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?