CQ Idea

[asdfgh101]

As much as i love the main CQ game i find it has a few frustrating flaws which could potentially be avoided.

I had some ideas to potentially make things more tactically nuanced and ensure that a much wider range of riders could be picked.

Increase max budget to 12,000 for team of 30 riders (minimum spend of 9000).

Cost of rider=

((CQ score-400)*0.75)+400

Examples:

(2400-400)*0.75)+400=1900

(1200-400)*0.75)+400=1000

(300-400)*0.75)+400=375

(0-400)*0.75)+400=100

This can easily be handled by the spreadsheet.

Winning team is one with greatest profit.

Each team has one star rider (list in first position) who's profit is multiplied by 1.5 plus 4 protected riders who's profits are multiplied by 1.25.

I appreciate that people may be wary of changing the main game but hopefully if there is sufficient interest in the above format we can run it as a standalone game next season as a trial.

Thoughts?

 

[mc_mountain]

So the rationale is that expensive riders become more attractive and cheap riders less so? perhaps it would be useful if you explain your thinking behind each point as it might give potential players a better idea of how the game will differ from the original

i think that core idea could be interesting - one other thing that we dont currently have in CQ games are transfers or a way to rectify a glaring omission/season ending injury, maybe there is way to do this around this idea. perhaps a portion of the budget to be spent part way through the season, but with riders more expensive than they had been originally. Also perhaps the leaders/protected riders could be changed each month to fit their race programmes? It might be that it would need to be a limited number of entrants to avoid this being too time consuming to deal with and to ensure that all players are active and will spend their additional budget/make necessary changes.

I suspect that the members currently involved in running CQ games are at 'capacity' in terms of the time they can put in, but if you wanted to run the game yourself, I'm sure support would be available.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The glaring gap to my mind in our bank of CQ games is a women's rankings game: I'd love to have a go as a way of keeping myself more alert to the under-publicised distaff side of the sport. The problem is that they only issue about 6 update spreadsheets a year.

As regarding the current proposal, what are the "frustrating flaws" that you are trying to avoid?

 

[del1962]

The glaring gap to my mind in our bank of CQ games is a women's rankings game: I'd love to have a go as a way of keeping myself more alert to the under-publicised distaff side of the sport. The problem is that they only issue about 6 update spreadsheets a year.

As regarding the current proposal, what are the "frustrating flaws" that you are trying to avoid?

Regarding Womens Cycling, What about Procycling Stats?

Scratch that, doesnt seem any better than CQ

 

[asdfgh101]

Flaws:

Low budget means a lot of variance.

Everyone picks mostly riders who had a down year or young breakout riders which leads to a lack of variety.

Forced to spend close to the max budget.

It's easier to find low scoring riders who will end up in profit whilst scoring 1500+ in back to back seasons is hard. I may think that a rider who scored 1200 last season (career high at 29, eclipsing previous best of 700) will score 1500 this season but the current game makes him a bad pick.

People forced to make defensive picks of low scoring riders, this can't be eradicated but can be mitigated.

 

[NairoQ]

Those things you mention are all part of a budget-game. But, I agree that those points you are making are true.

Maybe it could be interesting to have a game without budget. For example, everyone can pick 30 riders. Before the season a list is made with different categories (*** climbers, ** climbers, * climbers, *** sprinters etc., *** classic riders,...). The 'budget' could then be: everybody gets to pick at max. 2 *** climbers, 2 *** sprinters etc. On the bottom layer there would still be a massive amount of riders to choose from to make your team really 'yours', and limiting the number of riders for each category also makes sure teams differ from eachother.

The rest of the game then could be likewise the game running now: points gained on CQ are points scored for your team.

I think the benefits of this type of game are:
- more 'teamlike' teams (some sprinters, some classic riders, some climbers)
- eliminates riders you have to pick because of their low value, and lets you pick riders you wouldn't pick because of the expected benefit in percentage.
(this is basically what asdfgh101 says about the rider with small benefit, but a really good season)

Of course there are some things which I don't really have a solution for (really everybody picking a certain rider), and the categories need to be made.

While I'm at it: for the first problem there could be a solution: a '****-category' with only the best of the best, of which you get to pick only one.

 

[skidmark]

Flaws:

Low budget means a lot of variance.

Everyone picks mostly riders who had a down year or young breakout riders which leads to a lack of variety.

Forced to spend close to the max budget.

It's easier to find low scoring riders who will end up in profit whilst scoring 1500+ in back to back seasons is hard. I may think that a rider who scored 1200 last season (career high at 29, eclipsing previous best of 700) will score 1500 this season but the current game makes him a bad pick.

People forced to make defensive picks of low scoring riders, this can't be eradicated but can be mitigated.

I get what you're saying, and I would support mc's assertion that if you wanted to run such a game, I'm sure you'd get participation and support.

In terms of adopting those rules onto the main CQ game, my concerns are:

personally - it's a bit mathy to try to calculate, and for me that's saying alot as I'm a pretty mathy guy. I like the simplicity of picking riders for their cost, and I feel like that outweighs the drawbacks you outline. Also, the game has been in its form (with minor tweaks in rules to deal with returning dopers) for 4 years, so there's an established baseline of tradition with the game. Now, tradition is often a terrible excuse to keep something going if it has glaring flaws, but although I feel like those flaws you highlight are drawbacks, I don't find them too serious.

generally - I worry that if such a change were adopted, it would slow participation in the game. The current game is relatively simple, but also fairly complex, as anyone who spends half a year with a spreadsheet and a longlist of 100 riders trying to configure it into a 33-rider team can attest. That balance seems to be appealing to people, and has struck a chord in the sense that the game has grown every year (certainly beyond what Hugo had initially thought with I think 30 participants). There's something appealing about trying to pick the best riders, straight up, to find hidden gems or at least a winning combination of riders that other people won't. That gets muddied when you start pro-rating or weighting scores.

Either way, the game you describe would take a lot of thought and intelligence to succeed in it, for sure. I just feel it would be best handled as its own game.

 

[Netserk]

Tbh I think the CQ manager game is almost perfect as it is. Perhaps a more lenient approach with dopers though

 

[asdfgh101]

I'm happy to run it for a year as 'CQ Expert'.

The spreadsheet formulae won't be a problem. Will be easy to pick a team as there will be a template which automatically calculates the cost.

I'm very open to suggestions.

I'm also considering banning certain riders due to their poor personal relationship with the hypothetical team owner (basically any super cheap rider who everyone would pick).

 

[asdfgh101]

The great thing about 'leaders' and 'protected riders' who have their profits multiplied is that 'obvious' picks costing 500 plus become interesting once again.