cycling4freaks.com

You have your decision, just look at the next races... 8 8 8 8 8 8 8. Not happy with it... but now give me my money back. Way more important to me - 345k startingmoney.

Surely Luna "feels cyclism"... Anyway, he takes the wrong way to put rsf closer to reality.

Beginning by the end of the things is surely not the best thing to do. I'm not against the 8 riders standard but then we need to adapt the change to the consequences it has on other parts of the game : Finance and his link with big teams

Finance : Bad thing for actual big teams. If we do a 8 rider standard, I can have (I think) 2 riders less (at the really least 1) cause it's worthless to have a that big team. My advantage to have a big team is reduced. Anyway, If I sold 1 or 2, I have only 30% of their price... So, the reform makes me loose money on it. If 8 rider standard, I want the money loss back.

Solution : Let the opportunity for big teams to sell 1 or 2 riders for the normal price (90%). This should be a time limited opportunity. For ex, 1 rider for teams with 11 or more riders, 2 riders for teams with 14 and more.

But ok, surely other things to concern about.

And don't know why changing the "cosmetic aspect" before the engine part of the problem! Change the energy system first, the money win or loss in races in function of the category,... Then, you will have a more realistic "engine" base where you can easilly put more realistic "cosmetic" aspects.

Change the energy system first. Thats what i said from the beginning on. Thank you Gaurain, you exactly said what i thought

But hey, i like the 8 men races as long as i'm not favo or the race is very easy for a hill sprint...

Change the energy system first - now its to late to change it first.

Quick, me and others wrote this things before but it is more easier and faster to handle it like this.
The result is easy...we are loosing 10 k per race, i have actually 17 riders... i can't ride two races per day...Buhmann dont like it and i dont have this time anyway.
I can sold 4 or 5 riders and must pay 70% taxes.

'But hey, i like the 8 men races as long as i'm not favo or the race is very easy for a hill sprint...'
For sure, everybody like it. I can ride with 6 riders for 25k one Kapitän and one better helper and i dont must pay more than 335k but of course i can't ride for something.

btw...when a new manager build up a new team he must pay 9 riders...it isnt necessary now and should get less money the 15 mio. to get buy his riders.

And please write down in the calender if it is a 7-, 8,- or 9-riders race for planing the form.

And for me the most important question:
What you planing now?
Will you change the energy-system nearly?
Will you change the 335k-system nearly?
You're planing to write it in the calender how many riders can ride the race?

Or now the new stuff stopped because we have now the 7/8-riders-races?

8 men for fantasy one-day-races is a good standard but could be adapted to the races.
I´ll adapt the race editor in the way that the designer can decide how much riders have to start (6-9 I think).

For the most important Tour, 9 is a must.
For the most important Classics, too.

Energy and win-loss systems can be extra discussed. I don´think they interact very much with a new 8men rule.

The system changes and everybody has to adjust his tactic. The new teams have a little advantage but this is OK.

The Tour and Classice are coming soon, don't sell all your riders before

Thanks for the answer, Leso.

lesossies wrote:
For the most important Tour, 9 is a must.
For the most important Classics, too.

Ok. We have the 4th January, but this may be already the joke of the year. Remember MSR 2010 - 8riders!! I won't believe you, till we rode the last classical race... because at MSR we weren't even "used to it".

And other thing you haven't answered: I really demand my 345k startmoney. What about that?

Quick wrote:

lesossies wrote:
For the most important Tour, 9 is a must.
For the most important Classics, too.

Ok. We have the 4th January, but this may be already the joke of the year. Remember MSR 2010 - 8riders!! I won't believe you, till we rode the last classical race... because at MSR we weren't even "used to it".

And other thing you haven't answered: I really demand my 345k startmoney. What about that?

This Quick Asks (and all the others) shows well that Nothing has been discussed here, really nothing... No need to do a topic next time, it would make the things easier and faster. Change the things but don't ask the community's feeling about it or the way we can adapt the change to the game

Right gaurain.
The answer was always...'its more realistic and this way is the easier and fastest way'.

@Leso: what are the most important tours?

GT of course, Tours like Paris-Nizza or Tirreno-Adriatico? cat4? too?
what about Pais Vasco, Tour of California, Austria-Tour, DePanne? Romandie? Tour of Switzerland? mostly cat3 in the last year, but the tours have really different value

what about cat4 one day races? even if they have the same category, their value is different...at least i the eyes of some managers...

@Leso: do you say: cat4+5+6, doesn't care if tour or single race everything 9 riders? that's my point...and like i said what about some more important cat3 races?

gaurain rx wrote:
...No need to do a topic next time, it would make the things easier and faster. Change the things but don't ask the community's feeling about it or the way we can adapt the change to the game

Hehehehe, you turn something around. Noone asked us if we want to ride with 8 riders... especially MSR 2010. It just was the joke of the year...after 2009's joke the vuelta-times weren't that funny as he maybe thought...
Remember MSR...there were just the option to ride with 8 riders and one great designer thought it's more realistic and funnier to ride this 260km race with 8 riders...for maybe the 3rd or 4th time ever we had 8 rider-races...

But back to: noone asked us. WE, which means a lot of users, recognized that 8 quite sucks and made this topic... of course there are other managers who like it. I dont really want to discuss, because it's senseless anyway - we wern't asked if we want it, and leso answers here just once in 2 months... but what i want is my money. 345k startmoney!

Energy system, discuss here:

Energy vs. Speed

Energy Reform

Klebt and the ape are back. Be prepared for long posts.

lesossies wrote:8 men for fantasy one-day-races is a good standard but could be adapted to the races.

No it's not. Absolutely most definetly not a good standard. There is no good standard for fantasy races. There should be NO standard for fantasy races.

What is the argument for the 8 standard? Reality. That's the argument. Real races most often are ridden with 8 riders. Some with 7, some with 6, the GTs with 9. The UCI allows for 10 riders per team races too. The reason for the "8 standard" is real races.

Fantasy races? LET THE DESIGNERS DECIDE FREELY. There is absolutely no need for a standard 8,9,7 whatever for the fantasy races. The reason that I for example demanded 8 for the Chinese races was exactly that for a while we had almost more 6 or 7 fantasy-races than 8. Standard 9, then very few 8. There is no need for a fantasy standard. Or if there is, can somebody tell me the reason?

lesossies wrote:I´ll adapt the race editor in the way that the designer can decide how much riders have to start (6-9 I think).

Why 6-9? 4-10 I say. And I requote myself and more importantly the UCI.

2.2.003 The number of titular riders per team shall be set at 4 minimum and 10 maximum. The organiser
shall indicate in the programme or technical guide and on the entry form the maximum number for
his race. That number shall be the same for all teams. No account shall be taken of any riders
entered in excess of that number.
If the maximum number of riders per team is 4, 5 or 6, no team may take the start with less than
4 riders. If the maximum number of riders per team is 7 or 8, no team may take the start with less
than 5 riders. If the maximum number of riders per team is 9 or 10, no team may take the start
with less than 6 riders.
In the UCI ProTour events, the number of riders per team is 8. However, subject to prior permission
by the UCI ProTour council, the organiser may fix the number of riders per team at 7. The organiser
shall request the permission of the UCI ProTour council on or before 1st January of the year of the
event.
For the WE 1 races, the number of riders per team is set at 6. However, subject to prior approval by
the Road Commission, the organiser can set the number of riders per team at 8 for WE 2.1 races.

If the goal is reality how do we come up with the irreal number 6-9? What happens if a race has 10 starters in reality? You have to do it manually? Makes no sense. Put in 4-10. And let that option for fantasy races too. As now, you will decide which races you put in the calendar, you still have control over what fantasy races you put in, how many starters are programmed. Obviously putting in 10 races with 10 starters a month not the best idea... but if there is one from time to time doesn't kill anybody.

lesossies wrote: For the most important Tour, 9 is a must.
For the most important Classics, too.

Real races. that's the interesting part.

Tour Down Under light tour + short stages real 7 riders -> RSF => 8 riders Times: 10,15,18,20,22

Langkawi Tour real 6 -> RSF => 7 or 8 riders ? Times: 12;17;21 or 13;19;23 or something like that I´m not sure...

Quote from the January thread. There you're doing exactly, what you said you didn't want to do.

I´ll prefer a concrete rule for all races than a solution/discussion for every race .

So make a proposal for a rule. Not a rule for Langkawi, one for Australia etc. Or a rule... even though I'd prefer just a proposal seeing what rule you seem think is good for fantasy races...

I even make a proposal (since it seems decided that we will change from the 9 standard to the reality standard. Even if I could decide I wouldn't change at this point)

Apeosal for 2011 (that could change for 2012)
One day races:

6 9 (since you seem to want to keep it at 9 which is ok for me)
5 reality but minimum 8 (which is the case for all cat 5 races anyway)
4 reality but minimum 8 (which is the case for all cat 4 races anyway I think)
3 reality but minimum 7
2 reality but minimum 6
1 reality

Tours

5 reality (meaning 9)
4 9 (reality would be 8)
3 reality but minimum 8 (like in the case of Australia)
2 reality but minimum 7
1 reality but minimum 6

IMO not that difficult to come up with a proposal that make at least some sense. REALITY with minimums. The hard choices are

1 day cat 6+5, make it reality at 8 or make it 9 like now?
Tours cat 4, make it at 8, like they would be in reality, or 9 like until now?

My brilliant proposal makes a compromise with the one day races, 9 for the monuments, 8 for the others, then says still 9 for cat 4 tours.

But anyway, make your proposal or rule, but something that makes sense please. And make a rule. NOT DISCUSSIONS EACH TIME. Or let me make the rule

But then of course the thing is still only half done.

1) Change the standard 22 teams max to: max 200 riders. So for 9 riders/team races, that's still 22, for the very few 10 riders per team it will be 20, for the more common 8 riders per team it will be 25. With 7 28, with 6 33 etc.
What we could do here is put an upper limit on the teams. Don't think there is one in reality, but in RSF one would be helpful so that the evening doesn't get a 200 riders group with 33 teams and something like 8am doesn't get 60 riders in 10 teams (probably could be less) Maybe make it max 30, or 25 or something teams.

2) In reality (see above, UCI) you can start with less than the max. Forget that for 2011. And maybe even for 2012+

Ah, and unfortunately the apes fears turned out to be true.

Then forget an unfixed trial period. That basically would mean it's in and stays. Leso says a date when he wants opinions in here, Jan 1, feb 1, whatever, then of course the cases like monuments 8-9 will be discussed, in 2-3 month we should all get more experience with 7-8-9 tours, 4-10 one day races to have a more informed opinion than now.

We had an unfixed trial period, it's in and it stays. Of course not many opinions were offered towards the end of December (which could kind of be assumed to be the end of the trial period, even if it was never said), still... why have a "trial" if it turns out not to be really one? But ok, seems to be in, make a sensible rule at least.

Money money money... Leave that like it is. 335k. Until 2018 when we'll tackle the financial part.

Gaurains selling at 90%. Who says that 16+ teams make less sense? You get an extra spot for a leader basically. Or a good support rider, that doesn't have to ride the "standard" races.

Energy reform? We need that anyway. Or call in "Grundlagenreform"...

Ah, one more for leso:

Can't wait for the new design to see the number of the riders in the calendar, we need that now.

OK I read it and I´ll try to make a proposal this week.

Instead to edict general rules for all races in function of the cat, I have made a preselection of the amount of riders for the most important races of the year. You can see the results there:

http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... r_2011.pdf
http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... r_2011.pdf
http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... z_2011.pdf
http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... l_2011.pdf
http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... i_2011.pdf
http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... i_2011.pdf
http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... i_2011.pdf
http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... t_2011.pdf

(I could free the original Excel-sheet if anybody needs it.)

It is strong oriented to the 9 riders/race.
Maybe we could adapt my preselection now or later in the year and generalize it to special rules.



For the cat1 or cat2 races which are not in the plan, the designer and/or the calender-master will decide individually.

If no decision is made before, the automatic in the race-calendar-program will be 8 riders/race.

MMhh...

I know, the wrong thread, but....

Let's have fun with the categories!

March:

Vlaamse Pijl: Cat 2, should be 1. 1.E 07 c4a calendar, still 1.2 UCI (which roughly corresponds to cat 1, it's cat 1.1. that is split into 2+3 at RSF) historical winners here: http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/lign ... e_pijl.php doesn't look like it gained importance since 07 either. Clear cat 1. Like in 10

Monte Paschi: Cat 2: Not in the C4a calendar, 07 was the first edition. One of the few 1 day races RCS is actually supporting and not letting die. Last year cat 3, didn't get less important, keep at cat 3

Paris-Troyes cat 2: C4a 07 1E, means cat 1. UCI 1.2, see above. Here a la limite ok, fairly new race, maybe gaining importance even if the winners don't seem to say that. http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/lign ... troyes.php Cedric, not Jerome 10. For me cat 1

Nokere Koerse: Cat 3: C4a 07: 1.D wich corresponds to cat 2. Winners list http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/ligne/cla_nokere.php doesn't look like a cat 3 list in the last years. Cat 2! Compare it with a real 3, like Dwars door Vlaanderen http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/lign ... andres.php

That's for march... will complain about April + later.

ok i suppose this... IF we don't want the sponsors please give us the opportunity for play whit less racers maybe give a malus of 30K for each missing racer

(30K is better than the 45K of salary or not?)

Ok, nobody seems to care...

Maybe we could adapt my preselection now or later in the year and generalize it to special rules.

Mmh, looks rather complicated actually, since the rule seems to be 9. Sometimes 8. But ok, finally I was for more 9, so not unhappy with the rule. Even if the temptation of some more 8 is there, reality, even if the result in the race is rather the opposite than that, but ok.

The cat nr thing, I'll let that be for the moment too, will do April in March etc... just have to say for April already now: Schelde has to be 4 and Ardennes.. well, Ardennes shouldn't even be in the calendar, and if you really want it, cat 1, D5+6.

I am unhappy with the current situation. We have simulation mode for the fantasy races, while there's still arcade mode for the more important real races. So i don't care much about the details. My interest decreases in general. It's all more for the masses. Not only at this point. I am happy that cycling lovers are still tolerated in the game at all.

9 riders = arcade
reality=simulation

likes arcade= part of the masses
likes simulation=cycling lovers

Too simplistic, too easy and in the end it's fucking insulting.

Luna:

Goals:

- Making the team sizes adequate to the race. The organizers design their races in the awareness of the expected number of riders per team. Doing every race with 9 riders disobeys the real character of the races. They become more controlled than needful.

nobody can control a race with 9 riders - if he can, then it is because the other teams are not riding for the win, they ride as effective as possible for money. that´s the problem. not the size of the team. a lot of teams are just riding without spending a lot of energy (for being able to race tomorrow again) and take some places in the end, that bring more money than being first and having the whole team killed for controling the race.

by creating more races for 8 riders you actually punish the teams, willing to work and to go for the win, instead of making it more attractive to go for the win for teams, who are looking only for money...

I apologize. Didn't want to insult somebody or harm anybody. It just came over me to express my frustration. General frustration, not specifically connected to this topic. True discontent, but the wrong place for it. I'll try to articulate myself more precise and in the appropriate areas of the forum in case I feel like that again.

Yeah, no problem. In the end a lot of it is due to Buhmann Not his fault even, he works now, so all our ideas move slowly, takes time. He works full time I guess, comes home, takes care of bugs, looks at our fairness problems, rides a race, then... does what he does all day, programming. REdoes the design, and probably streamlines some things on the way. Remember that he once said that for changing one small thing sometimes he had to do it in 5 places, because when he started he then added just new things on top, so all got very complicated. He feels that was necessary, he's probably right (doesn't happen too often) so all our other ideas have to wait. Which is frustrating. Very sometimes.
This here too.. while for the moment I just don't see how the engine now supports a full "reality mode" on the riders issue, I'm fairly happy that the races I care are still with 9. down to cat 4 for both tours and one day races. IMO riding it with 8 right now just doesn't do anything really, But even I wouldn't have objected to more 8 or 7 or 10!!!!! or 6 riders for cat 3, 2 races. Just follow reality there, but IMO the important races are too important to further favor passive teams over active ones. Regardless of their role, challenger or favorites, IMO 8 in the end favors passivity over activity. Of course maybe that's different from time to time, the evening seems to have more topriders often, so that might make 9 man races overcontrolled, Looking at the evening Pavé right now... either 20 or 22, I was pah... how can this race not be completely blocked with all those riders at high level? Just too many strong riders, with similar teams. Maybe I'm wrong, didn't see the races, just the riders.. In my afternoon and morning the average leader level is probably weaker, bigger differences, which often leads to open races, some boring ones too... so might be a difference between day and night, not sure? But in my experience the engine just isn't made for opening up races with 8 riders. Maybe it owuld in the evening, less riders per team, can't say, no experience riding then. So for example that's why I in the end at this time don't support a full reality switch, monuments 8, 7 races 7, etc. I feel we need some major engine adjustments. Which doesn't mean we can't have more 7+8+10+6 races, to get used to the idea at least. But the adjustments I think we need of course will take forever, but again, who can blame Buhmann in the end, if I was the programmer I would probably have stopped doing anything sometimes in 07 and just do bug things since then... if even that. He still does a lot, but he doesn't have more time. It's frustrating sometimes, for everybody who thinks he has a brillant idea (the brillance of my best ideas is usually ignored, women's races!!!) but.. nothing to do.