Starting values for riders

[Robyklebt]

Right now:

21 year olds, all in the usual RSF order, max + min

73-46
74-46
79-46
77-46
82-43

Why sprint down to 43? Make that 46 like with the rest.

22 year olds

76-48
77-48
82-48
80-48
85-43

The same. Why the 43 sprinters? Plus Roby honestly doesn't like the 82 downhill that much either... but it's consistent with the rest... so ok. Problem is that it's clearly a secondary skill, all other skills can be primary, downhill never really is the primary skill, so +3 might be too much, +2 better. Then... why everything up to 48?

23

77-48
78-48
83-48
81-48
86-43

Here the whole thing isn't good. Buying a 23 year old simply doesn't make much sense, the expection maybe somebody with a nice combination mountain or flat plus downhill. But even there.. 22 year old are just clearly better. Here needs to be changed. Not only the 43 sprint.

24

81-42
?-45 (best 24 year old name geben without a team was 78, but should be higher no?)
?-45
?-44
87-40

Can't find the top for 24, but anyway, the whole thing is a mess.

25:

82-43? (no 42 but maybe possible)
80-46?
77??-46?
?-45
88-41?

Anyway it's a mess

The lowest possible value is...

Chose one and stick with it 46 with 21 48 with 22 and 23, then down to 42 for mountain is just weird. You want 42 mountain riders in the game? Ok, then make it 42 from 21-27 I'd prefer just having 46, others maybe not. But anyway make it the same for all ages.

Then the progression, mountain for example:

21 73 ok
22 76 ok
23 77 horrible
24 81 +4 with 23???
25 82 all fucked up before anyway...
26 84
27 85

Change that to

73
76
79
81
83
84
85

Similar with the rest. I know, flat we capped lower on purpose a few years ago, have to decide if the cap stays or not. But then a logical progression too. Downhill as a secondary skill IMO a bit a special case... but if I start arguing everybody will just forget the rest so..... forget downhill. TT I'll leave for the moment and Sprint as well, there would be a lot of possible changes there too.. but keep it simple for the start. Change the obvious illogical things.
Since you want to do things that make everybody happy.... here is something. And of course I would have ideas for combinations as well.. but then gets complicated and somebody feels unfairly treated etc etc... ok just one... for example 23 year old climbers IMO could be 79-60 and not just 79-56 (or 77-56 like now...)

PS Ignored the D5+6 vs D1-4 differences, flat for example, don't know if there are others.

PPS: Correct forum? Only one where it would fit would be bugs...

[VC Aywaille]

I think this is a realy interessant idea from Roby. But forget this i never said this Roby. Can you give me a little negativity?

Seriously i never try to see this, but it's a fact that buy a 23-year is not a good idea now. These figures illustrate what is implicitly known.

I agree with the new suggestion, it's more realist. But maybe the are other reasons for the current figures?

[Buhmann]

21 73 ok
22 76 ok
23 77 horrible
24 81 +4 with 23???
25 82 all fucked up before anyway...
26 84
27 85

Change that to

73
76
79
81
83
84
85

Sounds logical(ly?). I will look at this. I don´t know why i have done it that way...

[Robyklebt]

Good!

Don't forget to look at the minimum values as well.

And need to decide if you want to keep the 82 max limit for D1-4 for flat.

[Zauberlehrling]

I would like the big revolution... I can see no reason, why Sprinters start with 82, TT with 77 and so on. Why not everywhere the same value at start? I would propose 73, because 73 was always a good number, not like 71 or so. 70 would be a possibility too... good number 70, but not as good as 73.

[L RSV]

me too, pro 73!

[Krom]

The same value at start sounds good. But you can not change it from one second to the other...

[Zauberlehrling]

I would... Just for the 1st of March, so nobody has the chance to quickly buy one of the last 82 Sprinters. If you announce it now to change it on 1st of September, then everybody buys his Sprinter latest in August, and nobody from September to march. But now: Those who bought one are just lucky guys... those who didn't had bad luck. Shit happens.

But Buhchef could perhaps deal a bit with the training for the old ones, so that the advantage of the old sprinters isn't too big.

[Cerro Torre RT]

Is it that difficult to remember 5 different numbers to be the maximum for each ?

Because this is just the only advantage i can find in that. There's not anything else a change like this brings to the game.

In opposite, disadvantages are much more to be concerned. First is a changig phase with young guys having big disadvateges. Additional, i really do prefer different numbers for different values. I like the fact that training of a sprinter is not the same like a flat and different to that of a time trailer.

[Lizard]

I guess the differently high starting values are pretty okay the way they are. If there´s a request for changes for the physic engine, then this discussion might be useful, but just for nothing.. ?

[Buhmann]

21 73 ok
22 76 ok
23 77 horrible
24 81 +4 with 23???
25 82 all fucked up before anyway...
26 84
27 85

Change that to

73
76
79
81
83
84
85

Sounds logical(ly?). I will look at this. I don´t know why i have done it that way...

Is this a thing, which i have to announce 48 weeks before or can i attach this when i want?

[Quick]

21 73 ok
22 76 ok
23 77 horrible
24 81 +4 with 23???
25 82 all fucked up before anyway...
26 84
27 85

Change that to

73
76
79
81
83
84
85

Sounds logical(ly?). I will look at this. I don´t know why i have done it that way...

What sounds logical here? No real changes...just with 23 and 25. But no important changes...noone would be the 23years old wirder with 79...maybe some noobs, so better let it be 77...maybe noobs won't buy him. Or change it that way, that this riders have other advantages - maybe downhill(like it was for a long time) or sprint...or something else... probably i would buy 79-60-83...no way i would buy 79-56-79

[Robyklebt]

The main easy stuff .... just do it.

That would be the list up there for mountain plus the minimum, all the same, all ages. I would go for 46 as minimum everywhere. If you want something else, ok, wouldn't see the sense of 42 everywhere, but not important enough to argue.


Other little things maybe need a little discussion.


Mountain-flat combi

As Quick said, why not give the older mountain guys something else?

73-56-79-54-56 21
76-58-79-55-56 22 3 mountain, 2 flat, 1 TT, Normal training would be 4+3 I think, so 77-59-79-54-56 or 77-56-79-57-56... don't see a problem with giving the that.
79-60-79-55-57 23 +6 mountain +4 flat +1 TT +1 sprint. normal here is 8 mountain +3 flat/TT. So the 23 year old "trained" better, but is 2 weaker in the most important skill. Plus the 21 year old has almost a guarantee to go +8 mountain +2 flat/TT, but good chances to go +8 mountain +4 flat TT as well. And with more risk more is possible too. But anyway, the 23 year old has to be weaker than the 21 year old, he is, only 79 mountain, but not so weak that he is never bought. This version seems ok to me.
81-60-79-55-57 24 +8 mountain, +4 flat +1 TT and sprint Clearly weaker than the 21 year old 4 behind the max mountain, 2/3 behind the "normal" mountain.
83-60-79-55-57 25 +10 mountain, +4 flat, +1TT and sprint. He is only 2 behind the normal training in mountain, not a bad rider. Won't be bought often, since he costs more than a young 21 year old... But is a good alternative to the 27 year old. He still has over 10% chances to train, (26 years with 85 has 10% with 5 trainings, 25 years old and 83 probably has close to 20)

Then... Actually... I would say drop the 26 and 27 year olds. Those "quereinsteiger" almost never happen. Plus, it would maybe help a bit against the "topvalue" craze, people thinking an 84 mountain, 85, even 86 is not good enough. So new managers would only get max 83 and 25 years old, they can go up to 84 and 85 (actually they probably are more likely to go up at least one, then to stay at 83, ask the mathematicians) But ok, here I start with the more complicated and controversial stuff again.. tried to avoid it.. .bah. I'd say it wouldn't be a big problem to offer "ready riders" at max 83-60-79-55-57 and 25 years old. But if you want to keep going till 85, ok...

84-60-79-55-57 26 No comment needed I think
85-60-79-55-57 27Dito, the max possible rider.


Here as you see downhill is capped at 79, think that would be a good idea. It's a skill that leaders very seldom can train, other secondary skills are more important. Then to have a 24 year old with a clear advantage there is not perfect I think.


Now the strongest "name geben" is 27 and has 85-56 but 60 TT, the "new one" would have 55, if he even exists (I'm for stopping at 25 years...)

But that's for the TOP climbers the ones that start at 73

For the

72-56-79-57-56 21 the same counts. make the next one
75-58-79-58-56 22 then up to
82-60-79-58-57 25 or
84-60-79-58-57 27 if you want to go on.

The same with the 71-56-79-60-56 who can be 81-60-79-61-57 at 25
the 70-56-79-63-56 can be 80-60-79-64-57 at 25

Then for Hubers or so I would only go until 23 actually, don't like ready Hubers at all...that would still be a 23 year old with 73-60-79-74-56 who would have good chances to go to 77 mountain at the end of 23...

Anyway, more later...

[Robyklebt]

More later somebody promised, oh it was me... ok, more


Next, slight change of topic.

We seem to have the dogmatic belief that a 22 year old new rider has to be weaker than one bought when he was 21... but when you think about it... why?

Realism? Works with the 27 year olds... but 22? Not every pro turns pro with 21, 22, 23 are absolutely normal ages to turn pro. So another proposal:

Again start with the mountain

73-56-79-54-56 21
77-58-79-54-56 21 (or 77-56-79-56-56 too?) as 22 year old. A 21 year old climber basically can expect to gain 4 mountains and 3 of the secondary skill. It's not guaranteed, even in the first training it's only possible to get 96% mountain and 100% flat or 100% and 6x% flat. But basically 4-3 or 4-2 is what you can expect. If you're unlucky and take a risk, like training 3 things you might end up with 0-0 too... But that's everybodies own decision.

So why not give the 22 years old the 77 mountain, which are easy to achieve, +2 in the secondary skill? So they are basically as strong as many of the 21 year olds, but that isn't really a problem as I see it. They still have a disadvantage, they are over 10% more expensive than with 21 and 4 less mountain. No problem in giving them the same skills they could have if the were bought at 21.

23 then ok, maybe weaken them a little bit.

80-58-79-54-56 Again, same thing. Why give them a big disadvantage, 23 is a normal age to turn pro. Small disadvantage ok, actually 81-58-79-54-56 would be ok too... they already have the disadvantage that they cost almost 30% more than a 21 year old that will very probably be a 81 climber with 23 as well.


Just an idea, when I think of it I don't really see why 22 and 23 year olds have to be weaker than riders bought with 21...

And again, all that talk shouldn't be a hindrance to at least correct the strange stuff Buhmann quoted in his last post, plus of course the strange minimal skill thing... Even if Buh decides all my brillant posts after that are useless, the other thing can be done anyway.

[Robyklebt]

Ok, nothing happening here, Buhmann afraid of change as usual it seems.

No need to propose something that shouldn't have any detractors, can go for a bigger change in that case, since it won't be introduced anyway.

Robys perfect plan:

Minimum values for ALL ages:

Mountain. 46
Flat 46
Downhill 46
TT 46
Sprint 46


Max values for 21:

All ok, except TT, go down to 73. If necessary in 2 steps. Give a chance to Hubers to compete on almost equal term with the other TT guys at least when they are young.


Max values for 22+

Pure climber:

21: 73-56-79-54-60 We changed that to 56 many moons ago, so that climbers don't win everything. RSF was a climbers game. Not anymore. Give them 60 again.
22: 77-56-79-56-60 OR 77-58-79-54-60 OR... basically 77 (+4 mountains) PLUS 2 other points anywhere, can be 58 flat, 81 down, 56 TT, 62 sprint. Or a mix, 57 flat 55 TT.
23: 80-56-79-56-60 Just +3 mountain from the 22 year old. Can be 80-58-79 80-56-81, 80-57-80 etc. etc.

NO REASON to punish the 22 and 23 years old as it happens right now. Not everyone has to go pro with 21, 22+23 should still be good options, right now they are not.

the "normal" training for a 21 year old climber would be +4 mountain, +3 second skill, sometimes only plus 2. With bad luck it can be plus 1... but can be 4+4 too, or 4+4+4 if somebody takes risks. But my guess is : 4+3 "normal" (or 4-2?) the 22 year old then is basically the same as one bought with 21. BUT he is a bit more expensive. roughly 300k

Same for 23, the "normal no risk training" now is +3 mountain guaranteed. the fourth is there in most cases as well, even if it's only at 9x%. Give them 3 mountain. All good.


24y: 82 mountain +same as 23
25y: 84 mountain +same as 23

Slighly weaker than the average 24 year old. Average would be 85 mountain at the end of 24. here only 84. ok

Then finished, don't give offer 26+27 year olds. And if yes then just with the same skills. They are old for a neo pro, there's a reason they didn't get a contract earlier! In D1-4. Not sure about D5+6. Could accept 27 year olds with 85 mountain there.

Exatly the same system with 72-56-79-56-56

Sprint possible till 60, then with 25 they can be 83 plus 2 other skills somewhere. Same for 71, 70, etc. A 25 70-56-79 etc.

Promote young riders, but young riders are not only the 21 year olds, 22-24 even 25 are still young riders in reality. Not everybody is Sagan and Boasson hagen and turns pro at 20 or younger...
The 20/21 year olds will still be the most popular ones, the price, a 25 year old 84 costs more than a 21 year old 73.


80-70

Getting more complicated:

For "climbers" (so everything with the 56 max flat restriction at 21) make it

22: +6 anywhere.
23: +3
24: +2
25: +2

In any skill. So the 73-56-79-54-60 could be a 75-67-79-54-60 with 25too. The self trained one will be stronger, much stronger, 75-67 after 4 years training is more something that starts at 66-56 actually, but why not? It can become a 73-56-79-56-71 too, basically any combination, max 11 points in one skill til 25


Classic riders:

Right now

56-74-79-77-66

Change that to:

56-74-79-73-64 No reason to give the classic riders such a huge advantage over climbers and 80-70 in the sprint. TT according to me (and Buhmann before he forgot it) long term down to 73 anyway.

Now "normal" training:
+4+3
4+2 likely, but not assured to have 2 flat you need to take some risks in the mountain. So let's change it to 3+2, since many managers take that risk, or even more.
+4+0 the "normal" training.
+2/3 (60+% at the start)

So

+7 with 21 seems ok.
Then plus 5, but max 3 in one skill
Then plus 4
Then plus 2


22: 60-77
23: 63-79
24: 67-79
25: 69-79

Again, a 22 year doens't have to be that much weaker than one that was bought with 21. Here the 25 year old seems a bit strong almost.. it's not a star, but a very good helper.. Would be ok for me to only offer this rider up to 23 for D1-4. D5+6 then up to 25 and maybe 70-79 for 27. Reason for NO NO for D1-4: Not that they are too strong, but that they make it much harder for 24+ year olds that are sold by their owner to be bought, a 68-79 with a name is less popular than one without one, especially when he's still quite young and the "discount" isn't strong yet.

And as with climbers, here too, the skill up can happen anywhere... maybe a special rule with flat, depending on what Buh wants with the flat skill (now max 80 for older guys I think) and downhill (start at 79, at 23 of coure +4 would be sensational) and maybe TT (+13 seems better than average too)

Sprint:

Now 50-59-79-77-82

Change to

50-59-79-73-82 Cut TT as usual.

Here probably could stay almost as it is.

22: +3 sprint, +2 others? Or already too much, +1 others?
23: +2 sprint
24: +1 sprint
25: +1 sprint

So sprint

21 82
22 85
23 87
24 88
25 89

weaker than now, but for D1-4 ok. Here the problem is that the risk of not getting +4 in the spritn is already there at 21, at 22+4 is already good. maybe could have +3 at 22 as well, then it would be 88-89-90 the three last years

For d5+6 continue at +1 until 27. As is now I guess, 27-92 possible.

Flat:

Big question, keep the 80 for "new older riders or not)

But anyway, for 22 it should be:

+4 possible

So xx-78-xx
With 23 +3 as well.

So xx-81-xx

I'd propose capping it at 81 for new riders in D1-4, so 24-25 would have max 81 too.

In D5-6 up to 83 as it is now, or 84.

TT:

Max start at 73. Then same as for climbers.


Downhill:

Cap it somewhere. for certain rider types with the above system it could happen that a 90 downhill rider can be bought. Not good. I say cap it at 81, can't be bought with more than 81
Done for the moment.

[Mayo]

Great job!
Don't care much about the minimum values, wayne. But the rest of it is very good. Often riders become pros at the end or after their U23 time so why not here, too.

This:
"Sprint:
Now 50-59-79-77-82"
Is wrong, or not?
I don't see a sprinter with more than 59 TT at the moment and in the FAQ it's also (still?) 59?

"Change to

50-59-79-73-82 Cut TT as usual."

Good anyway so sprinters can get the GK jersey on flat stages after a prologue or an ITT if they are good in TT (but more expensive of course so it's good).

[ariostea]

56-74-79-73-64 No reason to give the classic riders such a huge advantage over climbers and 80-70 in the sprint.

as far as i know the maximum is: 73-56-79 sprint 59 at the moment.

@ ibanM: i would care about the minimum values too - in my opinion the differences (and time gaps) between 45 and 90 are too much actually in all skills. either bring the skills closer together (lift the minimum values) or do not make it linear (leave the numbers but get smaller differences in the lower values of a skill).

[Zauberlehrling]

Okay, another try....

Problem (for me...): There are too much 75-80 drivers. Almost every team, without the pure sprinter teams, need to have some 70-80 (or better) in the teams: For some classics like Amstel or LBL, and especially as helpers for the climbers in the tours. I can't imagine that a team with some ambitions will start in the giro without some 70-80s.

For me the problem ist, that the 75-80 are too strong (and also too cheap) and too many. The possibilty for me is to reduce them, so make the starting values a bit lower.

I would propose:

46-74
50-74 as until now.
From there, for every mountain point the flat reduces the same amount, that means
51-73
52-72
53-71
54-70
55-69
56-68
If we want go on and have
57-67
58-66 and so on. I don't care

Result:
A 70-80 is still possible, but needs some luck. A 70-85 or 75-80 needs really really luck, but not impossible (but almost). The difference between the drivers will become maybe a bit bigger, now everybody searches for the 56-74 and hopes he is training well.
With the new system it's not clear whether to buy a 52-72 or a 56-68, they might become different drivers.

Go for it

[Radunion]

I agree with Zauberlehrling.

Concerning the price of such riders, mountain values should be more expensive for riders with high flat values (for example beginning with 75 flat). This value must be lower for young riders to limit the profit you can gain of training youth riders.

[Robyklebt]

I don't agree with ZL.

It basically just makes the "classic rider" one legged too... LIke the climber and the sprinter, not as extreme, but a bit. The 56-68 will never be really good in the flat. He drops the 50-74 in the hill, but then the 50-74 comes back in the flat. Which in the end makes the sprint skill even more important.

[captain ahab]

would also like to see more variations in the sprinter department...right now we have all those youngsters with 48-50 uphill and 69-82 sprint...bring in some more with 52-56 uphill and let's say 65-70 sprint...

[Luna]

For years... every time I watch a bike race on TV or read a live ticker of a race a find it more and more ridiculous that in RSF it's forbidden for climbers, sprinters and time trialists to build a flat skill like any other rider. Until that isn't fixed, we will always stay far from having kinda cycling simulation here. It's all still about who deals best with the specific RSF-technique...

[captain ahab]

bur it would make it hard here...

look at austrian rider bernard eisel....when he first became pro he was a sprinter,when there is a better sprinter in the team or it was not a sprint race he does a lot of work for the sprinter or the captain of the team(not just bringing bottles but lots of tempo...) and this year he could win gent-wevelgem and was ranked as one of the favorites for paris-roubaix from the bookies)...that would make him something of a 50-82-50-50-80-90 here

but would we really like riders like that here?

i think we would need a whole new and much more complex skill and form set-up(for example set the form only for one specific skill in one season,with more +/- in that skill than we have it now) if we would make the skill-situation more realistic...but that would change the game completely...

[VC Aywaille]

but would we really like riders like that here?

Maybe... He can follow an attack on the final, he can try something on a group for many reasons (trying the stage, or the points, or...)!

And what about a rider like Tom Boonen? 55-80-xx-60-92-90? Cost a lot in real life, but impossible here to have a sprinter who can make something on the pavés. I hope to see it one day, that can change all the pavés races.

But i am for more skills, and so more possibilities in race (split the peloton in hard wind, roads like in Strade Bianche and in Africa, and maybe other ideas). I think it's an obligation for the future, when you see the number of teams. More teams = more riders = more nice riders. So, giving more possibilities to the managers is a good solution to anime the races.

i think we would need a whole new and much more complex skill and form set-up(for example set the form only for one specific skill in one season,with more +/- in that skill than we have it now) if we would make the skill-situation more realistic...but that would change the game completely...

Sorry, i don't understand what you want say, can you explain a little?

[Robyklebt]

Back to here.

Start with the easiest part.

1: Make a standard for the minimum.

Right now it's
46 for 21 years old. Sprint 43.
48 for 22 years old. Sprint 43
48 for 23 years old. sprint 43

then a big mess from then on, 42 for mountain, 45 or so for flat.

IN case you say: There was a reason we did it like this, let's think if the reason is still there.

I don't think there was a reason... it's just the way it turned out to be.

Easy thing, make it 46 for everything at every age, always. If you want to keep the extracheap 42-80 riders around (I don't see a reason, on the contrary) resist the temptation! Everything 45... ok, maybe. limit. Otherwise you just make the 21 year old flat riders too cheap. 46-74-46-46-43 with 35 reg is already supercheap now, under 1,2 Mio (see Urganov and Boomhut, 46-73 but slightly better other skills) Make the 42-74 and it will be too cheap. 46! Maybe 45. And for all skills.

2. Change the maximum for young riders

More complicated of course.

But for climbers now: 73-76-77-81 makes no sense.

How, difficult, there's many possibilties, but perfect topic to get bogged down again. Easy way

73
77 +4, it's easily guaranteed for 21 year olds. And you will pay more for the 22 year old 77 than the 21 year old 73. Urganov? 3.175.488. Now with +4 mountain +3 flat he's 3.551.279.
80 +3 at 22 is guaranteed. So give that too. Buying them? More expensive again. Give that option.
82 +2: Nothing guaranteed anymore, but 60%+ percent at the beginning, average over 2, give the neopros 82
83 +1, 30% percent roughly at the beginning. average 1-2 I guess, give them one.

And offer no older "name geben" for D1-4.

D5-6 then
84
85

The complicated version then gives those guys + in secondary skills too, let's ignore that.

Flat

74-77-78-? Then here we had a block at the time, for D1-4 not over 80 or 81, don't remember. Here we can discuss if that's still necessary. IMO not at 80 anymore. There's so many 85+, that buying an 83 flat rider is not really something special anymore.

So similar to mountain.

74
78
80
82
83

Then stop for D1-4, continue with 84+85 for D5-6.
Here less training, because it the price doesn't really grow that much anymore. a 46-74 that has 46-82 now is only 150k more expensive. Maybe not enough? If no problem, same system as climbing ok of course, 81-83-84 the last 3 years.

I'll leave the rest for now, downhill depends on what happens with the secondary skill anyway, if that stays at 56 flat/54TT for climbers, then here a good place to have an increase. If the secondary skill can go up too, then no increase at all here better.