LE TOUR 2024

[Hansa]

As you already designed quite a bit here (thanks for being so fast !), is it ok in the coming weeks I look at the climbs / % you designed and I send you PM (or message here, what do you prefer) if I have suggestions for updates ?

Just post here so its open for discussion

[Hansa]

Gravel stage some points for discussion:

sector 14 2km according to tdf * difficulty -> exactly what i have done

sector 13 1.2kms *** difficulty -> i set ** for the uphill km of the section and i just didnt set anything for the 200ms because i didnt felt like 2 uphill gravel kms would fit the spirit for 200ms more

sector 12 1.5 km ** difficulty -> i set ** for the uphill km, thought about doing * for the 500m on the next km but its a -3 so i didnt set gravel here ( could change the -3 to -2 and set * but didnt feel right to me as * has not that much impact anyways

sector 11 3.4 kms till the top of the hill *** difficulty -> i set the 3 kms before the steep km ** and no gravel on the 8% because we have a gpm there, initally wanted to set the firs km * and followed by ** for 3kms till the top but then we need to shift the gpm

sector 10 4.2 kms till 2 km after the top *** difficulty -> i set the 2 km before and the 2 km after the gpm **

sector 9 2.2 kms * difficutly -> i set 2 kms on *

sector 8 3.9 kms *** difficulty -> i set 4 kms on **

sector 7 2.2 km * difficulty -> i set 2 km *

sector 6 1.2 km * difficulty -> i set 1 km *

sector 5 1.8 kms * difficult -> i set 2 km *

sector 4 1.5 km * difficutly -> i set 2 km * according to the stage profile picture its during the slight uphill (flamme rouge agrees) according to the tdf strava its after the 1% a<nd starts in downhill, i decided to use both the uphill and the downhill km

sector 3 1.9 km * difficulty -> i set 2 km *

sector 2 2.2 km ** difficulty -> i set 2 km ** could add 1 km at * at the start if we want to representate these 200ms too

sector 1 3 km ** difficulte -> i set 3 km **



mintact i have no good idea. the hilly gravel sectors feels to early for mintact the * gravel sectors feels to unimportant so i went with the last 3 sectors (21 kms)

[Hansa]

Hey guys, if i look at the current state of the design there is some help needed for week 2, stage 10 ist done but the other stages of week 2 are still missing, and i dont really have time to design more, tukh startet at week 3 and is nearly done with week 3 if i see that correclty not sure how much more of week 2 he wants to design.

stages 11-15 are still open to design.

[Tukhtahuaev]

I will finish week 3 this weekend. I can maybe do 1 or 2 stages next week, but definitely not all of week 2

[olmania]

Hey guys, if i look at the current state of the design there is some help needed for week 2, stage 10 ist done but the other stages of week 2 are still missing, and i dont really have time to design more, tukh startet at week 3 and is nearly done with week 3 if i see that correclty not sure how much more of week 2 he wants to design.

stages 11-15 are still open to design.

Did stages 11/12 tonight. Will do more if I have time in the next 2 days; then no time for sure.
I forgot a _ in the profilecode name of stage11.

[Hansa]

Latest Updates (2024-05-26) changes for special intermediates at Le Tour c4f-react 1.30.1

what exactly does this mean? Can we have bonification at the gpms now or what got changed?

[Hansa]

For Gip to implement:

Bonus seconds:
NO bonus seconds at IS or KOMs.
10-6-4 at the finish line on each stage.
8-5-2 at some selected points during some selected stages ! (@Alk: Can we implement that already?)

Stage 2 km 186
Stage 4 km 121
stage 11 km 196
stage 17 km 166

[Gipfelstuermer]

Mintact km124

Stage 14 & 15 still needed !

[Robyklebt]

I'm for an exception too.

All * regardless of length.

Because while something "might" happen, most likely it will be like pavé 22, Strade Bianche 24, Only thing happening in pavé 22 in the end was crashes and flat tires. No time gains, losses due to anything else. What happened a few days ago in the Giro? Nothing at all this time, not even crashes and flat tires that resulted in time losses.

With ** we GUARANTEE (well, almost, depends a bit where exactly these ** would be) time differences at c4f, while in reality we stay at ..... might. At c4f we would make it the stage where differences between climbers would be most likely the biggest, while in reality that surely won't be the case. As usual discussion not necessary, I'm right and that's it, you'll see it after the stage. But feel free to have the unnecessary discussion and come to the wrong conclusion anyway.

Donks comes back to this post as promised (thought I did, but less clear than I remember, "you'll see after the stage" was my promise. )

Have to say I was less RIGHT than I expected, but still right. While in reality in the end indeed as I expected nobody (well, 3 guys, Carapaz, Simon Yates and Ilan Van Wilder, but 2 of them were already off to a disappointing start) lost time, at c4f there were differences. At 14h 1 ahead 3 others at 10", 2 more at 1'. Didn't check the other times.

Less right than expected: Because during the race at time there were bigger gaps than I had expected, Pogacar, Remco tried, although in Remco's case it was more the hill than the gravel that made him go I suspect. A few guys lost contact, for a few guys presumably it took longer to come back than others. So it was not completely out of the question that at some point some small gaps might appear, if at some point Visma-UAE have their helpers there, but somebody like Carlos Rodriguez is missing, they might have gone for it. It wasn't completely out of the question to have some differences. Doesn't change the fact that in the end it was 3 out of 30 riders who still were somehow kind of in GC lost time, while the percentages is way higher at c4f.

Not sure what system to design was used finally, not the standard, not the ASO ratings, maybe sort of ASO ratings downgraded to max 2?

Anyway, whatever it was we were "saved" by the fact that it was only the last 2 sectors that had ** in the last 50km, the other ** sectors were far from the goal, so not very effective to try to go wild from there. If the series of * sectors after km 150 had been rated higher, our simulation would have been very far off. Like this it was off, but not scandalously so, a minute could have happened in reality with an untimely flat in the finale, bad bike change as well. Hm, most likely still less...

So now that we have data from this year, which wasn't necessary since it was predictable what would happen, to me seems clear that it should simply be * in GTs. Because yes, GTs and 1 day races are being ridden differently. Different leaders, different kind of motivation for different riders, all things that at c4f we can't simulate that well, all we can influence is the ratings. And since climbers and sprinters at c4f are automatically at a disadvantage on gravel, while they aren't in reality, that's how we have to influence it. By ratings. And the correct one is *. Certainly not go up to *** as was proposed. And btw, again the temporary selction was made in climbs again more often than not, it's the combination climbing on gravel that makes the differences, not the flat on gravel most of the time. It's also in the climbs that parts of the peloton had to stop, walk for some in reality, somebody in trouble ahead, the ones in the back end walking up since it's too steep and lack of grip to restart fast .
So, * in should be in the future.
In the Giro as well, or at the very least look at the stage and try to predict what will happen in reality. Again, often we won't be able to simulate it properly, long range solo attacks simply don't work here, but looking at the stage you often can predict what will happen in reality. Not everybody as made obvious in this thread, but at least I can, so just ask me the next time there's gravel in a GT. Or pavé too for that matter. Unless we decide to give climbers and sprinters a temporary 20 flat boost for these stages, we simply have to adapt the rating to avoid the overly big, unrealistic influence on the GC. While not completely ignoring the stage hunters either of course. Which is a bit of a contradiction somehow, but probably already getting too difficult for some of our dumber readers, so I stop instead of elaborating further.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Thanks for your analysis.

If it had been * on all sectors, what would have been your expectation for the c4f stage result?

[olmania]

It's really hard to compare what happened IRL to RSF, for many reasons.
What we saw from the IRL race yesterday is that the gravel sections are selective uphill (sieb and attacks); not so much when flat (but no one truly tried to make it selectrive on the flat ones unlike the hilly ones !); when it's often the opposite in RSF (for climber/classic riders). Siebs happened, but gaps created were not huged cause the sectors are short and fast and often the race speed slowed after the sectors.
Yesterday, yes the race was not selective for GK leaders, because of one team playing defensive and most leaders able to come back easily in the cars after every sieb. If Vingegaard was not in the tour this year because of his injury, it might have been totally different.
Hard to predict what will happen in an IRL race too, cause it depends of the line-up (similar point to RSF here !)

Truly impossible to find something that will be close to the reality everytime. Pave is not gravel. Uphill/downhill pavé in RSF is too less/too much efficient for sieb compared to the reality, or even buggy in some %, so we don't use it.
So many other skills we don't have in RSF are taken into consideration IRL (probably much more than when the race is on a normal wide road). Turns, Placement, balance, technicity and narrowness or the roads are not existing in RSF. And finally, our RSF leaders are specialist of one (or two kinds), but can't have 80skill everywhere unlike many IRL riders.

if the game engine stays as it is, it might always be different than what we expected / what it is IRL.

We could establish fixed rules for gravel/pavé. And stick to it, even if far from the reality in many RSF races.
We could keep adapating the best as we can every time a new design is needed. more or less what's happening recently. Sometimes really close to IRL results, sometimes not so much.
The game could evolve and introduce new skills/indicators/tools for more variability in the design/skills/tactics (but not a priority I guess, and maybe not even doable with the old code). Looking for either being closer to what happens IRL, or just for more balance/fun/tactics in the gravel/pave races.

[Schartner Bombe]

If it's allowed?
I have never understood this desire for the "reality thing".
Most people who play this game have probably never raced a racing bike or even sat on one. And certainly not racing on gravel or cobblestones.
But many know how it would work. You don't even notice that the real gradients in c4f don't have the same effect as in reality - for example the regeneration - or, as you have already seen on TV, mountain riders (in real) are not as weak on flat terrain as they are on rsf or c4f.
Why? The riders in the game are structured completely differently than the riders in reality - as far as skills are concerned.

It's a game and not like in reality. It's really a good game. Thanks Alk, thanks Gip and AAD, and others who tinker with it.
But please leave the idea of ​​reality out of it.
Just start thinking in rsf or c4f terms about what could be improved - but not with a view to reality.
my opinion.

[Hansa]

i actually liked how the rsf staged turned out compared to reality, the gravel had an impact on the real stage there were GC tries and it completeley opened the stage if we would have opted for only * i dont think there would have been any fight in the rsf stage for gc and for stage sprinter then could have forced a mass sprint that wouldnt have been any more realistic. i think our problem for these stages is that climbers and sprinters are extremely weak on pave/gravel because our pave skill is linked to the flat skill while in reality climbers and sprinters not all are bad on these profiles. hard to find a perfect way to still open these kind of stages for some fighting while keeping the gaps from being to extreme and deciding the GC.

as for the 20h edition the teams that rode for their GC leaders finished between 38 seconds behind and 1:08 behind the stage winner so only small gc gaps, that felt fine.

in the morning were i sitted the gaps were bigger but they also started fighting much earlier and Narrens GC guy is very weak on pave compared to others. narren lost 1.5 minutes there, zizou 4 seconds vs alk, alk completely ignored his 2nd climber so who lost 35 minutes.

not the ASO ratings, maybe sort of ASO ratings downgraded to max 2?

and yes that was what ive done for the rsf gravel stage.

[Robyklebt]

If it had been * on all sectors, what would have been your expectation for the c4f stage result?

At 14h sprint. But depends a bit on the the edition I guess, but with the early hills quite far away, clear advantage for sprinters. Not sure if 4* might drop some of them though, 0* for sure doesn't, but 4* might. Still far though. But with earlier chases in some editions might be enough to drop the 50-60 with 90 sprint.
What would your expectation have been with all *
And what would your expectation have been with using the ASO rating, which you once mentioned as the possibly best solution.

and yes that was what ive done for the rsf gravel stage.

Ok, thanks for info. Of course found the post now, should have looked closer before my previous post...

i actually liked how the rsf staged turned out compared to reality, the gravel had an impact on the real stage there were GC tries and it completeley opened the stage if we would have opted for only * i dont think there would have been any fight in the rsf stage for gc and for stage sprinter then could have forced a mass sprint that wouldnt have been any more realistic.

IMO mass sprint more realistic than GC differences.
And the impact on the GC fight in the end in reality was negligible. Now all the "could have if Vinge, could have if this and that... " well, it didn't happen. Fact is: 3 guys lost lots of time, 3 out of 30. I guess it was 0 at the Giro. It was almost 0 at the pavé in the Tour 2 years ago, there the impact was crashes, Roglic lost time due to that (and had to give up later due to that), but the rest of the GC guys... I think (go check yourself) ended up all together.
Gravel and pavé in GTs consistently gives unrealistic results at c4f.

And the reason the sprinters were mostly out, probably has as much to do with the climbs as the gravel. Or the combination. And the blockages in the early parts, too far back, standstill. Which of course are a consequence of the gravel, pavé too, I realize that.

Maybe in retrospect a better solution would have been to overdraw the hills a bit, like in Flanders. So the last GPM, the one where Remco attacked a bit before the top, not 4 the last km but 6 or 7, since the last few meters were definitely very steep. While of course having all pavé at *. Then it's harder for the sprinters.

Complete realism of course is impossible, but we have to set priorities what's good for the game. (although I wouldn't go as far as Schartner and say just ignore reality or almost). For 1 day races, ok, let's make pavé highly important, let's ignore that Pogacar will most likely ride for the win in Roubaix next spring (won the Giro, 25 he'll go for Flanders again, and adding Roubaix seems very likely IMO). Bad luck Pogi, you'll never win Flanders or Roubaix in c4f. Deal with it!!! For 1 day races the biggest priority should be indeed to make it as friendly as possible for the riders that have the aptitude to do well in these kind of races. So Flanders we overdraw pavé hills, so not to make it just a second easier Roubaix with a very few 6+ hills in the way. Roubaix we go up to ***** to make sure it's those heavy riders with a big engine that do well. (the fact that ***** seems a bit broken now is a different topic) For GTs the priority should be the GC riders, make sure the simulation is not completely off on these gravel and pavé stages. The way we have been doing it, it is completely off. The Giro big differences were a joke. The differences here didn't happen in reality either. Priorities! Has to be GC riders in GTs.

If it's allowed?

No.
Ok ok, if you insist.

Just start thinking in rsf or c4f terms about what could be improved - but not with a view to reality.

I'm with you OL.
I asked my rider Stian - what he said: "It's a key stage, even in reality. The real Tour 2024 is supposedly designed so that several types of riders have a chance in the GC, and the best Le Tour all-rounder wins. In my opinion the stage should play a role for the GC in rsf."

In reality there is a lot of stress there because of the gravel - falls, defects, dirt on your face... it's getting harder and harder ... so I think we should simulate this

but not with all *

Hm. I see a change of opinion with regards to "reality" Now I won't hold you responsible for what your rider Stian said, his opinion not yours, but the second part seems to be your contribution. Reality?

[Gipfelstuermer]

What would your expectation have been with all *
And what would your expectation have been with using the ASO rating, which you once mentioned as the possibly best solution.

Same as your expectation. All * likely mass sprint. ASO Ratings with the (your?) Tro-Bro-Leon methodology, we saw now what happens. And yes, it's a one day race, not a GT stage. Anyway, just wanted to be sure we had the same expectation. That's why I asked.

IMO mass sprint more realistic than GC differences.
And the impact on the GC fight in the end in reality was negligible. Now all the "could have if Vinge, could have if this and that... " well, it didn't happen. Fact is: 3 guys lost lots of time, 3 out of 30. I guess it was 0 at the Giro. It was almost 0 at the pavé in the Tour 2 years ago, there the impact was crashes, Roglic lost time due to that (and had to give up later due to that), but the rest of the GC guys... I think (go check yourself) ended up all together.
Gravel and pavé in GTs consistently gives unrealistic results at c4f.

Actually Pogacar won time on that stage, if I am not completely mistaken in my memory. Not much if I remember correctly because Van Aert was in topform and brought a huge group back on the flat. But ok, that's not the question.

The question is was a mass sprint more realistic than GC differences? Mmmh, we had neither of that in reality. Unrealistic is unrealistic. Just unrealistic in different ways. So, if anything, my conclusion would be that ideally we'd have something between * and **, i.e. 1.5 stars (or a completely different gravel category). But as long as we don't have 1.5 stars, a clever way of combining * and ** seems most sensible to me. And ideally that should be based on a neutral source (ASO, LFR, or whatever), but can of course be adjusted by designers if they have good reasons for it.

[Schartner Bombe]

If it's allowed?

No.
Ok ok, if you insist.

Just start thinking in rsf or c4f terms about what could be improved - but not with a view to reality.

I'm with you OL.
I asked my rider Stian - what he said: "It's a key stage, even in reality. The real Tour 2024 is supposedly designed so that several types of riders have a chance in the GC, and the best Le Tour all-rounder wins. In my opinion the stage should play a role for the GC in rsf."

In reality there is a lot of stress there because of the gravel - falls, defects, dirt on your face... it's getting harder and harder ... so I think we should simulate this

but not with all *

Hm. I see a change of opinion with regards to "reality" Now I won't hold you responsible for what your rider Stian said, his opinion not yours, but the second part seems to be your contribution. Reality?

Of course, I don't mean that you should forget the real profile or race completely - from the real profile we come to the rsf profile. What I meant is that the rsf profile cannot be a representation of the real profile - only a simulation. I think the design of stage 9 for rsf/c4f, for example, is good - the way it was done - but it is not like the real profile or race.
But the stage in rsf was also exciting, like in the real race.
It may be true that it is much more difficult for the GC riders in rsf than for those in the real race. But the GC riders in rsf/c4f also have different skills than the GC riders in the real race... that's why I meant thinking in rsf/c4f terms.
But can also understand Donkey's argument regarding GT's.
But I'll keep my mouth shut again anyway.

[lennylenny]

wanting complete realism from the game is ridicoulous anyway, otherwise we would need sprinters who are also main favos at Paris-Roubaix while also siebing top gc sprinters on Hautacam

having the stage with only * pave in the game would make it a 90% ms stage as long as the sprint teams have some strong flat riders which most do, this doesn't reflect the spirit of the stage at all