Luxury Tax / Salary Cap / Money for small fields

[Alkworld]

To put the discussion from the chat to the forum, here's the current situation:

• in one-day races (esp. hilly ones), strong classic teams like free team or Alkworld sometimes go very expensive, siebing early, getting easy wins and lots of good positions making the race boring, and even earning lots of money with it
• in tours, sometimes ridiculously strong "superteams" (e.g. AGF in the Vuelta, in parts stevens as well, but different situation there) dominate for three weeks, rest of the teams can pick up the crumbs

Now there are some parameters influencing this

• group size -> small groups earn more money due to the better positions in stages and overall, e.g. high salary in a 20 teams group is a lot worse than in a 10 team group
• group structure -> 1 superteam and X weak ones raise the chance to have a boring race, 2 superteams and you may have a good race with others having the chance to be the lucky 3rd

Possible solutions (including already implemented ones) / mitigations:

• lower money after reset -> smaller incentive to do a reset, but to properly build a team
• limit reduced riders to 3 -> no "superteam" can be created directly after a reset, but can still be built over time
• automatic relegation to Div 6 after reset -> team possibly ends up in group 2 (if there are enough teams)
• more teams in C4F leading to bigger groups (makes an expensive team riskier but no need to discuss it in this thread, rather belongs to the topic of marketing) and to group splits (teams out of nowhere would probably be in group 2)
• salary cap (possibly depending on category and race type), e.g. max salary for a cat4 tour is 600k, max for cat1 one day race is 500k
• adapting prize money in smaller groups
• introduce a luxury tax (possibly depending on category and race type), e.g. in a cat4 tour you pay 500k in case of 500k salary, but 600k in case of 550k salary (i.e. everything above 500k is paid double), in cat1 one-day races the luxury tax could start earlier

Feel free to name more possible items for the list above to have a complete picture.
The goal in the end is to make the game enjoyable for everyone (or at least most of us)

[Robyklebt]

The goal in the end, is to make the game enjoyable for

for whom?

[Schartner Bombe]

good idea to change something in these cases

[bergwerk cycling]

i think change only 2 things:

1.) limit reduced riders to 3 -> no "superteam" can be created directly after a reset, but can still be built over time)
if than someone creat a superteam it will cost a lot of money and if he want he could do it.

2.) The winnings are always adjusted to the size of the group (even with 15 teams, for example, there is more money than with 14)
that will be fundamentally fairer!
and if a team is successful, it should also be able to drive expensively if he wants.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Clear thing. This is the problem

[*]group size -> small groups earn more money due to the better positions in stages and overall, e.g. high salary in a 20 teams group is a lot worse than in a 10 team group

This is the solution

[*]adapting prize money in smaller groups

This thread shows how to implement the solution:

Prize Money Distribution

Bergwerk named parts of the solution.


All the rest of it is actually quite well balanced imo. Overall Buhmann didn't do a too bad job in creating a balanced game. That's why some of us play it for years.

[Robyklebt]

Bergwerk is wrong. There shouldn't be more money for 15 teams than there is for 14 teams.

[kunske]

Bergwerk is wrong. There shouldn't be more money for 15 teams than there is for 14 teams.

why not do it with groups

1-5 teams
6-10 teams
11-15 teams
16-20 teams

[bergwerk cycling]

Bergwerk is wrong. There shouldn't be more money for 15 teams than there is for 14 teams.

or take it the other way ... you earn less money if you win in 14team races than in 15team races.

gips solution seems to be good for it

[Quick]

I'd like to add another point to the discussion:

Difference between P1 and P2 is too big. I know this was changed back then, so teams wouldn't ride for p2 - unfortunately never worked out.

What it mainly does now is create or keep the gap big between the top dogs and the rest

[Team stevens]

I hadn't taken pokémon's opinion into account, but it's really relevant : At the moment, having blocked the "reduced price" riders to just 3, means that we only have one way of building a team in this game, via the 20-year-old market. Basically, I think this greatly reduces the freedom of managers. You can create a long-term team of cheap riders without necessarily setting up an AGF by introducing a system of 3 per month

The reality of cycling in 2023, even since the early 90s, means that "superteams" must exist in the major races. Pogacar's salary is enough to finance the entire cofidis team. Each team comes with different objectives for the races, cofidis with a condensed salary will be aiming for a stage win while UAE jumbo Ineos will be aiming for overall victory.

On the other hand, something has to be done in the smaller races, it shouldn't be possible to field such powerful teams.
Having already done it (500k team instead of 335k) you end up making money without any problem. But I don't think a superteam would be present in local races.

The beauty of the game would be to encourage people to bring big fucking teams to the Tour de France like they do in real life. On the other hand, find a way of discouraging people from bringing crazy teams to shitty races.

Something has to be done for the big groups, that's undeniable.

PS: PS: I'm taken as an example of the strong teams that ruin the race. It's funny because I had a 635k team in front of me when I had 640k

[Alkworld]

This thread shows how to implement the solution:

It was a bit much text to read quickly, but how far thought through is that solution? It would fit very well into the redesign of points / prizes / bonfications topic, which I want to touch soon (mainly because it's widely spread in the code and not transparent).

[Gipfelstuermer]

It was a bit much text to read quickly, but how far thought through is that solution? It would fit very well into the redesign of points / prizes / bonfications topic, which I want to touch soon (mainly because it's widely spread in the code and not transparent).

There was a good discussion back then and luques even seemed positive and willing to implement it in the thread, even though he never found the time to do it. (He only introduced the category-factor just before the discussion but that was also a step in the right direction).

Here the summary:

1.) DO NOT adjust Salary and Covered Salary by # of Teams. (There is really no reason to adjust that, so we could just stop those subsidies.)
2.) ALWAYS adjust Prize Money by Number of Teams. Formula: (# of teams / 10) * Prize Money
3.) For the super small races with <40 riders, guarantee a minimum profit, e.g. minimum 0 Profit per Team.

Nr. 1 and 2 would be important. Nr. 3 is more optional as it only affects very few races.

[Hansa]

2.) ALWAYS adjust Prize Money by Number of Teams. Formula: (# of teams / 10) * Prize Money

thats way to much money for winning in big groups then.

you get 250K for a cat 1 stage win because there are 20 teams? that would be insane

1.) DO NOT adjust Salary and Covered Salary by # of Teams. (There is really no reason to adjust that, so we could just stop those subsidies.)

that also would break the race and punish teams for low participation.

if i ride with 500K salaray on a tour i easily can earn money if i win in a normal group. but if you dont adjust that but only the winnings you would need to earn 125K per stage thats not really covered in small fields.

[Robyklebt]

Not insane, just a complete lack of understanding of what makes the game good.

As for Luques seeming ready to introduce it, didn't seem that way too me, otherwise would have argued against this idiocy then. Will have to waste time this time around I fear. Can't you just look at it again yourself and try to figure out why it's a step in the wrong direction and shortsighted?

[Gipfelstuermer]

thats way to much money for winning in big groups then.

Well the base doesn't have to be 10. It can be 12 or 15 or 22 if we think it's too much money.

But again, even with that proposal of 10, the total money will be LESS than now because the average race now is less than 10. I am ok with any base. Just picked 10 because that's what it is at the moment for races with 1-10 teams.

I guess Roby's critic is in the same direction. Too much money. No problem for me to make the base 22. But a problem for me if it stays as it is with too much money for small fields.

1.) DO NOT adjust Salary and Covered Salary by # of Teams. (There is really no reason to adjust that, so we could just stop those subsidies.)

that also would break the race and punish teams for low participation.

if i ride with 500K salaray on a tour i easily can earn money if i win in a normal group. but if you dont adjust that but only the winnings you would need to earn 125K per stage thats not really covered in small fields.

If you want to beat up small fields with 500k Salary and make easy money while doing that, yes, leave everything as it is.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Not insane, just a complete lack of understanding of what makes the game good.

As for Luques seeming ready to introduce it, didn't seem that way too me, otherwise would have argued against this idiocy then. Will have to waste time this time around I fear. Can't you just look at it again yourself and try to figure out why it's a step in the wrong direction and shortsighted?

Just tell me why you think smaller fields should give more money like it is now. If that's what you think. If you just think we need less money in the game, be my guest because that is my proposal. Can even go as far as making the base 22 teams, no problem for me.

[Hansa]

If you want to beat up small fields with 500k Salary and make easy money while doing that, yes, leave everything as it is.

its not about beating up small fields with a 500K team there also can be multiple teams with a 500K team in small groups.

and youre current proposal doesnt change that you lose money in big fields but in small fields you dont.

the thing you achive is you make the gap between the winners in big fields and the non winners in big fields bigger.

so the iwnner of big fields will earn a lot more money but the other teams there still will lose out on money.

So on average its better then but it doesnt change the problem.

its like giving 1 out of 10 people 1M euros and then say nice on average everyone got 100K.

thats not at all any solve of the problem

[Robyklebt]

Not insane, just a complete lack of understanding of what makes the game good.

As for Luques seeming ready to introduce it, didn't seem that way too me, otherwise would have argued against this idiocy then. Will have to waste time this time around I fear. Can't you just look at it again yourself and try to figure out why it's a step in the wrong direction and shortsighted?

Just tell me why you think smaller fields should give more money like it is now. If that's what you think. If you just think we need less money in the game, be my guest because that is my proposal. Can even go as far as making the base 22 teams, no problem for me.

That's not your proposal.

[Gipfelstuermer]

its like giving 1 out of 10 people 1M euros and then say nice on average everyone got 100K.

thats not at all any solve of the problem

But that's just the principle of any prize money in game? Otherwise what? Everyone gets the same regardless of the race result?

[Hansa]

its like giving 1 out of 10 people 1M euros and then say nice on average everyone got 100K.

thats not at all any solve of the problem

But that's just the principle of any prize money in game? Otherwise what? Everyone gets the same regardless of the race result?

no but doubling the money for the winner in a 20 team field compared to a 10 team field does not solve your problem.

it only shifts the problem.

you just throw out money to the winning teams in big fields (they dont need it) because if you win in a big field you actually dont earn less money than winner of a small field.

you are correct that in total teams earn more money in small fields than in big fields but not because the winners of small fields earn more money.

so that problem doesnt solve if you give the winners of big fields more money.

you then will have the same average in both groups. but thats not what you really want to do it would be better to work with a median in that case.

the non linear money distribution factor that was mentioned there could help but that really need much more thought then currently is put in.

[Gipfelstuermer]

you just throw out money to the winning teams in big fields (they dont need it) because if you win in a big field you actually dont earn less money than winner of a small field.

But it would go to rank 1-40, not only the winner. Or you mean prize money should be for more than 40 riders? Or rather x% of the field than a fixed number ?

[Gipfelstuermer]

That's not your proposal.

It is.

[lennylenny]

you just throw out money to the winning teams in big fields (they dont need it) because if you win in a big field you actually dont earn less money than winner of a small field.

But it would go to rank 1-40, not only the winner. Or you mean prize money should be for more than 40 riders? Or rather x% of the field than a fixed number ?

the winners already earn a lot more than the following places, especially on high cat races, now it you double that money even more those like Velasco will just print money

[Gipfelstuermer]

the winners already earn a lot more than the following places, especially on high cat races, now it you double that money even more those like Velasco will just print money

Does Velasco ride only in big fields or what ? Maybe... Dont know his history... but then he deserves it perhaps too if he wins a lot in big fields... anyway I think you misunderstand me. It is only about field size here. Hence the part of the thread title "money for small fields".

It is not about successful vs un-successful teams, even though that can be discussed too, if we think successful teams should get less and unsuccessful teams should get more (even though I personally dont see that problem and I'm for sure not the most successful team here ^^). There we are back at the tax discussion, too.

[lennylenny]

the winners already earn a lot more than the following places, especially on high cat races, now it you double that money even more those like Velasco will just print money

Does Velasco ride only in big fields ? Maybe... Dont know... but then he deserves it perhaps too if he wins a lot in big fields... anyway you misunderstand me. It is only about small fields / big fields here.

It is not about successful vs un-successful teams, even though that can be discussed too.

do you really think a dominant team with super strong climber should earn double the money
let's say stevens would win maybe 7 stages with Velasco instead of 10 and get the GC
that is 7 times 300k for the stages at 2.1M total + 2.5M in GC
so 4.6M just for having a dominant climber at a GT

doyou really think that is healthy for the game? no way it is

and before you come with the argument that more active teams means more very strong climbers:
there are currently 3 89+ mountain riders, so if we scale it up lineary thatis 6 at double our current active teams, so 1.5 per timeslot if we assume all of them ride a GT