Team sizes

[Robyklebt]

OK, clarification!

Talked with ZL over skype and he seems to have understood nothing of my proposal with the box and the designers.... Probably unclear (happens when my posts are too short.

I'm not really for or against the change, but when leso says:

I agree too !
We can try it until the new season begins. Afterwhat we can fix the new rules.

things usually move fast so I try to get my input in before all is done. The concerns mentioned above of course still there.

So the Robyproposal:

1 Forget the flexible part, max 8 riders in this race but teams can start with 6 if they want. At least for the moment.
2 Don't decide the nr of riders in a race with the rigid system proposed by leso, but make a new box in the stage editor. "nr of riders". Possible from 4-10. For TTs where maybe sometimes less riders are possible, don't know, then leso would have to do it manually.

The designer then fills out the box.

- For fantasy one day races: as he likes, 4-10
- For fantasy tours: as he likes, but a minimum that has to be there could be discussed. I like the nr 7 there. So 7-10

- Real one day races: nr that start in reality. NOT up to the designer to decide. He just does the work and checks how it is in reality. Possible to get some general rules about high categories, monuments maybe still 9, even if reality says 8, as leso said too. But not on a case by case basis, but as a general rule. Same for cat 5 or 4 or whatever, Or cat 3 at least 8 (which I think is the case anyway) Some general guidelines where not reality, but the RSF Engine Reality is given priority. But no case by case discussion for individual races.
- Real Tours: nr that start in reality. NOT up to the designer to decide. Same as for one day races then, some general rules that certain cats. get 9 for sure, certain cats 8 for sure. Plus like in fantasy tours an absolute minimum. 7 a good number again.

Some special cases: Fantasy classics, both tours and 1 day races. Who decides? Designer? Community? Lesossies? A mix? If community, then I'd say for tours, Anden and Dec tour as GT 4 and GT 5 get 9. Fixed. SAchsenpavé not sure, designer? community? Jura the same. Shalom tour IMO opinion shouldn't even get a fixed place, so I say kick it.

Special special case the pavé tour, no fixed designer, so here it shouldn't be the designer to decide, otherwise we'll have 7 month discussion who designs it. I'd say needs 9.

For the one day fantasy classics: I'd say designers.

So I'm not proposing that the designers can just decide themselves how much, Aux MSR 8, Gaurain LBL 9 as they like, they have to follow the Big Buddha leso decision, be it 8 or 9. No freedom to chooese as ZL somehow seemed to think, rules set in stone (and leso will have to post the pics) Fantasy races on the other hand yes, freedom for the designer.

Then forget an unfixed trial period. That basically would mean it's in and stays. Leso says a date when he wants opinions in here, Jan 1, feb 1, whatever, then of course the cases like monuments 8-9 will be discussed, in 2-3 month we should all get more experience with 7-8-9 tours, 4-10 one day races to have a more informed opinion than now.


And of course I think that my proposal is FAR superior to the one by leso, actually I would rather oppose the one by leso where no cat 1-4 races can have more than 8 riders even if they have more in reality, which can happen. Not going to look for the example of a 10 riders race I think I saw somewhere this year, but since it's allowed it's bound to happen anyway. So that should be reflected in RSF too. Same for fantasy races, if somebody wants 10 riders, so be it. As Luna said, the organizer chooses the nr of riders according to the course, in fantasy races the organizer is the designer, only fair if he can decide between 4-10 as he sees fit, and not be restricted to the category in RSF, which would mean 7-8 according to leso (strange) proposal.

[NoPikouze]

First thing: it's "I'm afraid"
(and yes, I checked on google because I'm never sure myself)

I understand your concerns and warning, and I think it's partially true, since it's not possible to predict how people will react and adapt eventually. That's why a try can be useful.

But I really don't understand why leaders for each terrain would be less lucrative
They will still ride their races...

My own opinion would be: 7 riders for the smallest races, and 9 of course for the biggest. What's between those can be discussed(not necessarily for every race, more something like a rule).
I say 7 because I like it! More seriously, l'Ain(cat2) was for 6 riders IRL. But I doubt anyone will be fan of 6 rider squads, it's just too small, there are "one legged leaders" etc... That's why I prefer real+1 here. But I dont know how much riders there are on every tour... and having some cat 2 with 6-7 and some with 9 if IRL allows it... I would not be a fan.

The point of RSF is that we try to look like the reality. Why do we care if a climb in the middle of a stage is 10-11-10 or 10-12-9 ?!
Hmm the Amazing Ape pointed a couple of things which doesn't fit into the real-looking-system, but let's assume he's just being annoying.

In reality, there are no big teams who can easily control a whole race alone. On the Tour, sometimes they can when they are very very strong (US Postal, T-Mobile, but not HTC for example), but it's quite rare. Let's not talk about the smaller races! Whereas in RSF, a strong team can easily hold the whole peloton for several days, alone. In simple words, we have Tour de France squads in le Tour de l'Ain!
That's why I would prefer our races to have lineups which look like the real line ups. At least theoretically, hard to say if the result will be good.


But then indeed there would be several other points to talk of.
The big squads ...Well maybe instead of buying 10-12 helpers you will only need 6-8 in the team...
Leaders riding less
Maybe others...

Hmm one little idea: Some rsf fantasy classics, where the number of riders could be 8-9 (as real classics), would give some additionnal races for the riders of big teams. Of course not as cat 5-6, but with more interest than simple fantasy races.

[olmania]

between 4-10

2-10 Because of the duo TTT (ok, one day/year ... ^^)
Creating surveys the month before for how many riders will ride in some races could be an idea. Easy to realise ... not sure because we see that almost all the 28th of the month the calendar of the next month isn't fixed.

[Bear]

I think somebody wrote about giving the teams the opportunity to choose the number of riders for a race. Don't know where and when. So the favorites could easily control the race with 9 riders and some other teams just start with the minimum of for example 7 rider (salary: -40k per rider). Is this still in the discussion or totally out? In my opinion this would be a opportunity for one day fantasy races. For the general stuff I don't have a major opinion yet.

[Robyklebt]

First for leso:

If you start that test then what really would be very helpful for everybody is: See the nr of riders per race on the calendar page. Not like now only in the inscription page. Probably will be done in the new design anyway, but if that test starts soon (as you kind of announced) then we really would need it now.


Bear nr 2:

I think that involves a some programming... while a simple max-min the same is much easier to implement. For the test I would leave it out, or introduce it later.

OL last:

Agree on the big team thing, it then becomes frustrating to have 1-3 more riders that do nothing. Reasons for a big team I disagree, mine is not big (not really big either right now, mismanagement) because I think it helps my goals, it's more that I just like it and like to keep my riders. The most promising approach IMO still is keep a low tax, exchange riders regularly to keep it low, high rotation, smallish team, low tax, high flexibility, change the team according to the next 2-3 months regularly. But that's another discussion. But generally yeah, agree that using even less of my 14-18 riders I usually try to have doesn't really excite me.

-I'm affraid of the loss of tactic power

Agree a bit, but not really, tactics might change a bit, good IMO that there are less riders available for boring mass attacks, 2+2, 2+1 etc. Not so good other things, for one I think that the unsupportable 43-80 will gain more popularity, cheap, useful, mostly cheap, and since the leader will cost the same, I think many will save money with the support riders. Less 50-80, more 43-80. Even now they do their job perfectly, after a sieb they often come back, more of them, more riders in the back that want to come back since every support rider is valuable. So even less "elimination races" than now, more controlled races in the back. But we'll really have to ride it more regularly to have a more precise idea, how it all works out.

- I'm affraid of the seperation bewteen the "good group" and the "fucked" during the races.With 6riders (max2leaders) If you miss the good move that will be harder to come back. And it's harder to take the good move because of the low number of leader (1 or 2)

IMO that's a problem of the other side. The bigger problem, the RSF basis, helping, power etc that, suprise surprise, I want reformed... soon. as soon as possible. Would have like it before this, before any youth market reform (that of course is happily being discussed on the german part, excluding you and those other worthless frenchies) that might or might not happen, etc. etc.

- I'm affraid about the ambiance in the chatbox. Because the leaders will always search more help from the outsiders for the work.

Agree here. 100% Was surprised to see that argument the other way around a while ago actually, that less riders would improve the chat and get less" you are the favo, work!" talk. Can't imagine that, really can only imagine it becoming worse. Since one rider is just more valuable than before.

- I'm affraid about the parasit teams who had nothing to do because they're not favo, but when the favorite team is tired because of his poor team (after some days in yellow for example) it will be easier for the parasit team to realize a hold-up (not telling about tactic, just energy and N° superiority). It could be really disgusting for the leader and the good teams which did a lot of work. It sometimes happens with 9riders teams, but I think it could happen really easily with 6riders/team.

Mmh, you'll win more then no? But one of the things I'm not really sure how it will develop. We often overestimate the guts of the attackers as well, only 7 riders let's say, bah, need xx tomorrow, no attack. But agree that it's a possibility, that attackers are just irreallistically strengthened, traditional favorite teams think they don't have the power to hold it, don't even try, join the attacks instead, or try and fail more often. Open race... that's what it's calles if we want to see it as a positive thing, chaos if we want it as a negative. My fear is a bit more chaos, as an orderly tax paying (ehm, ok, well once I did, long time ago) swiss I like my races organized... Ok, you french don't care But one of the things we'll really have to see over time in the test that seems to be coming.

- I'm affraid of boring races for the beginners. Harder to go in front if they have to protect their leaders, leaders not enough strong to try things ... beginners bored.

Didn't think of that, but don't really see that danger. IMO the level of support riders by most team will drop, so don't really see that as a problem. Big teams support riders weak, new teams same as now, leaders won't change. Don't really see the danger here, might be wrong.

- I'm affraid of the higher importance of the luck during the trainings. With less riders, less leaders in the teams. Less possibility of luck during the trainings.

Don't think team developpement would go in that direction. See it more as. Leaders stay, support riders weaker, Sprinter, climber, classic guy with sprint, pavéleader can all stay, another classic guy as top helper for the climber and sprint classic, then the big drop to the normal helpers. A core that rides a lot, every day, plus changing leaders, a few better support riders for more important races. But maybe we'll see who's right.

- I'm affraid of the loss of possibilities for the show (not only for GK) but for the red jersey for example. It will be hard to get involved in a rude fight for a red jersey if you want to keep aims for gk (not necessarly the 1st place, but a top10) or stage good place.

Not a concern for me... nothing more boring than those redjersey money fights that block any meaningful escape for the stage for 3/4 of the day.

- What about the team classification ? the TTT ?

Don't see this one really? Same as now! Just with less riders.

But basically agree, there are lots of concerns, lots of uncertainities. And in the end that's why we'll have that test. Right now really don't know if I'm for or against it. The appeal of riding LBL with 8 riders, PN with 8 riders is there. On the other hand I see the possibility of consequences I wouldn't like. And, it works well with 9 riders, that has to be said too, there is nothing wrong with having 9 riders in a race, it works. So if some of the fears that I have become true in the tests, I'll oppose a long term change, at least until other changes have been made to eliminate the problems. But.. like everybody I think, I really can't predict what will happen, so ok with a test. Let's see how it is with fewer riders.

But not an open ended one, not a rear door introduction by testing and then just keeping it because it's there, Really think leso should announce an official time frame for the test, IMO 2 months would be good. And work with those boxes.

But ok, think I said everything I had to say now in this thread... I'll shut up here for a while.

[Robyklebt]

Hello, I'm back! Just to ask if anybody missed me yet in this thread since I stopped posting in it a few minutes ago! Ehm? No? Ok...

[Luna]

Thanks for having been here after all.

Many stuff and facts now in this thread. Not much time for me this weekend. I'll be back sunday or monday to give my view of the things.

For the meantime: don't be so afraid, guys

[Robyklebt]

But you didn't say you miss me

again!

[Luna]

No. But only because I was still asleep at that time.

[Robyklebt]

Maybe you dreamt about me? It seems there are special techniques to get RSF dreams, NoPik the specialist for those!

OK, no more spam now....

[olmania]

An other "risque" or "advantage" (it depends of the point of view) of the 7riders races :
see the FamilieGraessle team tomorrow at 18h, Southland. Easy to build a strong 7riders teams with the credits of a 9riders team ...

[Luna]

Still not much time today. Have to make my plan for Nov and set the forms.Once more a heavy task.

But one thing:

Races with less riders than 9 of course don't get the same salary refunds as rces for 90. There are 40k less per rider. So you get back only 295k at Southland. So building a 375k team makes you pay 80k every day.

(If that's what you meant)

[Rockstar Inc]

testing okay, but is it really neccessary to ride 4 of 5 races with lower number of riders?

[Robyklebt]

If the test is to be meaningful? Yes. Not that I really enjoy to ride it, question of the growing cost....

I think I would even have made Sahara and Kerala aat 8 2. (If the designers permit it.)

[el Galactico]

I begin to like these races with 7 or 8 riders. Easy to have a cheap team

[Rockstar Inc]

I begin to like these races with 7 or 8 riders. Easy to have a cheap team

yes of course, if you are not in the position to ride

[Zauberlehrling]

For me it's easier tho have a cheap team with 9 riders.. whether 9 or 8 riders, the leaders remain the same, it's normally just a helper more or less. The helpers are cheap, so one cheap rider less makes the team in the average more expensive.

[Robyklebt]

WEll, actually 7 riders races will put another of my topics on my "to bombard Buh with until he does it" list.

KIll the stupid cheap 42-79 that can only be bought when they are 27? or so, check my old post in the topic. Make them 46 minimum, no reason that a 21 year old has to be stronger than a 27 year old. 7 riders etc riders just favor teams that get those cheap arcade riders that basically wouldn't get to start any serious race in reality, to weak compared to "normal" riders. 46 is supposed to be weak already.

Anyway, agree with the Anti side on this one. 6-8 rider races favor cheap non compact non favorite teams. Especially when hilly, the team with one parasite attacker can be much cheaper than the team with a Callado Who will be more over the limit than he is with a 9 man team. UNLESS he goes with a weaker team.

[el Galactico]

Thats the problem!

My opinion is that we have to do something with the power system before we really start to have all unimportant races with 7-8 riders. If its wanted to create such a missmatch between favorites and attackers okay, then its only another time where my team got kicked in the ass.
I will start to design races which i can easily control with 7 riders as well

[Quick]

Races with <9 riders are spoiling my fun somehow...

[Luna]

Aaah, it's continuing. And I haven't even answered to the last wave of posts. I'm falling behind. Stop talking!^^

No, just go ahead. I will write when I find the mood for it. Maybe some things will be mentioned anyway by others users in the meantime.

[el Galactico]

Please keep in mind that im not against it

It's just not so easy like you think.

[NoPikouze]

7-8 riders is not the most convenient for hillsprinters indeed
But after all, you only need to really protect 3 guys, max. The 1-2-3 other helpers for the end will have around 50-80 energy less maybe, but that doesn't make a real difference. Well of course they can be siebed easier, but usually they are stronger in hill than the protected riders. At least that's what I feel so far.

[Rockstar Inc]

7-8 riders is not the most convenient for hillsprinters indeed
But after all, you only need to really protect 3 guys, max. The 1-2-3 other helpers for the end will have around 50-80 energy less maybe, but that doesn't make a real difference. Well of course they can be siebed easier, but usually they are stronger in hill than the protected riders. At least that's what I feel so far.

well have fun to controll a hilly race with 6,7 riders...two helpers for the leader and you got one helper left to protect the important guy for the end...you can't afford to help another guy because you have to ride with one guy

good example the race at the 4th...a great and open race between HS and KS...but with the brilliant, really fantastic idea to ride it with 6 riders it's cristal clear how it will end...10 flatteams bring in their sprinter and are able to reach a sprint if they work together...with the old number of riders or maybe 8 it would be more funny to do the race...

[NoPikouze]

I don't disagree and I'm the first one myself to be fucked up by this system. But at least you can try to adapt, by putting only one helper on the leader for example. It's still very complicated, I'm perfectly aware of it.