C4F Propositions

Discussion about technical stuff and suggestions for improvement.

Moderator: systemmods

Post Reply
User avatar
Pokemon Club
Posts: 3184
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Contact:

C4F Propositions

Post by Pokemon Club » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:40 pm

Hello C4F,

As Alster, I present here some propositions for the game. You can find all in the pdf file below too.
C4F Propositions.pdf
(330.38 KiB) Downloaded 197 times
C4F PROPOSITIONS

Cycling4freaks has now more than 10 years and I know the game only since 2010. I don’t know how it was at the begin, but after playing the games since nearly 7 years, else if I enjoy the game I feel frustrated. Frustrated because since 2012 and the new sprintsystem, I don’t remember there was improvement of the game (except the replay). Frustrated because the game waste is potential since so long. Frustrated because there is so few players currently. In this document I’ll try to explain how I think the game can be better. Some ideas, maybe new, maybe old, maybe nice, maybe bad, all will have their own opinion about that.

I) Cycling4Freaks, the start
Currently, maybe due to the low number of players, it is now really hard to star at appreciate C4F. As we don’t have G2 anymore, it can help to reevaluate how new players start, knowing it is often complicate for them. Now they start with 15M and to have at least 9 riders in their teams. I propose to start with 20M. They will be able to build a team of 10-12 riders like that, they’ll be able to appreciate more type of riders at the same time, decrease the risk of reset with a better financial security to avoid bankrupt. Finally we will have more chance to see them stay in the game after they test it. Maybe old players can find it unfair but they have the possibility to reset if they think it is better.

II) Races
With people which start with more riders, and to have biggest fields, I want the game let managers the possibility to do 2 races per day. Not all can, because they have no time or because they don’t have enough riders. But if some can, let’s them ride. Surely better to have multis. And to have as much people as possible to be able to play, I think we must change the modalities of registration of the riders. Instead to sign a fix number of riders, it is better to sign at least X riders, depending of the level of the races (cf: pdf file).

For example, a teams with 13 riders will be able to ride Besseges and a fantasy one day race at the same time, and a teams with 16 riders Suisse in parallel of Dauphine. I hope this proposition will encourage more players to build theirs teams, instead to reset too much or to use multis.

III) Divisions and Transfert Market
Currently here is too much Divisions. I suggest 4 divisions(see the pdf).

10 relegations and 10 promotions. It will be really hard to be promote in div 3, with only 10 teams which can be promote, but it can be discuss as division influence the type of riders you find in the market :

For old riders, only one market seems okay to me. I don’t understand why it is currently cut in different market. I would like too to see the generel stop generating no name riders, there are really a few of them which can be buyable, except maybe for people which do a reset. But I assume there is enough riders without team to say they aren’t necessarry.
For young market, all divisions have his own young market, and more you climb division, more the max skills of riders can be better. Why that ? Because currently there is no particular reason to be in Div 1 instead of Div 5. Not with that system, it force you to be at the top to get the best riders.

IV) Training and forms
In fact I could just call that part forms. Since years now a lot of people already ask to implant different curves for form. I see no reason for not do it, as it can give more options to choose our goals of the month, and at the same time forms will beless predictable.

A lot can be imagine for the curves.
At the same time, I think that during race each must have a Daily Form, as in PCM, between -2 and 2, and which apply on all skills.

V) Balance of the game during race

A) Attacking / Following
Currently, attacking cost a lot of energy. I think the energy lose by the attacker must be reduce a bit. At the same time, following should cost more. Between 3/4 and 5/4 about what lose the guy attacking, depending how a rider fight to follow. We need to give more chance at some riders to tired some others riders by repetitive attacks. Currently, the one attacking lose often his chance when he is follow even by riders less strong, due at a too big difference between energy lose between attacking and following. And it is even worse when strong guy follow.

B) Slope Power
After testing a lot C4F-physics, I am convince that the balance (Down)Hill-Flat is too much in advantage of mountain, with for consequence to reduce the interest of some type of riders, and so reduce the versatility of the game.
I named Slope Power the « power » a rider can develop on a precise slope.
Slope Power = S/10*Mountain(or Downhill) + (1-S/10)*Flat, with S = the absolute value of the slope, Flat = 0 if S = 10 or more. This is the based of all which following. This calculation mean that flat balance mountain in 5%, wich is currently not the case (It is way under 5%). With that simple formula I can finally compare differents riders :

In this configuration, in low %, Flat guy with mountain will be able to play their card more often, and « Classics riders » won’t be so much masterful. The same for Climber vs « 80-70 » riders.
I think of something similar for ITT and paves :
Slope Power TT = S/10*Mountain (or Downhill) + (1-S/10)*Flat/2 + (1-S/10)*TT, with S = the absolute value slope, Flat and Downhill = 0 if S = 10 or more.
A big change for TTs/ITTs. I never understand why flatskill has no effect until now, which make TTs too much predictable and boring. I propose to add the flatskill in the calculation
Slope Power Cobbles = S/10*Mountain(or Downhill) + (1-S/10)*Flat + Cobbles * Star / 5
The best balance I think. Flat keep an important place, but more the race is difficult, more the importance of cobbles skill improve.
I try to add the same with the sprint, but looks really complicate to find somethingwhich looks correct.

I have some others ideas but looks more complicate to implant it so I just do this propositions for the moment. Thanks for read it and thanks for your feedback.
Last edited by Pokemon Club on Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Buhmann
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:28 pm
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by Buhmann » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:22 pm

Thanks for your feedback...I would like to hear other opinions. To know if this is a summary of main issues or something else.
And of course I know that I did not spend as much time for the game as I should :( so sorry for the missing new features and the resulted frustration :(

luques
Posts: 2233
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by luques » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:45 pm

Buhmann wrote:Thanks for your feedback...I would like to hear other opinions. To know if this is a summary of main issues or something else.
And of course I know that I did not spend as much time for the game as I should :( so sorry for the missing new features and the resulted frustration :(
Don't worry Buh! Many things are planned but during off season, to be able to test it with fantasy races and fantasy tours ;)

lennylenny
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:22 am
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by lennylenny » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:28 am

Feedback from me:

I) 15 Mio are definitely not enough to build a decent Start Team, i would propose 18 Mio with 10 riders minimum
So that they have 1.8 Mio per rider and an extra rider
Or if they stick to 1.5 Mio per rider they have 12 riders

II) If that is possible to Programm, i would propose a official Multiteam, so that you can have 2 Teams in the same account, which would make sure that players, who can only race once, can stay competitive.
I would propose that you have your riders in a pool to assign them to your Teams, you could move your riders a limited time between the Teams. (Once, Twice, Three Times a Month?).
Maybe even a few (1,2,3) flex rider positions which could be used for both Teams (oft course not both Teams at the same time)


III) Definitely too mich divisions, i would think 4 divisions are okay, but i would think more like this:
Div 1: 30 Teams, 10 relegation
Div 2: 40 Teams, 13 relegation
Div 3: proposals 16 relegation
Div 4: all other

And if you could have 2 Teams(from my II) ) i would say 40/60/80 with 13/19/25 relegations

Rider markets like poke proposed look fine

IV) Agree with Poke in both proposals

V) A) Agree with Poke
B) currently too tired to fully understand Pokes proposal, will update this later

EDIT: V) B) Proposal looks good to me
Last edited by lennylenny on Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Spelling mistakes are Special functions Like bugs that are functions of the game

User avatar
Pokemon Club
Posts: 3184
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by Pokemon Club » Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:49 pm

Buhmann wrote:Thanks for your feedback...I would like to hear other opinions. To know if this is a summary of main issues or something else.
Bah...they go to holidays maybe :D
Buhmann wrote:And of course I know that I did not spend as much time for the game as I should :( so sorry for the missing new features and the resulted frustration :(
Bah, RSF isn't the only thing in the life to do :)
lennylenny wrote:B) currently too tired to fully understand Pokes proposal, will update this later


The most important thing to understand for that part is that I think flatskill is too much under rated currently.

NicoVanarlo
Posts: 718
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:49 pm
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by NicoVanarlo » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:49 am

Still waiting for the energy reform buhman ;-)
Image

Gipfelstuermer
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:43 am
Location: Weltenbummler
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by Gipfelstuermer » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:53 pm

Some feedback from somebody who just had its comeback:

I) Cycling4Freaks, the start

I agree. Even with the 18 M that I had for my comeback it is really hard to form a competitive team. However, if you introduce this, the team who recently started with 15M (and perhaps have build to a market value of 16 M or 17 M) will be frustrated. Think about compensating them, e.g. +3M for everybody.

II) Races
I strongly disagree. The fields are not small because people can not ride enough. The fields are small because we have too few active players (or too many times). It is important to retain a critical mass of riders in order to be able to offer Tours + Single Day Races. The only way to achieve this long term is PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT, which means KEEPING RIDERS and ATTRACTING NEW RIDERS.

III) Divisions and Transfert Market
I agree for the number of divisions but disagree for the youth market. It would be extremely hard to climb up divisions without access to good youth riders. In reality, youth riders often start in small teams. Why should that be different in C4F?

IV) Training and forms
I agree but that's really only a minor change.

A) Attacking / Following
I agree with the general cost of attacking. It is a little bit too high. For following I don't think we need a change. It has to be rewarded if you follow wisely. Otherwise weak riders will be disadvantaged because even if they are able to follow they will lose because of energy loss.

B) Slope Power
I agree but I think if we change the mechanics here, we have to change the prices on the transfer market as well. Because if flat becomes more powerful, than it should also become more expensive (or mountain / downhill should become cheaper). That is because currently the price/skill-relation is well balanced in my opinion. Maybe not so much for weak riders (50-70), who are a little too expensive. But that's not too important.

C) Sprint
May I add Sprint to the list? For me, even if you prefer the new sprint, it takes too long. Maybe we can reduce it to 5 x 100m (less steps) and/or reduce the time from 60sec to 30sec. C4F is already very time consuming and these additional 10min do not add so much fun to the game in my point of view.
GIP MASTERPLAN
Gameplay: Flexible Min-Tact. Improve Sprint System. Windkante.
Marketing: Re-attract old players. Advertisement. Social Media.
New Players: Fair Start Budget, New Tutorial.
Fairplay: Improve FPC features, Fair Prize Money Disribution.

User avatar
Pokemon Club
Posts: 3184
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by Pokemon Club » Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:03 am

Some others points in mind :

TTT : why not make it with % as ITT ? The current system isn't intuitive, quite difficult to understand it.

Sieb : why flat isn't siebable ? And why downhill is so few siebable ?

Autotempo : it is really needed during tour ? Can't we delete autotempo and eliminaation ?

High Flyer
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by High Flyer » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:33 pm

Why isn't flat siebable? Because sprinters are given one of the worst flat skill.
Image
Image

User avatar
Pokemon Club
Posts: 3184
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Contact:

Re: C4F Propositions

Post by Pokemon Club » Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:49 pm

High Flyer wrote:Why isn't flat siebable? Because sprinters are given one of the worst flat skill.
They have the worst flatskill. But RSF to me looks more a question of Power than Skill or Energy only. Riders mustn't be able to follow if the peloton is too fast for them, and not only in mountain IMO

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests