|
|
Post by chakra on Apr 25, 2009 10:17:41 GMT 1
On the Belgian forum there is a discussion on how to encourage the teams to race together with the great amount of money some teams make because they degrade down to a lower division.
Here is the translation of a suggestion trapper123 made:
Quote:
Why not take away the supporters of the teams who do not race for two weeks or more?
The income for the teams who arrange themselves to degrade to a lower division will drastically decrease.
Teams competing less then 10 or 11 weeks will degrade two divisions.
Hereby you get and create a difference between teams willing to race but are not capable yet ...... and the teams willfull racing this way.
This seems hard, but gives to other teams also the chance to improver themselves more rapidly when they can or want to.
Unquote
What's your opinion of these ideas?
I think they are splendid ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by essesselles1 on Apr 25, 2009 19:30:04 GMT 1
I like the first idea. But 100% less supporters after two weeks is to much and to soon. Lets say: 40% after three weeks, 70% after four weeks and 100% after five weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by chakra on Apr 25, 2009 23:17:50 GMT 1
I can live with that system, however I would implement it a bit harder than just after 3 weeks.
After 1 week no race: minus 30%
After 2 weeks no race: minus 50%
After 3 weeks: minus 75%
After 4 weeks: minus 100%
Anyone with other numbers?
Trapper??
|
|
phaedo1
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 11 
|
Post by phaedo1 on Apr 25, 2009 23:48:35 GMT 1
what I dont like about that idea is that in the US division we only have 2 active divisions and winning your way through your demotion would be easy so by the time you get put into D 1 you got a solid team. I only played for a month and got promoted to D 1. Not much time to win and learn
|
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Apr 27, 2009 6:46:00 GMT 1
I was out walking the dog and thinking about this.... ;D I think this (Race or no money and degrade two divisions) is a worthwhile suggestion, but it could be circumvented easily by racing your worst racers, or by buying a handful of 2-1-2-2-1-2 racers on the TV. You'd still be able to 'compete' every week, but you'd still get yourself relegated. I think the changes to supporters and race prize money that were implemented for Season 8 are a good step in the right direction to encourage and reward legitimate competition. I can think of several things that would discourage deliberate demoting, but I don't see any way to avoid having them also punish managers who are competing as hard as they can, but whose teams are just overmatched, and need another season to prepare: 1- Drop the mood of everyone on the team, including YS and trainer, when a team demotes. Painful and realistic. 2- Have the YS or Trainer quit. Ouch. 3- Have the highest TV rider quit. Ouch. 4- Have two random riders quit. Double ouch. 5- Allow teams in higher divisions to train extra riders every week (Div 1=27, Div 2=26, all others=25). 6- Significantly increase the end-of-season bonus for teams that finish 4th-12th in a division. (Teams #1, #2, & #3 probably don't need more rewards.) (I may think of more next time I take the dog out.) Any or all of these would likely be effective in stopping deliberate demotion, but they would certainly also have a chilling effect on weaker teams that demoted despite all they could do.  That would be bad for the game. Also, I think these types of changes might make it even harder to compete with the top teams, at least in some of the countries, and that's not a good outcome. So maybe the best solution is to allow managers to deliberately demote if that is their game strategy. Otherwise we risk punishing weaker teams who can't avoid demotion. Hmm, I think #6 might actually work, though. Woof! |
|
|
|
Post by droopy on Apr 27, 2009 8:58:08 GMT 1
Who gets the money? The relegated team?
Is it possible to buy them back yourself, if you have enough money?
|
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Apr 27, 2009 23:58:09 GMT 1
Who gets the money? The relegated team? Is it possible to buy them back yourself, if you have enough money? No money - they would just be lost to the demoted team. If it were up to me I'd say they would then go on the TV for all to see and bid on. Another "No Team" rider. Again - I'm not sure these are good solutions, as they would punish all relegated teams, not just those doing it intentionally. |
|
|
|
Post by jmc7 on Apr 28, 2009 1:40:25 GMT 1
i m with lee1950
|
|
|
|
Post by chakra on Apr 28, 2009 16:56:04 GMT 1
lee1950: keep going out walking with the dog and if you have finished walking your dog, I'm prepared to loan my dog. ;D Some really good ideas, but as you say some propositions will punish the weeker teams trying not to demote. If a team buys a few low skill racers they still at least participate which will increase the price money, the amount of supps, etc. Of course they must participate with at least 3 racers! Otherwise it's possible to participate with 1 and the same racer in every race or tour on every day. Still at least 3 racers needed and wages for them (I know it doesn't mean a lot for the rich teams)
|
|
|
|
Post by jmc7 on Apr 28, 2009 22:25:51 GMT 1
chakra i understand your point, because if all the teams participate in the races, the prize money will be much higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Apr 29, 2009 2:12:02 GMT 1
lee1950: keep going out walking with the dog and if you have finished walking your dog, I'm prepared to loan my dog. ;D Some really good ideas, but as you say some propositions will punish the weeker teams trying not to demote. If a team buys a few low skill racers they still at least participate which will increase the price money, the amount of supps, etc. Of course they must participate with at least 3 racers! Otherwise it's possible to participate with 1 and the same racer in every race or tour on every day. Still at least 3 racers needed and wages for them (I know it doesn't mean a lot for the rich teams) I had not considered the impact of increasing the stage prize money for the added riders, so the initial suggestion (to force teams to race or be double demoted) would be of more benefit to the game than I realized, even if managers hired crapolo riders (I've got a few!). It is also perhaps the only idea in this thread that won't punish teams that are competing, so I like it for that! btw - Jamie the Irish Wolfhound is bugging me right now for his 'walkies'! When the big boy has to 'go' - he has to go! I'm out... |
|
|
|
Post by chakra on May 1, 2009 6:44:04 GMT 1
chakra i understand your point, because if all the teams participate in the races, the prize money will be much higher. That indeed is the idea behind this topic?  |
|
|
|
Post by box on May 8, 2009 15:35:54 GMT 1
This whole idea is stupid..... Why punish manager who intentionally race only 5 races a year? I'm such a manager. I started when peloton was created (I was a BETA-tester) and raced fully for 3 seasons. After that I sold my whole squad and re-created a new team. Now I train this riders but intentionally don't have them racing.
That is my own choice and I don't think I should be punished (in any way) for that. To keep my balance even every season I race 1 or 2 tours in which I end up 1st through 5. I don't want to promote since I don't want to spend any time in this game (for now). With this suggestion you're intentionally eitehr get me to throw money away or make me leave the game.... it's useless and stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on May 8, 2009 15:47:54 GMT 1
The decision to participate in a race or not should stay. It was always the intention to have (too) many races in one season, so that players sometimes have to decide to skip a a race in order to participate in another with fresh and fully fit cyclists.
|
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on May 8, 2009 19:10:33 GMT 1
Box's post highlights one of the strengths of The Peloton....managers can compete and be successful and enjoy the game in various ways.
This is a very good thing in a game.
For example, although I've only been here ten weeks, I've already played with two different styles, and I've had fun and some success both ways. (I played the last eight weeks of Season 7 very conservatively, and switched to an aggressive style in Season 8.) And, since I can't see sustaining my team long term with my present strategy, I see myself eventually shifting toward Box's style, and building up a young squad.
I clearly have not been here long enough to have a well-informed opinion, but with the current financial model (larger prize money and more supporters for higher divisions) I think IP, et.al., have already addressed the concerns voiced in this thread.
I started in a division with only two other active managers, so it was very clear that two of us would promote. I worried that I wouldn't be able to survive financially in a higher division, so I was cautious, and built up cash instead of buying higher quality riders. After promotion I soon discovered that my supporter income alone was enough to cover my weekly expenses, changed my gamestyle, went on a mini-spending spree and blew through about $4M. Through a series of unexplained freakishly fortunate events, I'm sitting in second place.
To summarize my viewpoint....
Philosophically speaking: I think a good game should allow many paths to successful play, even if some of those paths are unappealing to me. Peloton does this.
I am a racer first, a transferlist addict second, a trainer third, and a trader fourth. But that's just me...I don't expect everyone to play Peloton the same way I do, and as long as they are not malicious, they should enjoy their own gamestyle. So for me the question remains, "Is intentionally not racing malicious play?" My sense is "No", even though it's a gamestyle that is 180 degrees the opposite of how I want to play.
Practically speaking: As noted above, I believe that, over time, the Season 8 financial changes will go a long way toward addressing the concerns of this thread. It rewards competitive play. Furthermore, I think it is very hard to devise a way to 'punish' this particular game play without being punitive to managers who get demoted despite their best efforts. A final (finally!) point: after promoting, I'm in better financial shape than I ever dreamed I would be. I grant you that the USA is not a perfect example due to the low overall number of teams, but I'm willing to bet most managers who just promoted anywhere are pleased with their financials. Word will get around.....
|
|
That would be bad for the game.
