Too early to take decisions about that, positioning will only come in the later step.Pokemon Club wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 4:49 pmQuestion about positioning, will you use that for energy consumption in addition of helpers ?
Race Calculation Redesign
Moderator: systemmods
Re: Race Calculation Redesign
Re: Race Calculation Redesign
Donkey finally here again... didn't do much thinking, more forgetting, now while watching the real MSR, good moment to write something.
Don't quote the post, hope it's easy enough to see with the numbering and open the first page in a different tab or something...
On 1) ok, sounds logic, easier to have all in one place.
3) Downhill: I never really thought about it, or saw it as a problem. And after some little thinking, it actually works pretty fine here. The siebing, ok, would need a different kind of siebing from our standard. Which is individually expel riders to the back. In downhill it's more splits, as somebody mentioned, so should be dropping riders in groups, or have a group of riders get an advantage. But yes, for that positioning will help. But as said, in general I think it actually still works pretty fine. Not much happening generally. But that is in line with reality. There's the occasional downhill attack or time gain, see Del Toro vs Carapaz at the Giro. But then our afternoon Giro 25 for example was decided in a downhill finally, same stage, different downhill. Don't see changes here as absolutely necessary or high priority. On 3a ok, not only for downhills of course, the width of the road, has an influence everywhere.. .the problem here is just that it would make designing way more complicated. And in case somebody needs reminding, I find the editor rather user-unfriendly already....
4 I'll pass, there's quite a lot to say, but since I didn't do much thinking...
5 I find logic. 2 riders attack, gain 7", 15 attack they gain 5" or 4" or whatever it is, after all the last one in the line will be much closer to the peloton... compared to other groups... if the other group is in front, the group just attacked earlier, if the lone 82 that attacked is only 1" behind the 89 followed by many.. .ok, not being followed he could really go all out, the followed one looks back earlier, I find this quite ok.
6+7 is the tinkering, Buh couldn't find the good, realistic or looked for differences fast in another way, every terrain is probably a bit different too, one he found a good balance for flat, +3 was bad, ok, found that, now +6 doesn't work, change internal tempo again, +12 doesn't work and flat as well, so put in extra-stuff to find something he was happy with.
8 I actually don't see the problem? Or how is it meant exactly? Every rider the same km as now (which IMO is good and like it) but they do their action in turn, first group first, second group second etc? Ok, then maybe, but does it create specifc problems now. If you mean the guy 2' back rides the sector 2-4 km back, then I don't see the advantage.
9 Yes. But risks making the game a bit complicated at times.
10 Agree, the only place where just following costs really is pavé, Actually even slow tempo costs there. Another thing here is the length, the longer the race, the easier to stay fit for leaders... many many moons ago there was an attempt to change that, it was a complete and absolute failure though.
12 Yes, but... this is one of the things that in the end makes the whole thing somehow work. Finding a balance where the multilegged strong rider doesn't just win too much, races that in reality he doesn't win.. sounds enormously difficult. If you put it off, excellent.. but that could take looots of time. Also not making Pogacar solos possible.. would be nice, but... how to not have the strongest rider then just win everything?
13 Positions and then a sensible system needed. IF it's needed, I'm in FL gang on this a bit, don't make it too complicated and perfect the rest first, bugs etc.
15 Yep. Would say not only energy, but also difficulty increasing, a 5% at 4000 should be more selective than one at 1000.
16 That is a bit a general mess now. A bit, not complete. And here I have to say again, why not do more tests before implementing the change? Because before a 0***** seemed more selective than nowadays. It seemed to change not only the downhill, where the bug disappeared, but wild siebs started, so we still can't ride -3 or steeper, so didn't get the advantage, but some other unexpected changes in other terrain too. I keep saying "seemed" because it might also be that we just have more top pavé riders than we used too, more 80+, more 82+, not that I remember exactly, but it's entirely possible that not every team had also a 80+ pavé rider, while now not all, but many many do have one. As for the lower pavé + or slight - that do weird siebs, kind of like it, makes it unpredictable, at least for me. Winzenried dropped at 5** or something, annoying but somehow cool
17: This one forget the details, just redo the whole thing. And here I disagree with the timing. Sprint is right now basically a separate minigame in the game, pretty unrelated to what happens before. With positions there would be a connection, but that can be made later, once you have the sprint. I would see 0 problems with redoing the sprint first. Ask FL, read old Robyposts, ask him if necessary. Just one word: Acceleration. A few more words? Ok, after writing 5 more lines now deleted them, one word is better, otherwise it will end up at 70 lines.
New stuff:
-Attacks vs tempo, it's related to your point 11. And this leads to the sectrick, which of course when we talk about realism is probably one of the biggest problem we have. We're all used to it now, see it as normal, but a way to get rid or limit sectricks, and its effectiveness would be nice. The later you go in, the slower you ride? In the first 10" full riding, if you do a perfect sectrick you ride much slower. So no tempo 30" advantage, full riding 1", perfect sectrick 20"? 15"? Whatever. No great ideas right now, but somehow limiting this c4f speciality wouldn't be wrong. And the sectrick out of course someho too. While keeping the km per km format. The attacks that cost lots of energy for little benefit... that gets better the less energy the riders have, Go with 950 energy, vs 750, the attack is better with 750 (assuming the guy in tempo is at 750 too obviously) Another idea might be to make the energy loss dependent on the advantage gained... the no tempo attack then costs more than the attack that only gets away 1", something that is not really logical, but would make the whole thing more realistic. This of course is an old issue, I'll take the liberty to bore you with an old story: Giro 06, afternoon. We hadn't invented the 70-80 yet, so 60-80 was the classic. Fedaia, steepest km, Donkey double attack, gains .... forgot, waaay over a minute. Great. Next km Radler, who felt left out from this epic ride over Fedaia, Pordoi and San Pellegrino, attacked too. ZB was in tempo, so he won 1" 2" 3"? And Klebt waited, have him in front and ride better than have him in hte back and ride. So group 1 with 2 Klebts, Fledermaus, Radler, mass tempo, maybe somebody else too, some offline passengers there too. In the back ZB alone. Advantage at some point 1"... and Fledermaus already said, that's one of the things that aren't done that well, attacks that gain only 1" or so... After riding very close to each other the lone ZB couldn't keep it down anymore, group went through, epic stage, go find the result my great climber Sitzmann with 77 (or 76? 75 at that point) mountain was in autotempo, Tismeanu with 8x possibly too. Anyway, low tempo huge time gain, high tempo you get 1"... something doesn't really fit and creates the sectrick block
-Short hills vs long hills. In reality a 6 really doesn't have a big influence on the race. A single 6% 20 km from the goal.. nobody is dropped really, sprint. At c4f it's a hill sprint. A 10km climb at 5%.... here in reality more riders will be dropped, at c4f very few (climber in, 50-60 sprinters gone, ok) . Maybe look at the previous and following km(s?) when doing the calculation? A 0 6 -6.... Nothing before, nothign after, calculate it as a 5%. -6 6 0? -6 before the 6, they come in with speed, makes it easier, it's like a 4. 5 6 5? Like a 6. 5 6 0.. .easier again... Isolated 10, easier, 6 5 8 9 9 10 Rider looks ahead, sees it's long, so the 6 is more like a 7. Got what I'm trying to say I guess, just examples... This btw would also be a way to simulate position without having it, we just assume the weaklings start it near the front, to hang on.. like for leaders often happens.
- The TT mountain time gain difference... TT really gains way too much, on the other hand time losses in mountains can easily be contained.
- rider values (in general too, starting values, but not related) and cost. That actually should have been adapted when Buhmann introduced the new sprint, the flat-sprint value should have cost more. Don't think it changed, probably we all thought for that little advantage, flat value counts early in the sprint, not worth changing it... didn't think about getting wheels either, only of the speed in the trani. We only really discovered the 70 flat 80 sprint lately, and of course right now compared to other riders he's too cheap. No need change that now, but keep in mind that every change you'll do will change the value a rider that should be reflected in the cost, salary.
I have the feeling there was another one... when I thought about this a bit in the train, but forgot? Or there wasn't? Enough for now anyway.
On the schedule, steps, I would put the sprint much earlier, like step -1!
Don't quote the post, hope it's easy enough to see with the numbering and open the first page in a different tab or something...
On 1) ok, sounds logic, easier to have all in one place.
3) Downhill: I never really thought about it, or saw it as a problem. And after some little thinking, it actually works pretty fine here. The siebing, ok, would need a different kind of siebing from our standard. Which is individually expel riders to the back. In downhill it's more splits, as somebody mentioned, so should be dropping riders in groups, or have a group of riders get an advantage. But yes, for that positioning will help. But as said, in general I think it actually still works pretty fine. Not much happening generally. But that is in line with reality. There's the occasional downhill attack or time gain, see Del Toro vs Carapaz at the Giro. But then our afternoon Giro 25 for example was decided in a downhill finally, same stage, different downhill. Don't see changes here as absolutely necessary or high priority. On 3a ok, not only for downhills of course, the width of the road, has an influence everywhere.. .the problem here is just that it would make designing way more complicated. And in case somebody needs reminding, I find the editor rather user-unfriendly already....
4 I'll pass, there's quite a lot to say, but since I didn't do much thinking...
5 I find logic. 2 riders attack, gain 7", 15 attack they gain 5" or 4" or whatever it is, after all the last one in the line will be much closer to the peloton... compared to other groups... if the other group is in front, the group just attacked earlier, if the lone 82 that attacked is only 1" behind the 89 followed by many.. .ok, not being followed he could really go all out, the followed one looks back earlier, I find this quite ok.
6+7 is the tinkering, Buh couldn't find the good, realistic or looked for differences fast in another way, every terrain is probably a bit different too, one he found a good balance for flat, +3 was bad, ok, found that, now +6 doesn't work, change internal tempo again, +12 doesn't work and flat as well, so put in extra-stuff to find something he was happy with.
8 I actually don't see the problem? Or how is it meant exactly? Every rider the same km as now (which IMO is good and like it) but they do their action in turn, first group first, second group second etc? Ok, then maybe, but does it create specifc problems now. If you mean the guy 2' back rides the sector 2-4 km back, then I don't see the advantage.
9 Yes. But risks making the game a bit complicated at times.
10 Agree, the only place where just following costs really is pavé, Actually even slow tempo costs there. Another thing here is the length, the longer the race, the easier to stay fit for leaders... many many moons ago there was an attempt to change that, it was a complete and absolute failure though.
12 Yes, but... this is one of the things that in the end makes the whole thing somehow work. Finding a balance where the multilegged strong rider doesn't just win too much, races that in reality he doesn't win.. sounds enormously difficult. If you put it off, excellent.. but that could take looots of time. Also not making Pogacar solos possible.. would be nice, but... how to not have the strongest rider then just win everything?
13 Positions and then a sensible system needed. IF it's needed, I'm in FL gang on this a bit, don't make it too complicated and perfect the rest first, bugs etc.
15 Yep. Would say not only energy, but also difficulty increasing, a 5% at 4000 should be more selective than one at 1000.
16 That is a bit a general mess now. A bit, not complete. And here I have to say again, why not do more tests before implementing the change? Because before a 0***** seemed more selective than nowadays. It seemed to change not only the downhill, where the bug disappeared, but wild siebs started, so we still can't ride -3 or steeper, so didn't get the advantage, but some other unexpected changes in other terrain too. I keep saying "seemed" because it might also be that we just have more top pavé riders than we used too, more 80+, more 82+, not that I remember exactly, but it's entirely possible that not every team had also a 80+ pavé rider, while now not all, but many many do have one. As for the lower pavé + or slight - that do weird siebs, kind of like it, makes it unpredictable, at least for me. Winzenried dropped at 5** or something, annoying but somehow cool
17: This one forget the details, just redo the whole thing. And here I disagree with the timing. Sprint is right now basically a separate minigame in the game, pretty unrelated to what happens before. With positions there would be a connection, but that can be made later, once you have the sprint. I would see 0 problems with redoing the sprint first. Ask FL, read old Robyposts, ask him if necessary. Just one word: Acceleration. A few more words? Ok, after writing 5 more lines now deleted them, one word is better, otherwise it will end up at 70 lines.
New stuff:
-Attacks vs tempo, it's related to your point 11. And this leads to the sectrick, which of course when we talk about realism is probably one of the biggest problem we have. We're all used to it now, see it as normal, but a way to get rid or limit sectricks, and its effectiveness would be nice. The later you go in, the slower you ride? In the first 10" full riding, if you do a perfect sectrick you ride much slower. So no tempo 30" advantage, full riding 1", perfect sectrick 20"? 15"? Whatever. No great ideas right now, but somehow limiting this c4f speciality wouldn't be wrong. And the sectrick out of course someho too. While keeping the km per km format. The attacks that cost lots of energy for little benefit... that gets better the less energy the riders have, Go with 950 energy, vs 750, the attack is better with 750 (assuming the guy in tempo is at 750 too obviously) Another idea might be to make the energy loss dependent on the advantage gained... the no tempo attack then costs more than the attack that only gets away 1", something that is not really logical, but would make the whole thing more realistic. This of course is an old issue, I'll take the liberty to bore you with an old story: Giro 06, afternoon. We hadn't invented the 70-80 yet, so 60-80 was the classic. Fedaia, steepest km, Donkey double attack, gains .... forgot, waaay over a minute. Great. Next km Radler, who felt left out from this epic ride over Fedaia, Pordoi and San Pellegrino, attacked too. ZB was in tempo, so he won 1" 2" 3"? And Klebt waited, have him in front and ride better than have him in hte back and ride. So group 1 with 2 Klebts, Fledermaus, Radler, mass tempo, maybe somebody else too, some offline passengers there too. In the back ZB alone. Advantage at some point 1"... and Fledermaus already said, that's one of the things that aren't done that well, attacks that gain only 1" or so... After riding very close to each other the lone ZB couldn't keep it down anymore, group went through, epic stage, go find the result my great climber Sitzmann with 77 (or 76? 75 at that point) mountain was in autotempo, Tismeanu with 8x possibly too. Anyway, low tempo huge time gain, high tempo you get 1"... something doesn't really fit and creates the sectrick block
-Short hills vs long hills. In reality a 6 really doesn't have a big influence on the race. A single 6% 20 km from the goal.. nobody is dropped really, sprint. At c4f it's a hill sprint. A 10km climb at 5%.... here in reality more riders will be dropped, at c4f very few (climber in, 50-60 sprinters gone, ok) . Maybe look at the previous and following km(s?) when doing the calculation? A 0 6 -6.... Nothing before, nothign after, calculate it as a 5%. -6 6 0? -6 before the 6, they come in with speed, makes it easier, it's like a 4. 5 6 5? Like a 6. 5 6 0.. .easier again... Isolated 10, easier, 6 5 8 9 9 10 Rider looks ahead, sees it's long, so the 6 is more like a 7. Got what I'm trying to say I guess, just examples... This btw would also be a way to simulate position without having it, we just assume the weaklings start it near the front, to hang on.. like for leaders often happens.
- The TT mountain time gain difference... TT really gains way too much, on the other hand time losses in mountains can easily be contained.
- rider values (in general too, starting values, but not related) and cost. That actually should have been adapted when Buhmann introduced the new sprint, the flat-sprint value should have cost more. Don't think it changed, probably we all thought for that little advantage, flat value counts early in the sprint, not worth changing it... didn't think about getting wheels either, only of the speed in the trani. We only really discovered the 70 flat 80 sprint lately, and of course right now compared to other riders he's too cheap. No need change that now, but keep in mind that every change you'll do will change the value a rider that should be reflected in the cost, salary.
I have the feeling there was another one... when I thought about this a bit in the train, but forgot? Or there wasn't? Enough for now anyway.
On the schedule, steps, I would put the sprint much earlier, like step -1!
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests