GPGSL Rules and Regulations Discussion Thread
Posted by GPGSL
yeah, a split is a better option.
the only reason this came to my attention is that aston martin were an inherited team, and they seem to be trampling everyone without a true heritage and history, which I don't think is totally fair.
perhaps teams that inherit another could have a split perf halfway between the base starter perf and the team they inherit for one season, like you say.
I was also a speaker for the same old teams winning things when I was nearer the back end of the grid, but it does prove that over time, and a LONG time, you can reach near to the top, eventually.
but I agree in that it would be nice to further shake things a little more still.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
the only reason this came to my attention is that aston martin were an inherited team, and they seem to be trampling everyone without a true heritage and history, which I don't think is totally fair.
perhaps teams that inherit another could have a split perf halfway between the base starter perf and the team they inherit for one season, like you say.
I was also a speaker for the same old teams winning things when I was nearer the back end of the grid, but it does prove that over time, and a LONG time, you can reach near to the top, eventually.
but I agree in that it would be nice to further shake things a little more still.
I still don't think a split is fair. If you are a New team you should have the starter perf of a new team. Then at least over time the grid would shuffle about a bit. For example, if TSS left and a new team came in that team would have the starter perf and that would give another team a chance to be up there to challenge AMR.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
But what I personally don't like is the fact that said team is almost golden laced for a long period in some respects, regardless of future owners.
I think the perf should be partially carried over, but in the same respect, also reduced.
The trouble is, it isn't a common occurance, but the effects of a new team takeover should only give them the benefits of the old team for maybe one season, and then significantly drop closer to the other starter perfs to allow them equal pairing.
Look at Honda > Brawn > Mercedes.
What I mean is, Christel, MAC, Snake etc could be here for 10 more seasons. And in that time, all other existing teams could be replaced by new ones and new members, but the chances are those same three teams will still be relatively near the bottom of the field, because new teams easily inherit the heritage of the past. Not totally fair.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Aston Martin the child of Velox? The same team that has dominated the last three seasons?
The way the last half of this season went, it doesn't look likely S7 will change in terms of dominance. TSS are still second best. They have been in the top two for 6 seasons now. Velox/Aston the same.
But you know, the current system does work, there are shifts in power, but shaking the top few is very hard.
I just think I will be more than a little annoyed if Aston/TSS walks S7, because then, I do feel a MASSIVE shakeup definitely needs doing to give some of the others and bottom half a chance of glory.
May I ask if there will be a look at the points scoring system down the field at all? Or are we totally happy where it is at now?
I really do feel for the guys turning out and finishing races, but having nothing to show for it on the tables. Perhaps we can give the last three teams in the WCC standings an extra 10 boosts over the rest? Or allocate them a random race only the GPGSL Body knows about where they receive a solitary weekend special perf bonus, much like Vettel and his STR victory? Which is then dropped for the next race and no benefit is gained into the next perf. So basically, they benefit short term with a rare good performance (or not); but dont carry the benefits into their long term perf.
Just another idea to spice up variation now and then so we don't get a snorefest.
It gives them a one off chance to shine.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
I think the perf should be partially carried over, but in the same respect, also reduced.
The trouble is, it isn't a common occurance, but the effects of a new team takeover should only give them the benefits of the old team for maybe one season, and then significantly drop closer to the other starter perfs to allow them equal pairing.
Look at Honda > Brawn > Mercedes.
What I mean is, Christel, MAC, Snake etc could be here for 10 more seasons. And in that time, all other existing teams could be replaced by new ones and new members, but the chances are those same three teams will still be relatively near the bottom of the field, because new teams easily inherit the heritage of the past. Not totally fair.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Aston Martin the child of Velox? The same team that has dominated the last three seasons?
The way the last half of this season went, it doesn't look likely S7 will change in terms of dominance. TSS are still second best. They have been in the top two for 6 seasons now. Velox/Aston the same.
But you know, the current system does work, there are shifts in power, but shaking the top few is very hard.
I just think I will be more than a little annoyed if Aston/TSS walks S7, because then, I do feel a MASSIVE shakeup definitely needs doing to give some of the others and bottom half a chance of glory.
May I ask if there will be a look at the points scoring system down the field at all? Or are we totally happy where it is at now?
I really do feel for the guys turning out and finishing races, but having nothing to show for it on the tables. Perhaps we can give the last three teams in the WCC standings an extra 10 boosts over the rest? Or allocate them a random race only the GPGSL Body knows about where they receive a solitary weekend special perf bonus, much like Vettel and his STR victory? Which is then dropped for the next race and no benefit is gained into the next perf. So basically, they benefit short term with a rare good performance (or not); but dont carry the benefits into their long term perf.
Just another idea to spice up variation now and then so we don't get a snorefest.
It gives them a one off chance to shine.
danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But what I personally don't like is the fact that
> said team is almost golden laced for a long period
> in some respects, regardless of future owners.
>
> I think the perf should be partially carried over,
> but in the same respect, also reduced.
>
> The trouble is, it isn't a common occurance, but
> the effects of a new team takeover should only
> give them the benefits of the old team for maybe
> one season, and then significantly drop closer to
> the other starter perfs to allow them equal
> pairing.
>
> Look at Honda > Brawn > Mercedes.
>
> What I mean is, Christel, MAC, Snake etc could be
> here for 10 more seasons. And in that time, all
> other existing teams could be replaced by new ones
> and new members, but the chances are those same
> three teams will still be relatively near the
> bottom of the field, because new teams easily
> inherit the heritage of the past. Not totally
> fair.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Aston Martin
> the child of Velox? The same team that has
> dominated the last three seasons?
>
> The way the last half of this season went, it
> doesn't look likely S7 will change in terms of
> dominance. TSS are still second best. They have
> been in the top two for 6 seasons now. Velox/Aston
> the same.
>
> But you know, the current system does work, there
> are shifts in power, but shaking the top few is
> very hard.
>
> I just think I will be more than a little annoyed
> if Aston/TSS walks S7, because then, I do feel a
> MASSIVE shakeup definitely needs doing to give
> some of the others and bottom half a chance of
> glory.
>
> May I ask if there will be a look at the points
> scoring system down the field at all? Or are we
> totally happy where it is at now?
>
> I really do feel for the guys turning out and
> finishing races, but having nothing to show for it
> on the tables. Perhaps we can give the last three
> teams in the WCC standings an extra 10 boosts over
> the rest? Or allocate them a random race only the
> GPGSL Body knows about where they receive a
> solitary weekend special perf bonus, much like
> Vettel and his STR victory? Which is then dropped
> for the next race and no benefit is gained into
> the next perf. So basically, they benefit short
> term with a rare good performance (or not); but
> dont carry the benefits into their long term
> perf.
>
> Just another idea to spice up variation now and
> then so we don't get a snorefest.
>
> It gives them a one off chance to shine.
I must say I couldn't agree more with this. I don't think there should be any carry over. Or maybe we could(this literally sprang into my head). Maybe if a team is bought then the new team has to use a certain amount of its boosts points for the next season to "buy" the advantage instead of just waltzing in and being a top team straight away.
Say for instance, a team has a 5perf point advantage at the end of the season. The new team would have to spend, for instance, 10 of next seasons boost points to retain that advantage. It's a very rough sketch out of the idea but hopefully make enough sense to be talked about.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> But what I personally don't like is the fact that
> said team is almost golden laced for a long period
> in some respects, regardless of future owners.
>
> I think the perf should be partially carried over,
> but in the same respect, also reduced.
>
> The trouble is, it isn't a common occurance, but
> the effects of a new team takeover should only
> give them the benefits of the old team for maybe
> one season, and then significantly drop closer to
> the other starter perfs to allow them equal
> pairing.
>
> Look at Honda > Brawn > Mercedes.
>
> What I mean is, Christel, MAC, Snake etc could be
> here for 10 more seasons. And in that time, all
> other existing teams could be replaced by new ones
> and new members, but the chances are those same
> three teams will still be relatively near the
> bottom of the field, because new teams easily
> inherit the heritage of the past. Not totally
> fair.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Aston Martin
> the child of Velox? The same team that has
> dominated the last three seasons?
>
> The way the last half of this season went, it
> doesn't look likely S7 will change in terms of
> dominance. TSS are still second best. They have
> been in the top two for 6 seasons now. Velox/Aston
> the same.
>
> But you know, the current system does work, there
> are shifts in power, but shaking the top few is
> very hard.
>
> I just think I will be more than a little annoyed
> if Aston/TSS walks S7, because then, I do feel a
> MASSIVE shakeup definitely needs doing to give
> some of the others and bottom half a chance of
> glory.
>
> May I ask if there will be a look at the points
> scoring system down the field at all? Or are we
> totally happy where it is at now?
>
> I really do feel for the guys turning out and
> finishing races, but having nothing to show for it
> on the tables. Perhaps we can give the last three
> teams in the WCC standings an extra 10 boosts over
> the rest? Or allocate them a random race only the
> GPGSL Body knows about where they receive a
> solitary weekend special perf bonus, much like
> Vettel and his STR victory? Which is then dropped
> for the next race and no benefit is gained into
> the next perf. So basically, they benefit short
> term with a rare good performance (or not); but
> dont carry the benefits into their long term
> perf.
>
> Just another idea to spice up variation now and
> then so we don't get a snorefest.
>
> It gives them a one off chance to shine.
I must say I couldn't agree more with this. I don't think there should be any carry over. Or maybe we could(this literally sprang into my head). Maybe if a team is bought then the new team has to use a certain amount of its boosts points for the next season to "buy" the advantage instead of just waltzing in and being a top team straight away.
Say for instance, a team has a 5perf point advantage at the end of the season. The new team would have to spend, for instance, 10 of next seasons boost points to retain that advantage. It's a very rough sketch out of the idea but hopefully make enough sense to be talked about.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Good thinking there - I quite like that development a lot!
So you can't have BOTH benefits, and must sacrifice something in order to have said gain. Very good.
But then there must be a proportionate amount of points sacrificed based on, say, that teams final rank in that championship season.
ie, if TSS was taken over, and also MAC.
TSS new owners would more or less need to sacrifice 90% of their team boosts to counter the starting advantage the takeover has.
PROS - this is quite lifelike.
CONS - this relies on the idea that boosts are the be all and end all of power. Some argue they work, others not so much. As we saw last season, a boost at the back of the grid doesn't always get you anywhere. And a boost at the front of the grid doesn't get you a guaranteed win either. So the use of boosts is a big question mark.
Personally, I'd prefer to see an outright reduction in the takeover perf.
But back on track, the takeover is a rare event - not many teams are going anywhere soon.
The bigger issue at bay is the refreshing of the current pecking order overall, the gap between top and bottom, not just takeovers.
Drivers in the low end are also restricted in their own development by being in small teams.
May I ask in the current perf calculations, does a drivers overtaking number in a race assist in any value to the race perf? Or is it just finishing position? Off hand I can't remember. If it does, awesome.
If not, a guy starting 22nd and finishing 13th with no DC or WCC points should surely get a personal perf gain to reflect a feisty race where he has gained places, and not merely the end position?
It'd mean lowly team drivers not scoring points can still become a formidable driver at the back of the field, and increases their chance to join a top team with a lot of these unseen and overlooked results.
Just another idea to the mix...
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
So you can't have BOTH benefits, and must sacrifice something in order to have said gain. Very good.
But then there must be a proportionate amount of points sacrificed based on, say, that teams final rank in that championship season.
ie, if TSS was taken over, and also MAC.
TSS new owners would more or less need to sacrifice 90% of their team boosts to counter the starting advantage the takeover has.
PROS - this is quite lifelike.
CONS - this relies on the idea that boosts are the be all and end all of power. Some argue they work, others not so much. As we saw last season, a boost at the back of the grid doesn't always get you anywhere. And a boost at the front of the grid doesn't get you a guaranteed win either. So the use of boosts is a big question mark.
Personally, I'd prefer to see an outright reduction in the takeover perf.
But back on track, the takeover is a rare event - not many teams are going anywhere soon.
The bigger issue at bay is the refreshing of the current pecking order overall, the gap between top and bottom, not just takeovers.
Drivers in the low end are also restricted in their own development by being in small teams.
May I ask in the current perf calculations, does a drivers overtaking number in a race assist in any value to the race perf? Or is it just finishing position? Off hand I can't remember. If it does, awesome.
If not, a guy starting 22nd and finishing 13th with no DC or WCC points should surely get a personal perf gain to reflect a feisty race where he has gained places, and not merely the end position?
It'd mean lowly team drivers not scoring points can still become a formidable driver at the back of the field, and increases their chance to join a top team with a lot of these unseen and overlooked results.
Just another idea to the mix...
Generally it's only the points position.
Yet there is the most places gained bonus of 1 point for the driver who gained the most places.
Sorry for my short answer, I'm in heavy stress this week.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Yet there is the most places gained bonus of 1 point for the driver who gained the most places.
Sorry for my short answer, I'm in heavy stress this week.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
I still don't think new teams should be allowed to take over the perfs of the old teams. I think this would also, in time, placate the people that are calling for a reduction in the gap betweenn topn and bottom teams because teams will move on eventually and when they do there will be teams that have worked their perfs up to take the top spots, with the new teams going in at the bottom and having to work to the top.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
I have had an idea concerning team boosts.
Each team gets 6 team boosts per season similar to how the driver boosts work.
The top 3 teams get 4bhp per boost - 24 bhp
The next four teams get 5bhp per boost - 30 bhp
The bottom four teams get 6bhp per boost - 36 bhp
Each boost is coupled with a 1200 failure rate.
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
Each team gets 6 team boosts per season similar to how the driver boosts work.
The top 3 teams get 4bhp per boost - 24 bhp
The next four teams get 5bhp per boost - 30 bhp
The bottom four teams get 6bhp per boost - 36 bhp
Each boost is coupled with a 1200 failure rate.
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
Stoopid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have had an idea concerning team boosts.
>
> Each team gets 6 team boosts per season similar to
> how the driver boosts work.
> The top 3 teams get 4bhp per boost - 24 bhp
> The next four teams get 5bhp per boost - 30 bhp
> The bottom four teams get 6bhp per boost - 36 bhp
>
> Each boost is coupled with a 1200 failure rate.
how much effect does 4 bhp have on a 800hp engine? Personally I'm in that part of people that think boost doesn't work very well, so I think team boost won't do the work.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have had an idea concerning team boosts.
>
> Each team gets 6 team boosts per season similar to
> how the driver boosts work.
> The top 3 teams get 4bhp per boost - 24 bhp
> The next four teams get 5bhp per boost - 30 bhp
> The bottom four teams get 6bhp per boost - 36 bhp
>
> Each boost is coupled with a 1200 failure rate.
how much effect does 4 bhp have on a 800hp engine? Personally I'm in that part of people that think boost doesn't work very well, so I think team boost won't do the work.
Ok, so do we abolish team boost?
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
What about leaving the BHPs the same for every team,but decrease the reliability number for lower teams?Let's say for example,AMR uses 2BHPs for a race and gets more 900 points for reliability.Then,MAC Racing uses 2BHPs like AMR,but gets just 400-500 points for reliability.
That would help lower teams to recover the gap on top teams,as they may have more chances to take "the best" from a boost(for having the real best,there shouldn't be a failure value
).
My GPGSL Career
That would help lower teams to recover the gap on top teams,as they may have more chances to take "the best" from a boost(for having the real best,there shouldn't be a failure value
).My GPGSL Career
senna9194 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about leaving the BHPs the same for every
> team,but decrease the reliability number for lower
> teams?Let's say for example,AMR uses 2BHPs for a
> race and gets more 900 points for
> reliability.Then,MAC Racing uses 2BHPs like
> AMR,but gets just 400-500 points for reliability.
> That would help lower teams to recover the gap on
> top teams,as they may have more chances to take
> "the best" from a boost(for having the real
> best,there shouldn't be a failure value).
Not sure I follow what you're getting at there... Sorta sounds like the effect of engine wear to me - and I had considered something like that in place of boost.
In fact, I'd like to know why boost was implemented in the first place - with driver variances that can nullify driver boosts in an instant and a lack of impact caused by team boosts (bar when a lot of boost is used in one go), it seems a little redundant.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about leaving the BHPs the same for every
> team,but decrease the reliability number for lower
> teams?Let's say for example,AMR uses 2BHPs for a
> race and gets more 900 points for
> reliability.Then,MAC Racing uses 2BHPs like
> AMR,but gets just 400-500 points for reliability.
> That would help lower teams to recover the gap on
> top teams,as they may have more chances to take
> "the best" from a boost(for having the real
> best,there shouldn't be a failure value
).Not sure I follow what you're getting at there... Sorta sounds like the effect of engine wear to me - and I had considered something like that in place of boost.
In fact, I'd like to know why boost was implemented in the first place - with driver variances that can nullify driver boosts in an instant and a lack of impact caused by team boosts (bar when a lot of boost is used in one go), it seems a little redundant.
Bump. Any discussion to be had on rules and regs, have it here 
As its getting close to the end of season 7 of the GPGSL I was wondering whether it would be okay to resurrect this suggestions thread to mull over some ideas that I have regarding the rules and regulations of this, lets be honest, awesome series!
My thoughts, which are by no way intended as critiscsm (just incase they sound like it) are this(although one of them is more of an offer than a suggestion)...
- I am still a massive advocate of new teams not being allowed to carry over the perf of the team they replaced. I do not think it allows for long term change in the grid and could lead to the series becoming stagnant.
I would also like to see the return of pre-season testing, for no other reason than to provide more of a build up to the new season and to see of the new cars on track before the season starts (which may or may not help with liveries being submitted on time). There would be no impact on the season as a whole by running these tests and I would be more than happy to run them! I just think it would add even more realism/entertainment to the whole thing
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
My thoughts, which are by no way intended as critiscsm (just incase they sound like it) are this(although one of them is more of an offer than a suggestion)...
- I am still a massive advocate of new teams not being allowed to carry over the perf of the team they replaced. I do not think it allows for long term change in the grid and could lead to the series becoming stagnant.
I would also like to see the return of pre-season testing, for no other reason than to provide more of a build up to the new season and to see of the new cars on track before the season starts (which may or may not help with liveries being submitted on time). There would be no impact on the season as a whole by running these tests and I would be more than happy to run them! I just think it would add even more realism/entertainment to the whole thing
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
The rules were changed earlier this year so that all new teams must have a base perf. Existing teams can no longer sell their team with their perfs intact to the new team.
One idea I have had is to have one lap qualifying. This would mix grids up more especially if they are rain affected and also give all drivers equal exposure.
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
One idea I have had is to have one lap qualifying. This would mix grids up more especially if they are rain affected and also give all drivers equal exposure.
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
Stoopid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rules were changed earlier this year so that
> all new teams must have a base perf. Existing
> teams can no longer sell their team with their
> perfs intact to the new team.
>
> One idea I have had is to have one lap qualifying.
> This would mix grids up more especially if they
> are rain affected and also give all drivers equal
> exposure.
It does only partly as also GP4 has a grip simulation already. Which means, that theoretically the later runners have better chances if there isn't a weather change.
And while we're already in workflow: I want to renew my idea of an 'aging simulation'. As soon as a driver reaches A) a number of seasons he has joined or B) a certain perf, he will be restricted in a way. This can be either a general 'penalty' before or after the starter perf for the next season is created OR, another idea I had, is a perf cap like we have it for the team perfs, too. Exemplarily: As soon as a driver reaches a race perf of 16120 and a qualifying perf of 16150 (which is 100 points more than the starter perf), he can't build build up the perf any longer. Boosts will be added to this though (like team boost is as well after a team perf cap), which makes it a max perf of 16170/16200.
In my opinion this will help to prevent people dominating the series too much but yet allow such people to continue to fight for titles. In my opinion a mix of both these suggestions could work out pretty well.
And just to make this clear: Of course I'm mostly referring to Ed, in regards of this. But I think (or rather hope) that he knows very well that this is not at all a personal attack on him. It's just an idea to keep the series exciting for everybody.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rules were changed earlier this year so that
> all new teams must have a base perf. Existing
> teams can no longer sell their team with their
> perfs intact to the new team.
>
> One idea I have had is to have one lap qualifying.
> This would mix grids up more especially if they
> are rain affected and also give all drivers equal
> exposure.
It does only partly as also GP4 has a grip simulation already. Which means, that theoretically the later runners have better chances if there isn't a weather change.
And while we're already in workflow: I want to renew my idea of an 'aging simulation'. As soon as a driver reaches A) a number of seasons he has joined or B) a certain perf, he will be restricted in a way. This can be either a general 'penalty' before or after the starter perf for the next season is created OR, another idea I had, is a perf cap like we have it for the team perfs, too. Exemplarily: As soon as a driver reaches a race perf of 16120 and a qualifying perf of 16150 (which is 100 points more than the starter perf), he can't build build up the perf any longer. Boosts will be added to this though (like team boost is as well after a team perf cap), which makes it a max perf of 16170/16200.
In my opinion this will help to prevent people dominating the series too much but yet allow such people to continue to fight for titles. In my opinion a mix of both these suggestions could work out pretty well.
And just to make this clear: Of course I'm mostly referring to Ed, in regards of this. But I think (or rather hope) that he knows very well that this is not at all a personal attack on him. It's just an idea to keep the series exciting for everybody.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
The aging formula, whilst an interesting idea, I feel it would be overly complicated to implement, we would have to keep track of many seasons of perfs rather than one.
I like the idea of capping drivers perfs as we do for teams, can't think why we haven't thought of that one before lol
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
I like the idea of capping drivers perfs as we do for teams, can't think why we haven't thought of that one before lol
5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.