Shonak wrote:
Some well-known names leaving the game, farewell Samu most of all.
Any ideas about a rough schedule from here on out?
I hope to start with Steals tomorrow. Renewals should be done in about a week. After that transfers should start. I have some plans to make them faster this time.
I want to turn the transfer phase into being continuous instead of the rounds, while keeping the system similar to how it is now.
The bidding will remain in the hidden, but you'll get to make new bids right away after seeing their success.
Good/bad idea?
Something else I'm thinking about is balancing transfers, so it is not too easy for the already big teams to increase their gap to the weaker ones. Any ideas how that could be accomplished?
One idea could be some kind of transfer cap, which limits the maximum a team can gain through transfers with other teams.
Steals are atm imo by far the best way to keep the game a little bit balanced, as successful teams will suffer much more from these offers. As mentioned it will now become possible to block steals. Something else I thought about are compensations in case of successful steal attempts to create an incentive for more big riders to change teams. In return it could be made impossible to sell riders for whom you have countered a steal attempt. I'm not a fan of teams countering steal attempts just to sell the rider later and make profit.
Would like to get some oppinions on all of this before deciding.
TheManxMissile wrote:
I think 8390 Noah Farias has the wrong RD, as he has 68.5AVG the same as two other riders on my team but gets more RD than them and more RD than two more riders with worse AVG.
That's how it's supposed to be sprinters get a few days more.
It's been a while since I've been in ICL of course, and I never did steals the first go around so I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs, but it sounds like a good idea to disallow teams from selling a rider they've countered a steal offer for. If you insist on protecting a rider from a steal, it should be because you plan on keeping them. Outside of steals, I don't have any big ideas off the top of my head for balancing.
One question, i think i read somewhere that you after renewals you have to be within your budget. So do stealed rider's wage count against budget already?
Aquarius97 wrote:
One question, i think i read somewhere that you after renewals you have to be within your budget. So do stealed rider's wage count against budget already?
Yes they do
@Scatmaster: Yes that's what I think. However there is a difference between blocked riders (you decide before renewals to pay the rider more so he doesn't listen to outside offers. You don't know if the rider would get any outside offers) and countering steals (paying a rider more after he got a steal offer). Do you think in both cases it shouldn't be allowed to sell the rider or only in the second?
Imo in the first case it could be okay to still sell the rider, but in the second I don't really like to see it, as possibly a steal would only get countered because the manager found out of that other riders are interested to then sell the rider.
Bikex wrote:
@Scatmaster: Yes that's what I think. However there is a difference between blocked riders (you decide before renewals to pay the rider more so he doesn't listen to outside offers. You don't know if the rider would get any outside offers) and countering steals (paying a rider more after he got a steal offer). Do you think in both cases it shouldn't be allowed to sell the rider or only in the second?
Imo in the first case it could be okay to still sell the rider, but in the second I don't really like to see it, as possibly a steal would only get countered because the manager found out of that other riders are interested to then sell the rider.
I think I agree that in the first case it could be okay to sell the rider. Deciding to increase his budget beforehand at least shows that you were already committed to selling this rider from the get-go, and didn't use him as bait to see if anyone would bite first.
Cool I prefer a more continuous bidding over the round system but I don't mind the latest system either.
As for compensations, I think only if investments have made along the way, i.e. PoY, training, it would be fair to receive some cash back in the case of steal. If someone decides to transfer his rider, no refund should be made.
I don't like the idea that riders have to be kept after a team made a large steal attempt on a rider. This reduces flexibility greatly in the transfer windows and there is little action going as it is. Selling an overpaid rider (due to steal attempts) is a good way to free up cash on a rider you would have kept. Not everything can be planned in advance.
I would very welcome a transfer cap similiar to the ManGame and think that ICL has been missing one since the start. So yes please
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
TheManxMissile wrote:
I think 8390 Noah Farias has the wrong RD, as he has 68.5AVG the same as two other riders on my team but gets more RD than them and more RD than two more riders with worse AVG.
That's how it's supposed to be sprinters get a few days more.
Didn't know that small detail, and where three of them are next to each other in the DB it looked real strange.
Also Steals from tomorrow... err... i'm away Friday-Monday. So if it's just that i write down stuff tomorrow, all cool! If i'll need to do anything over the weekend, there could be issues. And i really really really don't want to miss Steals for the second year in a row!
Shonak wrote:
Cool I prefer a more continuous bidding over the round system but I don't mind the latest system either.
As for compensations, I think only if investments have made along the way, i.e. PoY, training, it would be fair to receive some cash back in the case of steal. If someone decides to transfer his rider, no refund should be made.
Can you explain why you'd prefer no compensation?
I can imagine it would have been more likely for you to let Contador during steals go last season if you'd have gotten a monetary compensation for that. Also you maybe would've found the system fairer.
I don't like the idea that riders have to be kept after a team made a large steal attempt on a rider. This reduces flexibility greatly in the transfer windows and there is little action going as it is. Selling an overpaid rider (due to steal attempts) is a good way to free up cash on a rider you would have kept. Not everything can be planned in advance.
If you do not want to keep a rider, just don't counter the steal attempt. If the rider is not worth that much to you, you shouldn't renew him for that amount.
Not paying an insane wage is also a good way to free up cash.
Imo it is unfair to managers attempting a steal if you decide to sell the rider later. With the new option to block steal attempts entirely on selected riders, you have enough riders you can plan flexibly with.
I understand why managers of strong teams like you and knockout are opposed to this, but imo it is necessary to give other teams a shot at closing up.
I would very welcome a transfer cap similiar to the ManGame and think that ICL has been missing one since the start. So yes please
The ManGame has a salary cap which is something different then what I was suggesting. I don't really want to have a salary cap at ICL, as it should be possible to have teams with completely different amount of wages paid. With a salary cap everyone will just try to fill that and just plans with the money above that for other stuff.
The suggested transfer cap would just limit the cash interchanged between teams. Still think it's a good idea?
@TMM: I'll try to be quick tomorrow, so you won't have to do anything on the weekend.
Depends on the price tag, but I would have received some of the invested sums into Contador back (4 years of PoY, well over 1k in training), I would have had considered it. The problem is that all these costs sink into the gutter once you give in which makes sustainable, long-term strategies a bit tricky. That said, I much prefer the option of blocking riders from steal attempts to any other method.
No compensation in case of rider transfer bc the manager already gets something in return in that case, i.e. Contador vs Bananito. To regulate this with some compensation would turn into too much trickery, imo, and it's better to keep it simple and comprehensible.
Yeah, I understood the transfer cap as this. Still very much ok with it.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Shonak wrote:
Depends on the price tag, but I would have received some of the invested sums into Contador back (4 years of PoY, well over 1k in training), I would have had considered it. The problem is that all these costs sink into the gutter once you give in which makes sustainable, long-term strategies a bit tricky. That said, I much prefer the option of blocking riders from steal attempts to any other method.
No compensation in case of rider transfer bc the manager already gets something in return in that case, i.e. Contador vs Bananito. To regulate this with some compensation would turn into too much trickery, imo, and it's better to keep it simple and comprehensible.
Yeah, I understood the transfer cap as this. Still very much ok with it.
No compensation in transfers, I agree with you there, if two managers agree on a transfer they surely are both happy with it. I was only thinking about a possible compensation in case a team looses a rider due to a steal. Either paid by the UCI or by the stealing team.
I have not tracked how much of training and research packages have gone into each rider individually so it will be (almost) impossible to base it on that.
With steals blocking you can at least plan long-term with a few riders. Imo it's okay that it's not possible to 100% plan to keep all of your riders long-tern.
Good to know about the cap! How high should it be?
Also about blocking steals on some riders, how much higher should their requested wage be compared to what they would have demanded normally? About 25% higher?
Transfer Cap: I reckon a transfer cap would be a bigger handicap to weaker teams than for bigger teams. We're already at the point where most big deals are rider swaps and i think it would get worse. If you limit cash income then swap deals could become the norm which is a big disadvantage for new teams that dont have assets to trade yet.
If you do not want to keep a rider, just don't counter the steal attempt. If the rider is not worth that much to you, you shouldn't renew him for that amount.
Not paying an insane wage is also a good way to free up cash.
Imo it is unfair to managers attempting a steal if you decide to sell the rider later. With the new option to block steal attempts entirely on selected riders, you have enough riders you can plan flexibly with.
Example: Rider wants 500, someone steals for 600, i value him at 800. Of course ill keep him for now but why should i not be allowed to sell him for 200 if i get that and if i dont get that i can still keep him. Its very rarely a case where you keep a rider you wouldnt want at all. Its in 99% of cases that you are okay with keeping him but wouldnt mind letting him go if a decent offer comes in.
And another point remains: Both teams are often better off when you pay a team 300 as a fee than offering 300 more wage as a steal which is why steals arent used very often and seen critical by many managers. If you want to change this a possibility would be to make steals the only chance to get riders riding for another team (no more transfers. basically as it is in RL) but i dont think thats a change we should decide while some important offseason tasks (signing u23 riders, development) are done already.
Transfer Cap: I reckon a transfer cap would be a bigger handicap to weaker teams than for bigger teams. We're already at the point where most big deals are rider swaps and i think it would get worse. If you limit cash income then swap deals could become the norm which is a big disadvantage for new teams that dont have assets to trade yet.
This is a pretty important point. One solution would be to waive any transfer cap for new teams, but then that may skew unfairness in the other direction. Maybe a transfer cap only for the later transfer rounds? But then, Bikex already mentioned they want to change the whole 'round' structure, so idk what the best solution is for that rn, and it probably should be something to discuss as a possibility for next season.
Example: Rider wants 500, someone steals for 600, i value him at 800. Of course ill keep him for now but why should i not be allowed to sell him for 200 if i get that and if i dont get that i can still keep him. Its very rarely a case where you keep a rider you wouldnt want at all. Its in 99% of cases that you are okay with keeping him but wouldnt mind letting him go if a decent offer comes in.
Why I mentioned that I haven't ever taken part in steals is because I don't necessarily know the mindset, motives, and tactics, taken either by the stealer or the defending team, and it's good to read this. I think I'm still in favour of having some sort of negative impact when outright blocking steals, because while obviously not every manager goes through this process with the malicious intent of scoping out market desire or what have you, that is still something that is possible under the rules now as I understand it. I just believe that the rules have to first get to a point where they are absolute, definite, and counteract potential abuses, before they can then be flexed to specific circumstance.
And another point remains: Both teams are often better off when you pay a team 300 as a fee than offering 300 more wage as a steal which is why steals arent used very often and seen critical by many managers. If you want to change this a possibility would be to make steals the only chance to get riders riding for another team (no more transfers. basically as it is in RL) but i dont think thats a change we should decide while some important offseason tasks (signing u23 riders, development) are done already.
I think that steals are still an important thing to have, maybe not for established managers with top-flight teams, but for the weaker teams, new teams, CT teams promoting to WT, etc. I personally feel that there's already enough purpose for steals to justify their existence, but maybe that's just me. While the example where both teams end up better off in a fair and agreed-upon trade is true, and it's always nice to have most business like that, steals ensure that all riders are potentially available, and that they can't be hoarded away indefinitely (I remember this being thrown back and forth a lot the last time I was here for a steals discussion).
knockout wrote:
Example: Rider wants 500, someone steals for 600, i value him at 800. Of course ill keep him for now but why should i not be allowed to sell him for 200 if i get that and if i dont get that i can still keep him. Its very rarely a case where you keep a rider you wouldnt want at all. Its in 99% of cases that you are okay with keeping him but wouldnt mind letting him go if a decent offer comes in.
Sorry I wanted to talk on this point a bit more, after reading everything over a few more times. I don't really know what the solution here is, because I realise that there was an important point I'm missing here. If you value rider X at 800, that doesn't necessarily mean you want to keep him, but that you don't want to give him away for less than you believe he's worth. And this is exactly why I need to practice waiting until I've read something about ten times before I reply lol.
Wait hold on though, ok to be honest I don't know if I'm following correctly, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong here. For steals, the defending team sets a value, and if a bidding team gets over that value, then the steal is successful, unless the defending team then blocks the steal attempt outright. Do I have that right?
Will see how many of these remain in the divison though after renewals
