cycling4freaks.com

From a discussion in the chat, here is the calculation.

See Excel File attached. You only need to input 6 things:

- Average Salary of Teams
- # of teams
- Category of Race
- One-Day Race or Tour
- Length of Tour in days
- Number of Rider per Team

Then you will receive the total results and average results per team.

For Giro d'Italia with assumed average Salary of 500k , you will get:

1 Team: +1.57M
2 Teams: +1.93M
3 Teams: +1.97M
4 Teams: +1.76M
5 Teams: +1.50M
6 Teams: +1.24M
....
10 Teams: +0.19M
....
19 Teams: -1.14M

So you can see the problem here I guess. Play around with the file and let me know if you find any errors

I will post some solution to the problem maybe at a later time.

Just after a little bit of playing time with the file, I have to agree that the prize money system needs some adaptation. Or at least a discussion if the financial system is still working for the current player base. Right now it doesn't make a difference if a field has 10 or more teams participating regarding the prize money, but just take the example from the starting post. The difference between 10 and 19 teams is already huge (with the same prize money pool), but nothing compared to even smaller fields.

Fun fact and a thing that shouldn't be the case. To be fair, I didn't check the numbers with all/different parameters..just the 9 riders, Cat2, One Day Race, <10Teams.

If the average salary of a field is 375k, the average profit stays the same except for fields with less than 40 riders ofc.

If the average salary of a field is higher, the profit increases the smaller the field is. Let's take 475k for example.

1 team = 32k
5 teams = 15k
10 teams = -34k

No need to say that the average "profit"/loss even rises if there are more than 10 teams. But small fields are pretty standard if there are tours running at the same time..or worst case, 2 tours running.
And I get it, its really simplified, but you get the point. Smaller fields are the way to go if you wanna harvest money. The reduced prize money isn't that bad as some may think.

Ok, so let me define the problem:
Ceteris paribus, the # of teams in a given race significantly affects the average profit per team in that race.

Why is this a problem?
Firstly, as a principle, the average profit per team in a given race should only depend on the category of the race (Thanks for implementing that, Luques.) and - of course - in the individual case on the success of the team in the given race. The # of teams depends on multiple factors (timing, parallel races, etc....) which are not in the hand of the team manager, so it should not affect the average profit. Secondly, and even more importantly, the current money system encourages players to choose races with low participation, but races with high participation tend to be more fun, because with more players, you will most likely see more action. So you place the player in front of a dilemma. Make money or have fun. This relation should be more balanced.

Here is the mathematical solution:

1.) Adjust ONLY Prize Money by # of teams. DO NOT adjust Salary and Starting Premium. The imbalance currently results from the double-adjustment. Intuitively, right now, you have two advantages in a race with less players: It is easier to earn prize money (which is balanced by the lower prize money), but you also get a discount on your rider's salary. This discount is not necessary. In reality, the salary of your riders will also not depend on the # of teams in a race, but only on the skill of the rider.

2.) Always adjust Prize Money by # of teams. This means, that you can still take 10 teams as the "base case", but if you reduce prize money for a low # of teams, also increase prize money for a high # of teams. The formula can simply change from today's [Min(# of teams, 10)/10] to [# of teams / 10], which is then multiplied by the prize money. That means, the total prize money will still depend on two factors: Category of the Race, and # of teams. But it will be balanced, such that the average profit per team for a race in the same category will not change with the # of teams.

3.) Compensation for Pain & Suffering when there are <40 riders in a given race. If you do 1.) and 2.) there will be one imbalance left, which is for very small races with less than 40 riders, because some prize money will simply be gone for those ranks, where no rider earned the money. So here we need an adjustment. If you want to perfectly balance that, the math is a bit complicated, because technically you would have to calculate how much money there will be depending on the number of riders and the type of race..... An easier solution would be to assume: Whoever takes the pain to ride a boring race with less than 40 riders, should at least receive a minimum profit as a compensation for the pain & suffering. The minimum profit can be 0, so at least you would never lose money on such a boring race. But the minimum profit can also be something like 10,000 or 20,000 in my point of view, because otherwise with 0 compensation, it was still a worthless race and is not only boring but frustrating as well.

I adjusted the Excel-File above to show the OLD SYSTEM vs. NEW SYSTEM. You can play around and let me know your thoughts.

Overall, the new system will have one additional feature: The prize money will usually not be a round number. It is similar today, because we rarely have >10 teams and we introduced money according to race category already. However, this feature is quite nice because it will enable us to have something like a "monetary policy". Depending on the money in the system, the number of teams and the results at the transfer market, you could then adjust the prize money if, and only if, necessary. So for example, if you believe there is too much money (or not enough money) you can simply adjust the base case scenario, but the factors from Category of the Race and # of teams will remain the same. And as the money is not in nice, round numbers anyway, nobody will care so much about it.

One last thing, and I said this with the last prize money reform already, you need to fix the bug ingame as well! It has to be transparent to the player, how much prize money he received and how much he can win in a particular race.

Thanks for all this work. I have only two things I want to add and then a conclusion:

- In a very small field, even if you win the race and have additional placements due to the little amount of riders in the race, you may get less money than winning in a 10 team field and having no other money relevant placement.

- In a very big field, let's say 21 teams, at least one team will not be in the top 20 and hence not earn much money anyway.

So I think that we should not speak in averages but more in progressions. Meaning: Don't increase or decrease the prize money linearly with a given coefficient but more on a progressive scale (increase and deacrease the money towards the end of placements more than for top placements) or just simply increase or decrease the covered salary according to the number of riders in the race.

Examples ( just to show what i mean, in general):

Placements 10 teams (current -> example)
01 - 120'000
02 - 70'000
03 - 50'000
05 - 35'000
10 - 22'000
15 - 16'000
20 - 11'000
30 - 1'000
40 - 100

Placement 5 teams

01 - 120'000 -> a bit less
02 - 70'000 -> a bit less
03 - 50'000 -> a bit less
05 - 35'000 -> less
10 - 22'000 -> less
15 - 16'000 -> less
20 - 11'000 - way less
30 - 1'000 -> nothing
40 - 100 -> nothing

Placement 20 teams

01 - 120'000 -> same
02 - 70'000 -> same
03 - 50'000 -> same
05 - 35'000 -> a bit more
10 - 22'000 -> a bit more
15 - 16'000 -> more
20 - 11'000 -> more
30 - 1'000 -> more
40 - 100 -> more

I don't know if this makes sense. But I fear if we just increase the money for bigger fields, there will just be more money in the system, but there will not be a more "fair" distribution. And with more money in the system, riders will get more expensive most likely, as teams have more money to spend.

After written all of that, I still think the current solution is not a big problem. Every solution has it's advantages and disadvantages. The question is, what is better. The problem still will be the number of teams in a race, no matter what (and which teams with wich line-up, etc.). At the moment, theoretically, a 10 team race is the most profitable. But if you, as it was used as example, have a 500k salary team for a GT, you may end up with a loss anyway if you don't win anything. As simple as that. Then maybe you have to overthink your economical decisions in this game.

Ok, very nice progression approach, but before I come to that, I need to clarify some things:

team fl wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:35 am

At the moment, theoretically, a 10 team race is the most profitable.

I wish! Unfortunately, this is not correct, and I am stepping up to make everyone aware of that. Most players are "feeling" it already correctly on their finances, that somehow it seems easier to earn money in smaller races and it is true. You can see that if you look at my file. But let me also illustrate it for you with a heat map. This is the relation between # of teams, average salary and average profit today. (green = high profit, yellow = 0, red = high loss) I took the Giro as an example, but this is true irrespective of the race category and number of days. Only the amounts will adjust, but the colors will stay the same.
You can see, that a 10 team race is never the most profitable alone. If nobody has an uncovered salary, 4-10 teams is optimal. But as soon as somebody pays a higher salary than the starting premium, a 3 team race is the most profitable! I call this the 2-for-1 advantage. You get 2 advantages (easier to get good placements, lower salary) for 1 disadvantage (lower prize money). It would be better to have a 1-for-1 advantage. You get only one advantage (easier to get good placements) for 1 disadvantage (lower prize money). The heat map would like this then:
I will put the heat maps also in the Excel File for you to play around and test it. But this really brings me to another important point to be clarified:

team fl wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:35 am

But I fear if we just increase the money for bigger fields, there will just be more money in the system, but there will not be a more "fair" distribution. And with more money in the system, riders will get more expensive most likely, as teams have more money to spend.

My proposed change will, if anything, actually lead to the opposite, most likely! It will reduce the money in the system! Why is that? Well, today our races mostly take place in the "upper half" of the chart: Few teams, High Profit. If now, we adjust it to my proposal, the upper half of the chart will be only as profitable as the lower part. Basically, this is an automatic adjustment for money in the system. Because even if number of teams increases or decreases, the profit per team will remain the same! So with a more balanced capital in the system, riders will not get more expensive. The whole auction system will just be more balanced.

OK, but now let me come to your progression approach:

team fl wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:35 am

- In a very small field, even if you win the race and have additional placements due to the little amount of riders in the race, you may get less money than winning in a 10 team field and having no other money relevant placement.

- In a very big field, let's say 21 teams, at least one team will not be in the top 20 and hence not earn much money anyway.

In my point of view, these two features represent a "fair" compensation. A win in a 10 team field should be worth more than a win a very small field, shouldn't it? Because in fact, the "additional placements" in a very small field are very easy to obtain und it is not useful to incentivize players to ride for, let's say, the 7th place in a 3 team race.... Then, regarding the 21st place in a 21 team race: Even if there are 21 teams, the 21st place shouldn't be worth much, should it?

So from there, I am not sure why it would be useful to introduce a progression approach. If there is a good reason for progression, and if average profit per team is unaffected, I would of course discuss that. Because I believe, my approach and Progression do not oppose each other, they could be combined. But I think I first need to understand why you would really prefer the progression. Also because I am afraid, progression would be even more difficult to implement than what I suggested so far .

Then, as an easy solution, just cover salary differently according to the number of teams while leaving the prize money the same for every group, no? For a 9 riders race for example (random numbers, just for showing):

01 Team. - 330'000
02 Teams - 335'000
03 Teams - 340'000
04 Teams - 345'000
05 Teams - 350'000
06 Teams - 355'000
07 Teams - 360'000
08 Teams - 365'000
09 Teams - 370'000
10 Teams - 375'000
11 Teams - 380'000
12 Teams - 385'000
13 Teams - 390'000
14 Teams - 395'000
15 Teams - 400'000
16 Teams - 405'000
17 Teams - 410'000
18 Teams - 415'000
19 Teams - 420'000
20 Teams - 425'000
21 Teams - 430'000
22 Teams - 435'000

Uhm, FL, not sure I would call that an easy solution. Even if it worked mathematically (which I doubt by first glance), that simply has way too many implications for the game. For example, a higher covered salary definitely favors big teams with expensive riders.

So instead of making the system more complicated, I really advocate to make it simple! My 3 easy steps from above:

1.) DO NOT adjust Salary and Starting Premium by # of Teams. (There is really no reason to adjust that, so we could just stop those subsidies.)
2.) ALWAYS adjust Prize Money by Number of Teams. Formula: (# of teams / 10) * Prize Money
3.) For the super small races with <40 riders, guarantee a minimum profit, e.g. minimum 0 Profit per Team.

Step 1.) and 2.) would be a giant leap forward. Step 3.) is optional, but would be nice to have.

Well, I guess there is a slight correlation between salary and success anyway, on average. So more money for something will mostly favour these teams.

See. Thats why I bring these things up so they are discussed. You're welcome

Simple question, it is better or worse than the previous system?

Because actually, if it is better, I am not going to change it before new year any case, otherwise will revert.

luques wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:38 pm

Simple question, it is better or worse than the previous system?

Yes. Would be much better.

But I understand you need to set priorities. The list is veeery long. And HTML5 Version is definitely higher priority. Or hire additional developers.

Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:52 pm

luques wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:38 pm

Simple question, it is better or worse than the previous system?

Yes. Would be much better.

But I understand you need to set priorities. The list is veeery long. And HTML5 Version is definitely higher priority. Or hire additional developers.

Btw we often discuss about "2 races per day if enough riders for that". If it is something that is really in luques list, adjust the proze money isn't necessary

Pokemon Club wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:55 am

Btw we often discuss about "2 races per day if enough riders for that". If it is something that is really in luques list, adjust the proze money isn't necessary

2 races per day is a competely separate, independent topic.

So not going to post my opinion on that here. Would be better to have another thread on that for discussing pros and cons.

Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:49 am

Pokemon Club wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:55 am

Btw we often discuss about "2 races per day if enough riders for that". If it is something that is really in luques list, adjust the proze money isn't necessary

2 races per day is a competely separate, independent topic.

So not going to post my opinion on that here. Would be better to have another thread on that for discussing pros and cons.

Unfortunately it isn't, as 2 race per day = 2 times prize money too.

Pokemon Club wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:51 am

Unfortunately it isn't, as 2 race per day = 2 times prize money too.

Ah, well, of course 2 race per day has an effect on the prize money of a team. This is among the pros/cons of that discussion.

However, whether it is 1 race per day, 2 race per day or 100 race per day: Ceteris paribus, the # of teams in a given race SHOULD NOT affect the average profit of the teams in that race. That is the only thing I am trying to repair here.

So although a 2-race-per-day rule affects the monetary supply in the game, my 3 proposals are independent from 1, 2 or 100 races per day. That is why I think we can discuss both things separately.

(If anything, my 3 proposals are a prerequisite to the 2-race-per-day rule, because with 2-race-per-day the need for a balanced monetary policy, is even higher than today.)

Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:52 pm

luques wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:38 pm

Simple question, it is better or worse than the previous system?

Yes. Would be much better.

But I understand you need to set priorities. The list is veeery long. And HTML5 Version is definitely higher priority. Or hire additional developers.

Well, it's not just a question of priority itself, but also a problem of consistency.
I mean we can't change every x month the prizes otherwise people will start understand nothing.
Also, it seems to me (but I have to read all better actually as you write a lot guys ), that overall the current system even if maybe not perfect is appreciated.

Btw, for the next year, I would like to push much more little updates (especially while being able to modify all the interface more easily), like giving you an update each 2 weeks pushing new contents, little modifications and so on.

luques wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:04 pm

Well, it's not just a question of priority itself, but also a problem of consistency.
I mean we can't change every x month the prizes otherwise people will start understand nothing.
Also, it seems to me (but I have to read all better actually as you write a lot guys ), that overall the current system even if maybe not perfect is appreciated.

Of course, because they appreciate to earn huge, ridiculous amounts of money in the short-term... but in the long-term they complain about inflation in the transfer market or about expensive Giro So the complain is correct, but somebody has to "hurt" them by making a more balanced money distribution in the first place.

Basically, the unbalanced money distribution is already balanced a bit through players sometimes riding in a big peloton, sometimes riding in a small peloton.... For example, I rode 19 player Giro, lost money, now I ride 8 player Dauphine, make a lot of money.... so it kind of balances out through that. But I'm not sure, if that is really true for everyone. For example, the evening usually has larger pelotons, so they are somewhat disadvantaged. And more importantly, we should not make it a dilemma for players. Today it is either "Money in a small peloton" or "Fun in a large peloton". Let's balance that a bit! And I am sure, that for players there are not "too many changes" in RSF, but too few. I feel people want some good innovation on a number of topics. And in particular, for the prize money, players already do not understand it, because the display of the finances is bugged anyways....

So best thing would be to make it a more balanced prize money AND to fix the display bugs. (but sounds like the bug-fixing will only happen on the new interface, which is probably OK if you feel like that will be much easier for you.)

luques wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:04 pm

Btw, for the next year, I would like to push much more little updates (especially while being able to modify all the interface more easily), like giving you an update each 2 weeks pushing new contents, little modifications and so on.

You are promising a lot. Can't wait for the new interface and the bi-weekly updates then

Was going to attack the topic of pros and cons of a high average salary in a small field, but decided to show the difference of the two prize money systems on the running Dauphine instead, because I wasnt sure if the new system is actually putting out more money for teams or not. And I had no clue with what kind of average salary we are normally dealing with because thats the most important part for this topic, since we'll probably never see a field in a tour with an average salary of 375k.


4 Tours. A, B, C, D (10,18,20,23)

Average salary for each tour and the numbers of teams:

A = 496,710 - 8
B = 467,888 - 6
C = 452,169 - 6
D = 470,318 - 8

I took the easier to handle numbers for the file.. so 500k, 475k, 450k, 475k.

Lets see what the avarage earnings in the old/new system is:

A

Average profit (old): 174.828
Average profit (new): -25.172
Difference: -200.000

B

Average profit (old): 494.828
Average profit (new): 174.828
Difference: -320.000

C

Average profit (old): 614.828
Average profit (new): 374.828
Difference: -240.000

D

Average profit (old): 334.828
Average profit (new): 174.828
Difference: -160.000

Total profit (old): 1.619.312
Total profit (new): 699.312
Total difference: -920.000

Since all 4 running tours are considered, more or less, small fields, they earn way less in the new system. But now let's see how it looks if we imagine the field has 10/15/20 teams in it with the same average salary.

A (10/15/20)

Average profit (old): -25.172/-350.115/-512.586
Average profit (new): -25.172/-25.172/-25.172
Difference: 0/324.943/487.414

B (10/15/20)

Average profit (old): 174.828/-150.115/-312.586
Average profit (new): 174.828/174.828/174.828
Difference: 0/324.943/487.414

Well..no need to do C and D too, since you see, that the difference always stays the same indepentently from the average salary. Instead of losing money overall in a high avarage big field, you'll lose less or even gain money dependent on the size of the field. Let's do some more math.

Imagine A + B are staying like it is and C + D (the 20h and 23h Dauphine) have the size of 14/12 teams. 14 and 12 so we have the total number of 40 teams participating in the 4 tours (8/6/14/12). Difference between old and new for C and D are 278.522 and 162.471.

-200.000 (A) + -320.000 (B) = -520.000
278.522 (C) + 162.471 (D) = 440.933

Thats means the total difference in gained prize money compared to the old system is -79.067.

I tried to make it understandable and simple as possible but let's head to the conclusions once again. This time without a heat map and actual numbers of running tours.

The new system takes away money in general if we use it on the running Dauphine (1.619.312 vs. 699.312) because all 4 of em are considered small fields. If it's good or bad to have less money in the game is a different topic.

On the other side.. the new system pushes out more money if the fields are bigger than usual. I like to use the difference between the system instead of the numbers shown in both heat maps. 4x324.943= 1.299.772 for 15 teams or even extremer: 4x487.414= 1.949.656 for 20 teams. It's unusual that you have 4 running tours with "big fields", but we should know the numbers anyway if we wanna implement the new system.

The bigger the fields are the more money overall is gained compared to the old system. Or to say it in other words.. you'll lose less in the new system, but thats still the same. The money is still in the game.

The money shifts in a fairer way from small fields to big fields and as long as we dont have a bunch of big fields, we take money out of the game. 920.000 for the running Dauphine or just 79.067 if we imagine the total numbers are 40 teams (8/6/14/12),,2 small/big fields. Well, 12 isnt big, but you get it..bigger than the "standard" 10 teams we are counting with.

And as already said..the old system is nice for a high salary in a small field and a pain in the butt for a big field. The new system evens it out.

Does anyone have any ideas on how we can implement this theme.
2019 suggestions have already been mentioned, however, I think that with increasing numbers of managers we need to change something quickly.
It could quickly happen that only races with low participation are selected to keep the financial damage as low as possible or to maximize the profit.

Start with cheaper teams.

Some of you guys got used to making easy money because of the low number of players, that's not how the game was meant to be, it's cool when it gets tough.

kreatief wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:06 pm

Does anyone have any ideas on how we can implement this theme.
2019 suggestions have already been mentioned, however, I think that with increasing numbers of managers we need to change something quickly.
It could quickly happen that only races with low participation are selected to keep the financial damage as low as possible or to maximize the profit.

I doubt that a "lack of money in the game" is the main problem right now. The system ran several years with comparable participation numbers.

We can be happy to have more teams. And I hope new and old teams will stay for longer. Last week we still had very low participation. Even if there was a money problem, it would a big fault to change something after a few days with good participation.

And I just agree to Roby and Taka. Start cheap and you can earn easy money. Getting a lot of money with expensive teams without winning anything is not the way it should be.