|
Post by ElGringo on Apr 29, 2020 17:31:31 GMT 1
Wikipedia page can be rewritten. Not enough useful information. Agree. Many people probably want to help with that. Update of the wiki and putting the information on the forum in a logical way. Everyone can do it, we need comunitie work so managers with more experience and with a little of free time could help updating. First of all, thank you, because this is a big and imho needed change in the game! Then, my two cents: 26 yo seems a bit early to reach potential and start losing skill, it seems even a bit unrealistic to me. Maybe 30 yo? Or, if it is possible, a variable age starting from 28-30 (some riders lose skills earlier, and some later). The objective is to reduce the time that riders reach his full potencial and if we want to do it for 2 years there is 2 solutions, set the age of 26 years old or like pollyjean suggest to reduce the number of weeks but without taking off many stages, right now we have 16 weeks, if we use mondays for stages we reduce 2 weeks and taking off some stages we could make a season with 13 weeks this way we will have 4 season/year so in 2 years a rider with 18y will have 26y and with 3 years will have 30y. We want to change but we also want to have a solution that could be simple to apply and don't need hundred of new lines in the code. bam I agree in part of your proposal but the one that needs to pronunce is Frank because he is the one that know the lines in code and how possible that is. The objective in giving 10 riders is more for the teams with financial problems or new ones because with changes they cannot compete with rich teams, so they have the call if they want to train or to sell, is their choise.
|
|
|
Post by JOOP Cycling Team on Apr 29, 2020 18:07:30 GMT 1
To get into the game more easily:
No fitness trainers. No high LS required. No long training is required to achieve the desired result. More help with novice managers. Rewrite Peloton Wiki.
|
|
|
Post by danpark on Apr 29, 2020 19:48:35 GMT 1
The objective is to reduce the time that riders reach his full potencial and if we want to do it for 2 years there is 2 solutions, set the age of 26 years old or like pollyjean suggest to reduce the number of weeks but without taking off many stages, right now we have 16 weeks, if we use mondays for stages we reduce 2 weeks and taking off some stages we could make a season with 13 weeks this way we will have 4 season/year so in 2 years a rider with 18y will have 26y and with 3 years will have 30y. I understand your point, but I think it will be better to lower (even a lot) the training speed after 26 yo and then start the skill decrease after 30 yo (or another age you consider right), because, as I experience in other games, training your players for ages and then seeing them losing skill too soon is a bit unnerving. And users complain about that, often.
By the way, I think that the current 16 weeks season, with free mondays, works very well as it is. Better to cut the weeks, if needed.
No race on mondays is useful: to get some time to set tacticts, to correct bugs, to rearrange a race after a bug...
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Apr 29, 2020 20:01:03 GMT 1
I understand your point, but I think it will be better to lower (even a lot) the training speed after 26 yo and then start the skill decrease after 30 yo (or another age you consider right), because, as I experience in other games, training your players for ages and then seeing them losing skill too soon is a bit unnerving. And users complain about that, often.
By the way, I think that the current 16 weeks season, with free mondays, works very well as it is. Better to cut the weeks, if needed.
No race on mondays is useful: to get some time to set tacticts, to correct bugs, to rearrange a race after a bug...
I was just a suggestion to gain time, offcourse mondays are very important the way there are to set the week and to correct minnor problems if needed.
|
|
|
Post by heppie on Apr 29, 2020 22:01:27 GMT 1
First of all a big thanks for Ab Normaal, ElGringo and Schizm for running the game for some seasons already. Also, good to see some new discussion about improving the game. So far my opinion about changing the trainings mechanism was that only small changes are necessary (e.g. stopping training at 32 instead of 35 and shifting retirement age by 1 or 2 seasons). On the other hand, when you think about it, it takes indeed long to train your cyclists to their full potential. Four years in real life is quite long and decreasing this to two seems a good idea to me. Hopefully this will make the game more attractive for new players to join. It is also clear that the current situation is not sustainable in the long run.
I have voted for the option "adjust the current riders to the new formula". In my opinion the proposal of bam is a good way to do so. By restarting the game entirely we would probably lose a lot of managers (I also doubt if I would find the motivation to start from scratch again). Just applying the new training system at the start of next season will make a large generation of cyclist worthless and isn't fair to the managers that spend their time on training these cyclists. If we give any manager 10 new cyclist we will have again a very large generation of cyclists and it will take some more years to reach an equilibrium situation again. So, the option that remains for me, is to adjust the current cyclist some how to the new situation.
At first glance manual correction of the current cyclists to the new training formula seems complex. However, I'm positively surprised by the rather simple and elegant solution that bam proposed. Not changing the skill, but the age of the cyclists to the new situation avoids the point how to compensate the training loss with all the difficulties along with it (e.g. how to treat FA's and skills that are trained to 7). Also, it is not very hard to implement this suggestion. It only requires some database manipulations, which, as far as I can see, won't need large pieces of new code. Of course there are also disadvantages to this solution, but in my opinion this solution outperforms the others.
|
|
|
Post by bosko on Apr 30, 2020 10:07:46 GMT 1
How the new training curve should look like: I think this is completely the choice of the owners. It's their game, they can have their idea of how their game should look like.
How the transition should happen: 1) Apply the new system training at the beginning of season normally -> would ruin the carreer of multiple generations
3) Restart over the game with all teams equal -> would ruin the mood of many managers (because as mentioned before, most managers that are active today, are playing already for a long time, and with a longterm plan that suddenly can be thrown away). That serious mooddrop might convince some to stop playing. But off course there's also the possibility that they will miss the game quickly and rejoin the game after a while.
4) When apply the new training system give all teams new 10 riders to train -> as I and bam mentioned before, 10 18-19y olds for every team would create a huge peloton of the same age
So I'm left with option 2: 2) Apply the new system and adjust the current riders to the new formula -> I thought that would be to difficult to implement, but bam's idea of changing the age seems a very good way to avoid that. If I'm correct, that would mean that in theory, a database backup could be taken at the start of season 27 and the transition could happen at the end of season 27 / start season 28. If we work like that, it's almost useless to train cyclists with the age of 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30y old during season 27. Maybe it can be made impossible to train those ages during that season (than there isn't a need to take a backup database)?
|
|
|
Post by Zberg on Apr 30, 2020 10:44:36 GMT 1
First of all, huge respect for the guys who keep the game running (El Gringo, Frank & Arno).
Second, being a sheep, I will follow al decisions made.
Third, I agree with the principle behind the idea to change things (in general, increase the dynamics of the game). the option suggested by bam seems reasonable from most viewpoints, I guess. Main question here is whether it is possible to implement given the available (human) resources. If relevant backup values of the riders involved (22, 24, 26, 28, and 30 years old) are not available, you might look at adjusting the values of the riders manually by multiplying its values with a certain realistic factor. At least, I guess we should aim to shorten the live of the riders if we decrease the "top level age". Starting retiring likelihoods from 30 onwards seems logical in that sense. In addition, it might be wise to decrease the age limit for the youth jersey to something like 22 or 23. The number of new riders, if any, might be adjusted downwards if necessary and might also cover a larger age range (18-23 in stead of 18-19 for example), to avoid having a very large pile of riders in their 18-19s.
Let me once again stress that I will go with the flow, whatever it will be. These are just some humble thoughts by an involved average player of a fantastic game.
|
|
|
Post by wheelnut on Apr 30, 2020 12:25:02 GMT 1
Thats OK but none of the four options are right IMO. I get 'the don't be negative' premise however I did above, propose an alternative (i.e. positive). I think we can learn from other games...I play a cricket game where youngsters are training 17 to 23. After this training speeds rapidly drop off so managers just train to 23 (max 10 slots). Therefore a player will have a long career at their top skills from 23 to 33. After 33 skills slowly decline. most players are sub optimal from 33 to 38. There's a hall of fame, something which our game lacks for players to retire to as an option.
|
|
|
Post by angelogik on Apr 30, 2020 12:40:53 GMT 1
option 4: if you do 10 new youths riders in team but trainer rest at 100% only for 25 riders it's no proficiency, personally i have already 25 riders to training aat 100% my option it's change for 2
|
|
|
Post by Zberg on Apr 30, 2020 12:49:30 GMT 1
Thats OK but none of the four options are right IMO. I get 'the don't be negative' premise however I did above, propose an alternative (i.e. positive). I think we can learn from other games...I play a cricket game where youngsters are training 17 to 23. After this training speeds rapidly drop off so managers just train to 23 (max 10 slots). Therefore a player will have a long career at their top skills from 23 to 33. After 33 skills slowly decline. most players are sub optimal from 33 to 38. There's a hall of fame, something which our game lacks for players to retire to as an option. A hall of fame sounds like a nice idea. In my view, having riders perform for 10 years (seasons) at their top does not really increase the game dynamics and might lead to long-term domination by just a few teams which had the "luck" of having pulled/bought some exceptional talents. Of course, there can be discussion about the annual level of, if any, skill decrease of riders from their, let's say, 30th.
|
|
|
Post by evild on Apr 30, 2020 13:25:41 GMT 1
I'm glad you guys finally took the guts to at least communicate about changes. We need to do something, that's clear. What it will be, to be honest, I don't mind. I will adapt to it. If I loose my saving money, so be it. If I loose some riders so be it. In the end it's just a game. I like to play it, more then 8 years now, but my life doesn't make any more sense with or without Peloton. I would love continue playing for the upcoming years, so changes need to be made. But you can't do good for everyone. There will always be people irritated or annoyed, but they just have to accept I guess. Don't let anyone put pressure on you, you hold the key in your hands.
If I have to choose, I might go with option 2. Restart seems a bit drastic, and 10 new riders for every team creates a big generation in a few seasons.
|
|
|
Post by JOOP Cycling Team on Apr 30, 2020 13:33:58 GMT 1
Is the idea of BAM feasible? Just a question.
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Apr 30, 2020 13:47:22 GMT 1
We are going to analyse things and see what is possible or not, and after we will present a new model during this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by wheelnut on May 2, 2020 12:26:00 GMT 1
Why would you destroy riders above 26, I don’t understand? They still could compete at the level they have attained surely
|
|
|
Post by Zberg on May 2, 2020 20:38:51 GMT 1
Why would you destroy riders above 26, I don’t understand? They still could compete at the level they have attained surely That is not the proposal, right? Training speed decreases from 26 onwards and riders begin to loose skill very marginally from 30 onwards. At least, that is what I understood..
|
|