- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Price inflation
I'm already struggling. One of the cheap fillers in my purist team has pulled out and there are so few cheap riders on the roster that I had to downgrade one of my mid-league riders to accommodate the change.
If any more cheap riders drop out then I'll be screwed. Or seriously compromised.
I need a bigger budget. My human rights are being violated. I'm going to call Strasbourg.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- cyclisto 3 min 22 sec ago
Problem solved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-VRw0t2Xms
- Brauchsel 3 min 39 sec ago
The French term for 'chapeau' is 'hat'.
- giff77 7 min 25 sec ago
Yet the NFL sees huge incidences of concussions and the aftermath years down the line. I firmly believe that the use of headgear in this particular...
- OnYerBike 59 min 39 sec ago
I was suprised by such a low score for a Feedback Sports product, so I read both the review and FBS' responses with interest. My two cents:...
- brooksby 59 min 56 sec ago
True. My "annoying front end creaking" turned out to be the seat post (needed regreasing and then the clamp tightened up)....
- Bernard Augustus 1 hour 3 min ago
I have mixed feeling on this....
- David9694 1 hour 26 min ago
Welcome to The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism
- Sniffer 1 hour 46 min ago
My experience is that you can buy a new bike to the value of the scheme limit after the 12 month period ends, regardless of the extended hire...
- brooksby 2 hours 5 min ago
You see? That's what can happen if you blindly follow your satnav's instructions…
Add new comment
127 comments
Here, as an example, are a select group of riders from Stage 15 that I would like to see metrics on, that is, without clicking on each rider individually:
Each rider is followed by the % of teams that picked them (from the system) and an estimate of what I believe is what % of teams actually could have chosen them from actively managed teams (non- Purist) teams for Stage 15.
Chris Froome 59% ... 100%
Nairo Quintana 32% ... 44%
Alberto Contador 16% ... 34%
Alejandro Valverde 2% ... 0%
Mikel Nieve 8% ... 12%
Andy Schleck 37% ... 37%
I mean, maybe these metrics can be added to the Rankings page, or the Stage Scores page...
Or maybe it could have a page all for itself!
Maybe call it the "Rider Popularity" page (instead of just having the 'Popular' Designation in the game interface), a page where you could have the riders ranked by their popularity and you could easily see the 'Most Popular Rider' in the last stage of the Competition!
Or, for Purist designated teams, you could have a page for the 'Most Popular Riders' for Purist teams up the very next day after a Competition starts!
I think that (!) would be a cool idea! 
Or maybe just post it on the Forum?...
But I think the calculation of % of teams that pick a team should be tweaked. I don't know how to do it, but I wish I did, so I could offer solutions instead of just requests. Thanks!
Dave, I know there are way many more important things than answering my frivolous questions about this, but, to be clear, when I look at the "Picked by" section, which tells you what % of teams picked that rider for the last stage, it would be cool for it to refer to the actively managed teams.
I wish I could tell easily so I looked at the figures (below).
I looked at the "This competition: Tour de France" league. I counted a total of 6,330 teams.
519 of those teams have a score of 0. When I click on the score (0) of those teams, all the ones that I click on seem to have a blank roster. They seem to have no riders on the team selected, no points scored. So maybe those teams should be out of the calculation...
The same thing happens when I look at the scores for individual stages. Stage 9, for example, has 366 teams scoring 0 points and none of the ones that scored a 0 that I clicked on have any riders in them. Stage 13 has 389 teams scoring 0 and I couldn't find any that scored 0 that I could see any riders in the team.
Could it be that these are teams that registered for a previous competition that didn't register specifically for the Tour de France? Maybe they too should be out of the calculation.
So, just to be clear, if they got a score of 0, does that mean that they were given a score and that, therefore, they are considered by the system as a team that has been selected and confirmed and there fore part of the calculation?
Do they, therefore, count as teams that did not (!), for example, pick Cavendish for Stage 13? or Froome for Stage 15?
I'm just wondering why the riders on these teams can't be seen.
So, are these teams that score 0 and I can't see any riders in them part of the equation to determine the % of teams that had a particular rider on their team? :?...
Dave has said, its based on all teams given a score which means legally selected teams. Empty teams don't count.
I think what enrique's saying is that there will be registered players who have not(for whatever reason)picked a team for a particular competition.
Is the popularity percentage for a rider worked out by selections of that rider divided by ALL registered teams or selections of that rider divided by all legally selected teams?
(Is that what you mean enrique?)
Incidentally,I think it would be impossible to differentiate between actively managed teams and inactive teams once a selection IS made at stage 1 of a competition as the 'system' would need to be intuitive enough to work out who's playing purist,who's banking transfers etc.
Don't forget that the 52% also includes all purist teams too. I think the 52% figure seems reasonable, just on the forum there were a few teams without Cav and plenty of purist teams won't have him too.
Expecting 90% of all teams to have Cav is unrealistic.
52% for cav seems low to you? so more than half the teams in the whole game picking cav is low?
it's based on all teams given a score for a stage; ie those that have selected and confirmed a team
I think everyone's teams will be rather different today but by the mountains next week they will be more similar as we see who really is in form and has table points. A lot of possible options today. Gone for 3 expensive ones, 3 around 10 credits mainly for tomorrow, and 3 cheapos.
..wonder why Contador is classified as a climber and not a GC..absolutely O.T..I know
Down to how his fantasy points have been accumulated, so he has accumulated alot of points, but not enough have come in one of the stage types by which the GC riders are decided
Oh, great!
I've got to disagree enrique.....there's more scope for cheap riders to pick up points in the mountains than in the sprints.
Look at today's break for example
Hoogerland 6.2(former polka dot wearer and renowned suicide merchant)
Riblon 8.4(and he's a previous stage winner here)
Molard 7.8(was in a long break during the Dauphine and sa a wildcard rider probably likely to break at some stage)
Marino 4.9(wildcard rider and therefore also likely to break at some stage)
those 4 total 27.3 credits leaving 122.7 for 5 other picks.....and I wouldn't mind betting it would be similar throughout the mountain stages and that's without considering the obvious mountain bargains such as Schleck,Gadret,Serpa,Cunego and Navarro.
if the team choices were really as restricted and prescriptive as you think, enrique, forcing everyone to pick the same team as you, then i'd expect to see two things:
1) a big pile of people at the top with the same number of points
2) you amongst them
which of those do we see?
Well, Dave you do have a point!
But! Let me clarify to make sure I present this in the same context that I view it. When I say the team choices are restricted, I was talking about the quantity of quality riders you can put on your team. For the most part, in the sprints you can bring in guys like Kittel and Lobato and Van Poppel. In the medium mountains you can bring in Gavazzi and Impey and Lagutin. Which means you can have 5 and up to 6 riders to get you points. When the mountains come, then you have to (!) play the big guns, and you have very little flexibility, making the teams more alike. Especially since there are so few (!) 3.0 riders and so many (!) riders in the 40, or close to (!) 40 range!
So I'm saying that the rider valuations and the restricted budget make most (!) people able to pick only 4 riders and, in the Tour, and, especially in the mountains (!) I would bet that those team will look a lot (!) alike, but not in the medium mountains or the flat stages, just (!) in the mountains! And, just like everyone else, I like the mountains the most (!), so why should we have to have such similar teams in the mountains?... Tweak it, baby, tweak it!
Next year, of course! 
I just think that your point makes sense, but I'm talking about the similarity of the teams in the mountains, therefore the timing of this rant when we come to the mountains (!). If I was talking about the whole (!) race, obviously, you'd be right (!). But I hope you get my point!
well i'll be sure to let you know if they make it up to 99%, but for reference here's their current popularity:
Froome 36%
Contador 7%
Noval 11%
El Fares 19%
Bono 21%
Fischer 29%
Mederel 19%
Froome and Contador will be a lot more popular today, the others won't really change. certainly not everyone will be going with froome *and* contador. I'm not, for a start.
Dude, you're right, but (!), what I'm saying is that, using your numbers for arguments sake, not that I would go that low, but then you'd be able to put Froome, Contador Quintana and then (!), at 15 points each, for arguments sake (!), I could also have Fuglsang, Rodriguez, Valverde, etc...
The diversity would come from being able to bring in other (!) riders AFTER (!) you bring in the ones everybody will too!
Restrict it to 4 riders, a lot of teams will look the same, open it up, you get more diversity with more divergent opinions (!)
Thanks for the stats, Dave...
Crap, I forgot to check for Saturday, so, I guess once the stage has passed, you only have info for that last stage, right? So there's no way to know how many people had Froome and Contador on Saturday, right?
Here I go again...
This is going to sound stupid, so I thought, why not? 
These totals seem to me pretty low... And I've always asked to see the number (!) of teams rather than the % of teams, so (!) 
I have a lingering doubt, Dave... When the percentage of teams that have chosen a particular rider is shown (as above!) is it based on all teams registered on the database OR (!) on the teams that are paricipating actively in the Tour de France competition?
I ask because I get the impression that at some point, maybe last year, I did not participate in a particular competition, yet I was pretty sure some of the riders I had for the previous competition were still accumulating points. So, I started wondering, what if Dave, or the system, is actually reporting on ALL (!) teams in the database, not just those who are actively participating in the Tour de France? That (!) would explain why those figures seem low (!), but, maybe I'm wrong (!)
So, in essence, how does the % of teams that picked a rider get counted? Based on all registered teams? Or based on those that are active in the competition? And how do you identify that? Do you track that transfers were made to a team in the period between the Tour de Suisse and the Tour? Meaning someone had made changes to their roster and therefore deliberately set up a team for the Tour de France? Just curious...
For example today, Cavendish was on 52% of the teams, Greipel was on 22%, Sagan was on 29%, Kittel was on 34%... and those totals just seem pretty low! Of course I may be wrong... As usual!
But I guess I'm curious how you track which teams are active in the Tour vs. that those that may be inactive, those that were not set up to play the Tour, etc... For example I imagine that going to the 'Tour de France' page to select a team could mark that team as 'registered', if you will, for the Tour de France competition, but, do the metrics you present take that into account? Or do they just look at ALL (!) registered teams for ALL (!) competitions? I'm dying to know (!) 
Thanks! 
So, basically how many teams are actually playing the Tour? vs. how many teams are registered? And the % of teams that picked a rider is based on which of the 2?... Thanks!
There are other viable options to Froome,Contador and Quintana(I hope they prove viable anyway in purist terms).
Jeez Enrique
If Froome Contador and Quintana were 15 points each, "everyone" would still pick them!
What can Road CC do? Damned if they do, damned if they don't (in your eyes anyway)
For someone that "loves" the game, you don't show it.
'twas ever and so. you've never been able to afford more than 4 or 5 stars. that's kind of the point.
probably the balance has shifted a bit too far, there aren't quite enough cheap riders to choose from this year. I might tweak things for the upcoming tours, but to be honest it's less likely to be a problem then, there'll be more of the second-tier riders in the rosters. Everyone brings their A game to the Tour.
'twas ever and so. no matter what the rules are, the people who do well will end up having similar teams, because they're picking the riders who get the highest scores. i've lost count of the number of times i've explained that. if you made all the riders 3 credits and you could pick who you like, it'd still hold true. isn't that obvious?
The trick is getting to that team first and thus getting a lead and forcing everyone else to gamble.
Well, all I'm saying is that if we're forced to choose only 4 riders it's a little bit boring and that because they're only 4 then it's more than likely that those teams will look a lot (!) alike (!)
I mean, I'd be surprised tomorrow if 99% of the teams don't have Froome, Contador, Noval, El Fares, Bono, Fischer and Mederel. I'm just saying that it's hard to get excited when you know the teams will be so similar. It's no fun!
I'm glad you said
I'm not saying I don't understand that it was NOT (!)
I know that
I mean, what does it matter that you've
If no matter how many times you explain it people get forced into picking such similar teams?
I imagine that tomorrow everybody will have Froome, Contador, Quintana and the same 4 or 5 domestiques. How anti-climactic is that? So, yeah, tweak it, baby, tweak it!
So no (!) I don't (!) believe that
Hell, no! Not at all (!) That's exactly the opposite of what I think would happen (!). I believe you'd have a huge (!) diversity of teams! At least more than what we have now only being able to fit in 4 riders that will give you a chance to keep up to speed (!)... It's matter of perspective, I guess... My guess is tomorrow everyone will have Froome, Quintana and Contador and then have to choose between Valverde, Rodriguez and Moreno... But if everyone had any rider they wanted at 3.0, can you imagine how different the teams would be?...
The more you restrict our choices, the more the teams will look alike (!)!
Now granted, I don't believe this is happening by design, and I'm not saying do something about it right now, but just insisting on changing something next year, the rider valuations, the budget, or something (!) just to make it more fun (!)
But, honestly (!) I love (!) the game (!)
I agree that the biggest change to the game this year has been 10 point penalty transfers.
It's added a whole new dimension to picking your team allowing you to dig yourself out of a hole or take tactical penalties as a kind of gamble to try and increase your score.
Last year, with penalty transfers costing 20 points, there was absolutely no reason to make them because you were always going to lose out.
This year though it's a much more balanced decision with a fair amount of risk involved but a reasonable pay off if you get it right.
i think the switch from 20 to 10 pts for a penalty transfer is the biggest game-changer to be honest......I'm finding the prices fine.....there are plenty of decent 5-15 credit climbers and or break artists out there.
Dan
I know it is difficult and I really am not moaning as of course it's the same for everyone etc etc.
However Moser has been around a bit this year and has more than 10 times Lutsenko's points. Race winner, stage winner, almost everyone will have heard of him, Frankly I didn't even know who this other guy was, yet the difference in price is less than 1/2. Does this make Moser cheap or Lutsenko expensive? Does it matter, almost definitely not, but given the plethora of cheap guys that were available in the past, I think the game has effectively changed.
Maybe that is for the better.
I hope so.
Good luck!
I know!
I know... Ironically, because of the lack of budget space.. We went from 175 points to 150... And the 'price inflation', though the game has changed, it oddly feels, at least for the Tour de France, like the game as it stood in 2011, where you had to have the 1 GC, 1KM, 1PC, 2 ARs and 5 DSs... By the time you hade made your choices, you probably had no space for anything but 3.0 riders on your team!
How ironic! 
Tomorrow's stage scores will be funny! I think they've been on the low side of things because most people have had to stick 4 or 5 3.0 to 3.7 riders in there to fit their choices... And then a glut of teams end up looking alike! I think we should revise the values for the riders next year for the Tour just to make the teams a little more flexible and different one from the other!... It'd be nice to put in another climber in there... I can't imagine anyone will have any more than 4 or 5 'Stars' for tomorrow! 
I mean, how many times have we seen the same 3.0 riders so 'Popular' in the game? Everybody (!) has to (!) take them!
You know... going from 25 points for the stage winner to 35 also affected things... cause you can't really afford not to go to the stage winner and get set back that many points... Funny how it all works out!
Which we all love! I remember Bouhani fondly at his 3.0 days!
Lutsenko hasn't raced much so yes scored 35 points in not many stages meaning his per-stage points averages is relatively high. The same probably applies to Levaret and Amador. Lavaret in particular, because he's pro-conti level, will have raced little in the game during the last 12 months.
The game has a minimum number of stages in place for the average so there is some smoothing involved and it tries to avoid spikes for riders who've not competed much but in the end there are always going to be riders like that and, in fairness, that should be the case.
If a new rider, someone like Bouhanni last year, bursts onto the scene not having raced any fantasy races, his value should spike because he's bagging points and he started out at a relatively low price. Forcing his price down artificially makes him cheaper than how his talent should be valued and you end up with the opposite situation. Riders being undervalued.
Betancur is the prime example this season....3.0 credits earlier in the season.
Something a little awry with the weightings meethinks?
A Lutsenko 11.3, 35 points ranked 548th
A Amadour 14.1, 118 points ranked 118th
M Moser 19.6, 417 points ranked 41st
G Levaret 7.7 12 points ranked 753rd
Two of these may be bargains but... it doesn't make much sense.
it is possible to like both real cycling *and* fantasy cycling, bikeboy. you're not required to choose one or the other...
Pages