Point System Discussion

[Arrow.]

Here is the Point system i think we will go with, please give your feedback.

Example
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/407/pointsdt6.jpg

The bonus points will be out of all 96 drivers

[nesrulz]

:thumb:

[fujiwara]

Points ok, but i would like to purpose something: an extra point (1 point) for each time a racer complete 5 or 10 laps on the lead.

[DANDAMAN05]

hmm i see why you say that... i guess it gives more incentive to get to the front, therefore closer racing.

[speedway]

an extra point (1 point) for each time a racer complete 5 or 10 laps on the lead.

i guess it gives more incentive to get to the front

yes, of course, the only reason why i wasnt leading any races last season, is that there was no bonus for leading....screw those finish points if i dont get a bonus for leading some laps

seriously now: the guy who comes in first will "most likely" also have led throughout most of the race ...so he wouldnt only get most points for 1st pos, but also extra points for led laps and maybe even pole position and fastest lap...too much imo...hope you understand my point

also, why should someone in grid 2 (i assume you would want the rule here too) get more points (including laps-led-points) than a guy in grid1

arrow: point system looks good and fair :)

[r4ptor]

Something like top 5 or even 10 should share the amount of points gained with bottom 5-10 @ the higher grid, so that there is an overlap in the points system - I'm pretty sure the top field would be doing much better than bottom 5-10 @ higher grid - so it would IMO be more fair and motivating.

The current system is handicapping ppl too much only because of quali times (from where ppl will be sorted) - you can have "poor" quali, but be consistent at racing, while another driver could have "good" quali time, but do worse during the race.

[speedway]

i understand your point there r4ptor, it sure would suck to be doomed after a screwed up qualy if you know you could do much better (worst case: and finish the race 2minutes ahead everyone)....but on the other hand i think saying top 5/10 would be doing better than bottom 5/10 @ higher grid is a bit exaggerated

again: why should someone in a lower grid get the chance at more points than someone in a higher grid


another thing i thought about: what if a few racers of grid1/2 dont finish, should everybody in the lower grids be moved up so there are no point gaps, so e.g. 134points are always given away, in case of too many dropouts even to a guy in grid2

hope you understand what im trying to say here, hard to explain

[baSh0r]

good point system :)

+1:thumb:

[r4ptor]

The purposed system would allow a good hot lapper, but a shitty racer to always be ahead of lower grid no matter how bad that person performs during the race.

Thats not fair.

[PaulC2K]

Only thing i dont think is right is Svr1 last and Svr2 first getting the same points, it should be +2 for every place, no bonuses.

Im not a big fan of Bonus points unless they're fairly insignificant (as they are in the suggested scoring) so i have no arguements with that, however i still dont like the idea of the winner getting an extra 2 pts (+4) over 2nd, every position should be worth the same amount, why should there be an extra incentive for the win? Its a position just like every other IMO and if your not willing to challenge for an extra position and the resulting points then theres something not quite right there, and i hardly imagine an extra 2pts is going to be the dealbreaker that the cautious people say f*ck it im going for that extra 2pts!!!



Also, it might be an unpopular comment, im not entirely fond of the idea, but non-finishers, do they get 0pts? Cos really one non-finish thats totally out of your hands and you've got one hell of a problem clawing yourself back to more suitable surroundings. Whatever your teams 'level' scoring zero instead of the more likely amount is going to be an increadably heavy punishment for something out of your hands, and whether your fighting for top 5, mid-table or not last, to effectively lose half a race worth of points (2 drivers, 1 disco = half) is going to have a huge impact.
I dont think people who cant be arsed finishing a race deserve to ever take part in another round, let alone not score points, so i can appreciate there should be a reason not to say f*ck it and leave the server instead of completeing the race, however at the same time the punishment for losing connection is quite heavy.
Maybe they could receive half the points for last in that server, ie 65/33/1 so while you still lose out a lot, it isnt as heavy a penalty as it would be, and the people who decide to leave of their own doing also get significantly less points than they would if they carried on with the race.

Im only thinking in terms of what would happen if a driver did unfortunately disconnect and the best interest of close racing both in the servers and in the standings.

[anttt69]

Bonus points for fastest laps & pole position. Does this mean in every server? or just the fastest of sv1? i.e. the fastest of everyone

[Arrow.]

@Paul's Post
That is a good idea but then we could have people at any stage of the race. pull out there network cable "lost connection" and score easy points. :shrug:

Bonus points for fastest laps & pole position. Does this mean in every server? or just the fastest of sv1? i.e. the fastest of everyone

very good question, should of wrote that in the my post.
The bonus points will be out of all 96 drivers

[PaulC2K]

But if the worst you could score was 130pts for coming last, and anyone disconnecting or leaving of their own accord scored half that (65pts) why would you??

You wouldnt need to yank the network cable to fake disconnection, you'd get half points whatever the problem. Thing is, if you can score twice as many points just by carrying on and finishing the race, not only would get get double the disconnection points but you may make a few more if anyone else is unfortunate enough to lose connection.
If you genuinely lose connection you dont get zero, you get half the worse possible score.

So the unlucky people as well as the quitters would neither get zero or the points they could get if they finished, however they would get something which is more than they'd currently get.
I just think it'll take one disconnection from one of the top teams and they'll instantly be out of the series and probably have a slim chance of being top 5 let alone being #1 and most likely because of a disconnection rather than someone deciding to quit the race.

Personally i feel giving out half the worst points that could be scored from that server is going to be minor enough that its not unfair on people in lower divisions who could have been in the next server up scoring more points, its minor enough that it doesnt kill a teams chances of finishing in an accurate position to their performance and yet its significant enough to be a good reason not to volunterily leave midway through the race because 130pts for your teams cause is far better than 65, likewise for 66/33 though in the 3rd server its pretty insignificant (2/1), but if your a 3rd server team then every point will count because those are the margins your dealing with.

It punishes quiters harshly, but for the unfortunate disconnections it doesnt kick them firmly in the knackers like a 0 does.

[r4ptor]

I can't help but bringing this "issue" up again after having studied the stats. I would like the organizers to seriously re-consider to either redo the current scores from a new and more fair set of point table (it's not too late), or make a new one till next race.

Some facts from round 1:

Pool #2, [RTS] Clement finishes faster than 24 drivers from pool #1 (including 2 DNF drivers) - this would technically speaking put him @ 9th in pool #1.

Pool #3, TPC M.Karlsson finishes faster than 15 drivers on pool #2 - this would technically speaking put him @ 15th in pool #2.

This is only first race, but 3 servers to do the maths with - the overlap is too big to be a coincidence of what I was talking about, so please reconsider to do a far better and more fair point table - something like the 5-10 driver overlap that I suggested earlier.

Also, Does the points to be gained remain the same if the upper pool doesn't have a full grid? IMO any gap should be removed and even DNF should be counted in as a gap.

Like I said before, the qualify session is handicapping drivers/teams too much.

[tomylee]

The last of one server gets the same amount of points as the first of the other one, thats odd :really:

Why not giving for example the best cars of server 2 more points then the last of server one? To win on server 2 or 3 is a lot of work I would say but mostly the last on a server took more easy......maybe......just a thought :tilt:

[DeadWolfBones]

How about, say, a 16-car overlap in terms of points? i.e., 1st on server 2 gets the same points as the 17th place car on server 1 and 1st on server 3 gets the same as 17th on server 2?

Given the close and competitive times run throughout the field, this would somewhat make up for the lack of aptitude some guys have for hotlapping, but still put a premium on qualifying well.

[speedway]

i somehow reconsidered my attitude towards this as well...but making this fair for everybody will be extremely hard (imo this is still better than a prequal with same grids every race)

i still have concerns about overlap in points though..."why should i try to get on a higher grid if i can get more points in a lower grid where i would be faster than most other guys and" (not speaking of myself as i suck anyway :D )


r4ptor: you got a good point there with clement being faster than 24 drivers in grid1
....i think you forgot to consider that he had a free track throughout the whole race though, whereas people in grid1 had to fight their way through the pack, where it is hardly ever possible to run 100%....people are loosing up to 15 seconds on lap1 alone....so saying xyz did better than 20 racers on a higher grid isnt that easy

[r4ptor]

I didn't forget that. Thats why I added "technically" - but still 24 "technical" places is allot.

An overlap of 5-10 drivers would still be fair.

Edit: Oh and btw.. Leading the race doesn't necessarily mean you have the track for yourself (everything being fine) - it only takes a single car being up your.. uhm.. bum.. before you typically start losing time/building pressure/risk incidents etc.

And also coincidently, rcpilot finished 0:00.35secs behind [RTS] Clement - haven't watched the replay - only looked at the stats - I can see rcpilot gained "only" 2 positions - so I'm assuming hes been pushing Clement for quiet some time.

Ps. I'm not using the stats to say points should be like this and that - I'm using them as an example to make a point - couldn't do that last time which was why I stopped arguing.

[rcpilot]

I didn't forget that. Thats why I added "technically" - but still 24 "technical" places is allot.

An overlap of 5-10 drivers would still be fair.

Edit: Oh and btw.. Leading the race doesn't necessarily mean you have the track for yourself (everything being fine) - it only takes a single car being up your.. uhm.. bum.. before you typically start losing time/building pressure/risk incidents etc.

And also coincidently, rcpilot finished 0:00.35secs behind [RTS] Clement - haven't watched the replay - only looked at the stats - I can see rcpilot gained "only" 2 positions - so I'm assuming hes been pushing Clement for quiet some time.

Ps. I'm not using the stats to say points should be like this and that - I'm using them as an example to make a point - couldn't do that last time which was why I stopped arguing.

Within a few seconds the entire race with pretty much exactly matched paces, just accordioning based on small mistakes, hard to pressure a major mistake in an xrg. :P

[jasonmatthews]

I agree with raptor here, I had a bad qualy, kept hitting traffic. Fought like a bugger to get 2nd on server 3. Was faster than positions 20-32 on server above, but got less points. So basically the system as it stands is based almost purely on qualy. 20 mins with 32 other racers is quite hard IMO to get a clean lap. Alot to do with luck.

What I am saying is the guy who came last on the server above was obviously (looking at the stats), way below me & 1st position in racing, but scored more points just because of 0.01 (or something like that in qualy). This in my opinion is not fair. So I race well for 50 laps to get beaten on points by a guy who beat me by 0.01 (or something) in qualy, and who raced 50 rubbish laps in the race but had a better qualy.

I can see this is simply because of the current points system.

IMHO wouldn't it be fairer to have the points based on overall race time? This seems totally fair to me...:shrug:

[jmracing1]

Have i understand the pointsystem correct if i say:

I will get 66 points to drive 80 minutes and finally take the win on server 3:schwitz:, and i will get 66 points to drive to the last corner on the first lap and then get of the track for some coffee and peanuts on server 2, and wait for the leader to finish. Then turn the keys on and cruise to finish. :P

(i know im putting it too far, but you see my point right?)

I dont have a solusion on this, its hard/impossible to make it fair, but maybe its possible to go a step closer to a "fair" system.

And total time is not fair either, its different races on the servers and cant be compared with overall time.

[jasonmatthews]

Yes, as the system stands, I believe you can just do 1 lap on server 2 and get 66 points, and 50 laps on server 3 and still get 66 points (if you come 1st, which you did). Not fair at all IMO.

Edit: Am I right also in thinking that a DNF on server 2 still gets at least 66 points? If so, thats really bad.

And to those who say you should get half points for a DNF, what?????????

So do you know of any RL (or indeed sim) race that you score for crashing?

[LFSn00b]

imho it would be better to put the total times into a one huge list and sort them there like that(doesn't make sense) :P

[Kaw]

imho it would be better to put the total times into a one huge list and sort them there like that(doesn't make sense) :P

IMO you should stop posting.

[speedway]

IMO you should stop posting.

:D

yes lfsn00b...maybe we should all just do 50laps in single player mode and post an estimated total time here :rolleyes2 (smiley inserted as precaution since past experiences showed sarcasm and a international forum dont fit together :razz: )

edit: the total race time is a very inaccurate indicator of how good someone did in the race
edit2: since qualy is so important for this system, how about making it 10 minutes longer and maybe even split the field on all 4 bottserver (so everybody should get a chance to get clean laps in)
edit3: ....and of course make the race 10minutes shorter :)

[jasonmatthews]

Well I agree with all of those points speedway. But I still think the points system needs adjusting..

[Edgar]

edit: the total race time is a very inaccurate indicator of how good someone did in the race
edit2: since qualy is so important for this system, how about making it 10 minutes longer and maybe even split the field on all 4 bottserver (so everybody should get a chance to get clean laps in)
edit3: ....and of course make the race 10minutes shorter :)

+ 1 concerning total race time, comparisons between different pool is definitely ridiculous (sorry for being little bit aggressive in my first post, but look at replay and see the kind of battle we had in pool a, you'll understand what i mean :shrug:)

Besides qualifications are part of racing, a decent driver is supposed to be able to make a correct lap in 20 minutes, it's not a matter of luck, just training and concentration to make a good lap... May be we can add 10 minutes, but i'm not sure it would change anything.

Anyway, just wanted to add that we had a really great race yesterday, drivers were clean, fast and very close :thumb:
Imo, it proves that current system is nice :thumbsup:

[arco]

Agree with Edgar and speedway. You can't really compare the races going on in the different pools, as they have their own developments. Expanding the qualifying to 4 servers so drivers have a little more space is a good idea imo.

[StableX]

I thought the size of server last night was perfect and allowed for closer racing rather than a more spread field!

[speedway]

I thought the size of server last night was perfect and allowed for closer racing rather than a more spread field!

was talking about the qualify only....qual on 4servers - race on 3

[zeugnimod]

I thought the size of server last night was perfect and allowed for closer racing rather than a more spread field!

They were talking about qualifying where you probably dont really want close racing. :)


Oh, not only beaten on track, but also in the forums. :( :p

[r4ptor]

The issue with the point table would still remain no matter how clean hot laps everyone would be able to do - no matter how much qualifying is a part of the race, it doesn't define how well a driver is at racing.

IMO, and I'm sorry if I offend anyone, the upper pack on the lower pool deserves better scores than the lower pack at higher pool.

The numbers clearly shows that splitting up the point table too harsh like it is, is handicapping good racers - even when we know it can't be compared directly - which is why I'm not suggesting too big of an overlap.

What you (organizers) simply have done is to decide that this dude did that lap time, ergo doesn't he deserve better. You cut off every bit of opportunity because of a single lap.

Perhaps I should qualify for pool #1 and then end last on purpose and then laugh at the lower pool - thats what you're already doing IMO.

[arco]

Think of this: Put ALL the drivers in ONE pool. Now, how do you hand out the points? I don't think in such a scenario it would be any problem. The reason there's pools, is simply because there's a limit to how many drivers you can have on a server/track at the same time. If a driver easily wins a lower pool, and setting a better time than half the drivers in the pool above, doesn't mean he would beat all those drivers if he was in their pool. Instead of being in front with good space and opportunity to set good times, he could very well be with the back pack in the higher pool fighting really hard for positions, thus not being able to set good lap times.

[rcpilot]

Besides qualifications are part of racing, a decent driver is supposed to be able to make a correct lap in 20 minutes, it's not a matter of luck, just training and concentration to make a good lap... May be we can add 10 minutes, but i'm not sure it would change anything.
Look at any professional racing series and then tell me that some people aren't better at qualifying than racing and vice versa. Just with the closeness of the times the current system really is screwing people. I was off pole by 1 second and was 4th on server 2 and off server 1 by 1 tenth of a second with 3 people in between me and server 1, how many leagues do you see with that kind of gap? And do you really think I'm not capable of fighting with people on track that are within a few tenths of me in qualifying? (Which was a lot of people this race)

The only way to handle this semi-fairly if there was a change though would be to split the entire grid up into 3 servers with a similar distribution of times. (AKA, 1st goes to server 1, 2nd goes to server 2, 3rd goes to server 3, 4th goes to server 1, so on.) Although you could argue that this would be unfair to the people who qualified near the top who are now fighting a hotlapping battle against their closest competitors without any chance to fight them on the track.

[r4ptor]

I never said the point table should be like that (#1 from pool #2 being awarded for landing at 9th position @ pool #1 in this case).

I've always suggested to overlap with the lowest 5-10 drivers - because I DO believe that driver would have been better if we indeed had one big pool.

I also pointed out that Clement didn't have all road by him self - so even with rcpilot chasing him closely, they still ended far up there.

Besides you can't guarantee either that just because a driver didn't qualify better, that it would also mean he would be slower than upper pool no matter what.

I raised this way before round 1 - now we can see from the numbers what I was talking about, and I doubt round 2 etc will be much different.

I could also put it in another way: Since you're assuming this badly that leading drivers can't be faster than lower placed drivers from the upper pool, then whats the point in racing - why not just qualify, and end it there?!

I'm getting the feeling that you need a known fast driver, who for whatever unfortunate reason is unable to qualify for pool #1, gets stuck in lower pool, before you realize how bad this really is.

The overlap is a compromise because drivers are split into multiple servers - splitting points as you're doing, isn't in any way.

[PaulC2K]

This is largely nonsense, there is no such thing as a perfect system for multiple division racing, however nobody is being given a harder time than anyone else, some days you win, some days you lose, everyone is treated exactly the same.

If your crap at qualifying then maybe you should look into that before complaining its all about hotlapping.

If you hit traffic, maybe you should look at making room for yourself instead of expecting everyone to make room for you, the #3 server had 90% of the cars occupying 1/3 of the track, and then the brighter drivers waiting for the gaps to appear and using them to get clean laps. If you insist on being the first out with the other 20 other drivers thinking they can be the first out too, then dont be suprised when you find your not and instead bunched up with 19 others each thinking they're faster than the rest.

Comparing ANYTHING from one server to another is stupid, unless your in that server then its completely irrelevent how well someone did in another server, because had you been in the other server chances are you'd have been considerably slowed down just like those dozen drivers you've suddenly become faster than. People get taken out, battling drivers are slow drivers, if anyone really is faster than 10+ people then they should be wondering why they didnt qualify 10 places higher up in order to be in that position.


There shouldnt be overlapping of points between servers, every position should be worth the same amount, if its +2pts then thats how it should be, if you overlap then you devalue qualifying results by saying someone who qualified in a division worse deserves more points than someone who qualified better but finished last.

IIRC, you still have to complete 90% of the race in order to score points, doing 1 lap and having a cuppa dont cut the mustard, you either compete or you f*** off. I also understand if only 10 people finish in server 1, then 1st in server 2 scores for 11th place, disconnections or DNF places wont leave huge gaps in the points where 10 people didnt make the finish so theres a 20pt gap. Again, *IIRC*.


The *ONLY* thing i partly agree on is possibly splitting the qualifying over 4 servers, however from what i saw Admining #3 the majority of the drivers decided to pack up, only a small selection opted to find the spaces available on the track to try and put in consistant opponent free laps, considering the qual servers are evenly split for teams, no server is faster by intention, chances are similar could be said for other the servers.


Raptor:
If you qualify to race in server 1, you race with drivers in server 1, not server 2, 3 or any other.
If someone is 'unfortunate' enough to find themselves in a server they shouldnt really be in, then exactly how would YOU fix that?? 20min isnt 1 lap, around some of the biggest tracks thats a good 5+ laps, and the bigger the track the more spread, the smaller the track the tighter the packing but the more laps you get. If the person that qualifies fastest in #1 gets taken out at T1 then how fair is that? Sometimes life is f***ed up, you cant have perfect every single time, so picking holes from a select few results based on completely different circumstances isnt particularly fair. Im sure if you took the supposedly slower drivers and put them up against the people supposedly faster than on the whole order would be restored, however you throw in the odd accident, other people slowing you down and its bound to distort the truth.
I watched 'Turkey' spend about 10-15 laps trying to get into 2nd place in server #3, every time he attempted to pass a legitimate racing incident would slow him down and he'd lose ground on the leader, when he eventually got past he shot off into the distance and didnt look back. He lost about 30sec due to 1 driver over no more than 15 laps, so consider how it is with more drivers all battling away, how much time can quite easily be lost fighting or backing off because of something happening infront of you, someone crashing and having to avoid it, people taking each other out, people pitting due to damage... fact is, they're 2 *seperate* races.

There's no perfect solution, but using examples that are taken from completely different circumstances doesnt prove anything, instead its only misleading and inaccurate.

[rcpilot]

This is largely nonsense, there is no such thing as a perfect system for multiple division racing, however nobody is being given a harder time than anyone else, some days you win, some days you lose, everyone is treated exactly the same.

If your crap at qualifying then maybe you should look into that before complaining its all about hotlapping.
This would be all well and good if we were like a normal racing series in the real world where one group of people all race on one track at once. How is it fair in the slightest that if you're at an arbitrary split point you're guaranteed to get a minimum result or limited to a maximum result? And saying that someone should just get better at qualifying is an insult. In a normal situation race pace is monumentally important compared to qualifying pace, but this system devalues race pace.

[PaulC2K]

So show us a better alternative then, its that simple, you stick 90+ people into 1 race when the max is 1/3 that and guarantee fair results where everyone deserves to be where they are...

Thing is, it isnt possible and any complaining using misleading information to try and prove a point is just stupid.

As for whining about 'if your crap at qualifying' then maybe you shouldnt use your bias slant and use read into a comment only the way you wish to, the fact is if your BLAMING the series setup because your qualifying isnt as strong as others, and that is the SOLE reason your not racing with people your supposedly faster than, then maybe you should do something about it instead of whining. If qualifying is your weak spot, strenghten it, dont cry and expect rules to be bent around your weaknesses. You dont have people complaining races are too long because they're inconsistant drivers, so why is it acceptable for people who arent as good as others in qualifying to use their weakness as a series weakness.

Fit 'fair' around LFS's limits, make it fool-proof and faultless, where every result is just and fair for all... it should be fun, afterall, it only takes 1 person to take you out through no fault of your own and how is that fair?

[rcpilot]

So show us a better alternative then, its that simple, you stick 90+ people into 1 race when the max is 1/3 that and guarantee fair results where everyone deserves to be where they are...

Thing is, it isnt possible and any complaining using misleading information to try and prove a point is just stupid.

As for whining about 'if your crap at qualifying' then maybe you shouldnt use your bias slant and use read into a comment only the way you wish to, the fact is if your BLAMING the series setup because your qualifying isnt as strong as others, and that is the SOLE reason your not racing with people your supposedly faster than, then maybe you should do something about it instead of whining. If qualifying is your weak spot, strenghten it, dont cry and expect rules to be bent around your weaknesses. You dont have people complaining races are too long because they're inconsistant drivers, so why is it acceptable for people who arent as good as others in qualifying to use their weakness as a series weakness.

Fit 'fair' around LFS's limits, make it fool-proof and faultless, where every result is just and fair for all... it should be fun, afterall, it only takes 1 person to take you out through no fault of your own and how is that fair?

I haven't said a single thing about me being specifically bad at qualifying. :razz: My qualifying for this race was a bit weaker than normal due to lack of prep time, but my qualifying pace pretty much brackets my fast lap pace within a couple tenths under normal circumstances. And I honestly don't expect to be on anything but server 1 if I race another one of these races for my team and the system's still the same. I'm complaining about a system being wrong and you're resorting to personal attacks. How often do you qualify at exactly the speed you race at? How fair is it to limit your results based on your qualifying whether you qualify worse or better than you race? And I did offer a suggestion but haven't heard anything about that.

[DeadWolfBones]

The only way to handle this semi-fairly if there was a change though would be to split the entire grid up into 3 servers with a similar distribution of times. (AKA, 1st goes to server 1, 2nd goes to server 2, 3rd goes to server 3, 4th goes to server 1, so on.) Although you could argue that this would be unfair to the people who qualified near the top who are now fighting a hotlapping battle against their closest competitors without any chance to fight them on the track.


This sounds pretty interesting, and I'd go one step further: split them as above, and award the same points-per-position on all servers. i.e., 1st on server 3 gets the same points as 1st on server 1. Sure, you'd have a bunch of ties after the first round, but after that it'd diversify pretty quickly. The element of chance is there (in terms of who you get paired up with on your server), but everyone has a good chance at points and everyone is facing roughly the same sort of traffic/same racing conditions.

[r4ptor]

I never said my suggestion was the perfect solution or in any way hinted it - I always said its "more fair", so please don't manipulate like that, Paul.

I would fix it with my suggestion - how can you ask? :P Or like rcpilot and DWB suggests - we did exactly that in a danish league and no one ever complained.

My suggestion is IMO better than how the system currently is since it would allow lower pool drivers to take a bite at the upper field ones- but if we keep at the current one, time will tell how bad it is - currently it's just a "selected few" - yah.. but just wait and see.

Actually, I prefer rcpilot's and DWB's suggestions over mine.

Anyways.. I brought it up again because I saw it as being an issue. I've set better focus on it vs. last time - so I did my job. Rest is up to the organizers... and I don't want to repeat myself.

[Edgar]

I have another suggestion: we all remove our pants, take a pic and post it here. Racers with biggest arguments are welcome in pool 1. :D

More seriously, i think your suggestion would kill the race. The show need to have the best racers together on track, and, even if it seems hard for you, current system permits to have homogeneous pool.

Besides, a poll has already been done (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=27536) concerning division sorting, the season has started and i don't think it would be fair to change rules now. :scratchch

[r4ptor]

I have another suggestion: we all remove our pants, take a pic and post it here. Racers with biggest arguments are welcome in pool 1. :D

Well, actually.. thats how I see the system now - the "argument" (qualify lap) doesn't prove the racing abilities.


More seriously, i think your suggestion would kill the race. The show need to have the best racers together on track, and, even if it seems hard for you, current system permits to have homogeneous pool.

I'm surprised to hear that - my suggestion only involves points, not how pools should be sorted.


Besides, a poll has already been done (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=27536) concerning division sorting, the season has started and i don't think it would be fair to change rules now. :scratchch

Again, my suggestion doesn't mess with the overall system (which is why I made this exact suggestion in he first place - it brings th pools together without messing with too much, if anything at all).

I originally argued with "more fair and motivating", and that "current system is handicapping ppl too much only because of quali times". All my suggestion is about is to make the border between pools more transparent (with an overlap). It's not as if lower field qual times drops suddenly (for next pool pole position) - in worst case the difference would be 0.00 secs. But I guess I'm assuming they put in more effort to get that good finish than how the bottom field on upper pool pushes, eh? :|

If not for anything, then why not award them for the good finishes in the lower pools? That should be reason enough alone.

And too late.. well, of cause it is when none of the relevant persons listened in time - now I have numbers to present.. next time I'll have more... but I bet they will keep getting ignored because you can't compare different server - I wonder how many races it would take to see the pattern.. hm.

[Edgar]

I'm surprised to hear that - my suggestion only involves points, not how pools should be sorted.

Actually, I prefer rcpilot's and DWB's suggestions over mine.

:shrug:

[r4ptor]

Oh :)

And yah, indeed :) :) :razz:

I don't think anything will change, so.. :munching_

[Storm_Cloud]

All points systems are flawed.

Qualifying is an extremely important skill in real racing. For the people that can't qualify well to dismiss those that can as "hotlappers" who by implication cannot race is a poor argument. If you cannot qualify well then get good at it.

Splitting the 3 servers equally would be a terrible idea. The fastest guys should race each other, full stop.

I do however see the merit in rewarding people on lower servers who, prima facie, do a better job in racing than some people on higher servers who finish well down their pool.

I would support a very modest overlap of points equal to only 5 positions maximum, possibly only 3. This could be implemented without overhauling the entire points system by adding bonus points for the first 3 to 5 places. This would make it easier to backdate if required.

However, if the rules remain as they are that is no problem - they are the same for everybody.

[AstroBoy]

Maybe id be wrong at posting here, since quli ect and im not actually part of the series but.
I used to race in a Race-The WTCC game, and they had 4-5 pools of drivers after each race the lowest(3-7) would go down a pool while the others would go up.
Lol but then again i dont know how the points got awarded so im kinda useless lol but thats what makes a series hard if its not all one group, so good luck to the officials for figuring something out :)

[mogster]

Maybe the issue is already talked trough, but I would still like to say something. Let me give you one example why the points should not be overlapped.

Quali results:

Pool 1:

31. Driver1 1:33.25
32. Driver2 1:33.49

Pool 2:

1. Driver3 1:33.50
2. Driver4 1:33.76

You see where I'm getting with this. Would you rather be the Driver2 or Driver3 if the points would be overlapped?

I think the current point system is nothing more than fair + same for everyone.

[r4ptor]

Mogster: doesn't matter how close you qualify to the borders - what matters are the race results.

pod.hama Tube - pool #1 - qualified as 31 - gained 14 positions.

I watched him in replay to see if he was lucky - he fought for most of his positions - even lost 8 all at ones as he spinned due to contact with another car.

The sad part is that if he had qualified 0.06-7 sec slower, he would have ended in pool #2 - only to be raped by the current point system.

spdoMisan - pool #1 qualified as 19 - gained 13.

You would think it would get harder and harder to pass the closer you get towards top, eh?

DT gru 84 - pool #2 - qualified as 26, gained 8.

[CD] Celmo - pool #2 - qualified as 15, gained 5.

So yah, ppl are jumping all over the place on all servers - but some of you are thinking the qualify lap defines the driver - guess again.

An overlap would in no way make it perfect, but would make it more fair and be rewarding/motivational for the lower pools - as well as make the lower part more eager towards getting better finishes.

Paul, If ur suspecting me having worries then take a closer look at pool #1 results. We have a driver down below who would be affected negatively by my suggestion... so nah, not really.

[r4ptor]

Oh well, time to really end this - I didn't come here to start a big debate.

[niall09]

I totally agree with you Raptor :thumb: its the way it should be IMO

[mogster]

I'll call for backup (scipy) to quote Carroll Smith about the importance of qualifying :P

Yes indeed, what matters is the race. But I think it's safe to say that in every aspect of racing a well executed qualifying has a huge importance. So why make it any less important in BOTT? And I really don't see why it's so big of a deal since it's same for everyone.

[PaulC2K]

I haven't said a single thing about me being specifically bad at qualifying. :razz: My qualifying for this race was a bit weaker than normal due to lack of prep time, but my qualifying pace pretty much brackets my fast lap pace within a couple tenths under normal circumstances. And I honestly don't expect to be on anything but server 1 if I race another one of these races for my team and the system's still the same. I'm complaining about a system being wrong and you're resorting to personal attacks. How often do you qualify at exactly the speed you race at? How fair is it to limit your results based on your qualifying whether you qualify worse or better than you race? And I did offer a suggestion but haven't heard anything about that.

God your vain! :razz: Actually, your just ASSUMING that im refering to a specific individual, im not talking about 1 person, all im saying is a generalisation, if you (****MEANING ANYONE, NOT JUST YOU****) have a weakness, then if thats the reason that your doing crap then instead of asking for the system to be fixed around your weaknesses, fix yourself.

As i said last time, STOP BLEADING READING EVERYTHING WITH A BIAS SLANT ON EVERYTHING!
I haven't got a clue how you qualified, how you raced, what your consistancy, or when you have your damn period! :razz:


r4ptor:
Nor did i say you claimed to have a perfect answer, so please don't manipulate like that, Raptor. All i said was no solution is perfect, if you can show me where i claimed YOU said anything was perfect, then fair enough, but if you want to accuse me of manipulating things DONT BLOODY MANIPULATE WHAT IVE SAID IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE THE CASE! Rather pathetic that you wrongly claim someone else is doing exactly what your doing to them!

So your suggestion is that rather than the best drivers racing each other, they race pretty much the same manner they do qualifying, with randomly paced cars in each server so nobody REALLY wins, you just win one of the 3 races but never actually get to race with the top 30 drivers just 10 of them, 10 'average' and 10 'crap' drivers.
Damn, your right, just as well you didnt say its perfect!!

The series has a structure, splitting qualifying over 90 servers so everyone has their own server to qualify in, thats not going to change the structure much, but to start complaining about the way the series is structured after the first race is a bit pointless wouldnt you say??
If you dont like it because shit qualifiers (NOT YOU RCPILOT!!) end up getting a shit position then come up with a solution for them to not be in the incorrect (in *your* opinion) server, because there isnt a problem with the top drivers driving in one server, then the next 30 odd in the following server, and the rest in the final server. All this whining comes from the fact that its POSSIBLE for someone to completely screw up a 20min open track qualifying session, when the fact is there are plenty of things which are possible, but basically if these highly unlikely things happen then you just have to suck it up and accept it. If the Pole guy disconnects on the 89% equivelent lap, having lapped everyone 10 times, is it FAIR that they get 0 points from the race (+ qual points if there are any)???


I swear some people just want to complain for the sake of it, sometimes you'll have good days, some times you'll have bad days, but everyone can improve their chances, its not some random element that screws over a couple of people, someone has to be first in server 2, and server 3, because we have a series with 90+ slots. Making things shit just so there isnt any cut-off points in a race doesnt make it fair, it deprives everyone of racing with equally paced drivers who are in the server together, rather than basically making it randomised, which is effectively what you get if you sort the qualifying order out 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3 down the list.

"I bet they will keep getting ignored because you can't compare different server - I wonder how many races it would take to see the pattern.. hm."
F*** me your slow, You cant compare results from completely different circumstances, what part of this do you not get?? If someone gets punted off the track and has to recover and repair the damage, does that mean the system is wrong because someone in a completely different server who had no competition, nobody punting them off the track and thus not requiring repairs, that means they're completely equal subjects in which to compare??
No, so stop whining about the fact that these supposed sets of results actually mean anything other than the fact that your stupid enough to think you have a valid arguement.

If your team has a driver who's crap at qualifying, then either make them capable of putting in a respectable time, or put someone that is capable of putting in a respectable time, theres no bias, its all about what you CHOOSE to do, because everyone has the same job infront of them, the same option of cars, settings and such. The same advantages and disadvantages are there for everyone, you want to field a blind driver, then be our guest, but dont start whining if their disability means they're crap, it means rethink the manner in which you chose who races for you BASED ON THE RULES OF THE SERIES!
There's nowt wrong with the rules in this instance, you have to split the field 3 ways, this is easily the best way for drivers, not shuffling them into 3 packs so the packs are watered down.


Edgar & mogster
Nice to see we have some level headed individuals in here afterall.

Storm_Cloud:
If you overlap, that means the poorer qualifier gets more points than the better qualifier, if you qualified and deserved to be in server A by whatever margin, then you deserve to win more points (provided you finish) than someone who could only manage a place in server B. Their reward for winning server #2 is the points they get, had they been say 0.1sec faster in qualifying then maybe they'd have been in the higher server and they'd have earned more points, but when you have overlaps your creating the possibility that the better qualifier gets less points than a poorer qualifier, and that in my mind isnt right. Winning a race is great, but just because you come last (in the server above) doesnt mean you havent put in a lesser effort, so why should it reward it?


The only thing i've seen done before, but sadly wouldnt be of any use for something like this, is from RC racing, most Gas/Nitro class races qualify and sort drivers into finals of 8 cars, with 10 being the max on-track at any given time. The 'slowest' final would run first, and the top 2 finishers would be promoted to the next final, so those 8 become 10, as 2 from a lower final have been bumped up.
It means you can qualify last, but win every final and get bumped up from Z final to A final. But this is finals run back to back, 15min at a time (top finals run upto 45min finals) which isnt much use for BOTT with its 90min finals, but its the only example of a system where you can redeem your poor qualifying by putting in results and getting rewarded for it by moving up. The top drivers would be in the A final, but even a Z finalist could end up racing in the A final, though chances are unlikely but its not unheard of for top drivers to move themselves from mid to top finals and win, especially as they have track time advantage and experience of the conditions out there.

[PaulC2K]

"The sad part is that if he had qualified 0.06-7 sec slower, he would have ended in pool #2 - only to be raped by the current point system"
Yep, maybe whoever qualified top of server #2 will pull their finger out their ass next time.

Gratz on pulling more irrelevent information from completely different races, and yet proving nothing other than the fact that they're completely different races.

[Storm_Cloud]

In the main I agree Paul, and if the system stays as it is then the rules are the same for everyone and that's absolutely fine by me.

I am only advocating a tiny overlap of 3 places to reward those in the lower server who drive a better race than those who finish last on the higher server. It is rare that the slowest driver finishes last because there will always be faster drivers who mess up their races (or have their races messed up for them - granted). A tiny overlap is just a nod of recognition towards those who race well rather than do 1 good lap and then 50 poor laps.

I'll copy my first sentence because that is the really important part:

In the main I agree Paul, and if the system stays as it is then the rules are the same for everyone and that's absolutely fine by me.

[DeadWolfBones]

If you overlap, that means the poorer qualifier gets more points than the better qualifier, if you qualified and deserved to be in server A by whatever margin, then you deserve to win more points (provided you finish) than someone who could only manage a place in server B. Their reward for winning server #2 is the points they get, had they been say 0.1sec faster in qualifying then maybe they'd have been in the higher server and they'd have earned more points, but when you have overlaps your creating the possibility that the better qualifier gets less points than a poorer qualifier, and that in my mind isnt right. Winning a race is great, but just because you come last (in the server above) doesnt mean you havent put in a lesser effort, so why should it reward it?

All that this comes down to is that you think 20 minutes of qualifying is more important than 80 minutes of racing, which is total bs in my opinion. Poorer qualifiers often DO get more points than better qualifiers, because they're better race drivers. I don't think that someone who qualified 1 or 2 or even 5 tenths better than someone else is automatically entitled to up to 64 points more than them. A small overlap would be beneficial to competition and wouldn't be any more arbitrary than the current rules system.

Screaming at people until they stop arguing with you is a pretty shitty debate tactic and it makes your posts incredibly shrill and annoying to read. Take it down a few notches, maybe?

[jasonmatthews]

Couldn't have said it better meself ;)

[csurdongulos]

All that this comes down to is that you think 20 minutes of qualifying is more important than 80 minutes of racing, which is total bs in my opinion. Poorer qualifiers often DO get more points than better qualifiers, because they're better race drivers.

Qualifying is part of the race, if someone is a poor qualifier, improve on it, or deal with it.

Just think about the other scenario, which was suggested:
- 2 weeks hotlapping as a division sorting method (or less, you get the point)
What do you think would change? The hotlappers would be at the front, despite some of them driving less constantly in the race and falling back (maybe! but not necessarily).

And how fair would the points overlap be with those drivers who qualified let's say mid pool and are taken out by somebody, fall back to the last position and will get less points than the guy in the next pool (despite being 0.5 quicker per lap and having qualified 15 positions ahead), who had nobody who crashed him out, he just had a boring race hotlapping through 50 laps.

But as a last word, I would suggest adding an extra 10 minutes to qualification to have a greater chance for everybody to do at least 1 clean lap.

[PaulC2K]

All that this comes down to is that you think 20 minutes of qualifying is more important than 80 minutes of racing, which is total bs in my opinion. Poorer qualifiers often DO get more points than better qualifiers, because they're better race drivers. I don't think that someone who qualified 1 or 2 or even 5 tenths better than someone else is automatically entitled to up to 64 points more than them. A small overlap would be beneficial to competition and wouldn't be any more arbitrary than the current rules system.

Screaming at people until they stop arguing with you is a pretty shitty debate tactic and it makes your posts incredibly shrill and annoying to read. Take it down a few notches, maybe?

DWB, any 'screaming' or any of the refered from that last paragraph is aimed at the stupid children that cant read and need things spelling out for them clearly and in a manner that they might just understand.

Im quite happy to partake in sensible discussions on points overlapping, and disagree with its requirement in this series, provided the discussion isnt a concoction of nonsense, which i dont think it has.

However, Im p*ssed off at the knob-ends who intentionally take any comments out of context in order to provide a counter arguement, make arguements out of something someone hasnt said, or reads into something in their own way and dont spare the moment to think that not every comment is based on the person reading. So if your 'screaming' is based on me getting p*ssed off at those morons then dont read them, their comments for that person only anyway, if they could hold a proper arguement for their opinion then fine, but i've got one idiot twice accusing me of making personal attacks just because im using the word 'you' in sentances which MUST mean im talking about them, cos 'you' cant be used in any generalised manner apparently. Then king idiot himself demanding i stopped taking his comments out of context, when i hadnt even made the bloody comment or implied that he had to begin with! The irony of demanding people dont make stuff up, whilst making it up in the first place seems to have been lost on this individual.
Its idiots like that who p*ss me off, you talk to them like adults and they cant correctly string a sentance together, and people get upset if you spell it out to them.
The above goes for this thread, other threads, comments aimed at me AND comments aimed at others.


Anyway....
"All that this comes down to is that you think 20 minutes of qualifying is more important than 80 minutes of racing"
No, i dont think 20min qualifying is more important than 80min racing, otherwise i'd suggest we saved ourselves 80min, scored based on qualifying results and all went out, drank tea and ate scones and rejoiced about how great everything was in the good old days.
What it comes down to is that someone who's qualified in a series above shouldnt be scored less than someone who's qualified below.
All that this comes down to is that you think someone on a lower server deserves to score more points than someone they're not even racing against. :razz:

As far as im concerned, by what right does someone from a server of lower rank (ranked by qual) deserve to be awarded more points than someone they havent even raced against?
IMO if you want more points than me, then have the decency to fight me for them, beat me on the track fair and square, dont get outqualified by me and pick up more points because of a reward scheme to give additional importance to winning a race (and an inferior one to which im in at that). Times were that winning meant something, does it now mean nothing unless you get some additional points to make it worth your while?

As i said, if you want more points than the next person, the only way to do so should be by beating them on the track, fair and square, not by doing something you have no impact or influence on.
Thats my opinion/argument, and that wont change because i believe it to be the only fair way, if people have differing views then they're entitled to have them and wont dispute anyones right to have their own opinion, but if its a pathetic one i'll happily point that out :thumb:

[DeadWolfBones]

DWB, any 'screaming' or any of the refered from that last paragraph is aimed at the stupid children...

This is precisely what I'm talking about. A less patient person would stop reading there.

Re: your interaction with rcpilot... you weren't clear as to whether you were using the, uhm, "royal you" or the traditional direct address "you," and you were in fact directly addressing him with at least one of those posts, so it's not hard to see how he misunderstood you (I'm not entirely convinced he did, really). The fact that you were entirely on the attack certainly didn't help matters, either.

Anyway....
"All that this comes down to is that you think 20 minutes of qualifying is more important than 80 minutes of racing"
No, i dont think 20min qualifying is more important than 80min racing, otherwise i'd suggest we saved ourselves 80min, scored based on qualifying results and all went out, drank tea and ate scones and rejoiced about how great everything was in the good old days.
What it comes down to is that someone who's qualified in a series above shouldnt be scored less than someone who's qualified below.
All that this comes down to is that you think someone on a lower server deserves to score more points than someone they're not even racing against. :razz:

Conversely, All that this comes down to is that you think someone on a higher server deserves to score more points than someone they're not even racing against.

It cuts both ways. Yes, the drivers on the higher servers were faster in qualifying, but the point remains that there are plenty of drivers who are quick enough to compete with server 1 drivers in race conditions, but who get relegated to server 2 for one reason or another. We all know of certain drivers who are brilliant at hotlapping and entirely lose their heads in race conditions. (I'm not saying that this has yet occurred in BOTT, but the potential is there.) There has to be some element of chance and luck (good or bad) in any qualifying system, but I feel it's imbalanced right now in BOTT.

Furthermore, as others have mentioned, 20 minutes is an awfully short time in which to lay down a brilliant qualifying lap, amidst the confusion and carnage of a 32 car server. I would support increasing the qual time to 30 or 45 or even 60 minutes (like a real life league) in order to give everyone a fairer shot at getting their best lap in. If that were done I'd personally be much more comfortable with the non-overlapping points system, though I still think it should be considered. (Again, a small overlap.)

[rcpilot]

God your vain! :razz: Actually, your just ASSUMING that im refering to a specific individual, im not talking about 1 person, all im saying is a generalisation, if you (****MEANING ANYONE, NOT JUST YOU****) have a weakness, then if thats the reason that your doing crap then instead of asking for the system to be fixed around your weaknesses, fix yourself.

As i said last time, STOP BLEADING READING EVERYTHING WITH A BIAS SLANT ON EVERYTHING!
I haven't got a clue how you qualified, how you raced, what your consistancy, or when you have your damn period! :razz:


Umm... let's see, how many people are 'whining' in here, and how many of them are 'whining' about potential poor qualifying screwing race results. Now read your own statement.

As for whining about 'if your crap at qualifying' then maybe you shouldnt use your bias slant and use read into a comment only the way you wish to, the fact is if your BLAMING the series setup because your qualifying isnt as strong as others, and that is the SOLE reason your not racing with people your supposedly faster than, then maybe you should do something about it instead of whining.

Anyway....
"All that this comes down to is that you think 20 minutes of qualifying is more important than 80 minutes of racing"
No, i dont think 20min qualifying is more important than 80min racing, otherwise i'd suggest we saved ourselves 80min, scored based on qualifying results and all went out, drank tea and ate scones and rejoiced about how great everything was in the good old days.
What it comes down to is that someone who's qualified in a series above shouldnt be scored less than someone who's qualified below.
All that this comes down to is that you think someone on a lower server deserves to score more points than someone they're not even racing against. :razz:

As far as im concerned, by what right does someone from a server of lower rank (ranked by qual) deserve to be awarded more points than someone they havent even raced against?
IMO if you want more points than me, then have the decency to fight me for them, beat me on the track fair and square, dont get outqualified by me and pick up more points because of a reward scheme to give additional importance to winning a race (and an inferior one to which im in at that). Times were that winning meant something, does it now mean nothing unless you get some additional points to make it worth your while?

As i said, if you want more points than the next person, the only way to do so should be by beating them on the track, fair and square, not by doing something you have no impact or influence on.
Thats my opinion/argument, and that wont change because i believe it to be the only fair way, if people have differing views then they're entitled to have them and wont dispute anyones right to have their own opinion, but if its a pathetic one i'll happily point that out :thumb:

No, I don't favor and afaik dwb doesn't favor being able to beat someone in potentially unfair circumstances. My original suggestion was actually based on something like a multi-server endurance tracker, but I kind of like what dwb was thinking too with 3 servers with equal points. Being unable to fight for as many points as everyone else in the league with field gaps that are so tight is just ridiculous. If this was like an average league where the gaps had widened out a fair bit by the time you got to server 2 I wouldn't think anything of it. But, it's not. Instead you're stuck in situations where depending on an arbitrary split point you're limited to a certain number of positions. In a league where the gaps are tight enough that you could easily fight for 5-10 positions above you if you're any good in a race. And IMO, there are a lot more people out there that can pull a fast lap out of the hat than there are that can run fast laps consistently, why should they get the advantage? Qualifying as I know it is supposed to decide your grid position, not the number of points you can get.

[Bawbag]

Ai Ai Ai. :x

I can see how it would be crap to qualify 1st on server 2 but that's just life IMO, bad luck to you, try harder next time. I did find it a bit weird though that this argument comes up after a race in which the qualifying setup is the exact one that is being used in the race.

I can see the argument coming around in like the TBO or the GTR rounds where the qualifying setup will be differnt from the race setup where you will most likely find slow people in the qualifying being better than those above them in the race.

I think 30 minuits is enough to set a decent lap, but I have no experience in the 32 people qualifying sessions and I can imagine it being pretty crap, so i'm assuming that the people who were in server 1 for the first race all qualify in server 1. This obviously will be better for everybody because you really shouldn't be driving with someone 5 seconds off the pace. (Hopefully) Also, why not split it in two? It will take a little longer but if you just split each server in 2 and half 12 cars doing half an hour of qualifying, then have the next 12 do it afterwords.

It seems a little silly to me but if the traffic spoils most of your laps in 30 minuits then it's most likely going to do the same for an hour long session too. :thumbsup:

[PaulC2K]

Re: your interaction with rcpilot... you weren't clear as to whether you were using the, uhm, "royal you" or the traditional direct address "you," and you were in fact directly addressing him with at least one of those posts, so it's not hard to see how he misunderstood you (I'm not entirely convinced he did, really). The fact that you were entirely on the attack certainly didn't help matters, either.

1) He took one of my comments out of the context it was in so he could take offense of it. I corrected him saying that I wasnt saying that its tough cookie if your crap at qualifying, that instead of complaining you should practice it instead. HE chose to then turn that comment into a 'RCpilot is crap at practice bla bla bla'.
It was never a comment made about anyone, he took offence, i clarified what i was trying to say, he opted to twist the word 'you' into 'rcpilot' for the 2nd.

2) telling me he hasnt commented on his qualifying abilities, that tells me he's taken it the wrong way, because i wasnt commenting on it to start with, purely that if someone has a problem then they should look to fix it rather than whine about the injustice of it.


Conversely, All that this comes down to is that you think someone on a higher server deserves to score more points than someone they're not even racing against.
Your damn right they do, they earned their right to be in the higher server, racing with the big-boys, they dont deserve to be penalised in points because of it.


It cuts both ways. Yes, the drivers on the higher servers were faster in qualifying, but the point remains that there are plenty of drivers who are quick enough to compete with server 1 drivers in race conditions, but who get relegated to server 2 for one reason or another. We all know of certain drivers who are brilliant at hotlapping and entirely lose their heads in race conditions. (I'm not saying that this has yet occurred in BOTT, but the potential is there.) There has to be some element of chance and luck (good or bad) in any qualifying system, but I feel it's imbalanced right now in BOTT.
Its not hotlapping though is it, its qualifying, its something thats been used in F1 to reject drivers from the grid when there were more cars than spaces on the grid, its a valid long-standing part of racing, if you dont make the grade then its tough luck.
As i said in an earlier post, only RC gas car racing has a system that allows for bad qualifiers to redeem themselves, but that method is impractical for BOTT.

Furthermore, as others have mentioned, 20 minutes is an awfully short time in which to lay down a brilliant qualifying lap, amidst the confusion and carnage of a 32 car server. I would support increasing the qual time to 30 or 45 or even 60 minutes (like a real life league) in order to give everyone a fairer shot at getting their best lap in.
All that this comes down to is that you think 80 minutes of qualifying is more important than 20 minutes of racing? ;)
If qualifying is made longer, then it either needs to be done on a seperate date or the race needs to be shorter, because time-zones in particular will cause problems for most people.

If that were done I'd personally be much more comfortable with the non-overlapping points system, though I still think it should be considered. (Again, a small overlap.)
sdasdsdsdasad

[PaulC2K]

Pilot, you took my comments completely out of context, making me clarify what i had said, then chose to make the clarification on ALL PEOPLE into clarification on rcpilot.

You know damn well, that i was talking on numerous comments made, but instead MISREAD it and arrogantly assumed it must be about you, just because i was replying to your thread, despite the message being in indirect quote. If it was a comment made to you it would be in the standard form, not in indirect quotation, which is what i was doing.


Shuffling the pack means you no longer have the best drivers racing with the best drivers, they're racing with an organised random group of drivers.
It also means 3 drivers get maximum points every round, 3 get 2nd.... it also means that in general non of the big battles that the current situation creates will be seen, instead those scraps in the top 12 drivers becomes a scrap between Q places 1/4/7/10 , 2/5/8/11 and 3/6/9/12 etc. You'd take the best drivers and spread them out so they cannot race each other, where's the fun in that??


BagBag:
If you have 60min to do 32 cars in 2 seperate sessions then you'll end up allocating more time to qualifying than racing, you also have people disappearing for 30min while they're not active, some people cant cope with the 5 minute 'pee break' let alone 30min.


I'll also say it again, when adminning server #3 there was about 2/5th of the track empty because the majority of people think they must go straight out and put in a lap, rather than thinking about the fact that traffic and easily disrupt a good lap. As far as im concerned if you drive around in traffic and it keeps screwing you over and you dont make any effort to find your own space on the track, then its your own fault more than the people you encountered. I saw very few occasions where slower drivers created problems or even came into effect, but thats based on 1 servers viewing, its not like its FE Club and your overtaking someone every lap.

Making the sessions longer wont make that much of a difference, it'll only increase your chances of getting a 'perfect' lap slightly, if people took advantage of the spaces around tracks and used them to their gain rather than driving in trains then they'd find it much easier for themselves. Splitting the qualifying over more servers (4) would mean less cramped surroundings, as will the fact that some of the tracks are 2-3min long meaning plenty of room for 30 cars (4-6 seconds per car effectively).

If people wont help themselves, why should the series bend over backwards to help them??

[nmanley]

Simple solution:
NO MULTIPLE SERVERS Qualify for the ONE server or sit out the events. Damn trying to be the biggest racing series.

Complex solution:
Have multiple series (servers) that once you start you stay with that server till the END and top finishers (thru 6, 8, 10, ??) have weight added (equalizer) based on finishing order from the previous event. This will keep the sand baggers from gaining too much advantage.

[r4ptor]

Nor did i say you claimed to have a perfect answer, so please don't manipulate like that, Raptor. All i said was no solution is perfect, if


"I never said my suggestion was the perfect solution or in any way hinted it".

I know what you meant by it - however you are using too big of a contrast to make a point = manipulating. Same goes for the "stupid children who can't read" and regarding ppl who are whining, whoever they may be.


So your suggestion is that rather than the best drivers racing each other, they race pretty much the same manner they do qualifying, with randomly paced cars in each server so nobody REALLY wins, you just win one of the 3 races but never actually get to race with the top 30 drivers just 10 of them, 10 'average' and 10 'crap' drivers.
Damn, your right, just as well you didnt say its perfect!!


I didn't suggest nor did I promote that - I said I preferred it and made no effort into convincing anyone to implement it.

I didn't think it would have been necessary to end the sentence with "but thats too big of a change and therefor late now".


but to start complaining about the way the series is structured after the first race is a bit pointless wouldnt you say??


Yes, I would - unless something was way off. But in his case, I started before not after.


If you dont like it because shit qualifiers (NOT YOU RCPILOT!!) end up getting a shit position then come up with a solution for them to not be in the incorrect (in *your* opinion) server


I originally said "you can have "poor" quali, but be consistent at racing, while another driver could have "good" quali time, but do worse during the race".

By poor and good I didn't mean having bad or good day (in that post - later I did as a different argument), but that the times set during qualify session in no way shows how any given driver performs during a race.


"I bet they will keep getting ignored because you can't compare different server - I wonder how many races it would take to see the pattern.. hm."
F*** me your slow, You cant compare results from completely different circumstances, what part of this do you not get??


You have a great attitude going on - besides, are you even reading the whole thing?

You missed this one: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=532620#post532620 and my reply to it.


If someone gets punted off the track and has to recover and repair the damage, does that mean the system is wrong because someone in a completely different server who had no competition, nobody punting them off the track and thus not requiring repairs, that means they're completely equal subjects in which to compare??


To finish 1st, would have meant that the driver didn't have enough or any incidents that would cost him, he was faster or better racer - ergo he deserves to be rewarded for it.

The driver who finished last, did so because he was slower, lacked the needed skills and/or was involved in incidents. Some incidents can be avoid while other can't.

That's though luck - nothing to do with what's fair. You can have a single server race with a driver dominating, who then makes a solo mistake during the very end - or gets punted by someone else - both could cost him the win, maybe much more. You don't go "aww.. thats sad, we'll give him the win anyways" - if it was a solo mistake, then he apparently didn't deserve the win after all. If he got punted then the rules, in a sense, try to make up for it be handing out penalty to the offending driver - however the dominating driver would still have had to suffer from it.

So ya - Top X from lower pool deserves more than lower X from upper pool even though the races were different.


No, so stop whining about the fact that these supposed sets of results actually mean anything other than the fact that your stupid enough to think you have a valid arguement.


I brought it up way before the race - I've also been here, keeping a sober tone. Why are you getting all upset by it?

It wouldn't have to do anything with the fact that you came up with the system, and you might be a bit too touchy about me and other pointing finger as it? Grow out of it if thats the case (which I do believe it is tbh).


If your team has a driver who's crap at qualifying, then either make them capable of putting in a respectable time, or put someone that


Yawn - his qualify was better than his performance. And it wasn't because he was being slowed down by other drivers.

And you should really stop using "crap" etc. - you just might be offending more people than you think.


Gratz on pulling more irrelevent information from completely different races, and yet proving nothing other than the fact that they're completely different races.

It takes more to finish first, than it does to finish last - and the overlap is supposed to reflect that by awarding the winner + X number of drivers in the lower pools.

If you have so much against this, then why does the system already have 1 position overlap? Was that a mistake? Where did it come from and why? It's already there, but I'm suggesting a bigger (not huge) overlap - how big/small it should being isn't being discussed at all.

Edit: You can't use F1 as an example - We have "3" races, not one - currently there are places left for more drivers (unless its been limited beforehand?) - that example would be valid if BOTT received more applications than there is room for.

If BOTT had true divisions, then the example would be valid too - but someone from pool #2 in race 1 could end up in pool #1 in race 2 - the league is partially mixed already so why not have a smaller overlap for the races?

The quali handicaps too much because of this - it's not about earning the right - it would have been if it was a single day event or there were divisions, but all scores will be added for the final standings. You just need to qualify for pool #1 during the season to be ensured a place in top 32, while the overlap.. as mentioned, would spice things up a bit.

Top 32 for qualifying alone? Meh...

[r4ptor]

In the main I agree Paul, and if the system stays as it is then the rules are the same for everyone and that's absolutely fine by me.

I am only advocating a tiny overlap of 3 places to reward those in the lower server who drive a better race than those who finish last on the higher server. It is rare that the slowest driver finishes last because there will always be faster drivers who mess up their races (or have their races messed up for them - granted). A tiny overlap is just a nod of recognition towards those who race well rather than do 1 good lap and then 50 poor laps.

And I agree with you - I don't mind the system as it is, and never did - Except that I had as n issue with the drivers on the upper edge of the lower pool being cut that badly regarding points - the subject about exactly how many overlaps there should be haven't been touched because apparently the system as it is, is better - it must be, since there isn't room for any change?

The change wouldn't have been a disaster, but rather promote drivers who simply are not fast enough for upper pool, in any race, to aim towards a better overall finish. That way they get to mingle in, and not being cut off so harshly,like they do now.

[rcpilot]

... I have ... got a ... BLOODY ... shit ... in ... a ... Pole guy ...

THAT's a comment taken out of context, I removed 3 lines that had nothing to do with the paragraph I quoted, and your comment was specifically in a reply to me considering I was the only person to post since your previous post and you brought up points that only I was discussing at that time. Now, if you truly didn't mean it for me, then maybe you should THINK and READ what you post before you click submit. Of course I'm going to defend myself when you make a comment that can ONLY be construed as an insult, how is that vanity? Plus the comment was mostly because I thought you were confused from reading your post and wanted to clarify my specific stance on the issue. (Namely, I don't think it'll ever be a problem for me again and here's why, but I'd still like to discuss changes.)

Maybe you just don't have that firm of a grasp on the english language. Because to use the infinitive you it needs to be set up first, just saying 'your', 'you' over and over in this context construes a specific person. Now, maybe adding a people or a someone in there would help out.

Edgar & mogster
Nice to see we have some level headed individuals in here afterall.

Yes, and as far as I can tell, you're not one of them. (Note that this is the first personal 'attack' I've made and how harsh it was) This WAS a discussion before you walked in. I thought I had left cussing flame wars to other forums, not the LFS forums. And on that point, if you start coming up with the need to actually discuss the situation, I'll talk with you, but I'm not replying to anything you say to this or in the future of this discussion if you continue in this manner. Arguing on the internet is well, you probably know the rest. Discussions on the other hand, I don't mind.

[PaulC2K]

If your crap at qualifying then maybe you should look into that before complaining its all about hotlapping.

If you hit traffic, maybe you should look at making room for yourself instead of expecting everyone to make room for you...
... If you insist on being the first out with the other 20 other drivers thinking they can be the first out too, then dont be suprised when you find your not and instead bunched up with 19 others each thinking they're faster than the rest.
Point being, if you have a weakness that is a long standing part of racing, try improving on your weaknesses instead of blaming the series when your own actions could improve things. No more than a suggestion to the people that'd complained about 2 problems, one being their qualifying being not as strong as they felt it should be or unfair because they're not as good at it as others, and one about the fact that the servers are too busy and people get in the way, when i'd seen no such thing on server #3 and there were huge spaces if people wanted to use them on there (the server #3 comments being the only bit removed from the quote).
And saying that someone should just get better at qualifying is an insult.
Apparently recommending people improve is an insult! Demanding that the rules of a series are changed because people arent good at something is perfectly reasonable.
As for whining about 'if your crap at qualifying' then maybe you shouldnt use your bias slant and use read into a comment only the way you wish to, the fact is if your BLAMING the series setup because your qualifying isnt as strong as others, and that is the SOLE reason your not racing with people your supposedly faster than, then maybe you should do something about it instead of whining. If qualifying is your weak spot, strenghten it, dont cry and expect rules to be bent around your weaknesses. You dont have people complaining races are too long because they're inconsistant drivers, so why is it acceptable for people who arent as good as others in qualifying to use their weakness as a series weakness.
a SECOND attempt at clarifying things, pointing out that your reading into the comment in completely the wrong way.... and just on cue
I haven't said a single thing about me being specifically bad at qualifying. My qualifying for this race was a bit weaker than normal due to lack of prep time, but my qualifying pace pretty much brackets my fast lap pace within a couple tenths under normal circumstances. And I honestly don't expect to be on anything but server 1 if I race another one of these races for my team and the system's still the same. I'm complaining about a system being wrong and you're resorting to personal attacks.
and oh look, rcpilot takes it personally again and goes as far as to make it all about him.

FACT: YOU took a comment made about anyone, whoever has the weakness of being a poorer qualifier than racer, a post in reply to nobody, and complained about it, when i replied clarifying the comment you took offense because as ive just this minute checked and discovered, conveniently you qualified 36th, 4 places outside the top server, and because of YOUR results decided that I must be refering to you as being the crap qualifier. I made ZERO assumptions, because I wasnt talking about anyone in general, YOU however, with your 36th qualifying came to your own conclusion that you were the crap qualifier i was supposedly refering to. In order to have made a comment aimed at you suggesting you were a crap qualifier and needed to practice rather than complain, i'd have had to look where you qualified, something i've only just done, while you were busy racing some of us were trying to help oversee the series by admining a server and funnily enough your days racing wasnt something i've been closely following, surprising as it may seem.


YOU started the personal attack WAY before anyone here did, the difference being I had the decency to be sure of what i was calling you, you wrongly assumed I was insulting and making a personal attack. I correctly pointed out your an idiot and such.

Having twice been wrongly accused by you mis-reading, and Raptor coming out with absolute belters having simply commented that there isnt a perfect solution to the problem apparently that meant that i was saying he claimed his idea was perfect (clearly its nothing like that) and then demanded I "don't manipulate like that"... whilst doing exactly that himself about a comment i (or anyone else) hadnt even made!
Between the 2 of you clueless individuals making BS claims i find it suprising you wonder why im pissed off, both of you accused me of something i hadnt even said, one misunderstanding despite clarification, the other just making sh!t up as they go along i think.
Hense the reason your both the idiots i've been calling you all along. If i tell you 2+2=6 then call me an idiot to, just as im doing because your both arguing about something that is undeniable nonsense.

"Now, if you truly didn't mean it for me, then maybe you should THINK and READ what you post before you click submit."
Or maybe if you THINK and READ the comments that your misinterpreting my message because of your bias, rather than ignoring it and then ASSUMING that the clarification of a comment *NOT MADE FOR YOU* in the first place, would suddenly become about you!!

"Of course I'm going to defend myself when you make a comment that can ONLY be construed as an insult, how is that vanity?"
HOWEVER, if you WRONGLY construe a comment as an Insult, assuming everything must be about you, thats known as Vanity, to assume everything is about you. You misunderstood a comment wrote in the 3rd person, i made clarification on that original comment and pointed out you were reading it with bias, you again took it out of the original context and wrongly assumed it was about you. I never changed the context, it was always put in a general non-specific way, in a 3rd person way. The 2nd time it was explained you just assumed the use of 'you' to be yourself/rcpilot however i was simply re-clarifying something i was saying in the 3rd person, and continued to do so in the same manner as before, NOT in reply to yourself.


And for the record, that quote of jibberish isnt taken out of context, thats completely re-writing something, its boarderline journalism is what it is! But a nice try eitherway 4/10.
Context is the overall meaning of something, if you take something from the context and come to the wrong conclusion of that which is offered to you, that is taking something out of context.
'I like red' means no more than i like red, claiming i therefor dont like blue is a false statement and taken out of the context of what was said. Another example would be taking the comment of 'There is no perfect solution' and somehow interpreting it as 'your solution isnt perfect' is also out of context, because that isnt what was said.
Hopefully thats a lesson for both you (rcpilot) and raptor too!

Still, I love the fact that its me that has no grasp on the English language!! I'll take my grasp of English over yours anyday.

[jasonmatthews]

Guys, this is supposed to be a discussion on the points system. Has anyone decided on any of these points or not?

1. Is qualifying going to be extended?

I hope it does as server 2 where I was in was very busy, 32 racers, 20 mins, with each lap taking quite a long time. Why couldn't we just have say an hour, then if people only wanted to do a quick qualy they could, plus it would also break up the amount of racers on the track at the same time. At the end of qualy, as it is SO important in the current points system, the times would give a better indication of each racers actual pace.... Also, this would help show any server/password problems and leave enough time to fix them and still put in a decent lap and start the race on time.

I know myself that as the race was getting pushed further and further back it was causing at least one driver to leave. Probs more than that...

I would recommend just starting qualy earlier then the race could start at the same time. Plus people who couldn't get on till the current qualy time/schedule could still join as normal for 20 mins and hopefully have a much clearer track than previously...

2. Points Overlap.

After reading everyones posts this whole issue has gone right off topic so I have no idea anymore what the consensus is. My personal opinion is a small overlap (say top 3/bottom 3) would be a good idea. This would help the server above and below IMO. If I was for example 4th from bottom in server 2 I'd be fighting hard to stay out of bottom 3 and also if I was 4th in Server 3, It would make the battle to get 3rd more interesting.

Also, if qualy was as in my point 1 then this IMO would make the overall points system fairer in my eyes as it would be based more on my skill than the lottery of finding a gap in 20 mins...

[dodo.ger]

i think the point system is fine. without overlapping points a faster racer cant cheat his way into a lower grid, win there and still get more points than being last one on higher server.

i dont think its a good idea to make the qualy longer, 20 mins is definitly enough, would be nice though to use more servers.

[sidi]

I also think the point system is fine,top get the most and bottom get the least it does not get any simpler than that.:shrug:

20 mins for qualifying is more than enough,what worked for me was fill the car for the 20 mins and watch everyone scream out the pits like headless chickens then when they have a head start you join in and get almost 20 mins of clear laps.:smileypul

[The General Lee]

Looks like this is getting out of hand.

The way I see it, we are mear racers in this league, I don't see Alonso giving Bernie an eye bashing.

Just be happy with what your bloody given.

[jasonmatthews]

But Arrow did bring this up for discussion, so I discussed it :)

[The General Lee]

Discussing it is fine Jason :)

Arguing about it isn't :(

People being taken out of context so they get offended, just no need for it :razz: