GPGSL Rules and Regulations Discussion Thread
Posted by GPGSL
Guimengo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4
> c
>
> 5
> c
>
> 6
> b
Why are you voting? If I recall, you were taken out due to inactivity.
Isn't voting on the rules for next season only for the drivers in the series?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4
> c
>
> 5
> c
>
> 6
> b
Why are you voting? If I recall, you were taken out due to inactivity.
Isn't voting on the rules for next season only for the drivers in the series?
4. Team boosts.
A) Keep existing pyramid system. But maybe lower down the gap between top team and last/new team.
Currently it goes from 12 to 32 BHP boosts which means a gap of 20 between top and bottom with a step of 2 between each team.
Make it a step of one and start for example at 14 to end with 24 which will make a gap of 10 between top and last teams.
5. Driver boosts.
B) Change to 6x100 boosts.
6. Driver variance.
B) Change to reducing 500 variance.
Also, as stated before, I think we should lower down the perf system formula for teams to reduce the usual tendancy of a one runner series. This is my proposal :
The current formula is : 16-b) Perf system for teams : Total driver points are divided by six, then added to the BHP. [...]
I think we should divide it by 8. With the current system a win gives 15 perf points for the winning driver and 2,5 for his team, so a 1-2 gives [(15+12.5)/6]=4,58 points for the winnig team for each race, rounded to 4 BHP max per race which is not too much, but with 17 races, we could go to a max up of 77 points gained for a team in the whole championship, which is a lot.
If divided by 8 it will make 3.43 points for a race, rounded to 3, and a max of 58 points for the championship, which is a litlle less obviously but as BHP seems to have more effects than drivers perfs on the game that should reduce the gap growing effect we have while the season rolls on.
A) Keep existing pyramid system. But maybe lower down the gap between top team and last/new team.
Currently it goes from 12 to 32 BHP boosts which means a gap of 20 between top and bottom with a step of 2 between each team.
Make it a step of one and start for example at 14 to end with 24 which will make a gap of 10 between top and last teams.
5. Driver boosts.
B) Change to 6x100 boosts.
6. Driver variance.
B) Change to reducing 500 variance.
Also, as stated before, I think we should lower down the perf system formula for teams to reduce the usual tendancy of a one runner series. This is my proposal :
The current formula is : 16-b) Perf system for teams : Total driver points are divided by six, then added to the BHP. [...]
I think we should divide it by 8. With the current system a win gives 15 perf points for the winning driver and 2,5 for his team, so a 1-2 gives [(15+12.5)/6]=4,58 points for the winnig team for each race, rounded to 4 BHP max per race which is not too much, but with 17 races, we could go to a max up of 77 points gained for a team in the whole championship, which is a lot.
If divided by 8 it will make 3.43 points for a race, rounded to 3, and a max of 58 points for the championship, which is a litlle less obviously but as BHP seems to have more effects than drivers perfs on the game that should reduce the gap growing effect we have while the season rolls on.
That's what the team team perf cap is there for, Eric. As soon as the teams reach 810, their perf is capped and they don't gain any more team perf. You mustn't forget, however, that everybody is divided by 8 then, instead of six. Which, as a result, means that one good result for a smaller team has even less of an effect for them than it has now. Which then means that with your proposal you will actually increase the gap between higher and lower teams.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
I'm not familiar with the way it works in f1manager, Dean. If it involves exiting the game and returning to select drivers, then I'm not a fan.I
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
Stoopid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not familiar with the way it works in
> f1manager, Dean. If it involves exiting the game
> and returning to select drivers, then I'm not a
> fan.I
We start a 20min quali session with all drivers. After the session select the 6 slowest drivers and start a new 20min quali. After that the same again, select the 6 slowest drivers of q1 and q2, and start the final 20min quali. Then exit the game, edit the perf file with the custom grid tool, and then start the (quick-) race.
Some F1 CSM mods
1996 | 2000 | 2002 | 2007 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2018
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not familiar with the way it works in
> f1manager, Dean. If it involves exiting the game
> and returning to select drivers, then I'm not a
> fan.I
We start a 20min quali session with all drivers. After the session select the 6 slowest drivers and start a new 20min quali. After that the same again, select the 6 slowest drivers of q1 and q2, and start the final 20min quali. Then exit the game, edit the perf file with the custom grid tool, and then start the (quick-) race.
Some F1 CSM mods
1996 | 2000 | 2002 | 2007 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2018
I figured there was no other way of doing this and I'm definitely against this as well. It works okay for the F1 manager, but the GPGSL is different. Doing it like this is A) A lot more time consuming, B) Offers more vulnerability to mistakes and C) Interrupts the consistency since the race is not loaded from a qualifying save file but completely started afresh.
This all mixed with the elements of surprise that were already implemented and which are at least possible to be kept, would just add even more to the randomness of everything. Alone this might sound like a neat idea. But you guys have seen what happened this season when too many elements were changed at once.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
This all mixed with the elements of surprise that were already implemented and which are at least possible to be kept, would just add even more to the randomness of everything. Alone this might sound like a neat idea. But you guys have seen what happened this season when too many elements were changed at once.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
4) B or C. Preferrably C
5) B
6) C
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
5) B
6) C
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Here we go,
1. A. I think the new points system has a lot merit than the old one.
2. A. One stops for me, but I'm not a fan of making it a large window. Someone will definitely cry foul when their driver constantly pits early and runs most of the race on one set of tyres.
3. C. Although one lap qualy has made the RD's life easier, it has thrown up some unusual grids. 2 runs will still keep a certain amount of randomness but not by the same degree. Will still be easier for the RD too.
4. A. Speaking with my AMR hat on, I prefer the old system, it gives me more scope in team strategy. However, thinking about the series as a whole I think the pyramid system has been a huge success. Let's keep it.
5. B. Higher boosts will have a bigger impact as some have been asking for, but reducing the number is counter productive to higher boost in my opinion. We need it to be 6x100.
6. B. Reducing the variance to 500 will give the driver boosts a better chance to work, also there is room to improve too. I would also like to increase all drivers starting perf by 100 too, so the base perf would be 16120,500,16150,500.
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
1. A. I think the new points system has a lot merit than the old one.
2. A. One stops for me, but I'm not a fan of making it a large window. Someone will definitely cry foul when their driver constantly pits early and runs most of the race on one set of tyres.
3. C. Although one lap qualy has made the RD's life easier, it has thrown up some unusual grids. 2 runs will still keep a certain amount of randomness but not by the same degree. Will still be easier for the RD too.
4. A. Speaking with my AMR hat on, I prefer the old system, it gives me more scope in team strategy. However, thinking about the series as a whole I think the pyramid system has been a huge success. Let's keep it.
5. B. Higher boosts will have a bigger impact as some have been asking for, but reducing the number is counter productive to higher boost in my opinion. We need it to be 6x100.
6. B. Reducing the variance to 500 will give the driver boosts a better chance to work, also there is room to improve too. I would also like to increase all drivers starting perf by 100 too, so the base perf would be 16120,500,16150,500.
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 am going to do some tests with a large pit window, I believe it will be detrimental to some more than others.
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
JohnMaverick écrivait:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what the team team perf cap is there for,
> Eric. As soon as the teams reach 810, their perf
> is capped and they don't gain any more team perf.
> You mustn't forget, however, that everybody is
> divided by 8 then, instead of six. Which, as a
> result, means that one good result for a smaller
> team has even less of an effect for them than it
> has now. Which then means that with your proposal
> you will actually increase the gap between higher
> and lower teams.
John, your arguments to flame down my arguments are not correct.
Firstly, the engine cap is set to act as a safeguard. That doesn't mean the perfs are not growing too fast. As an example, this season 6 teams are capped right now while the previous seasons they where barely 2 or 3. Plus, the top teams have reached the cap early in the season than previously. So the perf are actually growing faster than before.
Secondly, Dividing by 8 instead of 6 will have a lesser effect on small teams. An example ? OK : dividing by 6 you need to have 6 points to gain one perf point. Right ? That means that the last drivers (from last to 18th in the current system) will have no perf points for that race. Dividing by 6 or 8 their number will have no effect, they will still have 0 perf point for this race. Just for the record, in the previous system only 12 drivers were scoring points, which means the others had zero point. Zero divided by 6 or 8 still makes zero points : no change.
Thirdly, I don't see your point how reducing the gap in perf points will increase the gap between teams. I'm not an expert in maths but going from a 0 to 4 gained perf points as currently to a 0 to 3 is not a way to increase the gap higher IMO.
The difference between dividing by 6 or 8 is just moving the cursor so that higher teams will grow a little bit slowly. That won't affect small teams that much.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what the team team perf cap is there for,
> Eric. As soon as the teams reach 810, their perf
> is capped and they don't gain any more team perf.
> You mustn't forget, however, that everybody is
> divided by 8 then, instead of six. Which, as a
> result, means that one good result for a smaller
> team has even less of an effect for them than it
> has now. Which then means that with your proposal
> you will actually increase the gap between higher
> and lower teams.
John, your arguments to flame down my arguments are not correct.
Firstly, the engine cap is set to act as a safeguard. That doesn't mean the perfs are not growing too fast. As an example, this season 6 teams are capped right now while the previous seasons they where barely 2 or 3. Plus, the top teams have reached the cap early in the season than previously. So the perf are actually growing faster than before.
Secondly, Dividing by 8 instead of 6 will have a lesser effect on small teams. An example ? OK : dividing by 6 you need to have 6 points to gain one perf point. Right ? That means that the last drivers (from last to 18th in the current system) will have no perf points for that race. Dividing by 6 or 8 their number will have no effect, they will still have 0 perf point for this race. Just for the record, in the previous system only 12 drivers were scoring points, which means the others had zero point. Zero divided by 6 or 8 still makes zero points : no change.
Thirdly, I don't see your point how reducing the gap in perf points will increase the gap between teams. I'm not an expert in maths but going from a 0 to 4 gained perf points as currently to a 0 to 3 is not a way to increase the gap higher IMO.
The difference between dividing by 6 or 8 is just moving the cursor so that higher teams will grow a little bit slowly. That won't affect small teams that much.
I'm not flaming down your arguments, Eric, I'm just stating how I see things from my point of view as perf creator/tester. If you don't trust in my experience with this then it's your good right to do so. But after messing around with the perfs for over 2 years now, I think I can risk to make assumptions.
So, let's get this theory in practice.
In S7, the first teams to be capped were AMR and TSS, for Round 15. SEE HERE FOR S7 Round 15 Perf. Both AMR and TSS used boosts for this round, which is why they are both over 810 points. However, the lowest team at this point was Scala GP with 785 points (= a difference of 25 points). The average was around 795 and the top teams in the 805ths.
In S8, the first team to be capped was AMR for Round 11 SEE HERE FOR S8 Round 11 Perf. So, yes, the they were capped earlier. BUT: At this point, the lowest team was Christel with 793 points (= a difference of 17 points), the average was around 800.
Do you see where this is going? In S8 the cap was reached earlier, but the teams are way closer together. Also the fact that not only 2 teams but nearly half of the field reached the cap limit prevented some runaway shows as we had in the past seasons.
Now what happens if we divide by 8 instead of six now? Good results count less, yes. But this hurts small teams a lot more than the top teams, since lower teams are not so likely to achieve top positions as often as other teams.
And to make things worse: What happens if we the vote reveals that we'll go back to the old system where not only the first 12 drivers get championship points, but also only them get perf points? It's possible, at least. Then those teams will get even less perf points for their points finishes. This all is the reason why I think that dividing by 8 instead of 6 is contra-productive for the leveling of the championship.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
So, let's get this theory in practice.
In S7, the first teams to be capped were AMR and TSS, for Round 15. SEE HERE FOR S7 Round 15 Perf. Both AMR and TSS used boosts for this round, which is why they are both over 810 points. However, the lowest team at this point was Scala GP with 785 points (= a difference of 25 points). The average was around 795 and the top teams in the 805ths.
In S8, the first team to be capped was AMR for Round 11 SEE HERE FOR S8 Round 11 Perf. So, yes, the they were capped earlier. BUT: At this point, the lowest team was Christel with 793 points (= a difference of 17 points), the average was around 800.
Do you see where this is going? In S8 the cap was reached earlier, but the teams are way closer together. Also the fact that not only 2 teams but nearly half of the field reached the cap limit prevented some runaway shows as we had in the past seasons.
Now what happens if we divide by 8 instead of six now? Good results count less, yes. But this hurts small teams a lot more than the top teams, since lower teams are not so likely to achieve top positions as often as other teams.
And to make things worse: What happens if we the vote reveals that we'll go back to the old system where not only the first 12 drivers get championship points, but also only them get perf points? It's possible, at least. Then those teams will get even less perf points for their points finishes. This all is the reason why I think that dividing by 8 instead of 6 is contra-productive for the leveling of the championship.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
EricMoinet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we should divide it by 8. With the current
> system a win gives 15 perf points for the winning
> driver and 2,5 for his team, so a 1-2 gives
> [(15+12.5)/6]=4,58 points for the winnig team for
> each race, rounded to 4 BHP max per race which is
> not too much, but with 17 races, we could go to a
> max up of 77 points gained for a team in the whole
> championship, which is a lot.
Eric, how many times have you seen a team score a 1-2? It's a very rare occurance, so one team will not score that many points.
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 think we should divide it by 8. With the current
> system a win gives 15 perf points for the winning
> driver and 2,5 for his team, so a 1-2 gives
> [(15+12.5)/6]=4,58 points for the winnig team for
> each race, rounded to 4 BHP max per race which is
> not too much, but with 17 races, we could go to a
> max up of 77 points gained for a team in the whole
> championship, which is a lot.
Eric, how many times have you seen a team score a 1-2? It's a very rare occurance, so one team will not score that many points.
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
Of course that's a very rare occurance, but statistically this can happen. Not that it WILL happen, but "in the worst/best case" COULD happen.
I was using it as an example of the max range in the both cases, this one and the one you omitted to quote and that I add here as a reminder :
"If divided by 8 it will make 3.43 points for a race, rounded to 3, and a max of 58 points for the championship [...]".
So with the current system 77 points max and if divided by 8, 58 points max.
Well guys, I don't know if I'm right or wrong, and basically I really don't care because it's just a game and I have plenty of fun being in it. I was just making this proposal because some people were complaining, and I'm not one of them, about the one runner thing. That's just a proposal at the moment. If nobody like it, just bin it.
I was using it as an example of the max range in the both cases, this one and the one you omitted to quote and that I add here as a reminder :
"If divided by 8 it will make 3.43 points for a race, rounded to 3, and a max of 58 points for the championship [...]".
So with the current system 77 points max and if divided by 8, 58 points max.
Well guys, I don't know if I'm right or wrong, and basically I really don't care because it's just a game and I have plenty of fun being in it. I was just making this proposal because some people were complaining, and I'm not one of them, about the one runner thing. That's just a proposal at the moment. If nobody like it, just bin it.
4. A
5. B
6. A
5. B
6. A
1. Points system.
C) Adopt a new system, revert back to old points system for the championship, but keep the new system for perf points.
2. Pit stops.
A) One Stop
3. Qualifying.
C) New system of 30 minutes, 6 laps per driver (two runs), 11 consecutive cars.
4. Team boosts.
A) Keep existing pyramid system. (Maybe only make the gaps a little smaller, instead of 2 points between every step make it 1 point.)
5. Driver boosts.
B) Change to 6x100 boosts.
6. Driver variance.
B) Change to reducing 500 variance.
*I do like the dividing by 8 by Eric, I understand both points from John and Eric - however on the long haul I think decreasing the 'top teams' does more then the few races a lower team get's points (and gets less points). Because the gaps will increase slower the lower teams have more chance for better results in the first half of the season.
It's difficult to 'prove' what is the better option. Maybe put it to a vote as well? Let's see what everyone thinks of it.
7. Dividing scored points to perf points.
A) Keep the current dividing by 6.
B) Change to dividing by 8. (Slower progress to grow in bhp)
I would vote B myself.
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*
C) Adopt a new system, revert back to old points system for the championship, but keep the new system for perf points.
2. Pit stops.
A) One Stop
3. Qualifying.
C) New system of 30 minutes, 6 laps per driver (two runs), 11 consecutive cars.
4. Team boosts.
A) Keep existing pyramid system. (Maybe only make the gaps a little smaller, instead of 2 points between every step make it 1 point.)
5. Driver boosts.
B) Change to 6x100 boosts.
6. Driver variance.
B) Change to reducing 500 variance.
*I do like the dividing by 8 by Eric, I understand both points from John and Eric - however on the long haul I think decreasing the 'top teams' does more then the few races a lower team get's points (and gets less points). Because the gaps will increase slower the lower teams have more chance for better results in the first half of the season.
It's difficult to 'prove' what is the better option. Maybe put it to a vote as well? Let's see what everyone thinks of it.
7. Dividing scored points to perf points.
A) Keep the current dividing by 6.
B) Change to dividing by 8. (Slower progress to grow in bhp)
I would vote B myself.
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*
Okay, after we got some feedback so far I'll also give my vote then:
1. A) the new system has worked and has done its job to bring the drivers closer together, both in the perfs as well as in the championship.
2. A) One stops have prevented us from any unnecessary penalties.
3. C) This system deserves a shot. If it still doesn't work out, we can go back to the old system next season
4. A) Same as Stu here. As an AMR driver I would rather prefer the leveled boosts again. But I think the series profits from the pyramid system.
5. B)
6. B)
---------------
potential 7. A) I've shown my reasons above why I think that the current way is the better one.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
1. A) the new system has worked and has done its job to bring the drivers closer together, both in the perfs as well as in the championship.
2. A) One stops have prevented us from any unnecessary penalties.
3. C) This system deserves a shot. If it still doesn't work out, we can go back to the old system next season
4. A) Same as Stu here. As an AMR driver I would rather prefer the leveled boosts again. But I think the series profits from the pyramid system.
5. B)
6. B)
---------------
potential 7. A) I've shown my reasons above why I think that the current way is the better one.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.