Before I put my detailed take on the discussion, here's a simple question. Do you want the best manager to be successful, or do you want the manager who got lucky to be successful?
The proposed 1st change & 2nd change puts game success more firmly into the "luck" category.
Quote: “Valverde” “Horner” “Nairo”
Aged 22-23 Valverde won Espana stages, finished 3rd overall in a team where he was the only top cyclist, and finished 2nd in the WC RR. His best was aged 25-30, cycling actually missed his best years because he was suspended because he was a drug cheat. He’s still around because he’s managed his decline, and because RL top cyclists are a rare commodity. The next oldest top cyclist is around 5 years younger, and is also a convicted drug cheat. In fact, if you look at the cyclists who’ve made it at the top pass 35, almost all of them have records for being drug cheats.
Of course we have Horner as an exception, an unknown who jumped up at age 41 to win Espana. He won simply because the best weren’t there, and the few who were there were exhausted after a hard season, attempting Tour-Espana duo, whilst he was fresh.
Here’s a simple fact. This idea of some cyclists having natural long youth is false. The maximum physical peak for everybody is 25-29 years of age. This is a biological defined set programmed limit, only extendable by drug use. There’s no biological maximum physical peak in the 30s. Those who've managed careers into the mid-30s have done so from managing their decline, choosing when to race, and/or drug use.
And for a current Valverde-like CFF example:
Richard Levin. Where are his old competitors? Where is Benny, who was a better born cyclist & supposedly high talent? Where are TeaMetal cyclists? Gone. Where is Freddy Butcher who was ranked 2.84av higher than Levin aged 20? You’re saying Freddy Butcher who. He never made it to the top, largely or completely because of weaker training. Heck, Levin wasn’t even my best original cyclist. My initial hopes were on several cyclists with better born stats than Levin & Trump. But they were too weak to make it. Yet it was Levin who got multiple WC & NT wins, who still has many track records, and who is still performing at age 35. 5th place in the only Div1 flat TT he’s raced so far (11th in a hills TT). 2nd last season aged 34. And track records aged 33. It’s only as this season has gone on that he’s really declined. Why? Because he was Valverde quality, and his decline was managed better than his competitors. Richard Levin is the game’s Valverde, here right now, not because of some fake age luck, but because of better management.
Being able to select youth cyclists both with initial stats & their development potential is management. Being able to manage your cyclists as they age so they can perform late into their careers is management. To remove this, and make it a hidden per season & hidden aging luck attributes is removing the management part in favour of a lottery of those who have these precise excels on every single stage yet don’t want to manage their cyclists (which makes their complaints a laugh).
What these proposals represent, is the wish for some to abuse their cyclists, and for it not to matter due to luck; whilst managing your cyclists gets punished. This is supposed to be a management game, and choosing smart, both with youth cyclists & managing older cyclists is a key part of what management is about. To say that management doesn’t matter, to make it that players can abuse their cyclists & they’ll get better outcomes because of sheer luck is taking away from the management part, making it more a lottery, and removing the incentive to properly manage cyclists from 19 years because you’d be screwed from simple hidden luck in favour of those who don’t want to manage & treat their cyclists well.
If this change is done because of the fake narrative that older managers have better knowledge on training (which btw doesn’t require “excel-like knowledge), then surely all race stage attributes should be randomised, because this is where the “excel-like players” have the true unfair advantage.
