Nemolito wrote:
If we know of certain teams that really want to go all in on their nationality/region, enough useful talents are added (and implemented through restats as well).
Can i translate this provocatively to "We want managers to shout even more and louder about the apparent lack of talents in their home countries because we are not all completely tired by the discussion whether greek, slovenian or swiss riders are the most underrepresented nations in the game"?
And a little less passive aggressive:
Countries that dont have a single free agent aged 25 or younger include:
- Greece (youngest free agent: 34)
- Japan (youngest free agent: 28)
- San Marino (youngest free agent: 35)
- Lithuania (youngest free agent: 29)
- Indonesia (youngest free agent: 28)
- India (youngest free agent: 35)
- Latvia (youngest free agent: 27)
(incomplete list)
Each of these countries has teams that have stated for years in the past that they want to develop cycling in their nations. Some more pronounced than others (e.g. ELCO "go all in on training them" vs Evonik "we want to have a few latvians in key positions in our team and help develop the number of latvians in the cycling world") but all of them have shown in the past that they want to increase numbers for their nations. This is not about "useful" or "not useful". This is: Teams could not find a single young rider to sign, no matter how weak he is" level of talent scarcity in their country. How are we supposed to slowly "go all in" on developing riders from the country if there simply are no riders available to sign. This also seems like a good argument against "the numbers include a lot of them as stags that will never get a real contract". Well, apparently, everyone in these countries gets a real contract. So clearly we arent adding enough low level talents from these countries yet.
One of the things that i love about the MG is that we can play it in countless different ways. We can go all in on trying to win a title, we can go all in on developing young riders, we can go all in on training up a country. We just have to give managers the options and let them make their decisions. Would i have signed my indian suggestions if they were Latvians in this years DB? No, i have other priorities right now. But i can guarantee you there are a few managers that would have signed at least 1-2 of them if they were of the focus nations. Maybe as a last resort signing or as their picks in the CT draft but im sure some of them would be taken so those additions would be worth it to some guys.
And if that is the big argument for adding more low leveled riders, I think there is no more argument.
Can we turn this around and ask the opposite question: Is there a downside of adding more low quality riders? I only see the increased workload it takes to add them to the DB and i already volunteered with carrying most of it!
First of all want to make clear I'm posting everything here as Nemolito, random team manager. Not as somebody who thinks he speaks for MG-Admin or as in some sort of 'what I say will be the truth-way' Some stuff is meant as an answer to messages/suggestions posted here, some other stuff maybe more of a general view.
Feel free to translate what I write however you want. Anyway, for several of the countries you have listed, the managers are happy with what they have 'received'. Quantity and/or quality wise. Including a country like India in the list does not make too much sense for example, as their sponsor has only joined recently, after which several Indian talents came through. It was 'logical' that before that, no Indian riders were really added in general. IF you need to make at least two riders per nation that 'could' come in the db in the coming years to make sure the free agents are always young in some way, you're a long way from home.
Complaints about not every rider being at least 77 or sth in their main stat don't do much to me anyway. As a talent-working-guy I don't care about people pleasing, but about deflating the DB while also making sure there are enough quality riders per nation AND/OR focus region. Quality includes both (future) leadership and domestiques. There's barely any manager/nation, if any, on your list that would have signed a 72/71 climber with 72 stamina in the recent years. If they would do that now, I guess the DB team is actually doing a good job as well.
Filtering on the db's nations and looking at contracted riders/free agents and their ages is interesting nonetheless, and something to take with us when making/finalizing the next talent db. Thank you for the volunteering, will speak later about this then (privately) to see what we can do.
The plan for next year is to lay out the priority for wild cards before transfer season so PCT mangers know exactly where they stand. We will probably do that.
That led me to two ideas that are a little more off the wall.
1. What if we then allowed managers to trade or sell their priority slots like draft picks in US sports. This might allow a CT team to get wildcards or a team that badly wanted to ride a GT to "trade up" to get into the top 6 slots where a GT is guaranteed.
2. This idea led me to to the other draft. What if CT managers could sell or trade their free rider draft pick? PT managers who love to highlight all the opportunities could play the game. And it would give CT manages another resource. Would need to think about how those riders would count on roster mins and maxes but could work that out.
There's barely any manager/nation, if any, on your list that would have signed a 72/71 climber with 72 stamina in the recent years. If they would do that now, I guess the DB team is actually doing a good job as well.
That sounds similar in strength to Putti and Menicucci lol
Filtering on the db's nations and looking at contracted riders/free agents and their ages is interesting nonetheless, and something to take with us when making/finalizing the next talent db. Thank you for the volunteering, will speak later about this then (privately) to see what we can do.
I'd like more Sammarinese riders that would be 50k domestiques, I'm more interested in Quantity than Quality as I'd love to be able to go fully Sammarinese in 2 or 3 seasons, and the guys added the next season would be maxing as 6 current Sammarinese riders would be about to or already started declining, and only 1 of them isn't mine.
For the last couple of season I've been wanting a Sammarinese Dulanjana or Liphongyu, or a couple of guys to finish out a full 70+ TTT squad even if they end up being 70 - 72 TT and 72/73 in another stat to give them a bit of versatility like I've trained Giulietti to be TTT help alongside my future #2 cobbler
The plan for next year is to lay out the priority for wild cards before transfer season so PCT mangers know exactly where they stand. We will probably do that.
Good idea.
1. What if we then allowed managers to trade or sell their priority slots like draft picks in US sports. This might allow a CT team to get wildcards or a team that badly wanted to ride a GT to "trade up" to get into the top 6 slots where a GT is guaranteed.
Interesting idea but its not immediately obvious to me how this would work in detail.
If Spark has the top priority and trades it away to Zara and Zara goes to the Tour, does Spark still have the top priority the year after? Has the priority list effect on non-GTs too? So does the priority list give you priority for the "best" non-GT forever if you only ever use it on Tirreno/...? If the 7th priority team trades for 1st priority, what happens with the "7th priority pick"?
Also i suspect we would have to look at tie breaker rules for the priority because the odds of say the 6th and the 7th team having the same priority (e.g. 3rd year manager who never rode a GT) are the same and when they are tradable that could be a big difference.
Gut feeling is that it would be a bit too complex for too little gain. But no strong opinion either way
2. This idea led me to to the other draft. What if CT managers could sell or trade their free rider draft pick? PT managers who love to highlight all the opportunities could play the game. And it would give CT manages another resource. Would need to think about how those riders would count on roster mins and maxes but could work that out.
Feels like you are looking at me here
Only gonna say: it absolutely should not count to the roster mins but count to the max. the PT stagiare way.
Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
1. What if we then allowed managers to trade or sell their priority slots like draft picks in US sports. This might allow a CT team to get wildcards or a team that badly wanted to ride a GT to "trade up" to get into the top 6 slots where a GT is guaranteed.
Don't like. If you want to give CT managers more choices, make HC wildcards chargeable akin to WT wildcards are now. Especially where this can score you potentially big points, it's an interesting decision for a CT manager. Spend in hopes of scoring well, but that money could go to training (if that was more affordable) or buying that extra rider.
Meanwhile for PCT managers, it should be kind of a secret gamble if you get a WC or not. That's part of the challenge of WC cost, is it worth gambling that money over spending it in a guaranteed way. Less knowledge is more fun in this case.
If you really wanna ride a GT, pay for the WC and hope. Repeat each year until you get in, which with the way priority works should be pretty much guaranteed as next season.
2. This idea led me to to the other draft. What if CT managers could sell or trade their free rider draft pick? PT managers who love to highlight all the opportunities could play the game. And it would give CT manages another resource. Would need to think about how those riders would count on roster mins and maxes but could work that out.
The US college draft gives you priority access to the BEST upcoming talent. The CT draft gives you access to the riders we all thought were not even worth 50k - these are not equivalent ideas. I'd love the PT managers to prove me wrong, but I don't think they'd be offering up 500k for a CT draft pick.
Even then, the CT draft isn't about accessing quality, it's about being given space to RP more, develop lower end but regional riders, squeeze in an extra helper - when your cap space just doesn't allow it.
As you say here, it feels more like giving PT managers a new thing to explore, which actually takes one away from CT managers. If you want to give CT managers more to do - make training costs scalable! (This is my new war cry). Or give CT managers some wildcards to buy! Instead of adding a new system, which is actually just giving PT/PCT managers access to a new system when they already have access to more than CT managers, make changes to existing systems so CT managers can more engage with them.
The US college draft gives you priority access to the BEST upcoming talent. The CT draft gives you access to the riders we all thought were not even worth 50k - these are not equivalent ideas. I'd love the PT managers to prove me wrong, but I don't think they'd be offering up 500k for a CT draft pick.
Not 500k but if you had offered me a CT draft pick for 100k this year, i would have accepted that for sure. Probably even for the very last pick of the draft.
I really dislike the idea of buying HC wildcards, because I think it will lessen the number of HC racedays available to teams and actually hurt talent development for CT teams. Limiting HC in this way is much more of a restriction on the CT division than an asset I believe. If we have to buy wildcards, would that mean that HC races would not provide points and would not count toward mandatory RDs? Now if PTHC race days were available for purchase, I change my opinion.
I'd be much more in favor of CT teams being able to buy XP for level 4 riders that they wouldn't be able to max without a loan. I have no idea on a price for this, but if we want to give CT teams something to spend money on, don't take away things from that division.
Some stuff is meant as an answer to messages/suggestions posted here, some other stuff maybe more of a general view.
