Suggestions for the 2013 season

Double points for a nominated captain?

Also, one of my old ideas resurfaced the other day:

suggested again by Noriko:

Not sure how that would fit in with how the game works at the minute (in the background) but it could be fun to be a proper team manager for the season, recruiting talent in the off season and praying your cheap DSs pay off. It'd also be fun to see how managers pick their squads, whether they pick broadly across all races to have riders who'll race the classics, the grand tours, and the shorter tours (let's call that the BMC approach), or whether they load up on grand tour riders and try to win one or all the grand tours (the Sky approach), likewise, do you pick sprinters or climbers as your big budget riders? Could produce some very interesting racing.

Here's my opinion.

Make everyone go purist except for the three grand tours. The core cycling calendar should have a separate league table only of world tour events, and everything else an ancillary table, with according value of prizes awarded.

Stakes should be much, much higher for these, with two, three or four times as many points being scored in a single day.

Less for GC, and just being in a breakaway more for over the line. However, the points should be laid out thusly:

1. 100 pts
2. 60
3. 40
4. 30
5. 25
6. 20
7. 19
down to 6 points for 20th.

Mountain points should be similarly high stakes for the first 10 over the summit, sprints high also, but only for the first 5 over the line.

I think that the new lanterne rouge points work well, and would like to see more spot prizes, for example split time leaders in a TT, although I'm not quite sure how that would work, as interesting a concept it may be.

More to follow, once I've thought of it.

Everybody could have a 'palmarès' page, were any wins/podiums (stage or overall) are recorded for posterity.

Ok, how about a 'reset button'? I win a booby prize! Yay! I just think it's the best idea out there!

Ok, on a more serious note:

1. How about total banking of any accrued transfers? You can earn them 2 a day but use them - after you have them in your account - any day you want to until the end of the compeititon?

2. How about having 4 transfers earned on the very first day of a stage race? That way if you really screwed up your team at the beginning you won't have to spend the rest of the compeititon getting rid of any dead weight you have on your team.

3. Get rid of the 2 rider per team rule.

4. Give KoM points only to the top three riders over any mountain. Just to limit the amount of points breakaway riders get. Or, lower the points on offer for mountains.

5. Get rid of the Young Rider Jersey points.

6. Agree with the good Doctor on lowering penalty points on extra transfers to just 10 points.

7. Have unlimited transfers between all the Classics races.

8. Modify breakway points given for the Classics: I suggest only 5 points to any rider in a lead breakaway group. I also suggest that the breakway group be of up to 25 riders or less and that it have to be more than 30 seconds ahead of the peloton at half distance.

9. Give free transfers to anyone who loses a rider for any reason: abandonment, withdrawal, doping positive, anything at all!

I think only one of these should be implemented, reducing the penalty to 10 points would largely remove the reasons behind 1 & 2 as you'd have less penalties for making more changes, on the other hand more (or more flexible) transfers would largely remove the need for 6. Implementing 2 or all 3 would probably be a step too far.

No to 3, it works and while there's no real reason to have 3 or more riders from one team it's a good restriction that I don't think needs to be removed.

4 would have no affect, the only reason breaks get more points than stage winners is because the same person goes over each climb in 1st or goes on to take the stage win. I agree it was frustrating how much points went to KoM people in the TdF but I think the Vuelta is working better.

5 - just no, I like the young rider, it gives incentive to pick random people and adds another layer of options.

Wasn't this largely implemented this year? I kind of like the limitations in place and having 2 unlimited windows in amongst the 7 classics worked better but there was still alot of questions and people confused this year, possibly something to consider.

I like the 'small break, high points' format, it rarely comes into play but it's a reward for a doomed break whereas for groups of 25+ you're in the realms of a break big enough to take the stage/classic.

And 9, I wouldn't go for this, other than it being a bugger for Dave to implement I think that it's part of the risk and you need to decide whether you replace a Bouhanni who's abandoned or whether you leave him there and keep to whatever plan you had beforehand.

Whatever changes are made the game still takes skill, extra transfers or reduced penalties for extra transfers would benefit everyone and the best players would use those tactically to do even better. I mean, at 10 points I'd have taken the hit and brought De Gendt in yesterday (I nearly considered it for 20 points) so there are ways to use these but in the end picking the right guys still needs skill.

I'm also pretty sure that 'dumbing down' was a reason against losing the 1 GC, 1 KM, 1 PC and 1 AR restrictions last year but it's actually worked really well and made the game more complex. Flexibility generally adds complexity and having +2 transfers, banking transfers or reduced cost penalty transfers would add flexibility which some players would use to their advantage.

Also, the first selection is critical but I don't like the fact that the selection for stage one (if you don't get it right) continues to punish you up until the first rest day, not picking Rodriguez for one mountain stage hurts you but you can rectify that, picking the wrong DSs sticks with you stage after stage and makes it impossible to be competitive.

drheaton the changes that you suggest would just make the game easier....and I repeat would just narrow the point difference between players.....

Your premise seems to be that giving players the chance to fix poor first stage choices would make the game easier, I say it just makes the game fairer.

If for one of the Vuelta sprint stages instead of picking Degenkolb & Davis I picked Swift and Rojas I would suffer and probably lose alot of points. That's fine, I made those choices and that's the way the game is. But the next day when we go back to the hills I can take those riders out and swap them for whoever I like. The error is fixed and it only hurt me for one stage. That's not too bad.

If for stage one I pick the wrong DSs (De Weert and Rasilla for example) given the way that races play out I have no chance to change these riders until maybe the first rest day. Not only does this hurt me for stage 1, 2, 3 etc it continues to hurt me stage after stage. So, for one stage's worth of poor picks I'm at a disadvantage for the first 7 - 10 stages. Is that fair? Yes I made those choices and I can live with being stuck with them for a stage or two but with the way the races go and the transfer limits I may not have been able to get those crap DSs out of my team until this week (without severly sacrificing points by not picking Rodriguez/Contador etc). In the end I chose to lose 40 points by taking penalty transfers.

Why is making the game farier (so that all bad picks count equally and some are not overly penal) making the game easier?

Also, if you made the right picks then you've got two more transfers or something else which will allow you to do something different and get more points. Whatever changes you make you still need to pick the right people on the right day. That won't change.

As a compromise to all the suggestions (10 point penalty transfers, more banking of transfers etc) how about we just make stage 1 (or the prologue) effectively a rest day? 4 transfers for the first stage isn't too much and the better players will use that to their advantage while the rest of us will be trying to fix our teams. In addition, that also makes each 1/3rd of the race (up to the 1st rest day, between the two rest days and after the 2nd) equal in that you go into them with 2 extra transfers.

I like the idea of the jersey competition for KoM and Sprint competition.

Tend to agree with the withdrawal of the 4 star riders, 5 Domestiques structure. If we're limited by points, does this structure necessarily have to be there? Perhaps for newbies, it could be pointed out, "You may wish to choose 4 star riders and 5 domestiques, although you're not limited to this."

Is there any particular reason behind this structure?

Being given, say, 40 transfers at the beginning of GT would certainly be interesting. Current format of 2 per night works well also though. That's a tricky one to call.

I think the change to 4/5 splits was a small change from the previous year where it was 1 GC rider, 1 all-rounder, 1 climber and 1 sprinter plus 5 DSs. It was an incremental change that wasn't a massive departure from previous years.

For what's it's worth, I think the current system is infinitely better than last year and I wouldn't be particularly upset if in the end it didn't change.

Re transfers, I don't think the game would improve if we went to a 'Halfords' style transfer system where you get a batch of transfers to use over a number of days. Apart from the fact that it might hurt site traffic (as you may choose to make all your weeks transfers in one go or every few days and not be on the site every day) it'd also take some of the fun of having to change your team in small batches. Having a floating two transfers you can use at any time or something similar would be good but I don't think being given all 40 in one go would make things any better.

Well, what's wrong with getting similar scores? I think it's ok to have that! You'll get different scores anyways (!) when you luck out and the guy you chose as your breakaway guy scores a ton of points!

I think it makes for an exciting game, because then you have to take more risks to pull away from the 'standard' player who 'has a basic understanding of the peloton'!

I get the feeling from reading your posts, which might not be your intention, that only the people that have an 'elite' understanding of pro racing 'deserve' to win the game... But I'd rather have a playing field which can leveled more quickly by the ideas suggested above.

If you get an advantage the first day of a Grand Tour because of your knowledge of the peloton, then let everybody else 'catch-up' by changing their team. You won't lose any (!) of the points you got on the first day that everybody else didn't (!).

Totally agree with you, Doc.

Again, agreed...

I still like implementing these three at the same time:

1. 4 transfers on Day 2 of a Grand Tour.

2. Accruing transfers at the rate we do right now - 2 a day - but (!) not letting them expire. If I want I should be able to bank that transfer till the day I decide to use it.

3. Lowering the penalty fee for extra transfers, though I would be ok at keeping it at 20 points - Hell! Even raising it! - if you're given No. 1 and No. 2 above.

I thought I might aswell comment. There are some awful idea's in this thread. I will not name names. But if some of those idea's were to be implemented, Its going to drive those of us who enjoy the game away.

Making it super easy. Anyone without a knowledge of cycling and having never watched a race could win.

I'm not going to contribute any of my own idea's as I feel NO need for changing much and anything that needs tweaked. I feel will be done.

What is being suggested here is almost a totally new game and format......go create it somewhere else

Hmm.

I agree.

Did we ever sort out that thing where people were picking unlisted riders to save credits for more expensive ones?

This is my first season doing fantasy cycling after being invited to join by a regular. I have to say I've loved it and it's increased my road racing knowledge no end. A big thanks to all those involved in running it. Whether I've enjoyed watching cycling more I'm not so sure as I've got a bit obsessive about the added fantasy aspect

So as for changes to the game from this season ? - my feeling is... if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I would very much welcome an inter league competition though. The small league I'm a part of is competitive but friendly. We're genuinely pleased for each other when any of us does well and it would be great if we could each contribute our scores to our own league team too and compete against other leagues. Not quite sure how would be the best way to work it though or if it would just be too hard to administer?

how about a 'league of leagues' where your average league score counts?

next year the rider values will work on a different basis and a rider's value will change between competitions, rather than being set at the start of the year. also, there'll be a more consistent base value for DSs

Something like that sounds good. I suppose it would then even out that way regardless of the size of the competing leagues? I've no idea what the average league size is? Just trying to work out if a league of 50 players would have an advantage over a league of 10 players for instance, or if it would work the other way round? I think it would probably be an even playing field if you took averages, but my maths isn't that great to know for sure.

Trust Dave and the team to make the usual PRE-season tweeks as required....Not so sure about a league of leagues....Would that stop people from gambling on stage wins in order to play a little safe at times....Just a thought...

You could borrow from fantasy football and give riders a point or two just for riding in a stage. Or a point for starting and a point for finishing.

My only gripe is the value of some riders which appear to be quite high for their actual standing in the sport.

Other than that it all seems to work very well.

Looks like the Tour of Britain has done away with the 4/5 split

OHHH Yes i like this alot!!

yup, email going out about that.

there's only seven 'star' riders coming, we haven't made any of the uk team riders stars as we're developing a new system for rider values next season and we kind of need to start it now

good idea and one we're already working on, and not just that either...

Yeah, an excellent idea. Possibly somewhere that records your final standings in each race split by season (so you can see 2011 results, 2012 resuts etc) then you can drill down into each competition and see individual stage results.

Then a palmares section which shows good results, top 50 in stages, race overalls or anything like that.

Then a piece of code which you can copy from the site (and is dynamic so stays up to date) that you can paste into your Road.cc signature, or a signature on other forums, and shows your best results?

Good call Dave, not that credits will com into play, but everyone would have had similar stars anyway. I had SS and Langeveld just as I had to have stars, but now ive put in two DS's I wanted.

Interesting on how your doing that then regarding the new system Does that mean its going to be very complicated, and also values may change based on there likely standing in the race?

I like the Palmares system idea and would probably be better than the current cumulative score system as im always focused on not dropping places as its so hard to gain places after the first few races.

Could the cumulative system be changed and done in a similar way to the IG pro cycling index?

we're not going to roll it back to 2011, i don't think. it was a completely different engine. but forward from now we'll try and keep everything in the game historically.

code for your sig is a good idea...

it won't be based on a rider's likely standing but on their past form. it's a work in progress

I assume pricing will be based more on past form in the upcoming event rather than past form overall? So for the uphill finishing classics where Cavendish is poo he's likely to be cheap whereas someone like Gasparatto may be more expensive?

Would that also mean that riders not racing in the upcoming event would have no value set and therefore be unavailable for selection?

Like i said, it's a work in progress

I like it.....we won't have the anomalies of Cobo still so expensive this late in the season and Bouhanni still so cheap for example.

I admit, I do like that there are weird values throughout the season. It means that you need to have the knowledge to pick those riders.

My dad started playing during the TdF, for the Vuelta he had no idea who Bouhanni was and didn't pick him as a sprinter as he was DS and not down as a PC rider. I knew who he was and obviously had him right at the start.

The weird values are part of what makes the game harder to read unless you have some knowledge I guess, for example people who didn't know much about cycling might have picked Cobo as defending champion and as an expensive GC rider (assuming cost = likihood of success) whereas those of us who've been with the comp all year know he's not worth the price (and wouldn't be worth any price at the minute).

Also, part of what makes the game fun is trying to identify the cheap DSs who can go on and get a boat load of points. If we'd gone into the Vuelta and riders like Bouhanni and Viviani had cost 30 credits because they were going to be protected sprinters, and Degenkolb 40 as he was clearly going to be dominant, everyone would have had much similar teams restricted to a few good sprinters then random DSs likely to acheive nothing (as the prices of the ones likely acheive something would have increased...).

degenkolb has been dominant but there's not necessarily the history there to suggest that would be the case: half of all his points all year have been in the vuelta.

you'll still need your nous to pick the people who you think will do well in a certain race. the parameters might be a bit different. past form is not always an indicator of future success...

If you put Greipel,Sagan,Cavendish,Goss,Farrar etc into the Vuelta then Degenkolb's price is correct.

I like the points for starting and finishing a stage.

I mean, that's a pretty big effort isn't it?

Can't remember whether it was the Halfords game or RCUK but.... one of those comp.'s gave you points for a rider completing a stage.

Just checked - in the Halfords game, you got 2 points for every rider that completed a stage.

I guess it would sort of make sense in the Purist league. But, in the ordinary game with transfers, it would surely just make everyone's scores higher with little effect on the result overall?

Yeah, it'd be a 'no change' change with everyone for the most part just getting 18 points more per stage. The only change would be that you'd be penalised a tiny amount (2 points in the scheme of things isn't much) if you either lost a rider in a crash (which is kinda unfair) or chose to leave an abandoned rider in your team like I did with Bouhanni for a few stages.

Also, it'd work against purist players as if you are unlucky enough to lose a couple of riders mid-race you're not going to be able to swap them and would be stuck with non-scoring riders.

I agree with previous commenters that the game works well and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is a danger that the 2013 comp. could end up so complex and detailed that it would become less fun to play.

Couple of points though. Have always thought that picking the winner of a stage should carry more points. Trying to predict who will win a stage is bloody hard so when you do, you should be well rewarded.

Secondly, I often wonder whether you should receive GC points for your riders. In some unpredictable stages, players go for "insurance points". Surely you should only get points for being the jersey holder? If you're 2nd, 3rd, or even 10th, why should you get any points?

I agree that the game should probably remain pretty stable, most of my suggestions were around 'adding features' to the premium side of things to make it a more attractive proposition, stuff that would be fun and not overly complex for the regulars (as premium users are unlikely to be the newbies) while adding something to an already great game.

I disagree on GC, Sprint of KoM jersey standings, I think that they work well as they are, there needs to be a reward for being high up in the GC or other standings and I think the current standings are fairly well balanced against the other points available.

For example, Rodriguez today is guaranteed 17 points (probably) but only because he's so high up in all three competitions, that doesn't mean I won't pick Degenkolb, Davis or Bennati though as they've all got the potential to outscore him. He's safe points but not enough to compete for the stage win.

I know I sound petty, but my biggest issue is not being able to bank transfers... I know it's weak, and that it's the same for everyone, so it's not unfair per se, but I'd just love the discretion to use the accrued transfers when I want and not lose them if I don't use them.

For example, I would have loved to bank the 6 transfers I had on my account after the last rest day and save them for later on in the week. Spreading them out instead of losing them would have felt like a better strategy than just letting some of them go to waste.

I do like the idea of differnt values for different competitions, though! Though it'll probably be a pain for the game managers with all the different competitons we have now!

This is a personal thing but I'd like to be able to look at a race and see every riders cumulative score or even score broken down by stage (I like statistics...).

The current system with the points on the riders page is good but it annoys me that when a rider is removed from the race they no longer appear on there. I would like to be able to go to the rider page and see the scores for everyone who had scored in the race. I'd also then like to be able to click on a rider and see their scores per stage (in a similar way to how my teams scores are shown for each stage.

All minor personal thing but I like to be able to look at the riders after a race and see what I missed and, mainly for my purist team, see what type of riders score well throughout the whole race.

Yeah alright.

Whatever.

Just leaveityeah.

Only thing is to change Mehdi Sohrabi's value for next season, after all, by then, everyone will have cottoned on to the fact that Sohrabi Subaru's GC rider, Sprinter, Climber and Classics specialist are all the same man.

MEHDI.

It was two all-rounders and 4 DSs last year and you had 175 points as well, which could go up (although it was reset for GTs). The problem this year is the lack of points and the fact that everyone ends up with the same limited number of cheap DSs as expensive ones are not worth the punt. Who had Cataldo when he went on a break? Without a Star/DS distinction everyone will have the same team after a while. It's happened in the Vuelta, which from a fantasy point of view has been a bit boring, even when the GC racing has been good.

Without decent KOM and break points it's impossible to get back in the game if you have even a little bit of bad luck, (the Valverde-Intxausti crash situation cost me dearly early on). Since then I've had very little chance to get back in the game but from a worse position in the TdF I went from 74th to 12th in Premium by doing very well on 2 stages (winning one). Even if I'd done the same in the Vuelta I wouldn't have caught up much. If anything I would like KOM points on the final climb to count, after all they do in the real race and I think the points in the race should reflect fantasy points as much as possible.

I'll make another post later about my own views when I've got more time and I've thought about it a bit more.

I agree with this one! I like it alot!

Two more suggestions:

1. On the subject of graphing results, I know this would be a nightmare to program, but I would love a page where I could graph my overall score in a Grand Tour competition against other players. For example, if I wanted to see how I fared against drheaton or Gkam, I could go to a page, enter their user Id's and I could see a graph of my scores and theirs as they go up and down, each in different colors. I know it's far-fetched, but it would be so cool!

2.

This leads me to a suggestion I had posted on another thread:

I'm not sure including KoM points on a final climb would help. The reason everyone has the same Vuelta team is that you'd have to a) be taking a huge punt or b) be a bit dim not to have had three of the top 4 GC riders in your team once it became clear that they were head and shoulders better than everyone else. No matter what the budget is and how many stars we have to pick anyone with an eye on stage wins or their overall standing would now probably be picking a team that included

Contador
Valverde
Rodriguez
Quintana
Talansky
And maybe a couple of Anacona, Verdugo, Niemic, Marczynski, Henao etc

That's just picking a team based on form and nothing will change the fact that people tend to pick whoever is in form towards the back end of a grand tour. All adding summit finish KoM points would have done for the Vuelta is increase the points awarded to the riders everyone was picking except for when Cataldo won.

Also, just putting this out there, is it fair to include summit finish KoM points and not sprint finish PC points?

I really like this idea!

I like this one, too!

On the riders page for each competition I'd also like:

1. Maybe have sortable columns so you could sort to see which rider has had the most points during the compeition.

2. Maybe have a value column - where you could divide the rider's points by their value.

3. Like I've said before a statistic that said how many teams, not percentage of teams, out of the total pool of active teams, had that rider on their team during the last stage played.

OTHER REQUESTS:

1. On the competition individual stage team scores or the overall competition team scores, I'd also like to see sortable columns to see who gained or lost the most positions during a stage or in the competition.

2. When I click on a team score I get, for example:

The Manx Missiles : Points for stage 105

Could you add left and right arrows so we could see The Manx Missiles (in this example) team for previous stages?

Didn't there used to be a figure for how many teams picked a rider?

+1 for the idea of picking a squad at the start of the season and then having to work with it throughout the year.

Maybe a budget of 200 to get 20 riders.

Would be a true test of covering the classics and tours (standard and premium) for those of us who don't want to make lots of changes lots of times.

I have always tried to manage a group of riders and tweak between races. More realistic in my eyes, but I can see that isn't the way to play and win.

It's a kind of middle ground between full and purists.

Or just leave it as it is of course... then everyone can play the way they choose.

Love the palmares by the way.

I also love the squad idea (or even better a 'keeper' league where this squad rolls over year on year and you have to manage transfers) but agree that its a big departure from the current game and might not necessarily work alongside.

However, if Dave were to ok it this could be something we run on yet another extra team via the forum maybe and a separate league. Limits put in place so we can only select riders in our start of season squads would create the same game in essence but the standard game would take the strain when it came to scoring

The only down side? Variable rider values next year would make it very difficult to set squad values at the start of the season and we'd be restricted to team 150 credit cap and two per team rules (which I'd personally scrap for the squad game).

If enough people are interested I could set something up.

Also Dave, for the Palmares it'd be nice if we could include results from two teams (purist and normal) on one list, either through merged or linked accounts or some other fudge.

Loving the flexibility of 9 ANY riders in the ToB comp.

As I've mentioned before in previous comments, you've got to stick to a points budget, so can't see any harm in it.

I also like this. But it can't really be classed as a "trial run" because of the lack of stars. If the race had quite alot of stars. I think it would be much harder to pick riders.

Although I like it. Would like to try it in a race with many more stars.

I agree, definitely loving the lack of restrictions but agree that the ToB isn't much of a trial run. How about running this system for the world's or Lombardia where there's likely to be more big names?

Sounds a good idea...

I'd go for BOTH 4 transfers after the 1st stage AND being able to bank transfers till the end of the competiton...

Hell. I'd say you should be able to bank transfers all season long! If you did that!, I'd have no problem with not being able to buy any extra transfers at all!

I know STEVESPRO is right, in that it'll end up with people having more similar scores, but therein the challenge... It'll give you more uncertainty in that if you get a huge day from one from your DS's you can't sit back and enjoy your haul too long because other teams can adapt more quickly and erase the deficit faster than they can right now... if you play your cards right and have luck on your side!

I used to like something about the old game - having to have a GC guy and a PC guy. I'd be ok if for next year, insteade of Star Riders, you were required to have 1 GC guy, 1 PC guy and one KM rider.

Just playing around with the idea

Another option I thought about was to eliminate the GC, KM and PC points, except for the riders you had on your team that were chosen for the GC, KM and PC slots.

Maybe the GC, KM and PC slots could be filled with any rider you choose, not those designated by the game as KM, PC or GC guys,l but whoever you wanted in those slots.

For example, at the start of the Tour I could choose Cancellara to fill the GC slot, Cavendish the PC slot and a DS to fill in the KM slot. Only thoes guys I chose would get the extra points for GC, KM and PC points. The rest my team, the other 6, would just get Finsih Line Points and PC and KM points along the way.

I guess what I like about it is that most teams have someone who pursues the GC, or at least the yellow jersey, a sprinter and a climber or breakaway guy. I guess I like the idea of requiring a GC guy, a PC guy and a KM rider from last year. I guess I'd just like to choose who those guys are and not have to choose from a designated list like we used to.

Just playing aroud with ideas...

Not sure we will see that rule come back, especially with the extra races. Some of these premium races we have struggled with a good enough choice of star riders as it is, so that rule would make it almost impossible for some races

I see what you mean... What I was thinking was that we do away with the GC, AR, DS, KM and PC designations completely. The riders themselves would not be classified as such, as they are now.

You would have a GC slot, a PC slot, and a KM slot, which you could fill with ANY rider (assuming we do away with all the designations) and ONLY those riders that you slot into the GC, KM, and PC slots, and maybe YR slot, would get points for those competitions. The rest would only get Finish Line points and breakaway points. I know it's complicated.

For example, for the second day of a tour, assuming the first day was a prologue, my ideal team might be:

GC Fabian Cancellara
PC Mark Cavendish
KM Michael Morkov
YR Taylor Phinney

and 5 other riders...

ONLY Cancellara, Sagan, Morkov and Talansky could get points for their standing in the different competitions...

Cancellara would get 10 points for GC, if he had the yellow jersey at the end of Day 2, Mark Cavendish would get 35 Finish Line Points and 5 PC points, assuming he won the 2nd stage, Morkov will get breakaway points and 5 points for the KM jersey, if he nabbed the most KM points that day and Phinney would get 5 points for the YR jersey and having finsished in the bunch.

Your other riders would get just Finish Line Points and Intermediate KM and PC points, not anything else for the classifications .

I know it sounds complicated but I like the requirement that you have to have a designated sprinter, a designated KM guy and a GC guy, and when it exists, a YR rider on your team... It makes me feel like it mirrors a real team... Though I'm aware someone could argue that RadioShack will bring no sprinters to the Tour or Vacansoleil may not have a real GC guy, etc... I just liked having designated sprinters, KM guys and GC riders on last year's teams... I didn't care much for the AR designation, though...

I can't think of any other way to require a sprinter, a GC guy and a KM guy... but I like the idea of requiring one of each...

What happens though when you get, for instance, Il Lombardia when you have to have a sprinter but know that it wont be a sprint finish so you've wasted a slot ?

Or like Tour Down Under / Tour of Beijing where every stage is a sprint and you need a KM rider in ?

I like where your coming from but not every race is the same.

Personally i would like to see, like the ToB, just pick 9 riders regardless of stars for the classics because anyone on their day can win one of the classics but when it comes to the stage races and GT's we have team leaders who the teams work for and unless something miraculous happens a domestique isnt going to win a GT.

Yeah, i'd like to see more like the ToB, even for the big tours. ANY 9 riders within budget. I think Beijing might be the same.

But there is really NO need to change much for next season.

I know the riders value's with be different and changeable. So thats going to be interesting.

The value of stars has been gone over a few times. Some are way over valued IMHO but its the same for all of us.

I can see Henao being into the late 20's possibly early 30's after the year he has had and the emergence of some of the younger sprinters.

It would be interesting to see how the team work out the rider points system.

Yeah, I know what you mean... I guess I'd like to see this only for the Grand Tours... Just 'cause I think it mirrors real teams... It's probably too complicated to roll it out just for the Grand Tours, but there's something about the concept that I really like...

Yeah, I'm curious to see how next year's prices work. This year, with the prices being fixed at the start of the year, there have been a few prices that have looked odd once we've gotten to the back end of the season. Henao, Bouhanni, Talansky are a few but who would have expected them to come through so well at the start of the year? Not me. So I completely see why everyone was priced as they were and it made sense, it also increased the enjoyment for me having to monitor which cheap riders were coming into form and trying to use them to get the edge over others. Also, don't forget for every rider increasing in value (Henao, Hesjedal, Sagan, Bouhanni, Froome, Valverde) there will be a corresponding drop in value for others (Cobo, Renshaw, Rojas, Siutsou, Taaramae, Rujano... etc) and there will always be riders coming into form who were cheap, it just means that the great deals from this year will be replaced by different ones next year.

I'm not sure that setting prices per event (which I think is what Dave was suggesting) will be as much fun. At the moment prices are set for the year as a whole with riders like Terpstra being relatively cheap because across the year they're not going to score loads of points. Next year though he might be really expensive for the classics and dirt cheap for the grand tours. In theory that better reflects where he's going to be scoring points but I can see it ending up in a situation where you have to pick 4 or 5 riders that you think will do well then just fill the rest of the slots with whoever's cheap because anyone with half a chance of scoring well has been priced too high.

If each rider has a 'base value' worked out in the same way as this year but with a 'race adjustment' of maybe 10-20% of their value (so a 10 credit DS who is ace at classics and crap at week long tours may cost up to 12 or down to 8) then that might work but if you're completely changing rider values per race that could get confusing and annoying.

Anyway, fingers crossed whatever changes that are made work and improve the game, I'm looking forward to next year already.

It would be to complicated for us if the values kept changing for every race. Keep it as it is with values set at the start of the year. At least you know where you are.

Pretty happy with the game as a whole. How about including a couple of the womens' races as well. Or could run parrallel to the mens season?

Stumps:

from above.

I agree, if the values are wildly different it might get confusing and messy but if it's broadly consistent with a limited amount of change (either limited by %age or by a few credits) then it might be ok.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I was thinking of where I have made a complete muck up of a team in a grand tour which left me with no chance from the off. One solution which could be taken from F Football is one complete reshuffle of a team in any one competition per season.
This would obviously come into play in the grand tours, but only one of them. It gives everyone a fair shot if they have screwed up and also if they need a tactical reshuffle, but only once in the season.(if it has already been suggested apologies but alot of posts to go through)

So in essence its a one off wild card to be used at one point whenever you so choose.

Yeah, wildcards, double transfers for stage one, cheaper penalty transfers or any number of other things to help you if you made a mess of your team for stage one have all been raised but sadly they seem to be shouted down by those who don't want the game "dumbing down".

I can see both sides and as I've said previously I'd quite like some system where you can retrieve a complete cock up because picking 2 or 3 wrong DSs at the start of a race can keep coming back to bite you throughout the whole race.

On the other hand it makes your first team even more important to get right and makes the game harder, it also means that those players who get it right have an advantage.

I'd like something implemented but I don't expect anything to change in this regard.

I dont like the idea of a lesser penalty as it makes the using any penalty points a tough decision and quite tactical. It would make tactical decisions a lot easier with less of a penalty and I am not convinced.
Getting it right from the start is something that is part and parcel of the game but I am with you in that it can leave alot of players stranded in a three week competition right from the start. With only one wild card per season it gives everyone one chance only to change this, it also does not only benefit those left behind but can be an advantage to everyone if used cleverly and I believe a good option for all players which is a must to be implemented.And as it can only be used once in a season it makes it all the more reasonable ,in my mind anyway.

I play the F Footie game and the wildcard is used by a lot of players due to injuries etc.
If it was brought in here then i agree only once per season.
I dont see how anyone can complain about "dumbing down the game" as if you've already mucked up your team your already on the back foot so not gaining anything by it in terms of the overall.

However it will make your own game that much more enjoyable as you have the chance of stage wins etc without virtually waiting a full week (2 transfers per day) to change your team about.

For instance i have already stated above i missed the first week of the Vuelta and by then i was literally 300+ points behind the leader. The next week was spent trying to get my team back together and as such falling further behind. In the end the race wasn't much fun as i had no chance of winning and virtually no chance of a stage win.

Its a thumbs up from me for the wild card.

Another suggestion involves a roster of cyclists for a season long purist game. You pick at the start of the season your roster, could possibly be only 9, that you think will score the most points over the season and the game runs season long.
As the game would be run alongside the main game it really makes no odds if riders get injured or are out as you still have the main game to focus on and its tough luck if your team is depleted.

However if you were given say 3 transfers which could be used at any point in the season that may help, although not necessary really.
Not sure of the validity of this one but thought I would suggest it anyway.
If a wild card was implemented I would say it cannot be used in this competition.

I think elsewhere someone suggested a game where you pick your 'squad' of 25 riders or so at the start of the season based on a budget (although this wouldn't work if rider values change throughout the year...) and you choose nine riders from your squad for each race.

No transfers, no changes, just your 25 guys for the whole season much like the pro setup and you play each race purist.

I really like the idea and the ways you could extend it (having a 'draft' style system to choose your riders so no team in a mini-league has the same riders, having a keeper league where you keep your riders each year making transfers in the off-season etc) but it's a totally different game really to the main game and would be a big departure. Possibly something to look at outside of the game (like on the forum) but again, it'd be a lot of work.

Thats why I was suggesting a very simple 9 man team, three transfers , season long side game. It could be made complicated but as you said thats a different game, this would just be an added extra that people could use to add to the enjoyment of an already addictive game not a complicated new type of system at all.

here's how it'll basically work:

1) there's a maximum rider value of 40 and a minimum rider value of 3, more or less as there is now

2) individual competitions will be turned on as they approach, ie you won't be able to pick your tour of beijing team in january. generally the competitions will be opened when we know which teams are participating

3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true.

What will it mean for rider values?

1) It'll mean that the values of riders for the start of the 2013 season will be pretty wildly different to their 2012 values. but you'd expect that

2) It'll mean that a DS who does particularly well in a race might see his value jump considerably, but the values of star riders who've already amassed a lot of points in 2012 will change less radically from one race to the next

3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on;

4) It'll mean that riders will be valued according to their ability to score in the game. true sprinters won't be as expensive as GC riders, because they generally don't score as many points even though they win as many stages

alles klar?

the whole squad/draft thing we're not really considering, for two reasons:

1) it's very different to what we're doing now and a lot of work to implement
2) cycling's not like football; people dip in and out over the course of a season. the game needs to reflect that in order to be inclusive. i know everyone on this thread will most likely be getting stuck in from the tour down under onwards, but the majority don't sign up until at least the spring classics. any game structure that requires doing anything at the start of the season is out, as far as we're concerned, for the main game. no reason it couldn't be done as a forum game though.

Yeah, I can imagine it'd be a huge project. I'm not suggesting it really as something to run alongside the main game for the kinds of people who'll just compete in the TdF, but I can see it being a fun addition for those people who want to compete all year in as many races as they can ie those players who sign up for the premium game.

That would be my only bugbear actually, that the premium game is just a few extra races that, for me at least, aren't as fun as the ones we get for free. Adding some extra features just for premium users which don't unbalance the game would make me sign up for premium membership gladly next year rather than being the only way to have a chance at the bike Just extra league types, race types or something like that, something for the more involved player, would make it a bargain at £10 a year.

I'd happily run a squad based game as a forum game but it'd be a massive amount of work to manage 10+ 25 man squads, make sure no-one uses riders they don't have 'under contract' and keep to the rules. The variable rider values would make it complicated too as they wouldn't be 'set' at the start of the year as they are now. In theory the game engine as it stands would do a lot of the work but the 150 credit cap would heavily impact on the rules you'd have to run the game on.

Any plans on releasing an API so someone could pull the scores directly off the net through the API and feed them into an external site or program? Either that or any way of making the scores available in a format that's easier to just drop into a spreadsheet? Just one sheet, a list of riders down the rows (with a unique id) and stages across the top, that'd make it much easier. Or even just adding a 'rider id' to the stages pages might help.

mebbe. we can chat about that...

Im likely to have some time on my hands to at least be able to assist in some forum type game like that. Ive found stuff ok to do when its about 10 teams, however was a lot of hard work when it got up to 20 odd for one of the week races. But like you said any form of assistance Dave could add would help

Ah, right, so thats how its done

Yeah, the key here would be that it'd run parallel to the normal game on proper events like the Giro, Paris-Roubaix or Tour so you could use the official scores rather than having to score each rider yourself, that'd make a huge difference, especially if the scores had some form of rider id attached to them which you could refer to in excel.

The only minor problems with the riders page as it is are that riders who abandoned don't show up in the list and that you have to pull each stage off individually and then try and sort the riders by name, then pull off their scores into some kind of table.

Having the full set of scores/riders for a whole race come off from one page would be ideal.

Would second that. Good way to build interest in their races. Their main races could be in the premium season with a few (world champs) part of the main season.

here's how it'll basically work:

1) there's a maximum rider value of 40 and a minimum rider value of 3, more or less as there is now

2) individual competitions will be turned on as they approach, ie you won't be able to pick your tour of beijing team in january. generally the competitions will be opened when we know which teams are participating

3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true.

What will it mean for rider values?

1) It'll mean that the values of riders for the start of the 2013 season will be pretty wildly different to their 2012 values. but you'd expect that

2) It'll mean that a DS who does particularly well in a race might see his value jump considerably, but the values of star riders who've already amassed a lot of points in 2012 will change less radically from one race to the next

3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on;

4) It'll mean that riders will be valued according to their ability to score in the game. true sprinters won't be as expensive as GC riders, because they generally don't score as many points even though they win as many stages

alles klar?

OK, that's interesting. Only problem is with only 150 points it'll be difficult to get more than 4 or 5 riders scoring if all the ones who are likely to score are expensive. I see quite a lot of cheap 'dead wood' to afford riders who'll score. Would be better if we had 175 points as before to get a more balanced team so you can afford to take a few risks with potential breakaway riders who are moderately expensive DSs.

The other option which I've thought of to get more varied teams is to keep the star/DS distinction but make it more meaningful by having a point cap on the stars. If we had 150 points then you can only use 100 for stars and 50 for DSs. This would restrict the use of high-value stars and force people to make more choices as was necessary when we had 1GC, 1PC etc. This would lead to more varied teams (I'm thinking of the Vuelta especially, but it applied to some extent in all the main Grand Tours when the GC settled down and it was obvious who was going to do well.)

This wouldn't be a big change and would keep most of the good aspects of this year's game and add some elements from the previous year which have been lost.

Totally agree, I'm worried that we'll all resort to picking 4 or 5 'scoring' riders then load up on junk riders just to get a team in budget. For races like the Vuelta that'd mean we pretty much all had exactly the same riders because we'd all have picked Rodriguez, Contador, Valverde +1 then 5 cheap crap DSs who are seriously unlikely to score anything.

That makes it ever better if you have to pick "crap" DS's, then you have to pick ones who might finish in the top 20, plenty of them this season. Also riders from teams the winner might come from OR aim for the last place man

really like the star budget/ds budget idea. that could work well, deciding whether to spunk your 100 on two or three big names or spreading it over four riders.

i don't agree - up it to 175 and you're just getting extra cash to spend on one more sure thing. the trick is to pick the DSs that score, like Gkam says. anyone can pick the top GC guys

by the end of a grand tour everyone's team at the top is going to be similar, that's inevitable, and i don't see how it would be changed or even that it needs to be

in fact the best way to get people to pick different teams would be to revise the budget down, not up

I was agreeing with the small number of scorers plus junk riders comment rather than the 175 limit, that could have been clearer I guess.

I agree that there's not really any change you can implement to stop the top teams from all having the same riders or make it easier to catch the top teams once they open up a lead, that's just how the game works are there's no way/need to change that.

The problem with this is that there may be fewer low value DSs who'll be worth picking as the ones in form or 'emerging' mid-season (Bouhanni is a good example, as is Quintana) would increase in price and become unaffordable if you're also having to shell out 35+ credits each for Valverde, Rodriguez, Contador and Froome... I know that you always had the option of not picking those 4 at the Vuelta but with the scores weighted towards the first couple of riders over the line you want riders who you think will finish 1, 2 and 3 (90 points) rather than 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (also 90 points). It's just human nature to pick the winners and with the scoring as it is there's a clear incentive to pick those riders rather than potential scorers who'll finish outside the top 5 or so on a stage but may top 20.

Not sure on this, it all depends on what exactly you want the change to acheive. If you want to encourage people to pick different teams with loads of variation and different tactics then this won't do that. By placing more restrictions on what you spend your credits on you're basically stopping people from using tactics like having 5 very expensive DSs and 4 very cheap stars or vica-versa. I think this would actually end up causing most teams to look the same, even more so than they do now.

I've said before that I'd quite like to see fewer restrictions and see the 4/5 split go all-together ( or even have a 3 stars, 2 anything 4 DS split for more flexibility) but I guess it all depends on how you want the game to work. I would say that as you're already making a massive change with the varying rider values I'd consider leaving any other big changes for 2014 just so you can see how the new value system works before changing splits/credit limits or anything else.

i'm not sure it would: all it would stop you doing is spunking all your budget on the four/five best stars and then filling up with no-hopers. there'd just be a maximum spend on stars; it wouldn't stop you from picking all DSs if you wanted to. the idea being that you'd need to think harder about your whole team. like i said before, the people that end up at the top will have teams that are essentially the same. that's inevitable.

I still like the idea of just picking 9 riders regardless of stars / ds.

There has been some stages where the ds sprinters have faired really well and you could literally have had 9 ds' going for the stage.

I have pushed in the past for a purist team to be able to run alongside your regular team under one account. So taking the idea mentioned above here are my 2 penny's worth for next year:

1) Have 2 transfers per day as usual but have the ability to save them up. If you don't use them you get to keep them either for that race/tour or maybee even the season. So if you don't make a transfer at the start of Le Tour for 5 days you will have 10 transfers banked.

2) For the purist team I like the idea of the squad idea. Pick say 25 riders at the start of the year (or whenever you sign up to play) and then you can only select from that squad for your purist team for each race/tour.

3) I don't like the idea of a split budget for Stars and DS. My preference is to still have riders identified as one or the other but be able to pick your 9 riders based on value alone.

Glad you like it. It's main effect will be to mean it's not necessary, although it may well be desirable sometimes, to pick cheap DSs. You'd have an average of 10 points per DS, way higher than nearly anyone uses most of the time at the mo. You'd also have to make more of a choice between the best star riders rather than being able to have 3 high scoring stars. This would make the pick of riders more even across the value element rather than being biased towards the expensive and cheap ends of the scale.

The 175 idea is not so good but might have some of the same effect in some races where it's worth having some cheaper stars thus freeing up credit for a more varied pick of DSs. I only suggested it as I don't know how difficult it would be to program the split idea or get it across to people.

The 100 / 50 split sounds good. I also like the idea of having a couple of the womens races in, just to make a change.

Me too...

Frankly, I'd like to see set values stay, just like with the Pros. I don't see them changing salaries mid-season, so if you get a deal, you stick with it till your contract is up. Are rider salaries public knowledge so you can achor the game salaries to real life salaries?

1, The game is not based on salaries. The new values will be based on the last 12 months performances in various races. Ones they have done well in, they might be a bit more expensive. If they haven't competed or didn't do well. They might be less expensive.

2, There is no way of knowing a riders salary unless its released to the public. So getting salary figures for over 1000 riders is NOT going to happen.

Plus, salaries are not set for the year, they're set for the length of the riders contract, so if a rider has a stellar year they may not actually get a pay rise until 1 or 2 years later. That's not something you want to reflect in the game.

I have some reservations about the new variable value system but Dave and the team seam to have put a lot of thought into it so I'm sure it'll be fine and hopefully it'll improve the game.

You're right, but I'd still like set values, maybe based or anchored around UCI or IG points for 2012. That way they don't change from competition to competition. I guess it makes sense to me that guys like Boonen, Rodriguez, etc... be high priced and the others be less priced. I don't think they should shift from race to race. It's too complicated and I kind of like that a rider who's a nobody this year and next year is great can be had for a low price.

If it was up to me, if we were to keep the 4/5 system, I would designate as Star Riders only the Top 20 in the WorldTour points system. So for next year the list would maybe just consist of:

1 Joaquim Rodriguez
2 Bradley Wiggins
3 Tom Boonen
4 Vincenzo Nibali
5 Alejandro Valverde
6 Simon Gerrans
7 Chris Froome
8 Peter Sagan
9 Samuel Sanchez
10 Rui Da Costa
11 Alberto Contador
12 Edvald Boasson Hagen
13 Ryder Hesjedal
14 Jurgen Van Den Broeck
15 Rigoberto Uran
16 Michael Rogers
17 Bauke Mollema
18 Sergio Henao
19 Roman Kreuziger
20 Damiano Cunego

This would be pretty cool because there wouldn't be a glut of Star Riders and these pretty much are your GC guys for the Grand Tours, anyways.

At any rate, I've always thought we have too many riders as Star Riders and I think this would be a good solution...

Here's some other ideas:

Maybe another way would be to just have the 4/5 split for Grand Tours, not for any other races.

Or maybe the Star Riders for Grand Tours should only be the Top 10 in GC from the previous year...

Or that Star Riders should be limited just to the teams's appointed GC guys, 1 guy per team, for a total of 20 or 21 Star Riders at each Grand Tour... And maybe limit it so you can only choose 2 or 3, not 4... You could have all the Sprinters you want on your team, but only 2 or 3 guys for GC...

I kind of like that, too, since the reason we all have similar teams at the end of a Grand Tour is that those riders are getting Finish Line Points, GC points and KM points and sometimes PC points... limiting those riders to 2 or 3 would substantially force different teams, maybe!

A wilder idea? Do away with budget points all together and just have the 2/7, 3/6, or 4/5 split...

Like I said above, I'd rather you create a 2 or 3 Star Rider limit, making it a 2/7 or 3/6 split, rather than alloting a part of your budget to just Stars or DS's. And! make the Star Riders JUST (!) GC guys... That way I can have as many Sprinters, AR's and DS's as I want and it forces teams not to be the same...

For races other than Grand Tours, and maybe one-week events like the Dauphine, the Tour de Suisse, Paris-Nice and Tirreno Adriatico, I'm all up for eliminating the Star Rider limitations completely. Just let it all be sorted out by budget limitations...

So 20 Star riders? Are you mad, they you would HAVE to scrap the 4/5 spilt as most of the time you'd be lucky to have half of the 20 racing at the same time.

I think there is no further point in discussing the riders points system as its already being worked on for next season

Well, I must be, but like I said above, I would only keep the Star Rider distinction for Grand Tours and only limit the amount of GC guys you can have on your team...

I'm pretty sure we could always adjust the split, as I explained above, to 2/7 or 3/6, which would force different teams.

And most of all the guys on that list, except for Boonen, Gerrans, Sagan and Boassen Hagen, would probably be Top 10 or 15 in any Grand Tour they participate in...

All other races I would do away with the Star Rider/DS distinction. Anyways, I like limiting the Star Riders idea more than alloting a particular part of your budget to Stars or DS's... It sounds too complicated...

Then you have the problem of 5/20 being on Team Sky

So leaving 15 other riders. By the time you split them into teams, Its only going to give you a few teams with star riders. So lets just say for arguments sake Froome, Wiggo, EBH, Heano, Uran, Nibali, Contador and Kreuziger were the only star's in the TdF next year.

Thats only 3 teams. Meaning you will be FORCED to pick two from the same team. A bit unfair when you are forced to do it.

The system you are talking about involves changing the rules every race to suit the amount of stars involved. Its just not workable as a season long set up. Fine for a one of race. But not the season.

the reason we all have similar teams at the end of a Grand Tour is that we pick the set of riders who are going to score most highly within the constraints of the rules. changing the rules might change which riders you pick but it won't change the fact that teams converge. it's inevitable.

Next year a rider's designation (as a star or otherwise) will change depending on his past form. rider values will be set for each race rather than on a yearly basis, based on past form and also the type of race. why is it complicated? you join a competition, you pick your team. You can still pick a nobody that does well in a tour. if someone does well their value will increase, but it's not like one good tour is going to put them up with people that have a solid year of results behind them.

We've been testing the system based on the current data. JTL was 3 credits in the ToB, his win means that for the Tour Down Under next year (if selected), his value would be around 7. he's still cheap because he's only got one tour's worth of points, and the ToB isn't weighted that highly. If he wins TDU too, well it goes up again. you'll need to pick your improvers when they start to improve.

Ok, it isn't complicated... I guess I just like the simplicity of this year of one value for the whole year...

I still think, taking this year's Grand Tours as an example, that we have too many Star Riders in the Grand Tours. I counted 45 Riders as Star Riders in the Vuelta, 58 in the Tour and 47 in the Giro, of which we could only choose 4 at a time.

I just think we have too many Star Riders, way too many! Maybe we should just list Star Riders just for the Grand Tours, and maybe just the GC guys as Stars... I mean, 45 to 58 Riders out of the 200 or so in a Tour are Stars? I think that's alot! Just a thought... I'd like to bring that number down... A lot!...

I guess from what you wrote there's a possibility a rider could be a Star Rider for the Classics, but not for a Grand Tour, am I right?

Yes thats what I think will be the case. A star for the classic's, may not be a star for the GT's. So it might change the amount of stars in various races.

Just to make it even more complicated for you

As your example above. Using 45 stars for the Vuelta, I'm unsure of the actual amount there were, but for arguments sake we'll use 45

198 starters, 45 stars and 153 DS

My rough math has worked out the chance's below. It may not be spot on, but near enough to use as an example to show how the game would be dulled down by removing the 4/5 split.

You chance of picking a scorer in the top 20

From stars = 1 in 14
From DS = 1 in 26

Without having the split

The chances of picking a scorer

1 in 9

Chances of picking the winner

1 in 22

Now obviously, that doesn't take into account the type of stage which may rule out certain riders...example an uphill finish that rules out the big sprinters.

The example I have given would be based on EVERY rider having the same ability, say in a Time Trial. So taking into account the type of stage, the odds of picking scoring Stars and DS goes up and without the split would remain around the same. Slightly less for mountains as you could discount quite a number of riders.

Its only based on the first 20, as working in the chances of being in the break and scoring any kind of point would be nearly impossible.

I like your logic Gkam. Besides, 45 stars in a grand tour is not much at all. Almost any team (at least the ProTour ones) have at least two stars (whether its a GC guy and a sprinter, or two protected GC guys, or a TT guy and a GC guy etc.). But many of them have 3 or even 4 protected riders for the various stages you get in a grand tour. And if you have 22 teams with at least two stars each, then you'll have at least 44 star riders. And its normal for that number to increase in the TdF, since that's where every important rider wants to be...

How do you get to this number?...

These were the Star Riders in the Tour. I miscounted and there's 60, if I'm correct. The points that appear are their total points for the Tour:

1 Peter Sagan 550
2 Bradley Wiggins 475
3 Christopher Froome 367
4 Matthew Goss 326
5 Vicenzo Nibali 304
6 Tejay van Garderen 301
7 Andre Greipel 295
8 Thomas Voeckler 293
9 Cadel Evans 288
10 Edvald Boasson Hagen 270
11 Mark Cavendish 245
12 Pierre Rolland 204
13 Fredrik Kessiakoff 201
14 Jurgen van den Broeck 191
15 Chris Anker Sorensen 162
16 Luis Leon Sanchez 161
17 Peter Velits 130
18 Alejandro Valverde 124
19 Haimar Zubeldia 122
20 Denis Menchov 122
21 Nicolas Roche 101
22 Philippe Gilbert 100
23 Janez Brajkovic 97
24 Sebastien Hinault 96
25 Rein Taaramae 94
26 Juan Jose Haedo 90
27 Samuel Dumoulin 82
28 Michele Scarponi 81
29 Daniel Martin 78
30 Alexandre Vinokourov 76
31 David Millar 75
32 Steven Kruijswijk 73
33 Dries Devenyns 72
34 Jean-Christophe Peraud 70
35 Tyler Farrar 68
36 Andreas Kloden 63
37 Gregory Henderson 61
38 Jeremy Roy 56
39 Borut Bozic 56
40 Maxime Monfort 51
41 Bernhard Eisel 51
42 Laurens ten Dam 50
43 Chris Horner 49
44 Michael Rogers 46
45 Ivan Basso 44
46 Karsten Kroon 39
47 Christian Knees 39
48 Rui Alberto Faria Da Costa 38
49 Jurgen Roelandts 38
50 Marco Marcato 35
51 Jelle Vanendert 31
52 Daniel Oss 28
53 Sebastian Langeveld 20
54 Rafael Valls Ferri 16
55 Levi Leipheimer 13
56 Juan Jose Cobo 11
57 Simon Gerrans 10
58 Nick Nuyens 9
59 Johnny Hoogerland 6
60 George Hincapie 3

I still think that's too much... I still think that, hard as it may be, there shouldn't be more than 20 Stars per Grand Tour. I'd be ok with the Top 20 on this list to have been the only Stars.

Maybe what's most important is, if we keep the splits, is that the Star Rider quantity (4, or whatever it becomes) becomes the MAXIMUM number of "Stars" you can have, NOT a requirement per se to be obligated to HAVE (!) 4 Star Riders all the time.

Meaning I can have UP TO 4 Stars, NOT MORE than 4, BUT (!), if I choose, I can field a team with NO Stars, 1 Star, 2 stars, 3 Stars or 4.... but not 5... The important thing is that I not have more than 4 Stars at any given time, which, frankly, could be achieved just by budget limitations, if the values are high enough for Stars... So I can see where Rider Values will be key to this discussion...

Going back to the split, if we play that way, with the Star rider quantity not be obligatory but just a limit, then maybe the 4/5 split can be revised to 2/7 or 3/6...

Just thinking and sharing my ideas...

"3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true."

It seems to me like you're gonna do much of the thinking for us... I'm pretty worried that this might lead to winning by pure luck...

Simple maths, you have to pick 9 riders, so 198/9 = 22

Thats without having the 4/5 split

I'd say your chance of choosing the winner would always be 1/198... Since there's no guarantee of the winner being a Star, or a DS and much less of the winner being in the nine you pick...

I'm not sure we should keep the splits, but if we do, I'd rather they remain as upper limits, as I explained above, NOT, as it is now, a REQUIREMENT to have 4 Stars (or whatever number is set) on every team at all times, but more of a limit that you can't go over... So you could have between 0 to 4 Stars on a team, but you can't have MORE than 4 Stars... I guess I would want more flexibility and NOT the requirement that 4 Stars should be present at all times...

It would be 1/198 if you could only pick one rider, But you get to pick 9, So its got to be divided by 9

really? because all we're doing is using the available data to set rider values, like we did last year. the only difference being this time we're using *actual* data, rather than data in our heads.

Not really... If I had to guess, I'd say the odds are less than 1/22, because the way you're looking at it, you could only choose 22 different teams of 9 - to cover all 198 riders... One team would have bibs 1-9, another team another nine riders, but in reality there are more than 22 different combinations, many more, so I figure the odds are less than 1/22... I may be wrong, but I wish we had a statistician on the forum...

I'm wondering what criteria you'll use to determine if a rider is a Star. How many points they scored in a competititon? If they were Top 10 in GC or Top 10 in a Classics race? How many points they scored in the previous race they rode?... Take Westra, for example, Got 3nd in GC at Paris-Nice 2012, had 3rd highest point total in the Roadcc competition, I think, what would you do with him for Paris-Nice next year?...

I still think the amount of Star Riders per competition should be cut down and that the Star Rider criteria, having 4 of them, should be set as an upper limit, not as a requirement, of filling 4 slots, only with Stars...

Dave already explained earlier how the value system for riders works.

My dad and probably numerous others have said "if it aint broken, why try and fix it".

This can be said of the game at the mo. Everyone has ideas but until something within the game blatantly doesnt work why change it. Its easy for newcomers to get to grips with and the more you pour into the game the more complicated it gets thus ruling out a probable large majority of users. You just have to look at the scores in the leagues, teams from pages 24 to 28 have zero points (thats a 1000 users) and if you make the game more complicated these numbers are just going to increase.

I was trying to keep it simple, because to work out multiple combinations would take me months, working out who you can and cannot afford in your team and then only have two from each team.......

You can pick 9 riders from 198, so VERY basic calculations without going into the 2 from each team, transfer budgets and everything like that.

Before you break it down, the chances of picking a straight out winner would be 1 in 22

If you added everything else in, The chances would go up, because you'd limit your choices, giving yourself less of a chance to pick the winner. It could be up in the 1000's.

Without budget for the Olympics lets say, where you could pick ANYONE, lets say there were 198 riders. That makes I THINK, with my calculations, 1541984268762850 different combinations of 9

Yeah, I guess I'm looking for more clarity on, not the value of a rider, but whether he becomes a Star Rider or a DS... and whether the 4 Stars per team requirement is up for discussion or whether it'll pretty much stay the same...

I wonder if the statistics is right in this... Could it be right to think that the odds would be 1/198 + 1/197 + 1/196 + 1/195 + 1/194 + 1/193 + 1/192 + 1/191 + 1/190, more or less 4.7%, slightly less than 1/20, so very close to your 1/22... I have nothing else to do, obviously...

I don't think this is all you're doing, because you are also anticipating how the race is going to go... especially when you say, I quote, "3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on".
This is where you're practically gonna organize the riders (weighting in their current form and abilities on the specific terrain) according to price, and we're gonna be left pretty much with randomly picking a set of 9 from the pre-organized (according to winning chances) rider list. It sounds to me like you're willing to organize the rider list for a race like the betting odds lists before a race. And that already indicates the riders who have the largest chances of winning and also forces the participants in the game to take chances (lucky ones, basically) if they want to win much more than now, I think...

Another one of the skills is knowing when to dump guaranteed GC/KOM/Sprint/Young points for possible break points.For example in the latter part of the Tour De France I believe Voeckler and Kessiakoff were up there in terms of popularity with Wiggo,Froome and Nibali?

So you think that by organising the riders values by how well they did LAST season and depending on the type of race, Small tour, Classic, Grand tour. Then Dave and the people behind the game are some how indicating who has a chance of winning the race??

You know when riders line up, they all want to win and there are no guaranteed winners in cycling. So by setting the values depending on their performance from the year previous means nothing. Just look at Gilbert this season. He couldn't do what he did in 2011

you go with picking your riders randomly and i'll go with attempting to pick a squad i think will score well, and we'll see how that pans out.

one thing i've learned from three years running the game is that some people are really good at it. the rules might change a bit from year to year but it definitely takes skill to win, and that'll be the case next year too.

Personally I do not see the need for "Oh crap, picked the wrong DSs for a GT, I need a magic bullet to fix it and be competitive"

This was my starting line up for the TDF
Peter Sagan
Fabian Cancellara
Edvald Boasson Hagen
Samuel Dumoulin
Daryl Impey
Julien Simon
Jonathan Cantwell
Gustav Erik Larsson
Kris Boeckmans

I made some bad transfers during week 1, and was outside the top 100. I improved after that, finishing 3rd, I did not win the TdF comp because I picked Pierre Rolland over Thomas Voeckler on Stage 16.

I do not want to see a change to only bank transfers for one day or lose them. It has caused me problems in the past and will in the future, but it makes you study the race route and plan ahead. Otherwise you reward lazy players with stage wins.

I would like to see the artificial 4 star 5 DS rule removed because:
1. It makes the game a little more complex;
2: Gives players far more options in team strategy and make up.
3. There have been times I would of preferred 3 stars and a couple of high value DSs, but could not as I need to spend points on a 4th cheap star to fill out the roster. Other times, I could afford 5 or even 6 stars.

Happy to see the points value of riders change throughout the season, as long as the point cost distribution remains the same.

Personally I would prefer it if all the riders in a race was magically ranked behind the scenes (so we can't complain and the top rider in a race cost 40 (note all these numbers are just plucked out of the air)) , the 2nd ranked rider 39, the 3rd 38 so on, until in the case of the TDF 179th to 188th ranked riders cost 3.2 and the 189th to 198th ranked riders cost 3 or something similar.

So some unknown 180th ranked DS worth 3 points rides stunning Tour of Qatar wins a stage, has a couple of top 10 places and then is ranked 30th in a weak field in the Tour of Oman and costs 15 points. Does not do anything special in the Tour of Oman, next is Tour of Flanders, and the field is stronger and the rider is now ranked 90th in the race and cost 6 points. Disastrous classic campaign, overall ranking falls and by the time of the Giro is ranked 130th in the race and worth 4 points.

Love the idea of a KOM and Points jersey comp for the GT (GC is a bit naff, rewards the safe players, the KOM is for the risk takers and points if awarded in Giro/Vuelta style is for the consistent picker of stage wins, ignoring the safer jersey points and team bonuses etc).

Not a fan of the 2 riders per team limitation, but see it as necessary evil for TTTs.

Agree with nickobec in some respects regarding the 4 star/5 DS split, perfect example was in the Tour of bejing, had Bos worth 10.7 and no other non-sprinters anywhere near in value, yet couldnt transfer him out for the last stage, ideally id have picked a similar priced DS that may have scored, but ultimately couldnt because of the rule.

I guess its not so much the rule, its more if you have that rule then you shouldnt have an overlap in values, as imo a rider shouldnt be classed as a star if they are valued at less then a DS as it defeats the object of the split in the first place

that's addressed for 2013; the star riders are the most expensive ones for any given tour.

What I'm saying is that if you organize the rider prices according to their CURRENT form (not last year's form) and especially according to their chances of winning IN THAT PARTICULAR RACE (WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROFILE), we're going to play more against you than against other players. It's like when you bet, where you have two possibilities: a) you bet against the house because you think they've misjudged one rider's odds; b) you play safe by taking one of the the favourites.
So, basically you're going to make the game easier for everyone by indicating the favourites for that particular race, and you're going to force those who think they know better to take much more chances if they want to beat those who just go with the designated (by you) favorites.
The idea is precisely that I DON'T want to pick my team randomly (I was 6th in the overall table this year, so I hope my teams weren't picked randomly...). Of course, this is just my impression, it might not be confirmed when this system is actually tested, with actually implemented prices per rider and with the obligation to pick 9 riders effectively taking part in that race...

I do want to see a change. I like the flexiblity of using them when you want to, after they've been earmed. I do like the way we accrue them, I just think once you earn them, they should be used at will...

I'd be ok with removing this rule. I mean, you have to deal with the consequences of having them in your roster later... Why not go up to 3 per team?...

I do think it's the rule... I think there comes a point in every Grand Tour when your Stars won't be the guys scoring the most points and to have to choose 4 Stars hampers you and may prevent you from catching up to the competition leaders, who may be playing it safe at that point in the Tour...

Sometimes you have to resort to picking someone who will provide you with the certainty of GC points, for example, because you have to have 4 Stars... but as TER says above, you'd have gladly put in a DS...

I wish, again, that if it's going to be a requirement to have Stars, that the requirement be brought down to 3 Stars or even 2, but I still prefer the flexibility of having the Star restriction be an upper limit and not a requirement...

Dave, what are your thoughts on the number of Stars for next year? Are you inclined to keep the 4 Star requirement? Can you drop it down to 3 Star Riders, if they're going to be required to be filled? ...

Yeah, I see your point... Anyone can have a pretty decent team if they choose the higher valued riders...

Then again, you still have to choose your DS's...

You know, but if that is the case, then I feel more strongly towards limiting the Stars to just 2 or 3... 'Cause it forces, or might force, much more diferent teams than if we have to pick 4 Stars...

i don't think you're quite understanding how it would work. for a start the values will be based on a year of form to the date of the race, not just last year's race. And although the prices will be weighted according to what kind of stages are in the race, neither that nor the year's form will be a perfect indicator of race form. there'll still be bargains, and expensive flops.

Also, i'm not sure why you think that the riders most likely to win shouldn't be the most expensive? yes you could do okay just picking favourites, but it's not going to get you the win, and anyway you won't be able to just pick all the favourites because you'll run out of cash. the four most expensive stars for a race would likely use up all your budget.

i'm inclined to drop the split altogether and let everyone pick who they like. the new rider values system will give a more even spread of values so i think more flexibility in who you pick will be necessary. also looking at upping the riders from a single team from 2 to 3

Can we start the 2013 season now??? I am missing it already.

As long as it doesnt become too easy to pick the top nine riders , and few peopled pick similar squads it will be good.

I liked the way this season it helped if you picked the random riders who won a stage or broke away and just picking the top six in the gc was not always best.

Regarding the values, I think what Dave is saying regarding the profile of a stage when weighting the values comes more into play for a classic, for example if Cav was riding Amstel then his value would be lower than that of his TDF value, based on the fact it is an uphill finish and thus virtually wont figure in winning, so a value of 40 wouldnt be justified for him in such a race (would you agree cgipryan?). I dont think that is trying to point out the winner but merely being reflective of fair values for the race.

Am I right?

yes TER, except currently the spring classics are lumped together as a competition so there wouldn't be a specific value for amstel, rather for the whole comp. but you could expect cav to be dearer for the tour of qatar than for the dauphine, for example

How soon before a race can I pick a rider. Could I pick cav for the tdf whilst the dauphine is on and he is cheap. Or will there be a date when rider values are fixed for the tdf, say a week before it starts and we have a week to pick our squads from scratch???

I think Dave said above somewhere. The races will only be open one at a time and only a bit before the races, so that startlists and things can be verified, so you don't have to keep going and changing your team

Ahgood makes sense. I didnt have all day to read the whole thread...i only managed a weeks worth.

Can I start of by saying thanks to all those that run this, over the years this has increased my enjoyment( and knowledge) of pro cycling no end.

My only suggestion is a visual one, when races overlap could we see both on the screen at the same time? I think I missed a couple of starts due to forgetting the race had kicked off. Or maybe an improvement in navigation, could the races be on a tabbed header, with live races green or amber if they are about to start?

I liked the sound of a nominated captain per race or even having to choose a single purist rider for the whole season.

the races won't be open one at a time, but they will have a defined opening date, probably a few weeks from the start of the race. at the point they open we'll just have the full roster of every participating team in the start list, then it'll get narrowed down as the start nears.

yes, we'll look into that

Dave, what are your thoughts on transfers and the penalty fees?...

Dave, I love riders that can be gotten for less than 3 points, just so you can have some flexibility to stack your team a little, and so we don't have people resorting to picking riders at 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5 points that aren't riding, and are grayed out... How about giving us a few of these in each race? Surely there'll be no-name domestiques we can afford to do this with... Huh?

not sure i understand. the point of the 3 credit minimum is that there'll be no point picking greyed-out riders as there won't be any cheaper riders not participating. it could easily be 2.5, or 2, or whatever

From reading the posts in this topic,my personal conclusion is this.....Some people have really sad lives...
This is a game that we all enjoy playing,so lets just play it....Its a work in progress game that doesnt have much wrong with it...Some people seem to want to make it easier all the time by changing the number of star riders etc....That will not change anything as the players who do their homework more thoroughly will still be at the top more often than not...Lady luck will always play its part in the game as the riders have to stay upright and have legs on the day...
Dave and co invented the game,so in my opinion its their right to tweek it how they want...It seems that some people want Dave and co to forget everything else in their working lives and just spend 24/7 on updating and changing the game...Personally I dont think this year has been any better than last year,if Im honest I think technical hitches mid-season have made it much worse...That said I will still be here next season,whatever the changes...After all we all play by the same rules,whatever they may be...Just enjoy it people and be thankful that we have it....

Hear hear

I said this not long ago "if it aint broke dont try and fix it".

What I mean is having riders at less than 3 sometimes lets you cram in another star... It was wonderful this year to have M. Astarloza and J. Moreno at 2.5 points , G. Izaguirre for 2.7, J. Barta and N. Quintana for 2.9 and so on, which let you fit in higher priced riders, so I'd like it if we had a few riders below 3 points in each competition... Thanks!...

I think someone needs to go make their own game rather than trying to shape this one....to lets face it....their own ideas, which very few have agreed with

enrique - i think your slightly missing the point, its the same for everyone regardless of + 3 or - 3. We all have to pick our teams from the 150 points so you just have to do your maths and a little bit of homework on who is riding to get your best team, its as simple as that and if your relying on .3 or .4 for your team then you go back to the drawing board and start again.

Man, you're right...

I am thankful. I'm also obsessed about it... And I know people may not like my ideas, but I love how responsive Dave and company are... So I keep throwing out ideas I think of just to make it more fun, and sometimes more challenging. for me, not to make it easier per se...

I don't agree. I loved the new interface, the ease of transfers, the flexibility of not having to pick GC, KM, PC and AR's... I think it's much! much! better! Thanks, Dave!....

Man, you're right... No point hiding it...

I wish I had the skills to do it!

I get it, Stumpy, I do... I realize it'll be the same for everyone... It's just that having those riders below 3 points was something I really liked about last season... We had, if I counted right, 16 riders in the Giro below below 3 points, 8 in the Tour and 18 in the Vuelta, and I think it was fun having a bunch of no-namers, obscure riders that might get you breakaway points but also let you fit in bigger stars... I might miss it next year... But I can see your point...

Enrique, its simple though.

Say all 16 riders from the Giro were bumped to values of 3.

There will also be cheaper stars. There will be the few high stars at 40, but more lower priced stars and higher DS's. So if you can pick 5 x 3 it still leaves you an average of 33.75 for each star.

Take the top star at 40, still leaves you with 31.6 for each of the remaining 3 spots.

Plenty of room for all your riders within the 150 budget and to get the team you want. If you want the top guys, you have to sacrifice your DS chances

I think I finally get your point. So, a question just to see if I did get it right. For example, Cav will have a value of 40 in the Tour of Quatar next year (based on a year of form and on the profile of ToQ). But afterwards, when we move to the classics, his value will drop on account of him only having realistic chances in say 2 classics (say Milan-San Remo, and maybe one of the smaller early races in Belgium). But, because he still retains pretty much the same one year of form that was used as a base in ToQ, his value will not drop for the classics from 40 credits to 5 or 7 credits, but will only drop, let's say, to 30 credits. Let me know if I got it right this time. Because if this is how you intend to change things, then I think it's ok.

yeah, more or less like that i think

Another question will the value be based on who else is in the race?

For example if Degenkolb was in the TdF this year facing Cav, Goss, Griepel, Sagan etc his value of 25 was fair

But in the Vuelta were the 2nd best sprinter was Bennati his value should of been close to 35, even given the sprint unfriendly parcours.

Loving this idea

no. the values will be set for all riders. we'll be setting the values a month or so out, and we won't know who's riding. so it'll be the full roster of all the teams. do it any other way and you end up with changing values and that's a nightmare.

should mean there's a few bargains across the season for those in the know though, eh

The palmares idea would be a great addition....Not sure how much work that it would involve though....

Good question!

Ok, so the values will be set about a month out and, once they're posted, they won't change?... That's pretty cool!... We'll have a month to decide who to pick for a race with set values? That's pretty nice!...

Out of curiousity, will values be set by a computer? Meaning you'll have a database of last year's points and the points a rider gets next year and have a formula set up to spit out a number or will you guys be assigning rider values one by one each month?... Just curious...

No, you won't have a month to decide who to pick for your team.

The races wont open until near the race and once startlists have been confirmed, save changing around all the time.

Yeah, you're right... I guess I'm maikng a fuss over 2.5 points... I used to think of 5 X 2.5 (12.5) when I wanted a lot of space for my Stars, but I guess the difference between 12.5 and 15 isn't all that much...

You know when you quote someone, Its just rude to change what they wrote

Dave, what I mean is, hope I read right, that you're saying you'll post values - in the Riders section of a competition? or in the Pick Team section of a competition? - about a month out from a race and those values won't change, right? So even if there are roster changes for a race, once a rider's value is published for that race, it won't change, right?

I'm sure Dave will clear it up, but they way I read it, we wont see any riders until that race has been opened to the players. So you won't be able to look at anything or pick a team until the race is opened. Maybe a few days before the race

Or a few hours if the Tour Of Beijing was anything to go by

Only joking Dave, we know it wasn't your fault.

Yeah thats the race hosts fault. But most large tours/races in "civilised" countries have them sorted far sooner

the races will open when we know which teams are participating and we have the stage information.

we'll aim to get them open four weeks or so before they start. that'll be with the full roster of participating teams, then we'll narrow it down. it won't always be possible to open them that early.

the values will be generated automatically based on a year's worth of historical data.

that'll be happening for sure

That's pretty cool, Dave...

That's pretty cool, too... Dave, so come December, we can take a peek at the rider values for the TDU? Is the formula(s?) you'll be using for the values something we can take a look at, too?...

Enrique wants to turn mathematical mastermind on us... I think he wants to check if we'll be able to buy Andy Schleck and Hushovd for 3 credits at the beginning of next year, based on their inexistent results this year...Oh my, will they be popular come spring time!

certainly andy and thor aren't going to be super expensive...

On a different note Dave, when is a race calender likely to be released, on which races will be standard and which will be premium? leading to when will premium membership be due for the first premium race.

On another note also, has anything happened regarding the possibility of integrating having a standard team and a purist team under the same account, or was that ruled out?

there's a lot of i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed in terms of calendar and premium

we're looking into the standard/purist thing but the main sticking point is not making the game overly complicated for people who just want to play one team. a work in progress.

Wow... I hadn't thought of that, but it does bring up the question of how you handle them, if they have no results for the year, that's an interesting case...

I am! very! intrigued by the formula(s)! Can we see it (them?)? .... I'm in awe of someone who comes up these things!

You REALLY need to get out more

I do! Cool icon, by the way...

Cheers ! its a large tattoo on my arm as well, hurt like bugger but worth it.

nope. top secret. plus, i've lost the fag packet

Not to worry, help is at hand. I kept it for leverage

Obviously I had to black out bits not to give it all away

(Sigh!) Ok!... How about some thoughts on transfers for next year then?...

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read your post...

Dave, what are your thoughts on the transfer rules? Are you considering making changes or are you inclined to leave them as they are?...

Dave, does that mean that a riders value will change, or can change, for every competition? I think you may have addressed this before, but, for the Classics competition, for example, can rider values change between races, or will they stay the same throughout the whole Classics competition?

Is it something that the CQ Ranking can help with ?

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp?current=1

that can give us an idea to be planning out 2013 teams.

These long winter days... They make me wonder what the transfer rules will be next year... Any news, Dave?....

A very interesting read if I've missed it. I apologise, but remove the right to pick a greyed out rider for any reason tactical or otherwise.

I lost the plot and the ability to win when the need to guess the breakaway became more important than the stage winner, I think a ,modicum of this should be retained, but the game should be refocussed to reflect the stage win. This would mean less strict following of the real race rules.

But.. I probably won't play next year, at least the season long at any rate, so I guess no say in this really.

Merry seasonal greetings all.

Oh and anybody who admits to or is found to have taken advantage of a programming blip, closing time error or any other shady move should be eliminated forthwith.

Agree although from memory I think htat is coming in anyway as you'll only be able to pick riders who are competing in that actual race (as part of the change in the pricing system).

I agree that the focus has moved away from stage winners to breakaways although it has to be said that the really really high scorers in the Tour were the people who won from a breakaway and actually, the riders who were in failed breaks didn't score as highly as you might expect. The names that come to mind as massive scorers were Voeckler and Rabottini in the Tour/Giro but actually, both of those won their respective stages and that pushed their scorers up into the 80s/90s.

I disagree, if the transfer window is set at a certain time beforehand then that's the deadline. If it then turns out that this is after the stage start then it's an error on road.cc's part and not on the players and it'd be unfair to penalise someone for making transfers before the deadline. There were occassions (last stage of the Tour of California) when the time was way way way out but others stages were few and far between. Other than punishing players Dave et al just need to keep a closer eye on changes to start times next year.

I agree. Though it's thrilling when you have a rider on your team that scores so many points, it feels more like guessing and luck rather than skill...

I think the reason this seems out of focus is that KM points along the way are tallied for the breakaway but Finish Line KM points on a hilltop or mountaintop finish are not. I think it would be more consistent, and seem fairer, to either lower the points on offer for KM along the route that are available toa breakaway, or, to count the KM points at the end of a stage race. Either would suit me.

At the same time, regardless, I'd be ok with max points for winning a stage to go back to the old standard of 25 points, etc... It just seems a cooler number to me and would make for more exciting competitions and smaller margins of victory...

Transfers anyone?...

I disagree. If you include finish line KoM points then the really high scorers (the breakaway winners) will score EVEN MORE POINTS and it'll skew the race towards the mountains as more points will be on offer for these stages. If you want to reign in breakaway points then adding on finish line points won't help as it'll punish you even more when you fail to pick a rider like Voeckler who goes on an all day break and racks up 100+ points.

You could offset adding in KoM finish line points by also awarding Sprint/Points competition points for the finish line as well but then you're skewing the race towards finishing places and away from breaks. There is a balance to be found and I think we're fairly close right now, massive changes would be too much.

What I will say though is that technically, the finish line points already reflect the points awarded in the KoM or Points Competitions. No points are given to riders for finishing positions except these so you could argue the 35-1 points on offer for a stage win already include these.

I say, leave it broadly unchanged.

Just give up. Rules on transfers will be announced eventually, probably at the start of January in the run up to the TDU so leave it. At this point I expect Dave has the rules laid out how he wants and they won't be changed. We've all had our say, let's just see what happens.

50+ days till the TDU... what a pain... I miss this game... I wonder if we'll get more races next year, like the Jayco Cycling Classic, the Cancer Council Classic, the Tour de San Luis, the Vuelta a Mallorca series, the Volta Algarve, the Vuelta a Andalucia, the Vuelta a Murcia, etc... I'd rather have some of the smaller Spanish stage races than the flat Tour of Oman and Tour of Qatar...

I'm not sure if anyone else picked this up, but I'd definitely second the notion of Premium members being able to run a purist team AND a day-by-day team in the stage races. This last year I've often wished that I could do both.

It would certainly encourage me to go Premium.