- This topic has 235 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
Moist von Lipwig.
-
CreatorTopic
-
January 28, 2015 at 1:02 pm #23120
Nix
The next major competition I am looking at getting organised for is the Spring Classics 2015. I would also like to get some prizes organised for a mini-league if it is still possible to run a standard mini-league competition.
Is anyone able to tell me how the Spring Classics will run this year?
For example:
– Will they be the same 12 races as last year, which will mean Omloop Het Nieuwsblad will be first on 22nd Feb … that’s less than a month away.
– Will it be possible for players to run a mini-league for this with just standard scoring on its own, i.e. not standard + purist + whatever scores all added together as aggregate league “scores”.
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
chiv30
Enrique/Nix
I’ll be honest
Enrique/NixI’ll be honest you are both just starting to regurgitate your previous posts .
For a real world scenario on the spring classics of a purist game go look at last year’s forum fun only purist spring classics thread , rosters had to be submitted prior to the start with one team overhaul between classic types everyone had to research yes luck would have been a factor but research was important if you wanted a good points haul (barring rider crashes etc)No transfers still fun and still most ppl scored most races and it made it a tighter comp.
Now I’m not sure how they are going to be setup this year but I’d suggest with both of you just going over old ground then Dave et al have probably stopped even looking at this thread and have made their decision
enrique
stumps wrote:… the Oman
I guess what I’m saying is that’s it’s fine and dandy and kudos to you for doing your research… but in the end you swapped ‘Big Boys’ for ‘Big Boys’… Valverde, Majka and Moreno for Kristoff, Guardini and Rojas… good job… it worked!… but I don’t think it’s necessarily relevant to the point I’m trying to make…stumps wrote:… the Oman stage 2 had a final climb… so i put in Valverde and Majka…
.I’m ok with 2 transfers a day on average for weeklong races with 198 or less riders in them, but with the Classics, I just think they deserve more than 3 transfers… so you can go a little deeper than just ‘Big Boy’ swaps… You have to (!) swap out big boys if you want to win… If you just swap fillers or mid level riders, you’ll miss out on the big points… but, one more transfer, and you can swap one of those fillers and mid level riders, too…
.
For me it’s like saying you’ll play with the roster of the 3 Grand Tours, say, about 594 riders, close, but below the 691 from last year, but we’ll cram the race into 12 days and we’ll also change the roster and up to half the teams every day… and we’ll space the stages or races unevenly… why not give the teams a little more flexibility and let the amount of transfers reflect the nature of the composition of these races?… 😕It’s more about flexibility due to the composition of this competition rather than ‘I just want more transfers’… for a GT or a weeklong race, an average of 2 transfers a day is ok… it’s fun (!), it’s exciting, but I think this competition deserves more flexibility than the normal ones…
You can do all the thought
You can do all the thought experiments or boast all you want.Facts and mathematics (statistics) says that ….
The more trades you have, the more strategy and good planning is rewarded, and the less luck is a factor.
Conversely, the less trades you have, the less strategy is rewarded, and the more luck is a factor.Psychology (in attribution theory) says that given the same events and outcomes …
People attribute good outcomes for themselves as due to their own skill or planning or hard work,
People attribute good outcomes for others as due to others’ good luck.
People attribute bad outcomes for themselves as due to bad luck and unforeseeable events.
People attribute bad outcomes for others as due to others’ stupidity or laziness, or lack of skill and planning.
Stumps
Thats where strategy comes
Thats where strategy comes into it. If all the teams you mentioned are not competing later then the chances are they will try to put a rider or two in each break so that their sponsor gets publicity rather than sitting in the peleton and hoping to be there at the end.So you do your homework on those riders and see who fits the course / terrain / weather the best and go for those riders that suit, similar as to picking the top riders.
For instance – blowing my own trumpet here – the Oman stage 2 had a final climb to the line of 10% so i put in Valverde and Majka and they came up trumps whereas others left in all their sprinters.In the end if you dont want to spend the time doing it thats your choice.
enrique
cgipryan wrote:Enrique, too
It’s all for fun, really… One extra transfer a race makes me do less planning at the beginning, rely less on luck and enjoy bringing in more (!) than just (!) the ‘Big Boys’ every race… I think it’d be neat to be able to swap out the a little of rest of the team, and not just the ‘Big Boys’ honestly, just to enjoy the action alittle more… I mean, there are 38 different teams just in the first 3 days of the competition! Wouldn’t it be nice to bring in a rider or two from Team Novo Nordisk, Bardiani, RusVelo, Veranclassic, CCT, An Post, TeamMcgipryan wrote:Enrique, too much effort for an extra transfer, really…
or Wallonie – Bruxelles? Except for Bardiani and Novo Nordisk, you won’t see those teams again in the competitition! :W Of course, that’s good enough reason not to have any people from those teams on your team… 😕 But it’s all in fun…cgipryan
Enrique, too much effort for
Enrique, too much effort for an extra transfer, really…
I propose a thought experiment. Let’s assume we decide to go with the 3 transfer per race version, but award enrique 4 transfers for each race. Would he contest this set-up?
You know the answer to that, don’t you…enrique
Here is a rundown of the non
Here is a rundown of the non World Tour teams that will be appearing in the 13 races named above, Beside them, you will see how many of the races above those teams are scheduled to participate in, according to PCS:Topsport Vlaanderen – Baloise 11
Team Roompot 9
Wanty – Groupe Gobert 9
Cofidis, Solutions Crédits 8
Team Europcar 8
MTN – Qhubeka 7
Bora-Argon 6
Bretagne – Séché Environnement 5
Androni Giocattoli 4
Nippo – Vini Fantini 4
Southeast 4
CCC Sprandi Polkowice 4
UnitedHealthcare 4
Team Novo Nordisk 3
Bardiani – CSF Pro Team 2
An Post – Chain Reaction 1
CCT p/b Champion System 1
Cult Energy Pro Cycling 1
RusVelo 1
Team Colombia 1
TeamM 1
Veranclassic – Ekoi 1
Wallonie – Bruxelles 1According to PCS, there will be 40 different teams, including the World Tour teams, some of which will not ride races like Brabanste Pijl, riding the 13 races above.
These teams that appear below will not (!) be in the 2nd half of the competition, according to PCS, meaning they are not (!) currently scheduled to participate in any of the races like Brabantse Pijl and or any of the Ardennes classics and will only appear in the first half of the competition, which does include Strade Bianche, San Remo, Scheldeprijs and the Cobbled Classics….
An Post – Chain Reaction
Androni Giocattoli
Bardiani – CSF Pro Team
CCT p/b Champion System
Cult Energy Pro Cycling
MTN – Qhubeka
Nippo – Vini Fantini
RusVelo
Southeast
Team Colombia
TeamM
Veranclassic – Ekoi
Wallonie – BruxellesWell done Enrique
Well done Enriqueenrique
Joelsim wrote:… less
That’s where I basically disagree with you… Let me try and make my point…Joelsim wrote:… less transfers… makes strategy more important and rewards knowledge…
.These are the riders that scored a Top 4 placing in any of the races last year, not considering Scheldeprijs or Brabantse Pijl. They are sorted by highest number of races they scored a Top 4 in and then by highest finish order in any of the races. (Obviously) Breakaways are not considered.
Greg Van Avermaet BMC Racing Team
Edvald Boasson Hagen Team Sky
Alexander Kristoff Team Katusha
Tom Boonen Omega Pharma – Quick-Step Cycling Team
Arnaud Demare FDJ.fr
Sep Vanmarcke Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Fabian Cancellara Trek Factory Racing
John Degenkolb Team Giant-Shimano
Niki Terpstra Omega Pharma – Quick-Step Cycling Team
Peter Sagan Cannondale
Geraint Thomas Team Sky
Stijn Vandenbergh Omega Pharma – Quick-Step Cycling Team
Yves Lampaert Topsport Vlaanderen – Baloise
Ian Stannard Team Sky
Philippe Gilbert BMC Racing Team
Jelle Vanendert Lotto Belisol
Moreno Hofland Belkin-Pro Cycling Team
Michal Kwiatkowski Omega Pharma – Quick-Step Cycling Team
Ben Swift Team Sky
Bauke Mollema Belkin-Pro Cycling Team
Damiano Cunego Lampre-Merida
Juan Jose Lobato Del Valle Movistar Team
Alejandro Valverde Belmonte Movistar Team
Simon Gerrans Orica Greenedge
Daniel Martin Garmin Sharp
Giampaolo Caruso Team KatushaSo, if (!), the rider valuation was based on just (!) the Classics, which I don’t think they are, 😕 , then this should be their order in rider value, more or less, going from highest valued to lesser valued. When Dave publishes their values this year, I’ll update this, of course…
Well, the trend as I’ve seen it this year, is you probably won’t be able to fit in more than 3, at most 4, ‘Big Boys’, per race, making the other 4 or 5 riders on your team mid-level riders, fillers or 3.0 riders… 😕
If the game is designed to allot, say, 3 transfers between races, which admitedly you don’t have to follow, then it would make sense to just (!) switch out your ‘Big Boys’, because they (!) are the most probable to score you the 50, 40, 30, 25 or so points available for the first four placings, leaving you with a core of 4 or 5 riders that, unless you use another strategy, will stay put until the Ardennes, when you are almost obligated to change your team completely to score any points (unless you have Gilbert in there, that super human beast! 😀 I exaggerate, of course… 😕 )
I think it would be fun to rotate more riders around than just 3 ‘Big Boys’ per race. :W With around 691 different riders to chose from, with new teams and new rosters coming in every race, I think we deserve more than an average of 3 transfers per race, just so you can meddle into the midlevel riders and unknown or little-known 3.0 riders from the smaller teams.
I’m not asking for much, just an average of 1 more transfer per race. Instead of an average of 3 transfers, I’d like 4. :W I think it’d be more fun.
And challenging. And it would ‘reward knowledge’ much more than simply swapping out the ‘Big Boys’ every race, which I think 3 transfers per race is likely to do, pushing people to bring in just (!) the ‘Big Boys’ in their efforts to get the most points every day…
That’s a little boring… I’d just like a little more flexibility… not a wholesale ‘redo’ of your team every race… :X
Joelsim
Nix wrote:Joelsim wrote:All
Nix wrote:Joelsim wrote:All the non premium players will be doing standard and all the paying players will be doing both pretty much.Yet I have just provided numbers from this year that show this is clearly a wrong assumption.
Joelsim wrote:
Why would you choose a game with no interaction over one with if you only have 8 races to play…If you had only 8 races and you genuinely believed purist was more fun and was better because it rewarded planning and stopped all the teams being the same you would only play 8 purist games. Clearly the majority of players don’t think that way.
Eh? As Chiv said the vast majority of paying players will do both. Because they can. Those not paying will have to choose and the obvious one is the standard as you get to play with your team.
No-one is saying that Purist is more fun in this whole thread. The debate is about the number of transfers with some wanting a complete overhaul every game and some wanting less transfers which makes strategy more important and rewards knowledge. And still allows 3 transfers per stage for late news/withdrawals/form etc.
Nix wrote:Joelsim wrote:All
Nix wrote:Joelsim wrote:All the non premium players will be doing standard and all the paying players will be doing both pretty much.Yet I have just provided numbers from this year that show this is clearly a wrong assumption.
Joelsim wrote:
Why would you choose a game with no interaction over one with if you only have 8 races to play…If you had only 8 races and you genuinely believed purist was more fun and was better because it rewarded planning and stopped all the teams being the same you would only play 8 purist games. Clearly the majority of players don’t think that way.
Nix if you make the assumption that 1900 people play the game then the 840 playing purist would be about the split I’d expect for those paying to play vs free to play (43% for a premium product is above avg ) so I don’t see how that argument ties up when it comes to std vs purist as every paying player will play every comp during the early part of the season , we pay because we want to get the most out of the game
Joelsim wrote: with a lower
Joelsim wrote:with a lower number of transfers, which makes strategy more important.No it doesn’t make strategy “more important”. It is biased towards one type of planning strategy – punting on startlists from 2 weeks out, and disadvantages another planning strategy – being able to accurately predict what will happen on the day of a race using the most up to date information about that race.
Joelsim wrote:All the non
Joelsim wrote:All the non premium players will be doing standard and all the paying players will be doing both pretty much.Yet I have just provided numbers from this year that show this is clearly a wrong assumption.
Joelsim wrote:
Why would you choose a game with no interaction over one with if you only have 8 races to play…If you had only 8 races and you genuinely believed purist was more fun and was better because it rewarded planning and stopped all the teams being the same you would only play 8 purist games. Clearly the majority of players don’t think that way.
I don’t get what you are
I don’t get what you are trying to say. All the non premium players will be doing standard and all the paying players will be doing both pretty much. Why would you choose a game with no interaction over one with if you only have 8 races to play…This thread isn’t about purist anyway. Last year it worked on the basis that all premium players had two teams for each race, one was called purist and one was called standard. For each of those they could change the whole team for every race. This year there will be a standard game with a lower number of transfers, which makes strategy more important.
Players are able to choose to
Players are able to choose to play a race as purist, or to play a race as standard, or both.The size of the race, or how many times they can play, or whether they paid doesn’t have any relevance to the validity of their choice as an indicator of preference.
The only way the current stats could be distorted is if a very popular race was only available as a standard comp, and I can’t see that has occurred so far this year.
No more than 844 players might be playing both so far (as that is the total purist players).
So more than 1,000 players choosing at least 1 standard game have chosen not to play any purist at all so far this year, which is more than the total number who have chosen to play at least 1 purist game.
Further, this 1,000+ is an absolute minimum, as it assumes every purist player plays both types. The 1,000+ anti-purist count would be increased by one for every purist player who plays only purist.
The ratio anti-purist players to players playing purist is probably about 1.5 to 1.
The ratio of ‘standard only’ players to ‘purist only’ players is probably about 4 to 1. -
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.