fee is still too high for my liking due to me not paying most of his wage. A team can always ask for more if it doesnt want such a deal. However, i believe that capping the min fees for the extreme talent cases is absolutely necessary because the teams that got to loan in riders like Evenepoel or Girmay got too much of an advantage over other teams. And a CT/PCT team getting 300-500k through a loan can still benefit a ton from it!
New contract type: Road Captain
The road captain would be an option to give teams the chance to sign old riders to their team that are past their prime. It works similar to the stagiare option but with a few changes. The rules:
- Riders aged 35 or older are eligible (or 34?)
- Bidding process exactly like for stagiares (incl. Only during the final days of transfers), but with a 20,000 min wage. (Because road captains are likely slightly stronger than stagiares)
- Only one road captain per team per race (?)
- They count towards the maximum rider limit but not towards the minimum (to not let "certain managers" exploit it too much)
- They can race up to 15 race days but no more than three races. Alternatively they can race a GT as their only race of the season. (Explanation: without the race limit, it would benefit cobblers and puncheurs too much as they could race almost all of their most important classics for less wage than a usual domestique. And the GT exception because it would be cool to see a 37yo Andy Schleck in his final TDF before retiring)
These "top" riders would have been available last transfers (either unsigned or CT Draft):
You wont get any scorers here because they will be picked up earlier. A few names that some managers might want to pick up solely for nostalgia reasons or some options to cheaply fill a hole with the last remaining cap space. Age could be changed to min. 34 years old that it would have included riders such as Roman Maksimov, Evaldas Siskevicius or Serghei Tvetcov who could have slightly more value to the teams.
Why would this be a good addition? Fun to have some nostalgic riders for historical records, favourite races or their home race without them costing their teams too much to the point where its a bad decision points wise
Why this might not be a good addition? More work (checking transfer threads, planners) for relatively little benefit. Likely only few teams might use it?
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Ezeefreak |
Posted on 15-06-2023 05:43
|
Domestique
Posts: 555
Joined: 06-07-2009
PCM$: 300.00
|
Lowering Extreme 1to3 Loan Fees
We have now the PoV from a PT team and now I wanna give my opinion as CT of this  :
I am against it. The "problem" is the ridiculous wage paid by wealthy teams to talents just to have them in the future without having any need for them in, at least, their first year. And then they let some other "poor" team do the work for making them useful asap. I think the fee is fine as it is, after all if the loaning out team isnt as eager to have them LVL 3 asap they can still not include the clause and make it cheaper. On the other hand ca CT Team and many PCT teams will never get the chance to hire top talents because the rich team would even less think about the right amount of wage.
Besides their for the loaning in team there isnt much of an advantage besides the money, the loaned in talents arent much contributing to the team, points wise.
To summarize: I think the rule is fine and if you get rid of that it would just increase the gap between PT teams and the rest.
|
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 15-06-2023 06:12
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
I think knockout's point (and I know I am also coming at it from the point of a team who had to pay mega fees for one of these loans) is that it isn't a "poor" team as you said who takes on a Pidcock or an Evenepoel, given that they are scoring triple digits in the PCT - worthy riders to have on your team even without the massively inflated fee. knockout is only slightly decreasing the fee for these top guys so saying he's getting rid of the rule is not true at all - not sure if you misread what he means.
In the case of Pidcock in 2021, Project: Africa paid €90,000 wage for a 147-point scorer, good enough for 131st in the PCT. At €612 wage per point that's a very good scorer - Project: Africa averaged €966 wage per point so he's a well above average scorer for them in terms of wage efficiency. By pure points he was their 6th best scorer. He's inarguably a positive asset already even if they have used their loan cap on him.
However, not only did they gain that asset, they also received a huge €790,000 fee for the pleasure of having him. Under knockout's new system it would be... €480,000, still a big big fee to, again, take on a hugely positive asset, with the only cost be that your loan cap is taken up. Also worth noting that this is basically the only type of loan where using up your loan cap doesn't cost you money and in fact gains it. Only aidan can say whether or not he thinks this deal was worth it for his team, but from the outside looking in I would be surprised if he or quadsas (who in Evenepoel for €50,000 got an even more efficient scorer!) really regretted those deals even if the fees were reduced as in knockout's model. |
| |
|
|
| Ezeefreak |
Posted on 15-06-2023 06:39
|
Domestique
Posts: 555
Joined: 06-07-2009
PCM$: 300.00
|
Are the fees really high? Yes. But like i said before if the fees are too high for you then dont include the 1 to 3 clause. So the development is a bit slower then. Obviously no loan in team who gets this deal will regret it as long as they know what they are doing. But being a new player last offseason I kinda now "regret" the Plapp deal i made (regret is maybe a too harsh word, but i just know it better now). And i fear especially new players will be even more in disadvantage with less money.
My point is that i see this more of a general compensation to all the "poor" teams because in most cases they will never get the chance of getting such great talent because rich teams just outbid them. If you now cut this source of income down the money will stay even more in PT and with that money they can train even more of their riders and stay even more powerful. Imho it causes more balance problems than it would solve.
So I stay against that, i am confident in my opinion 
|
| |
|
|
| redordead |
Posted on 15-06-2023 07:00
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4881
Joined: 18-10-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
Another option could be to simply add some of the top talents as 21 yo. I know this is something that's generally been avoided lately, but that would take the 1 to 3 loans out of the equation and the managers can also have more of a negotiation on what loan fee they pay.
The way cycling has become it's a lot easier to figure out who the top talents are irl.
"I am a cyclist, I may not be the best, but that is what I strive to be. I may never get there, but I will never quit trying." - Tadej Pogačar
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 15-06-2023 07:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Can't say I really see why we would need to change 1>3 Loan Fees. The points raised relate solely to the very extreme edge case talents like Pidcock & Evenpoel, of which we have one or two every couple of years.
The high fee is a perfectly good extra balance. If you are a PT team and want the best talent, you can outbid any lower level team. The "cost" to you then comes if you want to rush the development. Don't think it's worth it, either don't add the 1>3 clause or don't sign the rrider. (A "better" solution may be to look at rider Dev overall and work out ways for PT teams to get Lvl1 XP and CT teams to get Lvl4 XP to reduce the overall need for Loans at say the cost of it taking an extra year to go up a Lvl)
And I don't see how it's unfair against other CT or PCT teams that Team X got a fee and a rider capable of socring solid points. We all have the option to save our loan cap to be able to take the talent in and gain that fee, it's a choice not to and pursure other riders and loans. That scoring potential does then also rely on planning, a touch of luck, and suitable squad around for said loan-in to be in the position to score. The Fee is not itself a guarantee of scoring.
Plus it maintains as one of the only ways we see money flow from the PT to CT, which i view as a crucial element to maintaining a healthy in-game economy. It also maintains as am existing CT team one of the few ways you can generate a sizable income if you want to go after other transfers or training.
I see the benefit to a PT team in reducing the fee, buit I see more benefits to the game as a whole by leaving the rule as it is.
______
Road Captains - Fun idea. But I also view this as a perfect example of "role-play" vs "power-play". Nothing is stopping you from signing a rider for nostalgia or rp reasons, currently. Want to make a fun rp choice, do it. It shouldn't be offered at a discount because you currently don't see the points value, at that stage it's not a rp choice but a power-play choice. (Also because i'm 100% seeing scorers in that list of eligible riders)
|
| |
|
|
| kandesbunzler26 |
Posted on 15-06-2023 08:49
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1115
Joined: 07-07-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
So another view from the CT (not a favorable one by no surprise): I think Pidcock isn't the best example for your point as he's indeed the 6th best scorer of his team, but his team also got last in the rankings so they probably didn't profit that much from him. On the other hand Kmieliauskas didn't score a single point in CT (and I have to know  ) but used up 78 RDs. No reason to complain as that can be part of the deal, but I don't see a reason to reduce the fee for those cases. And as TMM pointed out it's one of the few really rewarding sources of income for CT teams. And those probably need that income if they want to max out their own riders and have to loan them out (additional to the first time they could be of real use in scoring points). That's a point why I want to further favour UUs suggestion to allow riders to earn enough XP to max them even in the CT (though not necessarily in one season).
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 15-06-2023 08:53
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
I like the idea of road captains mostly because it kind of sucks seeing some riders that meant a lot to the game retire as Free Agents. Then again, not sure if it's better to see them retire with a team they had nothing to do with during their glory days or jump from one team to another from season to season. Maybe force the team that signs them to keep them until they retire and pay that wage for all of their remaining years? 
I disagree with TMM that it's a power play. Those guys are definitely not scorers in the PT, I don't think they are in PCT either maybe in CT. And if they are indeed good enough to score points I think their wage would cost you more, almost as much as a full rider, but with a very limited amount of race days.
|
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 15-06-2023 09:14
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
kandesbunzler26 wrote:
I think Pidcock isn't the best example for your point as he's indeed the 6th best scorer of his team, but his team also got last in the rankings so they probably didn't profit that much from him.
As said in my post the Pidcock loan was in 2021...
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
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
|
| Laurens147 |
Posted on 15-06-2023 09:28
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1122
Joined: 26-04-2020
PCM$: 800.00
|
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
Idea 1: Allow 4.x riders to earn enough XP in C2 races (e.g. 0.6) so they can max over 2 seasons.
A bit late, but I fully support this idea. Would be a great addition in my opinion
MG - Lotto - Caloi
[MG] New Manager of the Year - PCM.daily Awards 2022
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
