CQ ranking

Page 121 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jancouver said:
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.
The problem with having a game with that big a budget that forces us to have that many big name riders is that the teams will be a lot more similar to each other and that's bad in my opinion. I favor rules that increase the diversity in the teams so that more people have unique or almost unique picks.

You will always have a bargain hunter type of game since fundamentally the cost of a rider will be what they scored last year so any rider that had a poor year will be undercosted compared to their actual level of riding. To avoid that you would have to come up with some other cost system that takes into account what a rider is truely worth but that's not what this game is all about. If you want that then there are lots of other manager games out there that work on that type of premise.
 
I'm with kurtinsc here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It worked very well this year, mixing bargains with more expensive riders. Next year will be much better when the teams aren't published before the deadline.

If we are to make a change, I'm in favour of 30 riders for 7000.
 
Squire said:
I'm with kurtinsc here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It worked very well this year, mixing bargains with more expensive riders. Next year will be much better when the teams aren't published before the deadline.

If we are to make a change, I'm in favour of 30 riders for 7000.
Since there seems to be various opinions about how changes might go then sticking with this years numbers is a good compromise I guess.
 
Nov 23, 2009
649
0
0
kurtinsc said:
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.
The comparability point is a big one for me. It'd be great to be able to follow more riders but I think ultimately we should keep the # and $ exactly the same.

However, we definitely need to change the dopers rules.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
ingsve said:
The problem with having a game with that big a budget that forces us to have that many big name riders is that the teams will be a lot more similar to each other and that's bad in my opinion. I favor rules that increase the diversity in the teams so that more people have unique or almost unique picks.

You will always have a bargain hunter type of game since fundamentally the cost of a rider will be what they scored last year so any rider that had a poor year will be undercosted compared to their actual level of riding. To avoid that you would have to come up with some other cost system that takes into account what a rider is truely worth but that's not what this game is all about. If you want that then there are lots of other manager games out there that work on that type of premise.
Teams will be similar? I would actually think the opposite is the truth. With bigger purchase power there will be more variety of good riders included. On the other hand I can go through the latest update and easily pick the most obvious picks for next year. Especially since the latest updates have the percentage score included so we dont have to do any hard work to find those. I will bet you that more than 50% of riders on every team will be the same if we have the same buying power or if the buying power is lower.

For example: How many guys did have Gilbert this year? One, two? Why? He was too expensive huh? How many would have him on team if the buying power was 10K? I'm sure lot more.

If you want variety, you either need more buying power or bigger teams but either way I should be able to buy any of the top teams otherwise this game is unrealistic.
 
Jancouver said:
Teams will be similar? I would actually think the opposite is the truth. With bigger purchase power there will be more variety of good riders included. On the other hand I can go through the latest update and easily pick the most obvious picks for next year. Especially since the latest updates have the percentage score included so we dont have to do any hard work to find those. I will bet you that more than 50% of riders on every team will be the same if we have the same buying power or if the buying power is lower.

For example: How many guys did have Gilbert this year? One, two? Why? He was too expensive huh? How many would have him on team if the buying power was 10K? I'm sure lot more.

If you want variety, you either need more buying power or bigger teams but either way I should be able to buy any of the top teams otherwise this game is unrealistic.
The truth is that to fill a 10k team you would need to have maybe as much as 3-4 riders that cost over say 800 points and some would possibly have as many as 5 or 6 judging from this years teams. Currently there are 36 riders at that cost or above but most of those would be stupid choices since they would have no realistic prospects of increasing their result next year. Just because you can afford a high cost rider does not mean it's a good idea to pick them. Realistically there are perhaps 4-5 riders at that cost that are even close to viable in any sensible team and those would show up in 75% of all teams. If you add the other obvious bargains that are also likely to be in most teams they you'll probably see 10-15 riders that will be in almost half the teams. A bigger budget only increases diversity if people make bad choices and that's not something I think should be encouraged.

A smaller budget forces people to have more lower cost riders on their team and at the lower cost ranges (0-300) there are countless options which gives more diversity. Just the fact that people have played the game for one year and have seen what works and what doesn't means that there will be less bad choices (and thus less diversity) made next year so we don't want to add other factors that further lowers the diversity.
 
Nov 11, 2010
3,387
1
0
The 7000 point, 30 rider thing is good for me. Like some people said this year with that the game got them interested in races they normally wouldn't follow, I think the lower budget might open peoples eyes to other riders they never really paid attention to given that alot of high profile names got expensive this year.
 
I dont mind keeping the format from this season but I would prefer a lower avg. cost and more riders. Like the 35/7000 for instance.

One thing is that it is more fun to pick young talents or breakthrough-riders than expensive stars, and also gives more diverse teams as the good expensive candidates are few and often obvious, but another major reason is that this format limits the element of bad luck. Having to pick very expensive riders means more risk of these getting injured or caught doping, like Ricco for instance this season, and skill should be more important than luck in such a game. And if we have to make the very expensive picks it becomes too important that these riders are not unlucky to succeed.

Anyways no matter the format I look forward to getting a chance to revenge a very dissapointing season for my team in this great contest.
 
bicing said:
The comparability point is a big one for me. It'd be great to be able to follow more riders but I think ultimately we should keep the # and $ exactly the same.

However, we definitely need to change the dopers rules.
What do you mean regarding the dopers rules? Change from what to what?
 
Nov 23, 2009
649
0
0
The Hitch said:
What do you mean regarding the dopers rules? Change from what to what?
Originally dopers could be bought on their price before the ban. But in early discussion and review of the game, it has been suggested that the price be their last full year, or that dopers be banned from purchase altogether.

The main issue being that it's difficult and rare for a doper to be given its verdict on a ban in the same year as the tests going public, e.g. Kolobnev. The Champion and the Creator can expand on these points.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,644
2
0
Squire said:
I'm with kurtinsc here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It worked very well this year, mixing bargains with more expensive riders. Next year will be much better when the teams aren't published before the deadline.

If we are to make a change, I'm in favour of 30 riders for 7000.
30 / 7000 would have a smiliar game as this year.

I like these figures, allows some variation in strategy I think.
 
The problem with 7000 for 30 riders is that all it does is make the teams smaller. It doesn't change the average cost per rider so it doesn't change the way riders are chosen. All it does is give everyone fewer choices and is that really what we want? Same game only smaller. If that's the case we might as well just stick with the same rules as this year or we can make bigger changes so that the strategy of the game changes. Having a smaller team as the only change seems counterproductive.
 
Sep 27, 2009
1,008
0
0
The Hitch said:
What do you mean regarding the dopers rules? Change from what to what?
I have suggested that returning dopers whose ban ends on or after the 1st of January 2011 would not be able to be picked. This would rule out Dekker, Astarloza, Rebellin, Valverde, Sevilla, Caucchioli, De Bonis, Bosisio, Frei, Manuel Vazquez, Ribeiro, Isidro Nozal, Hector Guerra, Colom and maybe others from being picked. All other riders would get there 2011 values as they have been allowed to race for the whole year.
 
LukeSchmid said:
I have suggested that returning dopers whose ban ends on or after the 1st of January 2011 would not be able to be picked. This would rule out Dekker, Astarloza, Rebellin, Valverde, Sevilla, Caucchioli, De Bonis, Bosisio, Frei, Manuel Vazquez, Ribeiro, Isidro Nozal, Hector Guerra, Colom and maybe others from being picked. All other riders would get there 2011 values as they have been allowed to race for the whole year.
why rule them out? they are back riding. Having them on the price of their last full year seems fair.
 
Sep 28, 2011
413
0
0
The Hitch said:
why rule them out? they are back riding. Having them on the price of their last full year seems fair.
Last full year? What if they were banned mid season? All dopers should be banned!
 
CQmanager said:
Last full year? What if they were banned mid season? All dopers should be banned!
lol welcome to the forums :D

The "last full season" is a suggestion that is based on the principle the previous dopers should be allowed but their value would that of their "last full season".

For instance, if a rider gets a two year suspension on August 1st 2009, he will be back in action on August 2011. Hence his 2009, 2010 and 2011 season will all have been affected by his suspension, which means that his "last full season" was 2008, which then will be his value.
 
Sep 28, 2011
413
0
0
Hugo Koblet said:
lol welcome to the forums :D

The "last full season" is a suggestion that is based on the principle the previous dopers should be allowed but their value would that of their "last full season".

For instance, if a rider gets a two year suspension on August 1st 2009, he will be back in action on August 2011. Hence his 2009, 2010 and 2011 season will all have been affected by his suspension, which means that his "last full season" was 2008, which then will be his value.
That sounds complicated.... Going through the list of dopers and trying to figure out what the correct price is for the last year. Unless someone wants to create a list of dopers with the CQ price for next season.

Perhaps we should assign Valverde and few others automatically to every team. :eek:
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
CQmanager said:
Last full year? What if they were banned mid season? All dopers should be banned!
As he said, last full year. What's not to understand about that?

example:

Valverde's price: CQ points from 2009.
 
CQmanager said:
That sounds complicated.... Going through the list of dopers and trying to figure out what the correct price is for the last year. Unless someone wants to create a list of dopers with the CQ price for next season.

Perhaps we should assign Valverde and few others automatically to every team. :eek:
It perhaps is a bit complicated especially if a rider as doping cases overlaping each other, but that's why I'm looking for suggestions. I think LukeSchmid's is really good to be honest.
 
Look at how the "dopers" went this year:

Ricco - dud
Di Luca - 232 from 113
Rebellin - 725 from 775
Pellizotti - yea...
Valjavec - as above
Rasmussen - 124 from 38
Kashechkin - 28 from 87

There are obvious risks in picking dopers returning, moving up a level, or with still only a few months under their belt, or some who may not even have a contract yet. But let people make their own decisions based on their risk preference. I of all people should know how this is given that a few of the blokes above effectively ended by game in March. This was using the rule that you take their last raced season, regardless of how many race days or when their ban ended.

If you go by the "last full season" these are their following costs:

Ricco - 1136
Di Luca - 930
Rebellin - 1807
Pellizotti - 987
Valjavec - 514
Rasmussen - 254
Kashechkin - 1230

Who would have picked any of these? I would have still thought about the Cobra but you wouldn't take a second look at any of the others. If you set the costs like this they will all be priced out of any possible decision. People should be able to make up their own minds rather than just saying we can't choose them.

Valverde goes by his 2009 value anyway as technically he doesn't exist for the 2010 season.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Games and Fantasy Cycling 934

ASK THE COMMUNITY