Points and money for jerseys during tours

[ariostea]

who is not?

[auxilium torino]

Same money for 10-20, 20-30 and so on is a good idea. But i don´t know if teams would ride another way because of that.

But money will not depend on cat. in the future, because of the balance of this game. In winter the teams must have the same possibility to earn money likein the season.

is a manager game too...let look also who is the best manager!

money can you win all time, only, in cat. 1 or 2 race/tour, must maybe ride with a cheap team...second , still stay a wrong way to give big price at cat. 1 tour again cat. 4 tour, sorry...win ENECO is not the same that win Chile or Tachira, win HAUT VAR is most important that JAYCO...etc.etc.
too much teams ride lovely idiot tour while money win is big, enemy have a low level, and 80% of the best teams are rideng maybe a little but important tour like De panne
Teams that ride important tour ride expensive, and this tour must give high prices, this is the point...we don't need big price in moment, but less price for neither categorie.

[NoPikouze]

Is this only about tours ? Let's say it isnt.

My opinion: At this moment, people who have a leader and who ride for him are badly rewarded. On the opposite, people who bring a parasite leader without any helpers and then go in the breakaway earn much more money. Is this the way we want things to be ? I dont think so.
I'm not saying it must be the complete opposite. But at least let's balance it a bit more.
Typical example: One subtop leader without helpers, then one rider in the breakaway, and the leaders ends 6th at the finish. This guy can easily make +60k in a race, because he's under the salary cap. The favo, with 2 decent helpers and decent flatriders, will be at +40k probably. He does his job, makes the race "happen", and ends up 3rd. Will make 10k? Is that allright ? Or fair ?

My proposal is to INCREASE the salary reimbursement for every race. People with shit teams won't earn more. People with decent teams will earn a bit more. For example, +10-20k would be good. I don't think it's OK to be at +40k as soon as you have a leader and 1,5 decent helpers. Morally, and also for the game, because in the end smart people all should bring shitteams and provocate only chaosraces, which should not be the norm.
That's only part 1.

Part 2 is to decrease the money for all the shit-places. Especially places 10 to 40, which are worthless. But perhaps places 5 to 10 should be reduced a little bit. This way, people will be more incited to go for the top places only. Anyway, with the current amount of races every day (which is only going to increase, every tour "wants" its 6-7 editions every day now), you can't say it is sooooo difficult to reach a top 10 place and to make some money. Back when I started there were only 5 races everyday, and when I achieved a top 10 I was almost happy. Now every newcomer can do it. Really.

So, when you add 1 and 2, it makes favo-teams a little bit more interesting, and it also reduces the advantage of pure sucker teams.
Do you see any problems ? Yes, people could bring for example 4 sprinters without being too expensive. But since the money for the shitplaces is lower, in the end it should not pay more then 2-3 sprinters now.

On the other hand, I wouldn't like to see big teams on small shitraces, let's say cat 1 fantasy races. That really doesn't make sense to me. But they "need" to bring the same money, for example during the winter period. Thus, I think instead of adjusting the money prizes to the category, we could adjust the salary cap.
So, my complete proposal would be:
Lower the salary cap a little bit for cat 1 races (-5 or -10k would be ok).
Keep the current salary cap for cat 2 races (or +5k).
Increase the salary cap for more important races (+10k for cat 3 / +15k for cat4 / +20-25k for cat5 and 6)
In addition to this, lower the money for places out of the top 5. maybe -15% for 5 to 10, and -25% for 10 to 30.

This is more a general guideline, I haven't checked all the numbers. But I can't find any flaw in this plan

Any other thoughts ?

[Gipfelstuermer]

Buhmann said, money won't depend on category.
Still I'm sure NoPikouze is right. Money should depend on category.

Buh's argument is the balance: no high category's in winter --> no money in winter.
There's something to say against that argument:
1. I guess, most new players join this game in summer, because of giro and tour in TV. (Don't know, if that was your point, Buh)
2. Most managers play here through the whole year.
3. Even in winter we have some races in cat3, e.g. Anden or December Tour.
4. Well... I have to explain 4:

I just took a look at the year 2011. We had the following races+stages:
cat1: 438
cat2: 304
cat3: 150
cat4: 60
cat5: 77
cat6: 5
sum: 1034
(no times/race mentioned)

It's important to know, because now you see: If you reduce the money for cat1, you can increase the money for high categories - without putting more money into the game. That means: Without putting more money into the game, you can have more quality in the big races. And, to be honest, nearly everyone says, the quality in the big races is not good enough.
This could be done by changing the price money - or changing the salary. I'd prefer changing the salary, just because of transparency. The price money is always the same. With 7 or 8 riders in one race we already have different salaries.

I know the chart doesn't look at times/race and riders/race. But it's a good approximation.
Mathematically it leads to this:
438a + 304b + 150c + 60d + 77e + 5f < 1034*375.000

I just created two examples, which fulfill this condition:
The salary, I would really like:
cat1: 350.000
cat2: 375.000
cat3: 400.000
cat4: 415.000
cat5: 430.000
cat6: 450.000

And a more moderate version, maybe more useful to convince Buh:
cat1: 365.000
cat2: 375.000
cat3: 380.000
cat4: 390.000
cat5: 400.000
cat6: 400.000


Okay, who supports this?

[Robyklebt]

Opposed

Because making the paid salary higher for GT and high catergory races in fact DOES put more money into the game. Ah, ok a complicated formula, maybe my statement is wrong.

Then, the stated goal is to make high cat more attractive. That doesn't happen either, the opposite happens if anything. By having 450k paid, the average team will just get way more expensive. "you don't earn many in a GT when you ride for the win" is true. Sad but true. But even with 450k salary limit you won't. The 550 team now, will be a 625 team. Team that want the win will still "buy" the win with monster teams, and what happens then is that the small team that now starts with 370 k and does make a good profit, will still start with 370k and make less profit. Why? If now the the average for a GT is 450k? (let's just assume that's the average salary) it will then be 500 or so, and the teams will be that much stronger too. The GC teams will "aufrüsten" the classic teams will bring a sprinter or a climber in addition to their classics, the sprinters might go for a classic rider or a climber too. Everybody in principle can bring one additional good rider, either a better support rider to control, or a stage hunter/GC rider more. Everybody except the small team that doesn't have that money yet. Less space for the newcomer with 370, less space for the escape teams etc etc. Then you make it even more what it sometimes is already now, a highly expensive "material battle", where depending on the group you almost need a 550k team to compete for the GC win.

Increasing the salary cap for high cat IMO would bring a worse situation than now. Second worst idea is increasing the prize money in high cat, similar result, but a bit less, since the money still has to be earned during the tour.

Then decreasing it for cat 1.. bad again. It put's the pressure on whom again? The small team, once more. The new team. It will usually have a team around 375k? 370? Then make a 8 rider cat 1 tour and... they are too expensive. The big team? It has its stars, AND its cheap riders. Will probably be as expensive as the new team, more probably, but with stronger leaders. If now the small team manages to start under 335 for an 8 rider tour, it might not be able to do that later. And earn less money. Pressure on those teams again. Plus it makes the most idiotic type of rider more useful again, the 42-80... get 2 of those in every team, cheap salary...

Still of the opinion that decreasing the money for lower places in lower cat is the best way to make high cat races more attractive.
As for Buhs winter fantasy.. please, has been explained a 100 times to him.... As a general rule the earnings in winter are higher than in summer.... because teams that ride for important wins don't mind paying a higher salary in important races. While very few do that in winter for a cat 1 race. Cheap team, most of the opponents too, still compete for the win. If it was cat 4 with that team they wouldn't, because then the opponents all would bring a better team.

[auxilium torino]

UNBELIEVEBLE, but i think the same like roby, no, higher price, no higher loan!

[NoPikouze]

Roby, do you really believe that a +15k would lead people who already came at 500k to go even more expensive? I think they don't even care about it. That situation is too extreme. But yes, maybe the average team would be a bit stronger and weaker teams even weaker then. Also, on less important 8-rider tours, they can leave one expensive rider at home (They have a climber+sprinter usually.). Anyway, it's a bit right and a bit wrong what you said. But it doesnt convince me that the proposal isnt the best option

The main point of my reply was actually to tell auxilium to sod off. Nobody cares about your opinion regarding the money on races, since you always bring 3 leaders on every tour you ride and have only 1 flat rider in your whole team. Yes, you are the typical parasite without any helpers who would kill the game if everybody followed your teambuilding. Your opinion on this topic is completely irrelevant. Ride as you want, but don't you dare telling us that the money-system is allright.

[auxilium torino]

i am for a change in team classment system.
the sistem price is in moment pro rider (money and point) that the finish line reached!
in real the price sistem is pro team (normally the stage's best team take also a price pro stage , and in some tours like southland after every stage give also a price for the first in team total classment)

a little example is the giro 2012, i come at finish with 5 riders, francais with 7
Auxilium price as first is 3255 points, francais price is 3087
money is 1575000 to auxilium , francais take 1470000.
would have francais reached the finish line with a rider more, francais price would be big as second that the price for first place :S

the rule is not really fair, i think, winner is estimate about the first 3 on every stage, and price at every stage give not in RSF (like others jersey)..pay only the riders that reach the finish line is another penalty against the teams that the price win (all 8).
a price pro team, like real rule, will be simply and fairly.

[AlmavivaItalia]

And what about secondary sponsors? (because the main sponsor covers the race salary, i think)


for example, in subscription in tours we can make another page after subscription and participants, when everyone choose an objective.

It may be, for example

-win a stage (+10K in salary everyday if you win, -10k if you do not reach this)
-wear red/white/green for 1/2/.../n days (+10K in salary for every day you wear it, 0 )
-top 10 in GK finish (...)
-top 3 team classification (...)
-wear red/white/green at the end of the tour
-win the tour (+50K for everyday if you win, -25K if you fail)
-No objective ( +-0 for the tour)

and much more, that can be studied and suggested...

What do you think?


and sorry for my bad english

[sylvainmeteo]

And what about secondary sponsors? (because the main sponsor covers the race salary, i think)


for example, in subscription in tours we can make another page after subscription and participants, when everyone choose an objective.

It may be, for example

-win a stage (+10K in salary everyday if you win, -10k if you do not reach this)
-wear red/white/green for 1/2/.../n days (+10K in salary for every day you wear it, 0 )
-top 10 in GK finish (...)
-top 3 team classification (...)
-wear red/white/green at the end of the tour
-win the tour (+50K for everyday if you win, -25K if you fail)
-No objective ( +-0 for the tour)

and much more, that can be studied and suggested...

What do you think?


and sorry for my bad english

I don't think it's a good idea, some teams could ride against others teams to make them lose (stage or tour) and that team will lose money
Really this idea is bad for friendship in RSF

[AlmavivaItalia]

I don't think it's a good idea, some teams could ride against others teams to make them lose (stage or tour) and that team will lose money
Really this idea is bad for friendship in RSF

objective is unknow, so nobody knows it except you, and it is a risk (naturally, we can avoid to have the -X Money situation)

The situation is: you want more money: so work for it!




and, just after my last races: friendship here is not for everyone.
arrogance/haughtiness is the most feelings in competitive people
Sad but true...

[Robyklebt]

Don't really think it's a good idea. There is enough money going around anyway, why give more?
Especially because some of the stuff would be so easy. Top 10 in the tour? Depending on the rider I have, I know in advance I'll reach this. An easy 10k per day for nothing, I won't have to do anything more than I already do to reach it. Same for stage wins... With TT guys sometimes you just know in advance you'll win one. TdF, oh, good, 210k extra. Yes, no 100% guarantee, but... Same with Fabulous Conti.... I was 90% sure last year to win a stage. Won 2 finally... yes, if I fail I get -210k, but was fairly sure not to, so +210k, and would have been that. Etc. etc.

Don't think we need that extra money. It's for stuff that already gives money, winning a tour gives money, why give more (yes, winning a GT is usually a money losing action.. but so is challenging for the win without a typical "winning rider" (TT+mountain combi usually)) You just make GT more a "money challenge", not less. And there is so much money around already... give MORE? Not a good idea.

Don't really like the goal for money idea anyway... we have our goals anyway, winning as many cat 1 races as possible, winning the Giro, winning "Around the castle", winning whatever... we reach it, we get money, we don't reach it we don't get it... why make the stakes higher and thus change the money balance even more?

[AlmavivaItalia]

Don't really think it's a good idea. There is enough money going around anyway, why give more?
Especially because some of the stuff would be so easy. Top 10 in the tour? Depending on the rider I have, I know in advance I'll reach this. An easy 10k per day for nothing, I won't have to do anything more than I already do to reach it. Same for stage wins... With TT guys sometimes you just know in advance you'll win one. TdF, oh, good, 210k extra. Yes, no 100% guarantee, but... Same with Fabulous Conti.... I was 90% sure last year to win a stage. Won 2 finally... yes, if I fail I get -210k, but was fairly sure not to, so +210k, and would have been that. Etc. etc.

Don't think we need that extra money. It's for stuff that already gives money, winning a tour gives money, why give more (yes, winning a GT is usually a money losing action.. but so is challenging for the win without a typical "winning rider" (TT+mountain combi usually)) You just make GT more a "money challenge", not less. And there is so much money around already... give MORE? Not a good idea.

Don't really like the goal for money idea anyway... we have our goals anyway, winning as many cat 1 races as possible, winning the Giro, winning "Around the castle", winning whatever... we reach it, we get money, we don't reach it we don't get it... why make the stakes higher and thus change the money balance even more?

disagreeing about the red...Enough money if one participates everyday, but this is an old argument.


Blue..mine was options... or better, examples, the situations and the advantages can be studied and argued about.. not 210k more...

but, as i told some posts ago, it was only an idea... i can change telling that it may be an adjustment about the covered salaries of every kind of stage...

and i told as a team with 12 riders and positive situation... (1,3M cash)

[NoPikouze]

Increase the salary-cap for the races according to the categories. And divide the prizes otherwise, more for the top places and less for the shit-places.
I could argue if anyone cared

[Pokemon Club]

You don't take enough monet when you take mountain points ? Too much teams ride only for money, if you give them more for an uninteresting jersey or an uninteresting place it will be worse.

[Robyklebt]

Increase the salary-cap for the races according to the categories. And divide the prizes otherwise, more for the top places and less for the shit-places.
I could argue if anyone cared

I care, I care!

Alma: Enough money if riding everyday... not really, but of course, the more you ride the easier. But I think it's possible to survive and earn enough money easily with 20 or so races a month. One of the most succesful teams, Ariostea did that for years, now he seems to have stopped. Of course he had a very specialized team, so he had good results when he could ride. But another team, Zauberlehrlinge, not successful at all, he survived easily on 20 or so races a month too. Without winning that much... now he has 16 riders and is almost not riding anymore.. .now he won't be able to keep a team that big, sure. But that's normal too. Anyway, 20 races a month IMO is enough to keep a competitive team.

The blue proposals... yes, I know... I personnally don't like that system.. If Buh does, maybe he'll introduce something like that... I hope not:) But that's me...

[Bear]

IMO getting the same money for 8th and 9th as for 3rd place is not good. Getting money in the top40... also not good. OK, new teams should have the possibility to earn money. For new teams with weaker teams it's just a problem in Group 1 because they compete against stronger teams. But you also are able to escape like many teams do and you start with low salary and still have good chances to bring at least one guy in the top 15, that's not too hard. So my idea would look like this:

1) 120.000
2) 70.000
3) 50.000
4) 40.000
5) 30.000
6) 25.000
7) 20.000
8) 15.000
9) 10.000
10) 5.000
11) 4.000
12) 3.000
13) 2.000
14) 1.000
15) 500

what do you think? too radical?

[sylvainmeteo]

a bit hard, I would say give money to the top 25

[gaurain rx]

Well, I disagree with Bear. This, I think, will push more managers to ride against escapers (even with slight chances of win), cause only the first 15 scores money. So, if a group of 6-7 is already in front, this means quasi no money for the guys behind, so more guys should try to chase the group, for money reason, which, in my point of view, would be a "bad" thing.

[Radomiak]

I think NoPik idea is good and should be implemented to the game. Better cat. more good riders wants to ride it, sponsor is more likely to give money for more important races, like in real cycling.

[Bear]

Well, I disagree with Bear. This, I think, will push more managers to ride against escapers (even with slight chances of win), cause only the first 15 scores money. So, if a group of 6-7 is already in front, this means quasi no money for the guys behind, so more guys should try to chase the group, for money reason, which, in my point of view, would be a "bad" thing.

We already have this problem. But you are right, could be even worse.