Log in:  

Register

The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

Come in and talk about betting, computer games and cycling simulations, and your office's or online fantasy cycling leagues.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

28 Nov 2017 21:46

I am a player named in Squire's all time highlights post, was part of the Velorooms exodus. I lost track of the sport of cycling for a few years (forgot my email user and pass detsils for my original account) but now that I'm back in Europe, I'm back into cycling and keen to be back in this game! I hope I'm not too rusty, and that people still give heaps of hints of riders they are keen on. Am gon need it.

Keep everything the way it is.
I'velo
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Oct 2017 16:08
Location: Ro

29 Nov 2017 07:03

I'll throw a vote in for keeping the 7500 as well

Looking at the CQ export 2016 had 265 k points on offer and 2017 had 277 k so that ties into the 4% that laarsland calculated from the teams
Are argument could be made for 7800 points as a 4% increase but I think a lower number is better than a higher number and don't see an extra 300 points making a huge impact on teams.
User avatar Tigerion
Member
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 03:23

29 Nov 2017 18:38

I say stick with 7500. I'd consider ending the game on an earlier date. Perhaps after Japan Cup?
User avatar Hugo Koblet
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,361
Joined: 09 May 2010 08:08

01 Dec 2017 04:53

I'd vote for keeping it at 7500 as well.

The finishing point is fine as it is.
User avatar the asian
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,558
Joined: 20 Jan 2011 18:09
Location: Colombo

01 Dec 2017 05:57

I'm also supporting keeping the 7500 score. Reg. the finishing time, I'd say follow the rules and let people decide if they want riders like Marezcko on their team for that reason. There's also weak lineups in other races during the season, and the "2.1 and above" rule is easy to understand.
User avatar Kazistuta
Member
 
Posts: 1,420
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 06:18
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

01 Dec 2017 16:28

Keep at 7500 to make it easier to compare with other seasons. Everyone is working with the same budget anyway and increasing or decreasing the budget won't make selecting a team easier or harder, it'll just shift the toughest decisions from one points range to another.
Keep the end point the same as well unless there's a convincing argument from an organizatory point of view.
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 30,581
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

01 Dec 2017 18:33

Keep it as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Increasing the budget will not make selecting a team any easier.

Thanks to Skidmark for once again running the game this year. Your time and dedication is apprecaited.
adamski101
Junior Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 11:49

04 Dec 2017 18:50

If it ain't broke don't fix it. More points will rsult in more similar teams because top picks/decisions are easier to make.
User avatar GP Blanco
Member
 
Posts: 770
Joined: 26 Dec 2012 11:34
Location: Bottom of a lake which used to be a sea

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

04 Dec 2017 22:18

Thanks for the feedback everyone! Glad to know most people are on the same page - let's keep things the same. It definitely is easier to prepare and know what to expect when it's consistent. As per Hugo's point about possibly ending earlier - it has definitely always been an awkward thing around the end of the season with points dwindling off... it is like that in the early season too, there have sometimes been a couple of weeks with very little going on, although then people are still so excited about the game in the early going that there isn't much dimming of enthusiasm. I certainly take the thoughts of the game creator quite seriously! But without knowing exactly how the season is going to end (and without many other people wanting to change the end), my inclination is to keep it the same rules as it is. If I had made the ending at, say, the Japan Cup at the start of the year, I wouldn't have known exactly when Guangxi was taking place, which of course had bearing on the game and finished after the Japan Cup (as well, Turkey being moved provided another week of action after Lombardia). And without knowing how close the competition will be and who will be in the mix with what riders, I want to be careful to leave it open to a close finish - I believe it was 2013 when SteelyDan just barely beat Geraint Too Fast or something like that, but the lead would have changed back if the competition kept going, right? Regardless of whether I'm remembering correctly, I think having the rules open as they currently are is the best solution to a tough problem. Definitely the last couple of weeks aren't too engaging for everyone, but I'd almost rather risk that than not have the opportunity to follow an exciting race down to the wire.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,633
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

05 Dec 2017 10:45

I'm against ending earlier as you never know what could happen in the races after the potential ending point.For example if this year game end at Japan cup I wouldn't have won the Green Jersey Competition and this could happen for the GC as well.We pick riders who bring us points through all the year not only for 9 or 10 months.
User avatar scrooll07
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 31 Jan 2015 19:42

10 Dec 2017 14:34

I will see you guys on the battlefield for 2018, my debut season!
Nathanptz
New Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 08 Nov 2017 15:34

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

26 Dec 2017 17:38

thanks to skid, big plans from me to improve on 88th
This weeks blog covers Israel Cycling, women's cycling welfare, and I try not get started on World Tour field size. http://sbbcolumns.co.uk/letstalkcycling-muses/ :D
User avatar manafana
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,540
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:29

Previous

Return to Games and Fantasy Cycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Back to top