- 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
-
dave atkinson
there’s a number of issues at
there’s a number of issues at play here. having the spring classics as one competition makes it more accessible to everyone, especially if splitting it up means non-premium members have to use two (or even three) competitions to play it all. that makes it difficult to play as a purist, because there’s so much changing of the rosters start to finish. for that reason i wasn’t planning to have a purist competition for the spring classics this year. it doesn’t really work, and never has, to be honest. it’s pointless picking a squad for the whole lot and doesn’t feel very purist making unlimited changes after every race.my current plan is to run the spring classics as one comp with more transfers than you’d get in a grand tour but less than you’d need to swap your whole team around each time. so maybe base it on three transfers per race for the grouped races and six in the transitions. with an explanatory email going out to everyone (but aimed at new users) giving an overview of how the races fall into groups.
Joelsim
Twybaydos wrote:I would split
Twybaydos wrote:I would split Ardennes as a separate competition. With the new transfer rules you are going to get new (and old) players rinsing their transfers by Paris Roubaix giving them no interest in some of the best races of the year, losing interest in the game which you may not get back before TDF. Also by splitting the two there can be a proper purist competition going on.Secondly – Strade Bianche – It’s the best race of the year, it’s not got the proper Etixx cobble team or Sep playing and wouldn’t fit in a big Belgian comp. Could this be a stand-alone race like Clasica San Sebastian. On similar lines there is an argument to treat MSR the same,
Limiting the spring classics to a more Belgian-specific competition could add Dwars door Vlaanderen to the game.
Agree. There is not much crossover in some of these races like scheldeprij and Ronde etc
Twybaydos
I would split Ardennes as a
I would split Ardennes as a separate competition. With the new transfer rules you are going to get new (and old) players rinsing their transfers by Paris Roubaix giving them no interest in some of the best races of the year, losing interest in the game which you may not get back before TDF. Also by splitting the two there can be a proper purist competition going on.Secondly – Strade Bianche – It’s the best race of the year, it’s not got the proper Etixx cobble team or Sep playing and wouldn’t fit in a big Belgian comp. Could this be a stand-alone race like Clasica San Sebastian. On similar lines there is an argument to treat MSR the same,
Limiting the spring classics to a more Belgian-specific competition could add Dwars door Vlaanderen to the game.
TERatcliffe26
Equally im not saying all ive
Equally im not saying all ive said is correct, personally I like a challenge, and I like to plan.I was also saying that although hypothetical, the scenario of how it may work is how I believe it will be run (unless Dave decides to run it with unlimited transfers between each so called stage) however after implementing the new transfer method as bundle I do not think it will be run with unlimited
enrique
cgipryan wrote:Well, I began
I understand, but (!) I have little sympathy for you ( 😀 )… According to my handy dandy spreadsheet, there were 334 different riders that partook in the ‘Cobbled Classics’ – which I conveniently labeled OML, KBK, E3, GW, FLA, and PRB – Are they all cobbled? What do I know? – :W – Anyways, that’s quite a bit more riders to choose from than a GT… I think it’s mindblowing to limit transfers for these races myself… but … for everyone’s benefit here’s a list of the riders that rode all 6 of these races last year…cgipryan wrote:Well, I began all this discussion and it is because I think there is another reason… it is boring…
.Sep Vanmarcke Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Tom Boonen Omega Pharma – Quick-Step Cycling Team
Greg Van Avermaet BMC Racing Team
Sebastian Langeveld Garmin Sharp
Edvald Boasson Hagen Team Sky
Jean-Pierre Drucker Wanty – Groupe Gobert
Maarten Wynants Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Guillaume Van Keirsbulck Omega Pharma – Quick-Step Cycling Team
Tyler Farrar Garmin Sharp
Egoitz Garcia Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Luke Rowe Team Sky
Florian Senechal Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Bernhard Eisel Team Sky
Luca Paolini Team Katusha
Lloyd Mondory AG2R La Mondiale
Sebastien Turgot AG2R La Mondiale
Cyril Lemoine Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Jelle Wallays Topsport Vlaanderen – Baloise
Reinardt Janse Van Rensburg Team Giant-Shimano
Yoann Offredo FDJ.fr
Gert Joeaar Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Adrien Petit Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Bram Tankink Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Koen De Kort Team Giant-Shimano
Vladimir Isaychev Team Katusha
Tim Declercq Topsport Vlaanderen – Baloise
Lars Ytting Bak Lotto Belisol
Mirko Selvaggi Wanty – Groupe Gobert
Silvan Dillier BMC Racing Team
Alexandre Pichot Team Europcar
Maarten Tjallingii Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Christian Knees Team Sky
Raymond Kreder Garmin Sharp
Salvatore Puccio Team Sky
Damien Gaudin AG2R La Mondiale
David Boucher FDJ.fr
Jens Debusschere Lotto Belisol
Mickael Delage FDJ.fr
Aleksejs Saramotins IAM Cycling,
I basically agree with Nix:Nix wrote:Players who want to do less trades, e.g. 25 trades, can do so under an unlimited trade scenario. No one is forcing them to trade more if they don’t want to….But (!) to cater to you, I would run a forum competition awarding you 10 points for every unused transfer you have left, under TER’s (hopefully) hypothetical situation above, at the end of the competition! 😀
cgipryan
Well, I began all this
Well, I began all this discussion and it is because I think there is another reason. Not that it is too easy, but that it is boring. The classics were boring last year simply because it was not a competition, but a string of competitions (each race was a competition in its own right) with a single points total (which only gave the illusion that it was just one competition). Granted, that I found it boring is a subjective judgement, but that is why I asked your opinions on the forum.
Personally, I think picking a team should commit you in the long run, and not just for the stage you pick it for. Otherwise there is no planning involved and it is, I find, no fun. I repeat, for me this is not about who is right and who is wrong, but about what is more fun.
(That being said, I think Nix makes a good point that players less familiar with it all might feel lost in the versions of the game that I find to be fun.)enrique
Nix wrote:Trades shouldn’t
I basically agree with Nix…Nix wrote:Trades shouldn’t have to be used to compensate for changes in startlists….If people want to play a purist of podium cafe type game where they are effectively guessing startlists they can play purist..
I know you’re right but there’s something really funky about this competition, namely what Nix pointed out, that:TERatcliffe26 wrote:Last year was an exception for trades, it was trialled without trades, and previously had trades…1. Different teams are invited to different races
2. Teams swap out their riders at willIt feels weird to have to plan on certain riders being there for some of the competition and not another, especially the support riders, and have a limit on transfers when the rosters change so much from race to race.
I think most people didn’t mind having unlimited transfers between the races and currently prefer having unlimited transfers or something like 6 transfers available between stages rather than planning on using only 2 between races… I’d be surprised if a majority of the players favored very limited transfers… I think offering unlimited transfers or something like 6 between races makes it reasonable, manageable and fun…TERatcliffe26 wrote:It was too easy last year with trades between each race..
I don’t think so… I can’t imagine anyone would stop playing because we had too many transfers available for this competition… In a GT? Yes, this one? I don’t think so. I just wonder if there are other players that support your notion that restricting the transfers ‘ruins’ the game by making it ‘too easy’. That, to me , is a poor reason to resort to limiting transfers…TERatcliffe26 wrote:… you make it too less of a challenge for keen follows then they stop playing as its too easy….
I hope not… Unnecesary stress, if you ask me…TERatcliffe26 wrote:I believe there will be trades this year and no unlimited transfers between stages…To sum it up, I agree with Nix…
Why not? Except for TER’s argument it makes it too easy, is there any other reason to restrict the transfers?… 😕Nix wrote:I still haven’t seen any argument as to why players who do want to trade more, even start from scratch again and change their whole squad from race to race in the classics, should be restricted from doing so….Last year was an exception
Last year was an exception for trades, it was trialled without trades, and previously had trades.It was too easy last year with trades between each race.
I believe there will be trades this year and no unlimited transfers between stages, which is another reason transfers are being given as a total for the whole competition, use them as you wish, use strategy and plan.
Your argument for making it easier for those who know less doesn’t always work either as you make it too less of a challenge for keen follows then they stop playing as its too easy
TERatcliffe26 wrote:The game
TERatcliffe26 wrote:The game has always had limits in one form or another … I can guarantee if you split the classics in two sections you will get far less tradesMy recollection is the Spring Classics had unlimited trades last year from race to race … i.e. no limit.
Players who want to do less trades, e.g. 25 trades, can do so under an unlimited trade scenario. No one is forcing them to trade more if they don’t want to.
I still haven’t seen any argument as to why players who do want to trade more, even start from scratch again and change their whole squad from race to race in the classics, should be restricted from doing so.
This is an issue in most fantasy games for all sports I am aware of. Players who regularly finish up the top wanting to make the game more restrictive. But more trades = more engagement = more website hits = easier to attract new players = a growing game = better prizes.
In Australia the Classics aren’t followed much except by very keen cycling fans, interest is a lot less than for Grand Tours. Last year was the first year that a few were shown on live free to air TV. So this year I was hoping to attract more interest by running a classics comp. However, having trade restrictions makes the game more of a turn-off for players who don’t know much about the classics in the first place.
Experienced players are not disadvantaged in any way by a game that has more trades, they just have less of an advantage. However, inexperienced players have a big disadvantage in games with less trades because they get punished more for a wrong choice .. and newer players make more wrong choices.
The game has always had
The game has always had limits in one form or another and to say that having 25 transfers for 7 stages is comparable to the podium cafe game is not really fair. Past experience suggests that startlists between the first for 4 races I have listed and the 2nd 3 races do not change dramatically and thus is not a big guess. 25 is already a complete squad change more than you would get for a GT and there compensates (imo anyway) for any unforced startlist changes etc. I can guarantee if you split the classics in two sections you will get far less tradesHowever, in a 3 week grand
However, in a 3 week grand tour:
– the event organiser can’t decide to invite different teams to each stage,
– the team DS can’t decide to interchange riders for each stage from a bench of about 30 riders.Trades shouldn’t have to be used to compensate for changes in startlists.
If people want to play a purist of podium cafe type game where they are effectively guessing startlists they can play purist. Why try to force a limit in the trades in the standard game?
You’re right (well, in grand
You’re right (well, in grand tours there are GC points available, and that changes things a bit, because you can keep, say, the leader of the race even for a sprint stage; but that’s a technicality, of course).
I’m just not sure it would make too much sense to allow enough transfers so that most players could make an entire team makeover between cobbles and Ardennes. In that case, it might make more sense to have unlimited transfers just between Roubaix and Amstel, for example, and limit the number of transfers before and after… I think we had something like this a few years back, actually…cgipryan wrote:True, but if
cgipryan wrote:True, but if the same races remain in one competition like last year, the transition from Paris-Roubaix to Amstel will really hurt, transfer-wise :BBut if there were 7 stages, 20 transfers would be plenty to account for a change.
you would effectively have 2 between the stages of same type = 10 + 10 to account for the transition, so Im not sure on the problemeg san remo – 2 – Gent – 2 – Ronde – 2 – Roubaix – 10 – Amstel – 2 – fleche – 2 – Liege.
Obviously with the way the transfers are you can use them how you wish, so for just those 7 I think 20 or 25 max would be suitable for transfer amounts. If more races are included then increase the transfers sufficiently. At the end of the day for a grand tour of 21 stages with just as much variety will only see you have 50 or 60 transfers, 25 would be plenty for 7 stages
Stumps
Splitting it into 2 groups
Splitting it into 2 groups seems the most sensible approach. I dont have a problem with say 20 transfers over each part, yes luck does come into it, but so does a lot of effort finding out about the riders, the course and probably the bit where i fall down a lot, the final km.Just look at Dubai, flat as a pancake yet the last 200m is 17% on todays stage.
The less transfers you have
The less transfers you have the more luck becomes a factor .. simple as that.Limiting transfers doesn’t make sense when teams don’t have to announce their riders for all the races before the first 1 and then keep the same riders for all 10 or so Spring Classics over 2 months.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.