|
|
Post by zimba on Jul 13, 2008 15:58:44 GMT 1
A] Time Differences
Today, in the opening stage of the Tour, my whole team finished on 20 minutes or more to the winning bunch. One from this bunch is a cyclist that will be back on 100% tomorrow. So he can take about 15 minutes in each more or less flat stage. In the end, he might even be able to get a good final position, even though he might not be able to climb at all.
I know that you don't want to change the system of finishing in several small groups, even in flat stages to give flat trainers an equal chance over mountain trainers, but it's kind of ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that this lack of realism makes people wonder about this game.
Any fan of cycling is used to see flat stages end in peloton sprints, and to see a combination of good timetrial/climbing win tours. While in here a flat cyclist could catch more than an hour over good climbers in four to five flat stages and could hang on in the mountain stages, finally ending closely together.
Therefor, I would at least make the time differences less big in flat stages.
But not just that, see part B :
B] Individual Training
I also don't like much to see cyclist profiles such as :
14 Flat, 2 Hill, 1 Mountain, 2 Downhill
2 Flat, 12 Hill, 2 Mountain, 1 Downhill
2 Flat, 1 Hill, 13 Mountain, 2 Downhill
As this encourages such big differences in the different kind of stages.
Therefor, it would be nice if something would be added to the training system. Several possibilities :
- 2 instead of 1 trainer giving training on both types (but then many will hire a flat trainer + mountain trainer)
- so a better option : for each cyclist, select individually which skill he will train on his own : he will train on that as well, but slower than the main skill trained by the team trainer, for instance 50% (I like this idea better)
- but still, I would also like to see some cyclists get training on other domains, that are less chosen to be trained (like hill, downhill, sprint, timetrial, new skills : see part C) without you needing to put the whole of your team on that training, so maybe even let each cyclist have 50% training on two skills he will be training individually
In the end, I would say :
100% team training (the same for all cyclists in your team)
50% on two skills trained individually, different from the team training (and you select which two)
C] More Skills
I would also like to see some extra skills included, like :
* Attack (Explosivity) : giving you some % extra speed in a special sector (+ include the option for every cyclist to point out when to use this attack, for instance like : between km ...-... and when you fill in 110 in the first box it automatically puts 120 in the second one, giving you 10 kms of attacking bonus ?)
* (Team) Assistance : giving a small % extra speed to the cyclist they will assist, and causing the helping one to lose his attack bonus this stage (+ include option to select which cyclist to give assistance to)
* Stamina : the more stamina, the better he will perform in longer stages ; stamina could increase slightly over time but could be trained as well
* you can even think of more skills
Extra skills like these first two would also increase the race tactics a little more. Which is always nice. Live intervening is an utopy and not really needed as well (you can play a pc cycling game for that), but some conditional tactics would already be superb. But I guess the race engine doesn't allow those. But at least some extra team tactics like I've suggested here, must be possible to bring into practice in the current engine !
I know there's a problem that these skills need to be added at some point. But I would solve it like this :
Make it that the total of these 3/4 new skills is 20. Some might get 5 attack, 5 assistance, 5 stamina, 5 x, while others might get 10 attack, 10 assistance, 0 stamina, 0 x. If the random aspect is a problem, then give all managers one chance to assign 20 points to these 3/4 skills for each of their already existing cyclists. Youth cyclists then could get them assigned randomly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Jul 13, 2008 17:17:55 GMT 1
I agree with all of these things.
For A, I agree, and it's something we have been trying to solve too. But this is not very easy to fix. But we are making plans to redo the race engine in the future, and this will be one of the things that need to be included.
For B, I like the 3rd option. Maybe we could expand it even more, so that you can choose the percentages the cyclist trains, instead of doing it just fixed 50/50.
For C, I place the first 2 skills you named more as team-skills, instead of cyclist skills. Which is an interesting idea. I don't really want to expand the number of skills for cyclists, but team skills is something I haven't really put any thought in yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by middels8088 on Jul 15, 2008 11:17:18 GMT 1
Yeah....
A very good idea!!!!
That will make the game more intresting!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by gladharim on Jul 21, 2008 12:57:06 GMT 1
A/ We are almost there, as I take my division, top 10 is full of climbers. My rider is first and has 13 on flat but he has also 6.3 mountain. So I dont think there is a problem, a cyclyst who has 14 flat en no mountain will never win tour de france or any other tour with mountain stages.
B/ Adding more training wont solve anything, if you want to win a tour you need multiskills anyway...
C/ More skills is nice, but every cyclist should start of with the same value, because when random values are accorded, some riders who have costed lot of money and are great now might get a lot worse when the get some new skill like stamina 0 or something......
Changing the engine = risky, peloton players have putted up with a lot of downtime, bugs and shit in the past.
The game is finally running smoothly now, so I would be very carefull with adjustments.
My 6 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimba on Jul 22, 2008 3:10:57 GMT 1
A/ We are almost there, as I take my division, top 10 is full of climbers. My rider is first and has 13 on flat but he has also 6.3 mountain. So I dont think there is a problem, a cyclyst who has 14 flat en no mountain will never win tour de france or any other tour with mountain stages. In my division however (Belgian 2:3) there's a Flat guy that's about to win the Tour. And I guess the top 5 will consist of Flat cyclists only. So it probably just depends from one division to the other. B/ Adding more training wont solve anything, if you want to win a tour you need multiskills anyway... Not true, as illustrated above. C/ More skills is nice, but every cyclist should start of with the same value, because when random values are accorded, some riders who have costed lot of money and are great now might get a lot worse when the get some new skill like stamina 0 or something...... I don't see too much of a problem if one will get let's say 0 stamina-10 breakaway and an other 5 stamina-5 breakaway, given that everyone would have the chance to train multiple skills, and thus would quite easily turn that 0 into 5 or that 5 into 10. Changing the engine = risky, peloton players have putted up with a lot of downtime, bugs and shit in the past. The game is finally running smoothly now, so I would be very carefull with adjustments. That's true, however. But it might depend on how difficult this all would be. And there's not really a rush for it, except from part A in my opinion. My 7 cents.  |
|
|
|
Post by gladharim on Jul 22, 2008 22:22:25 GMT 1
Ok let me check,
Janszen is in first position. Hasnt won a stage yet. His trainer is 20 mountain so he is being trained on mountain.
If i should guess he's about 12-13 flat and 5-6 mountain, nothing wrong with him winning the tour?
I know these days in the tour de france, the tour is decided in 2 mountain stages.....I call THAT ridiculous. Peloton should not try to mimic that. Real cycling is getting more boring every season, cyclist dont want to win anymore cause they now for sure they get tested on stuff if they do, instead they just ride up in group take drugs a few days before they want to top and then try to make the difference in 1 race... anyway my point is that Janszen in my opinion has more then 5 mountain, so he is not the 14 flat no mountain rider as you want to believe....
There is really not that much wrong, i think allrounders should win tours, and they are doing so. Show me a pure flat rider that has won the tour in a decent division to prove you statemen....
|
|
cronchi
U23 Developm. Team
Posts: 51
|
Post by cronchi on Jul 23, 2008 12:59:16 GMT 1
I agree with all of these things. For A, I agree, and it's something we have been trying to solve too. But this is not very easy to fix. But we are making plans to redo the race engine in the future, and this will be one of the things that need to be included. how about the mountain races,mountain+downhill,where our flat cyclists lose about 20 minutes...how about the races looking like this: flat 100 hill 30 mountain 45 downhill 30 where also a mountain skilled cyclist wins... cmon,it`s a stupid ideea.if you do this,a flat cyclist won`t succeed in a big tour,which is not pleasant! my cylist that has 12 flat 3 hill and 5 mountain just won the tour, the cyclist with just flat and no mountain at all placed 10th,a 12 mountain cyclist finished 7th even if he did counted just in 3 races.don`t u think this is a problem?to count in 3 races and finish 7th? |
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Jul 23, 2008 13:34:57 GMT 1
With a race profile looking like
flat 100
hill 30
mountain 45
downhill 30
I think it's pretty normal that a mountain skilled cyclist wins. Such races are always decided in the mountains.
Sure, why not? 3 races is more than 1/4th of the entire length of the tour.
|
|
|
|
Post by geengebruikersnaam on Jul 23, 2008 14:12:12 GMT 1
I don't agree with part A.
Time differences are already less in flat races than in mountain races.
If every cyclist would end in the same time in flat races, there would be no reason to train flat.
I think it's good like it is now.
For people who saw the first races in the real TdF:
Some cyclists have lost time in flat races, for instance Menchov, Kreuziger and Soler (also due to several falls for him).
|
|
|
|
Post by droopy on Jul 23, 2008 17:39:40 GMT 1
I agree. in races like Paris Roubaix en RVV a lot of cyclists loose minutes. Sometimes even more compared to mountain stages in tours...
I also agree a tour winner has to be good in mountain and tt. A change like this will be possible in my opinion if IP announces it 3seasons in advance. If there are plans in that direction off course.
|
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Jul 23, 2008 18:42:42 GMT 1
There are some very vague plans in changing the race engine adding more tactics and racereports, but it will not be for within the next couple of seasons, I guess...
|
|
|
|
Post by zimba on Jul 25, 2008 16:27:00 GMT 1
Ok let me check, Janszen is in first position. Hasnt won a stage yet. His trainer is 20 mountain so he is being trained on mountain. If i should guess he's about 12-13 flat and 5-6 mountain, nothing wrong with him winning the tour? I know these days in the tour de france, the tour is decided in 2 mountain stages.....I call THAT ridiculous. Peloton should not try to mimic that. Real cycling is getting more boring every season, cyclist dont want to win anymore cause they now for sure they get tested on stuff if they do, instead they just ride up in group take drugs a few days before they want to top and then try to make the difference in 1 race... anyway my point is that Janszen in my opinion has more then 5 mountain, so he is not the 14 flat no mountain rider as you want to believe.... There is really not that much wrong, i think allrounders should win tours, and they are doing so. Show me a pure flat rider that has won the tour in a decent division to prove you statemen.... So Janszen indeed won the Tour. Let's check his stage results : stage 1 (85% flat, 03% mountain) : 4° on 00:00 stage 2 (53% flat, 17% mountain) : 7° on 02:18 stage 3 (52% flat, 11% mountain) : 3° on 00:00 stage 4 (52% flat, 09% mountain) : 5° on 00:00 stage 7 (06% flat, 37% mountain) : 45° on 21:55 stage 9 (12% flat, 43% mountain) : 28° on 15:16 stage 11 (78% flat, 6% mountain) : 4° on 02:45 -> Doesn't seem like a 12 Flat - 6 Mountain guy to me. I even haven't seen such cyclists. Maybe you're on a higher level and you have guys with these stats, but I surely haven't. But all I know is that if he had such a 12 flat - 6 mountain guy, he would be close to my Ewbank in stage 7, not 13 minutes behind him. So I sincerely think Janszen is a 14 flat - 2 mountain guy winning the Tour de France with 3 minutes in front of a group of three other Flat riders. The first allround or mountain rider has ended 9th or 10th ! |
|
|
|
Post by gladharim on Jul 28, 2008 16:59:24 GMT 1
Ok let me check, Janszen is in first position. Hasnt won a stage yet. His trainer is 20 mountain so he is being trained on mountain. If i should guess he's about 12-13 flat and 5-6 mountain, nothing wrong with him winning the tour? I know these days in the tour de france, the tour is decided in 2 mountain stages.....I call THAT ridiculous. Peloton should not try to mimic that. Real cycling is getting more boring every season, cyclist dont want to win anymore cause they now for sure they get tested on stuff if they do, instead they just ride up in group take drugs a few days before they want to top and then try to make the difference in 1 race... anyway my point is that Janszen in my opinion has more then 5 mountain, so he is not the 14 flat no mountain rider as you want to believe.... There is really not that much wrong, i think allrounders should win tours, and they are doing so. Show me a pure flat rider that has won the tour in a decent division to prove you statemen.... So Janszen indeed won the Tour. Let's check his stage results : stage 1 (85% flat, 03% mountain) : 4° on 00:00 stage 2 (53% flat, 17% mountain) : 7° on 02:18 stage 3 (52% flat, 11% mountain) : 3° on 00:00 stage 4 (52% flat, 09% mountain) : 5° on 00:00 stage 7 (06% flat, 37% mountain) : 45° on 21:55 stage 9 (12% flat, 43% mountain) : 28° on 15:16 stage 11 (78% flat, 6% mountain) : 4° on 02:45 -> Doesn't seem like a 12 Flat - 6 Mountain guy to me. I even haven't seen such cyclists. Maybe you're on a higher level and you have guys with these stats, but I surely haven't. But all I know is that if he had such a 12 flat - 6 mountain guy, he would be close to my Ewbank in stage 7, not 13 minutes behind him. So I sincerely think Janszen is a 14 flat - 2 mountain guy winning the Tour de France with 3 minutes in front of a group of three other Flat riders. The first allround or mountain rider has ended 9th or 10th ! I compare to my cyclist Arregui: stage 7 Arregui 0 0 8:03:00 Greenport Pronghorns Janszen 0 0 8:08:27 De Stovebuzen Arregui is 13 flat, 6 mountain. So Janzen could be an 11 flat 6 mountain... A cyclist with 3 mountain or less will never end up that high in the ranks because he would lose 30-40 minutes in stage 7... |
|
|
|
Post by anakin on Aug 17, 2008 6:01:38 GMT 1
I agree with all of these things. For C, I place the first 2 skills you named more as team-skills, instead of cyclist skills. Which is an interesting idea. I don't really want to expand the number of skills for cyclists, but team skills is something I haven't really put any thought in yet. Cyclism is more than anything a team sport; Without a good team a cyclist is more or less useless or in the best case severely capped (just look at Cadel Evans in this year`s TDF) Now.. the real cyclism goes like this : a team does "relay" for its designated "Tour Winner" but that relay includes : sending men in breakaways, relay the peloton chasing breakaways, setting the pace or trying to hinder the other teams doing relays (fake relay) if they have an interest in a breakaway (usually for stage wins) and relaying in mountain stages for the designated "Tour Winner"(to say the most basic only). As individual, a designated "Tour Winner" will not push for stage wins but for best overall (in big tours it is usually running in the pack and being relayed close to the finishing time by the team then make the difference in the mountain stages by making breakaways from the top contesters being relayed by the teamates that perform well on mountain and then try not to lose too much time in ITT)(don`t even THINK of saying Lance Armstrong as it was discovered positive on ALL 6 tests .. out of 6.. and Sastre was REALLY lucky in that ITT vs Evans and that was ONLY because Evans didnt counteract him in that killer mountain stage). How the current game is made is this : usually ONE wins all or most stages and wins on overall with heavy accent on individual skills rather than team which is not consistent with the reality this game is trying to emulate. How it SHOULD be in my oppinion is making teams of real life size (which is slightly more than 5), allow us to designate Tour Winner, and implement some sort of "relay" system (at first thought is take into account total mountain/flat value of the team and use the "average" to determine the "mountain/flat speed"; higher the mountain for a team the bigger the "breakaway" on mountain.. higher the flat the higher the chances to not have breakaways in flat stages) For the ones that will say that breakaways are common in big tours I have bad news... they are actually not : Usually the ones that DO have a successful breakaway are either the ones that are VERY low in the general standings and as such no threat to the top contenders or they do such a good relay AND the peloton reacts late for whatever reason but a breakaway having a contender to top 10 will NEVER have success... as for mountain... again it is one favorite being relayed by a strong team which "fragments" the peloton and tires the ones that can threaten him then he breaks when they cannot follow [EDIT]I will try to figure out some formulas or at least numbers ... |
|
|
|
Post by anakin on Aug 18, 2008 12:50:55 GMT 1
1.Relay - add the value for flat and mountain for the whole team and make it a "team relay value" which will determine the chances for :
1.1.Flat breakaway - the higher a team "flat value" the less successful possible breakaways in flat stages (or flat finish)
1.2.Mountain breakaway - the higher a team "mountain value" the more likely a breakaway is successful
Addendum : We assume that breakaways occur mainly on flat stages (a weaker sprinter gone for stage win and the only chance is to break rather than lose at massive sprint) and in mountain stages (stage win and breakaways for tour winners)
____________________________
2.Breakaways - sprint for a longer time taking into consideration the Time Trial value as extra from the actual terrain value. Also when a breakaway occurs have a chance of several other cyclists to join then use their combined TT and terrain value as relay value. (max distance no more than 50% of the stage lenght for flat and 25% for mountain)
2.1.Potentially temporarily drop fitness by 5% for the next day for a successful breakaway since the cyclist is "tired" after the effort done
2.2.Designated tour winners should be forbidden to breakaway in flat stages (stupid and pointless and hasn`t happened since Floyd Landis in 2006 which was found positive with testosterone after that crazy flat 30 mins breakaway)
2.3.Mountain breakaways should be no more than 25% of the lenght of the stage
Addendum : Peloton should use at least some value for chasing the breakaway (first idea is add a small multiplier to the "relay value" when a breakaway occurs since the peloton's main idea is to end a flat stage in mass sprint for their relative sprinters)
______________________________
3.Mountain breakaways - chance of a cyclist to put time between him and the rest of the peloton or whats left of it on the last climb
3.1.Implement a "difficulty rating" for climbs (Special, Cat. I, Cat II etc) and add multipliers for each. How will it work: Highest chance of breakaway on Special Category climb and also highest chance of big time differences for the non-mountain specialists and decreasing all the way to Category IV climbs.
3.2."mountain relay value" for a team designates the team that is doing relay for it's designated tour winner. Based on the differences in that value the time differences increase or decrease. Also the highest value for a team determines which has the "first chance" for a successful breakaway in that team.
_________________________
4.Fitness - it is OK to have fitness being regained faster between races but during the race is stupid
4.1.In no race have I seen a rider suddenly being more fresh because his "maseuse" was better
4.2.OK if for fitness you lose 1% less in a stage but a whole 20% over a week is artificial and stupid (the best I can think of is that fitness simulates doping - where a rider can run harder than its physiologic abilities by use of "artificial stimulants")
4.3.OK if you keep it as "faster recovery" between races but during the race is stupid and artificial and no, it doesn`t have ANY "tactic" counterpart in real cyclism other than "4.2"
4.4.Implement a traineable "stamina" which can act as "less fitness lost" by let`s say between 0.3-0.5% less fitness lost during a stage.(copyrighted idea to Zimba)
4.5. As it is right now it is a slap in the face training wise
_______________________________
Mentions:
1.The above apply to big tours only... Giro, TDF and Vuelta; I don`t see why it shouldn`t apply to other classic races since the basics are already here anyway
2.It will also provide an incentive to train other areas rather than the only "flat/hill/mountain/sprint"
3.All above "suggestions for numbers" can be improved and anyone with a better idea do please share
4.All skills involved can be tweaked to more complex models (added in various relay values or breakaway values : TTT, hill, etc.)
Any comments and suggestions are welcomed
Mention 2 : This will also "rule out" the "one star cyclist winning all regardless of team or competition".
For the ones thinking otherwise it is NOT normal and it should NOT work that way ("my cyclist is better than yours and as such I will always win").
|
|
