|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Feb 28, 2012 16:12:02 GMT 1
By making transfers only possible after owning a cyclist for at least 1 week-update, there's at least the cyclist's wage that costs the team.
It's not exactly the same as having a procentual fee, but at least it'll cost the team something. And by not allowing the transfer until after the weekly update, the team might even lose some training effectiveness if he's already training 25 cyclists.
|
|
|
|
Post by peulvrucht on Feb 28, 2012 18:22:14 GMT 1
why should he train a ryder that he's gonna sell again?
The chance that he will pop is really small, because it's very easy to find out if someone is high or low on a skill.
|
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Feb 28, 2012 21:28:52 GMT 1
FORM
The way form is calculated now is pretty straightforward : the position of the cyclist in a race result. A win is worth a 10, the lower race position, the lower the form number.
The big disadvantage with this method is when a cyclist 1 enters a tour and goes for a victory in the first race by putting him on 100% effort : he wins, so gets a 10 for form (yes !!), but since his fitness is totally wrecked, the next 2 races (or 10 in a big tour !!), he finishes way behind and gets e.g. a 6 and a 5.
Result : 10-6-5 or average of 7.
However, when the best race in that tour for cyclist 2 is the last race, he might get 8-8-10, because his fitness is high enough in the first 2 races to get a good race position.
Result : 8-8-10 or average of 8.66
From a manager point of view, both cyclists have reached the same goal in the tour, i.e. win a predefined stage in the tour !
Also as a manager you have, in both cases, used the correct tactic, the race in which you though this cyclist could win, he actually won.
However, since form has an influence on race performance : cylist 1 has only 2 races left in which he "benefits" from his 10 (only the last 5 form values are valid) AND his average is only 7 for these remaining races.
Cyclist 2, having also the same fitness as cyclist 1, will benefit for another 4 races from his 10 and starts with an average of 8.66
Both cyclists should be rewarded equally !
Suggestion : use only the best raceposition in a tour as the form value.
In the example above : both cyclists will have a 10 added in their form after the tour.
|
|
|
|
Post by peulvrucht on Feb 28, 2012 22:15:37 GMT 1
Oh i didn't thaugt that had influence on the performence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Feb 29, 2012 13:20:12 GMT 1
There's an influence on the skills, albeit small (I believe around 5%). Question: if form is decided by the best race result in a tour, what is the form during this tour? What if the cyclist gets injured during the tour? I agree that form needs a review, as it's been like this since the very beginning and it was never a really good system anyway (I 'borrowed' it from Football Manager, not exactly a cycling game  ). But I think form should still be influenced by each race. But for big tours, the result of a single race could have less impact than single races. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeLag on Feb 29, 2012 13:40:03 GMT 1
I'm not happy with the current form calculation, too.
In real life a cyclist can have a perfect form and lose anyway: Wrong terrain, falls, flats.
I'd rather have a totally random form! That would be more realistic. Perhaps I'd admit the possibility that participating in races generally improves the form whereas long times without races decrease it.
As it is now you can reach a perfect form if you send a cyclist only to 1-day-races that he is very suited to. Thus he could have 1 race, then 14 days of rest and then again another race. This cyclist would have better chances (because he only competes in races for which he is suited) than any 11-day-tour participant. And this contradicts my RL gut feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Feb 29, 2012 14:15:56 GMT 1
For me form could have a great potentiel as an extra tactical aspect. So making it random would be a loss of possibilities and letting it depend on previous results is a bit unfair (a winner already has an increase in mood for that).
I know this isn't original , (parts of it already been suggested through the years) but this is what I think would be the best way to handle the subject :
Give every cyclist a (hidden ?) "form" skill from 0 to 10 , this skill represents the number of racedays a cyclist needs to get to his peek (and down to the bottom).
a 0 will generate a totally random number each race.
a 1 would generate a pattern like => 0 - 10 - 0 - 10 - 0 ...
a 2 => 0 - 5 - 10 - 5 - 0 - 5 - 10 ...
a 3 => 0 - 3.3 - 6.7 - 10 - 6.7 - 3.3 - 0 - 3.3 - 6.7 - 10 ...
a 4 => 0 - 2.5 - 5 - 7.5 - 10 - 7.5 - 5 - 2.5 - 0 - 2.5 ...
a 5 => 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 8 - 4 - 6 - 2 - 0 - 2 ...
a 6 => 0 - 1.7 - 3.3 - 5 - 6.7 - 8.3 - 10 - 8.3 - 6.7 ...
a 7 => 0 - 1.4 - 2.9 - 4.3 - 5.7 - 7.2 - 8.6 - 10 - 8.6 ...
a 8 => 0 - 1.3 - 2.5 - 3.8 - 5 - 6.3 - 7.5 - 8.8 - 10 - 8.8 - 7.5 ...
a 9 => 0 - 1.1 - 2.2 - 3.3 - 4.4 - 5.6 - 6.7 - 7.8 - 8.9 - 10 - 8.9 - 7.8 ...
a 10 => 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 -10 - 9 - 8 - 7 ...
(this number can be calculated by a few lines of code).
R = Number of racedays
F = Value of formskill
X = Resulting formfigure
X = ((R/F)*10) mod 20;
if (X > 10) then X = 10-(X-10);
trying to get your cyclist in the best form for the races you target would be a real challenge, of course the impact shouldn't be to high (like it is now) to not discourage the new or less active players.
|
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Feb 29, 2012 16:19:07 GMT 1
There's an influence on the skills, albeit small (I believe around 5%). Question: if form is decided by the best race result in a tour, what is the form during this tour? What if the cyclist gets injured during the tour? I agree that form needs a review, as it's been like this since the very beginning and it was never a really good system anyway (I 'borrowed' it from Football Manager, not exactly a cycling game ). But I think form should still be influenced by each race. But for big tours, the result of a single race could have less impact than single races. The form during that tour is the form of the 5 last form values BEFORE that tour ofcourse  When a cyclist gets injured, he will get the form from the best result in the already ridden races, just like when this tour would have ended. Either small or big impact in the big tours doesn't change the fact that an attack in early stages is always worse than in later stages ! |
|
|
|
Post by sila on Feb 29, 2012 20:27:32 GMT 1
FORMThe way form is calculated now is pretty straightforward : the position of the cyclist in a race result. A win is worth a 10, the lower race position, the lower the form number. The big disadvantage with this method is when a cyclist 1 enters a tour and goes for a victory in the first race by putting him on 100% effort : he wins, so gets a 10 for form (yes !!), but since his fitness is totally wrecked, the next 2 races (or 10 in a big tour !!), he finishes way behind and gets e.g. a 6 and a 5. Result : 10-6-5 or average of 7.However, when the best race in that tour for cyclist 2 is the last race, he might get 8-8-10, because his fitness is high enough in the first 2 races to get a good race position. Result : 8-8-10 or average of 8.66From a manager point of view, both cyclists have reached the same goal in the tour, i.e. win a predefined stage in the tour ! Also as a manager you have, in both cases, used the correct tactic, the race in which you though this cyclist could win, he actually won. However, since form has an influence on race performance : cylist 1 has only 2 races left in which he "benefits" from his 10 (only the last 5 form values are valid) AND his average is only 7 for these remaining races.
Cyclist 2, having also the same fitness as cyclist 1, will benefit for another 4 races from his 10 and starts with an average of 8.66Both cyclists should be rewarded equally ! Suggestion : use only the best raceposition in a tour as the form value.In the example above : both cyclists will have a 10 added in their form after the tour. +1 very correct what you say. a cyclist shouldn't be penalize for making his job in a tour i didn't know the influence of the form and i guess that lots of managers don't know. indeed form could be another tactical aspect. |
|
|
|
Post by rarau on Feb 29, 2012 20:51:06 GMT 1
FORMThe way form is calculated now is pretty straightforward : the position of the cyclist in a race result. A win is worth a 10, the lower race position, the lower the form number. The big disadvantage with this method is when a cyclist 1 enters a tour and goes for a victory in the first race by putting him on 100% effort : he wins, so gets a 10 for form (yes !!), but since his fitness is totally wrecked, the next 2 races (or 10 in a big tour !!), he finishes way behind and gets e.g. a 6 and a 5. Result : 10-6-5 or average of 7.However, when the best race in that tour for cyclist 2 is the last race, he might get 8-8-10, because his fitness is high enough in the first 2 races to get a good race position. Result : 8-8-10 or average of 8.66From a manager point of view, both cyclists have reached the same goal in the tour, i.e. win a predefined stage in the tour ! Also as a manager you have, in both cases, used the correct tactic, the race in which you though this cyclist could win, he actually won. However, since form has an influence on race performance : cylist 1 has only 2 races left in which he "benefits" from his 10 (only the last 5 form values are valid) AND his average is only 7 for these remaining races.
Cyclist 2, having also the same fitness as cyclist 1, will benefit for another 4 races from his 10 and starts with an average of 8.66Both cyclists should be rewarded equally ! Suggestion : use only the best raceposition in a tour as the form value.In the example above : both cyclists will have a 10 added in their form after the tour. +1 very correct what you say. a cyclist shouldn't be penalize for making his job in a tour i didn't know the influence of the form and i guess that lots of managers don't know. indeed form could be another tactical aspect. is already |
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Mar 1, 2012 13:26:01 GMT 1
The final result in a race shouldn't have as much impact on form. Like Schizm said, a cyclist can have an unlucky fall which impacts his result, and that has nothing to do with his skills.
Also, what if there are, say, only 20 cyclists participating? Is there a different points system than when 100 cyclists participate?
I always wanted the form to be more dynamic, so that in one way or another, you could let your cyclists peak at the right moment; like before a big tour or before the classics at the start of the season.
With this in mind, I tend to agree more with Schizm's approach. Like fitness, it's a tactical aspect for managers in terms of race and tour planning. But while fitness is more short-term (planning over a few weeks), form could be more mid-term, requiring planning over the span of an entire season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Mar 1, 2012 13:35:03 GMT 1
i know it was a suggestion that was made and discuss a little about lower the wage at trainer with fitness. you can't have a trainer just with fitness and to make sense of using these training it have to be at least 15 or even 20.... (but with the actual wage it is almost impossible) with the new RE the skill of HILL, DH, SP and TT was improve. not hear anything about fitness??? maybe make the fitness influence in wage of training very low... i would appreciate if will be an answer regarding these. We have considered doing this, so that the fitness skill of a trainer has less influence on his wage than the other skills. In the end we didn't go through with it, because training fitness can have a huge advantage for your cyclists. Training 20 fitness means your cyclists gain 40% fitness each week, meaning you can let your cyclists ride at twice the effort. This will increase the race income, compensating more or less the extra cost of the trainer. Mind you, this tactic might be only profitable when playing in a higher division, with higher prize money. |
|
|
|
Post by sila on Mar 1, 2012 20:53:52 GMT 1
you can't have a trainer with only fitness because a training in fitness it is only good once, twice per season.
And when you choose fitness not only you lose the usual training but it might only have sense for 5, 10 cyclists who just have compete in that week.
not to mention that for having sense it has to be a solid 20 in fitness or close witch combine with another high skill will lead to a way to much salary that will not cover the race income.
I think a lower wage will make more atractive a fitness trainer and that will lead to more tactical options in game.
|
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Mar 1, 2012 21:19:03 GMT 1
The final result in a race shouldn't have as much impact on form. Like Schizm said, a cyclist can have an unlucky fall which impacts his result, and that has nothing to do with his skills. Also, what if there are, say, only 20 cyclists participating? Is there a different points system than when 100 cyclists participate? I always wanted the form to be more dynamic, so that in one way or another, you could let your cyclists peak at the right moment; like before a big tour or before the classics at the start of the season. With this in mind, I tend to agree more with Schizm's approach. Like fitness, it's a tactical aspect for managers in terms of race and tour planning. But while fitness is more short-term (planning over a few weeks), form could be more mid-term, requiring planning over the span of an entire season. Indeed, but reworking form like that is not a small suggestion ;D My idea was just to improve a bit the current implementation Schizm's approach is nice but I don't like the randomness for each cyclist. First you need to find out what the cyclus of the form is for that cyclist (if you can even figure this out ? When the influence is very small, you will never discover this form cyclus) And once you know this cyclus, it is a matter of calculating the number of races before max form is reached. No, when form is a kind of "behind the scenes" skill (like it is in Hattrick), you need to have some influence on it ... |
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Mar 1, 2012 21:24:59 GMT 1
i know it was a suggestion that was made and discuss a little about lower the wage at trainer with fitness. you can't have a trainer just with fitness and to make sense of using these training it have to be at least 15 or even 20.... (but with the actual wage it is almost impossible) with the new RE the skill of HILL, DH, SP and TT was improve. not hear anything about fitness??? maybe make the fitness influence in wage of training very low... i would appreciate if will be an answer regarding these. We have considered doing this, so that the fitness skill of a trainer has less influence on his wage than the other skills. In the end we didn't go through with it, because training fitness can have a huge advantage for your cyclists. Training 20 fitness means your cyclists gain 40% fitness each week, meaning you can let your cyclists ride at twice the effort. This will increase the race income, compensating more or less the extra cost of the trainer. Mind you, this tactic might be only profitable when playing in a higher division, with higher prize money. Mmm, I would even consider making this fitness skill for free ! Or even get rid off this skill... Free means : the fitness skill will be equal to the highest other skill of the trainer (a trainer with flat 18, mountain 15, will have also a fitness skill of 18 without an extra wage for this skill) If however, you decide to use this skill, you can not train another skill. |
|
).
