Author Topic: Long term perspective in CFF  (Read 5053 times)

TeamSolex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2998
  • Training a NewGen with Dr._Andrei_Mikhailov
    • View Profile
Long term perspective in CFF
« on: May 14, 2016, 03:23:15 pm »
Oska has opened up for changing CFF quite a bit. He has posted his ideas for changes in the Spanish forum.
I'm hoping for a translation of his ideas into English by a friendly Spanish soul in this thread :-*
You can always suggest improvement in the game. But I think it would be best to solely discuss the topics Oska has thought about in his opening post. I know it might be difficult to comply.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 03:26:28 pm by TeamSolex »

WinterIsComing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
  • WiC - 2C | Sons of Anarchy - Class of XXXV
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2016, 05:54:59 pm »
Thx for the effort, Solex. I agree with you.

SonicCycling

  • Guest
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2016, 06:31:53 pm »
I tried to make some sense of the google translation with my small Spanish knoweledge. :P



This week I had some free time for weather issues I got a little to reflect on Cff .
My idea was maybe going to a Cff 3.0 or 2.1 , but with changes.
Given that the engine does not give much room , I have no knowledge to the other stages look no ideas more attractive way .
So I had other ideas.

-change The number of teams per division : this would lead me to reprogram means Cff by as is done. but to cover 3000 that are usually put some seasons if I put for example 50 division 1 of 1a, 3, 2a, 3 September ... and needed to fill the 5ths (putting equal number of 5ths that not 4ths .. I did not see a ruckus because it was clear retouch engine , so seasons , various displays , distributions stages, around ... and not if as most teams would enter the deletion of inactive going to improve .
50 because I thought the same so there are more people struggling in divisions , as I said I kept not developing .

-Another Idea and perhaps most important of all was entering one of the taboo subjects for me that I refused to ever change the calendar.
Many have asked and always contribution as reasons people record and is planned for those races and if you change your schedule you can go frog investment.
the whole issue of records stages are then lost, or must be reprogrammed very thoroughly. Also reprogram palmares and other things.

 thought the schedule was the UCI World Tour, unchanged , every race. I think they were 12 tours (9 small and 3 large ) and then racing one day all first class .
Total Salian me 90-95 races with the 2 WC's ( I think it was 95 ) .
Another option was to put those 95 the UCI Europe as Oomloop 1st category , Eroica , Paris- Tours ... with that I was going about 30 more I think about .

The advantage of having these 95 ( 94 would be fine because they would be two weeks less per season) , with that we speed up a little more or less 20% less each season , we would do almost season and a half year. Not that it much , but just over 5 seasons / year spent 6.5 .
The other option would extend 125 runs with almost one more week, most complete a calendar, for my best because seasonal changes depending on where I caught a problem ( I have had to leave family gatherings , parties ... because that I must always be at home Friday at 0.00)


After that timetable would not be fixed , racing one day if would take your order, but the tours would like to have at least 10 stages in small ( like most ) and large minimum 20 and that the same program the chose ( not is that parameters , if ever putting one of this or that or totally random ) .
That would uncertainty because until we see the calendar would not know if you have to return HV doing well . The trouble you have one with low time trial and all fit you out with chrono for example. Also to concentrate , just does not give you time if you are the initials.
Then there is the issue of putting cobblestones in some , in all .. [I think this is about setting parameters for picking random stages]


Pretty confusing , if , as I said, I have many doubts, but as some called it launched the consultation to see how you would do , or if we let it go .
Until fall I don't know if I have much development time, then I need to put stages all around and put them in database , that will take a looong time .

For me calmer to leave it alone , but as something that went through my head , I would like to know opinions and options because it would be a drastic change (although as I say it would be very long term ) ..





TeamSolex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2998
  • Training a NewGen with Dr._Andrei_Mikhailov
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2016, 08:48:09 pm »
Thanks Sonic maybe it can help a little. It made more sense. But i've also read the translation 7-8 times

@ Sonic
Can you label the subjects with: Division Structure; Season calendar; Season length. If you disagree these terms can be changed of course  :D

I don't understand the last part: "After that timetable would not be fixed , racing one day if would take your order, but the tours wou....."

SonicCycling

  • Guest
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2016, 10:08:38 pm »
Thanks Sonic maybe it can help a little. It made more sense. But i've also read the translation 7-8 times

@ Sonic
Can you label the subjects with: Division Structure; Season calendar; Season length. If you disagree these terms can be changed of course  :D

I don't understand the last part: "After that timetable would not be fixed , racing one day if would take your order, but the tours wou....."

Yup, will do that labeling.

"After that timetable would not be fixed , racing one day if would take your order, but the tours would like to have at least 10 stages in small ( like most ) and large minimum 20 and that the same program the chose"

After that the calender would not be fixed, 1 day races will be in a fixed order, but the tours...etc etc.
Does that make more sense?
For example, PN starts at race 30 and has changing stages but race 1 trough 29 are fixed races always in the same order.

oscacom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5866
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2016, 10:09:54 pm »
Thanks for the translation

SonicCycling

  • Guest
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2016, 10:15:49 pm »
No problem, those are very interesting thoughts about cff.  :)

TeamSolex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2998
  • Training a NewGen with Dr._Andrei_Mikhailov
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2016, 02:46:40 pm »
Division Structure:
I think the change in the division structure (less team) is meant to increase the competitiveness in the top divisions. (This does not include the top teams each season.)
I couldn't agree more with this. Maybe the number of teams in first division is to big. Whether you end at 60 or 25? doesn't have an impact in how hard most users try to improve their position in the division during a season.

I thought about this matter last spring. By differentiate the prize money according to the final General classification at the end season. Top25 would get full prize. teams placed from 26 - 40 would get a differentiated prize money. Teams placed 41 and lower would get 1,5 mill. That is what you get in 2nd division. But I'm not sure whether it will have a specially big impact  ???

A bigger impact would be to implement a benchmark of 5000 points. Teams under this benchmark wouldn't get any prize money at the start of the new season. That would help users find a motivation  ;D
Solutions like this should be implemented with a rolling benchmark that probably increase X points until the reached benchmark. Starting from around 2500 points.   
These values could be adjusted if there are better values. This is just a generalization and a way to keep the current division structure.

Oskas idea is to chop the divisions into smaller fraction including 50 teams (with 15 teams relegating each season?) But is it enough to improve the competitiveness in the top divisions?

The problem as I see it now:
To many teams end up in the big nothing with very little to race for except for their best specialists. So many good riders in their prime are sold (instead of looking for better helpers or leaders) to make a good profit. You end at spot 55 or 36 has no importance. These riders are sold for a relative small amount. Because many other teams in first division aren't interested. By many of the same reasons as the  user who are selling him.
So the riders end up in 2nd division at teams who promote and many of those teams really don't have a good enough specialists to stay in the 1st division.

wacco

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1884
  • absyntt 2a member since 27-12-2014
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2016, 03:31:01 pm »
- Big pro of smaller divisions. Gives more competition between all teams, even in the higher divisions. Not fan of the proposition from Solex of giving less money. Only makes a bigger difference between the top teams and the teams just lower. Only promotes more the irritating tactic of managers dropping a division just to earn money.

- On the Dutch forum there was a couple seasons ago a big discussion about the schedule. I'm still pro of changing some races, just to give some kind of variation in the season and mostly (something which didn't have many support) variations in the WC and WC TT. It's just more as just to also give other riders as pure hillers or flat TT a chance to win the jersey. This asjustment is close to what UCI does every year. If the WC fits you, it fits otherwise maybe next year. And if you put a certain logic in this: f.e. first season main skill hill, in the next season mountain, followed by cobble and sprint. And then there is just a random factor of the second main stats like climbhill, sprinthill, flatclimb, ... This the same for TT, with flat, hills and climb

If this is possible to implant it would be a very nice adjustment and also promoting the less 'fun' riders like flatcobblers, climbTT, ... . The argument from some teams about pure hillriders having less possibilties to score points over the season is a bad argument because so many other specialities score even less points at the moment. The argument of managers training for 10 seasons riders just for that single race, better argument but from the moment my logic is up and running you can still start training the kind of rider you want for just that single race.

- Making the season shorter or longer is a bad idea. Too much effort for not that much more fun. Which races will be removed? What with TC? What with speed of training? Amount of small and big tours? ...

Sjiz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5939
  • TeamRolf - 3H
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2016, 10:56:43 am »
Just adding my post in the Spanish forum here:

I am writing in English as your google translate works as well as mine :P

I have always been in favor of changing stages and races. Just within boundaries. Like swap a cobble stage for a slightly different cobble stage. Perhaps keep one iconic stage like the one to
Wilunga hill in the Tour Down Under etc. As for the World championship thats in real life a special race as well so thats cool to have change drastically.

As for the length of the season i dont have a preference.

I would like to suggest an idea for the training camps. I think i have made this one earlier. Instead of having every rider have 15 stages on TC and 15 stages bonus i think it would be cool to have younger riders a shorter bonus perdiod but a better bonus. And then as they age they would get a longer period of bonus but a little less high. This way you can have 1 or 2 races with 24-25yo's were you can compete for a good result. In real life you see this also. Some 24yo's can perform and get good results on their best day. In CFF in 1a you really need older riders to achieve this.

Just as a note i dont think i would like to restart this game all over. Perhaps you introducing all changes but we keeping our riders. Some people will have bad luck and some will have more luck with the changes but i think thats preferable over a restart. I did not like that for the first ~12 seasons you had the same teams that were lucky enough to start when the game opened and were far ahead.

Anyway good topic :)

Calender
I also had another idea. Right now riders can ride every single race possible if they want to. This means that even in a D-stage you will most likely see all the best cyclists in the world appear. While this could be nice it is also not very realistic. In order to increase the realism and possibility for lesser riders to score a good result in some races i would think an overlap is cool.


Like you have the calender: The giro ditalia is currently underway. You have to sign up riders for that but at the same time we have the Tour of California as well. You will have to field a different team for that race. All the top sprinters may go to the Giro because of the money, the fame and the girls. But you have the lesser sprinters that do the ToC in order to get experience and get results. You can make the morning stages the giro stages and the evening stages the ToC stages + some day races/4 days of dunkirk whatever. Same for Paris - Nice and Tirreno, TdF etc etc.

Divisions
I would also welcome much smaller divisions with more people relegating. Keeps the flow in there and if you know that the top 15 teams from your second division will promote if you ride a little you know you will be in there so you might as well go all out and get as high as possible in that top 15. The same for the first division. It would also be less a problem to relegate as you know you have a lot of opportunity to promote again.

Stores
I also would like to change something to the stores. I find it strange that in the current set up when you have excellent results in the 4th division you make more money from stores that a team that is 20th in 1a. Its like selling more stuff as your local cycling group than Lampre worldwide.

Material
For some more suggestions: i think it would be cool to expand the material parts a bit. Right now you have to sell your bikes if you want new ones or else you will lose out. But how about being able to have 2 bikes (or even make your own bikes out of frame, groupset, whatever. But thats a lot harder to implement i think). Out of which you can choose to ride. So you have a set that had a bit more development on sprinting and cobbles and your second set had more stars on TT. You can choose to sell one if you want but keep the other. This would then give you more room to buy another one off the market. Now i dont know if this is the best solution but i am looking at ways to make the materials market a little more interesting.

Sponsors

On the topic of sponsors i would like to see some different type of goals. Right now you can only really achieve sponsors if you ride top 10's in stages. I think for 70% of people in the divisions this would lead to 1 or 2 sponsors achieved every season and for the top they can do a lot if they are lucky and get the right sponsors closeby on the calendar.
You could also think about something to pick in the first week of the season like saying i will end up in the top 10 of my division and attach prize money to that. Then you can select another few goals; perhaps i will do podium in the the Giro etc etc. You get the option to adjust the goals to your team (lower money for lower goals ofcourse) but still something you can achieve. You also eliminate the fact that if you are lucky you can do 20 sponsors but unlucky and you only get 1.

wacco

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1884
  • absyntt 2a member since 27-12-2014
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2016, 09:02:52 pm »


Calender
I also had another idea. Right now riders can ride every single race possible if they want to. This means that even in a D-stage you will most likely see all the best cyclists in the world appear. While this could be nice it is also not very realistic. In order to increase the realism and possibility for lesser riders to score a good result in some races i would think an overlap is cool.


Like you have the calender: The giro ditalia is currently underway. You have to sign up riders for that but at the same time we have the Tour of California as well. You will have to field a different team for that race. All the top sprinters may go to the Giro because of the money, the fame and the girls. But you have the lesser sprinters that do the ToC in order to get experience and get results. You can make the morning stages the giro stages and the evening stages the ToC stages + some day races/4 days of dunkirk whatever. Same for Paris - Nice and Tirreno, TdF etc etc.

I like this idea, gives indeed an extra dimension to the game.



Divisions
I would also welcome much smaller divisions with more people relegating. Keeps the flow in there and if you know that the top 15 teams from your second division will promote if you ride a little you know you will be in there so you might as well go all out and get as high as possible in that top 15. The same for the first division. It would also be less a problem to relegate as you know you have a lot of opportunity to promote again.

What also could be fun is just more roulation. At the moment only 15 people from your division demote and top five of every division can promote. What if we double this amount? 30 people demote and top 10 promotes. This would give more competion I think. It will even give more competition if the divisions are smaller with 50 people. So in division 1 you have to end top 20 to stay there. But it is easier to return.


Atalm93

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Averatalm NT-manager Norway
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2016, 10:36:20 pm »
Quote
Calender
I also had another idea. Right now riders can ride every single race possible if they want to. This means that even in a D-stage you will most likely see all the best cyclists in the world appear. While this could be nice it is also not very realistic. In order to increase the realism and possibility for lesser riders to score a good result in some races i would think an overlap is cool.


Like you have the calender: The giro ditalia is currently underway. You have to sign up riders for that but at the same time we have the Tour of California as well. You will have to field a different team for that race. All the top sprinters may go to the Giro because of the money, the fame and the girls. But you have the lesser sprinters that do the ToC in order to get experience and get results. You can make the morning stages the giro stages and the evening stages the ToC stages + some day races/4 days of dunkirk whatever. Same for Paris - Nice and Tirreno, TdF etc etc.

I love this idea!
Would give the game a whole lot more.

TeamSolex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2998
  • Training a NewGen with Dr._Andrei_Mikhailov
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2016, 10:42:12 pm »

Calender
I also had another idea. Right now riders can ride every single race possible if they want to. This means that even in a D-stage you will most likely see all the best cyclists in the world appear. While this could be nice it is also not very realistic. In order to increase the realism and possibility for lesser riders to score a good result in some races i would think an overlap is cool.

Like you have the calender: The giro ditalia is currently underway. You have to sign up riders for that but at the same time we have the Tour of California as well. You will have to field a different team for that race. All the top sprinters may go to the Giro because of the money, the fame and the girls. But you have the lesser sprinters that do the ToC in order to get experience and get results. You can make the morning stages the giro stages and the evening stages the ToC stages + some day races/4 days of dunkirk whatever. Same for Paris - Nice and Tirreno, TdF etc etc.

I think some of this discussion has been around for not that long ago.
Young great hill riders can do excellent in big races if you want to make some sacrifices. You have had quite a few great hill riders and I have seen it happen. The hill races in the Giro and Vuelta are ex. of these races. They are even better than a kat. D race. Sprinters, climbers, TT's are a different problem  ;) Hillers are a little favored with this calendar. It could be solved with a longer season and/or a lower FORM option with your staff.

Let us say that Giro was 7pm races and other races or maybe small tours at 5am races. That will conflict big time how the programming and engine works. I'm afraid. Though the idea is great and could give younger riders a chance to make better results. Due more important races other places around the world  :)

Sjiz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5939
  • TeamRolf - 3H
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2016, 10:56:35 pm »
Yes. The current engine would not be enough but thats something oska is thinking about changing. Now is the time to bring in the new ideas ;)

Form
Another thing i think could be looked at is form. I think we start with too high form and are able to stay too long at 100 form. The only time when you see intetesting results is near the Vuelta. When you have larger differences in form. I like this. Perhaps bigger highs and bigger lows may be a good thing. Or multiple possible form peaks. Like have a rider not race 10 races and thus only training make him go up in form again.
Say rider Rolf has targeted the Ardennes classics and was on topform there. He then lost his form you cant be on topform for 5 months and dropped to 85 form. But because he didnt ride the Giro and dauphine he trained and rested. His form got back to him in time to ride Suisse as preparation and shine in the Tour de France where he was on topform again.
yes i know 85 form would make hia training suck. This could be changed then as well ofcourse

Ps. I am just throwing subjects and possibilities out there. Get the discussion going. Might as well go all out if radical ideas are being considered. I fo think these ideas would make the game even better and more interesting.

oscacom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5866
    • View Profile
Re: Long term perspective in CFF
« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2016, 11:28:29 pm »
I am reading  8)