|
Post by Mike on Apr 28, 2020 15:15:09 GMT 1
How about this:
Double the teams. 1 original 1 new with 20 cyclists 18 & 19y old
For example SeMTeX and SeMTeX 2
After x seasons the original team disapears but finances also go to the new team.
Why also finances: I and maybe others have been playing this game as a manager and have invested. Long term plans...etc.
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Apr 28, 2020 16:08:19 GMT 1
How about this: Double the teams. 1 original 1 new with 20 cyclists 18 & 19y old For example SeMTeX and SeMTeX 2 After x seasons the original team disapears but finances also go to the new team. Why also finances: I and maybe others have been playing this game as a manager and have invested. Long term plans...etc. Mike, I see you proposal but isn't easy to find some time to make little changes in the game, and if we will change the training speed we can do that if is an easy task, creating more teams isn't the solution because we are going to complicate things.
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Apr 28, 2020 16:25:06 GMT 1
I agree with what you said, thats why I think the option with 10 new riders and keep playing with the other is the fair solution. You can select riders that you want to keep playing and train new riders, they will take more then 2 years to be on top so is more 6/7 seasons. This is the mid term we can offer. But what about the riders you decide to keep? In my view there needs to be a plan that they can still be trained. If we immediately put a hard stop on training above 26 you will destroy a whole range of riders. I understand we will never find a solution that will be 100% fair for everyone, but I do feel we need to prevent some teams getting hit extremely hard by this. Take Tossboom his team for example, we might wipe out 2 years of his effort, that would feel extremely unfair. Till new rider reach the age of 26 the other keep training normaly so no one will lose the current riders that are training, after the new rider reach 26y we apply the limitation of the training speed, when that time comes we can decide if they keep training but much more slowly and if they don't train they lose skills. Riders with 27/28years will reach full potencial before the new reach 26years. Offcorse every solution we present have disadvantages, riders with lower age then 25/26 years will not have future if we implement the new training for next season or in 2 seasons. If we decide for adding the 10 riders people have the pocibility to chose if they want to start over (10 riders+scout or market to buy riders) or if they stick with the current riders( 10 new riders+ 15 riders already to keep trainning and even keep riders with high age in team). I have a very strong team with 25/24/23y and I will very very unfair to me like will be to Tossboom and other managers. The riders will keep training but we have to know that the generation that is comming after the training adjust will reach his skills quickly. I know this will be unfair to many but if we look at that we naver make changes for the better of the game. I believe whit the change of the trainign speed we will recover old managers that stop playing because took to many time to build a team to fight agains others that are already here, and with that will bring more competition to the game and fun.
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Apr 28, 2020 16:38:44 GMT 1
I agree with what you said, thats why I think the option with 10 new riders and keep playing with the other is the fair solution. You can select riders that you want to keep playing and train new riders, they will take more then 2 years to be on top so is more 6/7 seasons. This is the mid term we can offer. But what about the riders you decide to keep? In my view there needs to be a plan that they can still be trained. If we immediately put a hard stop on training above 26 you will destroy a whole range of riders. I understand we will never find a solution that will be 100% fair for everyone, but I do feel we need to prevent some teams getting hit extremely hard by this. Take Tossboom his team for example, we might wipe out 2 years of his effort, that would feel extremely unfair. That's exactly why we haven't done anything with it so far. Whatever we do, there are managers for whom this means years for nothing. I do realize on one hand we need to do something about this training system but we have to be careful that the cure isn't worse than the illness. The three of us haven been discussing this issue a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Poekie on Apr 28, 2020 17:15:27 GMT 1
I don't understand: why does there need to be a big impact? I'm not fully sure which part you don't understand,
I don't understand why there needs to be a change that has a big impact. According to the postings of ElGringo and Ab Normaal, there are a lot of disadvantages doing the change. They don't mention why it would make the game better.
|
|
|
Post by DeRodeLantaarn on Apr 28, 2020 17:33:41 GMT 1
Nice to see things are happening.
4 questions
1. Does the age have to be 26? Or can it also be set on 28 by example?
2. Does a restart also mean losing your money?
3. At the age of 26 full potential will be reached. Is that for the FA skill only or for all skills? because if it is for all skills we will get a lot of strong riders who are at the same potential at the same time.
4. At the age of 26 full potential is reached but they must train so they won't lose skill points. Maybe that is the answer to q3 but don't know for sure. Will riders above 26 lose their skills now earlier than 36?
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Apr 28, 2020 20:44:17 GMT 1
I'm not fully sure which part you don't understand, I don't understand why there needs to be a change that has a big impact. According to the postings of ElGringo and Ab Normaal, there are a lot of disadvantages doing the change. They don't mention why it would make the game better.
Poekie, I said that this have disadvantages because people like routines and to keep things equal, the human being is averse to changes, like to keep the same patterns. The change have a lot of advantages: less time to reach the top, more competition, more fun, is easy to new managers to get results, young manager that don't have the same patience then people with more then 40 years will keep playing for more time because see results, more managers will start playing, older managers that stop playing because of the time they spend to build a team will come back, etc..
|
|
|
Post by pollyjean on Apr 28, 2020 20:49:42 GMT 1
A different approach, but what about making calenders half as long? If a season would have half the amount of weeks and races.
Standings in a certain division halfway the season are almost similar to the standings in the end most of the times. Your starting problem would be solved. In +/- 2 realtime years you have a totally new generation.
Different way of thinking but please consider. + no real punishment for some teams. It will be a gradual fade out. - riders wouldn't reach skillsums over 40/50 anymore. We will have really different riders compared to now.
|
|
|
Post by DeRodeLantaarn on Apr 28, 2020 20:50:38 GMT 1
Another question How long will this poll be open and is it possible to put a link on the homepage?
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Apr 28, 2020 20:57:49 GMT 1
Nice to see things are happening. 4 questions 1. Does the age have to be 26? Or can it also be set on 28 by example? 2. Does a restart also mean losing your money? 3. At the age of 26 full potential will be reached. Is that for the FA skill only or for all skills? because if it is for all skills we will get a lot of strong riders who are at the same potential at the same time. 4. At the age of 26 full potential is reached but they must train so they won't lose skill points. Maybe that is the answer to q3 but don't know for sure. Will riders above 26 lose their skills now earlier than 36? 1- The objective is that riders can reach the top in 2years, so the number 26 come more easy to do that, we can decide they will keep evoluate after 26 but much slower. 2- Yes all teams will start with only 300k 3- For all skills, there are riders that will have potencial to reach 60 skill points at that age but others don't because of the influence of FA. If you decide also to have a rider with a high skill he will not reach the 60 skill point, only a riders all round with a great FA in 1/2 skills will reach that number. About the riders with the same potencial, here enters the details, we can have a lot of riders similar but with some details, for example if you follow division 1, there are rider quite similar but some details made one more stronger when have hill, other mountain etc.. Managers also have to play with the current form that will have impact in results and helpers will be much more important in this cases. 4- The objective here is that riders will only start decreasing skills at 36y but we don't want that stronger teams with more money take advantage because they can have better trainers and when the rider reach the full potencial at 26y he must keep training to keep that skills, if they stop training they will decrease skill before reach 36years, so is up to the managers to decide if they stop training at any age. If he don't apply this managers buy more riders and train them and create a mega squad and we don't want that.
|
|
|
Post by DeRodeLantaarn on Apr 28, 2020 21:09:04 GMT 1
Clear to me. Thanks I guess the 100% under 26 trainees stays? And above 25 will lower the % as it was?
|
|
|
Post by pollyjean on Apr 28, 2020 21:12:01 GMT 1
4- The objective here is that riders will only start decreasing skills at 36y but we don't want that stronger teams with more money take advantage because they can have better trainers and when the rider reach the full potencial at 26y he must keep training to keep that skills, if they stop training they will decrease skill before reach 36years, so is up to the managers to decide if they stop training at any age. If he don't apply this managers buy more riders and train them and create a mega squad and we don't want that. So if you have 5 real good riders being 26 years and you continue to train them for 10 seasons you will have the best riders ingame for about 10 seasons? Strange. The change have a lot of advantages: less time to reach the top, more competition, more fun, is easy to new managers to get results, young manager that don't have the same patience then people with more then 40 years will keep playing for more time because see results, more managers will start playing, older managers that stop playing because of the time they spend to build a team will come back, etc.. I'm afraid not all of your advantages are certain. - less time to reach the top : true - more competition: uncertain, depends on how you look at it - more fun: uncertain - is easy to new managers to get results: uncertain - young manager that don't have the same patience then people with more then 40 years will keep playing for more time because see results: uncertain - more managers will start playing: uncertain - older managers that stop playing because of the time they spend to build a team will come back: possibly true
|
|
|
Post by pollyjean on Apr 28, 2020 21:26:12 GMT 1
A different approach, but what about making calenders half as long? If a season would have half the amount of weeks and races. Standings in a certain division halfway the season are almost similar to the standings in the end most of the times. Your starting problem would be solved. In +/- 2 realtime years you have a totally new generation. Different way of thinking but please consider. + no real punishment for some teams. It will be a gradual fade out. - riders wouldn't reach skillsums over 40/50 anymore. We will have really different riders compared to now. I also think many teams in lower divisions quit the game halfway a season because they feel they can't win anything in the division they are.
|
|
|
Post by Poekie on Apr 28, 2020 22:04:45 GMT 1
I don't understand why there needs to be a change that has a big impact. According to the postings of ElGringo and Ab Normaal, there are a lot of disadvantages doing the change. They don't mention why it would make the game better.
Poekie, I said that this have disadvantages because people like routines and to keep things equal, the human being is averse to changes, like to keep the same patterns. The change have a lot of advantages: less time to reach the top, more competition, more fun, is easy to new managers to get results, young manager that don't have the same patience then people with more then 40 years will keep playing for more time because see results, more managers will start playing, older managers that stop playing because of the time they spend to build a team will come back, etc..
Is this based on feedback by (potential) players, and if so, can you share it with us?
|
|
|
Post by eboese on Apr 28, 2020 23:58:37 GMT 1
4- The objective here is that riders will only start decreasing skills at 36y but we don't want that stronger teams with more money take advantage because they can have better trainers and when the rider reach the full potencial at 26y he must keep training to keep that skills, if they stop training they will decrease skill before reach 36years, so is up to the managers to decide if they stop training at any age. If he don't apply this managers buy more riders and train them and create a mega squad and we don't want that. So if you have 5 real good riders being 26 years and you continue to train them for 10 seasons you will have the best riders ingame for about 10 seasons? Strange. This does not sound right to me as well and I think it will undermine what we are trying to accomplish: a more competitive game with shorter rider 'life cycles'. 10 seasons at top level is just way too long. If a team gets lucky and gets a bunch of riders with a great FA on their main skill(s) they can potentially dominate the game for years, isn't that one of the things we are trying to avoid? Why not bring the age down significantly?
|
|