- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Price inflation
I'm already struggling. One of the cheap fillers in my purist team has pulled out and there are so few cheap riders on the roster that I had to downgrade one of my mid-league riders to accommodate the change.
If any more cheap riders drop out then I'll be screwed. Or seriously compromised.
I need a bigger budget. My human rights are being violated. I'm going to call Strasbourg.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Another_MAMIL 7 hours 6 min ago
Who spends £55 on a bucket hat? You'd have to be a PNS to waste that much money on a bucket hat—it's not normal.
- Rendel Harris 7 hours 15 min ago
It's Haigh in the long coat.
- HoarseMann 11 hours 45 min ago
Not quite the same scenario, but has some similarities......
- HoarseMann 12 hours 3 min ago
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and...
- wtjs 12 hours 49 min ago
no one cares enough to fix it...
- wtjs 12 hours 58 min ago
I won't be getting anything on Friday...
- I love my bike 14 hours 51 min ago
It's in the land of the sidewalk, for better or worse, that driving 'right of way' does exist. . . and many other things they can keep as well!
- IanGlasgow 16 hours 2 min ago
CHPT3 is in receivership. Their website replaced by this notice. https://chpt3.com/
- Supervet 16 hours 48 min ago
I have started holding my breath for 5 x 30 seconds, that increases EPO, rebreathers not required....
Add new comment
127 comments
wasn't suggesting just knocking the top valued riders down, more redistributing the prices
It might... While obviously I've been loving the last couple of weeks (and the whole year before it), and the Tour is the Tour, there just hasn't been the same scope for playing around with the lower value DSs as in, say, the Giro - most people will have a couple or more of Mederal, El Fares, Le Mevel etc. (I know I'm pretty much stuck with three of the usual suspects)
Fair dos, there are a lot of strong riders at the Tour, so yeah, perhaps a value cap at the other end would free up some points to experiment more in the 9-14 range.
Saying that, would that require a proportional value decrease across the board? Certainly Froome and Sagan have been worth their 40 value in the right races. To put them so close in value to, say, Voeckler would be to undervalue them severely.
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
Hell, I love (!) the idea... The more riders I can fit in the better! But (!) I also remember previous discussions where I was begging for 2.5 and below riders... So I would lower the upper values of the top riders and (!) consider dropping some DS's below the 3.0 level too, too!
In the words of the venerable master Gkam in the July 2012 "Using Delisted Riders" thread:
Yeah, I think the Tour has been the tightest and most difficult to manage budget-wise
My view - throughout most of the season it works great, its only really been the TdF where rider values have become an issue, based on forum comments.
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 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!
Yeah, I think we should keep maybe 2 "Stars" or so a Tour at that value (40.0) and then drop down to mid 30's...
I agree...
I agree...
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, with 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 can't help myself
... And if I had a tenner to spare I would pay it for you to spare you the torture or I would train you to glance over a post so you could read who wrote the post before you strained your mind reading it so you could decide not to read it and not put yourself through the agony, the pain and the misery that you inevitably seem to go through...
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.
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.
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...
Would you say closer to 78% or 100%?
Heh heh. Sorry but:
I had to.
This is what I like about that idea. Most people who don't follow races only see the Finish Line placings. If you ignore those points you will be "hiding" great riders from the casual observer but "rewarding" those that are real fans and know what the rider is able to do...
What made Voeckler great, or "greater", that day last year was that he won, which got him 35 points on top of all the KM and PC points!
So I'm not at all sure KM, or intermediate sprint points should go into the valuation.
These riders could be like little "Easter eggs" for the coinnoisseurs and the researchers and it would help bring down values and create more diversity and reward those that really follow cycling!
In fact, as it's been said before, having these points as part of the valuation "helps" the casual observer because it alerts them to previous performance and I'd rather it reflect, not for Voeckler, who's a "Star" on his team, but for the rider who's usually a domestique on his team rider, his "contractual" status, if you will, the expectations with which he was hired, and if he was "hired cheap" then let him "stay cheap"
I know we see things fundamentally different, and that's ok!
No need for that Dan, only making a suggestion! I knew Enrique's approval would be the death of that idea...
Sorry
I suppose enrique's backing did colour my opinion slightly but I fundamentally don't like the idea of 'hiding' points when it comes to valuing riders so that players who don't have the time to research each individual rider are punished.
For me, it's the same as us not properly updating the start list for the race. We could say that it's the players responsibility to check it as well but all we're effectively doing is punishing those who trust that the start list is up to date and don't have the time to go to cycling fever or PCS to check the start list for themselves.
You're forgiven...
I have no problem with that at all. I remember when, was it Bouhani or Kittel,
that came to the Vuelta at a ridiculous price. I think it was 3.0 credits.
It's an advantage you get when you scout out lesser races...
It's an advantage that the DS of a smaller team gets when he goes to smaller amateur races and scouts out races and riders the 'big teams' aren't looking at.
I actually 'love' that concept.
And (!), once the race starts, evrybody else will notice, and they'll transfer that rider into their team anyways (!), thereby "rewarding" the person who really (!) follows cycling and giving them an advantage for "maybe", at most (!), 1 or 2 stages. You know (!) it won't (!) catch the 'real' players off guard! They'll just smile and put those riders in their team (!)
I think that's pretty cool!
So, no (!) I don't see it as "punishment", not at all!
And I don't (!) see it:
Heh heh! Sorry, mate!
For what it's worth, love it! 
Or (!) the teammate bonus! For example, Albert Timmer's only points in the Tour came from teammate bonuses, maybe if those get factored out of the evaluation he might have been a nice 3.0 rider to have (!)
And hoping to bring more clearly into focus the need to establish a structure within (!) a team for the Tour, I'd like to point out Sky, where Boassen Hagen at 31.7 racked up 132 points before he had to abandon and where Geraint Thomas at 24.4, though some may argue it was because he was hurt, only racked up 15 points all in teammate bonuses...
I honestly don't know how other Sky riders did, but I believe that, except for Richie Porte, most were obviously dedicated to the mission at hand, and only Boassen Hagen and Porte actively tried to race, so, in this case, whatever they had done in previous races for themselves was not necessarily expected from them at the Tour...
In that respect, maybe the Sky riders, specifically those whose values appear below, might have been able to have been offered at lower values:
Ian Stannard Sky 11.0
Kanstantin Siutsou Sky 12.2
Geraint Thomas Sky 24.4
David Lopez Garcia Sky 15.6
Vasil Kiryienka Sky 17.0
Peter Kennaugh Sky 10.1
Since for the most part all they got were 5 point teammate bonuses. Maybe they should have all been at the 3.0 to 5.o level, just for the Tour. That's what I maen that each team should be able to have at least one, or maybe more (!) than one rider at 3.0 or near.
Of course, this is all hindisght(!)...
So perfectly valuating a rider from what they've done in the past 12 months should maybe not (!) be the ultimate measurement of a rider's value in the game for the Tour...
It's a different animal and team structure and intentions, should, in my mind, play a part in the valuation for the riders for the Tour, and that will take some meddling by the game managers and not just relying on a formula to give us a value... I say all this without wanting to criticize anyone... I just think the balance we week needs aliitle human input to make it more balanced and fun... I'm not trying to convince anyone who honestly believes the game is ok as it is, I won't argue that, I just believ it need some more tinkering, if only for the Tour...
And, yeah, then there's the Combativity prize...
I can only imagine that scores are input into the system in their 'raw' form, just input whatever the rider got into the equation without any weight attached to how those points were obtained, so, if that's true, it would probably be a headache to sort all those points out
But I'll be glad to submit just (!) Finish Line points for a slew of races throughout the season if anybody wants me to!
Even the ones that aren't in the game! 
Loved all your post. All of it.
Wow. Perfectly put.
OK, so now that we've got all that sorted out, can I have an extra 100 points to spend on my team, Dave? Thanking you in advance.
Right, lets make this simple.
The game is Road.cc's and owned by them.
Dave is the guy who runs most of it behind the scenes.
This year he recruited myself, drheaton and TERatcliffe26 to run some of the races.
I sorted out all the teams at the beginning of the season, making sure the right riders were in the right teams, their ages and nationalities checked aswell.
Throughout the season, I have been making changes as needs to be done, taking out doping suspended riders, setting up new teams that are invited to certain races.
So between the four of us, we sort the game out.
Alot of the changes made before the start of the season, were made based on interaction with players in ONE thread that started at the END of the season.
So PLEASE, if you have suggestions, get a notepad and write them down, keep them until the END of the season, when Dave asks for suggestions. If he wants your idea's. He'll ask for them, not have them forced upon the game by pushy players.
I would say, the way you keep going on, your suggestions won't hold much weight and will be overlooked, because you keep posting them.
Users who have played for a long term and suggest valuable changes and tweaks will hold weight with us, if the changes benefit everyone and not just the one person in the corner who screams and cries till they get their own way.
That sounds fair. And reasonable, too!
I'm struggling to care, and to see why it matters, enrique. the only person that seems to be bothered, as is very often the case with your suggestions, is you.
there's about 500 teams in the tdf league that haven't selected riders, by the looks of things. that's about 8% of the total. so if you don't think the numbers are right you can go through and multiply them all by 1.0869, if you like. Take all day. As to whether they're included or not, i couldn't say. well, i could by going through the code, obviously. but i have better things to do and NO-ONE ELSE CARES.
you'll notice that multiplying 59% by 1.0869 doesn't produce the figure 99%, or even 78%. That would be 64%. just saying.
As for 'stage hunting and abandoned' teams, if you want to go through everyone's dashboard and make a call on whether they're actively playing and adjust your stats accordingly, based on the riders they have selected, well knock yourself out. it seems you have plenty of time on your hands.
it might seem like i'm getting a bit pissed off about this, and i am. we want to make the game better and we like to hear what users think. but if you ask for something and everyone else says it's not an issue, and you go on and on and ON about it without adding anything, then you're wasting everyone's time, mine included.
you say you love the game. try to enjoy it. I won't consider any more of your suggestions for 'improving' it because i'm tired of your constant attempts to get a rise out of other people on the forum and digging up old threads for your own amusement. enough is enough.
I hope i've made myself clear.
That's a good enough answer for me, Dave. Thank you. It's really ok that you have better things to do, really. I'm just a stickler for annoying little details that mean the world to me, like the formula that displays how many teams selected a rider, the formula you sue to value riders, etc...
I really don't expect anyone else to care and am sometimes surprised that I get responses like dr's when I'm writing just to make a point but it's not really directed at him at all!
I look at it at just as my musings about things on the site, not an attack on anyone so therefore I respond alittle nastily when I think someone is being rude.
I'm fine if you or anyone thinks it's irrelevant. If you want to join the discussion, fine, but sometimes I feel like some people feel "forced to" read my postings
I really can't (!) force anyone to read anything (!) I write!
Anyways, please don't get mad at me. I'm really fond of this site!
And my apologies to dr... All of my rambling was actually to get Dave's attention, not yours...
To tell you the truth I don't even know if you're part of the Roadcc staff, a regular contibutor or just an avid fan, too! 
I honestly usually don't try to go out of my way to try to annoy people, except towards those that I think have been rude to me first, which I thought you were with your first post today ... So, sorry
P.S. I realize I go overboard, but really, and obviously, this place fascinates me! The graphics are beautiful, you have a ton of metrics available, it's fast, easy to use, colorful, bright, it's got a beautiful design, I love what you have created!
Oh my god enrique, give it a rest.
You think every single team in the race would have picked Froome?! Are you mad? I spoke to my dad this morning who plays and he didn't pick Froome, he expected a French break to stay away and for Sky to just keep it together and control the race, he was wrong but that was a valid thing to expect.
One of the main blogs I read does a preview, they said it could go either way yesterday and that we could either see a GC battle or a break staying away. In the end it was a GC battle but only because Europcar missed the break and never gave it much leeway.
Stop trying to load more work onto those who run the game just because the stats aren't showing numbers you expect.
Well, maybe, but let me be clear, I don't think every single person in the world would choose Froome to win the stage yesterday, but I do think that every single player in the Roadcc game who was still playing for the overall would not have dared (!) leave Froome out of their lineup yesterday!
Am I wrong? I don't know! 
, but, I don't think I am! Does it matter? No. It's irrelevant, but, fun to think about! 
But, ok, just to appease you and your dad, I'll lower my estimate to 78% 
But only if I'm considering that there are bound to be Purist teams, stage hunting teams and 'abandoned' teams... Again, I believe 99% if not all of the actively managed teams still playing for the overall had to (!) and did (!) pick Froome yesterday! 
Except your dad... But you did (!), didn't you?...
you can estimate all you like, enrique. the game uses the real data to produce real numbers. if you don't like the numbers, then ignore them.
I believe that. I'm not arguing against the numbers. I am just wondering:
I think the answer is yes. If it gets a a score of zero, it still counts towards the calculation of % of teams that picked the rider. (Maybe they shouldnt (!) be part of the calculation?)
And I'm wondering why you can't see the riders on these teams that scored 0 points and therefore why they're part of the calculation of % of teams that picked a rider
The rest are just suggestions of things I'd like to see 'cause I think they're fun to see, for example, the % of riders selected for Purist teams after a competititon starts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say your numbers are wrong. I'm just trying to understand the calculation.
And believe me:
You're just pulling these numbers out of your arse aren't you?
Well, look, obviously I'm not being as scientifically and analytically rigorous as you are by asking your dad, but (!)
, my point is not whether I'm right or wrong, nor is it to annoy you (sorry about that), I'm just asking Dave to clarify about those teams that score 0 and whether or not they're included in the calculation for whether a rider was picked for a team or not... I'm also wondering why the riders on those teams that score 0 points cannot be seen... If you can answer that question, fine (!), I'm ok with your answer
I mean you yourself said that:
So do these teams that scored a 0 count as a legally selected team? And if I can't see their riders, are they empty teams? Therefore, do these 500+ teams count in the % of teams that selected a rider equation? It's a simple clarification. Yes, they do. No, they don't. All I'm looking for is the answer.
But, really...
And I think a game as polished as this one should have metrics that reflect that. Now, granted I may sound arrogant and unreasonable if I expect to get them right away, but (!) so what? It's just an idea! Which I happen to like a lot! Thank you for reading and responding, by the way (!)
And I'm not trying to annoy you, but I have to admit I may enjoy that you are (!) annoyed!
Your dad plays? That's pretty cool! It must be pretty cool to share this with your dad! My dad wouldn't touch this game with a 10 foot pole! But then again, my dad isn't that much fun!
So is he playing Premium, too? How did he do yesterday? How's he doing in the overall? Was he stage hunting yesterday or still playing for the overall?... Say 'Hi!' from New York for me! 
Pages