Finally, although this is a personal opinion, I don't agree a more homogeneous tyre share is a nice objective per se. BY are very unpopular because they are very bad bang for the buck, so only managers desperate for retention pick them. Reducing their prize because of their unpopularity will only favor easier retention for managers who shouldn't be retaining package wise, while dooming better managers to demotion because they weren't able to score with Dunnos/Yokos the easy 20-30 points a BY user can get in 2-3 rainy races.
To be fair though, if the price of Badyear was reduced making it a more attractive option for more managers, wouldn't those managers who then fail to retain by ignoring the threat posed by the change in Badyear be at least partially to blame themselves for not managing the situation better?
Risk assessment and adjusting to changing circumstances is after all part of what a management game should be about imo.
Quote ( Sven Bojkowski @ April 27th 2019,07:04:04 )
To be fair though, if the price of Badyear was reduced making it a more attractive option for more managers, wouldn't those managers who then fail to retain by ignoring the threat posed by the change in Badyear be at least partially to blame themselves for not managing the situation better?
Not necessarily, because resources are finite in the game. I'll put forward an example with BY and very optimistic expectations.
In a season with BY being very optimistic you can get average 10th in qualys and race. Thus, the total earnings, including decent team money, top 10 and very nice sponsorship accumulation in that season shouldn't surpass 350M. The expenditures discounting tyres should be in the 300M ballpark, using as benchmarking my usually lower than average replacement plan, lower than average driver and TD salaries and without including markets and facility improvement costs. Then the threshold for BYs would be ~3M/race just to break even. Anything more expensive than that or any worse than this speculated very good performance with BYs and you're bleeding resources.
As such, the comparison is unfair. In one corner we would have managers trying to make ends meet and in the other corner managers bleeding resources a couple of seasons but retaining by just filling numbers at any wet race, until running dry and finally demoting. BY being considerably more expensive than this very optimistic threshold is what prevents that situation from happening. The more attractive they are being made via lower cost (unless it becomes a no brainer cost, which should be cheaper than Dunnos), the more you end favoring dumping cash, because they would still be a bad choice for managers wanting to steadily survive.
Notice how this applies to Dunnos, by the way. 2.7M/race requires very top results in order to break even (in Master; in Pro they are full losses no matter what). Hence, nice tyres indeed, but beyond sustainability for most managers (and even those who might sustain them, would do better by picking Yokos).
See, this is why Yoko needs a credible alternative. If the game gives Avonn back its third dry bar, you at minimum give people a chance to run a tyre that is capable of performing well enough (very well in the cold) to make it a choice worth considering. It isn't now except to people who failed trying to promote the previous season (mainly in Pro) who have 5/6 races left with their driver and can cruise some points before he hits the door. Right now, there's little other reason to pick Avonn besides this circumstance - unless you enjoy self harm ofc.
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
