Geniunely think this is genius some limits are going to be needed I would say though as otherwise most riders will be trained to with there max in a primary stat.
Maybe linking the potential to max cap so
pot 7 - 81 cap
pot 6 - 80 cap
pot 4/5 - 79 cap
pot 3/4 - 78 cap
pot 1/2 - 77 cap
that way you could still give for example Nys a low potential so his hill maxed at 78 but because of his starting stats and the freedom to apply attributes he would end up as a much more well rounded rider then a Pot 7 guy who has lower starting attributes
I actually agree and had this in my first version similar but "older" riders like Nys and Pithie would be in disadvantage. But i guess some sacrifices have to be made
@Fabi: Sure numbers can be changed of course and this was only my initial thoughts.
And in the end we cant decide what the managers will do, if they decide to go a boring path and level all the same thats not in our control. I definitely wouldnt
Could you explain the system you have in mind further? I thought also of doing paths again but i think this will be more complicated and could be more "abused" if its not thought trough 100%.
Implementation/web application aside, I really like Ezee's idea in general! More freedom in development of riders and more fun descisions for managers.
I don't have any input on the Total Attribute Points, but I think JT's suggestion of linking potential to Max Cap is great:
pot 7 - 81 cap
pot 5/6 - 80 cap
pot 3/4 - 79 cap
pot 1/2 - 78 cap
This could also enable a small boost of the Individual Stats Maximum (per level):
@Fabi: Sure numbers can be changed of course and this was only my initial thoughts.
And in the end we cant decide what the managers will do, if they decide to go a boring path and level all the same thats not in our control. I definitely wouldnt
Could you explain the system you have in mind further? I thought also of doing paths again but i think this will be more complicated and could be more "abused" if its not thought trough 100%.
I don't think getting a 81 main stat rider is boring The system you're proposing would have been beneficial for me of course, with e.g. Bissegger maxing at 80TT (instead of 78), or Schmid with 80/81 Mo/Hi (instead of 76/79). And yes, I'd definitely have taken the "boring" path for them. Guess it'd be easier to create beasts with complete freedom.
On the other hand, maybe it's just the max gains per attribute that are a tad too high - or riders would need to be added with lower starting stats (I mean, Schmid as a Pot. 4 talent maybe isn't meant to get to 80/81 without training). Needs some careful thinking for sure - and such a radical change would need to be announced early enough for people to prepare for it.
I guess Bikex would be in the best position to explain ICL's stat gains system, as he ran the game. The difference to MG is that in ICL the amount of stat gain points depends on performance, whereas in MG we have a fixed amount. I like either system, and was happy to have both as long as it lasted.
You can find infos about the rider development - including the dev file to play around with - here.
It's not the same as MG, as the stats system works quite different behind the scenes, making it a lot more difficult to get to the highest stats. But I like the idea, i.e. you have a primary focus, and based on that a choice of possible secondary focuses (e.g. hills or TT for a stage racer, but not sprint), the ratio between them - and then the "Personality" development, which controls the stat gains of DH/Ftr/Sta/Res/Rec (not Acc, though, was wrong on that). For example, a "daredevil" will get more DH/Ftr points than an "engine" rider, who in turn obviously gets more Res/Rec.
It couldn't be implemented 1:1 in MG, but I'd like to have some kind of "split development".
On the other hand, one advantage of the current system is that it's simple and easy to handle. And everything is more predictable, which surely also is one point some managers (including myself) like. I guess that it might be hard to convince all managers of a breaking change - but at least the vast majority needs to be in favour, otherwise we might have a big exodus. But yeah, the admin team surely will make a good choice, and it's often with breaking ideas that you get some actual changes
I've always been in favour of freestyle training, but I believe it was never implemented due to logistics. If it is a feasable option then I'd be all for it, however the Ezee suggestion seems a bit overpowered, the amount of attributes points given should be lower than riders currently get for levelling up
I think 4 Individual Stats per level is pretty powerfull (and should be limited to pot. 7), but if we wanted to differentiate all potentials you could nerf pot. 1 & 2 slightly:
I've always been in favour of freestyle training, but I believe it was never implemented due to logistics. If it is a feasable option then I'd be all for it, however the Ezee suggestion seems a bit overpowered, the amount of attributes points given should be lower than riders currently get for levelling up
Numbers surely can be adjusted. I wouldnt do less than before because we have 1 Attribute more after all.
Also thinking about how to implement, i actually think its even easier than doing it with training paths. After all you have to look bakc and forth with the paths how many points for each attribute. But with freestyle its just numbers and you dont need to know more than the max. pts for each Attribute and the total points, thats onyl 2 numbers to monitor and this can be also done easily by every tool like excel.
