Frank, I praise your efforts on the staff side (badly needed), but I think that the supplier system is the single most urgent problem we have on competetiveness.
Yes, not being able to renovate staff was bad for the game. Having guys designing cars when they are 80 yrs old makes no sense.
But the tiered system for works teams makes the same teams win all the time. Works could be an advantage but maybe not that big, or we could have more balanced suppliers, less predictable from year to year
Just my 5 cents.
Nice to see you back
Thanks for the info. Suppliers and sponsors is something I want to tackle. But so is the race script. So I'll see if there are things that I can change. Ideas are always welcome.
Some greater supplier variance would be nice - basically the linear pathway on engines is an MCR works deal. Crystspeed having a technology breakthrough would really throw things around especially if the MCR deals are locked in for seasons. Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda, Renault have all had spells at the top and the bottom. As things stand you build up to the best supplier and the others become redundant as the hierarchy never changes.
Good point. Just like Honda started out at the bottom and then moved up the ranks. This is something that isn't in the game. But there could be financing simulation to simulate more resources going to a supplier and thus them increasing in the ranks. It's quite scripted right now.
The scouting changes will be interesting; I have been concentrating almost exclusively on scouting new talent for the last few seasons for the last few seasons but it's been fruitless so far - like finding a needle in a haystack. I've found a couple of people with potential but staff very rarely improve (I take screenshots of staff and compare them after a couple of seasons and there is nearly never any improvement) so I'm glad to see the ability to train staff is coming. One change I would really like to see is the option for "driver development" focus in testing weeks; not just setup and car development options. It would be nice if the head scout/coach provided regular updates on the improvement in drivers and staff levels in the news feed.
That's exactly why I wanted to fix that first. There was a very low chance of finding a good person, also because too few teams were actually doing scouting.
The idea is nice on the driver development, it's just another factor for me to take into account to prevent persons from becoming too good at a too young age. Also, it needs to be done in a way so that people don't do a million laps.
Also, you'll be glad to know that person skills history is coming back (albeit with a gap).
I am concerned the scout reports are often inaccurate with regards to potential. I have had drivers from youth levels until their mid-20s whose potential is 50-60, so I release them. Then someone else signs them and a few seasons later, an example being Paul Schlupp (who is now ranked 26) and, from my junior team, Michael Chávez Chepeda - who never showed the potential of the ability he has now and he raced for me for four seasons.
This has been massively changed. It can still happen that scout teams are wrong at the start, but if you do enough reports then you'll always get the same result. The difference is in how fast you get to that result.
I think the issue of teams sitting on established talent could be improved by limiting who junior teams can hire. I (and many others) have staff in my junior team who would be valuable to a div1 team. If there was a limit on the experience level of staff a junior team could hire (say 2/5) then more of the higher ranked names will be available. That's not to say a really good inexperienced staff member cannot be found, so there will still be some variance, but with top staff the junior teams are currently optimised operations and new div3 players struggle to compete. Obviously a staff member gains experience, when a threshold is reached the manager can be notified that staff member x has decided they need a new challenge and becomes immediately available for other teams to sign, regardless of contract. This, plus if junior teams can train staff more often than senior teams (as should be their job as junior teams), will help build the talent pool in the game.
When persons want to leave has also been changed, and junior teams play a factor in deciding whether they want to move on. So I would give that a try now and we can re-evaluate later on.
I am not in favour of the buyout clause idea; it will only favour the richest players in a staff member can be bought out at anytime during their contract. If staff members will not be very lenent regarding having a buyout clause it is pointless having a "no buyout" option - what employee would choose not to have that option if teams are basically forced to accept contract demands.
Yes, true. Especially in the beginning. But, you could also say that a Red Bull (loaded with cash) team in Pitwall right now would have no means of becoming competitive.
Whether a person wants a buy out clause also depends on the loyalty & ambitious character traits. And on the power position that the person currently has. It has also been changed in the beta so that you can be more than 1 level of (2 now) what he is requesting. So if you make the rest of the contract strong enough, then he may accept a no buy out (but it will come at an extra cost for the "host" team).
I hope the "loyalty" stat plays a more significant part going forwards. Drivers (and going forwards staff members) who teams whose contracts have been honoured correctly and where teams have made investment in their training do deserve an element of loyalty. That doesn't mean a designer (for example) who is reaching a high skill level but is still a junior member of staff can't decide to leave and spread their wings, but there needs to be a balance rather than just a buyout free-for-all. There are real world examples - Ferarri offered Newey far more than he gets at Red Bull but he's happy there and stayed. Whereas Dan Fallows learnt from Newey but hit a ceiling of career progression at Red Bull, so moved to the head role at Aston Martin.
For staff maybe the "schedule" stat (I am not sure what it means or affects) could be replaced by "competetiveness", so staff who are not very competitive are happy staying in lower performing teams for the challenge (linked to motivation stat). Conversley, staff who are highly competitve might decide after a season or two the team cannot compete at a level they are happy with and want to leave. Maybe a thought for contracts is setting a first season goal; if a team fails to meet it the contract is weakened.
This is on my to do list, to make an inventory of where character traits play a difference and to list that, because honestly it's all over the place in the code and I'm not always 100% sure my self anymore (very honest answer). Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to start over and to redefine.
I would like to get to a Newey & Fallows situation, but the reality is that it's not easy to tweak and finetune to get there.
Phil, I agree on the suppliers. Maybe the system could be like the parts system, where once in a while they get reseted. And, then any one of them could get massively different ratings, while, perhaps converging a bit over the seasons until a new reset. That could be a start. I could even see potential to have teams coalitions on engine development, it would be fun, but perhaps too political and too ambitious. Let s keep it simple
This is what sort of happens with the stats. It just doesn't happen very often thanks to the way it has been set up. But I like the idea of political influence in a rules reset to try to force that reset (which is in the code, but just almost never happens).
Always open to ideas (but perhaps a different topic would be better to discuss supplier changes).
One question is would the new buyout clauses create wage inflation?
Normally it shouldn't. The current dynamics in place should keep that on a limit. We used to have heavy contract inflation, and that system fixed it back then.
Staff don't have an ambition stat, as far as I can see anyway. Only drivers have it.
Each person has character traits, also staff. That will be added in the beta.
The only other thing I'd say about scouting is it would be nice to have the points value with the rest on the page header. As it is if I don't keep checking the scouting page I hit the maximum and lose out.
I added them to the top.
There are pros and cons though; the cons being added complexity to the game, albeit more likely established managers are most likely to do it so, by knowing the game well already, are better placed to cope with it. The pros are potentially closing the gaps between the engines, ultimately leading to convergence and greater competition. Someone prepared to embark on a long term project can pick the worst engine, sign a works contract, and invest to bring it up to the top - the benefit being paying far less for the engine and having a long term contract.
I like that idea. I think we need to work it out more (probably in a different topic). But some questions come to play: how many engine suppliers should there be? In house engine development has been a long requested feature as well, etc.
Also, I do think there should be drawbacks from being linked as a works team to a supplier. McLaren has gotten out of it for example, it had its reasons, Williams and BMW ditto. One could be that you are forced to go public (which would not be realistic). Or that you are required to keep a certain driver in position #1. That you would lose the top sponsor slot for a not ideal money deal. Etc. We can't just have that to be the best solution without drawback, because otherwise everyone would just go for it.
i) Scouting should be much simpler. Part of the hassle is how hard it was to scout, now with the points it has improved, but still, it has become too complicated with all the nuances for potential and stats. To be honest I really never fully understood the system, and I have been here for a long time, have discussed it with Diogo Rebelo on our long talks about the game and we never got to a good conclusion on this topic.
I really hope you'll have a different idea soon on the new system. But if not, let me know of course.
ii) Suppliers: I believe that in F1, right now, the biggest advantage of being a works team is the financial help and the fit to the chassis that you have from the knowledge of the engine, probably also the Gearbox and other related parts - correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore, I would say that there should be a fine-tuning stat for the chassis on the engine, and works teams shouldn't have much trouble with that. Additionally, there should be up and comers engine suppliers that shuffle things from season to season. Another feature, not very F1-like but still interesting, could be players allying to help financially (or it could be a points system) to support one engine supplier to get better in the future.
I think teams teaming up is a great thing. It already is a thing, but it's not very visible. The number of km that is done is calculated each week in the development of the supplier part. There is an upper limit to that though (which I stand by).
To reply to some of the questions that have been raised by Jean Spiteri in the beta chat (before the database wipe):
Have also noticed the Academy feature. Interesting. Just a question, without fully understanding the feature of course, but should the Academy settings remain available to change even after you scouted in that week?
In the week update the academy ratings are updated.
Can you advise what determines the maximum scout points limit? Is it facilities? Or common to all teams?
The maximum limit is always 500 points. How fast points are added depend on the professionalism (now network) rating of the scouting team.
Is the one-time full scouting (academy feature) scouting amongst the current persons in the game or creating new ones?
This creates new persons.
Is it correct that both the Approachable stats are marked as a tick when convincing an own team person to be approachable?
When a person is convinced, then the approachable stat becomes a tick. It could be that he becomes only approachable for his own team, or for both. It depends on the motivation.
Will the team who loses the staff member get paid the buy out clause?
Yes, the team is paid out the sum of the old, then nullified, contract.
With the new buy out clauses, what will happen to persons who are 'Allowed to leave immediately'? Will the buy out fee be charged?
Allowed to leave immediately sets the buy out to 0,-.
