Cyclocross

[Robyklebt]

As they are now they make little sense. It really has absolutely NOTHING to do with cyclocross. It's criteriums with pavé, that take way too much time. (IMO criteriums should have mintact only at the last km, they are hectic, fast, mintact from km 1 is the biggest waste of time you can have in a short race)

Anyway right now whenever possible I try to avoid them, no interest at all to ride that.

How to improve them?
No mintact.
Less riders per team. Now 4, make it 2.
No team work. Cyclocross is basically an individual sport, while teams exist, team tactics really don't. So disable helping during those races. And maybe even disable following, if you want to attack you have to do it yourself.
Somehow make it more selective? So make it ** to *** or even very technical sections ****.
Make them hillier, like the northern classics, Paterberg is 300 meters long, we still ride it as 8, so a short 100 meter climb at 10% in reality maybe could be adapted to reflect what happens better, instead of 1% as it would be now if the rest of the km was flat, make it 5/6 whatever.
Supercharge the flat somehow, but that would mean lots of work, changing the code for races defined as cyclocross, which at this point IMO isn't worth it. .

Just a bunch of ideas, not all good maybe (down to 2 riders maybe not necessary if we disable helping and following)

Result of these changes might be that just the strongest rider wins... but in the end that's what often happens in cyclocross.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Good topic.

Participation has been similar to normal one day races on those days. Maybe normal races are even slightly favored (see today even though 17h not the most popular anyway). But some guys seem to prefer cyclocross on those days, so give them a few of those races is good for overall participation, it seems. As High Flyer commented today in race:

High Flyer(10:22): or not enough fit riders to race a 7-9 rider race
High Flyer(10:21): great for people that don't have a lot of time to play each day either

Now on those ideas:

1. No mintact.
2. Less riders per team. Now 4, make it 2.
3. No team work. Cyclocross is basically an individual sport, while teams exist, team tactics really don't. So disable helping during those races. And maybe even disable following, if you want to attack you have to do it yourself.
4. Somehow make it more selective? So make it ** to *** or even very technical sections ****.
5. Make them hillier, like the northern classics, Paterberg is 300 meters long, we still ride it as 8, so a short 100 meter climb at 10% in reality maybe could be adapted to reflect what happens better, instead of 1% as it would be now if the rest of the km was flat, make it 5/6 whatever.
6. Supercharge the flat somehow, but that would mean lots of work, changing the code for races defined as cyclocross, which at this point IMO isn't worth it. .

Gave the ideas some numbers for discussion.

1. Though the same and shortened the mintact for January. Then, that was criticized by Tukh (and others? or only him? dont remember) in GP Sven Nys. Then, changed it back to km1. As I thought it was a general criticism. But maybe it was just because he missed an attack during 30sec-tact ? So it can for sure be discussed!

2. We started with 5 back then. Was clearly too much. 4 better already. If you ride with 1, you can only keep 1 rider fit. But yeah, maybe still too 'controllable'. Going directly down to 2? Sounds extreme... maybe test 3 riders first?

3. Teams exist. Sometimes they have tactics. Mostly when it's national teams and not teams because the Dutch and Belgian squads are huge... but also with normal teams there is a bit of chasing together or making room for a teammate that can sometimes be observed... not often, but it happens. So I think this function can be kept as is.

4. Didn't want to make it too extreme when I started those designs. That's why I kept it to max. **. Otherwise too predictable maybe? Maybe predictable is realistic when MVDP wins 95% of his races, but then again did we make the mass sprint more predictable when there was a dominator like Philipsen in the tour this year? No. Dominating riders come and go. Also, if we lower number of riders, that already makes it less predictable, I'd say.

5. Think I had put some 4% when they had the crazy steep ramp in Ostend and those stairs in Fayetteville... could go up to +5 I think, and maybe up to +3/+4 more often, but at +6, I fear it would favor climbers too much as compared to the real world.

6. OK idea, but agree with you not the right time for it.


More opinions? Changes to the concept, if any, to start December 2024 then

[Robyklebt]

I focus on 3!

3) Disabling helping would still allow you to ride as a team. You still manage your 2, 3, 4 riders. They just can't give your leader energy. "Not often, but it happens" btw basically means there's mostly no team tactics!
Disable following maybe should get its own number, I make it number 3b now!
3b)IMO would make it different than normal races, where often you can rely on others for attacks, here maybe not realistic, riders react to other attacks, but it would somehow make it more hectic, more difficult.

Can't resist
4) Dominating riders come and go? As in c4f.

I think number 3 would be the most interesting to implement, both 3 and 3b. Gives cyclocross a different feel from normal races, its own identity at c4f. Which right now it really doesn't have.

[Tukhtahuaev]

1. Though the same and shortened the mintact for January. Then, that was criticized by Tukh (and others? or only him? dont remember) in GP Sven Nys. Then, changed it back to km1. As I thought it was a general criticism. But maybe it was just because he missed an attack during 30sec-tact ? So it can for sure be discussed!

My problem was only the fact that all other races started with km1 mintact. I woudln't mind getting rid of it completely. Was just caught out by the change to later mintact

[olmania]

Another idea ( that would go well with no mintakt until last km) :

2 races in a row (with 2-3 riders only as suggested earlier).
Like half stages on tours (but without GC ofc).
In reality it's often 2-3 races in 2-3 days weekends for cyclocross. What about making them the same day in RSF ?
This could add challenge about energy management/reg if lineup is the same for both races ?
If reg becomes too important then, authorize different line ups on each race (or only 1 joker for second race? else) ? (too much to code maybe for that)

Of course, divide the money/points by 2 if 2 races are followed by each other.
possible issue : gives more chance to add more lines in palmares if 2 races in row. possible solution : parallel CX palmares is that becomes really a thing (or else) ?

[Gipfelstuermer]

No mintact.
Less riders per team. Now 4, make it 2.

These will be implemented for the 2024/25 cyclocross season.

With three CX races per month, the planned season below:

22.12. - Cyclocross Zonhoven
27.12. - Azencross
30.12. - Superprestige Diegem
01.01. - GP Sven Nys
03.01. - Vlaamse Duinencross
12.01. - Heusden Zolder
02.02. - UCI World Championships Liévin
09.02. - Krawatencross
16.02. - Brussels Universities Cyclocross

(exact dates to be confirmed in the monthly PDF as CX will continue to be Cat.1 and ridden when it fits)

Somehow make it more selective? So make it ** to *** or even very technical sections ****.
Make them hillier, like the northern classics, Paterberg is 300 meters long, we still ride it as 8, so a short 100 meter climb at 10% in reality maybe could be adapted to reflect what happens better, instead of 1% as it would be now if the rest of the km was flat, make it 5/6 whatever.

For now, the plan is to re-use the existing profiles (for consistency and ease) but where there are new profiles necessary (World Championships and/or if some races exit/enter the C4F CX season), the designer (likely me) can take it into account.

[lennylenny]

i will continue to boycott Cyclocross until we go away from the moronic setup we have now

2 riders per team with very light pave and helping possible makes it so that the second or third best rider is actually the favorite as the main favo has to use his second guy for tempo instead of helping making him pretty weak compared to other teams

so either
abolish Cyclocross
disable helping in Cyclocross(not a short term solution)
or increase the riders per team

i really hope we don't waste timeslots on the current clownshow in February

[Robyklebt]

Abolish

[Gipfelstuermer]

abolish Cyclocross
disable helping in Cyclocross(not a short term solution)
or increase the riders per team

Have counted 129 participations in Cyclocross races and 139 participations in the parallel race. That doesn't look like a boycot, so abolishing seems extreme, but the three rider solution sounds interesting. If even the one who demanded 2 riders per team now doesn't want it anymore, that supports the idea that going down to 2 riders was too extreme. Let's try 3 riders in February and with the World Championships there is also an opportunity to test (slightly) higher pave values.

[Hansa]

Have counted 129 participations in Cyclocross races and 139 participations in the parallel race. That doesn't look like a boycot, so abolishing seems extreme, but the three rider solution sounds interesting. If even the one who demanded 2 riders per team now doesn't want it anymore, that supports the idea that going down to 2 riders was too extreme. Let's try 3 riders in February and with the World Championships there is also an opportunity to test (slightly) higher pave values.

the participation is good because its good to earn money on only 2 flat riders, that doesnt make the races good. testing 3 riders might make it better, at least favos now have a chance to control the race.

[Robyklebt]

If even the one who demanded 2 riders per team now doesn't want it anymore, that supports the idea that going down to 2 riders was too extreme.

It doesn't. Since I'm equally for abolishing it with 3 riders. Or 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Having only 1 though I'd be only 99% for abolishing.

[team fl]

I am also for abolishing them, no matter the number of riders. Don't like them at all.

The participation argument is not valid for me due to the same reasons Hansa has already stated and because if you can only ride at the time the cyclocross is offered, you will probably ride it (well, I at least didn't).

[flockmastoR]

Have counted 129 participations in Cyclocross races and 139 participations in the parallel race. That doesn't look like a boycot, so abolishing seems extreme, but the three rider solution sounds interesting. If even the one who demanded 2 riders per team now doesn't want it anymore, that supports the idea that going down to 2 riders was too extreme. Let's try 3 riders in February and with the World Championships there is also an opportunity to test (slightly) higher pave values.

the participation is good because its good to earn money on only 2 flat riders, that doesnt make the races good. testing 3 riders might make it better, at least favos now have a chance to control the race.

Thats also only a guess from your side, how should someone know, maybe you are riding them for that reason?! Fact is: Participation is good. Following the more tours logic, we should add more of them now!

PS: I believe that there are several reasons why one would not like those races, #riders is not a pretty good one though. Maybe number of riders has an effect on the search for a favorite, maybe it even changes the favorite role, maybe one should adopt to it (inscription, tactics). I liked the 2 rider versions a lot better than the 4 rider versions. In general, I like those ultra short races from time to time and mostly ride them (when I don't confuse the starting times).

[Hansa]

Thats also only a guess from your side, how should someone know, maybe you are riding them for that reason?! Fact is: Participation is good. Following the more tours logic, we should add more of them now!

absolutley not because we are a road cycling game and not a cyclocross game. so thats not a very good comparison

multiple teams mentioning they dont like them no teams mentioning they do like to ride them should say basically everything about these races.

on the other hand following your argumention i will start do design short amateur flat races and demand we ride them, because the will have good participation too, these cyclocorss are basically a 1 team project to add something to the game we dont need.

if you want to have them use them as short races.

[Gipfelstuermer]

on the other hand following your argumention i will start do design short amateur flat races and demand we ride them, because the will have good participation too, these cyclocorss are basically a 1 team project to add something to the game we dont need.

You don't need to do that because we already have many short flat races, e.g. races like Saitama Criterium, TDU Classic and of course all the short fantasy flat races that we ride all the time. And yes, they also have good participation! On the other side of the spectrum, we sometimes have 200km+ races etc., which are maybe less popular, but we still include them. I like to offer a wide variety of races, from ultra short to ultra long. It wouldn't be very interesting if we had the same 150km hilly race every day (even though that might teach some players some tactics).

[Hansa]

on the other hand following your argumention i will start do design short amateur flat races and demand we ride them, because the will have good participation too, these cyclocorss are basically a 1 team project to add something to the game we dont need.

You don't need to do that because we already have many short flat races, e.g. races like Saitama Criterium, TDU Classic and of course all the short fantasy flat races that we ride all the time. And yes, they also have good participation! On the other side of the spectrum, we sometimes have 200km+ races etc., which are maybe less popular, but we still include them. I like to offer a wide variety of races, from ultra short to ultra long. It wouldn't be very interesting if we had the same 150km hilly race every day (even though that might teach some players some tactics).

ok then lets add
BMX racing
indoor cycling
bmx freestyle
the uci gravel calender
mountain biking
and e-bike racing

or maybe we stick to races the game engine actually supports

[Bear]

I would like to have MTB downhill Racing

Just joking… I think not all is this Bad with CC. I like to have Short races because I have Not so much time, no ITT guy…

CC I use to practice pave. I dont care about winning or money. Maybe something like extra CC races with no Money or less Money would be an idea. For sure less Teams, but Nobody complains then.

[bergwerk cycling]

i only ride 2 or 3 races with 2 guys - i have no team and no clue from pave btw.
However, I found this very interesting because you also had a chance with moderately good riders.
And the races are not so long and it was a good alternative.

maybe iam not the only one?

[Radunion]

In my view, it was intentional that races cannot be controlled. If you have the strongest rider you have to deal with it.

[Chemnitz Pro Cycling Team]

i only ride 2 or 3 races with 2 guys - i have no team and no clue from pave btw.
However, I found this very interesting because you also had a chance with moderately good riders.
And the races are not so long and it was a good alternative.

maybe iam not the only one?

Same for me. I really like it from time to time. Maybe we could improve the cobbles, make them more selective. But in general, thumbs up

[NBeullens]

I'm also gonna be a defendder for the cx races. I think that they are pretty decent because they are short and pretty much uncontrollable. If you attack from the start and the group doesnt work together you are gone. I do think they need to crank the cobble sections up because i think people will have a better time surviving a 3* Paris-Roubaix sector than they will survive a lap around the Koksijde or Zonhoven cx track. I think i mostly see guys who are more-skilled are arguing against it because it's almost the only kind of race they don't win because they have the better rider or the better tactic. I do consider that chance that a rogue-winner can occure the beauty of the cyclocross race.