New type of leagues

[czukay]

What about setting aside a selection of tours and races each season (it could vary each season which ones, maybe a third of races on a 3 season cycle) to be ridden across country boundaries so that the best riders can compete against each other. All active teams would be put in a series of temporary leagues based on the skill of their top flat or mountain rider depending on whether it's a tour or single race. All the leagues would very competitive, full and there would be added interest seeing you move up (hopefully) through the temporary divisions across the whole peleton world.

The higher the temporary division the more points and cash on offer, the points to count to your usual national league so you don't lose the interaction that national leagues have built up over the seasons.

The reason I would like this to happen is that as a newbie I'm in a league in England with only 2 other teams (winning too much) and am likely to promote to the top division next season where there are a number of established teams (will never have a chance to win again). Neither sounds good does it?

[Mike]

The solution is simple realy.
Make twice as much divisions and let every team enter 10 cyclists in stead of 5 and have 10 different teams in stead of 20.

That's the simpe solution but I think 10 teams is'nt enough. So my final sugestion is:

Divisions with 15 teams and every team may enter 12 cyclists. This solution is more like the real life and also meats the sugestions mentioned above.
In this case I would also sugest the maximum trainable cyclists at 100% should be 35 in stead of 25.

[Il Padrino]

You keep changing your mind Before it was 10 teams, and now all of a sudden it's 15. 20 teams is good, but it depends on the activity of the division.

And why do you throw in the training maximum again? That makes no sense in terms of divisions. It won't be changed, the system is good as it is now.

[Mike]

I explained that 10 teams with 10 cyclists was a simple solotion but not the best one. Then I sugested a good sugestion 15 teams and 12 cyclists.
So it's not a case of changing my mind, it's a case of explaining why I got to the last sugestion.
And the fact that you think the system is good doesn't make you're opinion the right one.

[Schizm]

he is the designer of the game so his opinion is the only one that really counts

But I find it a bit odd that you first try to nicely keep the 100 cyclist / race and then almost double the participants (100 < 180) in real (pro) cycling teams in most races count 9 or even 8 cyclists. So why didn't you suggest 15 or 16 teams with 8 cyclist ? (12 cyclist / race is really to much).

[Mike]

You're right. 15 - 16 teams with 8 cyclists is better

[Mike]

Oh and being the developer of this game doesn't make his ideas the best. And I'm not afraid too speak out what I think.
I'm also not saying that my idea is the best eather, it's just a sugestion like the title of this topic.

[Il Padrino]

It's not only about ideas, but also about a general vision of what I want the game to be. 16 teams is not very far from 20 teams, anyhow. Like I said, it's a matter of activity. Playing in a division with 20 very active teams is still more fun.

Lowering the amount of teams is only a measure to increase the chance in winning or finishing high. But my opinion is that the game shouldn't be too easy. If you want to win every race, you'll have to stay in division 3 or 4. If you want a bit more of a challenge, you should try to promote to division 1 or 2.

[Mike]

yep, I get you're point.
Expecially having more active players is more fun.

[Heloo]

Yes about 'activity'- problem, my division is running out of active teams as well (now we're still with 4). This makes the game a lot less interesting in my opinion, and i'm really hoping to promote asap, but will still take 10 weeks.

So another suggestion; can't divisions with low activity (less then 6, 8 or 10? teams), be merged with another division with low activity, at the end of the season? This would lead to more active divisions and more fun. I dont think any manager of this kind of leagues will mind..

Once you have more active division, i really think the idea of Raymond is good. Less teams would make it even more competitive, and make more teams promote and relegate would improve the competiveness even more. (Why not promote 3 and relegate 6 teams every year, in divisions of 15 people? ).

These changes we would lead more natural to the ideal situation czukay(post on top op page2) was talking about: teams of similar strength competing against each other. Because if you're not good enough, or too good, you'll relegate/ promote very quickly..

But this is completely different from what IP's idea, the one of having to fight for promotion. Maybe we should find an idea in between these two ;D