|
Post by Ab Normaal on Aug 27, 2018 22:47:09 GMT 1
Finally some specific comments to the examples you gave. First of the number of races with low mountain kms.
I did not say there was too few mountains.
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Aug 27, 2018 23:12:23 GMT 1
I don't think you understand what I mean. Being allround is a specialty, just like a flat/hiller is a specialty, or a hill/mountaneer, or a flat sprinter. There are qualities needed for all kind of races and this is how the calender always has been made.
Sundays Volta, true that the first riders have a good hill skill, but they also have high skill on all other primary skills. Mine are great hillers too, only not on all three other primary skills. They missed the first group on the first mountain attackpoint, and, as you know in this game, if you are behind after the first attackpoint, you'll have to be really better in a specific skill than all others to come back. So not the hill skill was deciding in this hill race (a race where of curse everybody puts their best hillers up) but the other skills. So, it was the first attackpoint that already killed the non allrounders.
By designing a calender strictly for allrounders, you designed a calender for 1 type of rider only. It would be the same if a manager with a flat trainer designs only flat races.
About 90% of the races in this calender can only be won buy a rider with at least 6 or 7 on all primary skills, and on top of that the skill the riders has a good FA on. So a 12-7-7-7 or a 7-12-7-7 and so on. A 12-9-1-4 riders has no chance. This means something completely different. Something nobody was prepaired for. If we as administrators of this game would change the engine and suddenly make TT a lot less important, managers who trained TT for a long time, would complain.
On one hand, you can say, "well, it is something different, so that is nice for a change". Well, I think the managers who have trained all riders as allrounders, like Bam and your team, will be very pleased. I think the managers who trained their riders according to the standard calender, will not be so pleased. At least half my riders are completely useless this season because this calender is one sided.
In lower divisions, you can get away with it, in the higher you can't. Especially when there are two teams with allrounders only. I have only a few, which I can only use once per two or three weeks.
But I do agree with you that making a calender is not an easy job. I made a few myself and it is always a puzzle. On the other hand, it is also fun.
|
|
|
Post by Slayer772004 on Aug 28, 2018 10:11:47 GMT 1
Actually, I hate this calendar where 85% of the races have the format of 95km flat - 35km hill - 15km mountain. The amount of allround races are way out of proportion.
And if there is a distinct terrain like the Volta Limburg on sunday, the AP are made in a way so its again in the advantage of the allrounder: a mountain as first AP, ánd a flat last part (the most important part), wíth an AP (!). That way it wasn't a hill race, it was again an allround race. Even the Scheldeprijs would have a mountain in this calendar.
Last season, the calendar had indeed specific terrains on flat, hill and mountain - mostly combined a second skill (!) - indeed. This season most races are for allrounders. 3 types of riders needed last season versus 1 type of rider needed this season. Thats the point of my post. In the begin of the season I checked where I could use my 4 flat guys. A normal flat race ? I should check again, but I thought it was only 2 (one in a Grand Tour, one in a small tour). 2 races on 96 races ? My flatters are useless. Idem dito with my specific hillers.
Im the first one to agree making a calendar is not easy, and there will always be players unhappy. But this calendar is extremly one-sided. The person who creats the calendar makes it in a way he thinks Peloton should be played, unfortunately its not the way I think about it.
Lets try to end with a positive note: you did have a plan in mind to make the calendar, you thought about it, it was not random. Thats positive. But to my opinion you pushed your idea too far. A little more creativity and variation would give more pleasure for other players too.
Note: this has nothing to do with my own results. If I won 1 race, 11 races or 21 races ... my opinion would have been the same.
Edit: removed the "oh" part myself, so the discussion can be about the calendar, and don't moves to other subjects
|
|
|
Post by eboese on Aug 28, 2018 11:49:05 GMT 1
[mod edit : removed a part that is no longer relevant]
Heppie, I appreciate all the free time you have put in pulling this calendar together, thanks. It does seem to favor some of the all-round riders so far (not sure how it looks for the remainder of the season), but I'm sure that was not done intentionally to get any sort of advantage out of it.
Also, these guys that are now winning a lot, are already doing well for numerous seasons . With the first generation slowly fading away it's not so strange they win even more when they are now in the 35-37 age bracket. The downward trend in my results is definitely not due to the set-up of the stages, but mainly due to a lack in skills as a result of all the skill decreases.
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Aug 28, 2018 12:36:30 GMT 1
-> Insults (and dutch text) do not belong in this (part of the) forum. So I deleted some posts.
I see Slayer already altered the part in the original post that started this, thank you for that.
|
|
|
[21] 1.1
Aug 28, 2018 14:39:18 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by pollyjean on Aug 28, 2018 14:39:18 GMT 1
What about making a new calendar a duo-job? As everyone agrees it is not a simple task? Or someone serving as reviewer?
|
|
|
Post by bam on Aug 29, 2018 11:43:25 GMT 1
I don't agree that this calendar is for one type of rider only. It does maybe favour the allrounders above the real specialists, but just like there is not 1 type of specialist, there is also not one type of allrounder. You can have flat-allrounders (like my rider Stellian for example), hill-allrounders (like Lasat), mountain-allrounders, combinations of 2 higher skills (like Torroni and Sironi) and sprinting allrounders (like my rider Lourme). And in my opinion a rider can also be quite allround without having a high downhill skill. For example, a rider with 13-7-7-1 is still quite allround I think, and I think that he can win races in this calendar (if his SP and TT are sufficiently high). The nice thing is that every training you do not spend on a certain skill is used on another skill, and you can make a difference with it. Malton wouldn't have dominated all mountain races if he had trained a lot of downhill instead of some more mountain and TT. But at the same time the low downhill skill makes him (a bit) vulnerable in some races. It's up to us, as managers, to use the specialities of our cyclists as good as possible. And that's what I like about the current calendar. In most races it is possible to use the strength of your cyclists in some way. You can for example choose your attacking points in such a way that you can gain time on the good terrains of your cyclists, or you can take a second rider to help at the first attacking point. The Volta Limburg Classic is, in my opinion, not decided by the first attacking point. Miranda and De Gryse were in the second group at the first point, and Miranda gained 3 seconds on De Gryse at the second point. In the remainder of the race, Miranda came back to Raab (in the first group at AP 1), while De Gryse lost some time in the hills (and also had a fall). So I think that a better hill rider would have been able to beat both Miranda and Raab. Lasat may have been too far away, but that's simply one of the best riders in our division. He won 5 races, a time jersey and a mountain jersey last season, so it's not that strange that he wins these kind of races. In my opinion, last season's calendar was far more one-sided than this calendar. There was very little variation in for example the amount of attacking points (7 or 8 in most cases, and no races with 4 or 5 attacking points), the slopes of mountains (15%) and the terrains of ITT's (flat with 5 km hill). In most races it was clear in advance which rider (or at least which type of rider) was going to win, and there were many races that were almost similar in my opinion. Some people liked that calendar, I didn't, and that's fine. This season it is the other way around, and next season others will or won't like it. About the amount of races for real specialists, they may indeed be limited (although I actually think it's quite comparable to most seasons I've played). But I always tend to look at the real cycling world, and I think it's the same there. Cyclists that cannot climb any hill or mountain don't win more than 1-2 races a season (unless it's a sprinter), and that's the same here. If he's really the best flat rider, he could have won Paris-Roubaix and he can win stage 3 of the Giro, stage 1 of Slovenia, stage 1/4/10 in the Tour, and probably stage 1 of the Vuelta and stage 3 of Slovakia. If we want a rider to get more chances in a season, he should train other skills as well. That might cost him a win in one of these races, but give him the win in another race. It's upto us to decide how we play it. And luckily we do not play it all in the same way, that would be very boring
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Aug 29, 2018 12:39:19 GMT 1
Bam, I could not disagree with you more. The things you mention are completely incorrect in my point of view. But that is your vision, I have mine and they cannot be further apart than they do now.
So therefore further discussion about it makes no sense, so I won’t discuss about this topic any more. I sincerely hope you’ll win the division, you deserve it. I am also grateful to Heppie for spending so many of his free time to make a calender and thinking about a way to improve the game. That is worth a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Slayer772004 on Aug 29, 2018 13:07:14 GMT 1
I don't think you understand what I mean, Bam. If it's a 12 7 7, or it an 7 12 7, or its an 7 7 12 .. its an allrounder. 3 different riders that are allround. Specialized riders are 12 9 1 - 9 12 1 - 12 1 9 - 10 1 12 - 1 12 9 - 1 9 12 - 16 2 2 - 2 16 2 - 2 2 16. 9 different riders that can be specialized. If you agree on that, then we have 12 diferent kind of rider (if its ok for you, lets forget the sprinters and TT riders, even downhillers, that gets us too far). So isn't it logical in a calendar of 96 races, that every type should have about 96/12 = 8 races that suite him ? Last years calendar had mistakes, but there the races were about equaly divided. At least, that was the plan when I created the races. The 15% mountains, that was a mistake, I didn't think well of that (I didn't think about that at all actually). The TT's ? Umm ... looking at the calendar this year, it looks like almost all TT's are flat hill, so I don't understand why u use that argument. The AP ... yeah, I don't see the use of 4 AP's, because everyone attacks then 4 times, everybody on the same place. Maybe some people like that, ok, then its was a shortcoming. Well, to go on, if I check Heppies calendar, I can give you 10 more things that are so so. I you search something, you find something. I can say this should be better, that should be that way, there is this, there that. Like I said: if you want to find something wrong (like you searched to search in last years calendar), you find it, so thats just no use. The only point that I talk about is, is thats its too allround. To get back on the race of sunday. In 3:3 the race was not decided on the first AP, it was decided on the last flat part. So that brings us again to my point that this race was in the advantage of allround riders. Who is allround ? Not the younger riders of 26 years old. Impossible they can be allround. You can be only allround about 30 years ? 31 ? So that way you can say this calendar is in the advantage of the older riders, ignoring the younger ones. See what I mean ? If you want to find a point of criticsm, you can use every single fact. Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with my team, Im still building, so thats not my issue. My opinion is - unless your very good arguments - still the same. Maybe because Im stuborn, or maybe just because it is that way. One last point: "I always tend to look at the real cycling world". This game is based on real cycling, but it isn't real cycling. You should play by the rules of the game, the posibilities of the game. If the calendar should be based on real cycling, why there are so less flat races, ending in a sprint ? Why is TT so important ? Why Froome signs a contract for $4,500 and other managers need to pay Quintana a salary of $90,000 ? No, this is a bad argument for me. The calendar should be made according the rules of Peloton, not of real cycling. What I do agree with: "And luckily we do not play it all in the same way, that would be very boring", the best knockdown argument in the world. Works always Hey, before you read something wrong, I don't have any negative feelings to Heppie or you, not at all, on the contrary, I respect you both and looking up to you both, its just a shame "to my opinion", in "my way of experience the game" the calender could be better. Amen
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Aug 29, 2018 13:10:56 GMT 1
Back to race: Damm, I lost a big chance today. Never expect that my rider could follow in the flat parts without a good helper but seems the flat training I gave him let him keep in the 1st group with only 85% used. I think I could have done better, don't know if I could win but at least a podium place. If... If... Really frustated Lets wait for another chance ... Congratz to Galante and eboese
|
|
|
Post by Slayer772004 on Aug 29, 2018 13:12:16 GMT 1
I only see now the post of Kasseienstoempers. Yeah, maybe he is right, and we should let it rest. The water is too deep. Maybe I didn't post my post then, but it was sent before I saw Kasseienstoemper his post.
You can dispute my post if you want, but after that, maybe its better we let it rest.
High five, guys ?
|
|
|
Post by bosko on Aug 29, 2018 14:00:41 GMT 1
All these posts haven't much to do with div 1:1, it's all about the Calendar in general. Can't they be put in a file "General Discussion > Season 22", so people of div 1:1 van continue duscussing their results? It indeed has not much use discussing about who likes the calendar of S21 and who doesn't. It might be usefull though to discuss what a calendar should look like in the future to make it fair for everyone. Maybe make some "rules" a calendar has to meet to be approved in the future?
|
|
|
Post by bam on Aug 29, 2018 14:16:05 GMT 1
I totally agree that we should let it rest now. We all agree upon the fact that we disagree, and that's the furthest that we'll get. I also don't have hard feelings to any of you, just a (very) different opinion on this point.
|
|
|
Post by bam on Aug 29, 2018 14:18:40 GMT 1
All these posts haven't much to do with div 1:1, it's all about the Calendar in general. Can't they be put in a file "General Discussion > Season 22", so people of div 1:1 van continue duscussing their results? It indeed has not much use discussing about who likes the calendar of S21 and who doesn't. It might be usefull though to discuss what a calendar should look like in the future to make it fair for everyone. Maybe make some "rules" a calendar has to meet to be approved in the future? Nooo, it's the first time in years that we've got the longest division forum, don't take away the posts now
(Just kidding of course. Some rules may be good, but I'm afraid that a discussion on what the calendar should look like will be about the same as the discussion we just had: totally different opinions and no real solution to get a calendar that everyone likes)
|
|
|
Post by heppie on Aug 29, 2018 15:00:12 GMT 1
Yes, I agree we should stop the discussion here. Also no hard feelings from my side. We all agree upon the fact that we disagree, and that's the furthest that we'll get. LOL, yes than we agree at least at one point Yep, high five!
|
|