January 2025

[ECS Cycling]

The circuits need to be manually adjusted again I think (stage 2 & 5 I think ?).

Can you explain what is wrong with the circuits?

in stage 2, it's visible that the circuit goes "down" everylap, probably more downhill % than uphill % in the circuit.

stage 5, it seems that the % are different in the 2 climbs (if that's a final circuit), but that might only be a display thing there.

St 2: fixed, climb was too shallow
St 5: Must have been a display Issue, climbs are the same

[olmania]

The circuits need to be manually adjusted again I think (stage 2 & 5 I think ?).

Can you explain what is wrong with the circuits?

in stage 2, it's visible that the circuit goes "down" everylap, probably more downhill % than uphill % in the circuit.

stage 5, it seems that the % are different in the 2 climbs (if that's a final circuit), but that might only be a display thing there.

St 2: fixed, climb was too shallow
St 5: Must have been a display Issue, climbs are the same

Good then !

I guess it could be added in the calendar asap because it starts quite soon

[olmania]

A little check up on Alula design, made me think small adjustements can be made especially regarding the last km incline which can have big impact for sprints (see yesterday -2% in TDU when it was probably not a real -2 there irl).

stage 1 : should be around 143kms and last km a 0%.
stage 2 : the finish line seems to be at the top of the climb, not mid climb. maybe add the last km ? I found info saying it's 1.6kms >12%; with a steeper part; but the last 500m are less steep. 14/10 seems a bit too much there imo; but probably not a big deal. I'd be keen to keep 2 steep kms ofc (13/9 or 9/13 f.e) but it would mean to adapt the whole circuit.
stage 3 : should be around 180kms, last km a 0%.
stage 4 : last km as a -1% is ok, -2% is a little more accurate, but no big deal. main question is 8 or 9km after the top of the climb ? you went for 8, that's ok. 9 would have been ok too. about the steep climb itself, I think there should be 3 sieb kms there, something like : 9-16-9 (or even 17% for the km in the middle), source I found : https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/viewtrack/467536
stage 5 : stage should be a little longer and final circuit changed. last km is a -1% (or a -2% max) not a -3%. actually how I see the final kms (and part of the circuit) Something like : 2/4/-1/-2/-1 climb could also be seen at 1/5 as there is a steeper part, but it's super short, so 4% looks better there imo.

Another question is about the categorisation of the stages. Official website says flat for 5 stages, which is not a great idea imo. You decided to go for medium for stage2 and mountain stage4; could possible be the opposite. or both be mountain stages.

I hope this feedback can help you improving your designing techniques ECS in the future. and I hope this can help to adapt Alula ! All I said is ofc not pure truth as designing means to adapt and make choices sometimes.

[Hansa]

Another question is about the categorisation of the stages. Official website says flat for 5 stages, which is not a great idea imo. You decided to go for medium for stage2 and mountain stage4; could possible be the opposite. or both be mountain stages.

i think the check now is to late for that:

also

if the official site has them all as flat, we should have them all as the same too, the categorization in RSF is mostly important for the Sprint jersey and if its categorized like this we should keep it.

as the points according to last years roadbook are 15 – 12 – 9 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 and 1 point(s) i think have them all as Mountain stage would fit the best.

https://www.xoo-cycling.ch/download/roa ... a_2024.pdf

and according to this roadbook (i know its from last year but points should be similar) we could think about changing all the IS to a cat 4 gpm, as they seemingly dont count toward the Sprintjersey (i compared with last years stage results and they really dont count), but they count for a different jersey with 3-2-1 points, the most combatitive jersey, i think thats best shown with a mountain jersey in rsf

and not all of them have bonusseconds only the Bonussprint ones so we have now to many bonusseconds there.

next time these things should be checked earlier

[Robyklebt]

the categorization in RSF is mostly important for the Sprint jersey

Points jersey please. Just because it's wrong in the game doesn't mean we have to insist on calling it the wrong name.

[Radunion]

How hard would it be to set the point system in the editor and ride with real rules for all tours?

[Hansa]

How hard would it be to set the point system in the editor and ride with real rules for all tours?

would like that

[olmania]

Clasica Valenciana seems to have a totally new and different route this year : https://classicacv1969.com/recorrido25.html

Not for sprinters anymore, with a steep 3kms climb near the end.

Maybe that's not fair/too late to update it in rsf calendar as some teams might have decided to participate to TDU or not according to that (probably not only that ofc).

[olmania]

Alula starts soon, any update of the profiles incoming ?

Valenciana will stay as planned then.

[ECS Cycling]

Alula starts soon, any update of the profiles incoming ?

I don't think I can update the profiles now that it is published, so I guess Alula will stay the way it is.

[Alkworld]

How hard would it be to set the point system in the editor and ride with real rules for all tours?

The game technically allows that. Different rules can be used for different races (that's now NCs are handled differently from regular races), and the ruleset can even be set in the editor. But some developer needs to create the ruleset beforehand, so they can be used.

[Hansa]

How hard would it be to set the point system in the editor and ride with real rules for all tours?

The game technically allows that. Different rules can be used for different races (that's now NCs are handled differently from regular races), and the ruleset can even be set in the editor. But some developer needs to create the ruleset beforehand, so they can be used.

Give the possibility to the designer to add a custom one. Or let him chose the standard one.

[Gipfelstuermer]

How hard would it be to set the point system in the editor and ride with real rules for all tours?

The game technically allows that. Different rules can be used for different races (that's now NCs are handled differently from regular races), and the ruleset can even be set in the editor. But some developer needs to create the ruleset beforehand, so they can be used.

Give the possibility to the designer to add a custom one. Or let him chose the standard one.

As a purist, of course I like the idea, but perhaps a discussion is needed.

So far, we've had custom rules only for Grand Tours, without exception. One reason was the developer work required, but I think there are more reasons to have a 'standard' points system. One reason is probably that it is a big ask for designers to also input the points system correctly for every race. We sometimes struggle to find designers for races, and now you would require them to research the points system, too. Researching it for a 3-week-tour is fine. At least it will be used for 21 stages. But researching it for every 3-day stage race? That's a lot of extra work for those few designers. Also, the road book is often published much later than the profiles, sometimes just one or two days before the race starts. So designers would have multiple 'open' projects at the same time and the races would be published even later than now. The profiles might be available a bit earlier (but still subject to change) and also it would only be possible to inscribe very late, which might be annoying especially for stage races. Some teams just ride stage races and they sign up a few days in advance. While it is true that stage races can be designed reasonably quickly thanks to gpx, even today designers do not have enough time to research details of the profile (gradients used for famous climbs, difficulty of cobble sectors, precise circuits etc.). To have a realistic race outcome, those details matter more than the points system and I'd rather have designers research those details than search for the correct points classification.

Then there are also some implications for gameplay. Sometimes real life points are for more riders than in-game, partially because real-life pelotons are bigger than our in-game pelotons. For Grand Tours it mostly works because they are popular and we are careful in calendar planning. But for smaller tours, we sometimes have small fields (less than 10 teams) and for those, the standard points system may actually be better suited.

Last but not least, it sounds like a nice idea for teams with 10 years experience, because you know the game in-and-out. If you are already an expert of the game, a change in the points system is an interesting feature/variation for you. But imagine you are new to the game. Perhaps you hunt the mountains classification, because that's good for newbies. Now every stage race, you have a different system. You need to research the system, adjust your strategy, etc, while you are just learning the game and need to focus on the rider skills, profiles, etc, too. So I fear it might be a bit overwhelming or too 'nerdy' for newbies who are just here for the fun and are not necessarily cycling nerds who know the point system of every real life race by heart.

[Radunion]

As a purist, of course I like the idea, but perhaps a discussion is needed.

...

Maybe we should move the discussion elsewhere. But to counter your last paragraph, after over 1600 races, I still look up the point distribution every time I ride for green (or very rarely for red). As this is now easily findable in the race screen I see no reason against it.