That makes sense and explains it well and agree with you. Probably will need to extend this a bit then.

I still have the schedule on my work computer and I am happy to explore it again at the end of the season.

If you go back through these threads you'll see I posted up explanations of the changes I made.
I believe I was quite thorough in balancing distances - to age groups - ratings - and Group races.
It isn't perfect but I am happy in the yacht I am in that has sailed up along side of perfection.

Really - large fields in G1's isn't an issue...especially on a track like Ascot. The big issues are the big fields on the AW tracks that are in the hcp races. That's where we see 8 or 10 horses get butchered on the first bend.

What we need....or more to the point, Gray needs, is the flexibility to make small tweaks to the schedule during the season - like splitting legs of the Betfred Championship into two races instead of 28 runners at Wolverhampton. In fact I believe we see the same issues each season in the same races so maybe we can make permanent changes to these races?

Let's not make changes now - group up new ideas and see if they can or need to be implemented next season.

It is impossible to make any changes now. This is for next season. With regards splitting races. It can be done but would require new functioanlity in the code as a lot of stuff would have to be moved in teh database. It may be better to move the races elsewhere

As I mentioned - we seemed to see the same issues regarding race sizes each season and they are usually in the same races. I think we need to make room to split those races into two legs.
Plus moving the window to after week 6 will keep the group race sizes down at Ascot as no-one will be entering them to gain a rating.

I'll look into the schedule soon and coming up with some week 7 ideas that can be bantered around in the forums.

The only way to stop so called elite trainers is to limit play time
it will always be the case that there will be several tiers of trainers no matter
what you do.

A whole host of changes were made some pretty huge changes and it still does
not seem to be enough

in truth alot of trainers have adapted and remained to flourish some of it down to having
more time to play some down to clever & precise breeding I think if your looking for a league
were everyone finishes with 20 winners then you need to set league mode to a restricted
time I can guarantee thats the only way you will stop any domination by a handful of trainers.

My comments above are not confrontational god knows things got badly out of hand last time
I'm not particularly proud of the way I acted in that time and hold my hands up to that.

It's not about restricting 'elite trainers'.

That's why multiple G1's over the same distance on the same week was implemented to stretch the more successful trainers stables and If a mid ranked trainer was smart - they would hold off on nominating and see if one of those races were weaker than the others and nominate their horse into that race.

To restrict game time would be impossible and would destroy the league if there was an attempt to implement it.

We've seen enough so far this season that the changes to the league were correct and have been successful.

Having time to ponder over the issue, I don't think we need to set minimums for Group 1 races. What is more important is the correct field size to track ratio and if need be a ballot system.
Also to point new trainers into entering their horses into suitable races. Stu is right on this issue.

We already have some G1 restrictions in the last week of the season - The Everest is an invitation race only, reserved for sprint G1 winners and the Miracle Mile which is another similar race in Australia could be added with the same restrictions which also has a stupidly high prizemoney pool.

All of the above sounds right and fair

Agree time restriction would kill the league I was not suggesting it I was just
pointing out that it would be the only way to get rid of an elite set of trainers

think you have made some very good positive suggestions Doug as has Leon

Think you guys are overreacting, schedule just needs a few tweaks, moving upload window a week, moving a couple of maidens.

Play time limit would make no difference, I'm sure you would still breed better horses than me given the same time limit. Reducing stable size from 25 to 20 might work, but then you might get some races with only a few entries.

No need for stable reductions - we do need field limits on some tracks.

Group races should have a maximum amount of runners, 16 sounds about right, bringing in a minimum rating for G1 would probably bring the runners down to about that anyway. 90 is a bit high tho, probably 80/85 would be better. As a lower trainer i only put my horses in Group races if there are no other races at all for them, like this week.

i am totally against stable reductions tho, that is just not needed.

Nothing to do with elite trainers Paul, this is about wanting to stop "joe average" from entering a G1 with a 60 rated horse, nothing more.

I thought everyone was content with the changes made last season ?

Agree that some tweaks are required, but outright stopping smaller trainers entering a true G1 because they do not have good enough horses is plain wrong! the game is for everyone and the G1's are part of it.

No problems capping the field and ONE entry & ballot, how is this not the compromise ?

I voted against it, I didn't like the idea of a two tier league where only the best trainers could have a runner in the big group 1 races. It's a league for everyone.

Why did this even get raised in the first place? What’s the problem we are trying to fix with G1’s?

I figured it was to stop the entry of 45 rated horses who can only possibly achieve a bad outcome, they either get rated higher than you would like, or they get in the way and nobble a genuine contender. Though as has been said somewhere you could just say s*it happens on that and the trainer otherwise only hurts his own horse.

I voted 90 but I would on reflection reduce that. But really I don’t think this is required at all, no need to go ripping the schedule up again, or splitting things either and god forbid that two league idea gets flighted again........as if hiding the bars and removing the exports was not balancing enough?

[quote="Githyanki"]Why did this even get raised in the first place? What’s the problem we are trying to fix with G1’s?

/quote]

It is always good to improve things and have discussions about them. It is all for next season

After looking at this in more detail. The schedule does not need major changes. There is only 1 problem distance 10f. Everything else is working really well. So with some small tweaks to the schedule the 10f races can operate as well as all the other distances do. It is the distance getting very oversubscribed at all levels, from g1's to handicaps. Look at 10f field from g1's to handicaps to see this. And normally because there are so few 10f races in relatiion to other distances. It is one of the most popular distances to upload and this should be taken into account. If some extra races at around this distance get added I think the schedule will be perfect.

Sprints and miles shouldn't be touched and 12f and above seem ok as well.

I think if we all can't agree on something then it's a bad idea, we agreed with changing the window but we are miles apart on this. This is not a league problem but a game problem, the bends need tightening up.