C4F Propositions
Posted: 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
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.
As Alster, I present here some propositions for the game. You can find all in the pdf file below too.
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.
so sorry for the missing new features and the resulted frustration 
