log in
register

Spring Classics 2015

  • Creator
    Topic
  • 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”.

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 181 through 195 (of 235 total)
1 2 3 … 12 13 14 15 16
  • Author
    Replies
  • February 13, 2015 at 3:23 pm #829045
    0
    Yorkshie Whippet

    My tu’pence,
    They are
    My tu’pence,

    They are seperate races with a lot of different teams and a lot of different riders. Unlike GT where 200 riders set off at the start of 3 weeks etc. Lumping them together with limited transfers takes the “Fantasy” spirit out of the game. With the single day races, I often chose a dream team of who I’d like in a team not who I would think will score highly.

    If it’s a case that unlimited transfers causes you guys a shed load of work, then ok I’ll go with limited transfers. Otherwise, please leave single race events as unlimited transfers and lump the scores towards one competition.

    February 13, 2015 at 3:21 pm #829043
    0
    dave atkinson

    enrique wrote:Dave Atkinson

    enrique wrote:
    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    one other option that’s possible within the current game engine is just to give everyone a nice big squad, say 15/18 riders, and then you can make your picks for the whole classics season. thoughts? they’d all score, every race. but then they wouldn’t all be riding every race.
    Could you offer this for Purists and keep a normal game with 8 or 9 riders and lots (!) of transfers as the Standard game? :?

    yes. except the bit about lots of transfers. sufficient transfers.

    February 13, 2015 at 3:13 pm #829041
    0
    enrique

    Dave Atkinson wrote:one other

    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    one other option that’s possible within the current game engine is just to give everyone a nice big squad, say 15/18 riders, and then you can make your picks for the whole classics season. thoughts? they’d all score, every race. but then they wouldn’t all be riding every race.
    Could you offer this for Purists and keep a normal game with 8 or 9 riders and lots (!) of transfers as the Standard game? 😕

    February 13, 2015 at 3:11 pm #829039
    0
    enrique

    enrique wrote:…it may be

    enrique wrote:
    …it may be close to 400 different riders in the Spring Classics competition, or more, maybe, 450? 500?…
    Well… 😕 I had to do it… 😀

    I looked at all the following races, except Scheldeprijs, I don’t know why, I guess I’m lazy… 😀

    Joelsim wrote:
    …
    Let’s say we are doing the following races

    Omloop
    KBK
    Strade
    MSR
    E3
    G-W
    Ronde
    Scheldeprijs
    Roubaix
    Amstel
    Fleche
    LBL
    …

    And to my surprise there were 691 different riders that rode these 11 races! That’s about 3 times what we have to choose from in a GT! #o

    Here’s a breakdown of the numbers:

    8 riders rode 8 races
    26 riders rode 7 races
    48 riders rode 6 races
    55 riders rode 5 races
    101 riders rode 4 races
    116 riders rode 3 races
    106 riders rode 2 races
    231 riders rode 1 race

    Who were the riders that rode 8 races? 😕

    Greg Van Avermaet BMC Racing Team
    Edvald Boasson Hagen Team Sky
    Sebastian Langeveld Garmin Sharp
    Reinardt Janse Van Rensburg Team Giant-Shimano
    Bram Tankink Belkin Pro Cycling Team
    Koen De Kort Team Giant-Shimano
    Mirko Selvaggi Wanty – Groupe Gobert
    Christian Knees Team Sky

    And, of these 8, which ones secured Top 20 placings in these 8 races? Half of them – Van Avermaet, Boasson Hagen, Langeveld and Van Rensburg…

    How many teams were there? 45 different teams were represented… More than twice the amount of teams we see in a GT…

    Which riders rode all 7 races in the first half of the Spring Classics (excluding Strade Bianche)?
    .
    Salvatore Puccio Team Sky
    Bernhard Eisel Team Sky
    Luca Paolini Team Katusha
    Lloyd Mondory AG2R La Mondiale
    Yoann Offredo FDJ.fr
    Alexandre Pichot Team Europcar
    Lars Ytting Bak Lotto Belisol
    Maarten Tjallingii Belkin Pro Cycling Team
    David Boucher FDJ.fr
    Mickael Delage FDJ.fr
    William Bonnet FDJ.fr
    Jerome Cousin Team Europcar
    Robert Wagner Belkin Pro Cycling Team
    David Millar Garmin Sharp

    How many riders rode at least one race in the 1st half of the Spring Classics (excluding Strade Bianche) and at least one race in the Ardennes? 114 riders…

    How many riders rode all 3 races in the Ardennes? 65 riders…

    And., of these 65 riders, which was their favorite race in the 1st half of the Spring Classics campaign? Well, La Classissimma (?), of course, with 25 of these riders showing up at the start line at Milano San Remo… But only 15 finished… 6 of these 65 rode Strade Bianche and 5 showed up at the start line of Flanders…

    How many riders scored a Top 20 in both halves of the Spring Classics and who were they? Just one. Philippe Gilbert, who came in 13th in San Remo and then had 3 top 10 finishes in the Ardennes. Only one. It’s not as if you can expect to carry practically any riders from the first half and expect them to score any points in the 2nd half… Except for Gilbert, of course…

    Dave is right about Strade Bianche. It’s roster was more similar to the Ardennes, of course, than the rest of the Spring Classics.

    So, hey, why not have a ‘real’ purist competition? I’ll give you all of the juicy data you need! 🙂 But let’s not skimp on transfers for the Standard competition, please! :W We really need them! 🙁

    February 13, 2015 at 3:10 pm #829037
    0
    TERatcliffe26

    Dave Atkinson wrote:one other

    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    one other option that’s possible within the current game engine is just to give everyone a nice big squad, say 15/18 riders, and then you can make your picks for the whole classics season. thoughts? they’d all score, every race. but then they wouldn’t all be riding every race.

    Id prefer it the way you intended originally

    even with a squad of 18 you are effectively picking 2 9 rider teams and you can’t change your mind when it gets to the ardennes and if valverde, gerrans and kwiatkowski all decided not to ride you can’t change, at least your likely to have saved some transfers to that point

    February 13, 2015 at 3:04 pm #829035
    0
    dave atkinson

    one other option that’s
    one other option that’s possible within the current game engine is just to give everyone a nice big squad, say 15/18 riders, and then you can make your picks for the whole classics season. thoughts? they’d all score, every race. but then they wouldn’t all be riding every race.

    February 13, 2015 at 10:54 am #829033
    0
    enrique

    Nix wrote:.. the use of the

    Nix wrote:
    .. the use of the word Purist… is ridiculous…

    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    … it’s only ridiculous, then, when we’re talking about something like the classics…
    Very articulate, sensei… hai!… Your words, like a delicate haiku, reveal an understanding of the nuances of this beautiful competition and the delicate balance needed to maintain the sense of order in our delicate universe… A fine balance must be maintained in this competition to foster harmony in our fragile, yet sturdy little cosmos.. Master, what better way to maintain this harmony, than by respecting the middle way and permitting half of your team to be transferred out every race? What better way to celebrate the passing of the seasons and the passing from the Cobbled Races to the Hilly Races than to do a complete transition between each? * Much deserved honorable bow* Surely the beauty of half the team being transitioned evokes a sense of ‘Purity of Purpose’ and also ‘Balance’? Surely a full transition in a team respectfully mirrors the change of the season and the change of the landscape, much like the difference between night and day? I can think of no other way to celebrate this harmony than by taking the middle road, hai! *Bow*

    February 13, 2015 at 9:42 am #829031
    0
    dave atkinson

    Nix wrote:
    And while I’m on a

    Nix wrote:

    And while I’m on a rant … the use of the word Purist in the sense that limiting trades is more a more worthy, nobler or purer form of fantasy game is ridiculous.

    In reality the DS of cycle race team decides riding strategy for each classic race in the days pre-race and takes account of things like weather and what other teams and riders are likely to do. In my view that is what a fantasy cycling game should try to replicate – being a virtual DS and making tactical decisions on raceday, not punting on startlists from 3 weeks out.

    it’s only ridiculous, then, when we’re talking about something like the classics where each stage is an individual race with an individual strategy. in a multi-stage tour you’re deciding, as a purist, your tactics for the whole race, just like a DS would.

    February 12, 2015 at 8:10 pm #829029
    0
    chiv30

    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    the only

    Dave Atkinson wrote:

    the only way to split the purist, but not split the standard, would be to make separate tours and load in all the races twice.

    i’m not totally against splitting spring classics into two, but there’s some races (strade bianche for example) that don’t fit either, and it means non-premium users would need to use two of their eight competitions to play, which seems a bit harsh considering a three-week grand tour is only one

    I agree entirely with your last sentence and ty to both you and Ter for responding
    (sorry Ter can only single quote on my mobile but yes I had missed Dave’s previous purist comments )

    😕

    February 12, 2015 at 1:10 pm #829027
    0
    enrique

    Joelsim wrote:…
    Let’s say

    Joelsim wrote:
    …
    Let’s say we are doing the following races

    Omloop
    KBK
    Strade
    MSR
    E3
    G-W
    Ronde
    Scheldeprijs
    Roubaix
    Amstel
    Fleche
    LBL
    …

    I only looked at 6 ‘Cobbled’ Races and there were 334 different riders, I’m almost willing to bet that if I took a look at the rosters for San Remo, Strade Bianche, the Ardennes, and the Scheldeprijs, a total of 6 more races, which I haven’t looked at, these other races just may include even more different teams and riders and rosters and it may be close to 400 different riders in the Spring Classics competition, or more, maybe, 450? 500?… 😕 to choose from between all races… That’s close to double the riders available in a GT… And we get about 2 transfers a day for GT’s…
    .
    And , admittedly it was last year, but, weren’t you happy to have 4 transfers in your pocket after a rest day in a GT? 😕 Well, there’s plenty (!) of rest days in the Spring Classics competition! 😀

    Dave’s got a point, too, that Strade Bianche is different from the other Cobbled Races or Spring Classics…

    The more I think about it the more I think it merits 4 transfers between races or more… :W

    ,
    Now why wouldn’t people who love to plan take the offer of a Purist game with no transfers between the Cobbled Races and the Ardennes?… 😕

    cgipryan wrote:
    … The classics… last year… was… a string of competitions…
    I agree… It had that nuance to it… It does feel ‘funky’… 😕
    .

    cgipryan wrote:
    … picking a team should commit you in the long run… Otherwise there is no planning involved… for me this is… about what is more fun.
    I agree, but with the nature of these races, 4 transfers between races and the full reboot for the Ardennes seems very fair… We all know from playing GT’s that your starting team can make or break you, and having to carry over 4 riders to the next race, when the next race may be a couple of days or a full week away, seems reasonable to me… 😕

    .

    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    …transfers are frontloaded…
    So you can’t wait til Amstel Gold, then change a ‘0’ transfers available to a ‘9’ transfers available? Damn, sometimes programming seems like such an easy thing to do when you’re as ignorant as I am about these things… I don’t understand these things at all! :”(
    .

    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    …so if you have nine, it’s nine to use whenever you want. which isn’t purist.
    😕 … I think if you did offer a ‘Purist’ with 9 transfers available (Ok, it’s not Purist), people who love to plan would be extremely happy and it could be offered with the understanding you’re just supposed to use the transfers at the transition to the Ardennes… I think most people who played would be Premium, obviously, and I think most would honor fair play and agree to use the transfers just at the transition, except Gkam, of course (Just kidding! 😀 )…
    .
    Dave Atkinson wrote:
    …i’m not totally against splitting spring classics into two, but… it means non-premium users would need to use two of their eight competitions to play…
    Change the amount of races Non Premium users can play to 10! 😀

    .

    Nix wrote:
    … In reality the DS of cycle race team decides riding strategy for each classic race… In my view that is what a fantasy cycling game should try to replicate – being a virtual DS and making tactical decisions on raceday, not punting on startlists from 3 weeks out.
    What can I say?… I agree!

    February 12, 2015 at 12:16 am #829025
    0
    Nix

    This is an interesting debate
    This is an interesting debate and also occurs in other fantasy sports.

    Perhaps the best long term solution for the Classics would be able to lock in a squad of 25 riders from the start (within a budget) and then pick 8 of those to start in each race on the day. But we don’t have the tech backend for that here. Although other fantasy games have non-playing reserves so it is a feasible concept. [Note this is just an observation, not a criticism of those building this game].

    Enrique is correct in many things he says .. including this sentence “The problem is that we naturally think that when knowledge makes the least difference, it means luck is a big factor”.

    I am not trying to force an unlimited trade game, although it is fairest. My point is there should be better understanding of phrases that advocates for tightly limited trades use (or more correctly misuse) such as
    – it’s too easy, it’s all luck, the teams will all be the same, it’s no fun
    When what they really want is a tilted playing field that locks in a big advantage to those few willing to spend a lot of time planning the whole 10-12 races weeks in advance and who have played the game for a number of years.
    It’s like saying I’m not going in the time trial unless organisers will guarantee I’ll have a tail wind the whole way and others won’t.
    And while I’m on a rant … the use of the word Purist in the sense that limiting trades is more a more worthy, nobler or purer form of fantasy game is ridiculous.

    In reality the DS of cycle race team decides riding strategy for each classic race in the days pre-race and takes account of things like weather and what other teams and riders are likely to do. In my view that is what a fantasy cycling game should try to replicate – being a virtual DS and making tactical decisions on raceday, not punting on startlists from 3 weeks out.

    February 11, 2015 at 10:49 pm #829023
    0
    TERatcliffe26

    chiv30 wrote:Dave Atkinson

    chiv30 wrote:
    Dave Atkinson wrote:

    transfers are frontloaded. so if you have nine, it’s nine to use whenever you want. which isn’t purist.

    Dave based on the above statement ( ie the new game setup) the only way I can see a true purist comp is by splitting the cobbled and ardenne classics into two distinct comps to allow any form of transfers between the two types , admittedly I know nothing of how you are generating the game on the back end, but to make a true purist spring classic competition playable that’s the only option I can see ?

    Correct me if I’m wrong but if that is the case and you don’t want to / can’t split them then a spring classics purist comp can’t be done due to the variation in riders between the first and last race ( ok it “can” be done but it’s not going to be fun for anyone)

    Correct, I think Dave said thats why no purist only competition is going to take place and just a standard one with a set number of transfers once the races have been clarified (easy to miss him having said this amongst all the above debate)

    February 11, 2015 at 10:44 pm #829021
    0
    dave atkinson

    chiv30 wrote:Dave Atkinson

    chiv30 wrote:
    Dave Atkinson wrote:

    transfers are frontloaded. so if you have nine, it’s nine to use whenever you want. which isn’t purist.

    Dave based on the above statement ( ie the new game setup) the only way I can see a true purist comp is by splitting the cobbled and ardenne classics into two distinct comps to allow any form of transfers between the two types , admittedly I know nothing of how you are generating the game on the back end, but to make a true purist spring classic competition playable that’s the only option I can see ?

    Correct me if I’m wrong but if that is the case and you don’t want to / can’t split them then a spring classics purist comp can’t be done due to the variation in riders between the first and last race ( ok it “can” be done but it’s not going to be fun for anyone)

    the only way to split the purist, but not split the standard, would be to make separate tours and load in all the races twice.

    i’m not totally against splitting spring classics into two, but there’s some races (strade bianche for example) that don’t fit either, and it means non-premium users would need to use two of their eight competitions to play, which seems a bit harsh considering a three-week grand tour is only one

    February 11, 2015 at 8:33 pm #829019
    0
    chiv30

    Dave Atkinson

    Dave Atkinson wrote:

    transfers are frontloaded. so if you have nine, it’s nine to use whenever you want. which isn’t purist.

    Dave based on the above statement ( ie the new game setup) the only way I can see a true purist comp is by splitting the cobbled and ardenne classics into two distinct comps to allow any form of transfers between the two types , admittedly I know nothing of how you are generating the game on the back end, but to make a true purist spring classic competition playable that’s the only option I can see ?

    Correct me if I’m wrong but if that is the case and you don’t want to / can’t split them then a spring classics purist comp can’t be done due to the variation in riders between the first and last race ( ok it “can” be done but it’s not going to be fun for anyone)

    February 11, 2015 at 7:58 pm #829017
    0
    cgipryan

    Nix wrote:
    The other issue is

    Nix wrote:

    The other issue is duration of advantage / disadvantage. If you have more game experience and cycling knowledge you get more advantage from that in a low trade game than a high trade game – the effects of each good choice and each bad choice run for longer (i.e. last for more races) in purist, than in an unlimited trade game.

    Knowledge is a factor, but it is more widely distributed the closer you get to race start each day. So again the way to negate the advantage of more specialist sources of inside knowledge is to allow more trades as late as possible before each race start.

    I totally agree and I admire your concision (it would have taken me 2 pages to say that). So, to draw a picture, we have three possibilities:

    I. Purist – luck plays an important role, but knowledge also makes a huge difference.
    II. Limited transfers – less luck, less (but still significant) knowledge.
    III. Unlimited transfers – least luck needed, least difference made by knowledge.

    You prefer version III, while I prefer version II. As I said, I think it is a matter of preference, not coercive reasons. I like one version because I think it is more fun, you like yours because you find it is fairer to all types of players. Arguments are not going to settle this, because my position is a hedonist one, and yours is a moral one. So, if I pursue this analysis, it is not to prove that I am right, but it is because I am curious about how this works, and because very soon I will have to delve into probabilities and coin tosses and the like for my work. So here goes.

    The problem is that we naturally think that when knowledge makes the least difference, it means luck is a big factor. So version III looks awkward. But I think this is because there are two types of luck notions we work with here. One notion of luck concerns the tosses, trials etc (one toss – lots of luck, 1000 tosses – luck can hardly be a factor). But the other notion of luck concerns the players. So, the purist version above means: there is only a small pool of potential winners (the ones who have serious knowledge), but precisely which one of them will win is largely a matter of luck (due to unforeseeable events etc.). The limited transfers makes the pool of potential winners somewhat larger, but luck plays less of a factor in deciding which one of these will win (trades can limit the effects of unforeseeable events, errors etc.). The third version though (unlimited transfers) makes the pool of potential winners a whole lot larger (the effects of any error made only last for one race, knowledge gets spread prior to each race etc.). And this makes it hard for us to say whether the winner has won by luck or because he knows his stuff (obviously, pool III is the largest, so not all those in pool III could fit into pool I or pool II).
    Now, I imagine the whole thing can be modeled (by someone who knows how to do it, not by me, obviously), but I don’t see how it could be verified in a real-life case such as our game. I don’t see how one could possibly establish, for example, how large pool II with respect to pool III etc. And this is what it would take for the whole classics issue to be a matter that could be settled by an argument, I guess…

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 181 through 195 (of 235 total)
1 2 3 … 12 13 14 15 16
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.