GPGSL Rules and Regulations Discussion Thread
Posted by GPGSL
I like the idea of the 1 lap qualifying!!! We already have that option available in Tweaker, so why not use it??!!! Or at least set a pre determined selected races on the calander. Perhaps every 2nd or 3rd race on the schedule??
Great idea for some random and mixed up grids! Lets all remember, it is JUST a game and some fun for us all.....
GPGSL Team Owner Debut - Melbourne, Season 8 - present
GPGSL Test Debut - Hungary, Season 4. GPGSL Race Debut - Adelaide, Season 5.
Great idea for some random and mixed up grids! Lets all remember, it is JUST a game and some fun for us all.....
GPGSL Team Owner Debut - Melbourne, Season 8 - present
GPGSL Test Debut - Hungary, Season 4. GPGSL Race Debut - Adelaide, Season 5.
I like the one-lap qualifying, it can either destroy you or hand you the pole position!
And not only it could make interesting grids, the report for the qualy would also be easier to make in terms of screenshots!
Driver capping sounds solid to me as well
If you are racing, keep on racing and get some points!
GPG Super League S11 | Driver #41 | Team-manager | Snake Motorsports Racing Group | Next Race: Emmeloord - Flevoland GP | Constructors: 10th | Best Race Finish: 1st
GPG Super League Season 9 Testers Champion*
And not only it could make interesting grids, the report for the qualy would also be easier to make in terms of screenshots!
Driver capping sounds solid to me as well
GPG Super League S11 | Driver #41 | Team-manager | Snake Motorsports Racing Group | Next Race: Emmeloord - Flevoland GP | Constructors: 10th | Best Race Finish: 1st
GPG Super League Season 9 Testers Champion*
Interesting ideas for the GPGSL to look at for season 8 I think. Capping the driver perfs and one lap qualifying for the main series. Standard session for the test series or one lap qualy?
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to.
[www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 CentralIn all honesty, I think a one-lap qualifying for testers would be too unfair, both in terms of
A) coverage time for the testers
B) the missing race.
If a race driver does bad in qualifying, he still has a chance to make good for it in the race. A test driver hasn't. So, as long as there is not a feature race for the test drivers, I'd personally prefer the normal qualifying mode for them.
On another note, I don't think that the 'aging formula' would be that hard to be implemented. It's only one time in a season, and that is when the new starter perfs are calculated, when that would take effect at all. Only there one would have to check how long a driver is racing already. In combination with an up-to-date wiki, that shouldn't be much of a problem. But if the idea isn't liked, I won't desperately fight for it
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
A) coverage time for the testers
B) the missing race.
If a race driver does bad in qualifying, he still has a chance to make good for it in the race. A test driver hasn't. So, as long as there is not a feature race for the test drivers, I'd personally prefer the normal qualifying mode for them.
On another note, I don't think that the 'aging formula' would be that hard to be implemented. It's only one time in a season, and that is when the new starter perfs are calculated, when that would take effect at all. Only there one would have to check how long a driver is racing already. In combination with an up-to-date wiki, that shouldn't be much of a problem. But if the idea isn't liked, I won't desperately fight for it
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
The tyre compound idea is interesting idea, but really hard to implement. That's even more work than my 'aging formula' is. As the perf tester I'm no fan of this compound idea, simply because it's more work to do...and especially as it opens new sources for mistakes for every single weekend.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
ohhh i like the idea of one lap qualifying for certain races. I have to say that I also like the idea of a perf cap for driver perfs. Because I can honsetly see Ed Greenhalgh running away with the next five championships at this rate. At least if we cap the perfs, the top drivers are still top drivers, but it gives everyone else the chance to catch up and challenge, which makes for more interesting racing in the future.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
I must also admit that I like the idea of a winter/young drivers test. I would see it running like this and will use my own team (Christel VXR) as an exmaple...
Teams could select two of their drivers (be they race or test) for the test. Lets say for example that I choose Jack Elleker (race driver) and Gary Spencer (test driver). They take part in the test with the opportunity to boost their perfs in preperation for the coming season and/or boost the teams perf.
As team manager I simply have to choose whether to develop driver talent, team pace or both. At the end of the session a dice roll decides the benefit which would then be disseminated down through the finishing order. So for instance...If an even number is rolled....
1st placed driver - 6 point boost to perf
2nd - 5 point boost
3rd - 4 point boost
(bare in mind these numbers are used as barely an example. the real values could be decided upon later)...and so and so forth. If odd is rolled then no benefit is gained.
If Elleker was fastest in this hypothetical test and an even number was rolled, then there would be three possible outcomes....
1. He focussed on driver talent and gets six pionts added to his perf.
2. I choose to focus on team perf and the team gets the perf boost for his finishing position, which would be combined with Gary's position as well.
3. I choose to split the benefit, meaning that Jack would recieve 3 points, and Christel VXR 3 as well.
To me, this just adds a little something to the team management side, as well as another element of luck. It might be too difficult to implement, but I would be willing to run these tests (as long as somebody impartial did the dice roll) and help out. Let me know what you think.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Teams could select two of their drivers (be they race or test) for the test. Lets say for example that I choose Jack Elleker (race driver) and Gary Spencer (test driver). They take part in the test with the opportunity to boost their perfs in preperation for the coming season and/or boost the teams perf.
As team manager I simply have to choose whether to develop driver talent, team pace or both. At the end of the session a dice roll decides the benefit which would then be disseminated down through the finishing order. So for instance...If an even number is rolled....
1st placed driver - 6 point boost to perf
2nd - 5 point boost
3rd - 4 point boost
(bare in mind these numbers are used as barely an example. the real values could be decided upon later)...and so and so forth. If odd is rolled then no benefit is gained.
If Elleker was fastest in this hypothetical test and an even number was rolled, then there would be three possible outcomes....
1. He focussed on driver talent and gets six pionts added to his perf.
2. I choose to focus on team perf and the team gets the perf boost for his finishing position, which would be combined with Gary's position as well.
3. I choose to split the benefit, meaning that Jack would recieve 3 points, and Christel VXR 3 as well.
To me, this just adds a little something to the team management side, as well as another element of luck. It might be too difficult to implement, but I would be willing to run these tests (as long as somebody impartial did the dice roll) and help out. Let me know what you think.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
I generally like the idea. However, one big problem I see there, is that it's likely that the well-established teams will make the front places and increase their perf lead even more. And as the Young Driver tests are generally at the end of a season, but in the old cars, I don't see a sense in a team perf gain.
But another idea is interesting, that is that the teamowner has to choose two of his drivers for this test (including himself...which could give create a nice conflict whether to use the chance for himself or give his drivers a shot). At the end the dice roll is done, but either everybody gets the same perf boost or nobody gets it at all.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
But another idea is interesting, that is that the teamowner has to choose two of his drivers for this test (including himself...which could give create a nice conflict whether to use the chance for himself or give his drivers a shot). At the end the dice roll is done, but either everybody gets the same perf boost or nobody gets it at all.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
JohnMaverick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I generally like the idea. However, one big
> problem I see there, is that it's likely that the
> well-established teams will make the front places
> and increase their perf lead even more. And as the
> Young Driver tests are generally at the end of a
> season, but in the old cars, I don't see a sense
> in a team perf gain.
>
> But another idea is interesting, that is that the
> teamowner has to choose two of his drivers for
> this test (including himself...which could give
> create a nice conflict whether to use the chance
> for himself or give his drivers a shot). At the
> end the dice roll is done, but either everybody
> gets the same perf boost or nobody gets it at all.
That would work.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> I generally like the idea. However, one big
> problem I see there, is that it's likely that the
> well-established teams will make the front places
> and increase their perf lead even more. And as the
> Young Driver tests are generally at the end of a
> season, but in the old cars, I don't see a sense
> in a team perf gain.
>
> But another idea is interesting, that is that the
> teamowner has to choose two of his drivers for
> this test (including himself...which could give
> create a nice conflict whether to use the chance
> for himself or give his drivers a shot). At the
> end the dice roll is done, but either everybody
> gets the same perf boost or nobody gets it at all.
That would work.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
CaptinFranko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ohhh i like the idea of one lap qualifying for
> certain races. I have to say that I also like the
> idea of a perf cap for driver perfs. Because I can
> honsetly see Ed Greenhalgh running away with the
> next five championships at this rate. At least if
> we cap the perfs, the top drivers are still top
> drivers, but it gives everyone else the chance to
> catch up and challenge, which makes for more
> interesting racing in the future.
I am more than happy to take a cap, limit, reduction or whatever - even if it's voluntary and no-one else does.
I enjoy driving in the GPGSL so would prefer not to retire, but I don't want to ruin the series for everyone else.
X (@ed24f1)
-------------------------------------------------------
> ohhh i like the idea of one lap qualifying for
> certain races. I have to say that I also like the
> idea of a perf cap for driver perfs. Because I can
> honsetly see Ed Greenhalgh running away with the
> next five championships at this rate. At least if
> we cap the perfs, the top drivers are still top
> drivers, but it gives everyone else the chance to
> catch up and challenge, which makes for more
> interesting racing in the future.
I am more than happy to take a cap, limit, reduction or whatever - even if it's voluntary and no-one else does.
I enjoy driving in the GPGSL so would prefer not to retire, but I don't want to ruin the series for everyone else.
X (@ed24f1)
SchueyFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CaptinFranko Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ohhh i like the idea of one lap qualifying for
> > certain races. I have to say that I also like
> the
> > idea of a perf cap for driver perfs. Because I
> can
> > honsetly see Ed Greenhalgh running away with
> the
> > next five championships at this rate. At least
> if
> > we cap the perfs, the top drivers are still top
> > drivers, but it gives everyone else the chance
> to
> > catch up and challenge, which makes for more
> > interesting racing in the future.
>
>
> I am more than happy to take a cap, limit,
> reduction or whatever - even if it's voluntary and
> no-one else does.
>
> I enjoy driving in the GPGSL so would prefer not
> to retire, but I don't want to ruin the series for
> everyone else.
I feel I have to apologise somewhat. It wasn't my intention to make out that you were ruining the series Ed, simply to get you a little more competition
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> CaptinFranko Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ohhh i like the idea of one lap qualifying for
> > certain races. I have to say that I also like
> the
> > idea of a perf cap for driver perfs. Because I
> can
> > honsetly see Ed Greenhalgh running away with
> the
> > next five championships at this rate. At least
> if
> > we cap the perfs, the top drivers are still top
> > drivers, but it gives everyone else the chance
> to
> > catch up and challenge, which makes for more
> > interesting racing in the future.
>
>
> I am more than happy to take a cap, limit,
> reduction or whatever - even if it's voluntary and
> no-one else does.
>
> I enjoy driving in the GPGSL so would prefer not
> to retire, but I don't want to ruin the series for
> everyone else.
I feel I have to apologise somewhat. It wasn't my intention to make out that you were ruining the series Ed, simply to get you a little more competition
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
No no, I didn't mean to single anyone out, I was just using that as a relevant quote on this page.
I've been thinking about this and talking with some other people about it for a while now.
X (@ed24f1)
I've been thinking about this and talking with some other people about it for a while now.
X (@ed24f1)
My contribution:
I am 100% behind the one hit qualifying and have advocated it from the start as it's much easier on the race director and makes for a more exciting grid.
IMO practise should be full length for the sake of the testers who are already short changed a little.
Driver caps are something I am quite wary of. Most drivers stay in the series year-on-year so surely we would get to a point where too many people reached the limit and then come the start of the next season there's no differences between anyone. At the moment we implement a formula at the end of each season which, to an extent, resets the drivers so that spread over the field is dramatically reduced and I think this is a good way of doing it. We shouldn't all get carried away because Ed was dominant in one race, he didn't even get pole position lol!!
My suggestion which I think would increase people's ability to tactically improve their positions in the field but not create too much extra work would be to reduce the unreliability settings when people use boosts. Too often we see the teams and drivers using boosts crashing out. This is fine when it's one of the top teams as I have the opinion of 'I was just unlucky' but often the lower down teams are actually put at a disadvantage when using boosts. It would be better in my opinion if a team lower down the field which used a boost would be almost guaranteed a good result rather than being put at the mercy of GP4's random crashes and blow ups.
I am 100% behind the one hit qualifying and have advocated it from the start as it's much easier on the race director and makes for a more exciting grid.
IMO practise should be full length for the sake of the testers who are already short changed a little.
Driver caps are something I am quite wary of. Most drivers stay in the series year-on-year so surely we would get to a point where too many people reached the limit and then come the start of the next season there's no differences between anyone. At the moment we implement a formula at the end of each season which, to an extent, resets the drivers so that spread over the field is dramatically reduced and I think this is a good way of doing it. We shouldn't all get carried away because Ed was dominant in one race, he didn't even get pole position lol!!
My suggestion which I think would increase people's ability to tactically improve their positions in the field but not create too much extra work would be to reduce the unreliability settings when people use boosts. Too often we see the teams and drivers using boosts crashing out. This is fine when it's one of the top teams as I have the opinion of 'I was just unlucky' but often the lower down teams are actually put at a disadvantage when using boosts. It would be better in my opinion if a team lower down the field which used a boost would be almost guaranteed a good result rather than being put at the mercy of GP4's random crashes and blow ups.
brunoboi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My contribution:
>
> I am 100% behind the one hit qualifying and have
> advocated it from the start as it's much easier on
> the race director and makes for a more exciting
> grid.
>
> IMO practise should be full length for the sake of
> the testers who are already short changed a
> little.
>
> Driver caps are something I am quite wary of. Most
> drivers stay in the series year-on-year so surely
> we would get to a point where too many people
> reached the limit and then come the start of the
> next season there's no differences between anyone.
> At the moment we implement a formula at the end of
> each season which, to an extent, resets the
> drivers so that spread over the field is
> dramatically reduced and I think this is a good
> way of doing it. We shouldn't all get carried away
> because Ed was dominant in one race, he didn't
> even get pole position lol!!
>
> My suggestion which I think would increase
> people's ability to tactically improve their
> positions in the field but not create too much
> extra work would be to reduce the unreliability
> settings when people use boosts. Too often we see
> the teams and drivers using boosts crashing out.
> This is fine when it's one of the top teams as I
> have the opinion of 'I was just unlucky' but often
> the lower down teams are actually put at a
> disadvantage when using boosts. It would be better
> in my opinion if a team lower down the field which
> used a boost would be almost guaranteed a good
> result rather than being put at the mercy of GP4's
> random crashes and blow ups.
Well said good sir. I like the sound of that.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> My contribution:
>
> I am 100% behind the one hit qualifying and have
> advocated it from the start as it's much easier on
> the race director and makes for a more exciting
> grid.
>
> IMO practise should be full length for the sake of
> the testers who are already short changed a
> little.
>
> Driver caps are something I am quite wary of. Most
> drivers stay in the series year-on-year so surely
> we would get to a point where too many people
> reached the limit and then come the start of the
> next season there's no differences between anyone.
> At the moment we implement a formula at the end of
> each season which, to an extent, resets the
> drivers so that spread over the field is
> dramatically reduced and I think this is a good
> way of doing it. We shouldn't all get carried away
> because Ed was dominant in one race, he didn't
> even get pole position lol!!
>
> My suggestion which I think would increase
> people's ability to tactically improve their
> positions in the field but not create too much
> extra work would be to reduce the unreliability
> settings when people use boosts. Too often we see
> the teams and drivers using boosts crashing out.
> This is fine when it's one of the top teams as I
> have the opinion of 'I was just unlucky' but often
> the lower down teams are actually put at a
> disadvantage when using boosts. It would be better
> in my opinion if a team lower down the field which
> used a boost would be almost guaranteed a good
> result rather than being put at the mercy of GP4's
> random crashes and blow ups.
Well said good sir. I like the sound of that.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
As far as I know the unreliability number isn't responsible for crashes or driver mistakes. That is handled A) by the magic data and B) by the driver perf. The unreliability number is only responsible for car failures, and honestly, we don't have that many there, even with big boosts used. The number for it is rather small and keeps things realistic, but definitely not unfair.
The problem with the normal perf reduction for the start perfs of the next season is that it still spreads the field a lot. Last season we had a gap of XXX65 for the best driver to XXX27 to the worst one. That's nearly a complete driver boost already at the start. Consequently this gap increases more and more over the season and in cases like we have it now, where especially one driver is far ahead of others, this leads to mostly a dominance and leaves back-grid teams no chance anymore on big points. The perf cap only allows strong drivers to improve more up to a certain point. When this point is reached, the cap prevents the gap from getting even bigger and allows other drivers to catch up.
Of course it will end in multiple top drivers having the same perf at the end of the season, but they still can bring in some tactics by using driver boosts later and by this extending their cap with +50 points for one race, at least. And not so strong drivers will also have a chance again to catch up and fight for wins by the use of a boost.
Also this will keep the series closer together at the end of a season, with multiple drivers having chances on a win, either because they've also reached the cap already, or because they could decrease the gap to the capped drivers.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
The problem with the normal perf reduction for the start perfs of the next season is that it still spreads the field a lot. Last season we had a gap of XXX65 for the best driver to XXX27 to the worst one. That's nearly a complete driver boost already at the start. Consequently this gap increases more and more over the season and in cases like we have it now, where especially one driver is far ahead of others, this leads to mostly a dominance and leaves back-grid teams no chance anymore on big points. The perf cap only allows strong drivers to improve more up to a certain point. When this point is reached, the cap prevents the gap from getting even bigger and allows other drivers to catch up.
Of course it will end in multiple top drivers having the same perf at the end of the season, but they still can bring in some tactics by using driver boosts later and by this extending their cap with +50 points for one race, at least. And not so strong drivers will also have a chance again to catch up and fight for wins by the use of a boost.
Also this will keep the series closer together at the end of a season, with multiple drivers having chances on a win, either because they've also reached the cap already, or because they could decrease the gap to the capped drivers.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
JohnMaverick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as I know the unreliability number isn't
> responsible for crashes or driver mistakes. That
> is handled A) by the magic data and B) by the
> driver perf. The unreliability number is only
> responsible for car failures, and honestly, we
> don't have that many there, even with big boosts
> used. The number for it is rather small and keeps
> things realistic, but definitely not unfair.
>
>
> The problem with the normal perf reduction for the
> start perfs of the next season is that it still
> spreads the field a lot. Last season we had a gap
> of XXX65 for the best driver to XXX27 to the worst
> one. That's nearly a complete driver boost already
> at the start. Consequently this gap increases more
> and more over the season and in cases like we have
> it now, where especially one driver is far ahead
> of others, this leads to mostly a dominance and
> leaves back-grid teams no chance anymore on big
> points. The perf cap only allows strong drivers to
> improve more up to a certain point. When this
> point is reached, the cap prevents the gap from
> getting even bigger and allows other drivers to
> catch up.
> Of course it will end in multiple top drivers
> having the same perf at the end of the season, but
> they still can bring in some tactics by using
> driver boosts later and by this extending their
> cap with +50 points for one race, at least. And
> not so strong drivers will also have a chance
> again to catch up and fight for wins by the use of
> a boost.
> Also this will keep the series closer together at
> the end of a season, with multiple drivers having
> chances on a win, either because they've also
> reached the cap already, or because they could
> decrease the gap to the capped drivers.
I must say I do think a perf cap for drivers is the way forward.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as I know the unreliability number isn't
> responsible for crashes or driver mistakes. That
> is handled A) by the magic data and B) by the
> driver perf. The unreliability number is only
> responsible for car failures, and honestly, we
> don't have that many there, even with big boosts
> used. The number for it is rather small and keeps
> things realistic, but definitely not unfair.
>
>
> The problem with the normal perf reduction for the
> start perfs of the next season is that it still
> spreads the field a lot. Last season we had a gap
> of XXX65 for the best driver to XXX27 to the worst
> one. That's nearly a complete driver boost already
> at the start. Consequently this gap increases more
> and more over the season and in cases like we have
> it now, where especially one driver is far ahead
> of others, this leads to mostly a dominance and
> leaves back-grid teams no chance anymore on big
> points. The perf cap only allows strong drivers to
> improve more up to a certain point. When this
> point is reached, the cap prevents the gap from
> getting even bigger and allows other drivers to
> catch up.
> Of course it will end in multiple top drivers
> having the same perf at the end of the season, but
> they still can bring in some tactics by using
> driver boosts later and by this extending their
> cap with +50 points for one race, at least. And
> not so strong drivers will also have a chance
> again to catch up and fight for wins by the use of
> a boost.
> Also this will keep the series closer together at
> the end of a season, with multiple drivers having
> chances on a win, either because they've also
> reached the cap already, or because they could
> decrease the gap to the capped drivers.
I must say I do think a perf cap for drivers is the way forward.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Perhaps reducing the unreliabilty of drivers using boosts in which case? I do standby the fact that the boost system could be utilised better so that people feel they have a greater impact on racing through us of tactics.
It is my privileged position at the front of the grid that influences me, but I really like the challenge and chase at the end if the season to negotiate with the top drivers. I feel that would be lost a little if drivers had the same perf. That's why I'd rather have the drivers beginning the season closer together. I would also fear that the end of a season would be rendered unnecessary if all the top teams had identical team AND driver performance files.
It is my privileged position at the front of the grid that influences me, but I really like the challenge and chase at the end if the season to negotiate with the top drivers. I feel that would be lost a little if drivers had the same perf. That's why I'd rather have the drivers beginning the season closer together. I would also fear that the end of a season would be rendered unnecessary if all the top teams had identical team AND driver performance files.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.