Coincidence in RSF

[Cerro Torre RT]

Motivated by what I wrote anout the Campeonato, I want to show that I am not completly giving up on that topic, but try to focus on promoting some mayor changes of the physics of the game. As you read this, you may notice that what I write is pretty onesided. This is an effect of my goal to convince as many people as possible of my view of that topic.

As a first start, I want to talk about coincidence in RSF. In this topic, I don't want to discuss about special aplications in RSF, but a general opinion of how much coincidence this game has and should have.

The most common opinion about coincidence in RSF is necessary, but limited as far as possible. At least, that is the opinion I suppose Buhmann has, based on what I read in the forum. We all know we got coincidence in training and in sprint strength. Maybe a bit, but from my experiance nearly none we have in following attacks or beeing dropped from a group. More or less, that should be it. The argument is to not have it in races some more is that you should not lose a tour or another important race you made your team for by simply having bad luck at one day.

This is discribed to be a fun killer. To evaluate on that thesis, better to say to negate it, I want to draw a comparison to a form of games that have made their way for a long time all over the world.

1. Poker (as a representive of nearly all card games):
From the mayority players that know the rules and played that game, asking them about their opinion about the game and especially about their view of the balance of coincidence and tactic in that game, they will describe it as pretty good. You get cards by coincidence that nobody else does know about. Now you have to act. The goal to me seems to be to make your opponents believe about your cards whatever you think is good for you. The only thing you can do to evaluate if your hand is good in comparision to others is to estimate a chance to win that hand, taking all information you can get. You have to take losses, you will lose certain hands for sure, even if you got the better winning percentage in all cases. But in oposition, you can play with cards how bad they may be, with good decisions you can higher your chances to win.

2. Monopoly (as a representive of board and dice games)
I guess everybody knows that game, so I won't get into the rules. But as coincidence you have to roll dice and pull some cards on special event. By all the decisions you can take through that game, if you forever hit the wrong fields, you are done, but with a normal amount of it you can influence the game with your decisions, which can pay off for you or not.

The mayor question now is: Do you have fun in playing Poker, Monopoly or other card, board or dice games?

I suppose the great mayority of the users will answer this question with yes. So there are a lot of games that are fun to play despite the large influence of coincidence, or probably better to say because of the large influence of coinsidence. To refer especially on those 2 games mentioned, you can win only by luck, but most times the winner just played better or at least good. And with a high number of repetitions, luck and bad luck will lose their influence, as the average becomes more and more even for all the players.

As a result of that, I propose to include more coincidence to RSF to make that game better in the meaning of more fun. I like to mention 2 themes where I see a good way to implement more coincidence into the game. The first is a day form, which is not shown to the opponents. More details shall be discussed elsewhere. This would provide something similar to the cards you get into your hand in a card game (only similar, as you know the cards exactly). In short intervals (in RSF races) you get new cards (rider values) and you have to make the best out of them. As it changes your situation constantly, from one day race to another or between the stages of a tour, you have to consider many more tactics, ways to ride, ways to act towards your opponents to make them believe what you want them to. Those challenging adaptions on the changing base you have to play with are providing the fun to nearly all of those games. You can't win everytime, but if you got a bad day you have to do as good as possible to reduce your loss to bounce back at a bad day of your opponent. The second topic is crashing. During the race, that provides a turnaround in the game you have to react on, such as the river card in poker or a bad dice fall in Monopoly do. You keep the players active, changing their tactics, you provide challenges to be solved. If the situation would only change in a predictable way, the game would be boring as you know what happens right from the start. But if there are some unpredictable changes during the game, you are motivated to keep fighting even if you struggle as the situation can turn around. Sometimes you will get hurt by this, sometimes you will take your profit out of that. With enough repetitions (races) that will compensate for you.

So as a summary, this is a petition for coincidence in day form and crashes in RSF. Thank you for reading and your comments.

[NoPikouze]

You mean randomness ? I'm not sure coincidence is the right word for this, although my english is not perfect...

Dayform... interesting! Although I would not say it changes tactics very much. Since you don't know how the opponent is feeling on that day, he could be stronger as expected. Trying something will be a failure. Is that an incentive ? And when you plan something in advance, on a specific day, and your dayform is bad... quite annoying! (but realistic and "fun")
I'm still thinking it's interesting, but the advantage of it seems not so obvious. Ok, the sequence of events/results will become a little less predictable, and you see that as an advantage (probably because you've more than 1300 races).

Another small thought: Some people (favos) will try to take advantage of other by saying they have a bad dayform and dont wanna ride. Can screw up some races. Ok it's just the "bad" behaviour of those managers, not the system, but... this situation exists nowadays, could become even worse. My point is, that we could see more "chaos" races where nobody wants to control. Or simply more parasiting. Anyway, I'm not sure you like that.

On the other hand, I agree it is kind of fun, but it's also making it more risky, to take an expensive team or to plan something.
And that's where I come back to your 1300 races. When you have been riding so much, it's understandable that you want something like that to make the game more spicy. But when you have 100-500 races, there are still plenty of thing you want to achieve by planning them

[Quick]

I would love it! It's just often someone with a megateam - see for example Lulu, Australia, Elb or maybe mine. Then it's sometimes: Ok, absolutely nothing can happen today to the favo - thats boring. You surely can try weird things, but i think it would be good to know that "if i'm really lucky i may have a little chance" - without risking everything 50kms before the goal.

Edit: Ah, for the important races - better to lose because of "randomness" than of own mistakes. Believe me - i made many last season. :/

[Zentaron]

As you said, in Monopoly and Poker you have some influence by yourself to turn the wheel of fortune into your direction. Here at RSF when your rider falls back cause of a crash or an injury (i hope, you don't want them to leave the tour in the hardest case - that i deny immediately) you have no influence to bring him back if the other teams don't want it. So the comparison with that games doesn't fit in my eyes.

I talked with some other managers here the last time - and found some who are (as me) the opinion that the coincidence grows too much in that parts we already have it. To get a great rider by training? Much coincidence. Too much for the mass of teams we have in comparison to the past.
Sprint coincidence? I was one of the managers who forced it because we had too less sprinters at that time. I was one of the managers who created an idea to reduce it, when there were more sprinters and the coincidence became too much. But now even the reduced version is too much because every little idiot has a sprinter with 92/93/94 who is able to win. However his team never works for him because there are some better ones. At the end they win very often because of the coincidence. And the working teams are the kidded ones.
So my opinion is to reduce this coincidence instead of creating some new one. With less coincidence in sprint i would have to work the same amount as now but have better winning chances for it. Okay, it is only the sprint i'm talking about (mostly) and i know you have had some ideas for a better sprint system as well, but as long as this problem isn't solved and as long as your influence to come back after an injury/a crash is not given, i am against it. (Crashes i don't like at all - see above. Day form is okay, but only if something happens with the sprint system. Otherway it will become much more random to win a sprint and even a 89? 90? whatever is able to win against a 97 from 50 m without working a single kilometer.)

[Cerro Torre RT]

As you said, in Monopoly and Poker you have some influence by yourself to turn the wheel of fortune into your direction. Here at RSF when you're rider falls back cause of a crash or an injury (i hope, you don't want them to leave the tour in the hardest case - that i deny immediately) you have no influence to bring him back if the other temas don't want it. So the comparison with that game doesn't fit in my eyes.

Ok here I have to strenghten my comparison. Somebody build a hotel on the most expensive street, you throw the dice and get on it. The game is normally over for you. Fits.

And I don't have exact plans for that. This is a basic discussion about yes and no. Injuries and illnesses have not been part of my thoughts. Too, there are possibilities to give teams an influence on crashing such like helping as protection in the field, or getting him in a good position where he nearly or completly cannot crash. No fixed ideas, just to mention possibilitys to create influence. I think there are many others. Too, if we maybe result in a game change somewhen, it's absolutly possible to have day form, but no crashes or vice versa or something completly different.
The way I see it: Coincidence in the race is a counterpart to the training as it works on shorter time spans (see the comment on quick's answer).

About (mass) sprint, we share a similar opinion. The influence of coincidence has to be reduced there, because what happens there it is just the final, so does not change the race, and too, it can nearly not be influenced. But a reducement there has to go hand in hand with either a big part of possible mistakes you can do in preparation of the sprint (in my eyes the best way), but too some real coincidence that changes the situation you go into the sprint with. If you have too many similar situations, you will learn the sprint too good, make too few mistakes and the training becomes the most decesive part once again (as it is for example with mountain riders, similar situations over and over. I even notice that effect for me in pave races). In small groups, the sprint system is not that bad, at least a base you can build on. For mass sprint, it's not.

well ok, so i have to say a little bit about the other comments.

@Quick, you generally agree with me. But the point with the Monster Team is an important one. While such a team can dominate many races he planned for by now, it will be able to dominate some of them even some more dominant, but others it will not. So In my eyes things like day form and crashes are the counterpart I mentioned discussing BSE's points. Personally, and I say that as a manager that had a lot of luck in training since now, I would apreciate that. It's much better than the possibility to entice away riders as this is multi-endangoured and could lead to denial of races for the strongest riders due to their enourmous price.

@ NoPik: Yes it is annoying if plans fail. But as there is only a limited amount of wins and much more teams to fight for that, failures are a necessary part of the game.
The experiance may be a part of that problem, but as I think this is a game that should provide long term motivation, that should be a part of our thoughts. Isn't it demotivating if some teams say to you if you learned how to play that game very good it can get boring? (not that i would say I am bored, only sometimes, more often just a bit frustrated on how tactics developed)

Another small thought: Some people (favos) will try to take advantage of other by saying they have a bad dayform and dont wanna ride. Can screw up some races. Ok it's just the "bad" behaviour of those managers, not the system, but... this situation exists nowadays, could become even worse. My point is, that we could see more "chaos" races where nobody wants to control. Or simply more parasiting. Anyway, I'm not sure you like that.

Obviously correct, that's why I drew the comparison to poker, as making the others believe you got good or bad cards while not having it is a mayor part of that game. But there will be signs too. A good team will not forever hold back, as often it is just better to force the issue by oneself. Dooing it too often other teams will not believe any more, and you will face groups that make you lose while you got the advantage in a field. On the other hand, you can do the opposite, i tried that once on pave. I had no form, nearly 6 riders where stronger at the last km, and i knew it (as at least some of the good pave riders had to be expected to have good form). What i did was to ride that race just in full control, as if I had everything in my hands. What happened was that nearly all riders tried to attack earlier as they believed I was too strong in the end. Only Luna didn't bite, but was believing to lose at the last km. I lost it, but it was very close to pay off. Especially as it is very hard to follow mountain riders, I can imagine an aggressive style of riding can scare them off your wheel (but you forever have to look for the total situation, if following you is the only way for the opponents anyway, that will not work). So in my eyes it enlarges the tactical range and lowers the predictability of a lot of races (not of all but that is not what I think that should be achieved). The chaos races... I do not really think that, as there are others with good form that may be interested in controlling the field, thought of that controlling is just the most reliable way to push a race in the wanted direction. But i can't deny that this could happen as not every developement resulting of those changes is predictable. It could work the other way too.

Hope I do not repeat too much and do not kill the discussion with that.

[team fl]

I have to say I like the thought of a day form, although this might be a problem at monuments or important one day races when it hits you badly that day. But I don't like the idea of crashes during a race. They are just too random for me. Perhaps I would reconsider my thoughts if there was a detailed proposal how crashed work.

The problem with coincidence (day form), chance or whatever here is imho: The user doesn't play a rider, he plays a team manager. Thus, the day form comes with the day form of the manager which therefore is highly individual but affects all riders of the team. When thinking about the proposal first, I thought this was enough coincidence besides sprint and training in RSF. Nevertheless, having an indivdual day form for each rider would make it more interesting, as you already mentioned.

Another problem with coincidence (day form) is imho the advantage of a big team for important one day races. I mention this because this is the most important part in RSF for me. It makes a huge difference if a team can chose of 14-18 riders for a classic race than just out of 9-11. For the latter team, a bad day form for one of his leaders might be much worse than for the bigger team. So, a big team may compensate a daily leader's bad day form. Perhaps not adequate, but better than a small team. But of course now we can argue that this comes naturally when your succesful and that this is also wanted.

Btw, you forgot the board game "ludo" (Mensch ärgere dich nicht)

[Falkenbier]

I like it too, the idea of the day form. But I'm not sure if I understood it the right way. Do you mean that we have each day a completly different form or just something like a possible malus of the "normal" form which was set by the beginning of the month?

Little example: Day X, rider Y has a planned form of 95. But if he takes a very bad day he could have just 92 (maximum malus of -3, don't make the difference too big I thinhk...). Next day "normal" form is 96, with a good day he reaches this 96 and so on... not sure if it's clear

If it's that way, I really would like the idea. And to don't give the large teams a big advantage, this day form is only shown in the race, not on the team overview page. So you can only see the day form of each rider when the race starts. Like in reality you don't really know if your rider will take a good day when you are deciding the line-up. Hmmm, or is it too much random...?

[Robyklebt]

Disagree with some stuff, see merit in other, but mostly I say. Don't do it now.

We finally have to try to get the basics straight. The whole race system. What we have know is still a short term solution. That is far from perfect. Actually in retrospect I think the short term solution was the right thing to do, with the 3 intensities just so much changed that too much wasn't predictable. We had no chance to make a good system at the time. The mistake was/is to keep the short term solution for so long. A system created for one intensity adapted for 3.

Now further developing that outdated solution, with stuff like positions (which is not mentioned here, I mention it anyway) is the wrong way to go. We need to blow up the system and restart at the basics. By adding new structures on top, even if it's stuff that makes sense like positions, just complicates the blowing up further. First in that it temporarily hides some basic problems, temporarily because once we figure out the positions we'll still see the faults in the basement, it only hides them, doesn't correct them, second that it's another structure that might want to be kept, so another thing the new basis has to be built around. And I still think the basis should be built first, then keep building on that.

Day form now is something that wouldn't influence the basis directly, crashes on the other hand IMO would. No to crashes before the basics-reform. Plus somebody once told me that I needed to support crashes (which in theory I do) if I wanted to support a "Karenzzeit" that has a meaning. Works the other way around too. As long as you don't support a realistic Karenzzeit, you have no right to demand crashes. As for day form, other topic, ok... But why not something coupled with a less precise form-giving? Not everybody is Armstrong, I think planned topform on the 11th of January should have chances to get the topform anywhere between the 8 and the 14th or so.

As for Poker and Monopoly. What about chess? Not much randomness in there, I still enjoy playing (and losing, the less randomness and luck and chance, the less I win it seems) that. It's not just randomness that makes a game fun.

[auxilium torino]

I think the idea good,a little bit randomness in game to have.
I say since more time,i would have a weather faktor in game,that i think is real, at the same ,not extreme influential on the results...and intresting, very intresting;if the weather change in race, change may be your tactick, and the best manager will win.
Crash and tyres puncture are normal in race(by Giro d´Italia give at last year 5 tyres puncture average pro race), i belevie was not very hard to insert in game.
OK, in real race give a crash,the cyclist is usually reported in the group by on gregarious, but in RSF is very hard to simulate this part.
i think we can go a compromise...if the capitan have a crash, lose 20 points energie, if the group are not in tempo, 30 in green, 40 in blue and 50 in red, with an helper( that lose the same energie)...riders without helper lose double!
and the rider cannot attack or konterattack for the next 5 km.


But i´m against Day form;day form are only luck, i think is to much Luck in game after this...

[Zentaron]

As you said, in Monopoly and Poker you have some influence by yourself to turn the wheel of fortune into your direction. Here at RSF when you're rider falls back cause of a crash or an injury (i hope, you don't want them to leave the tour in the hardest case - that i deny immediately) you have no influence to bring him back if the other temas don't want it. So the comparison with that game doesn't fit in my eyes.

Ok here I have to strenghten my comparison. Somebody build a hotel on the most expensive street, you throw the dice and get on it. The game is normally over for you. Fits.

No. Cause i can have the six streets before and have build a hotel there. The chance that someone gets there is much higher than to come back in RSF-races. Additionally i can take a hypothecary credit, sell my own streets and so on. I still have some influence. At RSF i haven't.

But okay, with that thing of protection by helpers, we can at least start a discussion. Or maybe we can connect it with the values of the rider in the special terrain? (But then we have the problem with the one-legged captains.)

[Luna]

Bike racing is always a lottery. Of course you need strength and maybe a good team. But most of all you depend on circumstances that lie beyond your influence. So, I wouldn't compare it with chess. Comparing it with chess would implicate that you theoretically could pre-calculate an infinte number of turns. Bike racing is more dynamic and less foreseeable. Poker does fit better in my eyes. You meet situations that you cannot create completely by your own. And then you have to deal with them and make the best out of it.

I would welcome a raise of randomness in the game. But open races are called "chaos races" here in order to devalue every approach in that direction. Riding for a podium spot is hated, because people have the opinion that everybody has the duty to ride against the respective race leader or the so-called favorite. The same with contributing to a group although you have no chance of winning out of it. It's nearly common sense that even if there is a rider who never in his career achieved any result is forbidden to work for a top 8 rank in an escape group, because even the most modest riders have to kindly risk their one-life-oppotunity for the little chance of winning. It's about having the right to win only because you have a strong team that by calculation would beat team xy if they were the only two teams on the road. Everything has to stand still because you are obliged to let the games run in a predictable way. Only few managers are open to let their chances depend on a bit luck or the help of others. All the natural events that happen in bike races are conseuently suppressed in order to keep the main focus on glorious team building with over-specialized set-ups that gain a sort of power that in the same time isn't allowed to be endangered by such accidental happenings like crashes or a bad day of the leader, or the unexpected help for a rival, miscalculated goals of the opponents, whatever.

Bike racing is at the same time an individual sport and a team sport. But here only the team sport aspect is wanted. The races have to be run as a fight between teams. If you ride one of your riders as if he were an individual then your upsetting the pre-calculation of the others. They feel disturbed and some even are shouting on you.

I see only maybe a handful of managers who would like to submit themselves to a more uncontrolable order of events, that would threaten their familiar way to success.

I understand your disappointment in your initial posting, Cerro, referring to the culture of racing here. Although our views maybe only overlap a bit, rather then matching each other exactly. It's very hard to convince somebody of luck and randomness playing a big role in bike races.

[ariostea]

It's nearly common sense that even if there is a rider who never in his career achieved any result is forbidden to work for a top 8 rank in an escape group, because even the most modest riders have to kindly risk their one-life-oppotunity for the little chance of winning

yes, but this is connected to several circumstances as well that you don´t have in real cycling - i.e.: we sometimes have 20 races per day. with most of the pelotons of 10-14 teams (not counted the ones being offline) and some of them are beginners who blow their chances on their own by doing strange things. so in a race with 8 teams being around 5th - 8th place is not really a success - actually it is bad. we can discuss (somewhere else) if there should be less races to put more quality into the pelotons. Buhman seems to prefer to give everybody the opportunity to race by making enough races -what is ok. but leads to a lower quality of the pelotons (and lower number of teams in the race too) and makes racing for 5th to 8th really not looking like a success in most of the cases. Even if you do not take too serious the cycling phrase " the second is the first loser"... 5th to 8th place... sorry, but nobody should do any work for this in RSF with number of races offered the way it is at the moment. in real cycling a chance to win the race of 1:5 out of a group in most of the cases (peloton of 20-22 teams) is quite a good thing to go for. In RSF it quite often just is not.

The races have to be run as a fight between teams. If you ride one of your riders as if he were an individual then your upsetting the pre-calculation of the others.

But open races are called "chaos races" here in order to devalue every approach in that direction

i think this is not a bad thing looking on RSF as a simulation. in reality no team is doing the work in the peloton just to bring some order into the race. the are riding because they think, their chances in the peloton are better than in the group (or they just failed to make it to the group). if you make it too open you will have more chaos races than would be good for a good simulation, i think. and of course it is racing teams against each other...the guy working in the peloton never will have success (in this race)...it is always teamwork. and the guy attacking is doing teamwork too, somehow.

i think this balance is not too bad at the moment. in my opinion (by the number of races we have) it should be even more attractive for going only for 1st place and nothing else. and anyway, racing for 5th place is not really cycling mentality...say whatever you want...

crashes and bad days... why not. i think could be installed without leading to more Chaos-races, when it has an impact that´s not too huge (does not happen every 3rd race...). no problem with this. especially crashes actually just belonging to cycling...we just have to find a modest form to bring it into the game.

[Robyklebt]

Were you re-explaining my sentences about chess or didn't you understand it Luna?

[Luna]

@ari:
You are right, there's a difference of worth between an 8th place in a 7-team-peloton and one in a full field of 22 teams. But I never discovered that difference to be made in the chats (race's or spectators') or the forum when judging the style of racing of this or that manager referring to spending energy for saving a place behind the race winner.

Furhtermore I'm not sure if you got me right at that point. I was speaking about valuing 8th rank from the perspective of the rider, who usually just carries water bottles and once in his career is allowed to go into the escape. He, the rider, would be glad to even reach the finish in that group, regardless of beeing 1st or 8th. There it would also make no big difference if it happens in a small or big field. It's his only chance ever to find entry to the record books. He can show his grandchildren later that he reached rank 7 in Espoo-Helsinki. Yes it was a small field but he's nonethell proud of it. Better than no single result in his whole career.

@roby:
Just wrote down my thoughts. If you feel repeated than take it as agreement.

[Cerro Torre RT]

As for Poker and Monopoly. What about chess? Not much randomness in there, I still enjoy playing (and losing, the less randomness and luck and chance, the less I win it seems) that. It's not just randomness that makes a game fun.

Ok, took me a while to figure out why...

The big difference between Chess and RSF is that in Chess, there is perfectly no coincidence. The characteristic and fascination of that game is that everybody starts at exactly the same point. Every situation that occur is a perfectly predictable follow of all the player's choices (moves). The pure mass of possibilities then makes it hard to know which way the game will go, if the opponents are quite similar in skills.
But RSF has coincidence, at least in training. I predict you would not like chess if you would be forced to start 50 straight games with a pawn instead of a Queen, and afterwards 50 with 2 Queens while your opponent has none. In that case, more coincidence would be needed to change the start situation and the ouccuring situations in those single games to make them more interesting.

So I admit, yes there are games without any coincidence that are good, but if there is included coincidence, rising it to a certain level might help the game. And I think this certain level for RSF is higher than now.