• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team. Thanks!

CQ ranking

Page 54 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jancouver said:
The game is good as is. My only suggestion would be to have set number or riders. I would go with 25 or 30 riders per team. If 30 was the number, I would increase the buying power to 10K points. That would give us more opportunities to pick better riders and the game would be more exciting.

Just my 0.02

I think that it would also make the teams more similar. The average cost per rider would do up and more expensive riders are fewer to choose from so more would happen to choose the same ones.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Jancouver said:
The game is good as is. My only suggestion would be to have set number or riders. I would go with 25 or 30 riders per team. If 30 was the number, I would increase the buying power to 10K points. That would give us more opportunities to pick better riders and the game would be more exciting.

Just my 0.02

To be quite honest I would decrease the amount of points. In the end I was just adding high priced riders, just so that I could make it close to the maximum amount of points, 5000 or 6000 seem more than enough, especially if you make the maximum number of riders 30
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Visit site
ingsve said:
I think that it would also make the teams more similar. The average cost per rider would do up and more expensive riders are fewer to choose from so more would happen to choose the same ones.

I dont think so, just look how many people have Gilbert, Cancellara etc. We could have a real teams, not just a bunch of no names hoping to have a break through season.


Barrus said:
To be quite honest I would decrease the amount of points. In the end I was just adding high priced riders, just so that I could make it close to the maximum amount of points, 5000 or 6000 seem more than enough, especially if you make the maximum number of riders 30

Again, fun is to have "real" teams with good riders no just a bunch of no names or forgotten dopers.

The next way of doing this is to have a real draft. Take 100 players, give them 7500 points and have them make a list of riders. (Draft order can be set based on this years results.) Then you go in rounds and very simple computer algo will assign the next (highest cost) available rider on your list to your team. That would assure that no two players have the same rider. :D
 
Jancouver said:
I dont think so, just look how many people have Gilbert, Cancellara etc. We could have a real teams, not just a bunch of no names hoping to have a break through season.




Again, fun is to have "real" teams with good riders no just a bunch of no names or forgotten dopers.

The next way of doing this is to have a real draft. Take 100 players, give them 7500 points and have them make a list of riders. (Draft order can be set based on this years results.) Then you go in rounds and very simple computer algo will assign the next (highest cost) available rider on your list to your team. That would assure that no two players have the same rider. :D

Seeing as you are one of the main cheerleaders for the Tour of California, I dont see what your problem is with "no names" and "forgotten dopers".
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
Visit site
I think the way Hugo set it up originally was perfect. The # of points should be roughly the average of the PT teams total points. That way everyone does get an "average" PT team worth of points. How you alot them is up to you. Sure, you can't get Cav, Canc and Gilbert without making some sacrifices, but thats good. If you give more points, I agree that we will all have too many of the same riders. The fun for me it to see people happily cheering for 2nd rate sprinters and anytime one of there cheap riders gets into a break.

Don't kill the fun of using 2nd tier riders..

Edit (7500 was actually the best team, I would be fine with the 6500-6800 which would be the average)
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Jancouver said:
I dont think so, just look how many people have Gilbert, Cancellara etc. We could have a real teams, not just a bunch of no names hoping to have a break through season.

Again, fun is to have "real" teams with good riders no just a bunch of no names or forgotten dopers.

The next way of doing this is to have a real draft. Take 100 players, give them 7500 points and have them make a list of riders. (Draft order can be set based on this years results.) Then you go in rounds and very simple computer algo will assign the next (highest cost) available rider on your list to your team. That would assure that no two players have the same rider. :D

Really, even with 5000 points I would have a "real" team, probably more "real" than you would have at 10000. How many teams have close to 10000 CQ points? The main problem with why many people don't take these high points people is because they are not likely to improve upon their score. Also with such a high number of points you are forced to include higher priced riders, while it is much more fun to try and find steals and young riders you hope improve. Also I doubt many people have really chosen no-names, perhaps not the best known names, but most of the choices are known to most people
 
Barrus said:
Really, even with 5000 points I would have a "real" team, probably more "real" than you would have at 10000. How many teams have close to 10000 CQ points? The main problem with why many people don't take these high points people is because they are not likely to improve upon their score. Also with such a high number of points you are forced to include higher priced riders, while it is much more fun to try and find steals and young riders you hope improve. Also I doubt many people have really chosen no-names, perhaps not the best known names, but most of the choices are known to most people

At 10 000 points i would have chosen Ricco, so i am much better off this way :D
 
Jancouver said:
I dont think so, just look how many people have Gilbert, Cancellara etc. We could have a real teams, not just a bunch of no names hoping to have a break through season.

There is nothing that would make me pick Gilbert of Cancellara for this game unless they somehow have a season where they only score like 6-700 points due to injury or something. There are enough manager games out there where riders are priced based on their inherent ability so I don't see the point of changing this game into a place where most of the top 20 in hte world are chosen.
 
kurtinsc said:
I like having the same number of riders... everyone with exactly 25 or 30.

See, and I don't, I like the flexibility. And I like the amount of points we have, although the game would also be fun at 5000 or 10000.

So maybe we should all just talk about it in November when Hugo wants our feedback, and we have a season behind us to inform us of the positives and negatives.

The doper thing should have some thought though, because CQ points machine Valverde coming back next year would have a huge impact on the game, depending on what was 'charged' for him. I, at least, will probably mull on it for 10 months...
 
I think a good amount of points would be whatever a mid-level team is getting on average, either counting only Pro Tour teams (in which case, using 2010 as reference, we'd be talking of 6597-6808 points, represented by Lotto and Caisse) or including both PT and Pro Conti teams (so it'd be roughly 4500-5000 points).
 
skidmark said:
The doper thing should have some thought though, because CQ points machine Valverde coming back next year would have a huge impact on the game, depending on what was 'charged' for him. I, at least, will probably mull on it for 10 months...

Not neccesarily. The way it works now, Valverde costs 2500 as he should and nobody buys him. The way it should be. Simple and no need to think much on it.

And if for some bizzare reason we were to change it and Piti suddenly costs a lot less, well then everyone has him which spols the game a bit as it measn those doing national teams cant really judge themselves against others.
 
The reason 33 riders at 7500 points is a good idea and shouldnt be changed is because it works out at an average of 227 per rider.

This is what your average pro tour domestique scores in a season.

Any higher and you have teams including more proven winners and less which riders who havent performed before, will this year.

Any lower and your favouring the lesser races and having teams packed with young riders who havent scored yet. I know some would have it purely orientated around young riders, but over 22s are a big part of cycling too.

At 227 per rider, you can have a few higher scoring riders, a few lower scoring riders and a few medium scoring domestiques.

Perfect.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Seeing as you are one of the main cheerleaders for the Tour of California, I dont see what your problem is with "no names" and "forgotten dopers".

I wouldnt say that I'm one of the main cheerleaders at the same time I live in California and I do ride with many of the guys on those (mostly) American teams participating in this race. How many Pros does show up at your weekly hammerfest? Do you even ride?
 
ingsve said:
There is nothing that would make me pick Gilbert of Cancellara for this game unless they somehow have a season where they only score like 6-700 points due to injury or something. There are enough manager games out there where riders are priced based on their inherent ability so I don't see the point of changing this game into a place where most of the top 20 in hte world are chosen.

Exactly. Upping the total to 10000 (or lowering the max rider count as I suggest) isn't going to create a situation where everyone has Valverde, Gilbert, Canc, etc...because of the way this game is organized. You want to pick riders that are likely to improve their totals. As it is now, with a 33 rider max it averages out to 227 a rider and lowering the rider count to 25 or raising the team points to 10000 would make the average about 300 per rider. Everyone's not going to suddenly have a team chock full of the same 800+ riders. I really don't think it would make the teams much more similar, and honestly they don't look very similar to me this year.
 
Jancouver said:
I wouldnt say that I'm one of the main cheerleaders at the same time I live in California and I do ride with many of the guys on those (mostly) American teams participating in this race. How many Pros does show up at your weekly hammerfest? Do you even ride?

Well if your going to complain about comments like that dont go round calling the likes of Soler, Gerrans, Cobo, Duarte, Bos, Feillu, Deignen etc, "no names".
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
1
0
Visit site
Looking at Farrar on CQ. He made a jump in 2009 to 1434, from 354 in 2008. So he would have been one of the picks of the season back then! +1080

A couple of others I've just found:

Baden Cooke, 124 in 2001, 1012 in 2002, +888
And then, the daddy of all jumps surely - Cunego, 2260 in 2004, from just 244 in 2003 :D

Any other huge jumps people have spotted, from previous years? Non-dopers only I think though ;)
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Well if your going to complain about comments like that dont go round calling the likes of Soler, Gerrans, Cobo, Duarte, Bos, Feillu, Deignen etc, "no names".

And you don't even write them correctly when you're chastising someone about calling them "no-names" :p

(I kid, I kid)
 
The Hitch said:
Not neccesarily. The way it works now, Valverde costs 2500 as he should and nobody buys him. The way it should be. Simple and no need to think much on it.

And if for some bizzare reason we were to change it and Piti suddenly costs a lot less, well then everyone has him which spols the game a bit as it measn those doing national teams cant really judge themselves against others.

As I mentioned before I like the idea of taking the last full season's points and subtracting a percentage for returning dopers. No one comes back from 1 or 2 years and picks up right where they left off that first season back. Sure, Valverde at 2500 and no one takes him. At 1500-1600, people will at least consider and some might even bite. I want as many riders as possible to be considered by the players as it adds more intrigue and diversity, especially in a game where the biggest names in the sport aren't as likely to be chosen.
 
will10 said:
Looking at Farrar on CQ. He made a jump in 2009 to 1434, from 354 in 2008. So he would have been one of the picks of the season back then! +1080

A couple of others I've just found:

Baden Cooke, 124 in 2001, 1012 in 2002, +888
And then, the daddy of all jumps surely - Cunego, 2260 in 2004, from just 244 in 2003 :D

Any other huge jumps people have spotted, from previous years? Non-dopers only I think though ;)

EBH from 487 to 1616 between 08 and 09 was 1129 points for example.
 
jaylew said:
As I mentioned before I like the idea of taking the last full season's points and subtracting a percentage for returning dopers. No one comes back from 1 or 2 years and picks up right where they left off that first season back. Sure, Valverde at 2500 and no one takes him. At 1500-1600, people will at least consider and some might even bite. I want as many riders as possible to be considered by the players as it adds more intrigue and diversity, especially in a game where the biggest names in the sport aren't as likely to be chosen.

Personally I would prefer to ban all returning cheaters altogether. For one reason because I have personal problems with putting them on my team but that's just me. A more serious reason would be that I wouldn't want to inflate the support for a rider like that by having people cheer for them because they're a good points grabber for them. It also makes the game more intersting since they are such obvious choices for people that removing them would remove a good portion of the obvious picks which I think is a good thing.
 

TRENDING THREADS