Starting values for riders

[Radunion]

I do not think it is possible to win PR out of a big group in RSF. If it would be possible some sprinter team would by a pave rider and train in just sprint. It is little difference between 75 and 90 sprint if everybody else has 66 or less. The pure sprinter 48-73 95 sprint will still not be able to win such races, but the 48-85 85 sprint will be able to do it, but he will have the problem that nobody is willing to ride with him.

I had good reason to suggest the flat value for sprinters not for mountain riders. For climber I know it is impossible to change the flat value in the current system. We use it to distinguish between mountain riders and rider for classic races. But with sprinter I do not see such problems.

[Zauberlehrling]

I do see them:

1. I see NO reason, why a sprinter should be stronger in flat than a climber: Is Cavendish better in flat than Contador, Greipel than Schleck, Petacchi than Nibali?? I think no.

2. If he starts with 73-80 (flat-sprint) he can, with some luck, go up to 77-93, with "other" luck to 80-90. If he has much pavé (hidden value: 82) we will have a 93-Sprinter with 78.5 or a 90-Sprinter with 80.6 Pavé, and with a really good team around (Franco, Marzahn, BQ, TT in their best times) he will be able to go to the sprint... and if there are 2-3 such teams, goodnight for all the others.

[skull]

i dont really see the difference between a 30 men sprint where the best have 80 or a 30 men sprint where the best have 90 ...
but more important ...
73-73-73-73-73
in every possible combination
what you can pay is allowed
the rest brings the weekly gambling and the salary
allez professional-cycling
go away crazy-one-leg-cycling

[Luna]

2. If he starts with 73-80 (flat-sprint) he can, with some luck, go up to 77-93, with "other" luck to 80-90. If he has much pavé (hidden value: 82) we will have a 93-Sprinter with 78.5 or a 90-Sprinter with 80.6 Pavé, and with a really good team around (Franco, Marzahn, BQ, TT in their best times) he will be able to go to the sprint... and if there are 2-3 such teams, goodnight for all the others.

You just cannot keep enough riders fresh for the finale. The range of the sprint skill doesn't change that fact. Or do you remember Franco, Marzahn, BQ, TT managing a sprint at PR? You know them. They would have done so if they had been able to, because even back then there were some riders with comparably high sprinting skill, for whom a group sprint would have been promising. But it's not possible.

[Lizard]

2. If he starts with 73-80 (flat-sprint) he can, with some luck, go up to 77-93, with "other" luck to 80-90. If he has much pavé (hidden value: 82) we will have a 93-Sprinter with 78.5 or a 90-Sprinter with 80.6 Pavé, and with a really good team around (Franco, Marzahn, BQ, TT in their best times) he will be able to go to the sprint... and if there are 2-3 such teams, goodnight for all the others.

You just cannot keep enough riders fresh for the finale. The range of the sprint skill doesn't change that fact. Or do you remember Franco, Marzahn, BQ, TT managing a sprint at PR? You know them. They would have done so if they had been able to, because even back then there were some riders with comparably high sprinting skill, for whom a group sprint would have been promising. But it's not possible.

When I was riding against Franco's uberteam at P-R 10 he still had a 91 flat rider to block for Muchacho... okay, an 87/88 might have gone to attack, but he was able to manage something like a sprint..

[Zentaron]

Read the whole ZL-posts.
It seems you always think about one team manging the sprint. That's not what he talks about. He's talking about 2 or 3 of these teams together. And two or three can be able to manage it.

[Luna]

Not with 8 riders per team

[Zauberlehrling]

Even then. Don't forget: A sprinter with 80 flat doesn't need more helpers than the Pavé-Hero with 90 flat, specially over Pavé this would be really important.

[Luna]

Any rider with 80+ flat looses al lot of energy at all the cobbles, sprintskill or not. He would need 2 helpers throughout the race in order not to all too far behind at every sector. The man for the final kms also needs 2 helpers throughout the race. One would be needed for controlling and chasing. You would need a very expensive team in addition to the opportunity of finding 7-8 riders with ~85 cobble skill.

Even it would be possible, there could be installed a limit of cobble riders on the market, so that you would need to pay billions on the auctions for a team that could manage that.

Apart from that many other regulations could be introduced. There are and would be enough ideas if only it would be wanted.

You're just seeking reasons for keeping everything as it is, instead of finding solutions. Don't know why.

[Robyklebt]

Wrong analysis of what would be needed to get a sprint at PR. Won't even bother writing what's needed.

What the 73 flat - sprinter right now would do is: Make the races, especially cobble races less realistic, ironically in the name of realism. So, sorry, as I see it that's the main reason that no ideas for solutions are forthcoming. Because the problem is a wrong one, the approach is the wrong one. If you want more realistic pavé races, then you the solution is not over the starting value, it's over the race engine. Which is a completely different problem, a bigger one yes.

Do you have a workable solution for that one? I don't. And I have thought about that too, I see lots of problems for with the race engine, fundamental ones, have written like 800 threads about that, but I don't see a solution for the pavé races right now, not one that would go into the direction of making them more individual and less team races. Which they are (even if we saw that they are team races with Cancellara this year, just ONE good support rider would have been enough). Which all real races are. But for the moment I don't see a solution to make that the case at RSF. 8 riders races isn't, it's shortsighted to think it's a solution for anything, 73 start values isn't either. I see solutions for other fundamental engine problems, think to see them at least, but not for the individual strenght thing that would go far enough for pavé races, without just gifting wins to the "Ueber-rider" at RSF. Because if we get a system where a Cancellara can do the realistic thing and ride 50km alone and win PR, then for most races it will be 80 km alone at red against a peloton no problem. Give him the right flat value, make the cheapest value even more important. And 95% of races will develop in a tightly scripted manner. Instead of the more open "team RSF" we have now. So I see no solution to make pavé races realistic. If you see one, why not share it?

Or explain how the 73 flat sprinter has advantages? He has some, right. He can be a bigger help in "controlling" races that he won't win, a more productive rider, like most sprinters are, Zabel, Petacchi, Bennati all have been seen making tempo in mountain stages, he can contribute to more control. He can attack easier than now (he can attack now, Rigotto did it, J-Ro did it, no reason that Conti shouldn't do it, except that his manager doesn't want him too) But the 73 flat rider is not the solution for pavé races, not the solution for less control, not the solution for really anything in my opinion.


The skull proposal all 73?

I repeat my old proposal that is always ignored, and if not ignored for some reason everybody thinks I'm joking:

Create women's races. Make them well, make them FREE. One race a day. Make all MAN'S races for licence holders. And then make the women's races the testing ground. And yes, why not start at 60-60-60-60-60 there (no 73, pff, women after all) then let's see step by step how it develops, what's needed both in the engine to make it actually good. Not just "pseudo realistic" thanks to values. Not just realistic, but good to play. Which RSF right now is. Once that's done or playable, make it the free version, and start adapting stuff into the core, that means men's rsf, where real men, guys that smoke and drink strawberry milk, that pay 10 Euros per year play. Even start the 60 all the way through test before touching the engine, (but then you need to keep the men's races open for non licence holders until we know for sure it's somehow good, playable) and use the whole thing as testing ground. And get rid of women's names in the main RSF

Changing to 73 all here right now can only be bad for the game. For one it would need a complete restart (now please, before skullz has more points than me ) or a very very long transition. And obvious changes in the game engine. For which, I fear, Buh doesn't have the time right now.

All issues I haven't seen addressed by you, skullz. How about a positive proposal for once? One that there is a thought behind? With solutions? You must surely realize by know that if you change one thing at RSF it has an effect on 50 other things. What's the effect of start at 73? Which are positive, which negative. how to correct the negative ones? Where's the road map, where's the plan? Instead of just a few numbers, a nice slogan, "1 legged cycling!!!" which do nothing but derail discussions.

I stand by my original proposal here. All makes sense IMO, nobody here has yet brought an argument against it that I regard as having any real value. Radunion came closest. (I often disagree with him, but he clearly thinks, (that's for you skullz)).

Since Buh introduced the JTM auction reform (he shouldn't have at this time actually) some of the related market issues need to be adressed too (plus the JTM auction problems solved) This here is not a very time intensive change (programming I guess). It has only one "fuck the ones who bought early" thing in it I think, the TT guys. Who get weaker. It makes some of the combinations better, climber TT, which favors TT to much now. It introduces sensible 22-23-24 year olds. It creates more diversity for sprinters, weaker start, better mountain. It corrects the most extreme low sprint difference a bit. Not really enough, ideally the sprint start actually is too high. But see no chance to bring a lower one through. A higher lowest one as an alternative might be a possibility, not minimum 46 but 50. Could be. Downhill similar, bringing the start down irrealistic at this point, minimum up to 50 or 55... why not, but would require further changes that complicated everything, the (50 minimum safety) Other changes could go further too, but in general I still see my proposal as a not very complex change where I don't see too many direct negative consequences. Do I miss something? Then tell me.

Why now, I repeat, Buh started some form of market reform, now in my opinion he needs to finish it. Which means

1) Get the youth market auctions right. THey're not so far
2) Introduce auctions for everything (mentioned in the other thread I think, or maybe not yet)
3) Correct some of the illogical things, that's here among others. 21 or flop (in most cases) is just not nice. D5/6 stuff, I think mentioned it in the other thread?

That doesn't mean after he's done that, the market is perfect and closed, there still will be a lot of possible work there. A decision on a complete system change, from the buy/sell system to a contract system. Or buy sell contract system. Or keep basic system. But introduce more incentives and restrictions to promote a more lively market. But those things are all way more complex than the basic things we are talking about here. Well, I'm talking about at least. The things here to me seem all fairly straightforward, stuff that Buh should be able to find the time to do. And that logically would fit in with the JTM auction change.

Done for the moment.

(Knowing that most likely that's all that will be "done" here in 2 months as well )

[Luna]

I don't like that approach. You say skull doesn't address certain problems that would arise, so his idea can't be a worthy goal to working towards. You say P-R sprint analysis is not correct, so abolishing the flat skill limitation can't be done. As long as a user doesn't come up with a completely elaborated concept you refuse valuing the ideal that stands behind it. Maybe I misunderstand. But the very first problem to be solved is Buhmann strictly denying any turning away of restricting the diversity of tactical race options (although he promoted RSF as being a game where you can play through any tactical maneouvers of the real sport (ok, since the front page is new that promise vanished from it)). As long as any voice against one-legged'tism is shut down by pointing the finger on unsophisticated details Buhmann will never come up with a word like "ok, let's work on abolishing the one-legged riders. please elaborate a plan". Not before he gets convinced of the imperfectibility of the status quo noone, at least not me, could really develop the drive to sit down and work on it, including all details.

First mark the goal, then work on the details. Not vice versa.

[skull]

you (klebt) are stuck in your mind
you are stuck to the idea that the status quo is very good and only needs some tuning
every week you come around with a great idea how to optimize this system of cutting, exception and restriction by adjust two TT here ore 3 youth riders there

you wont get a positive proposal from me
cause positive for you means case-harden the narrow-mindedness

[Robyklebt]

Luna:

You say skull doesn't address certain problems that would arise, so his idea can't be a worthy goal to working towards.

Didn't say that, thank you for changing my words. I appreciate that a lot. As you really should remember.

You say P-R sprint analysis is not correct, so abolishing the flat skill limitation can't be done.

Didn't say that either. I said the first part. I didn't say the second part. And even if, I certainly wouldn't have made that connection.

As long as a user doesn't come up with a completely elaborated concept you refuse valuing the ideal that stands behind it.

Here at least you don't claim I say that, but it's still wrong.

What I'm looking for is not the finished concept, an elaborate one, but a workable start. Just the idea, without explanation why (ONE LEGGED RIDER isn't an explanation) is simply not enough sometimes. See my claim that your sprint theory for PR is wrong. You seem to refuse completely to value my claim. Instead misuse, to change the meaning of my post. But I'm aware that you just must have misunderstood it, thanks to your valuable disclaimer at the end. Maybe it would have been helpful if I state WHY I think it's wrong? I think so. Then I'm sure you wouldn't continue to refuse to think about what I claim, maybe you'd agree maybe not. So should I accuse you of not valuing the value of my words? No, not really, I didn't give you much to value there, just a statement. Since your analysis of what's needed to get a PR sprint differs from mine, and I don't add anything to explain the difference you can't do much more than shortly rethink your theory, and try to geuss what I think is wrong.. But is it worth the effort? Wouldn't it just be simpler if I actually state where I disagree? Definetly yes. You're actually completely right in not really deeply analyzing that part too much. Completely wrong in changing the meaning though. The same with a 73-73-73 proposal. Why not actually state the benefits. WHY? I obvioiusly came to the conclusion right now it isn't worth it. And I stated some reasons. For you then to claim that I refuse to value the ideal is kind of funny. I can spend another hour rethinking it. But is it worth it? No, because you and skull obviously must know the advantages. That I don't see. But you both seem to lack common courtesy, you both seem to lack the ability to communicate those advantages to those that right now don't see it. Too easy then to blame the others for not valuing the ideas behind it. This is weak, very weak Luna.

Maybe I misunderstand.

Yes, you clearly did, I hope I cleared that up for you now.

Let's fast forward to the last sentence

First mark the goal, then work on the details. Not vice versa.

Yes, do that.

Mark the goal. What is it actually. 73-73 etc. WHY is that a goal? Why is it a worthy goal? Why is it an improvement? It isn't "just because it is", we both know that. It allows more tactical options, like Buhmann promises? Show me that. Show the rest that. Maybe for you it's clear, maybe you are right, but I for one don't really see it right now. We're back where we were before. You need to actually give reasons, on why that would be good if you want anybody to understand it, to be convinced. Maybe you did before. then I missed it. Can't be so difficult to restate it? Skullz made it clear that he isn't able to do that in his post, you didn't. Are you ready to do it, to actually explain, definean goal, instead of just stating the goal without any and then just trying to shoot down reasons given on why it doesn't seem a good idea by others. Among other things shooting down those reasons by changing the meaning


Skull

Narrow mindedness.. that from you.

Good try! You obviously prefer just blocking ANY development, anything, then actually try to improve the game. Fine tuning? Hihi... didn't I just state that I would be for a 60- all the way in a test something in women's races? But no, you want it your way, only your way, no mental flexibility, no readyness to discuss anything. It's your point, accept it or shut up. That's all we get from you. The very definition of narrow mindedness.

[skull]

yes
Narrow mindedness
from me at your address ... nothing to laugh
think big !
read again your post from May 11
your need 75 rows to explain why to set +1 here or -2 there to adjust a crazy skill-system
which isnt better any inch than now after that - you cant call that 'development' - that is self-entertaining
73-73-73-73-73 in any combination - one row - everybody understands within 2 seconds
a big step to cycling-feeling without any disadvantages - that i call development !

[Robyklebt]

Again, no explanation or anything, just claims.

Not better than now? So you don't think having 22 year olds that are actually more useful than the ones now is not better at all? I suspect then the 22 year olds in your system would start at 1 76, one 74 and 3 73?

Is it a revolution, no. And I never claimed that, I even explained why I even kept the changes small.

Here you would have a chance to test my narrow mindedness, once again. Like when we first talked about auctions... it was you who first mentioned the south kuril auctions. it was me that first spoke otu against them, It was you and ZL and Gnoien? (and Luna was somehow involved too, some additions or something) that explained it and added details. It was me that changed my mind and finally kept the idea alive reposting and reposting it for 3 years at regular intervals. Refusing to elaborate, refusing to consider concerns, that's narrow mindedness. That's you. The guy who only posts big NOs, and does everything to block anything that doesn't go directly where he wants the game to go.

But no, all you can do is repeat an idea nowadays, calling it the nonplusultra, the one and only solution it seems, no disadvantages, no show of flexibility, no readyness for the slightest compromise and as for the reason why it is a good development you manage to say what basically amounts to:

IT'S GOOD!

Well, maybe it is, show it to me. You might actually get an ally, who, while not managing to get Buhmann to do stuff, at least manages to keep stuff alive longer than the usual 15" of attention 90% of proposals get here. And even if not, you'll somehow have to convince Buhmann. That doesn't seem to have happened yet... maybe he needs or wants explanations too? You could of course do that by PN too, up to you. I happen to think most things should be done in the open, details number crunchig and other stuff in the backroom, but to everybody his own.

Think big? Ideas Skullz, not self aggrandizing!

[Luna]

What I'm looking for is not the finished concept, an elaborate one, but a workable start. Just the idea, without explanation why (ONE LEGGED RIDER isn't an explanation) is simply not enough sometimes. See my claim that your sprint theory for PR is wrong. You seem to refuse completely to value my claim. Instead misuse, to change the meaning of my post. But I'm aware that you just must have misunderstood it, thanks to your valuable disclaimer at the end. Maybe it would have been helpful if I state WHY I think it's wrong? I think so. Then I'm sure you wouldn't continue to refuse to think about what I claim, maybe you'd agree maybe not. So should I accuse you of not valuing the value of my words? No, not really, I didn't give you much to value there, just a statement. Since your analysis of what's needed to get a PR sprint differs from mine, and I don't add anything to explain the difference you can't do much more than shortly rethink your theory, and try to geuss what I think is wrong.. But is it worth the effort? Wouldn't it just be simpler if I actually state where I disagree? Definetly yes. You're actually completely right in not really deeply analyzing that part too much. Completely wrong in changing the meaning though. The same with a 73-73-73 proposal. Why not actually state the benefits. WHY? I obvioiusly came to the conclusion right now it isn't worth it. And I stated some reasons. For you then to claim that I refuse to value the ideal is kind of funny. I can spend another hour rethinking it. But is it worth it? No, because you and skull obviously must know the advantages. That I don't see. But you both seem to lack common courtesy, you both seem to lack the ability to communicate those advantages to those that right now don't see it. Too easy then to blame the others for not valuing the ideas behind it. This is weak, very weak Luna.

The idea: stop limitating flat values for certain types of riders. Nothing different. Be it in the form of skulls 73-proposal, or be it with any other formula of starting values.

You really don't understand the reason why? Here it is:
-it's unspeakably unreal.
-It leaves an isolated team captain unable to contribute to the tempo of a group (that way destroying lots of race finales).
-It leaves a team captain unable to follow an attack or to attack by himself (while especially a captain should able to take thing in his own hands in a race finale or whenever).
-It makes the key players of the peloton (and therefore the strongest riders) lose more energy during a stage then any helper.
-It over-emphasizes the aspect of team sport and produces situations where riders and/or teams are called parasites (while especially some new managers just followed their instinct and knowledge of cycling, and didn't expect to be damned to keep still in a final select group with only one or two one-legged riders of the team in it) (don't want to abolish the team aspect, just want to put it into relation).


I really expected you to once over the years having realized the disadvantages of the flat skill limitation by yourself. That's why i don't point them out every few month when a discussion turns into that direction.

[skull]

explain obvious things to somebody who just dont want understand is a waste of time - i have no time to waste
thanks to Mr. Luna taking that time

[Robyklebt]

I really expected you to once over the years having realized the disadvantages of the flat skill limitation by yourself.

Well, thank you! Didn't know you had such high expectations. Of course just actually reading my post above would have told you that by endorsing a women's section where the start would be at 60 all the way I probably have realized that a flat skill limitation maybe is a problem?

Cut the crap, will you, asshole? Changing my words in the post before, idiotic worthless disclaimers, stupid high horse stuff here, your complete lack of mental flexibility is known, your lack of social skills, communications skills, mental flexibility too, your blatant reading weakness noted now as well. So just cut the crap and discuss the issue you piece of shit. Discuss it, don't just play your usual game, brush away criticism by ZL/Zentaron by ignoring parts of their concern, just leaving it out, by bringing in your solution for everything, 8 riders per team, as if that exlamation mark would do anything, learn to fucking think out of your narrow predetermined little shitbox, where all the answers are set in stone and make an effort to actually understand what the others are saying. Instead of dismissing everything just because well, it's not what your shitbox says.

But unlike your compadre skull, here you actually made an effort. BRAVO! clap clap clap. You actually finally managed to write down a few reasons for 73 all the way! INFUCKINGCREDIBLE. Try to do that from the start once in a while, will you?

The problem I know have, do you actually expect me to answer? Since you little know it all, know it better, piss on independent thinking, asshole obviously seem to know what I will write anyway, plus can be expected to just change whatever I write that doesn't fit into your shitbox into some completely idiotic stuff that maybe you'd write, but not me.. .it kind of seems a waste of my time actually.

Still, you made the effort, so here you go. Maybe read it in a few months when you're over the unfairness of being insulted by Robyklebt, that inflexible dumb narrow minded asshole. Poor Luna, poor Luna.

Please not the smiley, it's concerns everything that has been written until now, it has exactly the same value as your disclaimer!

-it's unspeakably unreal.

It's unrealistic. It is actually real Luna, it exists here in the the real virtual world of RSF. But agree it's unrealistic. But at the same time it has certain advantages too, keeping the game play, it's still a game after all balanced. Stronger leaders, mountain, that can win a stage like the Madeleine stage in the Tour last year, would be a very good development. Riders that aren't dependent on help from teammates. But the concern here is that it needs engine changes. Big ones. And, as we saw with the last engine change, introduction of longer races and tempo levels, it's virtually impossible to get it right at once. Buhmann then went for a temporary simple solution, which I opposed, wanted a fix one now, afraid it would otherwise just stay like that forever. A fear that seems to come true, but any of the more complicated long term solutions proposed, by me, cerro and others, would actually have been worse in the end. None of us was able to predict how exactly the 3 intensities would change things. The same here, don't do the same mistake twice. And this change would be bigger, you'd have to introduce it ready, readier then the change in intensity. A testing circuit, see womens races, would make lots of sense. To introduce it step by step there. Introducing it here, now, either step by step, or at once, thinking to have figured most if it out, would risk being catastrophic. By simply being a not well done change, that in the end instead of further increasing users, would turn lots of it away. Because in many situations the unrealistic values still give you a fairly realistic simulation.

-It leaves an isolated team captain unable to contribute to the tempo of a group (that way destroying lots of race finales).

Correct. Agree. It's idiotic to have a completely defenseless superstar who loses 10" per km on a flat stretch, but then wins time as soon as the road goes up.

-It leaves a team captain unable to follow an attack or to attack by himself (while especially a captain should able to take thing in his own hands in a race finale or whenever).

Yes, more for climbers than for sprinters though. But basically the same as above. Added the regeneration problem, that makes it impossible for Di Luca to defend himself against the impossible attack by Simoni and friends towards tre cime di Lavaredo. For that kind of strength, independence another solution will be needed anyway. That's the same one I talked about in my last post. Too bad you haven't realized that huge problem, unrealistic behaviour either by yourself or after reading my post. No smiley here, but maybe I just misunderstood you Luna.

-It makes the key players of the peloton (and therefore the strongest riders) lose more energy during a stage then any helper.

This IMO is not a reason really. It would be easier corrected in a general fundamental race engine review.

-It over-emphasizes the aspect of team sport and produces situations where riders and/or teams are called parasites (while especially some new managers just followed their instinct and knowledge of cycling, and didn't expect to be damned to keep still in a final select group with only one or two one-legged riders of the team in it) (don't want to abolish the team aspect, just want to put it into relation).

Yes and no. With the all 73 start though it's entirely possible that it goes into the opposite direction too actually. Not a thing I think I can predict with too much confidence. Unlike you and skull who seem to be either dishonest or maybe haven't really thought about the values and implications behind your own statements as much as I have. Food for thought, isn't it my dear Luna.
a) by having stronger topriders, climbers, sprinters, they become more independent, the singular rider becomes more powerful, stronger, by that making a strong team less of a prerequisit for a succesful career. But you make them so superiour, so rare and expensive, that once you are lucky enough to get one that trains well, that one risks becoming too strong, almost unbeatable. Which ok, Armstrong at the tour was, yes, but at RSF he risks being the same thing in MSR-Flanders-Amstel-FW-LBL too. Not to speak of the Giro, Vuelta, Andes and December tour. Or at least in the 5-7 months he is at his peak, dominating a lot from the Tour till the December tour, including Portugal, the Vuelta, the october classics, southland, Andes and 70 little shitraces on the way. so it could develop that way,.
b) By strenghtening not only the 'climbers', but the 70-80es as well, you finally weaken the advantage the climbers have now, the mountain, so much, that in the end the team is even more important .The 73-73-73 might develop into a climber. a tradional one. Excellent training, let's say 90-74-73-73-73. But then the opponent has a 85-73-73-75-75. And adds a another absolute toprider but trains him to 80-80-73-73-73.. What happens is that you the 90-77 gains less time on the classic helper than he does now. A lot less. The 78-80 exists too now, but is a top trainer.. the 80-80 to me seems a fairly likely guy. +4+0 first month, plus 0+4 second month, you're at 77-77. That part actually can almost be guaranteed. Almost, I know. In the first month though you have some rest percentages, you might get +4+2 with lots of luck, plus 4+1 with still lots of luck, but already more likely. And if you take risks, you might end up at 76-76 in extreme cases 77-77. Then after 2 months you're 81-77. But even with the conservative way, you're at 77-77. at 23, around 70% giving all on one skill, 80-77 is expected, normal. Then "just" 3 more flat. not unlikely either.. likelier than 78-80 now. So by actually giving the possible max to every rider, you just weaken the climbers further. IMO the flat value is already very important now, used indirectly, by having it so cheap and making it so easy to come back after climbs. With 73 mountain start for future classics.. you just make it worse. You actually risk making the mini team play stronger, mini since for salary reasons you won't have too many of those. Yes, I'm aware that nobody is propsing flooding the market with all 73 riders. That there should be 1 once a year or so.. a few 73-72-72-70-72 and so on, But it doesn't change the concern, that by freeing the one legged riders from their disability, you weaken them further by cutting away the muscles from the one leg they had so far. You make the the allrounder helper, the most important rider. the strongest one. 80-vs 74 is not huge, he won't win back a minute in 6 km like now, but he'll lose less in the mountain too, so making the minute now to what, 20"? Just wildly guessing here of course. Because, I repeat now it's the 74 81 that corresponds to the 80-80. or even 73. +11 mountain til the end of 24, 71 the 80-80 is at 80-77 at the end of 22. Gets 3 more flat over his career, let's say one at 24, end of 24 80-78. The 56-74 is at 71-78 maybe then. Higher percentage in mountain, same in flat, ok, not even 73-81, he'll have less flat with similar luck. So in the end... could very well be that we finally only weaken the climbers. Since the 80-80 seems a very likely development. That then would be a perfect locomotive for the leader, be that 85 73 with sprint, or 85-73 with TT. Really limit the good riders, than it could go towards a) again.

So, what will happen with 73 all the way on the market... I don't really know. AND THAT'S the point. I don't know, I'm not sure anybody knows what can happen. All I know that it's not an automatic solution for more realistic races on it's own. On some specific issues the benefits are obvious. On others it would need a lot of paralell adjustments I think. But without really being able to predict which ones exactly, hard to implement them. Basically impossible to implement them when it just seems impossible to know what will happen exactly.

So while I think it is a development worth exploring, I see lots of potential issues, that somehow need to be adressed BEFORE any cold implementation of the 73 guy. And maybe the seemingly unmovable principle of 73 all the way isn't really the perfect way to go either. Maybe a middle way, oh horror, a fucking compromise, where not all values start at 73, but maybe the flat instead of going UP for sprinters/climbers, goes DOWN for flat riders, let's say they start at 68 is an idea? Or maybe the selectivity of the mountain needs to be increased, so that in fact the Zoncolan itself brings differences that are comparable to what happens in reality, so that on top of the zOncolan a 80 climber isn't just 1' or so in front of a 80 climber. Yes, 1 to 1 it will be more, but it's not 1-1. It's 1vs2vsall the 88-87 climbers that need to be dropped to. So a sieb to get rid of the 85-80 duo a followed by the attack soon after, hoping that the 85-80 duo is behind far enough not to keep the 88 within 10", which would then allow them to come back by simply doing tempo, so wait a bit longer, but then the risk is that he 88 all follow... which of course isn't bad in itself, we don't want version a) where some riders are just too superior either.. .but we need don't need to introduce the 73-73 either if in the end it only actually hurts one of the rider types it's supposed to help? Which see b, is kind of a possibility.

Finally, I'm not against the 73-73 on principle. You and your asshole brother in arms can claim that as long as you want, if it makes you feel better go ahead, you know how I will react, sleep in the bed you make for yourself and don't even think about starting your usual whining act. But I'm definetly against a cold implementation of an untested change of this magnitude into the core of the game. At this point in time. Regardless of what exactly it is. As a long term goal.. I'm not opposed to going into that direction, never was. Have certain doubts, it's an unknown that will need more reflection than you or skull want to admit to, although obviously you must know it.

Plus, I don't see my "role" here as the revolutionary proposer of overhauls. What I try to do is giving Buhmann the most options possible, further exploring mostly those that he seems not to completely dislike. Unless it's stuff he completely dislikes and I absolutely definetly don't understand why... which happens too. If I was the developer, the boss here, quite a few things would not be the way they are, quite a few things that you haven't read long Robyposts about. And maybe the game would be worse... entirely possible. Not that you would have understood them with the high level of literacy you insist showing in this thread actually, but stuff that after a small test balloon was clear to have no chance, stuff that is just too outside of the general direction Buhmann seems to want for the game. I prefer pushing and exploring stuff that has a slightly higher chance of approval by Buhmann, stuff that he showed at least a marginal interest in. Of course occasionally you'll read (let's just say others read, easier) stuff that has 0 chances, that's usually the stuff that comes into my mind, changes and develops while I write the post, and if I reread it 2 days later I ask myself how I came up with so much shit all at once. But generally once the long posts come I want to have thought it over (a novel concept for you and skullz I think), want to believe that it goes into the Buhmann direction, that it might have a chance to actually develop into something later.

Which this one, at THIS POINT in RSF IMO just simply doesn't have. Not even the slightest hint of interest of Buhmann, whenever it was mentioned, and it has been mentioned more than once. And more importantly: Buh is obviously completely overworked, he himself says he either needs to get users, better now than in a year or sooner or later he'll have to abandon the project as it is now. He just can't go on working 2 jobs, which is more or less what he's doing. He works, comes home, then works RSF. Yes, that idiot should stop racing and just develop, 2 hours more per day. Sure.

So what exact value has it to push a huge huge change like this, if Buh shows no interest and has absolutely no time? If he had time, it might even get on my low push, small exploring low intensity push topics, but in the current situation? I regard it as nothing more than intellectual masturbation, look with what great plan I came up. Look, that's developement, that's the real stuff. Let's do that! Why not try to push the little things, that are far less time consuming to think over, far less far reaching in their influence, far less complex to program? You might have noticed (or not... ) that for the past 1+ year, maybe even 2, there hasn't really been anything new coming out of Shanghai... why do you fucking genius think that is? Because I realized that even if Buh shows interest, actually would like the idea, doesn't even matter who mentioned it first, I never had problems further developing ideas mentioned by others if Buh shows interest, he has ZERO fucking chances to program it. Because he has 0 fucking minutes to work on it. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally have new ideas or read new ideas that I like... That doesn't mean I don't have notes about stuff in files. But just don't have the love for masturbation you and that moron skull have. So let's push the old leftovers, let's push for corrections of small mistakes, let's keep the nr 1 priority really, that is the game engine stuff kind of warm, not completely forgotten, otherwise let's just do the small things. Like for example the youth rider limitation thingy. Which btw I decided to come out and oppose your idea now.. was ok for a compromise and take yours, it's not bad, true, although IMO the weaknesses of that one are bigger than my proposal, better that than nothing, rather take the ok solution than the good one. But hey, be the asshole, I'm one too, and I'm really really good at being an asshole.. REALLY GOOD LUNA. And unlike you I'm aware of it, you're just an asshole without realizing it. So, hey, let's go and torpedo the chances of implementation there too. Better nothing than a change that doesn't fully satisfy me. Sounds familar? Because in the end that is ALL you and skull are doing here. You prefer not having the small change, "it's just make up", "it's close minded pseudo development" "we need to go with MY PERFECT PLAN" even though you 2 fuckers know as well as I know it that right now this proposal is dead. NO CHANCE to get it going, regardless of what I say and think. It's just too big for Buhmann now. Just some masturbation, to prove to yourself how fucking great you are, you 2 fucking assholes.

The one I made, not far reaching enough, contra productive for your further plans, whatever, but IMO doable without too much effort, and an improvement. But not good enough for the 2 gods. Of course in those situations you could just come out and say: Don't think it's good, maybe it isn't.. But no, let's just go it away by diverting the thread. What class. Ok, you reached your goal. Let's forget that one, let's forget the limitation for youth riders too, since it's so easy to be destructive I go for it too. Let's all just fight only for our own little perfect long term plans, instead of actually trying to help Buhmann improve the game further, step by step. Because well, trying to do that is you know what? It's called narrow minded

So, you win. This change here will not happen. Happy?

[Robyklebt]

At least NoPikouze should have fun though

[Radunion]

Reality should always be an argument in the discussion. Giving sprinters (and mountain riders) low flat values guarantees that the do what they do in reality most of the time, waiting for the bunch sprint or the final climb. But by doing so you miss some interesting tactics that are applied in reality sometimes. Putting a sprinter in the group to get sprint points, or because he has little chance against the stronger sprinters in the pelOton, or attacking a long way from the finish with your mountain rider, if the favourite has a week team. This of course needs more balancing to guarantee that the exception does not become the rule, but it should be worth the effort.

Going back to the pave races. I believe that in reality a sprint of 20 riders in the velodrome is more likely than no sprinter in the top 10 (both scenarios will not happen). I have not much experience in pave races in RSF, but if you think the sprint is too likely (and this should be proven by a test) increase the selectiveness of the pave. There is no problem if the strongest rider can win with a attack at 30 - 50 km to go, if the other teams do not use their best riders to follow him (try to get a sprint or keep them fresh for a late attack).

In the long run it should be the target to offer all rider types with decent flat values, but I also believe in small steps (adjust something for the sprinters and think later about mountain riders). For sprinters this should be possible with minor changes in the engine (if the prove necessary at all), for mountain riders there must be a bigger reform of the system, to keep the classics riders dominant in classics. In the current system (unlike in reality) these riders loose time on short climbs to mountain rider, but get them back in the flat. This must be replaced by a system in which the classics riders are very strong on uphill sections but run out of steam after 2-4 km. But this as I mention needs much more effort the a reform for sprinters and should be discussed separately.

[Luna]

Donnerschlag! Erst musste ich mitlachen. Aber am Ende ist mir schließlich klar geworden, dass du tatsächlich irre bist. Krank. Und es tut mir Leid für dich. Aber ich kann deine Neurosen nicht weiter befüttern, indem ich mich auch noch sachlich mit dir auseinandersetze. Es ist auch für mich anstrengend. Am besten ist, du versuchst dich nicht weiter von mir angesprochen zu fühlen und machst das mit dir selber aus. Vielleicht klappts ja über die Block-Funktion im Control Panel. Ich werde umgekehrt ebenfalls nicht mehr auf dich eingehen. Wenn es mal wichtige Inhalte in dem Gesagten gibt, werden die auch auf indirekte Weise zu uns finden. Wird schon nichts verloren gehen.

[Robyklebt]

No, Luna... The simplest thing is:

You stop changing my words. And you know you did that. Claiming I said stuff that I simply didn't say, making connection that are simply dumb, and you know I didn't make. Putting words in my mouth? No thanks. That's the simplest. Then, no problem for my side. And even if, no problem from my side either actually, it will just be the kind of answers you just got, that you will get.

Of course if you are unable to communicate with me (if it's easier for you to tell yourself I'm mentally sick that's ok too) , I can't change that, then don't communicate with me. I on the other hand see no reason not to answer to whatever you write, not to comment, not to critizice, praise, agree, disagree with whatever you write. It's about the issues, not about you. If you feel too immature to argue about any issue with me, ok... your thing.

Radunion:

1: It's pelOOOOOton.

2: Yes, agree with most of what you say in the first paragaraph. Or everything.
The second paragraph though becomes a problem. By giving the sprinters up to 73 flat, you just really make it very very likely that PR and other flat pavé races end in a sprint too often. They have a big tendency to end in smaller sprints too now, so yeah, in the end doesn't matter if it's a 95 who wins or a 70, sprint is sprint. But the thing with sprinters in Paris Roubaix is they win as the riders they are, strong in sprint but strong in flat too. With the change here at RSF the way would be: In a sprint. It wouldn't necessarily become a boring race, but with 73 flat 82 sprint, not only would there be 80-90 sprinters, but also 90 82 sprinters. And things in between. Which would very often result in a collaboration between the different types until the carrefour de l'arbre, there a sieb, from then on racing against each other. Which would give more sprinters in the top, and in reality there are always a few in the top 20 (but it's not like a sprinter generally is good in PR either, Hushovd when it comes to sprinters is actually fairly slow IMO, Boonen is not a top 10 sprinter either anymore)

Only sprinters now, ok, got that now. More doable. Up to 59 now, go up to 65, why not. Too much and they become potentially too strong, and race changing and blocking in pavé races.

The last paragraph... we're really completely offtopic... but what IMO needs to be changed is irrelevant of starting values. It's short climbs vs long climbs. A single 5 has too big influence now sometimes, a series of 10 5 in a row a too little one. But that counts for sprinters too actually. And by giving them up to 73, here too they would become too strong. a 73 flat sprinter even with 50 mountain will just not be dropped on a 10 km climb with nothing above 5, never, even if it's the last 15km. While in reality, many many would.

[skull]

flat for everyone is not that impossible
booboy is already shot
several times he brings his 'virtual higher' flat-skill idea
he just need some fire to make the big thing

[Robyklebt]

But that's just make-up.
Think BIG Skull.

[skull]

you write thousands of rows to attack make-up

after some re-calculation i came to a new idea
72-72-72-72-72 is better than 73 for all

but be positive
i like the idea reducing the TT skill in general