CQ Manager evaluation thread

[Hugo Koblet]

First of all thanks to everyone who has participated, shown interest, followed and kept this game alive.

For me personally this game has been a great succes even though my team didn't finish that high. I've never been as interested in cycling as I am now. I've been following every single race carefully to see how my riders have been doing and to spot riders for next season, which definitely has peaked my interest in cycling and in the smaller races as well, and I've gotten to know alot more riders.

I have also gotten the feeling that many of you have experienced something similar, so in that regard I think the game itself has been a great succes, which can also be seen as the game is without a doubt the most popular one on this forum.

Last, congratulations to ingsve who seems to have this game locked up. It's quite amazing that he claimed at the beginning of the season that he would win, and now he seems to have done just that.

Now, let's look forward to next season, which I'm sure will be atleast as interesting as this one, especially considering that quite a few teams were revealed before the last entrants were added.

We need a few things clarified before we start next season: team size, points available and, perhaps most importantly, rules on ex-dopers.

That's why I've created this thread. What has been good about this game? What should be changed? What's the consensus of team size, points available and ex-dopers?

Should we keep it at 25-33 riders and 7500 points just like this season? That way you can easily track your own progress as it's easy to compare to this season. Should we go to 30 riders which is the most realistic or should we go up to 35 to have even more riders to follow during the season? How should the points available change if we decide to change the team size?

Ex-dopers are probably the most controversial issue, and I think we need a new ruling here. Basically I think there are two different approaches we could take:

1) Give them the value of their last full season. This means that if a rider have been suspended from say august 1st 2009 to august 1st 2011, his last full season would be 2008 as 2009, 2010 and 2011 have all been affected by his suspension.
2) Excluding riders who weren't available at the start of 2011 and giving everyone their 2011 value. Basically this would exclude riders like Rebellin because he didn't ride the whole of the 2011 season, while everyone who has ridden the whole season is available.

Finally, I'd like to propose that the game ends earlier next season. I think it was auscyclefan94 who suggested this first, and I think he's right. It's kinda an anticlimax that the game lasts untill december 31st when there's basically no points to win after Japan Cup. My suggestion then is that next year we end the game after the last big race (for example Japan Cup or whatever race is the last next season). Hopefully there will then be a lot of excitement up till this race, and we won't have to wait two months before we can crown the winner officially.

As a final note, I've seen a few suggestions about the game - for instance rulings that you must chose a certain number of neo-pros etc. - and while I'm open to most suggestions, I don't think stuff like this makes the game better, rather the opposite. I personally like the simplicity and the freedom of the game.

Anyway, fire away and let's discuss how we do it next year.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Max 30 riders, Max Points: 7000 or 7500 points.

 

[Luke Schmid]

Hugo, I think keep it simple, every extra rule is probably going to put off more than it encourages.
I like the current amount both of riders or points but I am probably going to play no matter what the equation is. I suspect that is the case with the vast majority of us.

There has been a couple of calls for 10000 points. This would make the game harder to make a profit as you need to pick more higher valued riders and losing a higher valued rider is harder to overcome. It may also decrease the varity in teams as there is simply less riders with high values and even less who could be seen as a possible profit making rider. However we all have favourite riders and maybe that bias would provide some variety and maybe we want to follow our favourite riders in the game.

Having a lower number of points may favour those who follow all levels of racing including under 23 because they may be able to pick bargains with more success. This years competition did not complete bare that out as I did well with basicly no knowledge of under 23 racing except Matthews won the world championships.

In the end though if it is 25, 30, 35, 40 riders at 7000, 7500, 8500, 10000 or something else I am still going to play. It is simply a brilliant game.

 

[hrotha]

Should we keep it at 25-33 riders and 7500 points just like this season? That way you can easily track your own progress as it's easy to compare to this season.

I think that's enough reason to keep things like they were this season. The other alternatives might be better or worse, but ultimately I don't think the difference would be big and actually I bet they'd make for a slightly different (not better or worse) game.

As for dopers, I don't like banning them outright, and I'm not sure about using the score from their last full season. I think the current CQ prices of, say, Rebellin, are fair as they are, even if technically he didn't ride a full season. The only problem here is riders like Valverde who would cost 0. I think a distinction could be made between riders who already came back and riders who won't race until next year - the first group can keep their scores, the second group could have their price go back to their last full season.

I don't agree with any attempts to discourage signing ex-dopers - that's up to everybody's individual preferences. I only care about keeping their prices coherent so that they don't become must-haves.

 

[ingsve]

There seems to be two camps when it comes to team size. Those that want the number lower and those that want it higher. I think the only viable compromise is to keep the rules the same as they were this year both in terms of size and budget.

(Personally I prefer a higher number for the team and the only reason people seem to prefer 30 riders is for cosmetic reasons which isn't a compelling reason in my opinion. The more riders we have the more riders will be active from week to week which means the game will be more fun to follow and I also believe it increases diversity so the teams aren't as similar. But as I said this is only one of the various opinions out there so a compromise will have to be found.)

As for dopers I think giving them the price of their last full season is a good idea but I could also buy the suggestion of not allowing dopers that didn't ride the full 2011 season.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

As for dopers, I don't like banning them outright, and I'm not sure about using the score from their last full season. I think the current CQ prices of, say, Rebellin, are fair as they are, even if technically he didn't ride a full season. The only problem here is riders like Valverde who would cost 0. I think a distinction could be made between riders who already came back and riders who won't race until next year - the first group can keep their scores, the second group could have their price go back to their last full season.

The problem with this is what to do with someone who returned in september and have only raced a couple of races?

 

[hrotha]

The problem with this is what to do with someone who returned in september and have only raced a couple of races?

It could apply only to riders who did more than x months - say, 4 or 5.

 

[ingsve]

Could we perhaps have a list of what dopers are returning so we know what riders this would possibly refer to?

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Could we perhaps have a list of what dopers are returning so we know what riders this would possibly refer to?

Hmm, I've thought of this myself too, but I'm still not sure if it's a good idea, as it might reveal a bunch of potentially good picks, but I don't know.

 

[Moncoutie]

Think the number of riders/budget this year was about right.

 

[Luke Schmid]

Hmm, I've thought of this myself too, but I'm still not sure if it's a good idea, as it might reveal a bunch of potentially good picks, but I don't know.

I put up a list of dopers in the other thread. Do you want me to find it and post it here?

 

[AntonioRossi]

I think that we shouldnt be allowed to pick ex-dopers. But if people still want them, I think their value should be of their last full season

I do agree with ending the game earlier. And about the rider/points, I think like 30/7000 would be good.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I put up a list of dopers in the other thread. Do you want me to find it and post it here?

Well, basically the main issue is that there are a few tricky cases, where I don't know what the ruling would be, so I guess it's a good idea to have a list of dopers but I think it depends on what everyone else think?

Should we publish a list of ex-dopers and what their value will be? It would probably make it a bit easier for me, as there might be cases where people send in lists in which they have a rider with a wrong value.

 

[togo95]

I think it's a good idea to keep the number of riders and points the same as this year, but I wouldn't mind if it changes in some realistic borders because I don't think it's so important for the fun the game brings.
Dopers are different case. I don't think there can be right/ideal solution for this one. Personally I suggest to don't include them at all in the game because I think it will create more problems as compared to what the benefits will be.

 

[ingsve]

Hmm, I've thought of this myself too, but I'm still not sure if it's a good idea, as it might reveal a bunch of potentially good picks, but I don't know.

Well, regardless of what fix you decide you would still have to put a list of what the official prices are, though I guess if the fix is banning them then it would only be a list of banned riders so perhaps you're right.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Well, regardless of what fix you decide you would still have to put a list of what the official prices are, though I guess if the fix is banning them then it would only be a list of banned riders so perhaps you're right.

Personally I don't like the idea of excluding ex-dopers.

What I was thinking was that if I publish a list of all ex-dopers there might be someone who looks at the list and goes "ah, I haven't thought of him before. He's a good pick". So if I do publish the list, it might inspire people to pick riders they wouldn't have.

Though I guess that it makes it a lot easier - for me and everyone else.

 

[will10]

If you publish a list of dopers, then it has to be a list of riders that can't be picked. If you don't, then you'll have to check all dopers to make sure that the value entered is equal to the value of their last full season. Very tricky one.

 

[ingsve]

Personally I don't like the idea of excluding ex-dopers.

What I was thinking was that if I publish a list of all ex-dopers there might be someone who looks at the list and goes "ah, I haven't thought of him before. He's a good pick". So if I do publish the list, it might inspire people to pick riders they wouldn't have.

Though I guess that it makes it a lot easier - for me and everyone else.

I guess it's possible to trust everyone to figure out how much someone cost their last full season and if there are teams that get the numbers wrong then they'll have to change it. Though that might make things very tight on time if the deadline to enter is january first and there are lots of fixes to be made. Perhaps the deadline should be a little earlier in december to allow some time for fixes.

Or if someone is unsure of what a rider costs they could ask you in PM.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I guess it's possible to trust everyone to figure out how much someone cost their last full season and if there are teams that get the numbers wrong then they'll have to change it. Though that might make things very tight on time if the deadline to enter is january first and there are lots of fixes to be made. Perhaps the deadline should be a little earlier in december to allow some time for fixes.

Or if someone is unsure of what a rider costs they could ask you in PM.

Yeah this was what I had in mind as well. The main problem is, that there are one or two riders who's value I'm not sure of myself.

 

[asdfgh101]

Solution to doping problem

Rider's 2012 value shall equal his 2011 score unless that rider has been suspended, witheld from racing or had results annulled in 2011.

In that case the highest of the following values shall apply:

A: 2011 CQ score

B: Adjusted value of last complete season

100%-X% where X is equal to the number of seasons which have passed since this score was registered (total to be rounded up)

C: Any adjusted score in between

Some Cases

Franco Pellizotti = 672 (960x0.7) 2008 score used

(note that CQ has incorrectly failed to annul FP's 2009 results)

Ezequeil Mosquera = 824 (915 x 0.9) 2010 score used pending further development

Alejandro Valverde = 1996 (2494x0.8) 2010 score used

Alex Rasmussen = 284 2011 score used

Thomas Dekker = 414 (591x0.7) 2008 score used

(complete season as split from team not linked to doping investigation)

Riccardo Ricco (if somehow cleared) = 682 (1136x0.6) 2007 score used

(2010 value adjusted 756x0.9 = 681, if this value had been 683 or greater than this season would have been used)

 

[ingsve]

I don't see the point in adjusting scores down based on what time has passed. Much easier for people to figure out the cost of they simply use the last full year score as listed by CQ rather than having to do math to know the score.

 

[Squire]

Team size & budget should be kept the same as this year. It could be fun to compare scores, and it's simple. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

No extra rules on neo-pros etc. Don't make it too complicated.

As for dopers, I think this season's system worked OK. The likes of Valverde, who's had their results annuled, should obviously get their price from the season where they last scored points.

I could also agree with the suggestion of giving them the points of their last full season.

I think no list should be published. Most people should understand the rule and find the right score themselves, and if someone doesn't, we could have a few guys do a quick scan through the teams looking for wrongly-priced dopers.

I'm totally against banning former dopers. The reasons for this are partly subjective, as I would like to have some of the 'bad guys' on my team as they are among my favourite riders. Also they've served their sentence, so they shouldn't face further punishment by not being cheered upon by the mighty CQ tifosi

 

[skidmark]

My preference is 35/7500 (or rather, 'up to 35' if people want to have less, because that's not really an advantage). Slightly more riders than this year, but the same budget, so it makes it a bit tighter but you still have some wiggle room. I agree that it is exciting if a bunch of people are picking a bunch of small riders, and that's diversity in one way, but in another way if we made it any lower there'd be no incentive to take a bit of a gamble on someone who got like 1000-1300 points this year (I have a couple of guys in mind) that you think will do better next year. The game will be fun, skillful and diverse in my mind either way, but more riders are more fun for me.

As for dopers, I would be fine with cutting out anyone who was banned for any part of 2011, or with giving them their last season's values. And I'd be fine with keeping that on a PM basis so as to preserve the sort of 'integrity' of picking separate teams. Another complication is, what do we count as 'suspended'? If we count it as only those riders suspended by a national federation at some point in 2011, does that mean we can get someone like Kolobnev, who tested positive but as far as I know was not suspended or released by his team? Or guys like Mosquera and Ballan, who were prevented from racing at points by their team, but not officially sanctioned? And would we not be able to pick Contador (should he pull through CAS in November), who was suspended provisionally, then officially for a week, before being overturned on appeal? Tricky.

 

[luckyboy]

I think it should be 30 riders + 7000 points, and keep the dopers price rule at the last full season they competed in.

 

[MADRAZO]

The more riders we can pick the better in my opinion (of course until some point), simply because it is more fun that you can pick more exiting riders and since it also allows room for a little more gambled picks, which I find important. If only 30 riders every pick is more important so that each pick have to be a bit more concervative and boring than if you have 35 riders and can better live with one gambled flop or two, and also propably there will be perhaps 20 or so very obvious picks leaving little space for the teams to differ much if only 30 riders compared to 35.

I think up to 35 riders and 7000 would be perfect, as 200 seems like a fitting median, that gives room for talents and unknowns but still requires us to pick some more expensive riders which is also a good challenge though often more obvious.

33/7500 like this year is not bad either but I would definetly prefer (up to) 35 riders.