Price inflation

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.

Enrique if you stopped quoting people then maybe, just maybe, I and many others would find you a little more plausible and just a little less irritating....
Say what you want to say but just stop quoting and re-quoting....
I make a point of reading every single post, just in case there is snippit of info that I have missed or failed to notice or find...
As for agony, pain and misery, well if that was the case then I simply would not play... There is life beyond this game...
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...

No worries Dan, like I say I don't really know how the value-setting works, just thought I'd put it out there...

Value setting is based on form and the points a rider has scored over the last 12 months on certain types of stage. It's then adjusted depending on the terrain in a given race.

For example. Mark Cavendish scores lots of points on flat stages and has good form. Therefore for a flat 7 day race (every race given a 'flat' rating) then he'd have good form and would have scored loads of points on similar stages in the last 12 months making him high valued.

Take Froome as an example on the same course. It's flat and he doesn't score as well as Cav on the flat but actually he has scored purely because he's getting jersey points on the TdF stages. That means he's unlikely to be as high priced as Cav but he'll still be relatively expensive because he has a great form rating and has scored points on flat stages.

That might seem daft that Froome still gets a high value but when you look at it in terms of the TdF you have a handful of flat stages, MM, HM and SF stages and a couple of TTs.

Froome gets points on those flat stages because of GC points so those need to be reflected in his price. Likewise his price will be increased because he gets hich points in the mountains whereas Cav's price would decrease because he doesn't score on the hilly stages.

Effectively the game takes a look at the race then at the points a rider has scored in the last 12 months, has a go at predicting (statistically) how many points that rider averages on each type of stage, factors in form then kicks out a price.

It's all automated which takes any objectivity out of the picture and it's fair based on a formula.

In rebuttal to enrique though I'll say this. There are still plenty of hidden gems. The fantasy game does not cover every single race in the calendar and you can still pick up riders cheaply that you've seen doing well in non-fantasy races. Two that come to mind are Reinhardt Janse Van Rensburg and Bryan Coquard.

Van Rensburg is an Argos-Shimano first year 'sprinter' who has been doing well in minor races. I picked him up for one of the small stage races and got some cheap points from him.

Coquard has been tearing up the pro-conti level sprints and beating some big names. He was provisionally in the Europcar team at 6 credits and would have been a steal but he was cut from the team just before the race.

These riders still exist, you just have to look outside of the fantasy races to find them.

enrique wrote:

In fact, as it's been said before, having these points as part of the valuation "helps" the casual observer

good. if it's making the game more accessible to people new to professional racing then all the better. it's not going to affect their ability to beat the people who really know what they're doing.

your notion that the game is somehow for "real" cycling fans and not for everyone else is a total anathema to what we created it for: a fun fantasy game that anyone could play with a minimum of knowledge.

like i've said before about a million times, changing the rules isn't somehow going to magically transform anyone's fortunes. the rules change every year, and the same people do well every year. because they're good at knowing about bike racing. if we gave every rider a random value, they'd still beat us.

we'll be looking at the values algorithm, it's an ongoing process.

NO, that's far to easy, NO rider should be below 3, it keeps it simple. Limiting riders to 35 is just watering down the game.

Its harder than last year and its perfect. There could be a couple of changes made, but the game as a whole runs fine.

You can have 8 star riders as it is just now and a cheap DS. Just not the top guys and that's how it should be.

WHY should it be easy for everyone just to pick the top 4 and have everyone scoring the same. That just makes the game boring. I might aswell pick on team for everyone....

You shouldn't be able to have 4 so called stars/team leaders, that is the whole point of valuation

But Enrique that team you present is exactly why things changed, when you are able to pick a team such as that it is too easy and there may as well be no values at all. Also back then values were not based on form, and some of the riders are not the riders they are today

The only thing that might be worth looking at for future tours. Is changing a couple of random guys down to 3 in value if there aren't many cheapo's there.

So someone like Hoogerland, sitting at 6.3 I think, bump him down to 3. Making the known names

you can't just feck about with the rider value half way through a grand tour. please don't be daft.

I wasn't meaning to do it straight away enrique, you can't change things mid way like Dave says, I was talking about the Vuelta if it ends up like TdF.

The other thing is, if new riders don't come through, then anyone who scored points goes up slightly. It will have to be looked at for next season. BUT, that's for the off season, NOT for suggestions right now

Holy Moly, enrique has come up with an idea I like.

YES, in a 9 rider per team race, it would be quite easy to make one rider from each team a super cheap guy

Sorry for including this suggestion here and now, but I wanted to get it in print while it was fresh in my mind.

Is it possible to have a banker included in the team lineup?

IE; you have to pick one rider (or maybe two, one sprinter one GC) for free before the competition starts, he costs nothing then you have 150 points for the other eight.

I know most people will choose the same rider in lots of competitions, but that may not necessarily be the best choice, and adds another aspect to the game. Knowing you have a banker in your team allows you a little more flexibility to play with your other riders.

Could it work or is it making the game too purist like some some people?

You dont have to load your team up with 3.0 pointers. I have 2 in my team today and still had enough credits to get a team that scored 120+ points on the stage.

Admittedly those lower valued riders who scored well for me wouldn't necessarily have been in my original team but i disagree about changing value's of riders so that there are more 3 pointers.

The game is the same for everyone so just accept it and try to enjoy it without going to the umpteenth degree in disecting it during the season when its obvious it aint going to change until the end of the season.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

... it's an ongoing process...

That it is!

What a bunch of whiners and sourpusses! Enjoy the game!

It seems(I might be wrong)that good performances effect a rise in price far more than a poor performance effects a fall.

Andy Schleck for example started the season at 3.0 and has not really done much yet he's trebled in price to 9.2 but I doubt anyone has gone in the opposite direction.

But you can't just say, He's 3 for this race and 9.2 for that race. Its worked out over a YEAR and getting the value at the start of one race to the next won't work either.

Because its not just worked out on past form, its also worked out on the profile of the stages. So Schleck scores most of his points on higher stages, with the tour having mainly MM HM and SF stages, his value was always going to go up.

For instance, If Cav was going to be racing the Tour of Poland, I did the values for them yesterday, he was down at 32

I don't like the ideas of having a 'protected' rider in your team or a team captain, either of which would get double points and not be transferred.

Apart from the fact that it over complicates things I think that if this rider is outside of your budget and a fixed item in your team then as soon as one of the major contenders crashes everyone will be up in arms that they can't transfer them. There are two types of play in the game, transferring and purist. Forcing a standard, transferring, player to not transfer one person is mixing it all up for no real clear benefit.

Likewise people want more cheap riders for more team variety. What benefit is there to every team having Sagan or Froome as their protected rider?

Finally, if you have to keep one rider in your team for all stages then you're effectively handicapped on the stages where that rider doesn't feature. If you picked Froome as your leader then you have to have him in your team on the flat or medium stages where he won't feature much.

Tomorrow is another day in the Tour that I wish I had more space in my budget...

Let me say this, which is obvious, having the same (!) domestiques as everyone else does (!) make teams more similar on day's like tomorrow. That's why I advocate having so more riders at the 3.0 level!

When you're planning for a 3 week tour, on the very flat stages you'll want the top point getters on this list, because the scoring table is so heavily skewed towards the top:

Mark Cavendish
Peter Sagan
André Greipel
Alexander Kristoff
Marcel Kittel

That's a lot of credits right there... You really can't fit in much more in there if you don't want to lose out on too many points!

In the the mountains the same thing probably happens with (maybe not this year! ) Contador, Froome and Rodriguez...

So, if that's what you want on your team, then to fit them in maybe you'll have space for 3 or 4 domestiques and maybe another decent rider...

But (!) if you have many (!) choices to make (!) at the 3.0 level, then (!) who (!) you choose at that level will stick with you for along time, and could be (!) significant in the long run, 'cause you can't overhaul your team overnight!

It's too bad there weren't so many choices this year.

In a way it's actually proof the valuation process is working, maybe too well, because the 3.0 riders have hardly contributed anything to the scoring, but because of the pricing and their few quantity and the abandonment, we've been stuck with them and there've been few, if any, surprises at that level of value (!).

I mea, I think El Fares has scored 9 points, Bonnet scored 34 points and abandoned and maybe the best (!) value has been Riblon (!) who at 8 credits has scored 191 points! But I think that's it.

So I'm partial to creating a structure rather than relying so heavily on formulas... Not trying to insult anyone here...

So yeah, I really believe it's a good idea, for next year, of course, to have many more riders at the 3.0 level or thereabouts...

enrique wrote:

I imagine that tomorrow everybody will have Froome, Contador, Quintana and the same 4 or 5 domestiques.

Well, I wish we could see actual figures for the managed teams telling us what percentage of the 'active' teams brought in what rider...

I bet that, of course, 98% of the "still-managed" teams will bring in Cavendish, 75% will bring in Greipel, 80% Kittel and more than 65% will bring in Sagan... But it'd be nice to see the actual figures, but, please, don't get me wrong, I don't expect them tomorrow

And I don't expect to see them any day soon, either, and I know I'm the only one thinking it would be cool to see that, and I don't want to create more work for Dave, either... It's just a thought!

Why Enrique do you not read what is written? No matter how much you go on about certain riders should be 3 credits this that and the other. You cannot artificially change the values, as the values are set on form and for a whole teams squad, not just the 9 riders riding. Go and moan to Dave Brailsford over who he picks. Just because a certain team chooses to use certain riders in a certain way at this race, does not mean that over the whole year those riders are not worth that value. Its up to you as a player to think, well Sky won't go for breaks so I won't pick them no matter what there value.

I played the NBC Fantasy Cycling Challenge again this year. Nowhere near as fun as this site, but (!) I almost have to (!) play since there's a whole host load of people and a ton of friends that play and it's become an annual ritual to see if anyone can win one of their Daily prizes. I never win, but that's beside the point.

It's also become a huge scenario where you can display your 'bragging rights' as the guy who knows the most about cycling! And you know cycling is huge in New York :).

The one great thing about this game, the Roadcc game, apart from the sleek design, the beautiful colors, and how fast it is (!), is the fact you can change your team every single day.

In the NBC game, you choose 15 riders and then you switch only (!) between those 15 for the whole tour (!). You have "bench" of riders on your team, if you will.

So, make a bad choice of your original 15, and, boom (!) you're screwed (!). I hate that part (!).

I'll say this, the only (!) thing I like is they have oogles (!) of riders at the low end. To offset that (!) however, their "Stars" (!) are extremely (!) expensive.

You get a budget of $500 over there, with which you get to pick 15 riders, and Froome, Contador, Cavendish, Sagan and Greipel were $95, $91, $91, $89 and $81, respectively. Wuf! You ate a lot of your budget on those boys if you wanted them on your team (!).

This year I was especially attentive to how they valued their riders because a friend, who's much more into cycling than I am, and a much better player, got to review their rider salaries before they got posted just because his girfriend is a Production Assistant at NBC Sports. So he got to witness the whole process.

They started to discuss salaries on June 7 2013. Of course, they're busy with other sports throughout the year and they only care about the Tour de France.

They went off the start lists at ProCyclingStats and CyclingFever. There were dozens of emails exchanged discussing rider values between then and the time the first game start list went up.

They put up their original game start list on June 27 and added or deleted riders to their game start list as teams updated their rosters. Their start list was finalized, of course, when Garmin announce their roster on June 26.

Now their (!) lowest value for a rider is $4. But there were only 3 riders at this level, Marangoni, Erviti and Noval. Then there were a boatload of riders at the $5 level, 21, then a further 28 riders between $6 and $10 and 58 between $10 and $20.

Now, how did they value their riders? They had someone establish their values based on "we want the riders we expect to gain the most points in the competition to cost the most". Last year they had Wiggins at $99 and Cavendish at $103 and believ it or not, they had Froome at $7! That was it. Form wasn't a consideration. Or maybe it was, but there was no formula.

Now, my point is I think we should rely a little bit less on formulas and go back, at least for the Tour, to mixing in a little more human element into the process.

I agree with stevemarks. Sometimes it felt like:

stevemarks wrote:

You might as well make it a game of 6 choices and save the time spent pointlessly looking to see if you could regig the team.

When I wanted to get rid of Schleck, but keep other riders, I could only come up with Serpa as a close alternative. All the others were too expensive. And swap out my domestiques, my 3.0 riders? What for? I wouldn't get any points from the guys I brought in and they would occupy even more (!) of my budget.

So dr said:

drheaton wrote:

... the problem is that prices are set before the rosters are announced... That means that unless you're happy with rider values changing after the competition is open... or we don't open comps until all teams are announced... there's no way to avoid a situation where cheap riders are announced in advance for a race...

Well, I didn't mind waiting till June 27 to put in my first draft team for the NBC game. June 27 still gave you a couple of days to get acquainted with the values and play around with your team (And it was only the Garmin boys we were waiting for and I wasn't too high on those(!) ):) So I would be perfectly ok with waiting the same time for this site's competition to open, especially if it means rider values can be looked at a little longer...

I just don't think it's true you have to wait till the day before the race starts to be able to set rider values close to 3.0... I realize it's true if you're relying on a formula, but that's why I'm advocating mixing in the human element, too...

I mean, I like this game, but this Tour has been a little less fun because I couldn't quite fit in riders I cared to cheer for... Maybe this game is meant more as a competition and nobody else cares that much about who they're able to put on their team, but I do (!)

drheaton wrote:

I say leave it as it is for now...

Sure! This is all talk and opinions, as far as I'm concerned! I don't want anyone (!) offended by what I'm saying! No one!

Incidentally, want to know what the prize was for the winner of the overall competition for the NBC Sports game this year? A ride of up to 30 miles with Christian Vandevelde at a location of your choice near your residence! But then, as Daily Prizes they had 4 iPhone enabled Wahoo trainers! No, I didn't win any!

Anyways, good night to all here and good morning to those of you over there!