- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Suggestions for the 2013 season
It's early, I know, but with the revival of the old suggestion thread it seems people are full of ideas on how they'd like the game to be "improved" next year!
Obviously, this is all stuff that we'd like to see, wishful thinking really, but road.cc and Dave have always listened to what people think and have implemented good suggestions in the past (regional leagues, premium membership, the removal of the varying player values etc) so if you've got an idea post it below. Think of this as the place to make your request/suggestion so that Dave can see it easily. Also, tell everyone what you think works too rather than just complaining!
Firstly off, I'd like to thank Dave for the game and strides they've made over the last few years to improve it into what is an excellent competition. I think that this years game is the best yet, the 4/5 split is a massive improvement over the old 1 GC, 1 AR ,1 KM, 1 PC and 5 DS split and allows for much more interesting team selections, likewise I think the constant rider values is something that should be kept next year as I haven't missed the old system at all.
My suggestions? Nothing major...
1) Remove the 4/5 split altogether - I'd be happy if the current system was kept but would like to see complete flexibility, the limited budgets will restrict players from having a particularly unbalanced team and it will allow for even more creative team selections, especially where there are lots of cheap stars in a race (like this years classics). For example, pretty much all the top Vuelta teams will still have 3 of Contador, Rodriguez, Froome and Valverde so the 150 credit cap will restrict the makeup of the rest of their team. However, I guess the 4/5 split does give structure and makes the game easier to get your head around when starting out (my dad really struggled when he joined for the TdF but the 4/5 split made things easier).
2) Expand on the premium membership with extra features such as combined purist team on the same account and stuff like that. I will probably pay for premium membership next year but I'd like to see some extra features being included for my money, not just extra races (which have been a bit shambolic this year and are very hard to follow).
3) Teams of teams - another possible premium feature, 9 players band together into one team of players, their scores are combined in some way (straight sum of scores, average of all 9 or maybe lose the highest and lowest and sum/average what's left) and they compete against other teams for a prize (Grand tours only maybe?). Should be fun and unpredictable, also, good for getting people to get involved on the forum.
4) Fantasy jersey competitions - another thing to aim for when playing the grand tours, a selection of jerseys awarded to winners of particular comps:
- a GC jersey awarded for whoever finishes 1st overall along with the bike, a black jersey possibly something road.cc themed.
- a points jersey based on sprint stages or combined sprint points, either whichever teams gets the most intermediate sprint and flat finish line points over a race or maybe whoever scores highest just on flat stages, based on intermediate sprints would keep it interesting throughout though as you have to keep up with breaks in the mountains.
- a mountains jersey like the points but for KoM points/mountain stages
ideally these would be biased to make it very difficult to win them whilst still playing for overall placing, ie base it heavily on breakaway points (the KoM in particular) so that you need to pick the breaks and possibly suffer in the overall as a result, that'd make it something entirely separate to aim for like the riders aim for the KoM comp sacrificing their overall standings. Moreover, these aren't big cost prizes and are just for fun/pride.
5) Reduce the penalty for making additional transfers. I like the fact that there is a penalty but 20 points is very heavy, you basically need to place in the top 4 to overcome that. 10 points might bring in more tactical use of this facility and not be so penal if someone cocks up their team and needs to sort it out.
That's mine, just to be going on with. Also, a booby prize for whoever first mentions the 'reset button'.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 9 min 23 sec ago
well keep in mind the county council leading and proposing these active travel changes is Tory. so work that one out.
- stonojnr 19 min 7 sec ago
they do that in the running part and marathons, seem to end up wearing more of the water than drinking it, which may be the point in high humidty...
- SaneRebel 29 min 6 sec ago
Who's taken over who's land in Israel, and against international law? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50...
- Sredlums 53 min 51 sec ago
What I don't understand is what is so hard to understand about the fact that higher/steeper stems bring the handlebars closer to you. If you only...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 39 min ago
I thought the rationale for wearing sunglasses over rather than under the helmet straps was so they could fly off in a crash and not stay around to...
- IanMSpencer 3 hours 36 min ago
I don't think you need have any concern about cycling safety improving with #toxicadi Ashley Neal advocating for us on protected cycle lanes....
- mark1a 3 hours 43 min ago
Surely it's the sensor that is 8K, not the lens?
- Nagai74 4 hours 6 min ago
No proof of this, but wouldn't you imagine that the majority of drivers have ridden pushbikes at some point in their lives, even if only as kids?
- chrisonabike 4 hours 12 min ago
Indeed... though to be fair the Dutch have some contraflow cycling in narrow streets. Although I think increasingly they would try to avoid this ...
Add new comment
198 comments
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.
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
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...
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...
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.
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.
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
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
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...
Pages