CQ ranking

Page 120 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Eric8-A said:
That's sort of what I'm having trouble with, finding a top sprinter for my team. So far, the only ones I got are those can sprint from a small group, I still havn't gotten an ideal bunch sprinter.
Galimzyanov and Viviani have been good choices for me this year. I'm very happy with those picks. Those were picks where I analyzed and predicted that they would be getting more and better chances this year since they were on teams where the main sprinter left the team and no real replacement was brought in.
 
Eric8-A said:
That's sort of what I'm having trouble with, finding a top sprinter for my team. So far, the only ones I got are those can sprint from a small group, I still havn't gotten an ideal bunch sprinter.
Yeah, last year there were a few who where quite "obvious" picks like Bos and Galimzyanov, but it's harder this year. There are a few I'm considering though, and one I'm quite sure of.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,644
2
0
El Pistolero said:
Erm, Goss can easily improve his 1100 CQ points next year. You don't need to win a Monument for that. If he's more consistent next year he'll easily surpass those points even if he doesn't win anything big. I used Phil because he was the best example to be used.

Goss in San Remo form can be competitive at the Ronde, Paris-Roubaix, San Remo, G-W, E3 Prijs Vlaanderen, Tour de France, Omloop het Volk, etc

He had a great start of the season this year, but faded after that. If he can be consisted for a longer period next year he can break the 2000 points barrier. And since the reason why he faded is his own fault he can most certainly be better next year if he changes his mentality ;)

Goss is very much like another type of classics rider, but I'm afraid you wont like to hear his name as well: Tom Boonen.
speaning of boonen, asif he has 502 points. Damn you g-w.

@kurtinsc
phil is an epic pick.
you have to spend the 7500. Well you don't but if you want to win yes.
Percentage turn over doesn't = win.

for examle you could pick 33 guys on 10 points (330 overall) and the could all go do a 300% turn over getting you near 1000points. very far from victory.

Having riders who do a big turn over is essential to win, but having your expensive guys perform is at least equally valuable.

just barely holding onto my elusive top 20 :eek:
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Next year we should have a bigger buying power. Lets say 10K points since all the good teams are that expensive and it will allow us to include some big names in our teams. Its not fun picking up guys that had bad season or are coming back from doping ban.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,644
2
0
Jancouver said:
Next year we should have a bigger buying power. Lets say 10K points since all the good teams are that expensive and it will allow us to include some big names in our teams. Its not fun picking up guys that had bad season or are coming back from doping ban.
I prefer cheaper if anything.

7000 maybe.

Makes the ephasis on youngsters greating.

Big buying power will feel a little bland imo.
 
Nov 11, 2010
3,387
1
0
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
I prefer cheaper if anything.

7000 maybe.

Makes the ephasis on youngsters greating.

Big buying power will feel a little bland imo.
Sounds good. What's the number cap on riders. 35 like this year?
 
Sep 27, 2009
1,008
0
0
Having a higher budget would make the game harder to make a profit because it forces people to buy higher valued riders and they are a bigger risk. Injuries or doping busts to a couple of top riders would have a bigger impact on the game. There is also less higher value riders meaning the variety in the teams would be less. With the 7500 or 7000 it allows people to pick more low value riders of which there is hundreds and will allow greater variety in the teams. Having a lower number may reward people who follow all levels of cycling including under 23 over those who just follow the top races throughout the year. Looking at the current standings of this years game and how I am doing well with very limited knowledge while some others are not does contradict this point a bit.
I prefer the lower number to the higher number.
As far as returning dopers goes my suggestion is that we ban the picking of returning dopers whose ban ended on or after the 1 January 2011. This means people who do not like picking returning dopers are not disadvantaged.
 
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
I believe Hugo suggested the UCI squad imitation of 30, which is a good idea imo.
The problem with that was that we would have to lower the total budget even more if we want to lower the average budget per rider. My suggestion was 35 riders at 7000 points which seemed to have good support. That way there will be more diversity between teams which I think would be the best thing to aim at.
 
I guess I'll include a poll in the evaluation thread to see what the consensus is, both on team size and points available. I also personally think that lower is the way to go - I simply think it makes the game more interesting and varied when you have to look for young guys.

Of course there are arguments for all posibilities:

- bigger squad = more riders to follow during the season = more fun
- 30 riders = most realistic
- bigger budget = option to buy all your favorite riders
-smaller budget = harder, more variety
 
As we're approaching the last important month of the game, I decided to do some quick math to see how many points are still to be distributed.

It turns out that more than 14250 points (depending on how many riders complete the races) are to be handed out in october (including Circuit Franco-Belge which starts tomorrow).

In other words, there are still plenty of room to improve ones position in the game, and ingsve still cannot feel safe about his first place!
 
al_pacino said:
It looks difficult to pick the sprinters for next year. In theory you have Cav, Goss and Renshaw fighting over points that they wouldn't have been this year plus the younger ones(Degenkolb, Matthews, Kittel) also in the mix. Sure they all have different strenghts but the field looks stronger overall.
If Kittel/ Degenkolb get invited to GT's i think they would be a good bet ( degenkolb could win M-SR within 2 years in my view ) Kittel has now gone through a GT and can carry that experience/ stamina through. I also think Renshaw would not be that bad a pick ( as he cannot go worse than this tear as he has leadership status )
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
1
0
I'm with timmy, 30 riders is a good round number which will make people pick up some bargains and be forced to do some risks. Reducing the budget to 7000 means people will really have to do some research by picking up some lesser riders which will result in a more challenging game though on the contrary, a bigger budget imo with a smaller number of riders will make it harder for teams to make a profit which I think would be good as well.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Hugo Koblet said:
I guess I'll include a poll in the evaluation thread to see what the consensus is, both on team size and points available. I also personally think that lower is the way to go - I simply think it makes the game more interesting and varied when you have to look for young guys.

Of course there are arguments for all posibilities:

- bigger squad = more riders to follow during the season = more fun
- 30 riders = most realistic
- bigger budget = option to buy all your favorite riders
-smaller budget = harder, more variety
Smaller budget would be solid IMO. I suppose the guide I'd go by is whether a team looks realistic though. 30 riders is good for the same reason.

Oh, there's an idea. You have the budget of your points total from the previous year. Crappy for newcomers though, and it basically means it's just one loooooong game.
 
Hugo Koblet said:
Update 35 The highest scorer this week, however, is Kwibus who scored no less than 1962 points - closely followed by kurtinsc with 1940 points.
Awesome! I knew the Vuelta scores me looots of points, but getting the most points is great.
Due to a nice holiday in Italy I'm a bit late with a reply ;)
 
Hugo Koblet said:
Update 36

A pretty quiet week. Points for three 1.1 races and Tour of Britain have been handed out, and the teams with Lars Boom did pretty well - the five highest scoring teams all had Boom in it. Kwibus even moves into the top 10 thanks mainly to Boom, Bozic and Wegmann, while theyoungest moves out of the top 10.

1. (1) ingsve - 12779
2. (2) Waterloo Sunrise - 11772
3. (3) Handbrake - 11648
4. (4) mc_mountain - 11383
5. (7) kurtinsc - 11316
6. (5) Sneekes - 11269
7. (6) The Hitch - 11193
8. (8) Armchair Cyclist - 11094
9. (9) nvpacchi - 11018
10. (14) Kwibus - 10969
Oh wow it gets even better. I had hoped for the top30 at the start of the season since I didn't use too much science into making my team and I only seriously started following cycling last year. Weee I'm happy ;P
 
auscyclefan94 said:
I'm with timmy, 30 riders is a good round number which will make people pick up some bargains and be forced to do some risks. Reducing the budget to 7000 means people will really have to do some research by picking up some lesser riders which will result in a more challenging game though on the contrary, a bigger budget imo with a smaller number of riders will make it harder for teams to make a profit which I think would be good as well.
You're contradicting yourself. 30 riders and 7000 points won't make people pick up bargains but rather it gives them more money per rider. 7000/30 is 233.33 points per rider and this year the average cost per rider was 227.27. It's by lowering the average cost per rider that we make people pick up more bargains. With 30 riders the budget would have to be more like 6000 points.

Having a small number and big budget is not good for the game. That would mean more people would pick the same high cost riders in order to spend their whole budget and we would end up with less diversity. For example has anyone in this game been happy whenever Haussler has gotten points this year? There really was no reason to be happy since all those points was a wash anyway since 85-90% of us had him.
 
From the names I have down for next year, it's going to be harder to spend points than not, so for me a reduced budget would actually make it easier. Picking a rider worth 600 is a lot riskier than a neo-pro worth 10. IMO, 7000 for 30 would be good.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,644
2
0
ingsve said:
You're contradicting yourself. 30 riders and 7000 points won't make people pick up bargains but rather it gives them more money per rider. 7000/30 is 233.33 points per rider and this year the average cost per rider was 227.27. It's by lowering the average cost per rider that we make people pick up more bargains. With 30 riders the budget would have to be more like 6000 points.

Having a small number and big budget is not good for the game. That would mean more people would pick the same high cost riders in order to spend their whole budget and we would end up with less diversity. For example has anyone in this game been happy whenever Haussler has gotten points this year? There really was no reason to be happy since all those points was a wash anyway since 85-90% of us had him.
That is fine, but 35 riders is too much. I'd rather we go down a bit more.
And you're gonna get people buying the bargain buys regardless of the budget.

Even if we did 7000 with 30 (and the average was 233.33) it would be similar to this year, which was a pretty good formula imo. The game will never be perfect for everyone.

also if we do wanna go cheaper, 6500/30 is 216.66 per rider. But then having such a low budget is great for people with intentions of young riders and such, but gives little variation for people like Jancouver who'd like some bigger names etc. The overall points system worked pretty well this year imo.

So either 6500/30 or 7000/30 would be best as far as I'm concerned.
But again, whatever majority wants.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Well, we either want to play a real CQ manager managing the best possible team or we should rename the game to "CQ Bargain Hunter". Where is the fun of going through the list of names with disappointing season or coming back from doping ban?

Sure, there is a better chance of multiplying your points from somebody that cost 50 points because the rider can easily score triple points 150 without ever making Top 10 in any race. We all going to have all these losers that cant win any race but will multiply points.

If we want a real WorldTour class teams game, we should have 30 riders and enough buying power to get any of the top teams HTC, BMC, Sky, Rabo etc. Or we can play the Continental level game and get the Miche style teams full of cheap neo-pros and returning dopers.

If you have to spend lets say 10K points and have 30 riders, it will be much harder game than 30 riders at 3K points.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Hugo Koblet said:
I guess I'll include a poll in the evaluation thread to see what the consensus is, both on team size and points available. I also personally think that lower is the way to go - I simply think it makes the game more interesting and varied when you have to look for young guys.

Of course there are arguments for all posibilities:

- bigger squad = more riders to follow during the season = more fun
- 30 riders = most realistic
- bigger budget = option to buy all your favorite riders
-smaller budget = harder, more variety
What does realism have to do with this game?

I'd like to keep the number of riders and budget EXACTLY the same.

That way I can judge how well I do next year against this year as well as how well I do against the other players. I don't see any problem with how it was done this past season. I enjoyed it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Games and Fantasy Cycling 937

ASK THE COMMUNITY