|
Post by pollyjean on Nov 30, 2018 12:47:42 GMT 1
Hello folks I am about to make preparations for the new season of the FGFC (future generation funrace competition). Last seasons thread can be found here. Last season the concept is that riders are allowed from 22 to 31 in 10 age categories. With 2 races each wednesday every age limit rides two races over a 10 week season. There is aimed for having a balance in different types of races. Teams were divided in DIV1, DIV2A or DIV2B. What could change: - we could shorten the age categories. For example only allowing the real future generation being 22 to 27 years.
- we could allow more age categories because many people want to test the new race engine as much as possible with as many as possible riders. - I have some ideas in mind to have some extra competitions just for fun. One of them is to create a national championship where only riders from a certain country can enter. We could have for example national championships in flat, hill, mountain and TT in the five most popular countries. But actually I have no idea if this is something the community wants.
- We could change the amount of races in the competition. Or even the division format having DIV1, DIV2A and DIV2B. And then there is something that bothers me. Last season there are two teams in the FGFC competition DIV1 that roughly score as much as all the other teams combined (numbers 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in the competition). Ok, it can be said that two teams did not fully race the FGFC calender in DIV1 but it would not change too much anyway. I have no problem with some teams scoring better than other or better than me and I want to congratulate them for that. But the system is disturbed when two teams are just as good as ten other teams combined (who all make efforts preparing their next generation). And these two teams both don't even have that many riders in all of the categories we race from U31 to U22. I consider it unfair that there exist riders like Arno Van Den Hende being 26 years ole, having never won a race or jersey in his career and having a delighted mood with a wage of 4600. Or Matthew Vansteeger being 27, delighted, one win ever and having a wage of 4940. I have no problem with these managers themselves or with them exploiting their knowledge and using the system and not sharing. But I do think it is a problem that will stay with us for a long time if it is not being take more seriously or considered a real bug. I can live with the fact that some people negotiate wages with their riders a little better than others and taking benefits for that. But this is like 5 times over the top. And I have the feeling many people feel the same way. It makes me think about creating for example a seperate funrace competition for mood-boosted riders/teams and the normal ones. Just an idea. They don't play in the same league anyway today.
And then Valverde is an amazing rider but Nibali his grinta and guts and attractive racing appeal me a lot more.
Let me know all you opinions please Peace out
|
|
|
Post by Poekie on Nov 30, 2018 13:01:12 GMT 1
I can only vote once. I agree with your comments about mood, though it's probably better to have a separate topic for that.
Second vote would be for shortening the age categories, since in peleton is changes to have riders peaking at a younger age.
|
|
|
Post by pollyjean on Nov 30, 2018 13:04:50 GMT 1
Thankx for you comment. I changed the poll so everyone can vote multiple times. Could you revote? thx
|
|
|
Post by naspa on Nov 30, 2018 13:08:13 GMT 1
Nice. but now all have 20%. While I might put some more weight on... Well, it is good like this. Something else can be some things else. But most of all: mood being less important, increase the reaction on training for younger riders, and a more realistic effort-fitness patern. So I guess I like what is being developed at the fun racing engine now.
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Nov 30, 2018 13:21:15 GMT 1
some remarks from my part :
- In the new engine the effect of mood is reduced to 50% of the effect it has now ! The gap that was left is filled with more importance for form, you may have noticed that a seperate mood indicator for the funraces is visible in the cyclist selection (for about 2 weeks now). My advice is to keep an eye on that, you will want your cyclists to peek at the right moment !
- Although the mood is getting less important, we made it a top priority to do something about low wage/big mood combo's. We are looking to fix the loopholes that make that possible and at the same time make cyclists loose mood if they feel underpayed.
- There is a new feature in the funraces which let the organiser control the total effort spend, this way the race simulation can be more like in the competition where you can't use maximum fitness for everyone all the time (because you need the same guys the next week). Maybe it is a good idea to introduce that into the FG Competition as well.
P.S. : the limit of 5 funraces/week instead of 1/week (for non-premium) now applies to all users (only this season).
(edited: because of typos)
|
|
|
Post by Slayer772004 on Nov 30, 2018 13:49:16 GMT 1
I can live with the fact that some people negotiate wages with their riders a little better than others and taking benefits for that. But this is like 5 times over the top. You nailed it here, man ! 100% true in a manager game, one manager can make better contracts, better negotiations, has better manager skills then the other. That can result in a wage of a rider of 12K, where the other manager with less skills (or knowlegde) have to pay a wage of 16K. But now a 37 year old delighted rider with a salary of 4K, where other managers need to pay 60K ? No ... thats wrong. Thats making benefit of a possibility (maybe not a bug, but a possibility) ingame thats is structual wrong. You can't blame these managers for that, of course. But it makes the game proportions skew. If you can see what trainer they can affort comparing to other managers ... its making it into a vicious circle where these managers getting stronger and stronger, more money, better trainer, and so on, and so on. The crap thing is that this is going on for many seasons, so that gap is almost impossible to close. All this years of financial benefit, resulting in big transfers, excellent trainers, ... Its better not to think about it - sigh. Lucky, the owners of the game have knowlegde of that problem, and seems like they try to fix it. A good thing of course, but still ... the 'dammage' for all this seasons is irreversible. And sorry I use your topic for that. Moderators may change this post to another topic of course.
|
|
|
Post by evild on Nov 30, 2018 17:56:21 GMT 1
Agree... now that this will be dealt with, it would be pleasant to know how they actually did it?
|
|
|
Post by bam on Nov 30, 2018 20:05:20 GMT 1
If the presence of my team is problematic for most of you, I will not join the funrace competition next season. The main reason for me to join it was to compare the level of my youngsters to others, and I sort of know that now anyway. And not joining the funrace competition will also allow me to test the new engine a bit more (without focusing on results), which I would like to do as well. So I guess that's solving half of your problem for the funrace competition.
I agree that the influence of mood is too large. It is being decreased in the new engine, which I think is good. For me, the whole influence of mood in races may actually disappear (and not be replaced by anything, so that it's just the skills of the rider and the tactics of the manager). This would also allow an entire new contract negociation system, where a better mood (which is still built up by good performances) results in lower wage demands (which is in my opinion far more realistic, but with the current performance effects undesirable). Alternatively (or in addition), I also see something in a sort of "team loyalty", building up with every season that a rider rode for your team, that allows for (relatively) lower wages as well. This ensures that training a rider from young age is payable for everyone. (And I personally think that training up your own cyclists should be, in wage terms, financially more attractive than buying cyclists at high age. They already take training spots that you can't fill with more useful cyclists, so it's not strange to give something in return) Another aspect that then for example may be included in the negotiations is a guarantee for a grand tour, which is one of the most important things in a contract for many real-life riders.
The wages of some of my riders are indeed rather low compared to others. But most of them are contracts that I made more than a few (2-3?) months ago, the moment that something was changed in the system. Back then, there was a very accessible method to keep wages low when cyclists scored points already (like they do as youngsters, or the top generation did). In fact, I gave away the main part on the forum and to managers asking a few times: simply do not offer them more than the current wage. The only thing you had to find out yourself was to pull the number of weeks entirely to the right, 75 weeks. Since this is the first option in the negotiations I would expect this to be the first parameter to test with anyway. This allowed for more negotiation space such that a rider did not reject it at once, but wanted to talk about races and bonuses. In some cases (especially when I first found out this method) it resulted in extremely short contracts, but at least wages did not have to increase. Since it is available for everyone and it is not forbidden in the rules or something that you logically know is not allowed (like hacking the system or so), I've never seen this as a trick, bug or loophole, but simply a very efficient way to renew contracts. In fact I've always found it some sort of miracle that not more managers found out about this way.
Seeing the new ideas according mood and wage, I can't help feeling that there is some sort of witch-hunt on me/my team. It's not that I'm opposing any change, but I think that it sometimes requires a bit more thought. Like I said, the wages in my team weren't especially tricked or anything, but just the result of some more efficient testing with the system than other teams did appearantly. I've simply spent (and am spending) a lot of time in this game, and I like(d) that. However, I don't think it is fair to oppose me with all kind of changes in the engine and negotion systems.
|
|
|
Post by DeRodeLantaarn on Nov 30, 2018 20:15:45 GMT 1
Same question as evild here. How did they do it? I tried many possibilities during the negotiations to get a low contract and a long period. Maybe that is the bug? If it is I understand that the managers wants me to pay more, but everybody had the same options I guess?
|
|
|
Post by DeRodeLantaarn on Nov 30, 2018 20:19:06 GMT 1
That is what I did aswell. Starting with 75 weeks. But that is no crime.
|
|
|
Post by naspa on Nov 30, 2018 20:27:58 GMT 1
bam . I do not blame you. Good analyses and hard work should be rewarded. My problem with the game in general is that the way things works on the technical an ethical level are not shared. If you play a game, all should have te same information about how it works. The rules should be clear as well as good and fair governance of them.
|
|
|
Post by DeRodeLantaarn on Nov 30, 2018 22:47:44 GMT 1
On topic: For me the 22 to 31 is good as it is. Personally because of the new race engine.
I also like the national championship idea. So I voted for it.
I don't mind as a premium member that everybody can sign up for 5 races for this season. Maybe it is a idea to give premium members 7 races because there are more test races at the moment and the funrace competition cost 2. So there is still a little advantage above non premium members. For me not a real issue because I don't donate because of advantages. Only to support the game and developers.
About the mood and wages I have no opinion because it seems I found it too. Just by trying everything, not by hacking or something like that.
Personally I think the funrace competition and other events should be open for anyone. Let it be a challange to beat topteams, even if it takes some seasons and with help of equal contract negotiations. Although I think that from the manager aspect it will be less interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Slayer772004 on Nov 30, 2018 23:20:10 GMT 1
Open, honest post, Bam. Always good to hear the other side of the story. I think it opens a lot of eyes. Maybe it brings new ideas. Or insights for the new engine. Just saying things ... Still, I want to mention one thing. All credits to you for finding that trick. Yup ... trick. Because thats still the way I see it: its a trick. An error in the program. It can't the be intention of the game that riders keep riding for the same wage. In a manager game, you can be 100% sure its the intention to make things more and more diffecult at a certain point. In Peloton, one of them is to deal with the higher and higher wages. I can fully understand ánd agree with your pea. Even more: I would have done it 100% the same way if I had discovered that trick. Don't see it as a witch-hunt. I think we all want to fight with the same weapons, and with the wages trick, that wasn't the case. Even you didn't anything wrong (of course not - the possibility was there). I hope u understand my view of things. Its late in the evening
|
|
|
Post by evild on Dec 1, 2018 18:01:23 GMT 1
Bam, i do the exact same thing. I always start with 75 weeks, always. But always end with huge bonusses for a low amount of weeks. Maybe Its me, maybe im scared, but i find it not worth the risk, i feel much safer with a long term contract
|
|
|
Post by pollyjean on Dec 1, 2018 19:09:14 GMT 1
Thx everyone for your comments. I think almost anyone is behind schizm his ideas and it is nice to hear some 'official' comment on this topic. Bam, I like your honest post and respect you as a manager. I don't think you should see it as a witch-hunt. It seems quite clear that the effects are over the top here and some kind of solution is needed. And I agree with you we should think over the solution carefully and we should not target teams but just try to improve the game in general.
Giving it a second tought I really would like you to participate again to the FGFC. It wouldn't be a real competition when teams wouldn't be allowed and it would become a little sad when the best don't enter. I actually hope as many teams as possible rejoin (like Slayer and Franconia for example too).
Anyone else suggestions about the new FGFC format?
|
|