Price inflation

enrique wrote:drheaton

enrique wrote:

drheaton wrote:

… I think changing the budgets or cheap rider prices might make it ‘easier’ for more people and give more variety in the cheap riders picked but it won’t fundamentally change the game or how likely any one person is to do well…

I agree it won’t fundamentally change the game, but if it does (!) provide for more variety in the pick of teams and more choices, I’m all for it (!) ;)

More variety to what end? What ‘benefit’ is there in people being able to choose from 15 cheap riders rather than 5? The main difference in scores will come from the expensive riders anyway and no matter what happens, all the best teams will have broadly similar expensive riders come the end of the race.

I would be surprised to see any team in the top 20 of the overall not having both Froome and Quintana in for most of the remainder of the race (excluding today and stage 21), likewise there are plenty of obvious mid-priced picks like Nieve who will be popular. These riders are being picked because they are most likely to score. These riders will be picked irrespective of how many 3 credit riders are available.

People talk about more variety in team selection in terms of hoping that it gives greater variety in scores but the fact is those at the top will all have the riders most likely to score well. Just because there are more cheap riders available doesn’t change anything unless one of those riders turns out to be a superstar, at which point all the teams will pick him anyway…

enrique wrote:chrisdstripes

enrique wrote:

chrisdstripes wrote:

… I wonder what impact it would have if the algorithm used to calculate rider values did NOT account for points scored from Intermediate sprints, KOM or combativity? … so their values are [NOT] skewed based on a one-off success in a minor race.

I think that’s beautiful! If you ignore those points and only consider Finish Line points then it would probably turn a lot of 10-15 point riders into 6 or below riders! Nice thought! :)

I think that’s a terrible idea. Values should be skewed when a rider gets in a break, If they bag a load of points (think Voeckler last year or Rabottini) then this should be reflected in their value. Artificially adjusting the points so that break riders are cheap and finish line riders are expensive isn’t going to help. All it means is that anyone contesting a sprint or summit finish is going to be MORE expensive because these points will be the only ones counting for rider values.

enrique wrote:

drheaton wrote:

… You can no longer pick up a cheap ‘Quintana’ for the Tour because their prices reflect their form and ability at the start of the race and not what the road.cc guys thought their form would be at the start of the season…. What’s happened is that… the price of the riders we want to pick has gone up and the price of the riders we’re less likely to pick has gone down. I think this is spot on.

Well, I wish we could artificially keep the these riders values a little bit down. Like I’ve said before, in the real world, when you sign a rider you don’t pay him more during the season . He stays at his contract price and then you give him a better salary and a longer contract if he does well for you. Well, I kind of liked keeping these riders at a lower price all season long, and, as was the case, I think, with Gilbert, a few seasons ago, keeping him on a higher value based on his previous year’s performance… I think it adds an element of realism to the game…

I understand the ‘contracts’ point of view but don’t agree. This isn’t real life, this is a fantasy game and values should be based on how highly a rider is likely to score on a given stage. If you keep Quintana at 25 credits for Paris-Roubaix you’re hugely over-valuing him, having him at 15 credits for the Tour is under-valuing him. Right now, his value represents his worth and I think it’s right that this should be set on a per race basis.

Whatever else anyone says and no matter what prices are used, everyone is in the same boat. The best players will always pick the right combination of riders on the right days in order to get the most points. Making the most of your budget is the same irrespective of rider prices and I think artificially reducing prices will only open up the gaps between the best and the rest of us.

I think changing the budgets or cheap rider prices might make it ‘easier’ for more people and give more variety in the cheap riders picked but it won’t fundamentally change the game or how likely any one person is to do well.

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:… If you

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:

… If you my friend put as much effort into your work/education as you do trawling through obsolete threads on this site, then you too would discover the ‘PREMIUM’ things in life, as well as this game…

I have to admit that touched me… And it was a smart play on words… For once I have read something you wrote and am actually pleased with having read it… Thank you!…

stevemarks wrote:I wonder if

stevemarks wrote:

I wonder if the lack of cheap riders is because of the Katushka situation. There are less wildcard teams who would have cheaper riders because they do not accumulate points in the normal course of a road CC season. However I did note that for instance on TOC it was difficult to use up the allowance ie there were too many cheap riders and that might be for exactly the same reason? I do think that an average value or maximum total value to the field might possibly help.

Yeah, that probably hasn’t helped either. Having Bretagne or NetApp or another wildcard team would have padded out the cheap riders a bit.

I was having a think about the average and the problem is that prices are set before the rosters are announced. Once the terrain is known the rider prices are calculated then the start list is update as teams are confirmed.

That means that unless you’re happy with rider values changing after the competition is open (which I’m not happy with) or we don’t open comps until all teams are announced (not ideal as this’d sometimes be the day before the race) there’s no way to avoid a situation where cheap riders are announced in advance for a race then they’re all pulled and replaced by expensive riders at the last minute.

That’s a problem for changing the budget’s too. You don’t want to change the budget after the point where people have already picked their teams which means setting a budget based on teams which are not confirmed.

I say leave it as it is for now and see if the problem arises again through the year. If not then don’t change anything as I think the game is working really well at the minute.

Oh, one other thing that’s
Oh, one other thing that’s cause a ‘problem’. You can no longer pick up a cheap ‘Quintana’ for the Tour because their prices reflect their form and ability at the start of the race and not what the road.cc guys thought their form would be at the start of the season.

If prices were set at the season start then Quintana would be dirt cheap. The current situation with prices set on past performance, changing for each race, is a big step up from season long pricing.

On the other hand, with season long pricing the likes of Gilbert (not doing well) and others would be much more expensive but, being out of form, their prices have fallen.

What’s happened is that (rightly) the price of the riders we want to pick has gone up and the price of the riders we’re less likely to pick has gone down. I think this is spot on.

Dave Atkinson wrote:i’m

Dave Atkinson wrote:

i’m wondering about lowering the upper price limit to 35 from 40, see if affects the dynamic of the game. thoughts? don’t forget there’ll be more cheap riders at the vuelta too

So there’s always the option of using exactly the same algorithm to calculate rider values, but just give us an extra 10(?) credits for the Tour?

Even in the Tour, I think values have been mainly OK, with the exception of those riders who are only ever going to score points from breakaways. We all need 2-4 cheap guys (less than 6 credits) and the game would be more fun if there was variation between the guys that we’d chosen, as opposed to everyone having 3 from Mederel/El Fares/Hoogerland/Bonnet/Le Mevel etc. I don’t know enough about how values are calculated to make a sensible suggestion on this, but I’ll have a go anyway…

I wonder what impact it would have if the algorithm used to calculate rider values did NOT account for points scored from Intermediate sprints, KOM or combativity? The values of riders who score their points from finishing in the top 20 of stages would increase accordingly, but the values of riders who score most of their points from breakaways that don’t stick would not increase by so much, giving us more options when needing to pick those sub-6-credit guys for a breakaway. I’m sure other tweaks would help too, ie looking at the teams that don’t ride many of the races we use in the game, so their values are skewed based on a one-off success in a minor race.

I do think that the paucity
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.

I think its fine as is. The
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 😉