| Author |
Topic: Changes Needed for Elite |
97 replies
|
|
|
|
#61 posted Jul 30th 2020, 18:27:47
|
Quote
|
I'm an exceedingly young manager in GPRO to be commenting on this, but as I found this topic and read it, I wanted to give my opinion.
This is a difficult game. It's meant to be. And that difficulty is one of the things that makes it so good.
Over the past 3 seasons, I've been working on long-term strategies with my equally inexperienced teammates, and, well, the best of those strategies involve a lot of racing in order to not win.
Put simply, promotion to higher levels comes with incredible costs compared to the lower levels and I understand this is why promotion sponsors were introduced in the first place.
As a balance, that's not quite right, but I don't have any suggestion there. It's a tough one because you want to keep that difficulty and the long-term nature of the game intact.
However, I really like the suggestion to expire promotion sponsors if they're not activated when the manager relegates. It just doesn't make much sense to me that you can hang on to sponsors without using them for so long.
And on another note:
Quote ( Andreas Ramann @ July 28th 2020,16:17:22 ) Edit: Quote ( Malcolm Christiansen @ July 28th 2020,16:03:44 ) An idea could be mid tier tires give a mini sponsorship deal for those in elite to take them. This could be actually quite interesting addition, for example every tyre compound has a certain objective for the season, if you complete it, you get a prize for it at the end of the season. For example (these examples are only for Elite at the moment) Badyear: Finish 2 races on points when there has been at least 1 rain lap in the race. Contimental: Get 4 points finishes in a season. Dunnolop: Have an average race finishing position 15th. Bridgerock: Finish all races in top 10. And so on.
I really like this. Would make tyre choice even more interesting and provide a little mini-game, too. I see no real negative here, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 posted Jul 30th 2020, 19:13:37
|
Quote
|
While people here talk about how "wrong" it is to pick cheap tyres in Elite, has anyone really looked at what the results are from that.
Quote ( Alex Holland @ July 28th 2020,03:19:06 ) Elite managers are taking Pip's, Avonns or Yoko's for tires. The absolute worst tires to race on and surely a quest to LOSE, not win in Elite. Sure it is here so managers can build up money before falling back to Master
Let's take a look at last seasons managers relegating from Elite with the mentioned Tyres
After 3 races
Manager 1: 35th on Master groups money list
Manager 2: 20th on Master groups money list
Manager 3: 15th on Master groups money list
Manager 4: 24th on Master groups money list
Manager 5: 24th on Master groups money list
Manager 6: 39th on Master groups money list
Manager 7: 29th on Master groups money list
Not exactly a money hoarding machine, is it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 posted Jul 30th 2020, 19:26:06
|
Quote
|
Many of the suggestions revolve around penalizing Pipis demotions, but that doesn't address the root of the problem. Penalizing the approach won't magically give managers in Elite the resources to be competitive instead. Instead, what we would achieve is further enforcing the going to Amateur route after an Elite failure.
There is a very easy experiment anybody can do with publicly available data. At the end of the season, gather the expenditures data from Elite, Master and Pro, particularly for the middle and a bit lower than middle field (the bottom expenditures are usually from Pipis pickers or managers who skipped races). Then calculate the average Q+R and other earnings for such positions. The breaking even point would be achieved if the sponsorship earning compensates the deficit.
What you will find is there isn't such a thing. A manager doing average for the field will go red finances wise. Mind you, we aren't talking about being average overall, but instead an Elite manager doing average for the Elite field will struggle and ultimately fail. Same goes for Master and Pro. As such, the consequences are obvious: only managers doing better (actually way better) than par of the field will succeed.
Now, why does that happen? Many reasons. Cash wise because the difference between top and bottom places is very big. Also a retainer must face 15 managers each season arriving with fresh promo sponsors, artificially inflating available resources (averages are averages, but 63% of the managers won't have fresh promo sponsors). But also, and probably mainly, because of the normal sponsorship difference between the front and middle of the pack guys (let alone back of the pack) due to how sponsorship mechanics work.
For illustration, let's say the top 12-ish get in average double sponsorship advance per race than the rest of the field. That means there are 12 managers getting double number of sponsors than the remaining 28. However, that's only the tip of the iceberg: let's say there is a manager getting average 20th, par of the field. At any given moment let's assume he starts a negotiation. The odds of facing a rival with better sponsorship advance aren't 50/50 despite he's doing average: since the top 12 are cycling sponsorship at double his rate, and skipping the math details, in fact in average there are less than 35% odds he's facing a defeatable rival. Of course, the odds are better by proper reading of the sponsorship market, but same goes, to an even better effect, for a frontrunner. Thus, not only the middle and bottom of the table are getting way lower sponsorship advance, but way higher risk of negotiating for nothing (or being forced to pursue the worthless sponsors).
This is why I wouldn't support penalization of Pipis demotions, which would only punish the only alternative many managers have. Instead, I'd handle the causes themselves: there aren't simply enough resources in Pro and above, and this goes worse with increased financial requirements due to PHA enhanced, the asymmetric resources inflation produced by promo sponsors and, for Pro and Master, the Yokos' nerf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 posted Jul 30th 2020, 20:39:11
|
Quote
|
If anything, I'm greatly uninformed about all dynamics in the upper tiers. Yet, the common factors that many before have referred to are time on the one end and money on the other ...
Could it be an idea to do the following regards promoting/relegating:
01x Elite | 40 managers | 1 Champion | 10 relegating
05x MAS | 40 managers | 2 promoting per group = 10 + 0 wild cards | 75 relegating = 15 per group
25x PRO | 40 managers | 3 promoting per group = 75 + 0 wild cards | 375 relegating = 15 per group
90x AMA | 40 managers | 4 promoting per group = 360 + 15 wild cards | 900 relegating = 10 per group
150 ROO | 40-50 man. | 5 promoting per group = 750 + 150 wild cards
The change isn't that big, it's actually pretty close to as is today. However, especially in Elite there's a better chance for survival, thus buying time for a much needed build up ... Not sure if going down on the total numbers of AMA and ROO groups is possible, but it's kinda besides the possible relief that can be achieved in Elite. Also in Master there's a higher need to do well if you would like to promote, less dodging of such promotion could be a nice side effect ...
Anyways, as said, I'm happy living without the deeper knowledge of working the higher tiers (yet), but could this be a part of the solution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 posted Jul 31st 2020, 11:43:41
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ July 30th 2020,19:26:06 ) Many of the suggestions revolve around penalizing Pipis demotions, but that doesn't address the root of the problem. Penalizing the approach won't magically give managers in Elite the resources to be competitive instead. Instead, what we would achieve is further enforcing the going to Amateur route after an Elite failure.
Yup. To expand on this, but also critique your conclusions a bit..
Many comments in this thread boil down to balancing the advantage of players in different situations:
- New promoters to a group vs retainers
- Relegaters to a group vs retainers
New promoters having an advantage over retainers is vital for the game in my view. It creates extra inter-division churn. One necessary result is needing to do significantly better than your group average to survive for a long time (as Edwin talks about).
The opposite - retainers having an advantage over promoters - would make it virtually impossible to rise through the divisions against incumbent advantage to reach your deserved tier. Off-putting for new players. Suggestions to increase resources for the midfield, penalise promoters, or reduce numbers promoting & relegating (forcing more costly fights for promotion spots), would push the game that way.
It may seem like we can go a bit this way and still have a promoter's advantage but I think in Elite the advantage is more fragile than it might appear, mainly because of the large difference in driver performance between only 2 seasons from Master OA limits and 3 or more, and the sparseness of the driver market.
Slightly less important, in my opinion relegaters should have a small advantage over retainers as a sort of counter-balance to the churn. That way they have a window of opportunity to arrest their descent before dealing with retainer's disadvantage. So as Edwin already said proposals to change that by limiting options to plan for relegation or penalising those players aren't so fun either.
Quote ( Malcolm Christiansen @ July 30th 2020,17:41:39 ) My own take was the issue was people in elite not caring about results much since they are on the demotion train anyway.
I think this is partly an illusion. Results are certainly less important than at the front for several reasons, you also don't want to accidentally retain, and controlling driver stats might be an aim alongside finances, but otherwise they're generally doing sensible strategies. Trying to reach 90% and afford some testing etc. At least that's my impression without first-hand experience. It's been a while since anyone in Elite smoked out an entire season or skipped all the races and then started playing again. Pips are picked because they're cheap not because people don't care.
If you find yourself the only one on pips with a 60OA driver of course you're probably resigned to 40th, give or take start crashers. This season with 11 there should be more to play for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 posted Jul 31st 2020, 15:53:38
|
Quote
|
So do you think there is an issue with people in elite?
I don't think you assumed otherwise but since I think it is unclear when I say my take I mean my take from the conversation. My manager history shows I am not an expert in elite. Either from a retainer or a relegation stand point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 posted Jul 31st 2020, 17:31:30
|
Quote
|
I don't think there's an issue no, but your take on it does seem a reasonable explanation for why some see it as an issue.
It was said somewhere above managers on pips aren't racing, and obviously they're not racing to score points, but the same can be said for anyone on a OBP strategy ~15 races of the season. In fact almost everyone not pushing for a championship at some point in the season is pacing themselves. Not caring about results however goes a bit further still and says pip users aren't even really managing. They're just waiting to relegate. (Possibly I'm reading more into what you wrote than intended). I can see why that would wind people up, but I don't think it's the case.
|
|
|
|
Oh im certain pipi managers are managing their accounts. Driver training and finances mostly. Zero input into race results, this season could be different with 11 pipis though as there is actually some money to be had. 5 places is around 1m. So a pipi finishing 29th rather than 40th is 2.2m is what just over 37million. I mean that's handy amount to invest in staff/facilities, testing etc. Any half decent manager will go back to Master and dominate/dictate their own season by finishing 4th-6th. Hope no-one actually relegates in promotion slots then dominate the season after. Take the promo sponsor. Some will attempt to stay and others will rinse and repeat if they have extended themselves in Master like most managers do.
Its just a different way of playing. Do I like it? Not really. It takes away from the essence of racing.
Roland is right however. 90% managers are mostly pushing in certain races. This will be become more prevalent in the coming seasons. But will then that turn around so much that it'll actually become harder to retain because you have 10-15 managers pushing hard at certain races. Combine that with the usual 2-5 managers pushing for promotion and it becomes difficult for driver training managers to retain arguably.
The game is just very different. I love the planning aspect of PHA etc. It takes away from the same old part management and financial management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 posted Jul 31st 2020, 17:46:30
|
Quote
|
In general i agree with Kotov point of view.
Maybe i would start with sponsoors.
in a shark tank only the strongest eat if the food is low.
If there is food for everyone, the weakest have time to strengthen themselves.
But this abundant food will not come out of the shark tank.
If a manager descended to a lower level he would lose all elite sponsors.....or at least big taxes?!
It would increase Elite competitiveness while protecting the balance between promotion and relegation?!
|
|
|
|
the sponsor system has needed an overhaul for about 40 seasons. But what does it get amended to?
Do we all get the chance at similar amounts of cash related to tier depending on driver, TD and facilities and remove the heavy race result dependency? You're then playing on a slightly even playing field.
The promotion sponsor is a great feature. We're just seeing it being used in an unconventional way. However it does take up a current slot. Is that harmful enough.
Gone are the days of 10 sponsors and 5 on board in ammy. 200m cash and then try and get to elite. I think we can all agree this was awful gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 posted Jul 31st 2020, 19:47:08
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Roland Postle @ July 31st 2020,11:43:41 ) Yup. To expand on this, but also critique your conclusions a bit..
I'm not sure if my post conveyed the impression I'm opposing mobility between ranks. If so, that's far from my intention. If anything, I'm most likely on my way down to Amateur due to the long term package damage after my failed Elite retention, so what I'm proposing, if at least partially implemented, would be a self-inflicted harm.
The balance retainers/newcomers isn't binary. It happens in a spectrum, with some stuff favoring retainers and some stuff favoring newcomers, more or less like this:
Favoring retainers:
- Better driver cycle (i.e. a manager can secure the retention early in the season with a prepared driver ending his contract, hire and develop a new one with plenty of time to make him performing enough for next season, rinse and repeat. A newcomer must retain with an OA capped driver instead). In Elite this is even more important due to the high performance difference between a top and and average driver, pace and energy wise.
- Better TD availability: This is almost exclusive to Elite due to no OA cap, with most good TDs being available late in the season, so a newcomer is saddled with underwhelming TDs during most of their first Elite season.
- Better cars, due to superior development than the newcomers', although this one is less marked with PHA matching enhanced (Andrea, for instance, arrived in Elite last season with the best car).
Favoring newcomers:
- Higher expenditures in the higher leagues: Anything that increase expenditures is a bonus for newcomers, because the more the retainers bleed their resources, the more the problems they will have facing newcomers with high assets. In that aspect, PHA enhanced and the non-negligible 7M/season Yokos increase (for Pro and Master) favor newcomers.
- Harder consistency: Consistency is the main driver of income, so higher number of available tyres and PHA enhanced will harm middle of the pack guys, again favoring newcomers.
- Higher asset availability in the low leagues or in the way up to the higher leagues: The easy cash availability in Amateur plus the promo sponsors available for somebody rising up the ranks add pressure on retainers.
Since the S30s we have had 4 gameplay mechanics change moving the balance towards newcomers (PHA matching, wider tyre availability, tyre costs increase, promo sponsors) and basically nothing countering that to help longer term viability. Maybe the energy feature, which conflates with driver advantage, but the energy feature also harms consistency (either one Spa train or pace train, the latter harming consistency until the driver becomes quite better).
From this, in my opinion whereas middle of the pack guys in Elite have a hard time, ultimately forcing them to controlled demotions at best or nasty unplanned demotions at worst, in fact middle of the pack guys in Pro and Master have an even harder time in relative terms, because some of the advantages of Elite retainers are smaller for Pro and Master retainers (driver, TD and car advantage, mainly, due to OA caps, and lower car development in those leagues). Also Pro and Master are closer to the Amateur richness, so they are subject to more finances pressure than Elite retainers, who are only facing managers who bled many resources arriving there in the first place.
Finally, I'm not proposing anything directly harmful for long term journeys Ammy to Elite (with the exception of Promo sponsors, which in my opinion are too unbalanced) despite the historic gameplay changes have consistently skewed the balance harming midtable guys. Instead, improving resource availability via Q+R earnings and changing the sponsorship mechanics for less skewed ones would be for everybody, retainers and newcomers, and a big help to counter the issue I mentioned in a previous post: above Amateur, every league is a bleeding resources one, easily testable with publicly available data. This would help not only middle and bottom of the pack guys in Elite, but in every league as well.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ July 31st 2020,19:47:08 ) every league is a bleeding resources one, easily testable with publicly available data
You keep saying this, but to avoid it would imply newcomers from the lower division are arriving with the same level of resources relegaters are leaving with, wouldn't it? Relegaters presumably have fewer resources than retainers (otherwise why are they relegating), so newcomers would also have fewer resources than retainers and we're in the anti-mobility situation. I don't think you're intentionally advocating that consequence, but it seems an unavoidable result of what you are advocating for.
I agree in lower divisions the balance may not be right. I can only speak with much confidence about Elite. We should also acknowledge we're talking very broad generalities. Some of the advantage/disadvantage may not be distributed very equitably, some may be easier or harder to work around or enhance or throw away with good or bad management.
A reasonable endpoint is the proportion of relegaters who have just one season in the group versus those who've lasted 2 or more. Comparing S35 and S76 I can see the proportion for Elite is roughly 50:50 in both seasons after all the game changes (I'm not going to type exact figures because I counted 17 relegaters in S35 somehow and don't want to do it again :p). Having much more than half the relegation slots filled with newcomers would seem to imply too much advantage for retainers.
|
|
|
|
After reading the content in the thread by the game's greats and having been watching the Elite group for many years often having friends there who share their experience, I tend to agree with a lot of sentiment about sponsors. Adding more sponsors is a logical thing because almost everyone at the top is hoarding the good ones to max out their slots and have a constant flow of income. The mid-pack & lower-mid-pack Elite runners are most times doomed to fail unless they catch a break in a very limited time frame. If sponsors were more accessible in Elite, they would be encouraged to continue and try to close the gap instead of thinking along the lines of "ok, I missed my small opportunity, random happened, or something else happened, now I have to relegate" ...
The impact of inflating the market with sponsors would create a way better competitive atmosphere in Elite in the long-term, in my opinion. When you are already in the 'safety net' of top 5 Elite players, it's a lot harder to see the problem than if you had a good package for competition but fell behind because all the sponsors were held in 80%-100% negotiations from the top contenders for many seasons.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Luke Frost @ August 1st 2020,05:36:49 ) Adding more sponsors is a logical thing because almost everyone at the top is hoarding the good ones to max out their slots and have a constant flow of income. The mid-pack & lower-mid-pack Elite runners are most times doomed to fail unless they catch a break in a very limited time frame. If sponsors were more accessible in Elite, they would be encouraged to continue and try to close the gap
This seems to correspond (could be combined) with another suggestion: Make sponsor progress go faster
That way those who would now already have 4-5 sponsors (slots full) would still have what they have, but those who struggle could catch up at least to some degree, those who currently have 0 sponsors could have the chance to have 1, or even 2
The point is that while the people at the top (currently) can get a sponsor in like 8-10 races, the ones in the other end can take 20-25 races to close a deal, and that's like 1,5 seasons. (a just promoted manager could relegate before having a chance to complete the negotiation)
It's not just about the amount of sponsors out there, it's also about the pace of the negotiations, as it should be quick enough to "overflow" the top runners active sponsors AND negotiation slots so they can no longer take all of the sponsors off the market.
This isn't so much an issue at lowest level, as the amount of negotiation is limited by facilities, but as the ladder is climbed the limitation starts to be less of an issue, and in Elite there is virtually no limit at all
The speeding up negotiations could be countered by adjusting the sponsors themselves (their wealth)
btw: I'm not talking about any massive change, just slight adjustment in speed and "flattening" the curve a bit and
Just an example (numbers made up to illustrate the idea, not actual figures)
IF current = 15% for winner, 4% for 40th, change to like 18% for winner, 8% for 40th (everything between adjusted accordingly)
Does that make sense at all ? Is it understandable ? (haven't slept in a while so I don't know)
|
|
|
|
I agree: increasing sponsors availability and speeding progress would help making the game more sustainable for mid packers in the higher levels, which is a good thing
First time Ive ever seem Mikko agree with a gameplay suggestion, a sign that it really is needed
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing progress speed would more likely have the opposite effect IMO - allowing those regularly on the elite podium to store up more (spare) sponsors, at the expense of the mid-pack.
Reasoning being: current top guy (based roughly on Mikko's numbers) gets 15% per race - mid pack gets say 9%. After 2 races it is 30 v 18 - mid-pack knows he's behind, but will probably stick for one more race (in case he gets a gain in that race - maybe someone has pushed from the midpack for 2 races to get ahead - and will grop back soon....?) After 3 races it's therefore 45 v 27 - so the midpack guy sees he's losing convincingly every race and quits that sponsor rather than waste progress on a losing effort. Top guy has an uncontested sponsor after just 3 races.....mid pack guy has wasted his time and progress.....
Now (just as an extreme example) if it went twice as quickly - so 30 v 18 after one race - the mid pack guy will see he is already 12% down - so might quit immediately. if he decides to stick around for a 2nd race (in case it was someone getting a good OBP race against him) - it now goes 60 v 36 - he will now quit after 2 races (if he is sensible - since he can't win - and is further down than in the first example!)
So now the top guy has an uncontested sponsor every 2 races, instead of every 3.......so increasing speed just makes the top guys even more dominant (gaining more sponsors, more quickly), but the mid pack guy still gets nothing.....
More sponsors available overall in elite will help though (there's only so many that the top guys can actually go for each race, which will give more (less contested) options for the mid-pack)
Levelling the progress between a top finish and a low / mid finish would also help (top guys don't get ahead as quickly, so more chance that one good / bad race may alter the pattern of a sponsor fight - and a mid pack guy might even win one occasionally!)
But changing progress numbers is unlikely to happen - as it would need to happen throughout the pyramid - which would probably skew the finances lower down even more.......
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Roland Postle @ August 1st 2020,05:26:27 ) You keep saying this, but to avoid it would imply newcomers from the lower division are arriving with the same level of resources relegaters are leaving with, wouldn't it?
This is correct, but I need to qualify my statement, because we aren't talking about small numbers here. I'm using my own numbers from S76 as an example. My average position last season was ranked 16th in Elite. My expenditures were ranked 17th (maybe a bit worse because I spent a lot before R17 as a retaining attempt unplanned budget, but I don't remember exact values and I only log historic data from retainers, which I wasn't part of). That implies hitting slightly better than par of the field in Q+R and sponsorship advance (consistency) vs. expenditures. Yet once I add all my Q+R earnings plus earned sponsorship (and for the latter, as I said in another post, I was successful, which is far from a certainty from a middle of the pack guy) and subtract my expenditures, it was a whooping 72M in the red. Granted, it should have been quite smaller because I had a DNF (but those happen, so they must be accounted for) and heavy R17 unplanned expenditures to try to retain or, if failed, to get some bucks for Master (facility automatic downgrading), so being moderate I estimate I should have run ~50M in the red, but also that would have put me lower in expenditures as well.
Had I gambled on another sponsor, the one I'd have lost vs. László, the figure increases to up to ~100M in the red (depending on if I'd have folded at some point and, in that case, if I could have picked a winning negotiation), and that was after a reduced shortlist obtained with deep sponsorship market reading, which in my opinion is too much to ask for a normal newcomer (web scraping, coding and data analysis).
This is what I try to convey when I mention the degree level of resources bleeding. We aren't talking about a newcomer losing a ton of assets because of having a 1st Elite season with higher expenditures than his relative income but about a case with, even if slightly, better bang for the buck than average. It is not surprising, tho, 9 of the managers who as opposed to me were able to retain, did so in such shape they deemed it better to voluntarily demote this season with Pipis. On a personal level it should annoy me: many of these guys retained but were left in such a bad shape they are immediately demoting with Pipis, but I can only understand them because gameplay wise they took the right decision.
Quote ( Roland Postle @ August 1st 2020,05:26:27 ) A reasonable endpoint is the proportion of relegaters who have just one season in the group versus those who've lasted 2 or more. Comparing S35 and S76 I can see the proportion for Elite is roughly 50:50 in both seasons after all the game changes
That metric is problematic as it is, because last season was a big anomaly: it started with a very good driver roster in Elite (in fact the best in my 21 seasons records), with 11 drivers at +220 OA at the start of the season (this season it was 6, for example), and weather was so skewed only 2 newcomers with BYs retained, both with the score of 1 single race result. Also dynamics have changed. Back in the day cases of managers accumulating resources in the low leagues were less frequent, probably precisely because back then that wasn't that effective. Finally, even if the metric was smoothed with more data, identical proportion of newcomers and +2 seasons demoters wouldn't imply the situation is the same. We can achieve the same metric even with very different newcomer/retainer advantage balance.
In fact, the long-ish tenures data in Elite comparison between back in the early 40s and now is very telling in that regards. In the early S40s comparison I couldn't find but 1 sample of lower leagues accumulators (Flor), and actually many of the long term tenurers from back then switched to Ammy hoarding in the recent past (Flor, Nazare. Rimantas, Neves, Leandro), the rest are either gone or are Roland, Ioannis or Christos. Instead, in the recent history close to 2/3 of the managers with long-ish tenures in Elite have been either Ammy hoarders or Master/Elite promo sponsors hoarders, the remaining ones being proven multiple times champions (Roland, Ioannis, Christos and Robert, and 2 of them are struggling). So more than proportion of managers having longer tenures in Elite, a more important piece of information to me is how did they achieve so. Back in the day (probably to a too big effect, which was why I proposed improvements to newcomers back then), it was too skewed favoring retainers, mainly in Elite. Nowadays it's the opposite: it's too skewed towards resources accumulation, favoring newcomers (more evident in Elite, but with bigger impact in Pro and Master).
To me, a more valid metric is data Vlad has direct access to, but we can qualitative evaluate as well: is retaining in Pro and above more expensive now than before? And are assets (with the exception of promo sponsors which are only for newcomers) harder to acquire? My own personal data, previously mentioned for Elite but extended to many Master seasons as well, and many gameplay changes, mentioned in another post, make me believe that's the case, and to a very high degree.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Robin Goodey @ August 1st 2020,14:30:21 ) Increasing progress speed would more likely have the opposite effect IMO - allowing those regularly on the elite podium to store up more (spare) sponsors, at the expense of the mid-pack.
But the negotiation slots are limited.
And remember, this idea hinges on the increase of available sponsors (let's say from ~80 to ~120 or ~150 (just as example figures)). This could lead to increased availability for mid-pack, as top guys could eventually get overflowed
The top guys could not "store" more sponsors than they have negotiation slots.
and the "added sponsors" could be poorer than current sponsors to counter the enhanced availability of sponsors. This could lead to top guys having similar sponsorship as they now do, and mid- to bottom guys having at least "some" sponsor, even a low paying one.
Also worth noting, this could have a positive effect on all levels, as on lower than elite tiers the limit for negotiation is less. (facility limits)
For example if a manger is in amateur and has 5 sponsors and all negotiation slots are used, the only way to get more is to promote to pro and get more negotiation slots.
And this "increased pace" would help the retaining pros to have a sponsor to counter the promoting ones (similar pattern to Pro-Master and Master-Elite)
Even when the topic title says "changes for Elite" this could work throughout the levels
Quote ( Robin Goodey @ August 1st 2020,14:30:21 ) But changing progress numbers is unlikely to happen - as it would need to happen throughout the pyramid - which would probably skew the finances lower down even more.......
Yes it would have to happen throughout the standings. The finances issue would "unskew" by reducing the wealth (payments) of sponsors.
To summarize in one sentence: Overflow the top, leaves some for the rest :)
|
|
|
|
Question: Do Promo sponsors provide a monetary amount that is a viable replacement for an Elite Sponsor obtained through negotiations? I've not had many but I've never had a Promo equal to negotiations value. Worse is they occupy the wrong spot on the car for the amount paid. (my rant)
If not, then Promo occupy a slot that a manager could being using to negotiate a better deal and is at a disadvantage in the Sponsor market. Agreed?
Restricting the yo-yo play to accumulate promo sponsors could be curtailed by not allowing Promo sponsors to be retained with a relegation. This would make sense, because you didn't earn the sponsor through negotiations and therefore should not benefit beyond in a lower tier of play. The Promo sponsor is 'bonus' for a good season and should stay as long as you retain. (a good season overall)
Maintaining in the same tier would not force acceptance of the Promo sponsor. Further, relegation during a Promo sponsor contract might result in half the money lleft on the contract to be paid as compensation for leaving their contract. That would be taxable. :)
.
|
|
|
|
There's a way to make them very worthwhile with proper planning, let's put it that way Roy ;)
|
|
|
|
Been reading all proposals as there is a chance I find myself in this situation next season.
But still did not read about slight OA limits change.
What would some OA limit increse bring to this discussion? Drivers, TDs or both? How much? I think Elite is the group whit more OA difference betwee promoters and top group managers.
Is it TD +121 market so sh*t that makes it too hard for elite newcomers to develop a car to suceed or not?
|
|
|
|
It used to be a problem in the S30s and early S40s, when there were a bunch of superb TDs in Elite, but it was attenuated when many TDs retired and further when some gameplay changes reduced the effectiveness of great pitstop times and cars (energy feature and PHA matching). In fact, back then I was vocal trying to improve the situation of newcomers in Elite; sadly the changes since then took the situation to the opposite extreme.
The best TDs are available late in the season, so newcomers usually must go through a long period with bad TDs or, in the few cases a good TD is dropped after R17, highly contested ones that go very expensive.
However, that's one of the few protections Elite retainers have nowadays, even if diminished. Changes improving access to better TDs for newcomers would reduce their handicap in that aspect, but newcomers have huge financial advantages, so that would only make the issue worse. I think that's what needs to be addressed first. As I mentioned in my previous post, hitting close to par of the field in Q+R vs. expenditures in Elite is a financial disaster (in my case, ~50M wallet reduction plus ~20M lower sponsorship intake vs. sponsorship burnt last season after getting the best sponsor outcome I could have -I could have as easily jumped a failed negotiation instead- and lower place in expenditures -17th- than in average position -16th-, for close to 70M effective losses). That's what causes the big turnover in Elite: newcomers arriving with very strong financial package, keeping around burning the assets until their reserves are gone, being replaced by new newcomers, rinse and repeat.
That doesn't only affect the conventional middle of the pack guys, but even temporary frontrunners struggle long term wise: the PRT guys who rocked in the 60s ended demoting, Jan as well, my teammate Nev whereas doing quite nicely still required a big initial wallet cushion (+150M arriving in Elite) to deal with the early problems, Yug decided to Pipis demote right after a championship, Gonzalo, Lee and Bert are Pipis demoting this season after some recent good seasons, it is possible Joaquim ends going down when the reserves are gone (still using 3 Master sponsors 3 seasons after leaving Master), and at the end of the day fighting for a championship since a long time ago requires either you being Roland or you bringing and burning a lot of lower leagues assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a few others have pointed out previously, there seems to be two things at play - one is that it is hard to retain in your first season of Elite, and another that it is hard to consolidate a midfield position and then challenge for the title after a few seasons. Unfortunately many ideas designed to solve one necessarily make the other worse.
The danger with the idea of stopping the Pipi (or Avonn/Yoko) strategy is that people who are good enough to promote will choose not to. I know we want everyone to “try to win” but when people take Pipis it’s because they know they can’t. Whereas we could end up with people choosing not to win when they CAN (i.e. in Master) - and not just from a 'timing' point of view - and that really would be against the spirit of the game.
The 'Pipi league' is usually a mix of those who arent feeling prepared from master and those who have run out of steam after a few seasons in Elite, all the time it's a mixture of those rather than every promoter taking Pipis I think it's fine.
I do think Sponsors is an area of the game which can be remarkably punishing - the warnings/cancellations are a bit random and sometimes surprisingly harsh, but accept that that could just be a gap in my knowledge rather than a game flaw. At first I thought Mikko's idea was a sound one, but Robin makes a good point about people dropping off sponsors when they are behind. Yes, guys at the top won't have many free slots, but are you really going to stay on a negotiation just in case?
My own suggestions would be the following: At each tier, an additional 2 sponsors are added to the group (you could reduce Rookie sponsor number if you want the 'base' number to be lower). So at Amateur a group has 2 more sponsors than a Rookie group, Pro = Ama + 2, Master = Pro + 2, Elite = Master + 2. The Elite group would have 8 more sponsors than it does now.
This ties in with the fact that at each tier players can negotiate with more sponsors, but it's obviously only a very marginal change so I don't believe it would have far reaching consequences. But it would mean a discrete change so that SOME (approx 20%) managers could benefit from these extra sponsors, but it's still subject to good planning and some good fortune. And those managers could be title challengers, midfielders or promoters. You're not trying to fix a specific issue and risk worsening something else in the process, and it's something which can be applied as a GPRO-wide development rather than a special rule for Elite which seems a bit artificial (and also fits in with the general GPRO spirit of things advancing slightly at each tier). Of course the biggest impact of such a change would be in Elite - which is kind of the point! - but even then it wouldn't be a sea change.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Twig Fahaji @ August 4th 2020,14:31:19 ) At first I thought Mikko's idea was a sound one, but Robin makes a good point about people dropping off sponsors when they are behind. Yes, guys at the top won't have many free slots, but are you really going to stay on a negotiation just in case?
No. But you wouldn't have to. And furthermore you might not even be negotiating with the same one to begin with.
Quote ( Twig Fahaji @ August 4th 2020,14:31:19 ) My own suggestions would be the following: At each tier, an additional 2 sponsors are added to the group (you could reduce Rookie sponsor number if you want the 'base' number to be lower). So at Amateur a group has 2 more sponsors than a Rookie group, Pro = Ama + 2, Master = Pro + 2, Elite = Master + 2. The Elite group would have 8 more sponsors than it does now.
Where as in my suggestion there would be ~60 more sponsors in Elite, ~40 more sponsors in every Master group, ~30 more sponsors in every Pro group (to start with, adjust later (could mean add even more) if necessary)
The point is that the mid to low finishing managers wouldn't necessarily even compete for the same sponsors as the front-runners, or at least the front-runners would have to concentrate their main efforts to top sponsors giving the midfield a better chance to land a sponsor (even a lower tier one).
there would be much more choice in sponsors.
The added sponsors could be the "poorer variety" (let's say max 4 finances) so they wouldn't even attract the front-runners quite so much, and the increase of sponsor amount could be compensated by decreasing the money sponsors pay. That should also keep the avg sponsor wealth from skyrocketing
The suggestion hinges on 3 main elements:
- slightly Increased negotiation speed
- increased amount of sponsors per group (bias on for example <= 4 bars)
- slight adjust (reduction) on how much money each finances bar represents (reduces wealth of all sponsors)
all 3 are designed to work together towards a goal (with the pre-existing facility negotiation limit), if even an element is missing it could potentially make the idea futile
The concept should work throughout the group structure (all levels) as the negotiation slots are limited by facility
|
|
|
|
A sponsor system dependent heavily in starts/results is a broken one. Leading to the situation we have now and explained by many.
Remove the progress based on results and make it based on driver, facilities, TD etc. Im not sure just putting dozens and dozens more sponsors into each tier is the answer. They'd be even more money in the game.
Where is this money tree? There has to be some sort of economy in GPRO. Money cant be exponentially for all.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ August 4th 2020,15:48:33 ) Remove the progress based on results and make it based on driver, facilities, TD etc. Great suggestion. :)
|
|
|
|
Also not have the limit being "one sponsor only sponsors one team". Is that a thing in real life, does anyone know? I'd imagine the sponsors want more exposure than just being on one small place on one little car in a field of thousands of cars in hundreds of races simultaneously.
Sure, rules for the sport would limit the amount a team is allowed to bring in with sponsors so as not to make the best cars untouchable, similar to how FIFA and football in Europe do it, but that isn't breached by a sponsor sponsoring more than one car.
|
|
|
|
I would say tone down sponsor progress based on results a bit, but not remove it.
If its all about driver/TD/facilities than newcomers wont be able to compete with retainers
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ August 4th 2020,15:48:33 ) Im not sure just putting dozens and dozens more sponsors into each tier is the answer. They'd be even more money in the game.
Where is this money tree? There has to be some sort of economy in GPRO. Money cant be exponentially for all.
as said, if even one component of the suggestion is neglected, it becomes futile
part of it is that the wealth (money payments) of the sponsors would be reduced to compensate the increase the amount of sponsors
Quote ( Diogo Abdalla @ August 4th 2020,16:02:29 ) I would say tone down sponsor progress based on results a bit, but not remove it.
The pace change would have that kind of effect
Here's some "concept art" to illustrate: (note: figures are not actual progress % data, they are only for presentation purposes)
"Percentual" races to complete
progress % Change negotiation
old new (new/old) old new
1st 14 16 1,143 7,14 6,25
10th 11,5 13,5 1,174 8,70 7,41
20th 9 11 1,222 11,11 9,09
30th 6,5 8,35 1,285 15,38 11,98
40th 4 5,45 1,363 25 18,35
as you see, even when the change of progress % is similar across the board, the difference between 1st and last of "races to complete" is reduced
re-reminder, do not take the "old" progresses as data, it's concept art
|
|
|
|
|
|
#90 posted Aug 20th 2020, 19:06:31
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ August 4th 2020,15:48:33 ) Where is this money tree? There has to be some sort of economy in GPRO. Money cant be exponentially for all. I hate the idea that its turning into a race just about money money money
|
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
