|
|
Post by ElGringo on Dec 22, 2015 19:13:06 GMT 1
During the following weeks we will make new polls to see the changes we can make in game.
We want to change the base supporters of teams, so release some riders with potential of training of bot teams, to decrease the influence of TT in mountain sectors and the price money for tours and classics acording to the importance.
So you can check that is a new poll add and other will follow.
The first one is about base supporters.
For example:
Base supporters of div 1 is 8000 with a raise of 25% will go to 10000, with a raise of 10% will go to 8800
Base supporters div 2 is 5039 with a raise of 25% will to 6298, with a raise of 10% will go to 5543
The peloton team
|
|
|
|
Post by rarau on Dec 22, 2015 22:04:04 GMT 1
I-m totally agree with all without
/to release some riders with potential of training of bot teams/
this will destroy youthscouts and prices on transfer list.
The other changes / polls are very ok
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 23, 2015 9:09:56 GMT 1
Same opinion as rarau
good idea's except releasing riders from bot teams
|
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Dec 23, 2015 9:15:18 GMT 1
I altered the in game poll a bit because the main purpose was to make survival in the higher divisions more likely (especially for the lower ranked teams). So my suggestion was to raise the number of (base) supporters according to the division (f.i. 25% for 1.1, 20 % for 2.x, 15% for 3.x, 10% for 4.x, 5% for 5.x)
when on 25% this would lead to 2000 extra supporters a week in 1.1, 1008 extra supporters in 2.x .... (or +800 in 1.1, +432 in 2.x ...(on 10%))
Since I can not alter the poll, please feel free to discus here if you like the fixed or the floating raise best.
edit : P.S. : Seems I accidentally restarted the in-game poll, so please vote again if you already made a vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slayer772004 on Dec 23, 2015 10:01:29 GMT 1
I don't understand so well: so you want to make the teams in 1:1 more richer relative to teams in 2:1 and 2:2 ? 800 supp more in 1:1, only 500 supp more in 2nd division ... what makes the teams in 1:1 more stronger on the Transfert List, so they become even more stronger and stronger, and the gap with divison 2 becomes bigger and bigger.
I wonder where this suggestion comes from ? Who asked for more money in het game ?
The teams at the bottom who are on the edge of bankrupt ? I can understand, but thats the game. If you don't make good result, you don't get a lot of money ... thats in any game.
Or the question comes from the big teams who can't pay their overpaid cyclist ? Then they shouldn't have offered them such a big contract. So thats a problem they created themself. A good managment is part of the game, and suddenly give a cash-injection to save these teams is not exactly fair relative to teams who keep the contracts (and according mood) low.
Maybe off topic this ideas, but just wondering where the question for more cash comes from. But when its to help teams with overpaid cyclists ... then I destroy this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by tossboom on Dec 23, 2015 10:14:06 GMT 1
I don't understand either. The base supporter level should be more even throughout the divisions. I think the gap between 1 and 2 is too high now and this will increase with these changes. To help newcomers in a division you could maybe increase the promotion bonus as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Dec 23, 2015 10:47:14 GMT 1
I don't understand either. The base supporter level should be more even throughout the divisions. I think the gap between 1 and 2 is too high now and this will increase with these changes. To help newcomers in a division you could maybe increase the promotion bonus as well. That is what you want with the game. It is the case with most manager games. Managers who start later are not easily catching up. You can't make up for al these years of training that the starting managers did. And that is only fair. Otherwise it would have been easy to become worldchampion. There are possibilities though. In the beginning, you can earn a lot of money in the divisions 6, 5 and 4. You should save this money for the right occasions. You can decide to go for younger cyclists, because the older ones are going to retire (Schizm, Helder, can someone IP who the retirement is arranged in the code) and then everything is completely open. Or you can buy riders of top teams who quit or sell their rider. Every season there was somebody quitting or selling. That were the chanches. Now the Original starting riders are getting too old. You just have to make up your mind. If somebody is selling a rider who doesn't perform in 1:1, and you buy it, than you are not going to perform with him in 1:1. So don't buy him if it is your ambition to shine in 1:1. But for second or third division he could be really good. |
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Dec 23, 2015 11:09:27 GMT 1
The intention is to make deliberately demoting to earn more less attractive by making it easier to survive financialy :
- so EG made the suggestion to increase price money for the races in the higher divisions,
- I made a counter suggestion to increase the supporter levels or sponsor money (because I felt this would benefit the teams that strugle now more).
We are aware that both situations would also benefit the top-teams that are already earning a lot, but I can tell you as current number 4 in 1.1, I lose money almost every week (and have to sell good cyclists occasionally to survive - I have no scout, a trainer with only 3 15+ skills and as far as I know no cyclists who are in the biggest wages top 50) so I think there aren't that many big profit teams in 1st (in 4, 5 and 6 on the other hand). edit : I want to clarify that despite what I say here it wasn't me who asked for more money, I like the challenge (break even) and I even feel it should be harder to hold on to more then a few top-cyclists.
We are always open to other suggestions but keep in mind that we can only change things at database level (f.i. we can not change the percentages for placement (1st 2nd 3rd ...) because that isnt in the database ...)
|
|
|
|
Post by tossboom on Dec 23, 2015 11:52:59 GMT 1
I agree sponsor money is a better option and should be increased. I am first in div2, but make hardly any weekly profit al all. I also do not have huge wages, but because I don't win many races, I'm low on supporters. I think the supporter gain calculation needs to be altered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Dec 23, 2015 12:16:40 GMT 1
Increase prize money isn't a good idea. the bottom teams hardly get results.
The best option is i.m.o. sponsor money.
In real life world tour teams get a lot of sponsor money too.
On the other hand, Schizm is also right that if you can afford only a few topriders, you have to make choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by rarau on Dec 23, 2015 12:27:04 GMT 1
I don't understand either. The base supporter level should be more even throughout the divisions. I think the gap between 1 and 2 is too high now and this will increase with these changes. To help newcomers in a division you could maybe increase the promotion bonus as well. I'm agree with Slayer, tossboom and Ab. Especially with tossboom Is not good to increase price money for the races in the higher divisions because in this way big teams will be richier. Is better like you said to increase the supporter levels or sponsor money. Example I'm in division 3.1 I win a lot of races but some users don't. Who will win more money? me or them? IS better to have more sponsor money and more "core supporters" . And the big problem is that: """You can decide to go for younger cyclists, because the older ones are going to retire (Schizm, Helder, can someone IP who the retirement is arranged in the code) and then everything is completely open.""" I see yesterday and i don't believe that my 36 year old cyclist lost a skill on TT from 6 to 5, i don't know when he lost because i follow only cyclists i train but is very good. My opinion , because are a lot of old cyclists in the game, at 40 all cyclists to retire and not be a raffle or to retire some of them and some at other age. In the future maybe could be make a skill/another thing and some cyclists to retire for example at 36 others at 42 but now i think all cyclists need to retire fix at 40 . If we know a concret target then cyclists with 24-29 years will have a better price on tl and cyclists with +35 lower price. |
|
|
|
Post by champadero on Dec 23, 2015 12:42:09 GMT 1
Despite being struggling with money from the begining of the game, I think its something quite good balanced.
Its all about managing, so a team that pays too much in salaries, should have to sell riders, which is the only way now for lower division teams to arrive to the top if they are gamewise enough. Otherwise I think the game will be dying little to little...
There are bonus supporters for previous seasons results and all that that keeps already difference in supporters for best teams, so I agree with Slayer, making richer the best teams is not a solution at all, just enlarging gaps between teams.
I am not for changing it, but if anything should be done, i think it should be increasing sponsor money, but just decreasing gaps, so less difference between 1st and 8th in a division, and higher increases in lower divisions than in upper ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Dec 23, 2015 13:30:20 GMT 1
I am not for changing it, but if anything should be done, i think it should be increasing sponsor money, but just decreasing gaps, so less difference between 1st and 8th in a division, and higher increases in lower divisions than in upper ones. I don't agree with that. The problem is that the teams in the bottom half of division 1 and 2 can hardly survive. In the lower divisions you win a lot because of the lack of opponents. And it is not all about wages control. IYou can only be in top division if you have a few top cyclists. Otherwise you can't even promote. These cyclists earn huge wages. Of course you can do something about it, but it is impossible to pay a cyclist with a skill 16 only $10.000 About the retirement: I think the retirement of cyclist should be random like FA's. So 1 cyclist retires at 36, another at 40, a third one at 38. That makes it more fun and more realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by rarau on Dec 23, 2015 13:56:04 GMT 1
About the retirement: I think the retirement of cyclist should be random like FA's. So 1 cyclist retires at 36, another at 40, a third one at 38. That makes it more fun and more realistic. It will be nice in the future, but now? I have already 36y cyclist and if we implement this change this season my cyclists will have 37y and because of that he cannot retire at 36y  This change about retirement need to be announce with 2 seasons before not saying like in 2 weeks some cyclists will retire because will destroy the market and users need time to adapt at this big change . My 2 cents. By the way Happy Holidays and I wish you all a better New Year and all you want to become true for you  |
|
|
|
Post by champadero on Dec 23, 2015 14:46:12 GMT 1
I am not for changing it, but if anything should be done, i think it should be increasing sponsor money, but just decreasing gaps, so less difference between 1st and 8th in a division, and higher increases in lower divisions than in upper ones. I don't agree with that. The problem is that the teams in the bottom half of division 1 and 2 can hardly survive. In the lower divisions you win a lot because of the lack of opponents. And it is not all about wages control. IYou can only be in top division if you have a few top cyclists. Otherwise you can't even promote. These cyclists earn huge wages. Of course you can do something about it, but it is impossible to pay a cyclist with a skill 16 only $10.000 About the retirement: I think the retirement of cyclist should be random like FA's. So 1 cyclist retires at 36, another at 40, a third one at 38. That makes it more fun and more realistic. First of all I said that i wouldnt change anything (just in case something is changed, i gave my 2 cents of what i think would be better for the game in the long term) I am one of the worst teams in division 1, and I dont have big problems to survive financially, I will not be paying anyone more than 27000 in 2 seasons from now, because I did previous choices before...and at the moment I get myself on problems, I will sell some cyclists as I have done before... If someone is paying 50k to one cyclist, and doesnt win every 2 weeks, why should he keep him? I never said its all about wages control at all, but this is a management game, of course it has to be important In lower divisions only the ones who keep winning all the time earn a lot of money, and once they arrive 3rd/2nd division they are nowhere and many stop playing, that is the problem as I see it. We should try to minimize gaps, not making them bigger, because it will be game death in medium-long term unless we want a only diehard players game. |
|
Melres United
