|
Post by Genomico on Dec 6, 2011 17:12:09 GMT 1
A nice addition to the game might be that it would be able that teams could trade cyclists between each other without having to put cyclist on the transfermarkt. For example: team 1 trades a mountain cyclist with a flat cyclist of team 2 with equally stats (with perhaps an additional amount of money). The biggest problem is that it is cheating-sensitive, but there might be solutions for that. All such trades between 2 teams must be approved by a board after they received a motivation letter from both teams (perhaps via open communication on the forum). All transfers should be open to the public, so there is no sneaky trading. This method will prevent things like teams putting cyclist on the transfermarkt and bidding overpriced values on each other’s cyclists as that will happen for sure when cyclists reach lvl 7.
Lets have an open discussion about this, so comments and/or suggestions would be highly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Mardandoo on Dec 6, 2011 17:31:41 GMT 1
I was thinking about this for a long time too. Even some additional things like the option to trade temporarily, just to let your own cyclist get trained in an other skill by an other team.
If you work with contracts and an automatic system there won't be any cheat options. Such a contract could contain: - Who's paying the cyclist's wage. - The wage of the training team (for example: I pay 30.000 per pop-up of my cyclist to the team who trains him). - To which skill value my cyclist will get trained (for example: As soon as my cyclist reached the skill value 5 it will automatically return to my team). - Maximum amount of weeks (seasons) the cyclist gets trained (to protect both teams (training spot - wage). - Whether the cyclist is allowed to cycle for his temporarily team or not (an option for teams who can't pay that much wage). - The amount of compensation paid to the owner of the cyclist once the cyclist gets injured during a race (when he's allowed to cycle them).
Maybe there are some additional contract options.
I think genomico's idea is good, but with contracts it will me more accurate and reasonable for both the teams. You can make your own appointments and cheating will be very hard.
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Dec 6, 2011 17:48:27 GMT 1
All the contract ideas can be much easier be solved by having the ability to have 2 trainers, so you can split up the team and e.g. let 10 cyclists train in the mountain and 15 at flat. Since the start of the game I have been a huge fan of this and I requested such a thing long time ago already. With this you get a diverse team and you can ride for the victory every stage instead of only stages in your discipline you are training. But IP wasn't fan of this The contract stuff you propose will make it way too complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Mardandoo on Dec 6, 2011 17:58:29 GMT 1
Too complicated for who?! The managers who'r thinking of letting their cyclist train at other teams are already advanced members. Beginning teams won't even think about it, I suppose.
And maybe it sounds a little more complicated than it is, because it shouldn't be that hard to understand, haha!
You're idea about two trainers is nice for members with a lot of money and that way a good team already. I'm afraid I agree with IP on that one. The difference between beginning teams and advanced teams will be too big, since only advanced teams can afford to have two trainers at high skill (or a multitrainer) and that way the difference will only get bigger and bigger. By entering this contract-system it will be attractive to let your cyclist get trained at the skills you're not good at, it's like outsourcing!
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Dec 6, 2011 21:44:38 GMT 1
A nice addition to the game might be that it would be able that teams could trade cyclists between each other without having to put cyclist on the transfermarkt. For example: team 1 trades a mountain cyclist with a flat cyclist of team 2 with equally stats (with perhaps an additional amount of money). The biggest problem is that it is cheating-sensitive, but there might be solutions for that. All such trades between 2 teams must be approved by a board after they received a motivation letter from both teams (perhaps via open communication on the forum). All transfers should be open to the public, so there is no sneaky trading. This method will prevent things like teams putting cyclist on the transfermarkt and bidding overpriced values on each other’s cyclists as that will happen for sure when cyclists reach lvl 7. Lets have an open discussion about this, so comments and/or suggestions would be highly appreciated. All transfers must be approved by a board ? Who will be in this board ? Manual or automatic action ? How will this board decide whether a transfer is allowed or not ?
|
|
|
Post by rarau on Dec 6, 2011 21:47:59 GMT 1
All the contract ideas can be much easier be solved by having the ability to have 2 trainers, so you can split up the team and e.g. let 10 cyclists train in the mountain and 15 at flat. 2 trainers very good idea but cyclist trading between teams = too complicated and always will be near cheating
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Dec 6, 2011 21:49:37 GMT 1
I was thinking about this for a long time too. Even some additional things like the option to trade temporarily, just to let your own cyclist get trained in an other skill by an other team. If you work with contracts and an automatic system there won't be any cheat options. Such a contract could contain: - Who's paying the cyclist's wage. - The wage of the training team (for example: I pay 30.000 per pop-up of my cyclist to the team who trains him). - To which skill value my cyclist will get trained (for example: As soon as my cyclist reached the skill value 5 it will automatically return to my team). - Maximum amount of weeks (seasons) the cyclist gets trained (to protect both teams (training spot - wage). - Whether the cyclist is allowed to cycle for his temporarily team or not (an option for teams who can't pay that much wage). - The amount of compensation paid to the owner of the cyclist once the cyclist gets injured during a race (when he's allowed to cycle them). Maybe there are some additional contract options. I think genomico's idea is good, but with contracts it will me more accurate and reasonable for both the teams. You can make your own appointments and cheating will be very hard. Why would I train your cyclist in the first place ? Which advantage would it give to me ? What if one manager is not putting your cyclist in his trainingpool ? What if this cyclist is injured for 4 weeks during training (not race) ? What if his trainer is only at 10 in this skill, or drops from 20 to 15 during this period ? What if this team is going bankrupt ? What if he fires his trainer ? What if he changes training ?
|
|
|
Post by Mardandoo on Dec 6, 2011 22:30:50 GMT 1
I was thinking about this for a long time too. Even some additional things like the option to trade temporarily, just to let your own cyclist get trained in an other skill by an other team. If you work with contracts and an automatic system there won't be any cheat options. Such a contract could contain: - Who's paying the cyclist's wage. - The wage of the training team (for example: I pay 30.000 per pop-up of my cyclist to the team who trains him). - To which skill value my cyclist will get trained (for example: As soon as my cyclist reached the skill value 5 it will automatically return to my team). - Maximum amount of weeks (seasons) the cyclist gets trained (to protect both teams (training spot - wage). - Whether the cyclist is allowed to cycle for his temporarily team or not (an option for teams who can't pay that much wage). - The amount of compensation paid to the owner of the cyclist once the cyclist gets injured during a race (when he's allowed to cycle them). Maybe there are some additional contract options. I think genomico's idea is good, but with contracts it will me more accurate and reasonable for both the teams. You can make your own appointments and cheating will be very hard. Why would I train your cyclist in the first place ? Which advantage would it give to me ? What if one manager is not putting your cyclist in his trainingpool ? What if this cyclist is injured for 4 weeks during training (not race) ? What if his trainer is only at 10 in this skill, or drops from 20 to 15 during this period ? What if this team is going bankrupt ? What if he fires his trainer ? What if he changes training ? Why would I train your cyclist in the first place ? Which advantage would it give to me ?Well, you get paid for it (the wage) or you can let one of your cyclist train at his team with his trainer. It's like a trade, but then only with a contract, so things will go automatically, you won't lose your cyclist and cheating is hard. What if one manager is not putting your cyclist in his trainingpool ?This is a good one. There are two options, in my opinion: 1) The cyclist is automatically added to his trainingspool and won't suffer nor count for the training effectivenss 2) It's all about trust I think the first one is the best. What if this cyclist is injured for 4 weeks during training (not race) ?Nothing. He would have been injured during your own training too, so it's just bad luck. The team get's paid for the pop-ups and due to the maximum of weeks of outsourced-training you can choose you won't have to miss your own cyclist longer than you expected. What if his trainer is only at 10 in this skill, or drops from 20 to 15 during this period ?When the trainer is only 10 at his skill, you probably don't want as much wage as if the trainer were 15, right? Dropping down is something you can calculate when you propose a wage for the training team. What if this team is going bankrupt ?When the training team goes bankrupt: The system automatically lets the cyclist return to his own team. When the owning team goes bankrupt: The system automatically removes the cyclist from the game. What if he fires his trainer ? What if he changes training ?He can't. When you, as a manager, decide to let a cyclist train at your place, you can't change training, that would be too complicated. It's all about the long-term planning in this game. You see that the wages and maximum exchange weeks are two things that are the answers on your questions. I think that are the two most important points. Another point, as an additional one would be a ransom, so managers can decide to get their cyclist sooner of get rid of the cyclist they train. Any more questions .
|
|
|
Post by kingstown on Dec 7, 2011 13:02:00 GMT 1
Basicly i like the idea, but.... a big but (actually 2) as others mentioned it's cheating sensitive plus time consuming to check whteher everything goes in a proper way, so maybe it could be done in a limited way?
Let's say every team may do it once a season. That way you make sure that managers will be very serious about their choice and you reduce the time and cheating aspects. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Dec 7, 2011 13:07:17 GMT 1
What if one manager is not putting your cyclist in his trainingpool ?This is a good one. There are two options, in my opinion: 1) The cyclist is automatically added to his trainingspool and won't suffer nor count for the training effectivenss 2) It's all about trust I think the first one is the best. So you could train 100 cyclists from other teams without losing any training effectiveness ?! Or you probably will limit the number of cyclists you can train from other teams ... Not really, when my trainer has 18 flat and 18 mountain, you can't predict which skill will drop. The important things are wages and exchange weeks, you say. Who decides how high/low the wages for training are ? What if two managers decide to wage eachother 1 euro ? I have the feeling that with this system, things might get out of hand. I could buy 50 cyclists, no trainer. I send out all my cyclists to different teams (and trainings). I use 1 week contracts, so depending on the races of the week, I could keep f.i. 10 cyclists in my squad for the races, others go back to the other teams. Personally, I am not in favor of something like this ...
|
|
|
Post by Quatannens on Dec 7, 2011 16:46:33 GMT 1
I think this is a little bit to complicated. If you want to have good cyclists for races you don't train, you'll have to buy them and be active on the TL.
|
|
|
Post by Mardandoo on Dec 7, 2011 17:15:02 GMT 1
So you could train 100 cyclists from other teams without losing any training effectiveness ?! Or you probably will limit the number of cyclists you can train from other teams ... Not really, when my trainer has 18 flat and 18 mountain, you can't predict which skill will drop. The important things are wages and exchange weeks, you say. Who decides how high/low the wages for training are ? What if two managers decide to wage eachother 1 euro ? I have the feeling that with this system, things might get out of hand. I could buy 50 cyclists, no trainer. I send out all my cyclists to different teams (and trainings). I use 1 week contracts, so depending on the races of the week, I could keep f.i. 10 cyclists in my squad for the races, others go back to the other teams. Personally, I am not in favor of something like this ... Well, as Kingstown mentioned it would be a good idea to limit the maximum trainees you can train and let train and put those cyclist in the trainingspool automatically, not suffering any lower effectiveness. 1 per season is an idea, but i.m.o. 3 would be more fair because a season is very long. You can't say exactly what skill is going to decrease, but you can discuss with the other manager what to do. You're paying for the pop-ups anyway, not per week. Who decides how high/low the wages for training are ? What if two managers decide to wage eachother 1 euro ?The two involved managers. If you don't want managers to get their cyclist trained for free or train for a lot of money, you can set a minimum and maximum wage, of course . It might be cheat-sensitive but I think that if you, as the designers, discuss this for a moment, you can make a perfect system, without any cheatoptions .
|
|
|
Post by VeryRisky on Dec 7, 2011 17:31:22 GMT 1
I'm not keen on this idea. Firstly there's plent of potential for abuse and secondly it seems like an attempt to get around the basic design decisions of the game, that you can olnly train one skill at a time and that if you train more than 25 cyclists the efficientcy drops.
Moreover a game like this has to be about makign compromises - choosing one trainer over another, leaving the trainer at skill 15 and giving him a second skill or trying to maintain him at skill 20. You can't have everything, so when you sell a cyclist you can't guarantee him coming back, or being trained right or anything else.
Now I would like to see a split training setup where you can devote up to say 25% of yoru training effort to another skill, but that's a separate suggestion for another time
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Dec 7, 2011 19:43:47 GMT 1
I don't see any future for this option unless all trainees count toward the total number being trained.
-If I am training 24 of my cyclists + 1 trainee, then training efficiency for all is 100%
-If I am training 25 of my cyclists + 1 trainee, then training efficiency for all is 96.6%
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Dec 7, 2011 22:02:52 GMT 1
What about a training camp in the pre-season, with the option to choose a kind of training skill to evolute.
Like this:
3 days - grow 10% skill - price X000$ per rider 5 days - grow 17% skill - price Y000$ per rider
|
|