|
Post by NikeBoy on Feb 21, 2013 14:33:28 GMT 1
Yes, I know, I still have to investigate what is wrong here
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Feb 21, 2013 14:36:40 GMT 1
Joelag, First of all, thanks for the feedback !! This is the kind of info I need to finetune. I've had a quick look at your race and the problem you encounter, is one that I know already for some time. Your cyclist Lorge was, at the end of part 9, in front of the peloton together with Mutti. In part 10, he can not follow Mutti and drops from the leading group. Now the problem is that his time in is slower than the peloton time and thus he is placed behind the peloton. In real life, he would have taken place in the peloton again, unless he is completely out of energy ! If he would have been in the peloton at the start of part 10, he would not be dropped from the peloton (most probably). So it is not so much a matter of influence of helpers on peloton speed. (more of an architectual issue ) But I have some idea to tackle this, I will try tonight and resim Great! I already had a suspicion about this conceptual bug being the cause of Lorge being dropped. I've already seen such a behaviour in former races. Yeah. Would be great if you could solve this. I'd even say this is a bug fix that should get into effect at the latest at the beginning of next season. Any thought onto the bolded part? Ah! You don't honestly expect that people read a post completely which has more than 3 lines, do you? The influence of fitness has never been changed, it has always had this "weight" in the calculation. The effort is ofcourse also very important !! Did he go 100% and the others only 70% ??
|
|
|
Post by JoeLag on Feb 21, 2013 15:11:37 GMT 1
Ah! You don't honestly expect that people read a post completely which has more than 3 lines, do you? The influence of fitness has never been changed, it has always had this "weight" in the calculation. The effort is ofcourse also very important !! Did he go 100% and the others only 70% ?? No. If I remember those stages correctly it's more that there is one cyclist with drastically less fitness who snatches sprints or wins against other cyclists that have more fitness - when all are using the same effort - e.g. in a final stage of a tour. Sorry that I can't give you a concrete proof of my concern. But as it is I'm not able to see back in the past to the fitness that any cyclist had before any specific race. If I'll stumble once again over such an implausible result I will try to highlight it. My thesis at the moment is that the percentage of effort is much more relevant than the amount of fitness that the cyclist had before the race. It's up to you to take a look into the formulas and tell me that I'm completely wrong. That is: Is the coding so that the same cyclist should perform completely identical if he's either on 70% fitness and 100% effort or 100% fitness and 70% effort? On the other hand this could be a misconception of me. Perhaps it's just that the influence of fitness and effort is too small against the number of skill points. Imho a cyclist A with lets say flat 7, sprint 7, 70% fitness, 70% effort should never win against a cyclist B with 7 flat, 1 sprint, 100% fitness, 100% effort. My guess would be that in the current race engine cyclist A would win the flat sprint anyway. D'oh! Did you actually read until here?
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Feb 21, 2013 16:02:46 GMT 1
Ah! You don't honestly expect that people read a post completely which has more than 3 lines, do you? The influence of fitness has never been changed, it has always had this "weight" in the calculation. The effort is ofcourse also very important !! Did he go 100% and the others only 70% ?? No. If I remember those stages correctly it's more that there is one cyclist with drastically less fitness who snatches sprints or wins against other cyclists that have more fitness - when all are using the same effort - e.g. in a final stage of a tour. Sorry that I can't give you a concrete proof of my concern. But as it is I'm not able to see back in the past to the fitness that any cyclist had before any specific race. If I'll stumble once again over such an implausible result I will try to highlight it. My thesis at the moment is that the percentage of effort is much more relevant than the amount of fitness that the cyclist had before the race. It's up to you to take a look into the formulas and tell me that I'm completely wrong. That is: Is the coding so that the same cyclist should perform completely identical if he's either on 70% fitness and 100% effort or 100% fitness and 70% effort? On the other hand this could be a misconception of me. Perhaps it's just that the influence of fitness and effort is too small against the number of skill points. Imho a cyclist A with lets say flat 7, sprint 7, 70% fitness, 70% effort should never win against a cyclist B with 7 flat, 1 sprint, 100% fitness, 100% effort. My guess would be that in the current race engine cyclist A would win the flat sprint anyway. D'oh! Did you actually read until here? 7 + 14 = 21 * .7 * .7 = 10.29 7 + 2 = 9 * 1 * 1 = 9 The 7/7 should win with the current logic, right? It would take a 7/2 at 100%/100% or a 6/3. Or am I wrong in thinking it's terrain plus 2x sprint at the moment for finishes?
|
|
|
Post by JoeLag on Feb 21, 2013 16:21:50 GMT 1
7 + 14 = 21 * .7 * .7 = 10.29 7 + 2 = 9 * 1 * 1 = 9 The 7/7 should win with the current logic, right? It would take a 7/2 at 100%/100% or a 6/3. Or am I wrong in thinking it's terrain plus 2x sprint at the moment for finishes? I guess you are wrong. But not with your last sentence but only with your calculation and the first one. You forget that there is a specific base speed. Even a cyclist with 0 flat and 0 TT will not need 872312 hours (*) for a 35 km flat ITT. And a 10 TT cyclist will not be 10 times faster than a 1 TT cyclist. (*) Because I'm quite dumb 872312 hours is my best guess at the value of infinite time.
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Feb 21, 2013 16:39:08 GMT 1
7 + 14 = 21 * .7 * .7 = 10.29 7 + 2 = 9 * 1 * 1 = 9 The 7/7 should win with the current logic, right? It would take a 7/2 at 100%/100% or a 6/3. Or am I wrong in thinking it's terrain plus 2x sprint at the moment for finishes? I guess you are wrong. But not with your last sentence but only with your calculation and the first one. You forget that there is a specific base speed. Even a cyclist with 0 flat and 0 TT will not need 872312 hours (*) for a 35 km flat ITT. And a 10 TT cyclist will not be 10 times faster than a 1 TT cyclist. (*) Because I'm quite dumb 872312 hours is my best guess at the value of infinite time. But my (limited) understanding is that while the base speed is part of determining how fast the peloton moves, once you get to a sprint it's pretty much like I posted before. That base speed may factor in to if you make it to the finish line with a specific group... but once you are in a group, the ordering is pretty close to the math above (possibly with some randomness thrown in). I've had riders in many races (including today's Giro) hanging in on the mountains but winning mountain sprints from their group. I feel pretty sure my guy who did that today would have won the final sprint... but he got gapped and won from another group 11 seconds back. I really don't think base speed plays a role in sprints (at least not based on the results my team of fairly high sprint but lesser terrain riders put forward).
|
|
|
Post by JoeLag on Feb 21, 2013 17:01:23 GMT 1
But my (limited) understanding is that while the base speed is part of determining how fast the peloton moves, once you get to a sprint it's pretty much like I posted before. That base speed may factor in to if you make it to the finish line with a specific group... but once you are in a group, the ordering is pretty close to the math above (possibly with some randomness thrown in). I've had riders in many races (including today's Giro) hanging in on the mountains but winning mountain sprints from their group. I feel pretty sure my guy who did that today would have won the final sprint... but he got gapped and won from another group 11 seconds back. I really don't think base speed plays a role in sprints (at least not based on the results my team of fairly high sprint but lesser terrain riders put forward). I think you've got a point there. It really seems that sprint works this way. So I'm willing to admit that you are right with your calculation, too.
|
|
|
Post by rarau on Feb 21, 2013 21:02:38 GMT 1
Only rarau and me participated. So it should be easy to analyse the race. Rarau had a lot of attackers. So only Alves Pereira could have acted as helper. Maybe he has flat 10 (rarau could provide this). But even then it's only 4 helpers with skills 7,7 - 10. Should this be enough to distance a flat 4,4 cyclist in flat sections?
all 5 go with 100%
Cardei no tactic, flat 5 ; Fidatov and Mutti flat 10, Pereira flat 6. So how your players with low flat can compete with my cyclists??
Fidatov attacks in points 1,8 Mutti 3,8 Romuald 8 Pereira final sprinter
you dont know the rules too good, a cyclist who is not in the peloton want to be in peloton so attacks when he want. For what to use helpers if my players play with attack tactic??
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Feb 21, 2013 21:07:15 GMT 1
Or am I wrong in thinking it's terrain plus 2x sprint at the moment for finishes? Nop, its more. Nikeboy I would like to know if in the funnyraces the sprint factor is already different, is?
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Feb 21, 2013 22:23:46 GMT 1
Or am I wrong in thinking it's terrain plus 2x sprint at the moment for finishes? Nop, its more. Nikeboy I would like to know if in the funnyraces the sprint factor is already different, is? How so? If you mean that fitness, effort and weight all play a factor, I understand that to be the case. And I understand the random element. But all that being said, I thought the question was if a 7 terrain/7 sprint cyclins at 70% fitness going at 70% would still beat a 7 terrain/2 sprint cyclist at 100% fitness going at 100%. (assuming no difference in random factors) Given that the only differences are the sprint skill and the fitness/effort levels... am I understanding the impact right? I'd think a 7/7 at 70%/70% should beat a 7/2 at 100%/100% currently (assuming everything else is equal). At least that's the way I understood the explanation. Where am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Feb 22, 2013 21:36:58 GMT 1
Nop, its more. Nikeboy I would like to know if in the funnyraces the sprint factor is already different, is? How so? If you mean that fitness, effort and weight all play a factor, I understand that to be the case. And I understand the random element. But all that being said, I thought the question was if a 7 terrain/7 sprint cyclins at 70% fitness going at 70% would still beat a 7 terrain/2 sprint cyclist at 100% fitness going at 100%. (assuming no difference in random factors) Given that the only differences are the sprint skill and the fitness/effort levels... am I understanding the impact right? I'd think a 7/7 at 70%/70% should beat a 7/2 at 100%/100% currently (assuming everything else is equal). At least that's the way I understood the explanation. Where am I wrong? You are right. I just told that the impact of sprint isn't x2, but more.
|
|
|
Post by JoeLag on Feb 23, 2013 14:22:54 GMT 1
What about the missing results from last wednesday? Is there a chance to either fix the page or upload the xml files anywhere so we can at least read the raw xml output?
I'd really like to see the results for the ITT races.
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Feb 23, 2013 15:11:37 GMT 1
What about the missing results from last wednesday? Is there a chance to either fix the page or upload the xml files anywhere so we can at least read the raw xml output? I'd really like to see the results for the ITT races. Working on it !! I'll update you asap Mmm, can't find the error IP has to look at it This is the result of race id 609 and 610 Cyclist ID | Name | Team | Time | 2030 | Cron | Forza17 | 6:25:05 | 84116 | Warrilow | Forza17 | 6:25:27 | 710 | Chaboud | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:30:54 | 13658 | Struyfs | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:31:47 | 7003 | van Breukelen | Forza17 | 6:32:04 | 13556 | Malcontenti | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:36:59 | 5655 | Pietrowicz | Forza17 | 6:37:32 | 3959 | Cozijnsen | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:39:49 | 2295 | Vanini | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:42:09 | 7797 | De Keersmaeker | Team Franconia | 6:44:35 | 91393 | Dossou | Bolt Thrower | 6:47:58 | 94139 | Mann | Bolt Thrower | 6:49:10 | 8992 | Ilie | Team Franconia | 6:49:15 | 10607 | Van Muysen | BeterLaatDanNooit | 6:49:29 | 19579 | Streber | Team Franconia | 6:50:05 | 4634 | Payan | BeterLaatDanNooit | 6:50:25 | 6295 | Greindl | Team Franconia | 6:50:49 | 503 | Elbers | Team Franconia | 6:53:27 | 24811 | Byrne | BeterLaatDanNooit | 6:57:00 | 10604 | Ceulenaere | BeterLaatDanNooit | 6:57:55 | 306 | Sanches | BeterLaatDanNooit | 6:59:37 | 2400 | Bertucci | Forza17 | 7:00:18 | 94149 | Valladares | Bolt Thrower | 7:07:34 | 13888 | Defrain | Bolt Thrower | 7:20:19 | 4335 | Lorge | Bolt Thrower | 7:20:59 |
18367 | Glassee | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:37:58 | 11975 | Manzano | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:41:28 | 7797 | De Keersmaeker | Team Franconia | 6:44:36 | 91393 | Dossou | Bolt Thrower | 6:48:28 | 475 | Mclernon | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:48:46 | 8992 | Ilie | Team Franconia | 6:49:16 | 94139 | Mann | Bolt Thrower | 6:49:23 | 5765 | Van Velsen | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:50:42 | 6295 | Greindl | Team Franconia | 6:50:50 | 1253 | van Teeffelen | De Kasseienstoempers | 6:51:59 | 94149 | Valladares | Bolt Thrower | 6:52:48 | 17762 | De Bruecker | Team Franconia | 7:01:15 | 14189 | Rigaux | Team Franconia | 7:07:04 | 13888 | Defrain | Bolt Thrower | 7:10:33 | 4335 | Lorge | Bolt Thrower | 7:11:17 |
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Feb 23, 2013 19:21:27 GMT 1
Or am I wrong in thinking it's terrain plus 2x sprint at the moment for finishes? Nop, its more. Nikeboy I would like to know if in the funnyraces the sprint factor is already different, is? I have changed the sprint factor in the funraces. The sprint is very important in case of a flat finish, less important for (down)hill finish and quite unimportant for mountain finish. I would like to add that this is just a test. It does automatically not mean that this will implemented in the real RE
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Feb 23, 2013 23:15:50 GMT 1
Nop, its more. Nikeboy I would like to know if in the funnyraces the sprint factor is already different, is? I have changed the sprint factor in the funraces. The sprint is very important in case of a flat finish, less important for (down)hill finish and quite unimportant for mountain finish. I would like to add that this is just a test. It does automatically not mean that this will implemented in the real RE Thanks for your anwser. I will test it
|
|