PCM.daily banner
17-04-2021 22:17
PCM.daily
Users Online
· Guests Online: 21

· Members Online: 1
peribike

· Total Members: 146,586
· Newest Member: RobTorlot
Donate
View Thread
PCM.daily » PCM.daily's Management Game » [Man-Game] Discussion
 Print Thread
2020-2021 Changes Discussion Thread
Ollfardh
baseballlover312 wrote:
ivaneurope wrote:
I am sorry, but I am against any stat decrease for FA - I am not willing to buy riders with overinflated price tag. And if keep a rider that you're not sure what to do with him, it makes him unsellable.


I'm tempted to say the same thing. If we only affect the stats of FA or only of renewal wages, the market is gonna go completely bonkers one way or another.


But I don't think it's the only thing we should do. We should lower fa stats AND make results a bigger part of the wage demends AND continue to add fewer talents than before.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
 
cunego59
ivaneurope wrote:
I am sorry, but I am against any stat decrease for FA - I am not willing to buy riders with overinflated price tag. And if keep a rider that you're not sure what to do with him, it makes him unsellable.

One thing I will mention is that while maybe 77 or 78 climbers/puncheurs etc. would get more expensive, they would also become more valuable because there are fewer of them and fewer riders stronger than them, so they would get more results (ideally). And as quadsas mentioned earlier, if free agency does become more competitive, riders who have been renewed to wages that may be higher than in previous seasons, but possibly still lower than what is then being paid in free agency, could actually have increased value. But that is speculative and you guys have way more experience, so I guess I'll take a step back here ^^
 
Ad Bot
Posted on 17-04-2021 22:17
Bot Agent

Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09

IP: None  
quadsas
To prevent inflation of transfer fees, training cost could be increased, after all, that's mainly what drives the market - managers acquiring funds for training. Sure it's more nuanced than that, but the gyst is that I wouldn't be too concerned about that too much. I would suspect with higher training costs + lowering at least stat inflation issue would be subdued without inflation of transfer fees.
Manager of the greatest team in the world
DK Žalgiris
 
jaxika
So, some of my thoughts.

What if we decrease ALL riders with 5 stat point from main stats and allocate to secondary stats. Main stats being MO,HI,TT,CO,SP. In the case of hybrid riders (2 main stats in max. 2 point difference, ex. 80Mo78Hi, 3 from the better, 2 from the lesser stat.) The 5 point can be allocated by the manager, or in the case of FAs by the ruling staff. From the point max. 2 can be allocated to same stat.
 
Bikex
I completely agree with ivaneurope. I think lowering FA stats is one of the least fair ways to combat stat inflation that was suggested. It heavily favors some teams over others. Just look at what wages were paid to strong FAs in the last transfer season and what kind of fees were paid for some riders. If we had even less strong FAs available that would play even more in the hands of teams that already possess several strong riders and hinder teams that were planning to strengthen themself through FA signings massively.

If stat decreases are performed it should happen for all riders and the in the end relative strengths should be preserved. One way would be to remove the same amount of stats for every rider, which was already suggested but I don't think that would be a good idea.
I think it would be better to try to remove stats in a way that we achieve a desirable distribution of the stats and all riders remain relatively similar strong to all others. So e.g. the 100th best rider before in the db should still be ~100th best after adjusting. That doesn't mean he lost the same amount of stats as the 10th strongest, but rather more (so there is a bigger gap to the top). We know with the stats and OVL formula how strong a rider should be compared to all others. Why don't we try to keep it that way but just create larger strength gaps between them.
Maybe we can find a desired way of how the stats should be distributed for every single stat and map the current distributions to that. Take a look at the mountain stat for example:
CurrentDesiredMap to
853184, 85
847282, 83
833381
827480
8117378, 79
8016777
7924876
7837975
776016…
767724
759937


We have the current amount of riders with each stat (this season) here and a desired distribution which I just came up with. It's just an example I'm not sure if it really is a good distribution. Anyways, based on that numbers we can map each current stat to a new stat. Some stats are mapped to several stats. So for example 81 climbers are changed to 78 or 79. Maybe to compensate the ones that are put to a lower possible stat can get a bonus in another important stat for their speciality (e.g. resistance). I think that way stats could be changed in a fair way and relatively a rider's strength can be kept but the AI should become less random as the strength differences at the top are increased.
 
SotD
jaxika wrote:
So, some of my thoughts.

What if we decrease ALL riders with 5 stat point from main stats and allocate to secondary stats. Main stats being MO,HI,TT,CO,SP. In the case of hybrid riders (2 main stats in max. 2 point difference, ex. 80Mo78Hi, 3 from the better, 2 from the lesser stat.) The 5 point can be allocated by the manager, or in the case of FAs by the ruling staff. From the point max. 2 can be allocated to same stat.


I Can see all hell breaking lose from this.

An 83/81 MO rider would instantly become the best climber as he would equal the 85MO riders - just as an example.

Also Im generally against re-allocation of stats, as I Can only see the worst rounded riders gaining the most.
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
TheManxMissile
I can't believe some if you are genuinely coming around to my call for a re-set Embarassed

thumbs.gfycat.com/OrdinaryTallGlobefish-small.gif
i.imgur.com/UmX5YX1.jpgi.imgur.com/iRneKpI.jpgi.imgur.com/fljmGSP.jpgi.imgur.com/qV5ItIc.jpgimgur.com/dr2BAI6.jpgimgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpgi.imgur.com/C1rG9BW.jpgi.imgur.com/sEDS7gr.jpg
 
SotD
@Bikex

As a “training” manager that would be really bad for me. Aidan van Niekerk is a rider I’m planning to make 83HI atleast. He is 77 now, so that can be done in 3 years. With your suggestion it would take 5 years.
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
Bikex
SotD wrote:
@Bikex

As a “training” manager that would be really bad for me. Aidan van Niekerk is a rider I’m planning to make 83HI atleast. He is 77 now, so that can be done in 3 years. With your suggestion it would take 5 years.


On the other hand the current 83 would be at ~81 and the initial improvements would be cheaper
 
SotD
Yeah but the 84/85 HI riders will be untouchable for Van Niekerk at 81HI.

I’m OK with all riders losing the same stats, but whatever shinanigans proposed to alter stats varied I will always be against, as some (not necessarily me) will lose out while others will win.

To set all riders back -3 would give the perfect result given that strength is measured in actual values and not how we interpret the difference between 82-85 and 79-82...

By giving all riders -3 the difference would stay the same, and with only Lecuisinier at max key stat next season (I think) no one would lose out as he is still trainable. A few 84 key stat riders may end up being overtaken by 1 in stat more than they could have otherwise been treated. Madrazo will go from 85 to 81 due to decreas and can be overtaken by 2 by Morton and Herklotz 81 to 83 MO rather than 84 vs 85.

We could change the training fees so whatever stat we deduct we also shift training cost. So from 81 to 82 would cost what 84 to 85 does today, and then 82-83 and so on could have an interval of 200-300 or whatever is suitable.

That way all riders stay the same relatively while it would cost the same to improve.

That way a relatively decent talent like Van Niekerk goes from 73/77 MO/HI to 70/74 which would move the overall domestique level Down to key stats of 72-75 rather than 75-78.

If we then play it a bit smart we clean up the DB relative to amount of teams in the Man-Game. If there was 100 teams at peak and 80 teams now remove 20 percent of all riders from all OVL/stat levels to balance things out again. This wouldn’t actually hurt anyone - it would only make sense. And since I could pick a team of 75/74 MO/TT and above riders/talents from the current DB there really is enough available.

And if that is too harsh we could sat that all teams had to send 4 (or so) riders into the FA pool by not renewing. These riders stats remained untouched to give everyone a fair take at decent riders/talents.
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
Bikex
I don't agree with you. I believe should it be decided that the stats will be changed then obviously there also needs to be a discussion about the training rules, so the argument about Van Niekerk is besides the point.
As far as I know in PCM the difference for the AI between high stats is bigger for one stat point than for lower stats. So reducing all stats by 3 will give us the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve as we will receive even more riders with similar strength than we have now. It's a little bit funny that you argue that no one would be hit harder by reducing each stat by 3 and then show how Madrazo could suffer from that.
I thought the point of this discussion was to address the huge amount of top and sub-top riders with very similar stats, which troubles the AI. My suggestion didn't aim to remove the same amount of stats from each rider, as that would not help at all with that problem. Any rider should loose a little bit more than riders better than them and a little bit less than riders weaker than them, which would make it fair overall. It would lead to riders achieving results closer to what can be expected of them, which should be the goal of any stat altercations that we do. I don't see how these are "shenanigans" that will make some lose out.

Having said that I'm not sure that we should change any stats or just trust on the long-term process which has already started some time ago.
 
SotD
Madrazo is only hit by it if Morton/Herklotz Can be trained +2MO... Is that a realistic outcome tbh? It cost 5-6mio to get that depending on what the fee will be.

I managed to get Lecuisinier there because I did well, put crazy high goals and sold half my team. And in my example training fees would be even bigger, as they move past 85 (83 being the new 86).

Can you explain how PCMs metric works in a non-linear path for one-stat meassurements? I honestly don’t believe you are right. The perspective in having numerous stats playing a role is to make it a simple linear exploit of said stats. But if you can show me that the difference between 72-75 is bigger than 82-85 then you have a point. I just can’t see it be real. It is easy to set different XP point levels for a managergame, but to make stats work non-linear is really difficult.

Why is it important to increase the gap between the best and the next? Over a season the best riders score the best if they are planned similar. Some obviously jumps up/down due to the games randomness, but that have always been the case (atleast in all the years I have played).

Also I feel very confident that the simple solution will also cover whatever issue you believe is happening. Lowering all riders by 3 make training change the differentiation. People will want to make the better domestiques move up to 77-79 again, to have a leader/sub leader, and that will automatically help giving a pyramid where there is more and more riders with lower stats.

1 with 84
3 with 83
4 with 82
6 with 81
10 with 80
10 with 79
16 with 78
22 with 77
30 with 76
45 with 75
63 with 74 etc.

It’s not like this isn’t in general the scenario now, but by taking the same stats away from all, we will allow training and managers to help solve the problem rather than Force it on Them.
Edited by SotD on 08-02-2021 20:20
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
Bikex
I honestly don't know I just thought it would be the case and I think I have read it on the forum some time ago. I meant 85-82 would be bigger difference than 75-72 not the other way around. So a 85 rider is more likely to beat a 82 rider than a 75 rider beating a 72 rider. But even if it's not true I don't see how it would change anything if we would shift everything a few stats down as essentially the stat distribution would be the same. If stats are changed the distribution must be changed to a way that we think the AI can handle well.
Edit: Haven't read your edit yet
 
Bikex
I thought the reason why we are discussing this at all was that the AI had problems with the way the db is structured and one of the main reasons being that there are so many riders with very similar stats and strengths. Else I don't know why we are discussing this at all. If we stretch the current stat distribution of the top riders of each stat strong riders will become comparably stronger and be less hit by random bad form. Of course generally better riders score better, but the way it is now we also have some heavily underperforming riders.
Maybe you are right that through training the pyramid type distribution would be there at some point but that would also only be a long-term approach and wouldn't solve anything soon.
 
SotD
I think knowing how the stats work is key to know how to handle things.

Lower stats would recalibrate the top to increase training option, which would - over time - help spreading out stats.

We will never cover the issue of PT teams having better riders than the AI would. We will always aim to have better riders than those fill riders the AI teams tend to have. We have our talents, but because we Can loan out indefinately those 69-72 riders never come into play, while IRL they would probably take on 10-15% of all riders in the peloton.
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
SotD
Yeah it would be a “Long term” option, but I don’t think we can rescue the world in a Quick fix without destroying the game.

I struggle to see that stats are too similar, as many teams have different approaches. This Giro was a good example of riders shuffled very well IMO and that certainly didn’t do any good.

So for me it is about stopping inflation. We are on the right path, but IMO it is moving too slowly in the right direction! And there a decrease of stats would kickstart the proces.

I’m sorry if we are discussing different things. I basically wanted to say that I was against all uneven stat tampering, no matter the reason. The same goes for sudden changes in training possibilities or altering the wage system, as it would tare apart the planning aspect.

I know Lecuisinier will likely end up between 900K-1mio looking at historics and likely point scoring outcome. If that was suddenly changef to 1,2-1,3mio it would have been for nothing to train him while Selling half the team. We need continuity first and foremost. To me whether the best riders have 85, 82 or 80 doesn’t ruin that. And I have both 84 and 85.
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
Bikex
SotD wrote:
I think knowing how the stats work is key to know how to handle things.


Definitely Smile
And I'm not really an expert

Okay but why is it about stopping inflation? What is the issue of inflation if it is not the AI? Especially if it is being worked on in the longterm anyways?

In the giro I'd argue that if the breakaway riders would have been less strong compared to the GC riders, we would've seen less breakaway victories and maybe Malecki also wouldn't have hold on for so long.

I don't think my suggestion would really be uneven stat tampering as the relative strength distribution would remain the same it would only be stretched out a little.

Anyways as said I don't know if we need to change the stats at all, but if I think this could be a fair way.
 
SotD
The issue is that it has become too easy to get to the highest level, and thus making rider variation very difficult. This leads to randomness, and especially on the top level this is a problem because we can’t change it as manager. At CT level you Can train your leader to jump out of the “normal leader”-level. This Can still be done to an extend at PCT level, but not at PT level.

And as we see inflation in all divisions it is a matter of time before we see top top level riders at all divisions, which is not ideal.

Ideally PCT teams Can target subleaders from PT as their leaders, and CT teams Can pick upper domestiques as leaders.
i.imgur.com/lVIiCkA.png

pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/manager.png
pcmdaily.com/images/awards/2015/Manmanager.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/teamhq.png
 
baseballlover312
As a CT manager, I just disagree that Sotd's method is going to do much for the vast majority of managers in the game. Most of us aren't established PT teams. Yes, taking down the ceiling will allow for more training and over time do good things with inflation and stats spread at the top. I don't disagree that it could be a useful change to a degree, given that stats are truly linear.

But the biggest problems with the DB are not at the top, as I've been trying to say this whole time. The problem in the 75-79 range, which means it shows itself primarily in PCT and CT. A Pro Tour GT like the Giro is about the most varied startlist you might get in MG in terms of rider type and skill level. It is not representative of the norm, not even close (though it is rightly mentioned that it's AI was still screwed up).

If you really want to see the problems with inflation, you have to take a look at any mountain, sprint, or hill races in CT, where almost every single manager has multiple guys in the 77-79 range now. The game has shown time and time again that it doesn't know how to deal with this. In a one terrain race, the entirety of the peloton (or at least every rider PCM uses for anything) will be in the 75-79 category. No separation at all. Daily form can make any rider better than any other.

Think about this: basically no maxed riders will have less than a 75 in their main stat going forward, in any division. Most CT leaders are 77-79; they are not at the level of PT leaders (as it should be). But their domestiques are at the same level as other divisions (which they should not be). This lower limit has been set over many years of adding too many talents at too high a level, and it makes the game struggle to recognize the differences between leaders and everyone else, at PCT and especially CT.

And I'd argue it does have an impact even at higher levels, though not as pronounced, since the breakaway riders are usually as strong as primary domestiques - hence the frequent breakaway wins at all levels.

That is why I favored the tiered protection/decrease system. Our DB is incredibly claustrophobic in range for all but managers with top leaders on a terrain in the top division. It makes the racing suffer, the standings suffer, and most importantly, it ruins the complex economy that we've built.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 08-02-2021 21:15
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/avatar.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2019/funniest.png
pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/funniest.png
pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/forumthread.png
i.imgur.com/VCXYUyF.png
i.imgur.com/4osUjkI.png
 
http://www.youtube.com/user/baseballlover312
alexkr00
If we are going to reduce all stats by X value then training over 85-x should not be allowed. Not now not ever. 85-x should become the new top value in the game.

If we reduce all stats but then still allow it all we did is give 84-85 riders who are still eligible for training a huge advantage over everyone else by doing something that we don't even know is going to be beneficial for the game anyway.
i.imgur.com/S1M3OtV.png
i.imgur.com/wzkfv39.png
i.imgur.com/Uhicj1C.png
i.imgur.com/Ie56lsQ.png
 
Jump to Forum:
Similar Threads
Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Celtic Chrono Discussion [Cont-Man-Game] General 18 17-04-2021 20:27
Tour de Langkawi Discussion [Cont-Man-Game] General 6 17-04-2021 19:16
News in 2021 Cycling 162 17-04-2021 16:28
Tour de France Discussion [Man-Game] General 114 17-04-2021 12:59
Tour of the Middle East - Discussion [Cont-Man-Game] General 51 17-04-2021 00:34
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Latest content
Screenshots
Last man for break vs McEwen
Last man for break vs McEwen
PCM 07: General Screenshots
Fantasy Betting
Current bets:
No bets available.
Best gamblers:
bullet roturn 1,801 PCM$
bullet fintas 1,620 PCM$
bullet df_Trek 1,599 PCM$
bullet Abhish... 1,425 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 1,400 PCM$

bullet Main Fantasy Betting page
bullet Rankings: Top 100
ManGame Betting
Current bets:
No bets available.
Best gamblers:
bullet valverde321 1,200 PCM$
bullet AbhishekLFC 1,200 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 1,200 PCM$
bullet df_Trek 1,200 PCM$
bullet Marcovdw 1,100 PCM$

bullet Main MG Betting page
bullet Get weekly MG PCM$
bullet Rankings: Top 100
Render time: 0.17 seconds