Price inflation

Gkam84 wrote:

Holy Moly, enrique has come up with an idea I like...

I aim to please ... and entertain ...

stevemarks wrote:

... Is it possible to have a banker included in the team lineup?...

I don't get how this works What's the banker do for you and how do you use him?...

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

... that team you present is exactly why things changed, when you are able to pick a team such as that it is too easy...

Today's stage is an example of why I think you overestimate the effect of being able to pick the 4 highest value riders and put them on your team. How many stages have been won by a breakaway this year? And what do people do on stages like today? Pick the 4 highest value riders and stick with them? No, obviously. The true players and risk takers gambled today and won big time! So I'd be ok with being able to fit in the 4 Top Rated riders in your team along with 5 no-name DS's! You can have fun pickijng them, but you certainly aren't going to win the competition! Would the scores be much closer tan they are now? Probably. But I think that makes it more exciting!

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

... back then values were not based on form...

I like the fact that values are based on form, I just wish there were sort of, two or three tiers more distinctly visible, something like:

10-15 Stars, at a value of 25 to 40,

20-25 All-Rounders, at a value of say, 10 to 25,

and then a bunch (!), maybe 140+ of DS's all below 7.5, and at least 10 at the 3.0 level, sort of a proportion for each competition, something predicatble (!) instead of just (!) value formula driven which would give the values a more stable structure within each competitio,

Now you could say, Enrique -

drheaton wrote:

You're just pulling these numbers out of your arse aren't you?

and I would have to say, categorically - Yes!

It's just an idea... But one I like (!)

ray silvester wrote:

... Andy Schleck for example started the season at 3.0... yet he's trebled in price to 9.2... I doubt anyone has gone in the opposite direction.

Well, I may be wrong but, maybe (!), the reason we haven't seen that might just be that, hell, if you're not scoring in real life or putting in a real effort, you won't (!) get chosen to the 'actual' Tour de France (!) , so we won't see them in the game (!)... Maybe I'm right... It'd be fun to have access to the values before and after the Tour of all to check though... But maybe you have a point because, what I don't know is, if, timingwise, a rider's value is recalculated after the Tour or only if they appear on the start list for a next race... I don't know, but it'd be nice to know!

enrique wrote:

Tomorrow is another day in the Tour that I wish I had more space in my budget...

Let me say this, which is obvious, having the same (!) domestiques as everyone else does (!) make teams more similar on day's like tomorrow. That's why I advocate having so more riders at the 3.0 level!

When you're planning for a 3 week tour, on the very flat stages you'll want the top point getters on this list, because the scoring table is so heavily skewed towards the top:

Mark Cavendish
Peter Sagan
André Greipel
Alexander Kristoff
Marcel Kittel

That's a lot of credits right there... You really can't fit in much more in there if you don't want to lose out on too many points!

In the the mountains the same thing probably happens with (maybe not this year! ) Contador, Froome and Rodriguez...

So, if that's what you want on your team, then to fit them in maybe you'll have space for 3 or 4 domestiques and maybe another decent rider...

But (!) if you have many (!) choices to make (!) at the 3.0 level, then (!) who (!) you choose at that level will stick with you for along time, and could be (!) significant in the long run, 'cause you can't overhaul your team overnight!

It's too bad there weren't so many choices this year.

Once again you totally miss the point. The reason you can't have all of the best sprinters in your team for tomorrow is not that there are too few 3 credit riders, its because you SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE ALL THE BEST SPRINTERS IN YOUR TEAM!

Likewise in the mountains, why do you think you should be able to have Froome, Rodriguez, Valverde and Contador all in your team? And why would having twenty three credit riders make any difference?

Whatever happens the best teams will all have the same 'stars' and a few cheap riders. If you artificially make some riders cost 3 credits, riders like Hoogerland or Schleck then they will be picked by everyone because they're better choices than Mederel or Fischer so everyone WILL STILL HAVE THE SAME TEAM!

enrique wrote:

In a way it's actually proof the valuation process is working, maybe too well, because the 3.0 riders have hardly contributed anything to the scoring, but because of the pricing and their few quantity and the abandonment, we've been stuck with them and there've been few, if any, surprises at that level of value (!).

So yeah, I really believe it's a good idea, for next year, of course, to have many more riders at the 3.0 level or thereabouts...

enrique wrote:

I imagine that tomorrow everybody will have Froome, Contador, Quintana and the same 4 or 5 domestiques.

Well, I wish we could see actual figures for the managed teams telling us what percentage of the 'active' teams brought in what rider...

I bet that, of course, 98% of the "still-managed" teams will bring in Cavendish, 75% will bring in Greipel, 80% Kittel and more than 65% will bring in Sagan... But it'd be nice to see the actual figures, but, please, don't get me wrong, I don't expect them tomorrow

And I don't expect to see them any day soon, either, and I know I'm the only one thinking it would be cool to see that, and I don't want to create more work for Dave, either... It's just a thought!

No matter what anyone does, all players will pick the best options at any one price point. If you have a dozen three credit riders everyone will pick the ones most likely to score so you're not changing anything, everyone will still pick the same riders, everyone will pick the riders who are most likely to score points. Tweak the game however you want, that will never change.

drheaton wrote:

I don't like the ideas of having a 'protected' rider in your team or a team captain, either of which would get double points and not be transferred.

Apart from the fact that it over complicates things I think that if this rider is outside of your budget and a fixed item in your team then as soon as one of the major contenders crashes everyone will be up in arms that they can't transfer them. There are two types of play in the game, transferring and purist. Forcing a standard, transferring, player to not transfer one person is mixing it all up for no real clear benefit.

Likewise people want more cheap riders for more team variety. What benefit is there to every team having Sagan or Froome as their protected rider?

Finally, if you have to keep one rider in your team for all stages then you're effectively handicapped on the stages where that rider doesn't feature. If you picked Froome as your leader then you have to have him in your team on the flat or medium stages where he won't feature much.

I can see your point about people being up in arms about not being able to transfer out a DNF although maybe that could be solved by allowing a transfer if a withdrawl happened. Yes that would increase the complication a little but I disagree with your other arguments. I did not suggest double points for a team leader, and do not see that as in any way necessary. I am not looking for more cheap riders, just the option of having some choice. I am not being greedy, my team has only picked one 40 pointer on less than half the stages, and I must be typical.

There is a clear benefit of having 150 points to divide between eight riders knowing you have your "banker". It means you should be able to afford more riders in the 5/20 range rather than the 3/10 range. Or choose another big name, it would be a judgement call.

As for the handicapped statement, that does not hold water with me as I have been handicapped in every stage by having picked a couple of 3.0 riders who I could not afford to transfer out. It's not even been worth taking a 10 point penalty because at times there has literally been no other option. on the basis of this TDF I have been playing effectively with 6 or 7 riders every stage and sometimes as few as 4. You might as well make it a game of 6 choices and save the time spent pointlessly looking to see if you could regig the team.

Finally that is the whole point of bringing a little bit of purist play into the standard game as you HAVE to make a judgement call, to pick a GC guy, an all rounder, a sprinter, or a guy for the breaks.

It's just an idea that I thought Could work, please do not dismiss it just because enrique might have seemed to like it. Probably it would be easier just to raise the points available back to 175 to have the same effect.

I am not suggesting something because I want to pick more cheap riders, I am suggesting ideas so that I have the option of picking riders and not writing off 1/2/3 or more of my team every stage.

PS

I love the game, and would be perfectly happy if it didn't change at all!

Now I'm off to watch La Classica on Jaizkibel (have you seen the startlist it's like a whos who of the tour without Froomedog and Bertie(for obvious reasons)). Then I am going to try the Tourmelet for the first time ever, wish me luck as last time I looked it had been washed away.

Back in September

Nice August everyone!

enrique wrote:

I played the NBC Fantasy Cycling Challenge again this year. Nowhere near as fun as this site, but (!) I almost have to (!) play since there's a whole host load of people and a ton of friends that play and it's become an annual ritual to see if anyone can win one of their Daily prizes. I never win, but that's beside the point.

It's also become a huge scenario where you can display your 'bragging rights' as the guy who knows the most about cycling! And you know cycling is huge in New York :).

The one great thing about this game, the Roadcc game, apart from the sleek design, the beautiful colors, and how fast it is (!), is the fact you can change your team every single day.

In the NBC game, you choose 15 riders and then you switch only (!) between those 15 for the whole tour (!). You have "bench" of riders on your team, if you will.

So, make a bad choice of your original 15, and, boom (!) you're screwed (!). I hate that part (!).

I'll say this, the only (!) thing I like is they have oogles (!) of riders at the low end. To offset that (!) however, their "Stars" (!) are extremely (!) expensive.

You get a budget of $500 over there, with which you get to pick 15 riders, and Froome, Contador, Cavendish, Sagan and Greipel were $95, $91, $91, $89 and $81, respectively. Wuf! You ate a lot of your budget on those boys if you wanted them on your team (!).

This year I was especially attentive to how they valued their riders because a friend, who's much more into cycling than I am, and a much better player, got to review their rider salaries before they got posted just because his girfriend is a Production Assistant at NBC Sports. So he got to witness the whole process.

They started to discuss salaries on June 7 2013. Of course, they're busy with other sports throughout the year and they only care about the Tour de France.

They went off the start lists at ProCyclingStats and CyclingFever. There were dozens of emails exchanged discussing rider values between then and the time the first game start list went up.

They put up their original game start list on June 27 and added or deleted riders to their game start list as teams updated their rosters. Their start list was finalized, of course, when Garmin announce their roster on June 26.

Now their (!) lowest value for a rider is $4. But there were only 3 riders at this level, Marangoni, Erviti and Noval. Then there were a boatload of riders at the $5 level, 21, then a further 28 riders between $6 and $10 and 58 between $10 and $20.

Now, how did they value their riders? They had someone establish their values based on "we want the riders we expect to gain the most points in the competition to cost the most". Last year they had Wiggins at $99 and Cavendish at $103 and believ it or not, they had Froome at $7! That was it. Form wasn't a consideration. Or maybe it was, but there was no formula.

Now, my point is I think we should rely a little bit less on formulas and go back, at least for the Tour, to mixing in a little more human element into the process.

I agree with stevemarks. Sometimes it felt like:

stevemarks wrote:

You might as well make it a game of 6 choices and save the time spent pointlessly looking to see if you could regig the team.

When I wanted to get rid of Schleck, but keep other riders, I could only come up with Serpa as a close alternative. All the others were too expensive. And swap out my domestiques, my 3.0 riders? What for? I wouldn't get any points from the guys I brought in and they would occupy even more (!) of my budget.

So dr said:

drheaton wrote:

... the problem is that prices are set before the rosters are announced... That means that unless you're happy with rider values changing after the competition is open... or we don't open comps until all teams are announced... there's no way to avoid a situation where cheap riders are announced in advance for a race...

Well, I didn't mind waiting till June 27 to put in my first draft team for the NBC game. June 27 still gave you a couple of days to get acquainted with the values and play around with your team (And it was only the Garmin boys we were waiting for and I wasn't too high on those(!) ):) So I would be perfectly ok with waiting the same time for this site's competition to open, especially if it means rider values can be looked at a little longer...

I just don't think it's true you have to wait till the day before the race starts to be able to set rider values close to 3.0... I realize it's true if you're relying on a formula, but that's why I'm advocating mixing in the human element, too...

I mean, I like this game, but this Tour has been a little less fun because I couldn't quite fit in riders I cared to cheer for... Maybe this game is meant more as a competition and nobody else cares that much about who they're able to put on their team, but I do (!)

drheaton wrote:

I say leave it as it is for now...

Sure! This is all talk and opinions, as far as I'm concerned! I don't want anyone (!) offended by what I'm saying! No one!

Incidentally, want to know what the prize was for the winner of the overall competition for the NBC Sports game this year? A ride of up to 30 miles with Christian Vandevelde at a location of your choice near your residence! But then, as Daily Prizes they had 4 iPhone enabled Wahoo trainers! No, I didn't win any!

Anyways, good night to all here and good morning to those of you over there!

A ride of 30 miles with Christian VanDeVelde.....a load of refunds to come methinks when VDV withdraws after 16k LOL

enrique wrote:

...how about lowering their value to 3.0 for Friday's, Saturday's and Sunday's stages?

Ok, then, how about next year, for the Tour only, every professional team gets assigned one 3.0 to 3.5 value rider per team? So you can put a low value rider from any team you like at a dirt cheap value?

enrique wrote:

I can't believe you took it as anything but a joke

it wasn't a joke, except in the sense that as a good idea, it was a joke.

you posted it here, and you started another forum topic to try and resurrect it when everyone rubbished it on this one.

enrique wrote:

Just trying to liven things up a little

don't.

enrique wrote:

stevemarks wrote:

... Is it possible to have a banker included in the team lineup?...

I don't get how this works What's the banker do for you and how do you use him?...

You get to choose one rider for free at the start of the competition and he is not transferable. Then you have 150 credits to play with for eight guys. As I said a lot of people will have put in Froome or Sagan but with the extra breakaway points they may not be the highest scorers. It just means that you have more credits to play with for medium/cheap guys and the added interest of finding the perfect Banker who will make you the most points in a purist kind of way.

Simples

stevemarks wrote:

I love the game, and would be perfectly happy if it didn't change at all!

It is (!) the best out there...

stevemarks wrote:

You get to choose one rider for free at the start of the competition and he is not transferable. Then you have 150 credits to play with for eight guys...

I like it, but, I would have it as a tiebreaker...

stevemarks wrote:

enrique wrote:

stevemarks wrote:

... Is it possible to have a banker included in the team lineup?...

I don't get how this works What's the banker do for you and how do you use him?...

You get to choose one rider for free at the start of the competition and he is not transferable. Then you have 150 credits to play with for eight guys. As I said a lot of people will have put in Froome or Sagan but with the extra breakaway points they may not be the highest scorers. It just means that you have more credits to play with for medium/cheap guys and the added interest of finding the perfect Banker who will make you the most points in a purist kind of way.

Simples

I'd go even further and say he's the team captain and therefore scores double points.

ray silvester wrote:

I'd go even further and say he... scores double points.

In a tie breaker...

drheaton wrote:

Value setting is based on form and the points a rider has scored over the last 12 months on certain types of stage...

I've always liked the way this game has been set up. I remember when we had to choose 1 GC, 1KM, 1 PC, 2 AR's and 4 DS's. I thought that was pretty cool! I just wonder if rider values were set back then so you could have 5 "Stars" (1 GC, 1KM, 1 PC and 2 AR's) on your team and the current system is also "geared to" or "planned for" so that you cannot fit in more than 4 or 5 "Stars" on it...

Gkam84 wrote:

Holy Moly, enrique has come up with an idea I like.

YES, in a 9 rider per team race, it would be quite easy to make one rider from each team a super cheap guy

But if that rider is worth more then it is false engineering and doing it for the sake of it.

The game is supposed to be a challenge, not a walk in the park for toys to be spat out the pram.

enrique wrote:

Tomorrow is another day in the Tour that I wish... we could see actual figures for the... teams telling us what... teams brought in what rider...

What I mean is, we have the Dream Team, right? The team of 9 riders that, without considering budget restraints, would have scored the most points? That's (!) been built into the system. And I like it!

Well, it's the same idea, but what I'd like to see is the 9 most picked riders by the users for that stage. Just out of curiousity and fun! I know it's just a dream, but, what the hell?

enrique wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Value setting is based on form and the points a rider has scored over the last 12 months on certain types of stage...

I've always liked the way this game has been set up. I remember when we had to choose 1 GC, 1KM, 1 PC, 2 AR's and 4 DS's. I thought that was pretty cool! I just wonder if rider values were set back then so you could have 5 "Stars" (1 GC, 1KM, 1 PC and 2 AR's) on your team and the current system is also "geared to" or "planned for" so that you cannot fit in more than 4 or 5 "Stars" on it...

I'd like to apologise to everyone in advance but I'm about to pull an enrique...

From the 2012 suggestion thread:

enrique wrote:

And now my top two requests for next season:

...

2. Remove the Star Rider/Domestique restrictions! Although I'd be ok with limiting the amount of GC contenders to 4 per team only (!) during Grand Tours.

Otherwise, all Star Riders restrictions should be removed for all races all year long. Budget constraints will prevent team stacking in most cases.

enrique, I know some people can be 'changeable' but you really take the piss sometimes.

drheaton wrote:

... I'm about to pull an enrique...

Damn fine job! You get an 'Enrique' badge today! You made me laugh! Thanks!

Sanderville wrote:

I need a bigger budget. My human rights are being violated...

Ok, how about this as a general rule of thumb for budgets and values next year?

How about if we value the riders so that if anybody wanted to they could fit the 4 highest valued riders + 5 domestiques in their team and that would be possible?

This is efectively what Dave is proposing by bringing down the value of Star Riders to a max of 35 or so and having more (!) DS's at 3.0, or, to my preference, as below, having some DS's at a lower value than the 3.0 limit we now have.

So, for example for the Tour, this year, with these values below (subject to discretion, etc..), this team could be possible:

Alejandro Valverde 34.0
Joaquin Rodriguez 34.0
Alberto Contador 34.0
Chris Froome 35.0

Christophe Le Mevel 3.0
Benjamin Noval 2.5
Murilo Antonio Fischer 2.5
Matteo Bono 2.5
Maxime Mederel 2.5

Total 150.00

That way, if anyone wanted to, they could have 4 Stars at any given point in the Tour, knowing full well that in all probablitity they would only score on those 4 riders? Huh?

enrique wrote:

Christophe Le Mevel 3.0
Benjamin Noval 2.5
Murilo Antonio Fischer 2.5
Matteo Bono 2.5
Maxime Mederel 2.5

Going below 3.0 really isn't that (!) bad. I mean, none (!) of the riders above have scored any points, so effectively, they're just filling up space, so why not make them cheaper?

Gkam84 wrote:

Holy Moly, enrique has come up with an idea I like.

YES, in a 9 rider per team race, it would be quite easy to make one rider from each team a super cheap guy

no it wouldn't.

because you don't know the final squad until the day before the race.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

Gkam84 wrote:

Holy Moly, enrique has come up with an idea I like.

YES, in a 9 rider per team race, it would be quite easy to make one rider from each team a super cheap guy

no it wouldn't.

because you don't know the final squad until the day before the race.

Don't spoil it. I never said anything about a rider in the race. Just ONE rider from each team that will be taking part. He doesn't have to be on the startlist

stevemarks wrote:

I do think that the paucity of cheap riders is effecting the game especially on days like today (mountain TT) there are going to be a lot of teams that are incredibly similar in all respects as there is no scope for options. I cannot think of a solution at the moment but there appears to be a concertina effect with the riders, pricing too many mid value riders who are too expensive to risk picking. I think this is an aspect of the game that needs to be addressed. It is difficult to pick a rider who costs 10-15 points when you are only thinking they might pick up 5-10 points on a stage. I like the 10 point penalty and the ability to hold transfers over this helps make the game more chess like which is what I enjoy personally, and if this aspect of the game can be enhanced I would be happy. I will put my thinking hat on over the remaining months of the season and try to come up with some suggestions if and when asked.

yeah do. the thing is, on a big stage - and especially a summit or a tt - the bankers are going to be the expensive riders. it's never really going to be cost effective, or a good tactic, to fill your team with mid-range riders instead. on less nailed-down stages it'd be useful to have more choice in the lower order though

Gkam84 wrote:

I think its fine as is. The reason there are fewer cheap riders is the teams have sent strong teams that are top heavy with good riders.

So its sent the game a bit wonky. Its still be fun and also more even, no-one is running away with massive scores.

Lets see what comes in the tour of Poland and if the balance is restored and then think about Vuelta

Have to agree, this year's tour is an aberration. It's the first race in a long time where there are so few cheap riders. In the case of most of the smaller week long races we've actually had loads of cheap riders and you've been able to field really really strong teams.

Agree with others though that there needs to be a balance.

How about putting in place a theoretical maximum average price calculated across all riders and if that is exceeded each rider's price is proportionally decreased?

So, for example, you might put in place a 15 credit average, if the riders racing average say 18 credits then you proportionally reduce the average price of everyone from 18 to 15 across the board (perhaps with a minimum 3 credit price). What I would say is that I don't want prices scaled up if the average is low, it just wants to be a back up process in case we get a situation like we have this year where all the teams have fielded their A-teams.

drheaton wrote:

... How about putting in place a theoretical maximum average price calculated across all riders and if that is exceeded each rider's price is proportionally decreased?...

I like that! That might have worked nicely for this year's Tour! I think the current average for the riders that started the Tour is 15.7, so... The average may have to go lower than 15.... Hmmm...